ABSTRACT
This paper argues that agro-industrial waste regulation should move beyond pollution control toward circular input governance. Current regulatory approaches mainly focus on wastewater treatment, emission standards, and environmental permit compliance. This approach often fails to recognize the potential of non-hazardous agro-industrial residues as secondary inputs for agriculture and related industries. Drawing on circular economy, circular bioeconomy, life cycle assessment, end-of-waste principles, and industrial symbiosis literature, this paper proposes a regulatory shift in which agro-industrial waste is governed not only as a pollution risk but also as a potential resource for compost, organic fertilizer, soil amendments, animal feed, fish feed, bioenergy, and circular farming systems. The paper identifies regulatory gaps and proposes policy pathways to support safe reuse, quality assurance, cross-sectoral coordination, traceability, partnership-based licensing, and performance-based regulation. It further argues that agro-industrial firms should be required to prepare waste utilization partnership plans before production begins, so that waste management becomes part of circular input planning rather than a reactive response to pollution.
Keywords: agro-industrial waste; circular economy; pollution control; circular input governance; waste utilization partnership
INTRODUCTION
Agro-industries generate various organic residues from food processing, beverages, coffee, tea, fruits, vegetables, livestock products, fisheries, dairy processing, bakery industries, and other agricultural commodities. These residues often contain biomass, nutrients, organic carbon, minerals, proteins, starches, fats, calcium, and other materials that could be reused in agriculture, livestock, aquaculture, or related industries. Studies on agro-industrial waste valorization show that such residues can be converted into bioenergy, biofertilizer, compost, biochemicals, animal feed ingredients, and other value-added products when appropriate technologies and governance systems are available (Yaashikaa et al., 2022; Kumar et al., 2022).
The potential value of these residues is particularly important amid rising input costs, soil degradation, and increasing pressure to reduce the environmental footprint of agro-food systems. Organic residues from food and agro-industrial activities can support nutrient recycling, improve soil organic matter, and partially substitute external agricultural inputs. In this sense, agro-industrial waste should not be understood only as a residual burden of production, but also as a possible source of circular inputs for farming, livestock, aquaculture, and bio-based industries.
However, existing waste regulation generally treats agro-industrial waste mainly as a pollution problem. Industries must manage wastewater, reduce emissions, comply with effluent standards, and prevent environmental damage. This pollution-control approach is necessary, but it is not enough to support circular economy transformation. The circular economy literature emphasizes the need to keep materials, biomass, nutrients, and energy in productive use for as long as possible, rather than treating them as residual waste at the end of the production process (Ghisellini et al., 2016; Geissdoerfer et al., 2017; Korhonen et al., 2018).
In many food and agro-industrial activities, waste streams that are potentially useful for agriculture remain poorly managed. Eggshells, shellfish shells, tea residues, coffee residues, tofu and tempeh wastewater, tapioca processing waste, meat and fish washing water, yogurt residues, dairy industry waste, bakery waste, cake industry residues, and other food-processing by-products may have value as raw materials for organic fertilizer, compost, soil amendments, poultry feed, fish feed, or other biological inputs. These examples show that many residues already have a potential user base, but the connection between waste generators and users is often weak, informal, or not planned from the beginning.
As a result, using agro-industrial residues often becomes costly and economically unattractive. The problem is not always a lack of technological options, but a lack of an integrated system for collection, sorting, processing, quality assurance, certification, and distribution. Without such a system, useful residues may continue to be treated as waste, while farmers, livestock producers, fish farmers, and organic input enterprises remain disconnected from potential input sources. This condition highlights the need to transform agro-industrial waste regulation from a narrow pollution-control approach toward circular input governance.
This paper addresses the main problem that agro-industrial waste regulation remains largely based on an end-of-pipe paradigm. In this model, the key regulatory question is whether waste has been treated and whether the company has complied with environmental standards. This approach is important for pollution prevention, but it does not fully address the broader environmental footprint of agro-food systems across the value chain. Life cycle assessment studies show that environmental burdens in agri-food systems must be assessed beyond factory-level compliance because pollution, resource use, and emissions can shift across production, processing, waste treatment, and input-use stages (Notarnicola et al., 2017; Chen et al., 2020). Therefore, agro-industrial waste regulation should not stop controlling discharge and emissions but should also enable safe resource recovery and input substitution.
A further practical problem is the high cost of waste utilization when linkages between waste generators and potential users are not planned from the beginning. Food industry residues may be useful, but if collection, sorting, storage, transport, processing, testing, and distribution are arranged only after waste has been accumulated, the cost becomes high, and the opportunity for reuse is reduced. In many cases, the core issue is not the absence of value in waste, but the absence of a regulatory and institutional system that connects industries with farmers, livestock producers, fish farmers, compost producers, organic fertilizer firms, and other potential users.
