Legislative, Institutional, Industrial and Governmental Involvement in Circular Economy in Central Asia: A Systematic Review

Abstract

As the world faces the detrimental effects of humanity on the environment, the circular economy has started receiving a lot of attention as a tool to keep the value of resources. Although in Europe, circular economy principles have become a trend much earlier, CACs still face challenges in adopting them. The current research aims to review the available literature on sustainability, green economy, and circularity development through the adoption of political, industrial, and financial instruments, followed by an assessment of the barriers and opportunities to circular economy development in the CACs. The novelty of this research lies in the systematic review of different state-of-the-art data resources (journal papers, policies, news, and reports) of CACs by different categories: policy regulations, energy, waste, education, water, and agriculture. This research addresses that the CACs have similar circular economy development barriers (e.g., wide use of fossil fuels, water shortage, and lack of effective waste management) and opportunities (e.g., orientation towards sustainable development, foreign cooperation, and green financing). Therefore, performing effective strategic plans that are already directed to circularity, ensuring stakeholders’ involvement, and providing sufficient funding could benefit their circular economy development.

1. Introduction

Environmental pollution and potential scarcity of resources have pushed the world community to start a global trend toward sustainable development since the World Commission on Environment and Development published its seminal report called “Our Common Future” [1]. After that, the global community started to look for a favorable compromise where economic growth would not interfere with the boundaries of environmental safety, avoiding any catastrophes [2]. Various literature on systems and concepts to reduce consumption of natural resources and waste generation in the 1960–1970s led to a term called “circular economy” (CE) [3]. The circular economy has gained good attention from both academics and practitioners during the last decade since it transforms businesses into broadly discussed sustainable development directions [4]. Many scholars are studying that concept, and it is linked to 3-R principles: reduce, reuse, and recycle, along with obvious linkages to sustainable development [5].

Sustainable development mainly focuses on the existing linear economic model’s last stage, related to waste management, recycling, and reuse [6]. Hence, the transition into a circular economy is partially in line with sustainable development goals. Moreover, the circular economy is an effective tool for involving policy-makers and the business community to promote sustainable development [7].

CE transforms the conventional business model from gaining income via the simple sale of the product to making income through maintaining the materials, products, and resources in the flow over time [8]. Successful integration of the CE concept could result in a 48% reduction of emissions globally by 2030 and 83% by 2050 compared to the current situation, which supports sustainable economic and environmental development [9]. However, four main barriers prevent the transition to CE: institutional, cultural, technological, and market [10]. In terms of institutional barriers, changes in policies and regulations of the whole lifecycle are required to make a successful transition to a circular economy [6,11]. Cultural barriers in the CE transition are low interest and awareness of consumers and businesses caused by market immaturity, driven by a lack of government initiatives to promote a CE [12]. Market and technological barriers can be described by economic non-profitability due to low virgin material prices and the requirement to shift to the long-life design of products, respectively [10].

Worldwide, various economies are transitioning into circular economies, starting from big organizations like the European Union (EU) to countries like China and smaller economies like New York, London, and Tokyo [3]. Moreover, most CEOs worldwide have started announcing an interest in a CE for various reasons, including sustainability concerns, personal beliefs, and business interests [13]. Global leaders in such a circular business model are Coca-Cola, Apple, and Rolls-Royce [14,15]. China has one of the largest numbers of studies regarding CE implementation due to environmental, social, and health issues arising from its rapid economic development [4]. According to Ranta et.al. [16], increasing the effectiveness of implementation and enforcement of CE regulations are the two main issues for successfully establishing CE in China. In terms of the United States (US), mentioning CE in the national regulations would accelerate the legislative foundation of the CE system. For China and the US, source separation would be useful to increase recycling efficiency [16]. China’s CE understanding includes air pollution, waste, and other resource concerns related to industrialization issues [17]. At the same time, the EU has a narrower view of CE, which only includes waste, resources, and some business opportunities [17].

