north-east nigeria waste and debris assessment€¦ · north-east nigeria waste and debris...

NORTH-EAST NIGERIA WASTE AND DEBRIS ASSESSMENT

January 2016

United Nations Development ProgrammeNo. 19 T.Y Danjuma StreetAsokoro, Abuja

North – East Nigeria Waste & Debris Assessment Final Report UNDP Nigeria January 2016

Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................................. I

LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... III

LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................................IV

LIST OF PICTURES .......................................................................................................................V

LIST OF ANNEXES / APPENDICES .............................................................................................VI

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .........................................................................................................VII

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. IX

1.0 CONTEXT ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................ 12

1.1 Humanitarian Need ................................................................................................... 12

1.2 Institutional Actors .................................................................................................... 13

1.3 International Actors .................................................................................................. 14

2.0 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ........................................................................................ 15

2.1 Legal Framework ....................................................................................................... 15

2.1.1 International Multilateral Environmental Agreements ..................................... 15

2.1.2 Federal Regulations ........................................................................................... 15

2.1.3 State and Local Regulations ............................................................................... 16

2.2 Institutional Framework ............................................................................................ 16

2.3 Municipal Solid Waste Management ........................................................................ 17

2.3.1 Waste Generation and Characterization ........................................................... 17

2.3.2 Public Sector ...................................................................................................... 18

2.3.3 Private Sector ..................................................................................................... 19

2.3.4 Solid Waste Management in Camp Settings and Host Communities ................ 20

2.3.5 Waste Infrastructure .......................................................................................... 20

2.4 International Humanitarian Actors ........................................................................... 21

3.0 OBJECTIVE OF WASTE AND DEBRIS ASSESSMENT .......................................................... 22

4.0 DATA COLLECTION .......................................................................................................... 23

4.1 Data Collection Strategy ............................................................................................ 23

4.1.1 Limitations.......................................................................................................... 24

4.1.2 Final Sample ....................................................................................................... 24

5.0 FINDINGS ........................................................................................................................ 26


5.1.1 Borno .................................................................................................................. 26

5.1.2 Yobe ................................................................................................................... 29


Page ii

5.1.3 Adamawa ........................................................................................................... 31

5.2 Solid Waste Management in Camps and Informal Settlements ............................... 38

5.2.1 Borno State ........................................................................................................ 39

5.2.2 Yobe State .......................................................................................................... 40

5.2.3 Adamawa State .................................................................................................. 41

5.2.4 Identified Risks ................................................................................................... 43

5.3 Debris ........................................................................................................................ 46

5.3.1 Yobe ................................................................................................................... 46

5.3.2 Adamawa ........................................................................................................... 48

5.3.3 Borno .................................................................................................................. 50

5.3.4 Typical Debris Materials ..................................................................................... 52

5.3.5 Hazards ............................................................................................................... 52

6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................................... 54


6.1.1 Local Authorities Capacity Building ................................................................... 54

6.1.2 IDP Camps SWM Improvement ......................................................................... 54

6.1.3 Emergency Employment .................................................................................... 54

6.1.4 Healthcare Waste Management ........................................................................ 55

6.1.5 Waste Banks in Camps ....................................................................................... 55

6.1.6 Fuel Briquettes ................................................................................................... 56

6.1.7 Recycling Infrastructure Support ....................................................................... 56

6.1.8 Co-composting ................................................................................................... 56

6.1.9 Camp Decommissioning Planning and Implementation ................................... 56

6.2 Debris Management .................................................................................................. 56

6.2.1 Establishment of Standard Procedures for Debris Clearance ........................... 57

6.2.2 Development of City Debris Management Plans ............................................... 57

6.2.3 Mine Risk Education and Health and Safety Training ........................................ 57

6.2.4 Emergency Employment .................................................................................... 57

6.2.5 Debris Recycling ................................................................................................. 58

7.0 1ST ACTIONS FOR WASTE AND DEBRIS ........................................................................... 59

7.1 Conditional Cash Transfer Guidelines Development ................................................ 59

7.2 Solid Waste Management Interventions .................................................................. 59

7.2.1 Immediate Actions in IDP Camps (Month 1 – 3) ................................................ 59

7.2.2 Immediate Actions in Host Communities (Month 1 -3) ..................................... 60

7.2.3 Medium-term Actions in IDP Camps (Month 2 - 6) ........................................... 61


Page iii

7.2.4 Medium-term Actions in Host Communities ..................................................... 61

7.2.5 Summary Budget for Solid Waste Management Interventions ........................ 63

7.3 Debris Management Interventions ........................................................................... 63

7.3.1 Immediate Actions (Months 1 – 2) .................................................................... 63

7.3.2 Medium-term Actions (Months 2 – 6) ............................................................... 64

7.3.3 Summary Budget for Debris Management Interventions ................................. 65

7.4 Budget for Solid Waste Management and Debris actions ........................................ 66

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Waste Characterization for Kano city (D-Waste 2012) .............................................. 17

Table 2: Initial sampling targets ............................................................................................... 24

Table 3: Assessed sites by type and location ........................................................................... 25

Table 4: Host communities’ sites characteristics in Borno, Yobe, and Adamawa states ........ 35

Table 5: Borno host communities' sites hazards ................................................................... 36

Table 6: Yoba and Adamawa host communities' sites hazards .............................................. 37

Table 7: Maiduguri IDP camps - Assessed sites characteristics ............................................... 40

Table 8: Damaturu IDP camps - Assessed sites characteristics ............................................... 41

Table 9: Adawama IDP camps - Assessed sites characteristics ............................................... 43

Table 10: Adamawa IDP camps - Assessed sites hazards ........................................................ 45

Table 11: Borno IDP Camps - Assessed sites hazards .............................................................. 45

Table 12: Yobe IDP Camps - Assessed sites hazards ................................................................ 46

Table 13: Damage levels and impacted villages in assessed LGAs (NEMA 2015. Yobe Damage Assessment) ............................................................................................................................. 47

Table 14: Impacted buildings by LGA and damage severity (NEMA, 2015. Yobe Damage Assessment) ............................................................................................................................. 47

Table 15: Impacted buildings by LGA and level of severity of damage (SEMA 2015, Report of the Adamawa State Insurgency Victims Support Committee) ................................................ 49

Table 16: Affected public buildings and infrastructure (SEMA, 2015. Report of the Adamawa State Insurgency Victims Support Committee)........................................................................ 49

Table 17: Other structures affected by the conflict (SEMA, 2015. Report of the Adamawa State Insurgency Victims Support Committee)........................................................................ 49

Table 18: Budget for development of Conditional Cash Transfer Guidelines ......................... 59

Table 19: Budget for support to IDP Camps in Solid Waste Management Improvements ..... 60

Table 20: Budget for Emergency Employment support within Solid Waste Management .... 60


Page iv

Table 21: Budget for Camp Decommissioning planning and implementation ........................ 60

Table 22: Budget for establishment and operations of Waste Banks ..................................... 61

Table 23: Budget for HealthCare Waste management improvements ................................... 61

Table 24: Budget for Development of Fuel Briquetting recycling initiatives .......................... 61

Table 25: Budget for Capacity Building within the Local Authorities ...................................... 62

Table 26: Budget for Recycling Infrastructure Support: PE Bags recycling workshop ............ 62

Table 27: Budget for Recycling Infrastructure Support: PE Bags paving stone manufacturing.................................................................................................................................................. 62

Table 28: Budget for establishment of Co-composting initiatives .......................................... 62

Table 29: Summary of total proposed Solid Waste Management interventions .................... 63

Table 30: Budget for Demolition and Debris Management Guidelines .................................. 63

Table 31: Budget for MRE and OH&S Training of Debris personnel ........................................ 64

Table 32: Budget for development of State and City Debris Management Plans ................... 64

Table 33: Budget for establishment of Emergency Employment in Debris management ...... 65

Table 34: Budget for establishment of proposed Debris Recycling interventions .................. 65

Table 35: Summary of total proposed Debris Management interventions ............................ 65

Table 36: Summary of total proposed Solid Waste and Debris Management interventions for North East Nigeria in 2016 ....................................................................................................... 66