This paper argues that agro-industrial waste regulation needs to shift from pollution control to circular input governance. This means that selected non-hazardous agro-industrial residues should be legally recognized, tested, processed, certified, and integrated as secondary inputs for agriculture, composting, organic fertilizer, soil improvement, animal feed, fish feed, bioenergy, or other productive uses. This paper also argues that circular input governance should begin before waste is generated. Agro-industrial firms should be encouraged, or where appropriate required, to prepare waste utilization partnership plans as part of the licensing process. Before a factory is built or begins operation, the firm should already identify potential waste streams, estimate their volumes, assess their possible uses, and establish partnerships with potential users or processors.
Accordingly, this paper explains the limitations of pollution-control-based waste regulation, introduces the concept of circular input governance, identifies regulatory gaps in agro-industrial waste utilization, and proposes policy pathways for integrating agro-industrial waste into circular agricultural and food systems.
FROM POLLUTION CONTROL TO CIRCULAR INPUT GOVERNANCE
Limitations of pollution-control-based regulation
The current regulatory model for agro-industrial waste is largely based on an end-of-pipe approach. The main concern is whether industries have treated their waste and complied with environmental standards. This approach focuses on controlling pollution after waste is generated.
Although pollution control is essential, it has several limitations. First, it often treats waste as a liability rather than as a potential resource. Second, it focuses on factory-level compliance rather than system-level environmental performance. Third, it does not always encourage industries to cooperate with farmers, compost producers, organic fertilizer companies, livestock farmers, fish farmers, or bioenergy operators. Fourth, it may reduce local pollution without necessarily improving circularity in the wider agro-food system.
The end-of-pipe model also tends to make waste utilization expensive. When waste management is designed only after production begins, industries must later search for users, arrange transport, test material quality, and develop processing systems. This reactive model creates high transaction costs and often makes reuse less competitive than disposal. In contrast, identifying potential users before production begins allows waste to be managed as part of a planned circular input system.
Concept of circular input governance
Circular input governance offers a broader perspective than conventional waste regulation. Instead of asking only whether waste has been treated and whether pollution standards have been met, it also asks whether selected waste streams can be safely transformed into productive inputs for other sectors.
In this paper, circular input governance is defined as the regulatory, institutional, and quality assurance system that enables selected non-hazardous agro-industrial residues to be identified, classified, processed, certified, distributed, and used as agricultural, livestock, aquaculture, energy, or industrial inputs. This concept therefore places waste management within a wider system of resource recovery, input substitution, and cross-sector collaboration.
The concept is closely linked to the circular economy and the circular bioeconomy. Circular economy emphasizes closing material loops, reducing dependence on virgin resources, and keeping materials in productive use for as long as possible. Circular bioeconomy extends this logic to biological resources by promoting the productive use of biomass and organic residues in food, agriculture, energy, and bio-based industries (D’Amato et al., 2017; Ghisellini et al., 2016).
In practical terms, circular input governance requires clear rules defining which residues can be reused, how they should be processed, what safety and quality standards they must meet, which users are eligible to use them, and which institutions are responsible for approval, monitoring, and enforcement. Without such rules, agro-industrial residues may remain caught between waste regulation and input regulation, despite their potential economic and environmental value.
The proposed circular input governance framework goes beyond conventional pollution control by recognizing selected waste streams as valuable resources that can support sustainable food systems and circular economic development. Table 1 compares the traditional pollution control approach and the circular input governance approach.
Table 1. Comparison between pollution control and approaches in circular input governance Approaches
|
Pollution control approach
|
Circular input governance approach
|
|
Waste is treated as a pollution risk
|
Waste is also assessed as a potential resource
|
|
Focus on compliance with standards
|
Focus on safety, reuse, and circular performance
|
|
End-of-pipe treatment
|
Resource recovery and input substitution
|
|
Factory-level responsibility
|
Cross-sectoral collaboration
|
|
Waste planning after production
|
Waste utilization planning before production
|
|
Environmental permit as control instrument
|
Licensing as circular economy enabler
|
|
Disposal cost as company burden
|
Waste utilization as shared value creation
|
Supporting concepts
Several interrelated concepts support circular input governance and help explain how agro-industrial residues can be safely transformed from regulated waste into productive inputs. These concepts matter because circular use cannot rely on economic potential alone; it also requires environmental assessment, legal clarity, quality assurance, institutional coordination, and accountable licensing mechanisms.
First, Life Cycle Assessment is needed to assess environmental impacts across the agro-food value chain, not only at the factory gate. LCA can help determine whether a waste utilization option truly reduces environmental burdens or merely shifts pollution from one stage to another (Notarnicola et al., 2017; Chen et al., 2020).
Second, secondary raw materials are important because selected waste streams need clear legal recognition before they can be reused in other sectors. Without legal clarity, agro-industrial residues may remain trapped between waste regulation and product regulation.
Third, end-of-waste criteria are needed to determine when waste can legally become a product, input, or secondary raw material. Johansson (2023) emphasizes that end-of-waste rules are important legal instruments for transforming waste into resources in a circular economy.
Fourth, industrial symbiosis is relevant because one industry’s residue may become another sector’s input. This requires coordination, trust, quality assurance, and institutional arrangements between waste generators and users (Chertow, 2000; Chertow, 2007).
