LIVELIHOODS & URBAN

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY:

WASTE PICKING IN KADUNA, NIGERIA

THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT: THE

RELEVANCE OF MUNICIPAL SOLID

WASTE MANAGEMENT (MSWM) 161 countries generated about 1.3 billion tonnes of MSW per

year, to increase to 2.2 billion by 2025 (Hoornweg & Bhada-Tata, 2012)

Rate of waste generation outstripping rate of urbanization

MSWM treatment methods contribute to greenhouse gases (GHG) and carbon dioxide emissions.

- Methane from disposal sites contribute to global GHG emissions

- Incineration & open burning of waste: important sources of carbon dioxide emissions

Growing challenge of e-waste (mobile phones, computers)

MSWM IN LOW INCOME COUNTRIES

Source reduction: no organized programmes

Collection: sporadic & inefficient

Socio-spatial exclusion: high income areas receive better services

Recycling: almost entirely through the informal sector

Composting: rarely undertaken formally even though there is a high % of organic material

Incineration: not common (capital intensive, high moisture content)

Open dumping of wastes: pollution of aquifers & water bodies nearby;

Burning of waste: negative effects on the environment, health risks

KADUNA

Pop. Over 1million

33% aged 5-15

74.77% - poor

Declining

industrial town

Remains a major industrial &

commercial centre

OVERVIEW OF MSWM

Waste generation: 13.5 tons (8.2 tons organic) per day

Composition: metal, glass, plastics, paper, rubber, organic etc.

Sources: households, factories, office & business premises, medical establishments, schools

Institutional arrangement:

Kaduna Environmental Protection Authority – responsible for day-to-day management

Formal Private Sector – 49 contractors employed by the government to handle waste collection

Informal Private Sector – Waste collectors in areas not served by the formal system

Recycling: informal

Problems include: sub-standard storage equipment; collection is epileptic, inefficient & limited to certain parts; illegal dumping; open dumping; limited finance; no official source separation

OPEN DUMPING STORAGE

ILLEGAL DUMPING

TRANSPORTATION

The major actors

INFORMAL RECYCLING

Processors/Manufacturers

Middlemen & Agents

Waste Pickers

WASTE PICKING: THE LIVELIHOOD

DIMENSION

Disadvantaged urban groups (children & youths)

Reasons for waste picking:

a) Feeding

b) Supplement the family income

c) Personal needs

d) Family tradition

CHILD WASTE PICKERS

Profile of a child waste

picker: Yahaya

10 years old

6 siblings

Mother – widow

Primary 6 pupil

Waste picking (1 – 4pm when school is in session, 9am – 4pm during holidays)

Type of recyclables – light metal, plastics, glass, aluminium (least valuable)

Earnings (about USD40 per month):

Contributes to household income

Takes care of his personal needs

The AlmajiriYoung boys in the Koranic educational system

From poor rural families

Study the Koran with a Mallam (scholar)

No parental support

Neglected by the government

Exploited by Mallams

Engage in street begging, petty crimes, menial jobs, waste collection & picking

Earnings primarily spent on feeding

Some amount given to the Mallam

ALMAJIRAIS EMPLOYED BY NGO

DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION FOR

RENEWABLE ENERGY (DARE).

PICTURES COURTESY OF DARE.

PLASTICS HOUSE

Funded by NGO (DARE)

2 bedrooms

Consume 14 000 plastic

bottles

Sourced from hotels/schools

Designed to avoid carbon

dioxide emissions

RESOURCE RECOVERY: METAL

RESOURCE RECOVERY

THE PRODUCTS

THE PRODUCTS

NEGATIVE PRACTICES

Burning of waste

Illegal dumping

Littering

Health risks ( exposure to

harmful chemicals, injuries)

Summing up

Structured flow of people and

materials- specific groups target

specific sites (Households, final

disposal sites, communal

dumps, factories)

Major livelihood activity

Contribution to resource

recovery/environmental

sustainability is by default

Informal operates parallel to the

formal

How to regulate the sector without

jeopardizing livelihoods?