between livelihoods and urban environmental sustainability: informal recycling in kaduna, nigeria
TRANSCRIPT
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
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
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
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?