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Impact of the conflict in the North East (UNDP 2015, adapted from Nigeria HNO 2016) ........................................................................................................................................ 13

Figure 2: Solid waste disposal practices in the North East (INGO, 2015) ................................ 20

Figure 3: Segregation of sharps at Bukhar Ali School Camp clinic, Damaturu ........................ 21

Figure 4: Suspected ERW contaminated areas in Borno and Adamawa (DDG 2015) ............. 52


Page v

LIST OF PICTURES

Picture 1: Murba electric incinerator and its operator............................................................ 18

Picture 2: Nayinawa official dumpsite in Damaturu city centre .............................................. 19

Picture 3: Metal scrap in Maiduguri on its way to Lagos ......................................................... 20

Picture 4: Waste collection tools in St. Theresa Camp ............................................................ 21

Picture 5: The new locally made BOSEPA dumpster prototype .............................................. 26

Picture 6: Waste dumped at the riverbank in Maiduguri ........................................................ 27

Picture 7: A child picking up PET bottles from the Damboa Road dumpsite in Maiduguri ..... 28

Picture 8: Gwange MHC collection centre. Due to quarterly collection, the waste used to arrive up to the level of the wall .............................................................................................. 29

Picture 9: A prototype for the new collection points .............................................................. 29

Picture 10: A full plastic recycling line lying in a storage facility in Damaturu ........................ 30

Picture 11: Nayinama dumpsite, identified by the green area next to the yellow pin, in Damaturu city centre ............................................................................................................... 31

Picture 12: A broken 5 feet dumpster at the Ministry of Environment .................................. 31

Picture 13: The illegal dumpsite in Galadima Aminu Road, next to Yola Airport .................... 32

Picture 14: A junkshop owner with his assistants and clients in Yola, Adamawa ................... 32

Picture 15: Systematic open burning at Numan Road illegal dumpsite in Yola ...................... 33

Picture 16: Hazardous healthcare waste mixed with municipal waste ................................... 34

Picture 18: Broken neon lights (left) and pharmaceutical waste (right) mixed with household waste in camps ......................................................................................................................... 38

Picture 17: Dried food craps waiting to be sold at EYN Church Camp .................................... 38

Picture 19: BOSEPA Skip at Dalori Army Camp ........................................................................ 39

Picture 20: Waste burning at HH level in Kukareta informal camp ......................................... 40

Picture 21: A waste disposal site (prior burning) located in a drainage trench ...................... 41

Picture 22: Open dumping and burning at Mankohi Camp ..................................................... 41

Picture 23: A plastic trash bin in an informal camp ................................................................. 42

Picture 24: Dry cell batteries, pharmaceutical waste and human excreta mixed with solid waste ........................................................................................................................................ 43

Picture 25: Suspected asbestos from renovation of buildings in Dalori Army Base camp...... 44

Picture 26: A waste pit with no marking or fencing ................................................................ 44

Picture 26: Damaturu Post Office ............................................................................................ 48

Picture 27: Damaged Structures in the city of Jiri (DIGITAL GLOBE/DWR) ............................. 50

Picture 28: The damaged structures in Baga and Doron Baga (Digital Globe/BBC World) ..... 50


Page vi

Picture 29: Damaged structures in the city of Bama (DIGITAL GLOBE/DWR) where there is a clear indication of those buildings without roofs, i.e. damaged. ............................................ 51

Picture 30: Bama neighbourhood before the damage ............................................................ 52

LIST OF ANNEXES / APPENDICES

ANNEX I – NIGERIA SOLID WASTE AND DEBRIS ASSESSMENT TOR

ANNEX II – KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW LIST

ANNEX III – DATA COLLECTION LOCATION LIST


Page vii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ACF Action Contre la Faim – Action Against Hunger

BOSEPA Borno State Environmental Protection Agency

CfW Cash for Work

CITES Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species of Wildlife and Fauna

CRS Catholic Relief Services

DDG Danish Demining Group

DoES Department of Environmental Services

DRC Danish Refugee Council

DRR Disaster Risk Reduction

DTM Displacement Tracking Matrix

DWR Disaster Waste Recovery

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

ERW Explosive Remnants of War

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization

FCT Federal Capital Territory

FEPA Federal Environmental Protection Agency

FMoE Federal Ministry of Environment

HCT Humanitarian Community Team

HCW Healthcare Waste

HH Household

ICRC International Committee of the Red Cross

IDP Internally Displaced Person

IED Improvised Explosive Device

IMC International Medical Corps

INGO International Non Governmental Organization

IOM International Organization for Migration

IRC International Rescue Committee

IV Intravenous

LGA Local Government Area


Page viii

MANPADS Manportable Air Defence Systems

MC Mercy Corps

MEA Multilateral Environmental Agreement

MoANR Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources

MRRR Ministry for Reconstruction, Resettlement, and Rehabilitation

MSF Médécins Sans Frontières – Doctors Without Borders

NEMA National Emergency Management Agency

NESREA National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency

NGO Non Governmental Organization

NRC Norwegian Refugee Council

OCHA Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs

OXFAM Oxford Committee For Famine Relief

PI Plan International

PINE Presidential Initiative for the North East

POPs Persisting Organic Pollutants

RPG Rocket Propelled Grenade

SC Save the Children

SEMA State Emergency Management Agency

SEPA State Environmental Protection Agency

SRP Strategic Response Plan

UNCCD United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification

UNDP United Nations Development Fund

UNFPA United Nations Populations Fund

UN-Habitat United Nations Human Settlements Programme

UNHCR Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund

UXO Unexploded Ordnance

VSO Voluntary Service Overseas

WAMASON Wastes Management Society of Nigeria

WFP World Food Programme


Page ix

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Context and Scope of Assessment

UNDP Nigeria initiated a Solid Waste and Debris Assessment in its role as co-lead of the Early Recovery Livelihoods Sector Working Group. The assessment was conducted in the context of gaining an overview of the current solid waste and debris situation and challenges, with the purpose of developing robust recovery plans and actions for implementation in 2016.

After a preparatory week in Abuja, the team conducted field visits in Borno, Yobe, and Adamawa capitals from 23rd November to 30th November 2016. Subsequently, the analysis of data and information gathered with reporting was carried out at home office.

In total 21 key stakeholder meetings conducted in the FCT, Adamawa, Borno, and Yobe.

10 in Abuja: NEMA (DRR & Situation Office), NESREA (Environment Agency), Ministry of Environment, WAMASON (Waste Association), ACF, OXFAM, DDG, CRS, UN-HABITAT

5 in Maiduguri: SEMA, Ministry of Reconstruction, NEMA Zonal Office, BOSEPA (State Environment Agency), scrap dealer

3 in Damaturu: SEMA, Department of Environment (MoA), Government Committee on Reconstruction

3 in Yola: SEMA, Ministry of Environment, scrap dealer

The team visited 31 locations in the three states over 8 days. The visual assessment of sites was supported with interviews with SEMA camp managers, WASH committee members, IDPs, and local waste management authorities. The information was collected through DWR’s digital data collection tool.

Access to the most impacted LGAs in each state was not possible, therefore secondary data (photos, videos, and assessments) was collected from NEMA and SEMA.

Overview of Assessment Findings

The assessment found local authorities are significantly overstretched by an increase in solid waste generation from the influx of IDPs ranging from 30% to 45% of pre-crisis solid waste volumes. Waste collection in camps is generally good and organized, however disposal by open burning is widespread when camps are not integrated with existing municipal waste collection. It is host communities, however, who bear the burden of insufficient coverage, with open dumping and burning being endemic in every state.

The number of damaged houses and governmental/commercial buildings is significant and generally beyond the capability of the local authorities to deal with. Removal of debris and demolition of structural elements will be a key first step towards enabling safe return of IDPs and others.


Page x

Debris removal activities are starting as a part of reconstruction programmes by Federal and State institutions. Formal and informal recycling of debris is already present to some extent, a process that should be encouraged and promoted. However, there is a low awareness of UXOs risk and other ERWs among both workers and IDPs, and lack of tools and protective equipment is a common issue. The approaches to date are manual based which will require scaling up (in terms of teams, tools and equipment as well as management) if they are to cover the damaged areas as a comprehensive programme.

