A Review of Institutional Frameworks & Financing Arrangements for Waste Management in Nigerian Cities

Nigeria is rapidly urbanizing and is forecasted to become the 3 most urbanized nation by 2100. Expectedly, the rapid urbanization presents challenges in many areas including the management of municipal services such as solid waste. This yawning failure is reflected in the poor quality of waste services across Nigerian cities. The study reviewed municipal waste management governance and institutional frameworks, and financing arrangements in two major cities in the North-western and south-eastern parts of Nigeria—Kano and Enugu cities. Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) using a number of structured questions checklist were conducted for the Heads of Government institutions responsible for waste management, Public Appropriation/Budget and Finance Units, as well as other key stakeholders including waste generators (residents and business owners), waste pickers and informal waste recyclers, and waste service providers. Additional, existing policy frameworks and infrastructure financing were reviewed. The findings reveal institutional and policy inadequacies, financing limitations, technical incapacity, infrastructural inadequacies, and socio-economic and attitudinal barriers, that collectively impede effective and efficient waste management service delivery in both cities. The assumption is that the findings of this study reflects the status in many Nigerian cities.


Introduction
By 2030, urban population worldwide is forecasted to grow by 1.4 billion, with city dwellers accounting for 60% of the world's population, reaching 2.6 billion by 2050 (USAID, 2010). According to the UN World Population Prospects (2014), global population (absolute numbers and density) indicate a rising population in Less Developed Countries (LDCs), especially in Asia and Africa.
Although the pace and pattern of the projected urban growth and urbanisation is expected to vary by region, the vast majority of growth is expected to take place in developing countries hence, by 2050, it is projected that China, India and Nigeria would be the world's most populated countries, accounting for 37% (of the increase of nearly 2.5 billion people in the urban population by 2050) of global urban population. The growing population in Nigeria alone (the most populous African country) is expected to trigger regional concerns in areas of urbanisation, population flows, urban infrastructure and service delivery, food security, resource & wealth distribution, insecurity/conflicts, and environmental degradation; all of which have the capacity to impact the urban system. To say the least, there will be a significant increase in demand for municipal infrastructure and services delivery. It is therefore, particularly critical to begin to consider the mutually reinforcing fact of political economy and governance factors that will continue to affect the financing, provision and delivery of municipal infrastructure and services in Nigerian cities. Currently elsewhere, these factors are receiving increased attention regarding the ways in which they ultimately influence urban infrastructure provision and services delivery.
This study therefore, primarily aims to review the current status and also create an understanding of the interactions between governance and policy contexts within which municipal infrastructure financing and provision, and services delivery take place, as well as the characteristics of specifically reviewed MSWM service sector in Nigerian cities, using Enugu and Kano cities as case studies. The study objectives include, but not limited to, the following: a) Identification and review of the role of key factors that influence MSWM infrastructure provision and service delivery including urban governance, financing options, technical capacity, demographic characterization, city's physical, economic, and socio-cultural composition; b) Ascertain the level of informality in city expansion which is perceived as a determinant of constraints to equitable and effective MSWM services. Informal settlements-which may emerge as a result of numerous reasons including: high land prices, low wages, rapid in-migration, and government failures to control land planning, and housing market; and failure to match city expansion with infrastructure provision and service delivery (including those for effective MSWM)-inherently inhibit optimal service delivery, resulting in intensification of easily noticeable negative externalities; c) Determine the extent to which current MSWM service monitoring and cost-recovery is achieved through the relevant and available institutional frameworks at the city level; The rate of urbanization in Nigeria (the most populous African country) is expected to trigger regional concerns in areas of population flows, increased demand for urban infrastructure and service delivery, food insecurity, resource & wealth distribution, insecurity/conflicts, and environmental sustainability and natural disasters challenges; all of which have the capacity to impact on urban infrastructure (including adequacy, funding and provision) and on service delivery systems.