Fifth, partnership-based licensing is needed to ensure that waste utilization is not treated as an informal or optional activity. Licensing can require agro-industrial firms to show how they will treat, reuse, transfer, or process their waste streams through cooperation with approved users or processors.
REGULATORY GAPS AND WASTE-TO-INPUT OPPORTUNITIES
Regulatory gaps
Many agro-industrial residues are not optimally utilized because the regulatory system is still fragmented. Environmental agencies focus on pollution control, agricultural agencies regulate fertilizers and inputs, industrial agencies regulate business activities, and local governments manage local environmental impacts. This fragmentation creates uncertainty for industries and users of agro-industrial residues.
Several regulatory gaps continue to limit waste-to-input integration. These include the unclear legal status of non-hazardous agro-industrial residues; limited recognition of waste as a secondary input for agriculture, livestock, aquaculture, and related industries; weak coordination among environmental, agricultural, industrial, livestock, fisheries, and local government regulations; the absence of circular performance indicators in licensing; limited incentives for industries that reuse or transfer waste for productive purposes; weak quality assurance and traceability systems; and the absence of mandatory waste utilization partnership planning before industrial operations begin.
These gaps matter because agro-industrial residues may have value, but their utilization requires legal certainty, technical standards, market acceptance, institutional coordination, and environmental safeguards.
Waste-to-input opportunities
Waste-to-input integration offers broad opportunities across agricultural, livestock, aquaculture, energy, and industrial systems. Selected agro-industrial residues can be processed and utilized as compost materials, organic fertilizer feedstock, soil amendments, microbial or biological input substrates, poultry and fish feed ingredients, livestock feed supplements, bioenergy feedstock, and raw materials for related industries.
Examples include coffee residues, tea residues, fruit and vegetable processing waste, rice husks, cassava residues, food-processing sludge after safety testing, and other non-hazardous organic by-products. Reviews on agro-industrial waste valorization show that these residues can support bioenergy production, biorefinery processes, biofertilizer development, and circular bioeconomy pathways (Yaashikaa et al., 2022; Kumar et al., 2022).
In practical terms, many food and agro-industrial residues have direct or indirect potential for agricultural use. Eggshells and shellfish shells contain calcium-rich materials that may be processed as soil amendments, mineral supplements, or input materials for organic fertilizer. Tea and coffee residues may be used as organic matter sources, composting materials, or substrates for biological processing. Wastewater and washing residues from tempeh and tofu industries, tapioca processing waste, meat and fish washing water, yogurt residues, dairy industry waste, bakery waste, cake industry residues, and other food-processing by-products may contain nutrients, organic carbon, proteins, starches, fats, or minerals that can be converted into animal feed ingredients, fish feed supplements, compost materials, organic fertilizer feedstock, or other agricultural inputs.
However, these residues are often not managed as part of an integrated input system. They are commonly treated as disposal problems rather than potential resources. As a result, their utilization becomes costly because collection, sorting, transport, processing, quality testing, and distribution are not organized from the beginning. In many cases, the economic problem is not the absence of value in waste, but the absence of a management system that connects waste generators with potential users.
In Indonesia, studies on coffee agroindustry waste also show the potential to convert waste treatment outputs into useful agricultural inputs. For example, slurry biogas from coffee agro-industrial wastewater treatment has been studied as liquid fertilizer and is considered supportive of zero-waste practices in coffee agroindustry (Novita et al., 2025). This example illustrates that waste management and agricultural input development can be connected when safety, quality, and processing requirements are properly addressed.
Risk and quality assurance
Not all residues can be used directly. Circular utilization must be supported by testing, processing, certification, traceability, and environmental monitoring. This helps prevent risks such as contamination, pathogens, odor, excessive moisture, unstable organic matter, or unsafe application to agricultural land.
To operationalize this precautionary approach, Table 2 summarizes the key risks and corresponding governance responses.
Table 2. Potential risks and governance responses in agro-industrial waste utilization
|
Potential Risk
|
Governance response
|
|
Pathogens
|
Processing standards, heat treatment, compost maturity standards, laboratory testing
|
|
Heavy metals or chemical contamination
|
Feedstock screening, threshold limits, periodic testing
|
|
Odor and nuisance
|
Stabilization, storage control, rapid collection, covered transport
|
|
Excessive moisture
|
Drying, mixing with dry biomass, controlled processing
|
|
High organic load in wastewater
|
Anaerobic digestion, biological treatment, nutrient recovery
|
|
Unsafe use as feed
|
Feed safety standards, restricted use, processing requirements
|
|
Soil contamination
|
Application rate control, post-application monitoring
|
|
Low farmer trust
|
Product labeling, certification, demonstration plots, transparent quality data
|
Different waste streams require different governance responses. Eggshells and shellfish shells may require cleaning, drying, grinding, and contamination testing before being used as calcium-rich inputs. Tea and coffee residues may require composting or controlled biological processing. Tofu, tempeh, tapioca, dairy, yogurt, meat, and fish residues may require specific treatment to control odor, pathogens, high moisture content, or organic loading. Bakery and cake industry residues may be useful for feed or compost but still require sorting and quality control.
