A household cannot keep its rooms dry by mopping the floor while leaving a leaking roof unrepaired. The water may disappear for a while, but it will return with the next rainfall. Nigeria’s waste problem follows the same logic. Clearing refuse from roadsides is only a temporary fix if the system cannot reliably collect, sort, recycle, treat and safely dispose of what households and businesses throw away. The real task is to repair the system that moves waste from where it is generated to where it can be recovered or safely managed. Nigeria has had a national policy designed to address this problem since 2020. Yet a World Bank assessment published in 2024 estimated that more than 80 percent of the country’s solid waste was inadequately managed, amounting to over 35 million metric tonnes annually. Formal collection coverage was below 20 percent, while recycling and composting rates were each below 13 percent. The assessment also identified inadequate disposal and waste-treatment infrastructure as major constraints.
These figures should be treated as baseline estimates, not a fresh nationwide measurement of Nigeria’s waste-management performance in 2026. They come from the World Bank’s 2024 assessment of solid-waste and plastics management, which examines Nigeria’s wider waste-management challenges with particular attention to Lagos State. A broader picture emerges from the World Bank’s 2025 multi-sector review of 11 major Nigerian cities. It found that at least eight lacked adequate solid-waste management systems, with reported collection rates ranging from 20–30 percent in Lagos to 40 percent in Ibadan and 45 percent in Abuja. The findings suggest that the problem extends well beyond Lagos, although its scale and characteristics differ across cities. Six years after the Federal Executive Council approved the National Policy on Solid Waste Management in July 2020, the central question is no longer whether Nigeria recognises the importance of better waste management. It is whether the country has built the institutions, infrastructure, financing arrangements and enforcement systems required to make the policy work.
A policy with an economic promise
The National Policy on Solid Waste Management was intended to move Nigeria beyond a system that largely treats rubbish as something to be removed and dumped. Its broader ambition is an integrated approach involving federal, state and local governments, private operators and other stakeholders, with greater emphasis on reducing waste, reusing materials, recycling recoverable resources and safely disposing of what remains. That shift matters because waste is not simply an environmental nuisance. It is also an economic resource that Nigeria routinely loses through poor collection, indiscriminate disposal and inadequate recovery infrastructure. Plastic, paper, metals, glass and organic materials can be recovered and returned to productive use. Organic waste, for instance, can be converted into compost or used in biogas production. Recyclable materials can supply manufacturing industries, reducing their dependence on virgin inputs. Properly managed waste systems can also create jobs in collection, sorting, processing, logistics and manufacturing.
This is the economic logic of a circular economy: materials are kept in productive use for as long as possible instead of being discarded after one use. But a circular economy cannot be built on policy declarations alone. It requires collection networks, sorting facilities, reliable treatment plants, functioning markets for recovered materials and rules that make participation worthwhile. The World Bank’s 2024 assessment identified a major weakness in Nigeria’s policy architecture. It highlighted gaps in implementation guidelines and enforcement arrangements, the absence of an integrated national solid-waste strategy with detailed performance indicators, and a shortage of reliable data across the sector.
This distinction is important. Nigeria does not have an absolute absence of environmental regulation. The National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency (NESREA), for instance, has regulations covering sanitation and waste control. The problem is that the existence of regulations does not automatically produce an effective waste-management system. Rules must be coordinated, enforced and supported by institutions with the capacity to monitor compliance. Without clear implementation responsibilities and measurable targets, it becomes difficult to determine which level of government is accountable for particular outcomes, how much investment is required or whether public spending is improving collection and disposal.
The problem extends beyond Lagos
Lagos may offer the most visible illustration of Nigeria’s waste crisis, but it is far from the only city struggling to manage the refuse generated by its growing population. The World Bank’s 2025 multi-sector assessment examined 11 major urban centres: Lagos, Ibadan, Port Harcourt, Benin City, Aba, Onitsha, Kano, Kaduna, Abuja, Jos and Maiduguri. Its findings point to a widespread urban infrastructure challenge, with at least eight of the cities lacking adequate solid-waste management systems. The collection figures reveal how widely the problem varies. In Lagos, reported waste collection coverage was between 20 and 30 percent, compared with 40 percent in Ibadan and 45 percent in Abuja. In Onitsha, collection coverage was inadequate, while Port Harcourt lacked a formal sanitation network. In Maiduguri, open burning and the disposal of refuse along roadsides, drainage channels and waterways remained common. These findings show that the challenge is not confined to one state or region.