Conceptual Framework
The "Good Urban Governance" (GUG) Framework is a participatory, home-grown process for assessing the quality of local/urban governance in Nigeria (UNDP-UN Habitat, 2011). The framework relies on household surveys, multi-level stakeholder FGDs, and documented/archived/gazetted www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/uspa Urban Studies and Public Administration Vol. 3, No. 2, 2020 25 Published by SCHOLINK INC. administrative reports. The GUG Framework is built on 5 principles, viz: Effectiveness, Equity, Security, Accountability, & Participation following the stages shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Main Stages of the GUG Framework for Assessing Urban Governance in Nigeria (UNDP-UN Habitat, 2011)
Generally, cities "work" economically when they bring together large populations-of both people and enterprises-with diverse skills and capabilities in a dynamic and fluid competitive environment that stimulates both creativity and productive efficiency. But the ability of cities to function effectively in this way is conditional on the existence of key physical infrastructure and critical service delivery of sufficient quality and in enough quantity to provide a platform for growth as opposed to a ceiling.
Where the physical environment is not built to provide easy movement of goods and people, or activities are not coordinated so as to provide an equal level of municipal service delivery for the rich and poor, many of the benefits of being a city are lost and the city becomes effectively no more than a large collection of villages.
Cities also work because the portion that individual households and businesses must bear in the shared public costs of the infrastructure that connects them together and links them to key publicly provided common services is dramatically less than the costs that they would have to bear in substituting for them on an individual and private basis, as long as the related infrastructure is actually publicly provided or provided by the private sector in effective partnership with government.
This study therefore, views MSWM within the context of municipal service delivery and as directly influenced by governance and institutional frameworks which outline specific/target infrastructure and operational guidelines (financing, operations, enforcement, monitoring & evaluation, and quality With a population density of about 1,000 inhabitants per km 2 within the Kano close-settled zone (compared to the national average of 267 inhabitants per km 2 ), the city is considered among the fastest growing cities in Nigeria. Kano city comprises 8 LGAs. In population terms, Kano is the largest city in the north, the second largest in Nigeria (and the 6 th largest Muslim city in the world), the economic growth of which would significantly impact on the entire Northern region of Nigeria. The current population of Kano State is estimated to be around 12 million (the 2006 National Population and Housing Census recorded a population of about 9.4 million) with around 30% (4 million) living in Kano city (NIAF, 2013a).
The rapidly rising population of the city is not accompanied by a commensurate expansion of city infrastructure, which is reflected in the inadequacy of service coverage and quality of delivery. The case is even most prominent for solid waste. Kano city applied to join the last batch of cities to be admitted into the Rockefeller Foundation's 100 Resilient Cities. The application appears to have been unsuccessful. www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/uspa Urban Studies and Public Administration Vol. 3, No. 2, 2020 28 Published by SCHOLINK INC.

Enugu City (Capital of the "Coal City State")
Enugu city ( Figure 4) is a tri-LGA city consisting of Enugu North, Enugu South and Enugu East.
According to Adinna et al. (2009), Enugu began as a traditional settlement, but came to prominence following the discovery of coal at the foot of the Udi escarpment. Enugu's economy in the early 20 th century depended on coal mining in the Udi plateau; this industry was the driving force behind the city's growth. The Nigerian Coal Corporation has been based in Enugu since its creation in 1950 where it controlled coal mining. With the creation of the Eastern Line, Enugu was connected with the sea via Port Harcourt to its south and later connected to the city of Kaduna in Northern Nigeria. The Biafran war brought widespread devastation that led to a decline in coal production from damage or destruction of equipment.
Although as from 2005, coal mining is no longer active in Enugu, the city continues to grow due to its status first as the capital of the former Eastern Region during the regional Government structure in Nigeria immediately after Independence in 1960; secondly, as the current capital of Enugu State; and thirdly as a centre for economic (especially informal), social and cultural activities in addition to the relative security the city enjoys when compared to other cities within the South-east region. Enugu also hosts an international airport from where direct flights are taken daily to other parts of the world; home to the only indigenous Motor vehicle manufacturing plant in Nigeria; and about half a dozen higher institutions of learning (Universities, Polytechnics & Colleges of Education).
The city is believed to have one of the first master plans in the country, prepared by the British colonial administration in 1917 (Ogbazi, 2013;Adinna et al., 2009). Despite successive master plans, the rapid growth of Enugu has resulted in informal and sprawl development which have affected the quality of service delivery including roads/accessibility and MSWM services. In January 2015, Enugu city joined the 100 Resilient Cities platform under the Rockefeller Foundation which was expected to run for two years. However, the city, among several others elsewhere, was delisted from the 100 Resilient Cities programme due to what the Programme officials termed "inaction" (Note 1). www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/uspa Urban Studies and Public Administration Vol. 3, No. 2, 2020 29 Published by SCHOLINK INC.

Figure 4. Enugu City
Rapid urbanization has increased the population of the city from 63,000 in 1953, to about 138,500 in 1963, to 482,977 in 1991. Currently, the tri-LGA city has a combined population of 722,664 according to estimates derived from the 2006 census, representing about 22% of the total population of Enugu State. Within the wider boundaries of the larger administrative unit, which contains scattered outlying settlements and low-density development, the urban area of Enugu city occupies about 106 km 2 of land area with an estimated population of 377,911 in 2010 (NIAF, 2013b).

Data Collection and Analysis
The study categorised and prioritized data collection by focusing on contextual approaches on the basis of a largely qualitative assessment of the available evidence. Additionally, other aspects of the study dwelt on more substantive and detailed analysis of data collected from field observations, key stakeholder interviews and a structured question checklist administration (in line with the GUG assessment methodology), which collectively offer better clarity and deeper understanding of MSWM policy and financing approaches in Enugu and Kano cities. A total of 138 (69 per city) questionnaire checklists were administered to key stakeholders within the MSWM sub-sector in Enugu and Kano cities, while site visits and observations were also carried out to locations of interest such as dumpsites, markets, abattoirs, informal waste recycling centres, etc. Key stakeholder interviews were also conducted as part of the data collection process. The data collection process ran between March and December 2016.