CACs include the following countries: Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and Tajikistan [18]. CACs each have their own unique features, making their economic and political status different from each other. It is important to understand those features for the region’s future development, including the implementation of CE principles.

The available research shows that the circular economy is a less researched concept in Central Asia. The authors’ previous research includes studying barriers and opportunities of a CE in Kazakhstan [18,19]. Other existing papers have a narrow focus on a specific application of methods, such as the use of metallurgical slag [20], the legal framework for e-waste [21], emissions from municipal solid waste green clusters [22], pollution of water by oil [23] and sustainable energy transition [24]. That is, until today, no study has been conducted to investigate each country’s circular economy implementation level and their commonalities and differences in approaching the circular economy.

The background literature review has also shown that the main issues in the framework of circular economy development are laws, finance, water, education, energy, waste, and agriculture. Reviewing legal actions and financing is important because they direct countries towards sustainability, green practices, and a circular economy. Water, waste, and energy are emerging problems in Central Asia because of the potential water crisis [25,26,27], air pollution through large greenhouse gas emissions [28], and a large amount of waste not being treated properly [29]. At the same time, agriculture is a historically important industry in CACs [30].

This study aims to systematically review the history and current economic situation of different sectors of each CAC and their circular economy levels, compare them by finding common and different points, followed by a literature-based barriers and opportunities analysis.

First, the current study describes the methodology used for the systematic literature review (with an overlook to CACs’ context). After that, the Section 3 provides the commonalities, differences, barriers, and opportunities of CACs for circular economy development. The reviewed literature with sources are further listed and compared in the Appendix A.

2. Materials and Methods

The systematic review methodology analyzes existing studies to indicate evidence that would answer the research question put forth in the beginning [26]. Before the study was conducted, the research team had decided on the scope and aim of the research, as well as the main criteria for the literature sources’ choice or elimination during the searching process. It was decided to focus on such topics as policies and laws, international financing, water, education, research, energy, GHG, waste, recycling, and agriculture. Thus, the searching process helps to identify the answer to the main question, “What is the situation in certain sectors with circularity in CACs?” The Scopus and Web of Science databases were used in the searching process. The search query used in the Scopus database was the following: “TITLE-ABS-KEY (circular AND economy) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (Kazakhstan OR Kyrgyzstan OR Tajikistan OR Turkmenistan OR Uzbekistan)”. Ten results were found, out of which four results were decided to be included (see Figure 1 for inclusion criteria). The search request in the Web of Science database was the following: “ALL = (circular economy Kazakhstan OR circular economy Kyrgyzstan OR circular economy Tajikistan OR circular economy Turkmenistan OR circular economy Uzbekistan)”. It resulted in 23 found publications, and 16 were selected for inclusion. Thus, after checking for duplicates, 18 sources were found only. These results demonstrate that circular economy research is new for the Central Asian region, proving the gap and need for the current paper. Alerts were turned on to find any recent publications if they appeared. As the circular economy is a recently developed concept and the number of academic sources is limited, the review of non-academic media sources is also included for better time-relevancy and a general understanding of the development. The data source used in this study is a Google search, resulting in 182 references being found. Next, the screening stage was based on reviewing the title and abstract. The prime criteria for recognizing relevant sources were concentrated on CACs and circular measures in the defined sectors (legislative, financial, and industrial). As a result, the total number of used sources for this article is 162. The conceptual analysis flow of the literature review inclusion and exclusion is given in Figure 1.

3. Results & Discussion

3.1. An Overlook of the Contexts of CACs

Kazakhstan (KZ), placed at the center of Eurasia, is the largest country of the CACs (2.7 million m²), with a population of around 19 million [31]. KZ adopted a presidential system of governance holding large oil and gas (9th in the world) and coal (8th in the world) resource deposits. In addition, It is one of the prime grain exporters (top 10) [31]. The climate is sharply continental, with cold winters (up to −20 °C) and hot summers (up to 30 °C). Strong evaporation rates and dry summers with rare rains force irrigation application in agriculture [25].