Therefore, circular input governance should combine opportunity with precaution. The main issue is not simply how to reuse waste, but how to ensure that reused materials are safe, traceable, legally recognized, economically feasible, and environmentally beneficial.
CONCLUSION AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Transforming agro-industrial waste regulation requires a shift from end-of-pipe pollution control toward safe, productive, and accountable circular input use. The first regulatory pathway is to identify eligible, non-hazardous agro-industrial residues with potential as circular inputs. These residues should be classified by source, composition, risk level, and intended use, such as compost, organic fertilizer, soil amendment, animal feed, fish feed, bioenergy feedstock, or industrial raw material.
The second pathway is to develop clear end-of-waste or by-product criteria. Such criteria would clarify when selected residues are no longer treated only as waste, but may be legally recognized as approved secondary inputs. This is important to reduce legal uncertainty and support the transition from waste management to circular materials management (Johansson, 2023).
The third pathway is to integrate circular performance indicators into agro-industrial and environmental licensing. Licensing should not only assess whether pollution is controlled, but also whether residues are safely recovered and reused. Relevant indicators may include the share of waste recovered, reductions in landfill disposal and pollution load, the quantity of residues converted into approved inputs, contributions to agricultural input substitution, and the existence of active waste-utilization partnerships.
The fourth pathway is to strengthen regulatory coordination across environmental, agricultural, livestock, fisheries, industrial, and local government authorities. When residues are used as compost, organic fertilizer, soil amendment, feed, or bioenergy feedstock, they must comply with the relevant quality, safety, and environmental standards. This coordination is essential because circular input governance spans sectors rather than a single regulatory domain.
The fifth pathway is to facilitate circular partnerships between agro-industries and potential users or processors of residues. These may include compost producers, organic fertilizer firms, farmer groups, cooperatives, livestock farmers, fish farmers, local governments, bioenergy operators, and research institutions. Such partnerships reflect the principle of industrial symbiosis, where cross-sector resource exchange can reduce waste, lower input costs, and create shared value (Chertow, 2000; Chertow, 2007).
For suitable industries, a simplified waste utilization plan could be required as part of the licensing process. This plan would identify the expected waste streams, estimated volumes, potential uses, processing requirements, partner institutions, quality assurance mechanisms, and monitoring arrangements. Rather than presenting licensing as a long administrative sequence, this approach encourages firms to design circular pathways before production begins, thereby reducing transaction costs and preventing waste from becoming an environmental burden.
Finally, monitoring systems should move beyond compliance reporting toward traceability and outcome-based environmental monitoring. This means tracking the source, quantity, processing method, quality test results, delivery, final use, and environmental outcomes of reused residues. Traceability is especially important when residues move across sectors, such as from food industries to farms, livestock units, fishponds, composting facilities, or fertilizer producers.
REFERENCES
Chen, W., Oldfield, T. L., Patsios, S. I., & Holden, N. M. (2020). Hybrid life cycle assessment of agro-industrial wastewater valorisation. Water Research, 170, 115275. DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2019.115275
Chertow, M. R. (2000). Industrial symbiosis: Literature and taxonomy. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment, 25, 313–337. DOI:10.1146/annurev.energy.25.1.313
Chertow, M. R. (2007). “Uncovering” industrial symbiosis. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 11(1), 11–30. https://doi.org/10.1162/jiec.2007.1110
D’Amato, D., Droste, N., Allen, B., Kettunen, M., Lähtinen, K., Korhonen, J., et al. (2017). Green, circular, bio economy: A comparative analysis of sustainability avenues. Journal of Cleaner Production, 168, 716–734. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.053
Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N. M. P., & Hultink, E. J. (2017). The Circular Economy: A new sustainability paradigm? Journal of Cleaner Production, 143, 757–768. DOI:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.048
Ghisellini, P., Cialani, C., & Ulgiati, S. (2016). A review on circular economy: The expected transition to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic systems. Journal of Cleaner Production, 114, 11–32. DOI:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.007
Johansson, O. (2023). The end-of-waste for the transition to circular economy: A legal review of the European Union Waste Framework Directive. Environmental Policy and Law, 53(2–3), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3233/EPL-220064
Korhonen, J., Honkasalo, A., & Seppälä, J. (2018). Circular economy: The concept and its limitations. Ecological Economics, 143, 37–46. DOI:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.06.041
Kumar, V., et al. (2022). Emerging challenges for the agro-industrial food waste utilization: A review on food waste biorefinery. Bioresource Technology, 362, 127790. DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2022.127790
Notarnicola, B., et al. (2017). The role of life cycle assessment in supporting sustainable agri-food systems: A review of the challenges. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, 399–409. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.071
Novita, E., Rizki, K. F., & Pradana, H. A. (2025). Pemanfaatan slurry biogas dari penanganan air limbah agroindustri kopi sebagai pupuk cair. TEKNOTAN: Jurnal Industri Teknologi Pertanian, 19(2), 145–152. DOI:10.24198/jt.vol19n2.10
Yaashikaa, P. R., Kumar, P. S., & Varjani, S. J. (2022). Valorization of agro-industrial wastes for biorefinery process and circular bioeconomy: A critical review. Bioresource Technology, 343, 126126. DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2021.12612
Transforming Agro-Industrial Waste Regulation from Pollution Control to Circular Input Governance
ABSTRACT
This paper argues that agro-industrial waste regulation should move beyond pollution control toward circular input governance. Current regulatory approaches mainly focus on wastewater treatment, emission standards, and environmental permit compliance. This approach often fails to recognize the potential of non-hazardous agro-industrial residues as secondary inputs for agriculture and related industries. Drawing on circular economy, circular bioeconomy, life cycle assessment, end-of-waste principles, and industrial symbiosis literature, this paper proposes a regulatory shift in which agro-industrial waste is governed not only as a pollution risk but also as a potential resource for compost, organic fertilizer, soil amendments, animal feed, fish feed, bioenergy, and circular farming systems. The paper identifies regulatory gaps and proposes policy pathways to support safe reuse, quality assurance, cross-sectoral coordination, traceability, partnership-based licensing, and performance-based regulation. It further argues that agro-industrial firms should be required to prepare waste utilization partnership plans before production begins, so that waste management becomes part of circular input planning rather than a reactive response to pollution.