Research Limitations
The main limitations are in terms of data availability especially concerning budgetary allocations, transaction details for SWM procurements, revenue generated and payments made to contractors www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/uspa Urban Studies and Public Administration Vol. 3, No. 2, 2020 30 Published by SCHOLINK INC. engaged in the SWM service delivery. Another challenge was lack of access to many of the households in Kano (due to religious restrictions) to interview women who, in actual sense, handle waste on a daily basis at the household level. Permission must be granted by the husband who must be present and also serve as the interpreter during the interview process. Time and budget allocated for the study were also major constraining factors accounting for the small sample size of 138 stakeholders who were administered the structured checklist of questions. The sample size determination was therefore, not in any way based on a robust scientific methodology, as it was arbitrarily determined based on budget and time considerations.

Similarities
On the basis of field work throughout the project period, a summary of the key institutional and operational arrangements for MSWM in both cities is presented on Table 1 with further details in sub-sections 4.3.1 and 4.1.2. The main MSWM arrangements in operation within Nigerian cities are the private sector based and public sector based service provision (Uwadiegwu & Chukwu, 2013). The private system is a contractual arrangement between waste generator(s) and a person or group of persons who undertake carting away of solid waste as a business pursuit, while the public system involves a situation where government sets up a public Agency with the mandate to collect solid waste from generators and dispose them at designated urban dumpsites. In many Nigerian cities, both systems function side by side particularly where the public system becomes so inefficient that it has to be complimented by the private system. This hybrid arrangement exists in Kaduna, Port Harcourt, Lagos, Aba, Owerri, Ibadan and Kano (FMHE, 1998;NIAF, 2014a;NIAF, 2014b;NIAF, 2016). While the public system is under the control, funding and supervision of the State government, the private system prospers by striving to offer satisfactory services so as to win more customers and as such ensures that efficiency is maintained (Omuta, 1988). Agencies in the two States are located in both cities. Thirdly, both Kano and Enugu are the largest cities in their respective States and geo-political regions. Both cities also have an international airport, although the Kano airport is way older than Enugu's.
However, specific similarities between the 2 cities in terms of MSWM services are discussed below: i. Waste characteristics: Basically, waste characteristics in Nigerian cities share more similarities than differences. Although no waste characterisation study was conducted in the course of this study, the literature searches tend to confirm this notion. Furthermore, critical waste operation of sorting is not found in both cities.
ii. Governance: On the whole, Kano and Enugu are Nigerian States, operating in the same overall institutional framework (limited Federal authority, strong State Governments, weak/emasculated/ineffective LGAs) with responsibility to handle MSWM. In view of the overall governance framework, there appears to be similarity rather than difference, given that each State has the same powers to organise its institutional and financing frameworks to define the capacity to provide MSWM infrastructure and quality/coverage of service delivery.
iii. Corruption: Although this appears to be a delicate matter requiring deeper investigation, it is unlikely that any significant difference would be recorded in terms of the level of corruption recorded between the 2 States. The structure is basically the same, and generally does not emphasize accountability.
iv. General Economic Conditions: Both States (within which the study cities are located) are affected by the general economic conditions of Nigeria as a country. This includes fluctuating exchange rate, import dependency, mono-economy, recent economic depression experience, high unemployment rate, poor power supply, etc.
v. Lack of Profitable SWM Business Model: There appear to be a general lack of a profitable framework to guarantee cost recovery and return on investments into the MSWM sub-sector.
It is still largely seen (especially in Kano) as a social responsibility to be freely provided by Government to its citizens. vi.

SWOT Analysis for Kano and Enugu Cities
The quest to build a MSWM platform with a viable business model, a self-sustaining, cost-recovery capacity and revenue generation potential for both Kano and Enugu cities would require that the study highlight and analyse areas of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) within the existing MSWM infrastructure financing and service delivery architecture across the value chain (Table   3).  Absence of billing database, waste evacuation routes & retribution process may slow a re-organised SWM process;  No data on 'willingness-to-pay' (WTP) for SWM especially at high-density household levels especially in Kano city;  Absence of a Special waste (medical, industrial, etc.) treatment facility.

Opportunities:
 MSWM is a "Quickwin" as a policy and investment option which can be used as a yardstick to assess or rate urban governance performance;  Already established WTP (Note 2) by institutions, businesses (in both cities) and low-/medium-density

Implication: Current status of MSWM at both locations indicates that:
 As both cities expand, the demand for waste services also increases, and failure to match service with demand would increase public health risks, seasonal floods, soil, water and air pollution potentials, loss of opportunities to create jobs and earn IGR for Government;  Compromising the aesthetic beauty of both cities;  An indication of failure to showcase ability to transform a "major problem" into a "major opportunity" that would support City Governance, and improved living environment and livelihood conditions. * Except otherwise indicated, the SWOT applies to both cities.

MSWM Structures in Kano City
In Kano city, a total of 69 stakeholders were administered a questionnaire checklist which varied according to the category of stakeholder. The first category of interview was conducted for 3

Hoteliers, LGA Sanitation Departments, Households, Informal Recyclers and Waste Pickers; Market
Stall-holders & Shop keepers. These stakeholders were sampled across the 8 LGAs comprising Kano city as shown on Figure 5.   Figure 6 shows the current SWM practice in Kano city while Table 4 presents the critical stakeholders driving the waste system represented in Figure 6. The system is a multi-stakeholder one with different levels of participation at the public, private and community levels. By and large, the system lacks enforcement and is incapable of sustaining cost recovery.  The frequency of waste collection varies with population density and commercial activities which translate into the amount of waste generated. Since REMASAB is richly endowed with waste evacuation machinery, no trucks are hired from private organisations for waste evacuation.
There are 4 REMASAB designated dumpsites: a) Court Road, b) Hajj Camp, c) Maimalari, and, d) Uba-Gama. It is unlikely that waste from other cities are transported to the 4 dumpsites for Kano city. LGA help in sensitizing people to cater for their immediate environment. The major challenge is lack of funds to re-train EHOs and to procure additional equipment.