Proposed Actions for 2016

Based on the findings of the Solid Waste and Debris assessment, the following proposed activities are detailed in this report for implementation in 2016 as part of an Early Recovery Livelihoods Sector initiative.

1. Conditional Cash Transfer Guidelines Development: Given the importance of emergency employment in both solid waste and debris management interventions, the main priority from an institutional point of view would be to develop the Conditional Cash Transfers Guidelines as to provide the framework for CfW and FfW programming.

2. Solid Waste Management Interventions: For the improvement of solid waste management services and to realise livelihood opportunities for affected persons.

a. Immediate Actions in IDP Camps (Month 1 – 3)

b. Immediate Actions in Host Communities (Month 1 -3)

c. Medium-term Actions in IDP Camps (Month 2 - 6)

d. Medium-term Actions in Host Communities

3. Debris Management Interventions: To provide support to the debris removal and safe demolition of damaged structures including recycling and reuse livelihoods opportunities.

a. Immediate Actions (Months 1 – 2)

b. Medium-term Actions (Months 2 – 6)


Page xi

The overall budget for all proposed Solid Waste Management and Debris activities are presented in below table.

Intervention Total (USD)

Conditional Cash Transfer Guidelines $79,200

IDP Camps SWM Improvement $93,495

SWM Emergency Employment $3,042,805

HCW management improvement $75,603

Waste Banks $67,832

Fuel briquettes $20,328

PE Bags recycling workshop $70,488

PE bags paving stone manufacturing $10,863

Co-composting $374,550

Camp decommissioning planning and implementing $322,850

Local authorities capacity building $56,485

SMW Contingencies (overhead) $210,725

Demolition and Debris Management Guidelines $45,100

State and City Debris Management Plan Development $87,725

MRE and OH&S Training $153,230

Debris Removal Emergency Employment $3,635,120

Debris recycling $660,198

Debris Contingencies $229,069

Grand Total SWM and Debris Interventions $9,235,664


Page 12

1.0 CONTEXT ANALYSIS

The insurgence of Boko Haram in Northern Nigeria since 2011 resulted in massive population displacement (both internal and across international borders), increased food insecurity and the destruction of public infrastructure. IDPs and refugees are willing to return to their homes once security conditions allow, as is already happening in LGAs whose control was regained from Boko Haram.

Both IDPs and host communities in the North East face food insecurity, limited access to basic public services, and increased competition for depleting resources.

1.1 Humanitarian Need

There are 24.5 million residents living in states that were under the threat of Boko Haram, of which 14.8 million have been affected by the conflict and 7 million people are in need of humanitarian assistance and 4 million people will continue to face acute food insecurity. In 2015, 2.8 million people received assistance by national and international humanitarian actors.1

There are currently about 2.2 million IDPs distributed across seven states – Borno, Yobe, Adamawa, Bauchi, Taraba, Nasarawa, and Gombe - and Abuja Federal Capital Territory (FCT). Borno state hosts 1.4 million IDPs; Yobe state is home to 131,000 IDPs and Adamawa to 136,000.2

The vast majority of IDPs (92%) live embedded within host communities in urban settings, predominantly in family houses; the remaining 8% is distributed across 50 sites, of which 6 are camps, 43 are collective centres (mostly schools), and a number of spontaneous informal settlements and “loose” camps.3

Women and children (79.3% of IDPs) have been disproportionally affected by the conflict through forced marriages, abductions, and lack of access to basic services; of the 1.9 million IDPs living in Borno, Yobe and Adamawa, 1.1 million are children.4

Recent assessments have shown a general willingness of IDPs to move to their LGA of origin; however lack of security, lack of livelihood opportunities and loss of assets (damaged houses, infrastructures and farms) are the main factors preventing IDPs from returning.5

As such, the process of resettlement is limited to selected LGAs in the affected states, most notably Adamawa state, where 320,000 IDPs had returned to 5 LGAs in November, up from

1 Nigeria Humanitarian Dashboard (16/10/2015); INGO Forum, Humanitarian Situation in North East Nigeria – Update 19 June 2015; 2 IOM Displacement Tracking Matrix – Round VII Report (December 2015) 3 Ibidem 4 Nigeria Strategic Response Plans SRP 2015; UNICEF Humanitarian SitRep (01/11/2015); IOM DTM Round VI 5 INGO Forum, Humanitarian Situation in North East Nigeria – Update 19 June 2015; Joint INGO Humanitarian Assessment in Borno, Yobe, Adamawa, and Gombe – September 2015


Page 13

260,000 in August. In Borno there are now plans to relocate 55,000 IDPs from 9 schools to other camps with capacity to accept more people.6

Figure 1: Impact of the conflict in the North East (UNDP 2015, adapted from Nigeria HNO 2016)

An additional 230,000 Nigerian refugees have fled their homes and are now in Cameroon, Chad and Niger assisted by UNHCR; of these, 17,000 refugees returned to Nigeria in 2015.7

Sanitation and water-borne diseases present a great challenge, especially in Borno: 949 cholera cases and 17 deaths as of between October 7th and November 5th in camps and host communities.8

1.2 Institutional Actors

NEMA, the National Emergency Management Agency, is the government agency at federal level mandate to develop contingency planning and preparedness to respond to natural and man-made emergencies (three main ones are epidemic, flooding and insurgency), and coordinate the response with state governments and agencies. It’s central office is located in Abuja FCT, it has Zonal Offices with responsibility over several states; in the North-East there are the Maiduguri Zonal Office, which covers Borno, Yobe, and Adamawa states, and Gombe Zonal Office, responsible for Gombe, Bauchi and Taraba states NEMA has offices in Adamawa and Yobe states to liaise with State Governments and the State Emergency Management Agencies – SEMAs.

6 UNICEF Humanitarian SitRep (01/11/2015) 7 Nigeria Refugee Regional Response Plan (NRRRP) 2015. 8 UNICEF Humanitarian SitRep (01/11/2015)


Page 14

SEMA, State Emergency Management Agency, is the implementing agency at state level, coordinating the emergency response activities with the relevant State Ministries, UN agencies and INGOs. SEMA is also the lead state agency for reconstruction at local level, within the framework of the Presidential Initiative for the North-East (PINE) Resettlement and Reintegration Plan.9

NEMA and SEMAs are in charge of IDP camp management, including WASH, shelter, NFI and food distribution. Where present, the UN lead agencies and INGOs support the SEMA offices by providing WASH, shelter, education, health, nutrition and other activities both inside formal and informal IDP camps, as well as to IDPs in host communities. However, existing coordination mechanisms between state agencies and the international community are weak at local level, creating the risk of duplication of efforts and gaps and overlaps in planned interventions coverage.10

In Borno State, the Ministry for Reconstruction, Resettlement and Rehabilitation was created in September 2015 to lead all activities regarding the return of IDPs to their LGAs, the management of debris from damaged and destroyed buildings, and the reconstruction of shelter for returning IDPs (including transitional shelter) as well as the rehabilitation of the affected infrastructures.

In Yobe State, the Committee for Reconstruction was created in November 2015 to address the issue of IDP return to their LGA of origin, the coordination of shelter reconstruction and infrastructure rehabilitation.

1.3 International Actors

There are 12 international NGOs and 12 international organizations participating at different levels in the humanitarian response in the North East.

International Organizations: IOM, UNICEF, WFP, UNHCR, OCHA, UNFPA, FAO, UNDP, UN-Habitat, ICRC

International NGOs: ACF, IMC, IRC, OXFAM, CRS, SC, DRC, NRC, MSF, MC, VSO, PI

9 PINE 2015. Resettlement and Reintegration Plan for Victims of Insurgency in the North East: A Preliminary Report. Abuja, June 2015. 10 Nigeria HCT 2015. Nigeria 90 Day Plan – June August 2015, May 2015; interview with SEMA Secretary General.


Page 15

2.0 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT

2.1 Legal Framework

Nigeria is signatory to many global and regional multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) such as the Basel, Stockholm, Rotterdam and Bamako Conventions. Furthermore, in light of its oil production, Nigeria has a well-developed set of environmental laws and regulations, especially regarding hazardous waste.