Turkmenistan (TKM) is an upper-middle-income country with a population of 5.8 million and the second-highest GDP per capita of the CACs [32]. The Caspian Sea, bordering the country’s west, provides rich oil and gas deposits. TKM owns the world’s fourth-largest, 10% of total global gas reserves [33]. Its increasing water deficiency and steady temperature rise make it vulnerable to climate change, impacting its entire economy, especially the water sector [34].

Tajikistan (TJK) is located at the south-eastern end of Central Asia. Its population is around eight million people, with an annual growth rate of 2.5%. Most of the population resides in rural provinces (approx. 74%) [35]. This highly mountainous country covers an area of 143.1 thousand square kilometers. It is a mountainous country (93% of its territory), mostly arid and warm, with considerable fluctuations in temperature ranges between +40 °C and −60 °C. It is ranked first for its water potential in Central Asia; however, it has very scarce fossil fuels (oil and gas) [35].

Kyrgyzstan (KGZ) is a relatively low-income economy CAC supported by agriculture, mineral extraction, construction, and information services. It covers about 199.95 thousand km² of an area with 6.6 million people (1.67% of annual growth), where 36% comprises the urban population [36]. China bounds KGZ on the east and south, Kazakhstan on the northwest and north, and Uzbekistan and Tajikistan on the south and west. It is the most mountainous country in Central Asia (almost 94%, with an average height of 2750 m above sea level) [37]. According to the World Bank Report, the real growth in the gross domestic product (GDP) averaged 4.5% annually, in line with the average among other CACs [36]. KGZ produces non-ferrous metals, machinery, light industrial products, and hydroelectric power, which provide more than 75% of the country’s electric energy. Moreover, significant importance to the national economy relies on its gold mining, coal extraction, petroleum, and natural gas deposits.

Uzbekistan (UZB) is landlocked, bordering KZ, KGZ, TKM, TJK, and Afghanistan. As of 2020, it has a population of over 34 million [38], the largest in Central Asia. Uzbekistan is one of the world’s largest cotton producers and the leading machinery and heavy equipment producer in Central Asia, possesses significant mineral, oil, and gas resources [27], and produces and exports vast amounts of natural gas. Uzbekistan demonstrates one of the highest GDP growth rates in the region, with its GDP predicted to increase by 6.2% last year [38]. The locations of the CACs are given in Figure 2.

3.2. Differences and Commonalities

To start with, an appropriate legal, policy, and regulatory framework is an important step in approaching the adoption of circularity. It both encourages and puts effective boundaries on making suitable decisions that play a role in environmental lifecycles. Based on the reviewed literature, the following information was enclosed (for the references, see the Appendix A, section “legal, policy, and regulatory framework”). In terms of legal, policy, and regulatory framework, all five countries represent their commitment toward circular development in terms of the legal framework they adopt. Kazakhstan is strongly oriented toward shifting to sustainable development and a green economy in its national strategy. Turkmenistan has put significant efforts into achieving sustainable development and is one of the first countries to accept all Sustainability Development Goals (SDGs) by integrating them into national socio-economic goals and strategies. Tajikistan’s countrywide reforms in the political and economic sectors of the country were made in the late 20th century. Kyrgyzstan’s environmental safety and protection are still among the most significant parts of its national security as it is an essential step before conserving natural systems and maintaining environmental quality [39]. Since the country’s leadership change in 2016, Uzbekistan has begun a course of economic rejuvenation by adapting systemic reforms to reduce the state’s role in the economy, modernize its agriculture and industry, and attract foreign investment. In

Table 1. Commons and differences in the legal framework of circularity in CACs.