Franchisees & Non-Franchisees Service Providers
Out of the 3 Franchisees (registered/regulated and allotted waste evacuation lots) and 2 non-franchisees (unregistered/unregulated service providers) interviewed, it was gathered that the clients requiring waste services are households, businesses, and industries. Each service provider services between between 300 and 500 clients monthly. The standard fee is N1,000 per household/month (paid directly to the Private waste service providers) whereas charges for servicing industries and businesses are not fixed but negotiated on a case-by-case basis. The interviewed service providers have been in the waste service business ranging from 2 to 12 years. The franchisees seem to concentrate their services within the lot allocated to them by REMASAB, however they complained of lack of complaince/inadeqaute patronage from within their lots due to the activities of the un-registered non-franchisees.
The franchisees are regulated and monitored in terms of area of coverage and waste delivery to the designated dumpsites, whereas the non-franchisees are not regulated since they are below the REMASAB radar. Consequently, while the franchisees pay annual registration fees to REMASAB, the case is not same with the non-franchisees.
On a whole, the major problems encountered by service providers are: a) non-payment for services rendered; b) re-surface of refuse immediately after evacuation; c) low patronage; d) arbitrary dumping at undesignated collection points (e.g., Jakara River Road construction site); and e) Inadequate working materials. procurement procedures which inhibit efficiency. REMASAB may need to give consideration to selling/auctioning/outsourcing obsolete vehicles to private sector service providers;  Regarding informal recycling within the city, large numbers, possibly a few thousands, are earning a living through informal waste recycling activities. There is therefore, the need for enhanced management of waste pickers' activities at waste disposal sites to minimise environmental and health issues; and greater attention to H&S and PPE-possibility of facilitating training through the Pickers'Association.

Key SWM Sector Institutions and Stakeholders in Kano City
The SWM value chain in Nigerian cities generally exhibits a wide range, of multi-level and complex structure of stakeholders who directly or indirectly influence the upstream and downstream waste management processes. It is therefore, often common to find obvious differences in the composition of SWM stakeholders between Nigerian cities most likely due to two factors: first is the ambiguous State-level legislation which does not clearly outline and properly ascribe functions, roles and responsibilities of the related MDAs within States; and, second, the absence of an over-arching and detailed Federal (and States in many cases) SWM framework.
Broadly speaking, the critical SWM stakeholders for Kano are categorised under three main groups based on sectoral orientation as discussed below. Table 3 below presents a summary of the identified stakeholders of the SWM system in Kano city, and a summary of their role and level of involvement in the SWM value chain. For the purpose of this research, three levels of involvement are discussed to include Primary (those directly responsible for a specific SWM activity), Secondary (those indirectly playing a role in the SWM process), and External (those playing a remote role that results in some crucial outcomes in the SWM process).

i. Public and Institutional Stakeholders including REMASAB
The Public stakeholders include institutions of government responsible in various capacities for a range of activities (service provision, policy formulation, enforcement, funding and procurement) in the waste management system within the city. At the primary level is REMASAB, the

i.Private Sector Operators
The Private Sector stakeholders include those individuals, businesses and associations that make some form of investments into an activity within the SWM value chain to earn a profit, some of whom are formally registered and their operations somewhat regulated by REMASAB, while others are unregistered and therefore their activities are unregulated given that REMASAB is aware of, but does not manage or regulate their operations. The franchisees are mandated to register with REMASAB as a pre-condition for applying for a franchise lot, and subsequent annual registration to keep their lots.
Generally, those who fail to acquire a lot do not re-register as there is basically no form of enforcement to ensure compliance.
Private sector involvement ranges from waste evacuation and transportation, to recycling and reuse.

Commercial centres, businesses and industries constitute high volume waste generating units in Kano
City. These entities are listed in Table 4. Essentially, their activities create employment and value for the waste sub-sector, and are therefore are, profit-driven entities. At the other end of the spectrum there are thousands of informal scavengers and recyclers, many working in informal groups led by a scavenger-master, and many of whom are children.