2.1.1 International Multilateral Environmental Agreements

Nigeria participates in many multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs), such as the Basel Convention including its 1995 Basel Ban Amendment, and the Bamako Convention, both of which regulate transboundary movement of hazardous waste.

Other multilateral treaties Nigeria is a signatory of include the Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions, the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), the African Convention for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, the Vienna Convention for the Protection of Ozone Layer, its Montreal Protocol and successive amendments, and the Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species of Wildlife and Fauna (CITES).

2.1.2 Federal Regulations

The 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the 1998 National Policy on Environment, and 2007 National Environmental Standards and Regulation Enforcement Agency (NESREA) Act are the cornerstones of Nigeria’s environmental law.

Chapter II of the Federal Constitution defines the objective of the State, which include improving and protecting Nigerian air, soil, water and wildlife (Section 20); Chapter IV, Fundamental Rights, guarantee the human right to life (Section 33) and to human dignity (Section 34): both sections have been interpreted by some as to extend beyond the specific cases listed and to include the right to a healthy and safe environment.

The National Policy introduces several key principles to environmental law: the precautionary principle, the polluter pays principle, the pollution prevention pays (3p) principle, the user pays principle, and the subsidiary principle. The Policy also provides detailed guidance on various sector including urban and industrial development (Section 4), Disaster Risk Reduction (Section 5), and waste management (Section 6.1 and 6.2).

The NESREA Act abrogated the 1988 Federal Environmental Protection Act, replacing the old Federal Environmental Protection Agency with the National Environmental Standards and Regulation Enforcement Agency. The new Agency is mandated to ensure compliance with national and international laws through monitoring and regulation.

Hazardous waste management is regulated at the Federal level by several provisions:

Federal Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Regulations (1991);

Harmful Waste (Special Criminal Provisions) Act 2004;


Page 16

Oil In Navigable Waters Act, Cap 06, Lfn 2004;

Nuclear Safety And Radiation Protection Act, Cap N142, Lfn 2004; and,

Criminal Code Sections 245-248 deal with offences ranging from water fouling, to the use of noxious substances.

2.1.3 State and Local Regulations

States and LGAs have the power to legislate and regulate waste management in its various aspects, provided the provisions are not in contrast with federal legislation; state and LGA level legal frameworks can include, but are not limited to, the authorization of private actors to handle specific waste streams such as hazardous extraction and healthcare waste, the regulation of users’ fee and other forms of revenues for specific purposes, or the implementation of Federal laws and regulations at local level.

There are currently no specific laws and regulations on MSW at state level in Borno, Adamawa, and Yobe. However, the Borno State Ministry of Environment is envisaging the introduction of cost recovery mechanisms (users’ fee) and to regulate healthcare waste management in the private sector (clinics, pharmacies, and veterinaries).

2.2 Institutional Framework

The Federal Constitution established 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) of Abuja; the administrative structure further breaks down into 678 Local Government Areas (LGAs) governed by a Council, each of which is divided into ten to fifteen wards.

The Federal Legislative branch has exclusive power on, among others, all matters involving international relations, trade, and military affairs, including taxation, export duties, and natural resource management (Schedule I). State assemblies have a concurrent legislative power on electricity generation and distribution, labour standards, education and research (Schedule II).

Federal executive agencies include the National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency (NESREA), which replaced the Federal EPA in 2007, and the Federal Ministry of Environment (FMOE). This responsibility varies at state level, between the State Environmental Protection Agencies (SEPAs) and the State Ministries of Environment, with the exception of Yobe state, where the Ministry of Agriculture and Mineral Resources has the mandate under the Directorate of Environment.

In the North East region these are:

Gombe State Ministry of Water Resources & Environment

Gombe State Environmental Sanitation & Protection Agency

Adamawa State Ministry of Environment

Borno State Ministry of Environment

Borno State Rural Water & Sanitation Agency

Yobe State Ministry of Environment

Yobe State Environmental Protection Agency

Yobe Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources – Directorate of Environment


Page 17

NESREA plays a central role in environmental governance, acting through its departments as a regulator (with 24 National Environmental Regulations to date), as well as being the monitoring body and law enforcement agency for, among other, environmental treaties and hazardous waste management. NESREA works in cooperation with law enforcement bodies such as Customs, or the Police, for the enforcement of environmental regulations and sanctions.

Disaster risk reduction (DRR) also falls within NESREA’s mandate for what it concerns drought, flood, and soil erosion prevention; the actual response in case of a disaster, however, is provided by the National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA).

The preponderance of the extractive industry resulted in the National Oil Spill Detection and Response Agency (NOSDRA) being created to respond and manage any incidents in the extractive industry.

Local Government Councils (Schedule IV) functions are mainly pertaining the administration and maintenance of public services such as roads, street lighting, sanitation, and waste management, as well as licensing of vehicles, televisions, shops, and the collection of taxes on behalf of State and Federal Governments.

2.3 Municipal Solid Waste Management

2.3.1 Waste Generation and Characterization

Municipal solid waste generation in Nigeria ranges from 0.44 kg/capita/day to 0.66 kg/capita day, the variation depending on socio economic variables such as location, income level, and dietary habits amongst others. The only reference values available for Northern states are from Kano, where daily waste generation in 2012 was 0.56 kg per capita, with a high percentage of packaging waste, low organic and moisture content, and a relevant amount of fines. 11 Such composition is in stark contrast with the high organic waste fractions in South Nigeria, but can be explained by higher evaporation rates due to the different climatic zone, different dietary habits, as well as the common practice of using dried leftover food as animal feed.

Based from literature review and key informant

11 Iriruaga Edith Tobore SWM in Nigeria, D-Waste 2012 12 Bayero University Kano Consultancy Unit (March, 2012) in Iriruaga Edith Tobore SWM in Nigeria, D-Waste 2012

Material Percentage

Organic 17.3%

Polythene / cellophane

19%

Paper 12.7%

Metal 10%

Glass 8.7%

Plastics 11.3%

Fines (ash, dust &

sand) 12%

Other 9%

Table 1: Waste Characterization for Kano city

(D-Waste 2012)12


Page 18

interviews, daily waste generation is estimated to range from 0.3 kg per capita for rural settings and IDPs from rural areas living in informal camps, to up to 0.6 kg per capita for urban settings.13

Interviews with WAMASON, the Waste Management Society of Nigeria and visual assessment of dumpsites confirmed low organic waste contents and high fines and inert (sand, grit, ash and bones) and packaging waste fractions. As such, about 80% of generated municipal waste has a potential for reuse, recycling, or composting.

Consequently, in the absence of any waste characterization studies for North East Nigeria, the value of 0.5 kg per capita per day has been retained as an indicative estimate of the average waste generation value for the three states.

The total estimated solid waste generation for the population affected by the insurgency (24.5 million people) is 12,250 tons per day across six states.

2.3.2 Public Sector

Waste collection rates in Nigeria are low, below 50% on average14: in affected states of Adamawa, Borno, Gombe Yobe population using dumpsters (communal waste storage) ranges from 8% to 15%, a rate consistent among host communities, IDPs and locals, that is communities hosting no IDPs.15

Local waste authorities share common challenges: increased waste generation from IDPs, lack of funds, lack of equipment, and low waste collection coverage and frequency.

In Borno, BOSEPA is in charge of waste collection and management of dumpsites, healthcare waste is managed by hospitals under Ministry of Health for public structures, but there currently is no system in place for treatment and disposal of healthcare waste from private facilities such as health clinics, pharmacies and veterinary clinics.

In Yobe, MSWM falls under the responsibility of the Department of Environment, within the Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources (MoANR). The Ministry of Health is in charge of healthcare waste management: sharps are collected and incinerated centrally in two Maternal Healthcare Centres (MHC) provided with incinerators. One De Monfort incinerator

13 Forni, 2013. Do Not Waste – SWM and Recycling in Post –Emergency Haiti, WEDC Master Thesis 14 Iriruaga Edith Tobore SWM in Nigeria, D-Waste 2012 15 Joint INGO Humanitarian Assessment in Borno, Yobe, Adamawa, and Gombe – September 2015

Picture 1: Murba electric incinerator and its operator


Page 19

in Damaturu receives sharps from the city, and one electric incinerator in Murba receives all Yobe state sharp boxes arising from vaccinations campaigns.