Commons

Differences

High level of interest in transitioning to circular practices among CACs An increasing number of legal and regulatory policies since the initial adoption of CE strategies Low-to-medium level of involvement from the private sector in the transition to circular economies across all CACs Low level of integration of CE legal and regulatory policies across industrial and construction sectors of CACs Formulation of environmental protection laws and policies across CACs Although national strategies direct the countries toward a greener economy, the execution leaves much to be desired

Varying levels of legal and regulatory framework implementation across CACs Imbalance in enforcement capability of legal and regulatory actions arising from differences in socioeconomic levels CE strategies are adopted on the basis of the specific needs of each CA country (e.g., Kazakhstan mainly aims to reduce GHG emissions with Kazakhstan 2050 strategy, while Tajikistan’s CE strategy specifically addresses the utilization of its resources) Absence of legislative and regional collaborations within the Central Asia context in the implementation of CE strategies across sectors Variations in set priority areas within CACs considering the social, political, and economic status of each country

, the commonalities and differences are summarized.

Being an important region, Central Asia attracts the attention of different international organizations, which have also developed green financing that can help promote and adopt circularity. As the local population may not be interested or motivated enough for the transition, foreign organizations, which have more experience in circularity, can assist in improving environmental friendliness. The adoption of strategic documents in CACs that are oriented towards sustainable development has opened up some possibilities for developing green financing in Central Asia. Thus, many international funds are motivated to invest in green projects in this region and establish green financing. The reviewed literature has shown the following (see the Appendix A, section “Involvement with international organizations and Green Financing”). Kazakhstan, in aiming to develop sustainability and circularity in priority sectors, has become a host to several international organizations seeking to develop green and circular projects in Kazakhstan. In turn, Tajikistan receives the second-highest climate financing among all CACs due to the high vulnerability of the territory, established frameworks in its national plan, and relationship with donors. Overall, all the CACs, after gaining independence, started being actively integrated with international organizations, e.g., in Kyrgyzstan, more than 30 organizations are currently working.

Table 2. Commons and differences in international involvement toward circularity development in CACs.

Commons

Differences

The high amount of external financing mechanisms in the green sector, reaching up to $200 million for climate-related projects overall High interest of international organizations, especially in combating adverse climate change effects within CACs Central Asian Regional Economic Cooperation Program (CAREC) membership of CACs as an initiative by the EU, UNDP, and governments of CACs Similar types of international organizations involved in projects within Central Asia, such as ADB, EBRD, GCF, and CIF Despite large financing of green projects, the circularity output is not that extensive Sustainable Consumption and Production (SCP) is being actively developed in all CACs, with different implementations, including sustainable procurement, development of sustainable policies

Varying levels of financial commitment of CACs in sectors within the domain of the green economy Varying levels of involvement of international organizations in supporting green initiatives (due to socio-economic and political factors) The capacity of co-financing mechanisms of governments differs based on the economic levels of CACs and based on industries Involvement of international organizations depending on the sector (e.g., Turkmenistan and Tajikistan use external financing for water-based projects, Kazakhstan implements green initiatives for minimizing biodiversity loss and achieving carbon neutrality)

contains the main commonalities and differences found.

Given the risk of the water crisis in Central Asia [25,26] due to high salinity and the limited amount of water entering the country, both government and international funds give special attention to sustainable water management in this region (for more detailed information and references see Appendix A, section “water resources management”). Apart from saving water resources, another challenge is sharing the river basins between the neighboring countries, which risks equality of usage. For example, the United States attempted to help Central Asian water management through USAID regional water and vulnerable environment activities for shared river basins. In addition, hydropower is currently a “cleaner” alternative to fuel energy, which endangers local water resources. Therefore, effective water management is crucial for achieving circularity in the CA region. See

Table 3. Commons and differences in sustainable water management in CACs.

Commons	Differences
In general, all CACs face the risk of the water crisis All CACs need to develop effective management of shared (transboundary) water resources The agricultural sector consumes abundant local water resources, which might be inadequate due to outdated infrastructure Hydropower is currently the only cleaner energy alternative for the CACs, which is why circular water management needs to increase	Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan possess more water resources than Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan Lack of consensus on water resources usage—own different interests (agriculture, hydropower) are leading to water resources depletion

for observed commonalities and differences.