Keywords: agro-industrial waste; circular economy; pollution control; circular input governance; waste utilization partnership
INTRODUCTION
Agro-industries generate various organic residues from food processing, beverages, coffee, tea, fruits, vegetables, livestock products, fisheries, dairy processing, bakery industries, and other agricultural commodities. These residues often contain biomass, nutrients, organic carbon, minerals, proteins, starches, fats, calcium, and other materials that could be reused in agriculture, livestock, aquaculture, or related industries. Studies on agro-industrial waste valorization show that such residues can be converted into bioenergy, biofertilizer, compost, biochemicals, animal feed ingredients, and other value-added products when appropriate technologies and governance systems are available (Yaashikaa et al., 2022; Kumar et al., 2022).
The potential value of these residues is particularly important amid rising input costs, soil degradation, and increasing pressure to reduce the environmental footprint of agro-food systems. Organic residues from food and agro-industrial activities can support nutrient recycling, improve soil organic matter, and partially substitute external agricultural inputs. In this sense, agro-industrial waste should not be understood only as a residual burden of production, but also as a possible source of circular inputs for farming, livestock, aquaculture, and bio-based industries.
However, existing waste regulation generally treats agro-industrial waste mainly as a pollution problem. Industries must manage wastewater, reduce emissions, comply with effluent standards, and prevent environmental damage. This pollution-control approach is necessary, but it is not enough to support circular economy transformation. The circular economy literature emphasizes the need to keep materials, biomass, nutrients, and energy in productive use for as long as possible, rather than treating them as residual waste at the end of the production process (Ghisellini et al., 2016; Geissdoerfer et al., 2017; Korhonen et al., 2018).
In many food and agro-industrial activities, waste streams that are potentially useful for agriculture remain poorly managed. Eggshells, shellfish shells, tea residues, coffee residues, tofu and tempeh wastewater, tapioca processing waste, meat and fish washing water, yogurt residues, dairy industry waste, bakery waste, cake industry residues, and other food-processing by-products may have value as raw materials for organic fertilizer, compost, soil amendments, poultry feed, fish feed, or other biological inputs. These examples show that many residues already have a potential user base, but the connection between waste generators and users is often weak, informal, or not planned from the beginning.
As a result, using agro-industrial residues often becomes costly and economically unattractive. The problem is not always a lack of technological options, but a lack of an integrated system for collection, sorting, processing, quality assurance, certification, and distribution. Without such a system, useful residues may continue to be treated as waste, while farmers, livestock producers, fish farmers, and organic input enterprises remain disconnected from potential input sources. This condition highlights the need to transform agro-industrial waste regulation from a narrow pollution-control approach toward circular input governance.
This paper addresses the main problem that agro-industrial waste regulation remains largely based on an end-of-pipe paradigm. In this model, the key regulatory question is whether waste has been treated and whether the company has complied with environmental standards. This approach is important for pollution prevention, but it does not fully address the broader environmental footprint of agro-food systems across the value chain. Life cycle assessment studies show that environmental burdens in agri-food systems must be assessed beyond factory-level compliance because pollution, resource use, and emissions can shift across production, processing, waste treatment, and input-use stages (Notarnicola et al., 2017; Chen et al., 2020). Therefore, agro-industrial waste regulation should not stop controlling discharge and emissions but should also enable safe resource recovery and input substitution.
A further practical problem is the high cost of waste utilization when linkages between waste generators and potential users are not planned from the beginning. Food industry residues may be useful, but if collection, sorting, storage, transport, processing, testing, and distribution are arranged only after waste has been accumulated, the cost becomes high, and the opportunity for reuse is reduced. In many cases, the core issue is not the absence of value in waste, but the absence of a regulatory and institutional system that connects industries with farmers, livestock producers, fish farmers, compost producers, organic fertilizer firms, and other potential users.