The differences between the cities also matter. A city with a relatively higher collection rate may still have serious weaknesses in sorting, recycling, treatment or final disposal. Collection is only one stage of the waste-management chain. The figures should therefore not be interpreted as a complete ranking of urban waste-management performance. There is also a data limitation. The 2025 report draws on existing government information, earlier research, city-level studies and stakeholder assessments. Its publication date does not mean every underlying city statistic was newly measured in 2025. Nevertheless, it provides a wider geographical picture than a Lagos-focused assessment alone and reinforces the need for comparable, regularly updated data across Nigeria’s urban centres. The broader implication is that waste management has not kept pace with the pressures of urbanisation. As cities expand, households and businesses generate more refuse, putting greater demands on collection networks, transport systems, treatment facilities and disposal sites. Where these systems are weak, waste accumulates in neighbourhoods, markets, drains and waterways.
Collection is not the same as management
One reason the waste problem persists is that public attention often focuses on the visible stage of the process: removing refuse from streets, markets and neighbourhoods. But collection is only the beginning of waste management. Once rubbish is collected, it must be transported to appropriate facilities, sorted, recycled where possible, treated where necessary and safely disposed of. If the system ends at an overcrowded dumpsite, the problem has merely moved from the roadside to another location. The World Bank’s findings point to weaknesses across this chain. Low formal collection coverage means substantial quantities of waste do not enter organised collection systems. Limited recycling and composting capacity means recoverable materials are lost. Inadequate disposal infrastructure increases the risk that collected waste will still be poorly managed.
The consequences extend beyond untidy streets. Waste dumped in drains and waterways can obstruct the movement of stormwater, worsening flooding during heavy rainfall. Open dumping and burning expose communities to pollution, while poorly managed waste sites create risks for public health and the surrounding environment. There is also a fiscal cost. Governments spend money clearing refuse, evacuating blocked drainage channels and responding to sanitation emergencies. When the underlying collection, treatment and disposal systems remain weak, these costs recur. Public resources are repeatedly deployed to manage the symptoms rather than address the institutional and infrastructure failures that produce them.
Lagos illustrates the investment challenge
Lagos offers a useful illustration of the pressures facing a rapidly urbanising waste-management system. The state government has put daily waste generation at about 13,000 metric tonnes, a volume that requires substantial collection capacity, transport logistics and disposal infrastructure. The state has announced several initiatives intended to improve the system. In December 2025, Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu announced plans for a waste-recycling plant estimated to cost between $300 million and $400 million, with the expectation that the facility would be established by the end of 2026. The announcement came amid concerns about waste accumulation and additional pressure on disposal logistics as the Olusosun landfill was being decommissioned. In March 2026, the Lagos Waste Management Authority also announced plans for a waste-to-energy facility in Epe, expected to process about 3,000 tonnes of waste daily and generate approximately 50 megawatts of electricity. The project forms part of a wider infrastructure programme that includes additional waste-treatment facilities and improvements to collection capacity.
These projects point to the type of infrastructure required to improve waste management. Waste-to-energy facilities can reduce the volume of residual waste requiring disposal while generating energy, provided they are properly designed and operated. Material-recovery facilities can separate recyclable materials and improve the supply of inputs to recycling industries. But the distinction between an announcement, an agreement, construction and an operating facility is essential. A proposed plant does not yet process waste. A signed memorandum of understanding does not establish that financing has been secured, construction completed or the facility commissioned. The real test is the volume of waste the infrastructure actually receives and processes, the electricity or recovered materials it produces, and whether it operates reliably.
Lagos also demonstrates why investment in treatment facilities must be matched by improvements in collection. A modern recycling plant cannot solve a problem if waste does not reach it in sufficient quantities or arrives in a condition that makes sorting and recovery difficult. Equally, more trucks and collection contracts will not deliver a sustainable outcome if the waste is simply transferred to poorly managed disposal sites. The challenge is to build the entire chain, from household storage and neighbourhood collection to sorting, treatment and final disposal.