Adamawa Ministry of Environment is mandated with waste management in the state.

Picture 2: Nayinawa official dumpsite in Damaturu city centre

2.3.3 Private Sector

Private sector service provider play an important role in the provision of waste collection services, pit emptying, and recycling, especially in the Federal Capital Territory and the City of Lagos, were they account for a thriving and dynamic sector.16

There are over 300 Private Service Providers (PSP) in Lagos, however collection rates reach 50% at best other than selected cities such as in Nigeria’s economic capital. Informal sector also provides collection door-to-door (pushcarts) and recycling at street and dumpsite level, while there’s a number of NGOs and projects promoting environmentally sound waste management through recycling and composting projects.17

The presence of such private actors in the North in general, and in the North East specifically is more reduced but still existing to some extent, albeit the sector is dominated by informal actors recovering valuable materials from waste. PSPs can have a varying degree or organization depending from local variables such as regulations. For instance, in Adamawa, scrap yard and junkshop owners have created a category association based in Yola, but there is no such equivalent in Yobe or Borno.18

16 LAWMA, Investors guide on recycling and resource recovery; LAWMA, Medical Waste PSP Operators; WAMASON Interviews 17 D-Waste, Solid Waste Management in Nigeria 18 Key informant interviews with WAMASON, scrap dealers, local waste management authorities


Page 20

While common practice, Public Private Partnerships (PPP) in the sector of MSWM are not always successful, with users satisfaction being low where performance monitoring and accountability are not monitored by the public sector.19

2.3.4 Solid Waste Management in Camp Settings and Host Communities

NEMA and SEMA are in charge of IDP camp management in Nigeria. As such, they are also responsible for overseeing waste collection within the camps.

WASH committees, where present, implement waste collection within the camps (communal storage). Transport and disposal are then responsibility of BOSEPA in Borno, The Environmental Department of Yobe Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources (MoANR), and Adamawa Ministry of Environment. However, only in Borno state official IDP camps are integrated with existing SWM services.

As a result, as clearly portrayed in Picture 2, open dumping is most common across all population (both IDPs, host communities and locals), open burning being the second most common waste disposal practice in Yobe and Adamawa. Waste pits and bins provided by local authorities are seldom used, although this is a direct reflection of the weakness of existing SWM systems in place and the challenge provided by population displacement. 20

2.3.5 Waste Infrastructure

There are no sanitary landfills in the country, and disposal sites are managed either as uncontrolled dumping sites or controlled dumping sites.

19 Ezebilo and Animasaun, 2012. Public–private sector partnership in household waste management as perceived by residents in south-west Nigeria, Waste Management & Research 30(8) 781– 788. 20 Joint INGO Humanitarian Assessment in Borno, Yobe, Adamawa, and Gombe – September 2015

Picture 3: Metal scrap in Maiduguri on its way to Lagos

Figure 2: Solid waste disposal practices in the North East (INGO, 2015)


Page 21

Current focus is to shift and rehabilitate disposal sites towards controlled dumping (fencing, weighbridge, soil cover).

Composting plants are present around the country, often funded under development projects. For instance, the UNDP/MoE funded a project in Kano state to prevent POPs (Persistent Organic Pollutants) arising from open burning of waste: the project introduced door-to-door collection and waste segregation (organic, recyclable and mixed waste) in Kano, as well as small composting plants. Compost is then sold to farmers as fertiliser, the demand for it being strong enough to justify the building of additional decentralized composting plants in several LGAs of Kano.

Other than the informal sector, there are no formal recycling activities (and related infrastructure) in the North East; however, waste value chains for metal, plastic bottles (PET) and rubber managed by informal actors, connected to recycling firms in Kano, Lagos, and Abuja.

2.4 International Humanitarian Actors

IRC, OXFAM and ACF provided solid waste kits in camps (both formal and informal) in the states of Adamawa and Borno; material include of plastic dustbins (60L), brooms, shovels and wheelbarrows.

MSF is active in Borno state with mobile clinics, three primary healthcare clinics in Maiduguri and one hospital in Maimusari, which manage healthcare waste as per MSF guidelines (segregation, incineration, and lined waste pits). UNICEF supports health posts and dispensaries in IDP camps in cooperation with NEMA, SEMAs and the Ministries of Health: sharps boxes are available and in use in each structure and are routinely disposed of in MoH incinerators. Picture 4: Waste collection tools in St. Theresa Camp

Figure 3: Segregation of sharps at Bukhar Ali School Camp clinic, Damaturu


Page 22

3.0 OBJECTIVE OF WASTE AND DEBRIS ASSESSMENT

The objective of the waste and debris assessment is to identify key activities which can support Early Recovery through clean-up works, emergency employment, support to governance and economic regeneration. The assessment commenced mid-October 2015 with field mission in November and reporting during December and January 2016.

The first phase of the assessment included for a desktop study and planning for the field mission, thereafter a DWR waste and debris expert spent 2 weeks in Nigeria on mission.

The tasks undertaken were structured around data collection for the assessment, which was conducted in-country from 16th to 30th November 2015. After a preparatory week in Abuja, the team conducted field visits in Borno, Yobe, and Adamawa capitals from November 23 to November 30.

In total 21 meetings with key stakeholders were conducted in the FCT, Adamawa, Borno, and Yobe.

1. 10 in Abuja: NEMA DRR Department, NEMA Situation Room, NESREA (Environment Agency), Ministry of Environment, WAMASON, ACF, OXFAM, DDG, CRS, and UN-HABITAT;

2. 5 in Maiduguri: SEMA, Ministry of Reconstruction, NEMA Zonal Office, BOSEPA (State Environment Agency), scrap dealer;

3. 3 in Damaturu: SEMA, Department of Environment (MoANR), Government Committee on Reconstruction;

4. 3 in Yola: SEMA, Ministry of Environment, scrap dealer

The team also visited 38 locations in the three states over 8 days. The visual assessment of sites was supported with interviews with SEMA camp managers, WASH committee members, IDPs, and local waste management authorities. The information was collected through DWR’s digital data collection tool.


Page 23

4.0 DATA COLLECTION

With reference to the objectives of the Waste and Debris Assessment, there are two main goals for the data collection exercise:

1. To identify existing solid waste management capacity and infrastructure in the three selected states in both IDP camps and host communities; and,

2. To identify debris management existing capacity, current practices, and existing gaps and needs in the three selected states.

4.1 Data Collection Strategy

The states of Adamawa, Borno, and Yobe were identified as the target area for the assessment in light of the impact of the insurgency on these states. Factors informing this decision were the number of IDPs in each state; the number of IDP camps, collective centres, and informal settlements; the reported damage inflicted to buildings and infrastructure; and the existing and forecasted returning process.

Three main tools have been used for collecting the information: key informants interview, questionnaires, and visual assessment of sites.

Key informant interviews were conducted in Abuja, Damaturu, Maiduguri, and Yola to collect secondary data, triangulate information retrieved during the desk review stage, and identify specific locations to survey for both solid waste and debris. Key informants were stakeholders either engaged in humanitarian assistance in the North East, or in solid waste management at institutional or operational level. The list of interviews conducted is available in Annexe II.

Questionnaires were distributed to state and federal authorities responsible for waste management and reconstruction activities, in order to assess current capacity in terms of manpower, and vehicles; existing challenges to service provision; and the potential for additional capacity mobilization through secondment from other institutional actors or existing MoUs with private sector companies.

Visual assessments were conducted in IDP camps, illegal dumpsites in host communities, and official disposal sites for solid waste. Interviews with camp management and local waste management authorities, IDPs, and host communities members present on site complemented the visual assessments. The information was then collated with DWR Dumpsite Assessment Tool to allow for geo tagging of visited sites.

Visits to affected LGAs for transect walk with Debris Assessment Questionnaire to assess the level and type of damage, buildings and construction material characterization, spontaneous and institutional debris clearance activities.

The initial sample size of 27 locations to be surveyed: of 3 camps and 12 host community visits for solid waste, and 12 cities and villages for debris. The identification process of specific sites would be informed though meetings with key institutional actors in waste management and reconstruction.