This paper argues that agro-industrial waste regulation needs to shift from pollution control to circular input governance. This means that selected non-hazardous agro-industrial residues should be legally recognized, tested, processed, certified, and integrated as secondary inputs for agriculture, composting, organic fertilizer, soil improvement, animal feed, fish feed, bioenergy, or other productive uses. This paper also argues that circular input governance should begin before waste is generated. Agro-industrial firms should be encouraged, or where appropriate required, to prepare waste utilization partnership plans as part of the licensing process. Before a factory is built or begins operation, the firm should already identify potential waste streams, estimate their volumes, assess their possible uses, and establish partnerships with potential users or processors.
Accordingly, this paper explains the limitations of pollution-control-based waste regulation, introduces the concept of circular input governance, identifies regulatory gaps in agro-industrial waste utilization, and proposes policy pathways for integrating agro-industrial waste into circular agricultural and food systems.
FROM POLLUTION CONTROL TO CIRCULAR INPUT GOVERNANCE
Limitations of pollution-control-based regulation
The current regulatory model for agro-industrial waste is largely based on an end-of-pipe approach. The main concern is whether industries have treated their waste and complied with environmental standards. This approach focuses on controlling pollution after waste is generated.
Although pollution control is essential, it has several limitations. First, it often treats waste as a liability rather than as a potential resource. Second, it focuses on factory-level compliance rather than system-level environmental performance. Third, it does not always encourage industries to cooperate with farmers, compost producers, organic fertilizer companies, livestock farmers, fish farmers, or bioenergy operators. Fourth, it may reduce local pollution without necessarily improving circularity in the wider agro-food system.
The end-of-pipe model also tends to make waste utilization expensive. When waste management is designed only after production begins, industries must later search for users, arrange transport, test material quality, and develop processing systems. This reactive model creates high transaction costs and often makes reuse less competitive than disposal. In contrast, identifying potential users before production begins allows waste to be managed as part of a planned circular input system.
Concept of circular input governance
Circular input governance offers a broader perspective than conventional waste regulation. Instead of asking only whether waste has been treated and whether pollution standards have been met, it also asks whether selected waste streams can be safely transformed into productive inputs for other sectors.
In this paper, circular input governance is defined as the regulatory, institutional, and quality assurance system that enables selected non-hazardous agro-industrial residues to be identified, classified, processed, certified, distributed, and used as agricultural, livestock, aquaculture, energy, or industrial inputs. This concept therefore places waste management within a wider system of resource recovery, input substitution, and cross-sector collaboration.
The concept is closely linked to the circular economy and the circular bioeconomy. Circular economy emphasizes closing material loops, reducing dependence on virgin resources, and keeping materials in productive use for as long as possible. Circular bioeconomy extends this logic to biological resources by promoting the productive use of biomass and organic residues in food, agriculture, energy, and bio-based industries (D’Amato et al., 2017; Ghisellini et al., 2016).
In practical terms, circular input governance requires clear rules defining which residues can be reused, how they should be processed, what safety and quality standards they must meet, which users are eligible to use them, and which institutions are responsible for approval, monitoring, and enforcement. Without such rules, agro-industrial residues may remain caught between waste regulation and input regulation, despite their potential economic and environmental value.
The proposed circular input governance framework goes beyond conventional pollution control by recognizing selected waste streams as valuable resources that can support sustainable food systems and circular economic development. Table 1 compares the traditional pollution control approach and the circular input governance approach.
Table 1. Comparison between pollution control and approaches in circular input governance Approaches
Pollution control approach
Circular input governance approach
Waste is treated as a pollution risk
Waste is also assessed as a potential resource
Focus on compliance with standards
Focus on safety, reuse, and circular performance
End-of-pipe treatment
Resource recovery and input substitution
Factory-level responsibility
Cross-sectoral collaboration
Waste planning after production
Waste utilization planning before production
Environmental permit as control instrument
Licensing as circular economy enabler
Disposal cost as company burden
Waste utilization as shared value creation
Supporting concepts
Several interrelated concepts support circular input governance and help explain how agro-industrial residues can be safely transformed from regulated waste into productive inputs. These concepts matter because circular use cannot rely on economic potential alone; it also requires environmental assessment, legal clarity, quality assurance, institutional coordination, and accountable licensing mechanisms.
First, Life Cycle Assessment is needed to assess environmental impacts across the agro-food value chain, not only at the factory gate. LCA can help determine whether a waste utilization option truly reduces environmental burdens or merely shifts pollution from one stage to another (Notarnicola et al., 2017; Chen et al., 2020).
Second, secondary raw materials are important because selected waste streams need clear legal recognition before they can be reused in other sectors. Without legal clarity, agro-industrial residues may remain trapped between waste regulation and product regulation.
Third, end-of-waste criteria are needed to determine when waste can legally become a product, input, or secondary raw material. Johansson (2023) emphasizes that end-of-waste rules are important legal instruments for transforming waste into resources in a circular economy.
Fourth, industrial symbiosis is relevant because one industry’s residue may become another sector’s input. This requires coordination, trust, quality assurance, and institutional arrangements between waste generators and users (Chertow, 2000; Chertow, 2007).