The informal sector cannot be ignored
Nigeria’s waste economy also depends on people who are often missing from formal policy discussions. Informal waste pickers and collectors recover recyclable materials from households, streets, markets and dumpsites. They help supply recycling businesses and provide collection and sorting services in areas where formal systems are weak. A November 2025 policy brief on inclusive waste governance argues that these workers perform an important role in Nigeria’s recycling economy but remain inadequately recognised and integrated into formal waste-management arrangements. This creates a policy contradiction. Government wants to increase recycling and recover more value from waste, yet the people already doing much of the recovery work can remain excluded from planning, investment and formal partnerships.
A more effective system would recognise informal waste workers as part of the waste-management value chain. Registration, training, access to protective equipment, designated collection arrangements and partnerships with recycling companies could improve working conditions while increasing the volume of materials recovered. The private sector is equally important. The World Bank has argued that state governments should create credible policy environments and incentives to attract large-scale private investment, rather than attempting to finance and manage all waste infrastructure themselves.
However, attracting investors requires more than announcing projects. Investors need clarity on the supply of waste, the quality and quantity of recoverable materials, access to land, electricity and other infrastructure, pricing arrangements, regulatory obligations and the allocation of commercial risks. Government must also establish transparent contracts and performance standards to ensure that private investment produces public benefits.
What should government measure?
The next phase of Nigeria’s waste policy should be judged by measurable outcomes, not the number of policies, committees, memoranda or project announcements. First, the federal government should publish a national implementation framework that assigns clear responsibilities to federal, state and local authorities. It should specify the targets, funding requirements, timelines and enforcement arrangements needed to translate the policy into action. Second, Nigeria needs a reliable waste-data system. Governments should regularly publish estimates of waste generated, collected, recycled, composted, treated and disposed of, with the figures disaggregated by state and local government where possible. The information should also distinguish between waste collected and waste safely managed. Without credible and comparable data, it is difficult to measure progress or identify where investment is most urgently needed.
Third, government should track infrastructure from approval to operation. For every major project, the public should be able to establish whether financing has been secured, construction has begun, the facility has been completed, it has been commissioned and how much waste it processes. This would help distinguish investment commitments from functioning capacity. Fourth, the policy should establish a clearer framework for private investment and the integration of informal operators. Waste-management businesses need predictable rules, while workers involved in collection and recovery need recognition and safer working arrangements. Finally, performance should be measured against the environmental and economic outcomes that matter: higher collection coverage, more materials recovered, less open dumping and burning, safer disposal sites, lower pollution and greater use of recycled inputs in manufacturing.
The test is what happens after collection
Nigeria’s waste-management challenge is not short of policy recognition or project announcements. It is short of a sufficiently coordinated system capable of turning those commitments into reliable services. The 2020 national policy offers a framework for changing how the country handles waste. The World Bank’s 2024 assessment provides a baseline of the country’s waste-management challenges, while its 2025 review of major cities shows that inadequate collection and disposal systems extend beyond Lagos. Together, the assessments point to the need for better data, stronger implementation arrangements and investment in infrastructure across the country. The economic opportunity is considerable. Properly managed waste can support manufacturing, create jobs, reduce pollution and ease the pressure on public infrastructure. But those benefits depend on a system that works from the moment waste is generated to the point at which it is recovered or safely disposed of.
A city cannot become cleaner simply by moving rubbish from one street to another. Nor can a country build a circular economy by treating waste as a problem that ends when a truck drives away.
The real measure of Nigeria’s waste policy will be whether less rubbish is left unmanaged, more materials are recovered and fewer communities are exposed to the health and environmental costs of poor disposal. Until those outcomes become visible and measurable, the country will continue to have a policy for managing waste without having a system that manages it.
Oluwatobi Ojabello, PhD, is a dynamic and multi-dimensional Assistant Editor for Economy and Markets with over two years of professional journalism experience. He delivers authoritative, data-driven coverage of fiscal policy, financial institutions and capital markets, using clear analysis to explain Nigeria’s most complex economic developments. His work focuses on macroeconomic policy, financial stability and corporate performance, turning technical issues into accessible narratives that inform both experts and everyday readers.