ii.Community and People-based Stakeholders
The Community and People-based stakeholder category refers to citizens, households and communityand religious-based and non-governmental bodies who play a role in the form of waste generation as well as influence on where neighbourhood waste is deposited before eventual evacuation to the dumpsites. Their role is neither tied to profit making nor policy making. The vast population/residents of Kano city (found within low-, medium-and high-income neighbourhoods) collectively constitute the waste generation stakeholder group. Also, a number of the existing dumpsites are owned by private individuals who willingly solicit REMASAB's use of the burrow pits for waste dumping as a land recovery measure. they hold the potential to support a SWM model that conscious of and integrative of multi-stakeholders.   (Uwadiegwu & Iyi, 2014). In order to ensure thoroughness and high efficiency of service over the years, ESWAMA had attempted several service delivery approaches including community participation, and micro-licensing in SWM in Enugu city, all of which failed to produce successful outcomes.
Results from a study conducted by Chukwuemeka et al. (2012)   Burning of waste was the order of the day with the attendant hazards associated with it;  Most waste management staff were poorly trained and no plan for capacity building.
Another study conducted by NIAF (2012) (Note 5) did a status report on MSWM in Enugu city with a particular focus on Ogbete Main Market (OMM) located on Michael Okpara Avenue in the heart of Enugu city. The study revealed that evacuation of waste was infrequent, ranging from weekly at some times to fortnightly (or even beyond) at others; there was no system whatsoever, in place to manage and dispose waste and sludge from the abattoir within the market (see Figure 12 below).   This assessment is expected to present a fresh perspective on the current status of MSWM service delivery in Enugu city following the reforms adopted from late 2012. Currently, ESWAMA is not in any partnership with the private sector in handling MSWM in Enugu City which involves the collection, transportation, processing, recycling or disposal of waste from households, commercial and industrial centres, and institutions.
Clearly, most of waste generated in Enugu city comes from residential land-use which accounts for about 54.3% of total urban area of Enugu city, covering 20 distinct neighborhoods that may be broadly categorize as low, medium and high-density areas (Ugwu, 2014). Also, Ugwu (2014) reveal that the average distance between households and waste collection centres ranges between 250m-450m and above. The study also established that the spatial distribution of dumpsters in Enugu metropolis is unplanned, random and maximally spaced.
Structured interviews with key ESWAMA management Staff and other stakeholders provide highlights on the institutional, financing and operational arrangements of MSWM in Enugu city specifically, and the State generally.

Institutional Arrangement
The MD of ESWAMA stated that the Agency's principal functions contained in ESWAMA Law 8 of 2014 also constitute its SWM framework. Broadly, these activities are: evacuation of waste; collection of waste management fees; wholly public-based (no private sector involvement) as shown in Figure 14.

The Agency reports to Enugu State Governor through the Ministry of Environment & Mineral
Resources. ESWAMA has a Board and 6 senior management team comprising the MD/CEO and 5 Heads of Department. The team decides on running the Agency, staff matters, steps towards keeping Enugu city (and the State at large) clean using a waste fee tariff approved by the Enugu State House of Assembly. ESWAMA's mandated service coverage area includes cities and towns within the State through its headquarters in Enugu City and 6 offices in other towns (9 th Mile Zone, Nsukka Zone, Oji River Zone, Agbani Zone, Awgu Zone and Obollo-Affor Zone). Currently, ESWAMA does regulate and enforce SWM laws. Anyone caught contravening the SWM regulations is charged to the Environmental Court which seats daily at ESWAMA premises. Although the ECTDA Law mandates the Authority to "cooperate" with other relevant MDAs in service provision within the ECTA, the lack of clarity in terms of the extent of "cooperation" between ECTDA and MDAs in service provision within Enugu city often creates role conflicts and in-fighting among MDAs which impede quality of service delivery. Hence, ECTDA is not involved in MSWM system of Enugu city (its area of jurisdiction).

Operational Arrangement
In terms of SWM operational planning, Enugu city is divided into 13 SWM zones. Service is rendered on a daily basis, with waste evacuation done twice a day (mornings and evenings). The operations www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/uspa Department of ESWAMA does not have data regarding the amount of regular and special wastes (in tonnes) generated and collected daily in Enugu metropolis by ESWAMA. However, as at 2003, more than 1,250 tonnes of refuse was generated daily; 37,500 tonnes weekly; and 475,000 tonnes annually (Note 7). Enugu city is divided into several waste collection zones and alloted dumpsters (which serve as collection points) on a need basis. As such, a total of 1,107 dumpsters are distributed between the following locations (as the need arises) in Enugu city: Industrial Layout, GRA, New-Haven, Uwani, Ogui, 9th Mile, Emene, Thinkers' Corner, Agabi Road, Ijaw River, Trans-Ekulu, Achara Layout, Maryland, and Abakpa. Generally, collection of waste from dumpsters and collection points is done daily, but also twice daily at some high volume generation locations like the Ogbete Main Market, etc.
ESWAMA currently have in its fleet 12 hired tippers (Mack Trucks) and 5 hired Compactor Trucks. The hired equipment are used in the following parts of Enugu: Abakpa, Obollo-Affor, Emene, 9th Mile, Nsukka and Oji River. The rest of the SWM are serviced using ESWAMA-owned Compactor trucks, Tippers, Payloaders, Dumpsters, and Tricycles.
In terms of Waste Disposal, Enugu city has only one dumpsite located along NNPC MEGA Station Road, Ugwuanyi, and is strictly used by Enugu city only. The dumpsite was acquired by Enugu State Government but access road have not been develop so it is difficult to access the dumpsite during rainy season as the heavy trucks render the access road almost inpassable. ESWAMA operates the dumpsite so some of its staff are stationed at the dumpsite to direct trucks for appropriate dumping and also oversee the activities of waste pickers. Waste at the dumpsite is neither treated nor processed, and waste recycling is not undertaken at the dumpsite by ESWAMA or organized private sector. In the absence of statutory requirements for the recovery of materials from refuse, recycling of waste remains squarely an informal waste sector activity in Enugu.