Page 24

Initial target number of surveys State Dumpsite Assessment Debris

Assessment Key informant interviews and questionnaires

Adamawa

1 camp (Saint Theresa Cathedral or Fufore Camp) 3 Yola Neighbourhoods

3 Locations in one LGA Mubi, Michica, Hong, or Balda

Adamawa State Ministry of Environment SEMA

Borno

1 camp (EYN Camp or 250 Housing Estat\ Camp) 6 Maidiguri Neighbourhoods

6 Locations in one LGA Maidiguri, Bama, or Gambaru

SEMA Borno Ministry of Environment

Yobe

1 camp (Kukareta or Pompomari Primary School) 3 Damaturu Neighboruhoods

3 Locations Ngamadu

Yobe SEPA SEMA Yobe Ministry of Environment

Data Collection Strategy Available on request

Table 2: Initial sampling targets

4.1.1 Limitations

Security and access to the impacted areas were the main limiting factor for the debris assessment. The travel restrictions imposed on many of the LGAs resulted in a very limited number of direct observations (5 in total, of which 2 residential areas and 3 structures).

Secondary data was collected form NEMA and SEMAs, including photo and video material, to mitigate the impact of reduced access; however, data from Borno state is still unavailable as assessments are still being contacted, and different information collection and reporting mechanisms make meaningful data comparison a challenging exercise.

Lack of secondary data on solid waste, from waste characterization to generated and collected quantities, proved to be the main challenge to data collection.

Similarly, there are no up to date population values, the last official census by Nigeria National Population Commission being conducted in 2006.

The provision and collection of questionnaires on existing capacity has also proved challenging, with Adamawa state waste management capacity still not available, as well as the SEMA questionnaires for the three states.

4.1.2 Final Sample

In light of existing constraints, the assessment included a total of 21 meetings with stakeholders in the response (10 in the capital and 11 in the states of Adamawa, Borno and Yobe) and 38 surveyed locations: 13 IDP camp and 13 host community sites, 7 official dumpsites, and 5 debris locations.

The full list of the meetings held and locations surveyed can be found as an Annexe III.


Page 25

State Borno Yobe Adamawa Total

IDP organized camps 4 2 3 9

Informal IDP camps 2 1 1 4

Host communities / Informal disposal sites

5 5 3 13

Official Disposal sites 2 5 0 7

Debris sites 2 3 0 5

Total 15 16 7 38

Table 3: Assessed sites by type and location


Page 26

5.0 FINDINGS

5.1 Municipal Solid Waste Management

The current state of municipal solid waste management (MSWM) in the three states is highly varied and context specific, in spite of common challenges such as insufficient funding, increased waste quantities generated by IDPs, widespread use of illegal dumpsites, and the management of disposal sites under an uncontrolled or semi-controlled dumping regime.

Population movement from rural and peripheral LGAs resulted in major urban centres experiencing an increase in total waste generation notwithstanding the fact the overall total waste arisings in the affected states generally remained constant over time.

5.1.1 Borno

2,690 tons of municipal solid waste are generated daily in Borno, with IDP movement contributing to shift 825 tons of daily waste generation to the urban locations such as Maiduguri. In the state capital alone, daily waste generation rose from an estimated 390 to 570 tons per day.

Institutional Capacity and Existing Infrastructure BOSEPA, Borno State Environmental Protection Agency, is in charge of MSWM in the state, providing waste collection in urban areas and transfer of waste from IDP camps to disposal sites.

BOSEPA provides 60 1.1 m3 dustbins (collector bins) in the streets as communal storage containers, however the number of containers is insufficient and their state is often poor, reason for which they must be emptied manually into compactor trucks. Additionally, in Maiduguri there are 4,500 plastic bins of various shape and capacity: 120L capacity wheelie bins, round 200L round plastic bins, and 60L plastic bins.21

There are some other communal storage locations in the form of concrete enclosures, however it seems there are not being used, while other enclosure where originally dedicated for other purposes (e.g. bus stops) and are currently used as temporary dumps.

21 UNICEF 2015, Rapid Assessment of BOSEPA Capacity – September 2015

Picture 5: The new locally made BOSEPA dumpster prototype


Page 27

As the number of bins proves insufficient, coverage is limited to main streets and some public places. Open dumping and burning is widespread across the city of Maiduguri: open spaces and unused plots of land are used as dumping grounds for household and construction waste. The topology of the state capital makes natural water bodies and drainage ditches the second destination for dumping household and commercial waste.

To address the rise in generated waste, estimated to be equivalent to 45% increase from the pre-crisis level, BOSEPA is devising a “Waste-to-Wealth” project to hire youth as daily labourers for street sweeping and overnight waste clean up of dumpsites.

Additionally, new locally sourced 2 m3 dustbins have been devised to increase sturdiness and mechanical emptying with waste compactors, whose production can be achieved at the cost of 130,000 Naira each, compared to traditional dustbin procured in Abuja at the cost of 250,000 Naira.

Finally, there are plans to introduce door-to-door collection in 2016: official BOSEPA bags will be distributed at household level and then collected on predetermined days. Such service will be free at first, with plans to introduce a bag levy once the new collection system is operational and well received by the public.

There are 4 dumpsites in Maiduguri designated by BOSEPA as official disposal sites. These are excavation pits from road and construction works located in the city outskirts, which are managed under a semi controlled dumping regime. Refuse is dumped on a daily basis, before being it partially compacted, sanitized and capped with a laterite layer. Once a section is brought to the level of the road, construction ensues on the reclaimed patch of land.

Recycling BOSEPA is currently piloting a recycling project to make interlocking paving blocks out of plastic bags. The process is labour intensive and on a small scale due to it’s reliance on manual tools.

The informal sector dominates the recycling activities in Borno. Waste pickers collect metallic waste and PET bottles from dumpsites and sell them to scrapyards and junkshops, who also collect metal scrap from mechanical workshops. . In turn, scrapyard and junkshop

Picture 6: Waste dumped at the riverbank in Maiduguri


Page 28

owners sell recovered materials to companies from Abuja, Kano and Lagos, ultimately leading to either recycling in country or export. There is currently no glass or paper and cardboard recycling, while there is some level of recovery for rubber; women also pick yard or green waste, namely tree branches and other wood waste for firewood.

Identified Risks and Challenges BOSEPA faces several challenges in providing effective and timely collection and environmentally sound disposal of waste. Current capacity is limited by lack of resources for vehicle O&M, including lack of spare parts, lack of know-how and human capital pertaining use of ICT equipment, finance and management, technical knowledge of waste management standards and best practices by staff.

The current disposal practices results in harmful emissions contaminating the atmosphere, water bodies and groundwater sources. Additionally, waste dumped in drainage channels and riverbanks also increases the spread of vector borne diseases such as malaria and dengue fever, and it promotes the transmission of hydro-oro-faecal disease such as cholera. Drainage channels clogged by waste increase the flood risk in Maiduguri.

Furthermore, once disposal sites reach street and are capped with laterite, this reclaimed land is open for development, including the construction of new buildings. This practice is worrisome given the risk of land subsidence due to waste degradation, settlement, and water infiltration and erosion, which would threat the structural integrity of buildings. Furthermore, the absence of landfill gas (LFG) extraction systems increases the chances of methane infiltrations and the risk of explosions in constructions situated upon or nearby.

Hazardous healthcare waste – in particular sharps and pharmaceutical waste – is disposed in dumpsites without treatment, presenting a serious threat to both BOSEPA workers and waste pickers operating at dumpsites.

Picture 7: A child picking up PET bottles from the Damboa Road dumpsite in Maiduguri


Page 29

Waste pickers are also exposed to other due to lack of protective equipment, presence of hazardous waste and vectors at the dumpsites, and low risk awareness. Child labour is also common among waste pickers and junkshop owners.

5.1.2 Yobe

Daily waste generation in Yobe is about 1,500 tons per day; IDPs are responsible for generating an average 100 tons of refuse daily, additional to previously generated arisings in urban centres.

Institutional Capacity and Existing Infrastructure The Department of Environment (DoE), under the Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources (MoANR) is mandated with waste management in Yobe.