Central Asia gives substantial consideration to education and enlightenment activities by pursuing green and circular economy development. This perspective is an important stage in achieving a ubiquitous understanding of the sustainability concept’s importance. Moreover, teaching in schools and universities can improve the adoption of circularity among the next generations. As research on “circular economy” is minimal in Central Asia, Figure 3 shows the number of papers published in Scopus on sustainable development from 2007 to 2021. Kazakhstan’s research on sustainable development started in 2006 and reached its peak in 2020. Similarly, Turkmenistan’s sustainability research began in 2007 and reached its maximum in 2021.

Table 4. Commons and differences in education and research in CACs.

Commons	Differences
Environmental education and education on sustainable development are implemented in schools and universities of all CACs The number of research on sustainable development is generally growing in CACs	Kazakhstan is leading in terms of conducting academic research on sustainability topics, while Tajikistan has the least amount of scholarly articles on sustainable development in the Scopus database

summarizes the similarities and differences, and the details can be found in Appendix A, section “education and research”.

Decreasing GHG emissions is vital for the environment to prevent rapid climate change. In the meantime, Central Asia’s GHG emissions constitute up to 1% of global GHG [28]. Since CACs are highly dependent on conventional energy sources, finding feasible ways to enhance renewables is essential yet challenging. Thus, for circular economy development in the region, consideration of energy and GHG emissions is crucial.

Figure 4, Figure 5 and Figure 6 present the carbon emissions and national trends, renewable energy consumption, and fossil fuel consumption across CACs. Carbon dioxide emissions are highest in Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan and the lowest in Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan (Figure 4). Renewable energy resources are highly utilized in Tajikistan compared to the rest of the CACs (Figure 5). It is also evident that greater utilization of renewable resources is an effective strategy for transitioning to a low-carbon economy. In Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan, renewable energy constitutes a small proportion of the total energy consumed. Approximately 99% of the total energy within Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan is produced from non-renewable sources, including coal and gas. Tajikistan consumes a minor proportion of fossil fuels (approximately between 30% and 50% of the total) [40].

Table 5. Similarities and differences in circular energy and GHG management in CACs.

Commons	Differences
All CACs have a heavy reliance on conventional fossil fuels Nevertheless, all countries plan to decrease GHG emissions by 2030, according to the Paris Agreement Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan emphasize increasing gasification to reduce coal reliance All countries employ hydropower as an alternative source of energy to fossils	Among all CACs, Tajikistan is leading in the adoption of renewable energy sources Kazakhstan’s GHG is the largest in CA Uzbekistan has substantial solar power potential Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan have the highest CO2 emissions Tajikistan is leading in terms of the least amount of CO2 emissions

summarizes the main similarities and differences in the energy and GHG emissions between the CACs; the details are given in Appendix A, section “energy and GHG emissions.”

Effective waste management is a crucial step in achieving a circular economy, the ultimate goal of which is to eliminate waste. The current ecological state of the CACs is poor, as the waste is conventionally not appropriately treated [29]. Nevertheless, currently, CACs are oriented toward improving waste management. Commonalities and differences in waste management are described in

Table 6. Commons and differences in waste management in CACs.

Commons

Differences

Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan develop circular waste management practices, e.g., using worms to create vermicompost Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan face a problem with illegally created landfills, which endanger the earth and air pollution Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan have country-level strategies to develop waste management All countries have international guidance and support in waste management development Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan have a focus on the development of effective construction waste management

Modular structures fabrication factory has first opened in Kazakhstan, aiming to develop the circular construction sector The oil industry is the primary source of industrial waste in Turkmenistan Tajikistan is able to recycle mercury but is not implementing it

(see Appendix A section “waste management and recycling”).

For the Central Asian region, agriculture plays a vital role in industrial development due to the availability of suitable lands. Since the Soviet Union, this region has been the main provider of agricultural supplies [30]. Nevertheless, agricultural activities are dramatically water- and land-exhausting, which puts the region at risk of drought. Therefore, the development of circularity in agriculture is vital for the region. The similarities and differences of the agricultural management practices of CACs can be found in

Table 7. Commons and differences in circular agriculture management in CACs.