Revenue
The total annual revenue generated from SWM by ESWAMA in the past 3 years is given as: i.
The main sources of revenue for ESWAMA are sanitation rates andwaste service fees; fees from industrial parks for effluent control; debris/soil evacuation rates; and, fines. All households in Enugu are billed without exception, and based on the approved/gazetted rates for the State by the House of Assembly.

Expenditure
For years 2013, 2014 and 2015, no funds were released to ESWAMA by the State Government to cover the recurrent expenditure. However, staff salaries were paid by the Enugu State Government. It is also important to note that all capital expenditure for provision of waste infrastructure and procurement of waste equipment is handled directly by the Office of the Governor.
However, the budgeted annual recurrent expenditure of ESWAMA over the years , 2014N450,278,921;and N233,659,695, respectively. No PSPs engaged by ESWAMA to evacuate waste so there is zero expenditure in this regard, except for payment for rented equipment.
Capital expenditure was not approved. No funds released to ESWAMA within the past 3 years.

Financing
Informationn retrieved from an interview with a senior official from the ENSG Ministry of Budget & Finance provides details of funding for ESWAMA as follows:  did not provide answers to the other questions such as amount paid to the PSP. This perhaps is due to the fact that the UNTH is a Federal Institution located in Enugu though and also in addition to the fact that its waste services is outsourced to a PSP who may (or may not) be paying tipping fees to ESWAMA. Usually, the outsourcing is done by Federal Authorities, beyond the control of State Government MDAs.

Contractors
Contractors refer to those from whom ESWAMA hires trucks for waste evacuation (note that there are no independent SWM contractors operating in Enugu). Two from this category were interviewed. The contract for hire of trucks is renewed on an annual basis. Each contractor's trucks are assigned to specific neighbourhoods to provide waste evacuation services as directed and supervised by ESWAMA.
It was gathered that ESWAMA can hire as many vehicles from a single contractor provided they are sound and fit for purpose. ESWAMA provides labourers for loading and offloading of waste, and also station staff at dumpsite to direct waste dumping. The major challenge encountered by the contractors is the bad condition of the access road to the dumpsite during the rainy season.

Households
A total of 30 households were sampled across low-, medium-, and high-density neighbourhoods in Enugu city. The results indicate that there is no common waste disposal method that applies to households even within the same neighbourhood. For instance, about 76.60% of the households interviewed said they "dispose of their waste by themselves", meaning they transport waste to dump at any "convenient" point which may include dumpster located in other neighbourhoods or any other authorised or unauthorised points. Outright illegal disposal is practiced by 10% of households sampled, while a little over 3% each goes to ESWAMA house-to-house collection; ESWAMA dumpsters/collection point; private paid collector; or waste burning. This signifies a general poor coverage of service delivery by ESWAMA, especially at the house-to-house waste evcuation levels.
Interestingly, all hosueholds bag their waste before disposal. This can be built upon to instill the culture of waste bagging. Also, every household receives ESWAMA annual bill (by hand delivery, or town crier, or post on home entrance) ranging from N1,200, N1,600, N1,800, N2,400, N2,800, N3,600 and N4,800 depending on neighbourhood type (high-, medium-and low density) and size of property.
About 90% of households make payments, which is through ESWAMA account. Not all hosueholds have ESWAMA dumpsters located close to them which perhaps encourages illegal dumping of waste especially as house-to-house collection is not yet efficient. While low density neighbourhoods have their dumpster evacuated on a daily or 3 times a week basis, those in high density neighbourhoods do not enjoy this level of efficiency.

Market Stall Holders
A total of 10 Market Stall-holders were interviewed in different markets within Enugu city. All stall-holders bag their waste and dispose either at ESWAMA dumpster within or close to the market, or they use itinerant waste collectors to remove waste and dump wherever "convenient" to them. ESWAMA bill is delivered through Market Auhorities and payment made via same channel. For the markets with ESWAMA dumpsters, evacuation is done weekly or forthnightly. The bill ranges between N100 and N200 monthly.

Shop Keepers
A total of 11 shop keepres were also interviewed in various parts of Enugu city. Shop keeprs refer to shops randomnly located at mixed use buildings to provide services (fashion design shops, building material shops, restaurants, bars, barber shops, grocery stores, etc.) within neighbourhoods.
In general, waste is bagged by all shop keepers then dumped at ESWAMA collection point (where one is availale) or given to itinerant waste collectors to transport to a dumpsters located far away. Annual bill ranges from N1,200 to N6,000, depending on the size of business and presumed volume of waste generation. Payment is made via ESWAMA Bank Account by every member of this category.