In Damaturu, there are 34 official collection points, collective temporary storage locations in the neighbourhoods that are mostly provided with 6 m3 skips often in poor state or with no container at all. In selected locations skips have been replaced by masonry enclosures, as a pilot to test the design of the new collection points, before replacing all skips with such

fixed temporary storage structure.

Yobe DoE fleet, already insufficient for the provision of a timely collection of waste prior to the crisis, is now challenged by a 30% increase in waste generation in Damaturu and other cities. About 60% of the vehicles directly available to the DoE are currently broken, with insufficient financial resources for fleet O&M. Consequently communal waste collection points are being emptied on a quarterly basis.

Picture 8: Gwange MHC collection centre. Due to quarterly collection, the waste used to arrive up to the level of the wall

Picture 9: A prototype for the new collection points


Page 30

Currently there are 17 official disposal sites in Yobe serving the cities of Damaturu, Potiskum, Geidam, Gashua and Nguru. The sites, often situated in naturally occurring depressions, are managed under a semi controlled dumping regime, with waste being compacted and topped with laterite on a quarterly basis.

Disposal sites are located outside town with the exception of Nayinama dumpsite, located within Damaturu at the centre of a residential area (Picture 11). The decision to transform this depression into a dumpsite was taken in consultation with local residents, as a response to the flooding of the area during the rain season.

Healthcare waste is disposed of in waste pits, however there are two HCW incinerators in Damaturu for disposing safe (or sharps) boxes: one De Monfort dual chamber incinerator in the city centre at Mwange MHC, and an electric incinerator outside the city boundaries, at Murba MHC. The latter is a state of the art facility collecting all sharps boxes from all vaccination campaigns taking place in the whole state of Yobe.

Recycling There is no formal recycling industry in Yobe, although waste pickers collect metals and plastic, which are sold to scrap dealers and then to recycling industries from Kano and Lagos. A metal scrap dealer cluster is located nearby Nayinama dumpsite.

Agricultural waste from market areas is valorised as livestock feed, and farmers have been reported to be traveling to disposal site to collect mixed solid waste to use as fertiliser.

The MoANR, in collaboration with the Ministry of Environment, had a project to create a plastic recycling workshop in Damaturu for PE (polyethylene) plastic bags. The required processing line machinery (a crusher, an extruder and a pelletizer) is currently available, but has been stored in a MoE warehouse for two years as the workshop building is waiting for a road connection, and to be provided with water and electricity.

Picture 10: A full plastic recycling line lying in a storage facility in Damaturu


Page 31

Identified Risks and Challenges DoE faces several challenges in terms of insufficient vehicles and financial resources, lack of broken down vehicles for insufficient O&M funds and lack of spare parts, poor state of skips for communal storage. Additionally, the quarterly waste collection, due to the Department’s lack of equipment, creates ideal conditions for vector breeding and the spread of vector borne diseases.

Capped “reclaimed” dumpsites are considered viable sites for construction, leading to future risk of structural damage, building collapses, and methane caused explosions in such structures

Veterinarians and private sector actors such as pharmacies dump healthcare waste (pharmaceutical waste and sharps in particular) with household waste, posing risks to waste collection workers, waste pikers and the whole population in general.

Waste fluorescent light bulbs and exhaust batteries from flashlights are mixed with household waste and either burned or dumped, leading to contamination of soil, air, and water sources with heavy metals such as mercury and nickel, as well as dioxins and other harmful combustion by-products.

5.1.3 Adamawa

Institutional Capacity and Existing Infrastructure Adamawa Ministry of Environment (MoE) is responsible for solid waste management in the the state. However, fault of dedicated financial resources to fund MoE activities results in lack of facilities for waste collection, sorting and treatment, lack of equipment, fuel and impossibility to repair broken vehicles. In light of absent working vehicles, there is currently

no regular waste collection service in Adamawa state provided by public authorities.

Hook lift reinforced steel 16 m3dumpsters are currently stored at MoE facilities, with neither possibility of being transported to other locations nor, in the case they were to be stationed within neighbourhoods, to be moved and emptied once full. Such containers are in various state with many in need of maintenance or beyond repair.

Picture 11: Nayinama dumpsite, identified by the green area next to the yellow pin, in Damaturu city centre

Picture 12: A broken 5 feet dumpster at the Ministry of Environment


Page 32

While the Ministry reputes it has enough manpower to provide for waste collection and disposal, the lack of resources for vehicle O&M and technical expertise in the field of waste management results in no collection service being provide across the state and refuse is dumped indiscriminately in every city.

Some private contractors (also referred to as Private Service Providers or PSPs) do provide waste collection services to those willing to pay, most notably commercial entities such as shops, and healthcare facilities.

As part of MoE plans for improving the current waste management situation, PSPs will be assigned to a specific district zone to provide waste collection; in order to fund such operation, fees will be introduced for both households and waste collection companies

There are two official disposal sites for Yola: the first, situated North of the city on Mubi Road, with an area of 50 hectares; the second, located South of the city on Fufore Road, with an area of 100 hectares. Both sites are currently not operational and the city has several illegal dumpsites within its boundaries, where healthcare waste is disposed of along with household and commercial waste.

Picture 13: The illegal dumpsite in Galadima Aminu Road, next to Yola Airport

Picture 14: A junkshop owner with his assistants and clients in Yola, Adamawa


Page 33

Recycling There is no formal recycling mechanism in the state, although MoE has a proposal for an Integrated Recycling Plant to be developed in 2016 though a Private-Public Partnership (PPP). The project aims at setting up 4 recycling plants in the official disposal sites to produce energy and fertilizer out of the sorted waste.

The informal sector dominates recycling activities: waste pickers, junkshops and scrapyards collect and sell metal, rubber, plastic (PET), and even glass; households are selling unwanted items to junk shop owners too, and the latter are organized in a category association based in Yola Market. Children are found among pickers, and contrary to the adult workers they do not wear any protections such as gloves or shoes.

Identified Risks and Challenges The lack of financial resources and political will to fund environmental protection activities including solid waste management results in the absence of vehicles, waste storage containers and infrastructure across the state and the resort to indiscriminate open dumping and open burning by the inhabitants of Adamawa state.

The widespread presence of illegal dumping sites in Yola residential areas is especially worrisome as these are also the final destination for hazardous waste such as healthcare waste (pharmaceutical waste, infectious waste and sharps were identified), waste electronic equipment and fluorescent light bulbs and exhausted batteries.

Open dumping and burning of solid waste pose a direct threat to the environment and population by contaminating soils, air, and water source, and by providing breeding sites for vectors such as mosquitoes and flies.

Picture 15: Systematic open burning at Numan Road illegal dumpsite in Yola


Page 34

This result in private waste collection workers and waste pickers being directly exposed to the threat of infectious disease transmission, and the population and environment as a whole being exposed to acute and chronic contamination by pollutants such as dioxins, mercury, cadmium, nickel and other heavy metals.

Picture 16: Hazardous healthcare waste mixed with municipal waste

North – East Nigeria Waste & Debris Assessment Draft v2.1 UNDP Nigeria January 2016

Page 35

Table 4: Host communities’ sites characteristics in Borno, Yobe, and Adamawa states

City Site Name Dump Status Lengt

h (m)

Width

(m)

Volume

(m3)

Waste Transfer

Destination Users

Maiduguri Monguro Rd / Kashim Hibrahim Rd junction Illegal / Informal 8 10 15 No - Unknown Maiduguri Lagos Street bridge Illegal / Informal 500 10 1000 No - Unknown

Maiduguri Evangel Model School Wulari neighborhood Illegal / Informal 25 5 10 No - Women Children

Maiduguri Wulari neighborhood dumpsite Illegal / Informal 50 30 50 No - Unknown

Maiduguri EYN camp entrance Illegal / Informal

5 No - Women

Men

Maiduguri Monguro Road (demolition waste)

Illegal / Informal 20 10 15 No - -

Maiduguri ETC Camp back entrance Illegal / Informal 10 30 20 No - Unknown Damaturu Sabon Pegi neighborhood Illegal / Informal 20 15 4 No - Unknown