Commons

Differences

All countries have significant potential in the agriculture sector, which is why circular development is especially important in this sector Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan aim to develop more sustainable fertilizers used for less air pollution The Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan governments are implementing effective reforms to develop the agricultural sector towards making it more sustainable

Uzbekistan has the largest and most diverse agricultural sectors, including fishery Kazakhstan has the highest amount of implemented circular projects in the sector Tajikistan’s agriculture is being severely affected by climate change Kazakhstan, being a large meat producer, develops circular practices in the beef sector

(the literature review details can be seen in Appendix A “Agriculture” section).

3.3. Barriers and Opportunities

Central Asia has certain barriers and opportunities for circular economy development, summarized in Figure 7. The most common regional barrier is the dependency on rainfall water in agriculture, which endangers food security in the case of droughts and, overall, water level. In addition, the local population is not motivated to adopt circular actions; thus, most people do not minimize water consumption. In the CACs, there is still a strong dependency on conventional fossil fuels. At the same time, a switch to renewables is financially exhaustive, could increase reliance on foreign electricity imports [24], and requires qualified personnel, which is usually lacking among the local population and is invited from foreign countries. Another barrier to CE is the lack of efficient waste management—waste sorting, processing, and recycling, faulty management of dangerous waste (e.g., medical or radioactive). Moreover, a lack of statistical data on waste amounts hinders conducting a comprehensive analysis of future implications.

Another barrier could be, as seen from previous experience, poor management and execution of the established policies that are oriented towards sustainability. In addition, the legal frameworks state “green” targets in most cases but do not have a clear path to reaching those. Moreover, the policy documents of CACs are oriented toward a green economy, but not precisely to circularity.

An external barrier common to all CACs is the recent outbreak of COVID-19, which has paused economic development and oriented all countries to switch to a lockdown mode of living and medical help to citizens. The hottest recent external barrier to circular economy development is the potential political instability in the CIS region (e.g., the invasion of Russia into Ukraine), which endangers all CACs in terms of international cooperation, as historically, the Central Asia region has always been politically allied to Russia.

Financial expenses also trouble the CE transition, as the circular model requires substantial investments for retooling equipment and relocating factories. Currently, the price of recycled end-product is typically higher than that of new raw alternative materials) [41]. Moreover, international organizations’ high investments demonstrate a lack of significant output and less benefit than expected, which can be linked with low involvement of local management and a lack of interest and confidence in foreign professionals.

In Kazakhstan, the low price of water creates a barrier for the population to save it, especially for industrial and agricultural use. In addition, the economic development of Kazakhstan is strongly dependent on conventional fuels, making it financially complicated to switch to renewables. In Turkmenistan, the main barriers to implementing a circular economy are institutional and regulatory issues, which lead to a low level of investor interest due to the faults in the governmental system. Korostova (2020) argues that a lack of public awareness, poor infrastructure, and lack of statistical collections impede the transition to CE [42]. In Tajikistan, the lack of adequate internal financing mechanisms for green initiatives delays the turnover to CE. Although bilateral and multilateral foreign agents are involved in different sectors of the economy, the lack of internal capacity to undertake large-scale projects encourages a high dependence on external agents and financing. The inability of the local private and public sectors to carry out infrastructure projects leads to the unsustainable use of the country’s resources. In addition, production processes tend to overlook principles of circularity in manufacturing products and goods [43]. Kyrgyzstan’s major concerns arise from irrational land utilization, unsustainable resource practices (including air pollution from different kinds of plants, energy inefficient residential construction objects, and unsustainable water management) [44]. Uzbekistan’s main barrier to the circular economy is its strong reliance on cotton production, which requires enormous water resources. Since the river basins are transboundary, this practice also endangers the neighboring countries. Another significant challenge is the low level of skilled workforce, as locals tend to migrate to neighboring CIS countries seeking better salaries, creating a great demand for labor in the country.