Fifth, partnership-based licensing is needed to ensure that waste utilization is not treated as an informal or optional activity. Licensing can require agro-industrial firms to show how they will treat, reuse, transfer, or process their waste streams through cooperation with approved users or processors.
REGULATORY GAPS AND WASTE-TO-INPUT OPPORTUNITIES
Regulatory gaps
Many agro-industrial residues are not optimally utilized because the regulatory system is still fragmented. Environmental agencies focus on pollution control, agricultural agencies regulate fertilizers and inputs, industrial agencies regulate business activities, and local governments manage local environmental impacts. This fragmentation creates uncertainty for industries and users of agro-industrial residues.
Several regulatory gaps continue to limit waste-to-input integration. These include the unclear legal status of non-hazardous agro-industrial residues; limited recognition of waste as a secondary input for agriculture, livestock, aquaculture, and related industries; weak coordination among environmental, agricultural, industrial, livestock, fisheries, and local government regulations; the absence of circular performance indicators in licensing; limited incentives for industries that reuse or transfer waste for productive purposes; weak quality assurance and traceability systems; and the absence of mandatory waste utilization partnership planning before industrial operations begin.
These gaps matter because agro-industrial residues may have value, but their utilization requires legal certainty, technical standards, market acceptance, institutional coordination, and environmental safeguards.
Waste-to-input opportunities
Waste-to-input integration offers broad opportunities across agricultural, livestock, aquaculture, energy, and industrial systems. Selected agro-industrial residues can be processed and utilized as compost materials, organic fertilizer feedstock, soil amendments, microbial or biological input substrates, poultry and fish feed ingredients, livestock feed supplements, bioenergy feedstock, and raw materials for related industries.
Examples include coffee residues, tea residues, fruit and vegetable processing waste, rice husks, cassava residues, food-processing sludge after safety testing, and other non-hazardous organic by-products. Reviews on agro-industrial waste valorization show that these residues can support bioenergy production, biorefinery processes, biofertilizer development, and circular bioeconomy pathways (Yaashikaa et al., 2022; Kumar et al., 2022).
In practical terms, many food and agro-industrial residues have direct or indirect potential for agricultural use. Eggshells and shellfish shells contain calcium-rich materials that may be processed as soil amendments, mineral supplements, or input materials for organic fertilizer. Tea and coffee residues may be used as organic matter sources, composting materials, or substrates for biological processing. Wastewater and washing residues from tempeh and tofu industries, tapioca processing waste, meat and fish washing water, yogurt residues, dairy industry waste, bakery waste, cake industry residues, and other food-processing by-products may contain nutrients, organic carbon, proteins, starches, fats, or minerals that can be converted into animal feed ingredients, fish feed supplements, compost materials, organic fertilizer feedstock, or other agricultural inputs.
However, these residues are often not managed as part of an integrated input system. They are commonly treated as disposal problems rather than potential resources. As a result, their utilization becomes costly because collection, sorting, transport, processing, quality testing, and distribution are not organized from the beginning. In many cases, the economic problem is not the absence of value in waste, but the absence of a management system that connects waste generators with potential users.
In Indonesia, studies on coffee agroindustry waste also show the potential to convert waste treatment outputs into useful agricultural inputs. For example, slurry biogas from coffee agro-industrial wastewater treatment has been studied as liquid fertilizer and is considered supportive of zero-waste practices in coffee agroindustry (Novita et al., 2025). This example illustrates that waste management and agricultural input development can be connected when safety, quality, and processing requirements are properly addressed.
Risk and quality assurance
Not all residues can be used directly. Circular utilization must be supported by testing, processing, certification, traceability, and environmental monitoring. This helps prevent risks such as contamination, pathogens, odor, excessive moisture, unstable organic matter, or unsafe application to agricultural land.
To operationalize this precautionary approach, Table 2 summarizes the key risks and corresponding governance responses.
Table 2. Potential risks and governance responses in agro-industrial waste utilization
Potential Risk
Governance response
Pathogens
Processing standards, heat treatment, compost maturity standards, laboratory testing
Heavy metals or chemical contamination
Feedstock screening, threshold limits, periodic testing
Odor and nuisance
Stabilization, storage control, rapid collection, covered transport
Excessive moisture
Drying, mixing with dry biomass, controlled processing
High organic load in wastewater
Anaerobic digestion, biological treatment, nutrient recovery
Unsafe use as feed
Feed safety standards, restricted use, processing requirements
Soil contamination
Application rate control, post-application monitoring
Low farmer trust
Product labeling, certification, demonstration plots, transparent quality data
Different waste streams require different governance responses. Eggshells and shellfish shells may require cleaning, drying, grinding, and contamination testing before being used as calcium-rich inputs. Tea and coffee residues may require composting or controlled biological processing. Tofu, tempeh, tapioca, dairy, yogurt, meat, and fish residues may require specific treatment to control odor, pathogens, high moisture content, or organic loading. Bakery and cake industry residues may be useful for feed or compost but still require sorting and quality control.
Therefore, circular input governance should combine opportunity with precaution. The main issue is not simply how to reuse waste, but how to ensure that reused materials are safe, traceable, legally recognized, economically feasible, and environmentally beneficial.