Damaturu City Best Academy School Sabon Pegi neighbourhood

Illegal / Informal 10 15 8 No - Unknown

Damburu Dankalwa village (market near Kukareta Camp) Illegal / Informal 5 6 3 No - Women Youth Men

Damaturu Gwange collection center (MHC) Official –

temporary storage

10 20 100 Yes Official

dumpsite Unknown

Damaturu Al Ansar collection center Official –

temporary storage

6 6 6 Yes Official

dumpsite Unknown

Yola Galamina road / Aminu Road dumpsite Illegal / Informal 100 50 75 No - Children Yola Numan Road dumpsite Illegal / Informal 150 75 200 No - Men Yola Barracks road dumpsite Illegal / Informal 50 10 100 No - Unknown


Page 36

City Site Name Dumpsite Surroundings Recycling Open Burning Healthcare Waste Vectors

Maiduguri Monguro Road / Kashim Hibrahim Road junction

Shops Houses

Yes, waste pickers Yes No Flies

Maiduguri Lagos Road bridge Rivers / water bodies Shops Houses

No No No Mosquitoes

Flies

Maiduguri Evangel model school Wulari neighborhood

Schools Churches/Mosques Factories Shops Houses

Unknown Yes No No

Maiduguri Wulari neighborhood dumpsite Factories Houses

Yes, waste pickers Yes Yes Flies

Maiduguri EYN camp entrance Schools Churches/Mosques Shops

Unknown Yes Yes Flies

Maiduguri Monguro Road demolition waste Schools Shops Houses

No No No No

Maiduguri ETC Camp (back entrance)

Schools Shops Houses

Unknown No No No

Table 5: Borno host communities' sites hazards


Page 37

Table 6: Yoba and Adamawa host communities' sites hazards

City Site Name Dumpsite Surroundings Recycling Open Burning Healthcare Waste Vectors

Damaturu Sabon Pegi neighborhood

Schools Food Markets Shops Houses

Unknown Yes Yes No

Damaturu City Best Academy School Sabon Pegi neighborhood

Schools Food Markets Shops Houses

Unknown Yes Yes No

Damburu Dankalwa village (market near Kukareta Camp)

Rivers / water bodies Shops Houses

Unknown No No Mosquitoes Flies

Damaturu Gwange collection center (MHC) Hospitals/clinics Shops Houses

Yes, waste pickers Yes No No

Damaturu Al Ansar collection center

Schools Churches/Mosques Shops Houses


Yola Galamina road / Aminu Road dumpsite

Factories Shops Houses


Yola Numan Road dumpsite Food Markets Churches/Mosques Shops Houses


Yola Barracks road dumpsite

Food Markets Churches/Mosques Shops Houses



Page 38

5.2 Solid Waste Management in Camps and Informal Settlements

Waste collection within formal and informal IDP camps and settlements is present in all assessed sites, thanks to the provision by INGOs of 60L waste bins, wheel barrows, spades and personal protective equipment (PPE). When available, plastic bins are used by IDPs, however they break easily due to the high density of waste and hot ashes. Some informal IDP sites in Borno however, namely Kukareta camp and the Gedo workshop, have received no equipment for this activity, neither have any of the camps assessed in Yobe state.

In formal camps, this activity is organized either under direct management of Camp Coordination authorities (NEMA/SEMA), or by WASH committees responding to the latter. In “loose” camps and other informal sites waste collection is seldom overseen by SEMA, with most locations having a spontaneous waste collection in place, either organized collectively or at household level.

There is neither formal nor informal recycling taking place in camps, showing these are not integrated with existing waste value chains. However, IDPs in camps systematically segregate food scraps (swallow leftovers) to grind, dry, and sell as animal feedstock.

When SWM is not integrated with the local waste management authorities, disposal of refuse is a major issue, with most assessed sites recurring to open dumping and open burning even in the presence of waste pits. As this practice was taking place in Borno state camps but was successfully discouraged through awareness raising exercises promoting the proper use of waste pits, it is unclear what reasons prevented its

Picture 17: Broken neon lights (left) and pharmaceutical waste (right) mixed with household waste in camps

Picture 18: Dried food craps waiting to be sold at EYN Church Camp


Page 39

replication in Yobe and Adamawa camps.

Hazardous waste contamination is common in all assessed sites: pharmaceutical waste was found in 7 of the 13 locations, and exhaust torch batteries have been consistently found mixed with household waste.

5.2.1 Borno State

Within official camps, responsibility for managing refuse is shared with SEMA and NEMA, which organize waste collection within the camp boundaries through WASH committees and volunteers. INGOs provided 60L plastic waste bins, along with tools and wheelbarrows, with BOSEPA providing additional bins (120L and 200L), dumpsters (1.1 m3) and skips (6 m3) as temporary storage prior to disposal. Waste is collected regularly from bins and brought to the skips by volunteers (IDPs) coordinated by WASH committees, and BOSEPA is in charge of collecting waste from temporary storage sites in camps and transport it to disposal sites. Prior BOSEPA involvement, waste in Dalori Army Base Camp was initially dumped and burned in the open, and it was then disposed of in waste pits following the intervention and training by INGOs.

Informal or “loose” IDP camps such as EYN Church camp are also overseen by SEMA, which manages waste collection and weekly clean-ups through volunteers organized under a WASH committee; contrary to official camps, such locations are not integrated with BOSEPA collection, and thus dispose of collected garbage in waste pits, which are then regularly set on fire to reduce volume prior filling with soil. Small informal IDP settlements such as Gedo Workshop, in Wulari neighbourhood, are not managed by SEMA, and have not received any items for waste collection. IDP women clean their shelter and surroundings then bring the refuse to the street where it’s either burned or thrown away outside at a dumpsite.

There is no formal recycling in camps, but food scraps from leftover swallows are spontaneously ground, dried, and sold as livestock feed by IDPs.

Picture 19: BOSEPA Skip at Dalori Army Camp


Page 40

Site Name Site

Status Waste Collection

Waste Transfer Waste Disposal

Users

Dalori IDP Camp (dumpsite)

Official 20 trash bins No Open Dumping

Women Children

Dalori IDP Camp (BOSEPA Skip)

Official 20 trash bins Yes BOSEPA Dumpsite

Men

Askira IDP camp Official

2 wheelie bins (plastic) 1 big basket (plastic)

Yes BOSEPA Dumpsite

Unknown

Marte IDP camp (dumpsite)

Official

3 wheelie bins (plastic) 6 big baskets (plastic) Weekly Cleanups

No, but sometimes site cleanup

Open Dumping BOSEPA Dumpsite

Women; Men

Gwoza IDP Camp (Bosepa skip)

Official 1 BOSEPA skip Weekly emptying

Yes BOSEPA Dumpsite

Women

Gwoza IDP camp (Bosepa bins)

Official

2 dumpsters (metal) 4 wheelie bins (plastic) Weekly Cleanups

Yes BOSEPA Dumpsite

Unknown

EYN Church "loose" Camp

Informal

No bins Weekly Cleanups

Yes Waste Pits Women Men

Gedo Workshop (Wulari)

Informal

No bins Self-managed by HHs

Yes

Open Dumping Scrap dealer

Women

Table 7: Maiduguri IDP camps - Assessed sites characteristics

5.2.2 Yobe State

IDP camps and collective centres are not integrated with existing waste collection, with the notable exception of safe boxes for sharps in health posts and clinics, which are collected and disposed of in healthcare waste incinerators. In one camp, however, it was reported by the camp manager that full sharp boxes are burned in the open within the camp, along with household waste.

Picture 20: Waste burning at HH level in Kukareta informal camp


Page 41

SEMA manages waste collection within official camps either through WASH committees or, in their absence, by volunteers working directly under the camp manager. Refuse is then brought to a central location within the camp and burned on a regular basis. No equipment was received to facilitate waste storage and collection in the camps.

Spontaneous camps outside the capital do not have an organized waste management system; however, IDPs collect and burn the waste at household level. The rural profile of the displaced population living in these camps makes for low waste generation rates with little plastic waste, thus resulting in a reduced negative impact of such practice on human health and the environment.

In official IDP camps, pharmaceutical waste (empty glass b

north-east nigeria waste and debris assessment€¦ · north-east nigeria waste and debris...

Documents