Informal Recyclers & Waste Pickers
The basic work location of this category of stakeholders is the only dumpsite in Enugu city. The interviews were conducted at the dumpsite with 5 (four male and 1 female) waste pickers/informal recyclers.
The basic materials of interest are plastic, metal containers, brass and aluminium. None of them reside on the waste dumpsite, they are all self-employed (also employed others who work under them) and have put in between 3-14 years in the business, working 7 days a week.
Sorted waste is sold to local traders in Enugu city. They have a Union and ESWAMA knows they work at their dumpsite. They all belong to the Scrap Workers' Association (SWA) which is registered under the State Laws (annual renewal) and with ESWAMA but members are not required to pay ESWAMA any fees. Membership acquisition fee is negotiable, includes conditions as providing a surety, and one-off refreshments to existing members (cartons of beer/crates of soft drinks).
The female respondent (a married lady) explains the difficulty in selling their materials due to distance to city centre from the dumpsite, and poor access road which discourages potential buyers from coming to the dumpsite. So they lose up to 60% of the value of their collected materials.  Over the past 3-4 years, Enugu city has undergone commendable institutional reforms in terms of MSWM, the issue of waste recycling and waste pickers has not however been dealt with.
This demonstrates a lack of SWM planning along the full value chain as reflected in the absence of any framework around waste recycling and waste pickers' activities at the only dumpsite receiving solid waste from Enugu city; For a city like Enugu, a single dumpsite is likely not sufficient enough. Even if it is sufficient, the absence of an alternative dumpsite shows lack of commitment to planning MSWM for the city. In addition, building a viable business model for MSWM in Enugu city would require mapping of cost-effective routes from all parts of the city, hence it would only make economic sense if another landfill site is located in the general opposite direction of the current site.

Summary of Findings
The primary impediment towards efficient MSWM infrastructure and service provision is clearly the mutual reinforcing problems of institutional/policy, technical inadequacies and infrastructural financing inadequacies which manifest in various forms discussed below. In addition to these key inadequacies, attitudinal, and socio-economic issues also constitute a major challenge on the part of service recipients.
In addition to the field discoveries presented under section 4, the key lessons learned during the course of this study are categorised and listed below:

Institutional & Policy Inadequacies
The lack of clarity around institutional and policy provisions, coupled with lack of an enforcement structure, creates a platform for a failed MSWM operations. This is the case with Kano city as it stands currently. However, the case for enforcement in Enugu city is brighter with the establishment of an active Environmental Court. Kano city would need to take a lesson or two from the Enugu MSWM enforcement architecture that has relatively improved service delivery in Enugu city.
It is also fair to state that the absence of a clear institutional provision for a city-level governance structure saddled with the full responsibility (success and liability) of urban infrastructure and service provision in both cities is a major challenge. Although Enugu has the ECTDA Act in place, the ambiguous provision that mandates the Authority to "provide municipal services in full cooperation with relevant MDAs" is a bane. What is the extent of "cooperation"? This is not defined. So, ECTDA can (as is in the case of MSWM) be conveniently side-lined in Enugu city service provision.
Additionally, the "one-stop shop" structure of ESWAMA and REMASAB inhibits efficiency and impedes creativity in providing solutions to the MSWM problems in Enugu and Kano cities. It appears these Agencies are satisfied with the current status of waste services within their areas of influence.
Lastly, there is no holistic policy framework coverage for the SWM value chain. It is thus, not surprising to find that critical components such as waste recycling, dumpsite management, special (medical and hazardous) waste management, etc., do not have an operational guiding framework.

Financing Limitations
Clearly, infrastructure financing and technical/manpower capacity funding is a major challenge in these cities. Again, the policy framework does not create a platform for developing a viable SWM model that would attract/unlock the amount of long-term investments from the private sector required to significantly transform solid waste service quality and coverage in both locations. For instance, the waste Agencies are not mandated to directly make (nor to secure partnerships at the level of making large scale investments) procurements of waste management infrastructure and equipment. Staff are also provided and paid by the State Governments. Generally, the system is designed to operate on the basis of a social service provided free to city dwellers. There is no recourse to planning for return on investments. Irrespective, ESWAMA have exhibited more progress in terms of revenue generation from waste rates and service fees over the period of assessment (2013, 2014 & 2015).

Technical Incapacity
Again, technical incapacity is a major impediment to service quality and coverage. ESWAMA clearly lacks equipment capacity to support its choice for sole service provider, hence resorting to leasing trucks from private owners. Although REMASAB is relatively endowed with more equipment, this capacity is also compromised due to poor maintenance and in many cases, non-usage.

Infrastructural Inadequacies
The lack of key infrastructure such as sanitary landfills, medical waste treatment facilities, waste transfer stations, large waste dumpsters, etc., have contributed to poor waste management service delivery in both cities. These are expected to be provided within a planned framework supported by scientific studies such a suitability assessment for appropriate location of sanitary landfills, environmental and social impact studies for developing waste infrastructure, waste evacuation routes studies, etc. Kano has about 4 landfills with none meeting international best practices, while Enugu has only one landfill which is also poorly managed and way below international best practice standards.
There are no transfer stations in any of the cities. However, there is a small waste composting plant at Dorayi in Kano which is currently inefficiently operated (below 30% installed capacity). No formal waste recycling facility is found in Enugu.