CONCLUSION AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Transforming agro-industrial waste regulation requires a shift from end-of-pipe pollution control toward safe, productive, and accountable circular input use. The first regulatory pathway is to identify eligible, non-hazardous agro-industrial residues with potential as circular inputs. These residues should be classified by source, composition, risk level, and intended use, such as compost, organic fertilizer, soil amendment, animal feed, fish feed, bioenergy feedstock, or industrial raw material.
The second pathway is to develop clear end-of-waste or by-product criteria. Such criteria would clarify when selected residues are no longer treated only as waste, but may be legally recognized as approved secondary inputs. This is important to reduce legal uncertainty and support the transition from waste management to circular materials management (Johansson, 2023).
The third pathway is to integrate circular performance indicators into agro-industrial and environmental licensing. Licensing should not only assess whether pollution is controlled, but also whether residues are safely recovered and reused. Relevant indicators may include the share of waste recovered, reductions in landfill disposal and pollution load, the quantity of residues converted into approved inputs, contributions to agricultural input substitution, and the existence of active waste-utilization partnerships.
The fourth pathway is to strengthen regulatory coordination across environmental, agricultural, livestock, fisheries, industrial, and local government authorities. When residues are used as compost, organic fertilizer, soil amendment, feed, or bioenergy feedstock, they must comply with the relevant quality, safety, and environmental standards. This coordination is essential because circular input governance spans sectors rather than a single regulatory domain.
The fifth pathway is to facilitate circular partnerships between agro-industries and potential users or processors of residues. These may include compost producers, organic fertilizer firms, farmer groups, cooperatives, livestock farmers, fish farmers, local governments, bioenergy operators, and research institutions. Such partnerships reflect the principle of industrial symbiosis, where cross-sector resource exchange can reduce waste, lower input costs, and create shared value (Chertow, 2000; Chertow, 2007).
For suitable industries, a simplified waste utilization plan could be required as part of the licensing process. This plan would identify the expected waste streams, estimated volumes, potential uses, processing requirements, partner institutions, quality assurance mechanisms, and monitoring arrangements. Rather than presenting licensing as a long administrative sequence, this approach encourages firms to design circular pathways before production begins, thereby reducing transaction costs and preventing waste from becoming an environmental burden.
Finally, monitoring systems should move beyond compliance reporting toward traceability and outcome-based environmental monitoring. This means tracking the source, quantity, processing method, quality test results, delivery, final use, and environmental outcomes of reused residues. Traceability is especially important when residues move across sectors, such as from food industries to farms, livestock units, fishponds, composting facilities, or fertilizer producers.
REFERENCES
Chen, W., Oldfield, T. L., Patsios, S. I., & Holden, N. M. (2020). Hybrid life cycle assessment of agro-industrial wastewater valorisation. Water Research, 170, 115275. DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2019.115275
Chertow, M. R. (2000). Industrial symbiosis: Literature and taxonomy. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment, 25, 313–337. DOI:10.1146/annurev.energy.25.1.313
Chertow, M. R. (2007). “Uncovering” industrial symbiosis. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 11(1), 11–30. https://doi.org/10.1162/jiec.2007.1110
D’Amato, D., Droste, N., Allen, B., Kettunen, M., Lähtinen, K., Korhonen, J., et al. (2017). Green, circular, bio economy: A comparative analysis of sustainability avenues. Journal of Cleaner Production, 168, 716–734. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.053
Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N. M. P., & Hultink, E. J. (2017). The Circular Economy: A new sustainability paradigm? Journal of Cleaner Production, 143, 757–768. DOI:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.048
Ghisellini, P., Cialani, C., & Ulgiati, S. (2016). A review on circular economy: The expected transition to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic systems. Journal of Cleaner Production, 114, 11–32. DOI:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.007
Johansson, O. (2023). The end-of-waste for the transition to circular economy: A legal review of the European Union Waste Framework Directive. Environmental Policy and Law, 53(2–3), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3233/EPL-220064
Korhonen, J., Honkasalo, A., & Seppälä, J. (2018). Circular economy: The concept and its limitations. Ecological Economics, 143, 37–46. DOI:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.06.041
Kumar, V., et al. (2022). Emerging challenges for the agro-industrial food waste utilization: A review on food waste biorefinery. Bioresource Technology, 362, 127790. DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2022.127790
Notarnicola, B., et al. (2017). The role of life cycle assessment in supporting sustainable agri-food systems: A review of the challenges. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, 399–409. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.071
Novita, E., Rizki, K. F., & Pradana, H. A. (2025). Pemanfaatan slurry biogas dari penanganan air limbah agroindustri kopi sebagai pupuk cair. TEKNOTAN: Jurnal Industri Teknologi Pertanian, 19(2), 145–152. DOI:10.24198/jt.vol19n2.10
Yaashikaa, P. R., Kumar, P. S., & Varjani, S. J. (2022). Valorization of agro-industrial wastes for biorefinery process and circular bioeconomy: A critical review. Bioresource Technology, 343, 126126. DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2021.12612