Talking about common opportunities, strong orientation through the legislative framework oriented towards green economy and sustainability in CACs increase the potential of circularity spread. With the help of international organizations, developing integrated water resources management can improve the whole ecosystem, as now consideration of water resources is not separated from other sectors like energy and land use. Climate change, which threatens the agricultural sector, creates an opportunity for a paradigm shift of the whole economy toward more enhanced food and water security [45]. All countries publicly reiterated their commitment to sustainable development by increasing awareness of green economic strategies, including reducing resource consumption, introducing resource-efficient technologies, low-waste strategies, and recycling waste actions. In addition, many international organizations are interested in cooperation toward sustainability and providing funding. Talking about education, many schools and universities adopt education sustainability, thus, orienting on growing ecologically-conscious generations.

Kazakhstan is the first country in Central Asia to develop a sound circularity in Almaty city; thus, the government is pioneering the circular economy across all CACs. As the agricultural sector requires a large amount of water consumption, instead of producing water-intensive wheat, switching that to Uzbekistan would help save water resources, as Uzbekistan can produce more wheat with the same amount of water [46]. In terms of the energy sector, the current intensive use of coal as an energy source is slowly but surely being changed to natural gas and renewables. Kyrgyzstan has great potential for the partial transition to solar, hydro, and geothermal energy in the future, contrasting wind energy sources’ development as the low monthly and yearly mean wind power density and speed in the foothill zones of the republic [47,48]. Tajikistan possesses more than half of the CA freshwater resources, and integrated management of them is required and would be beneficial. Tajikistan has a huge potential to successfully transition towards a low carbon economy by investing only 2% of the GDP in ten key sectors, which include agriculture, waste management, and water management [35]. Tajikistan also has a potentially rich agricultural sector, with vast areas of viable land and undeveloped mountainous regions. Turkmenistan has a great opportunity for renewable developments, especially solar energy, which can increase energy security [49].

4. Conclusions and Implications

In CACs, most green initiatives are introduced on a macro-level—governments develop policies and strategic documents, and international organizations help in policy development and provide funding for green projects. Thus, CE development is introduced by the top-down approach. Information on the micro-level—how industrial companies develop circular practices—is minimal, leading to the conclusion that CE is not popular on the micro-level. Nevertheless, CE transition requires creating enabling conditions for a higher level of involvement of the civil society in the “greening” process across multiple sectors. It was also observed that CACs need to build their human capital, stimulating a new generation to understand and manage modern technologies with a circular economy footprint.

The systematic literature review shows that the leading country in terms of circular development among CACs is Kazakhstan, as it has already started implementing circular practices. Nevertheless, Tajikistan is the most “green” country because it uses more renewables than others. Turkmenistan is the least “circular” country; however, it might be linked to the minimal information available due to internal policies.

Comparing CACs to Southern and East Asian countries, Central Asia has a smaller population and is facing lower industrialization rates in contrast to fast-developing China and India; thus, their effect of circularity development on the global environmental scale is lower. Due to higher technology development, South and East Asian countries could advance technologically in circular applications. In addition, CACs depend on effective Chinese water resource management to get clean and sufficient inflows. In terms of human resource capital, CACs have a considerably lower population compared to Southern and Eastern Asian countries, which decreases the professional competition.

To sum up, executing effective policies oriented toward green and circular development, ensuring the meaningful participation of all interested parties (citizens, industry, and businesses), and financing adequate amounts from governments and international organizations, can help effectively achieve circular economies in CACs. This study can guide managerial and governmental figures to adopt circular solutions by providing commonalities and differences between the circular economy and CACs, and clearly defining barriers and opportunities.

The current research study contributes with the following: (1) Provides an overview of the circular economy development in CACs, thus, giving a general understanding of the current situation; (2) Potential areas and directions of further circularity development through outlining barriers and opportunities. The limitation of the research lies in the amount of the reviewed literature, as well as those have undergone the subjective opinions of the authors regarding their relevance to the study. Nevertheless, the authors attempted to add as much relevant literature as possible. In future research, it would be interesting to explore local stakeholders’ interest in CE development in the different sectors reviewed in this study and also dive into circularity applications in industry.