Socio-Economic and Attitudinal Barriers
Culturally, women (especially married) are forbidden to hold conversations with strangers. Also, strangers (especially male) are not allowed access to family compounds without express authorization and presence of the male head of household. These collectively constitute barriers to a seamless MSWM service delivery, given that in very many cases women are responsible for handling waste at the household level. This applies to Kano city.
Economic conditions especially poverty and the attitude that "waste is no one's problem" together affect the ability of the city dwellers to effectively play their role in the MSWM overall system. Where the waste management Agency fails to provide a waste collection centre, many city dwellers simply dump waste at any point "convenient" for them.

Suggestions Going Forward
Principally, a host of interrelated activities should be activated towards an end goal of improving solid waste infrastructure provision, financing and service provision. To achieve this, some policy-specific, infrastructure-related and practice-based suggestions are made, drawing from the observed weaknesses of REMASAB and ESWAMA.

Policy-Specific Suggestions
 REMASAB should adopt the ESWAMA enforcement approach by establishing an Environmental Court to upscale compliance with waste management regulations;  There is absolute need to review the ECTDA Law to provide absolute control over municipal service provision (including MSWM) within the ECTA. ESWAMA would then be responsible for M&E and supervision across Enugu State including the ECTA. Without this review, political struggles and intrigues among the "relevant" MDAs would continue to curtail, rather than complement collectively, efforts towards progressive and improved waste management services;  The State Waste Management Agencies should be accorded full autonomy so they can engage investors on a long term basis for financing waste infrastructure such as transfer stations and sanitary landfill sites;  Both REMASAB and ESWAMA require intensive and phased capacity building for its staff to upgrade their understanding, handling and management of waste operations within their respective jurisdictions.

Infrastructure-Related Suggestions
 Both Agencies need to develop a geospatial data infrastructure (to be updated periodically) for easy storage, access, retrieval, analysis, manipulation and presentation of waste related data for planning (e.g., lot mapping, customer billing, cost effective waste evacuation routes, etc.) to ensure improved service delivery;  State Governments should finance (or at least provide security for relevant waste Agencies to access funds to finance) critical but seemingly "non-profitable" waste infrastructure that would not attract investor funds.

Practice-Based Suggestions
 A series of city-specific studies on waste management should be conducted to draw out data and information that would be used for planning efficient waste service systems through the design of holistic frameworks that cover the waste value chain including recycling and special wastes management;  ESWAMA should incorporate PSPs in its waste service delivery framework to improve service coverage as more equipment would be provided by PSPs;  There is absolute need to create an integrated SWM system that seeks to expand stakeholder participation as shown in Figure 16. The model is adapted from ISSOWAMA Consortium informal & formal PSPs) involvement" is promoted, harnessed and sustained through the promotion of micro-enterprises with the purpose of changing the current perception of SWM as a free public service to a viable business endeavour. This is in line with similar suggestions by Nzeadibe (2009).

Figure 16. A proposed Integrated SWM System for Nigerian Cities
 Extensive SWM awareness and sensitization campaigns should be conducted using the national language and native dialect to enlighten the urban population on the importance of their role as participants in efficient waste management at the city level beginning with waste reduction/sorting from their homes, offices and businesses; payment of waste service fees, responsible waste handling (dumping at designated points only);  Kano should review its waste management institutional arrangement to task the State Ministry of Environment to supervise and conduct M&E for MSWM services in Kano State including Kano city.

Conclusion
Generally, Nigerian cities are under immense pressure to accommodate daily additions to already over-stretched inadequate municipal services. In realization of the low funding capacity and poor maintenance culture, perhaps it is time to move away from sophisticated, expensive and delicate equipment, by considering the adoption of "appropriate" technologies that are sourced and fabricated using largely local materials, and maintained at lower costs. With adequate research, these "appropriate technologies" can be applied at each level/hierarchy in the waste management system. This would also reduce the cases of grounded complex waste compactors, which are expensive to acquire and difficult to maintain as well.
Given the consistency and sustenance of efforts that MSWM requires, the seemingly high level of inconsistency in policy direction at the decision-making levels of government, and the consequent extended periods in policy-making need to be addressed to cut down the valuable time wasted on implementation of waste management policies. This is so important in waste management processes where 24hours could make a great impact, positive or otherwise.
The waste system has to no doubt out-live the usual short-lived and short-term political enthusiasm that accompanies the launch of new waste management systems and the realities of setting up structures for sustainably incremental service delivery. This is necessary to avert the risk of unannounced changes and replacement of office holders which upset well-planned structures and even derail or delay entire waste processes especially when the systems are built around individual office holders. Finally, the need to urgently plan municipal waste treatment (hazardous and non-hazardous) is emphasized in studies carried out in Kano and Enugu cites where ground water quality is highly susceptible to pollution due to extremely poor landfill practices (Ali, 2012;Umar et al., 2014;Ali & Young, 2014;& Bashir et al., 2014). These are in line with the SDGs, especially SDG numbers 6.3 and 11.6 which collectively target to, by 2030, "improve water quality by reducing pollution, eliminating dumping and minimizing release of hazardous chemicals and materials, halving the proportion of untreated wastewater, and increasing recycling and safe reuse globally"; and, "reduce the adverse per capita environmental impact of cities, including by paying special attention to air quality, municipal and other waste management", respectively.