Waste generation
Solid wastes in Kigali City rapidly increase in quantity and quality as the city's population and economic activities grow, while disposal land becomes scarce. Composting and landfill methodologies are the most viable alternatives for managing solid waste in Kigali City. However, no single strategy will effectively control the waste problem as a successful program that relies on varied solutions for various conditions. Direct citizen participation is essential.
Table 1
Kigali City's waste generation, population density, and GDP per capita per year.
Year | Waste generated per day(Tons) | Waste generated by capita/day(Kg/day) | Population density(/Km) | GDP per capita(USD) |
2012 | 408 | 0.47 | 1,213 | 725.16 |
2014 | 450 | 0.6 | 1,391 | 743.56 |
2018 | 808 | 1.6 | 1,402 | 783.63 |
2022 | 823 | 2.09 | 1,552 | 832.57 |
The results show that waste generation was 2.09 kg per capita per day (the maximum amount), as presented in Table 1. The amount of waste generated exceeded the 1 kilogram per person per day limit, placing the city in the category of a "higher waste generating" city.
Table 2
The generated solid waste and collected in selected districts of the city of Kigali
District | Waste generated/day | Waste collected/day | Waste left uncollected |
Tonnes(Ton) | Tonnes(Ton) | % | Tonnes(Ton) | % |
Gasabo | 371 | 311 | | 60 | |
Kicukiro | 210 | 198 | | 12 | |
Nyarugenge | 242 | 209 | | 33 | |
Total | 823 | 718 | 87,2 | 105 | 12,8 |
The results show that only 87.2% of solid waste was collected, with the remaining 12.8% left uncorrected (Table 2), implying that some households dump their waste in illegal dumpsites.
The results showed that the City of Kigali generates more organic waste. The results in Fig. 1 show that Organic waste accounts for 78 percent of waste generated in Kigali, with food (20.6%), garden (379%), and wood (7.8%) accounting for the remaining 6.6 percent (paper and cardboards (9 percent. Plastic makes up 3.7 percent of non-organic waste, followed by metal (1.6 percent), glass (1.1 percent), and metal (1.6 percent).
Kigali municipal solid waste treatment method
Citizens are expected to collect household waste in sacks or other temporary containers and hand it to private waste collectors. Figure 2 shows different methods households use to manage temporary waste.
In Kigali, 7.24 percent of waste was burned without energy recovery, as shown in Fig. 3. Kigali lacks waste treatment due to low citizen participation, weak policymaking, and poor private sector performance.
Waste Management and Disposal (Environmental Control)
The results indicated that 87.2 percent of waste collected for treatment or disposal was disposed of at the Nduba regulated disposal site; Fig. 11 depicted the Nduba landfill, the only landfill in the City of Kigali. It lacks proper automobile access to the site via paved roads. The Nduba landfill lacks a weighbridge, making it difficult to keep accurate records of all entering garbage information, including waste volumes, weights, and
types. This site has not been subjected to an Environmental Impact Assessment. The site is not operating at full environmental control capacity (see the score for 2C.3). Table 8 summarizes the preceding points.
Table 3
General information at Nduba disposal site.
Description | Evaluation(Nduba Landfill) |
Amount of waste received | 87.2% (718Tons) |
Paved roads(Vehicle accessibility) | – |
Nduba landfill security | ✓ |
Unloading of waste | ± |
Control of fires | ± |
Waste treatment and disposal | Medium level |
Environmental Impact Assessment | – |
Volume, weights, and categories of incoming waste | ✓ |
Control of odor, emission(GHG) | – |
Leachate | – |
✓Denotes the presence of practices; – indicates inadequate standards, the absence of practices or very low quality; and ± denotes the existence of records that have not been updated.
Significant progress has been made in some technical areas; however, the sites are not following the standards. Operators lack technical training. Moreover, their vehicles and equipment are outdated and insufficient (see the score for 2C.5). Currently, no waste-to-energy is generated. Some safe operating procedures exist but are not followed. There were no health checks for the disposal workers. No effort has been made to consider the conditions of heavy machinery operators or workers directly on the landfill site in hazardous working conditions (hence the variable 2C.6 was scored low). Table 3 shows the evaluation results of the reference indicators and the factors that comprise them for Environmental Control. The qualitative indicator (2C) obtained a 50 percent score.
Table 4
Environmental control assessment, using reference indicators of 2C (qualitative) and 2(quantitative)
Indicator | Description | Observations |
2 | Control of waste management or disposal (%) | 50% |
2C.1 | Control over waste collected and general site management | Medium |
2C.2 | Degree of control over waste treatment and disposal | Medium |
2C.3 | Degree of verification and monitoring of environmental controls | Medium compliance |
2C.4 | Waste to energy generation( Energy recovery) | NA |
2C.5 | Degree of technical expertise in the management, planning, operation, and disposal | Medium compliance |
2C.6 | Workplace health and safety | Low compliance |
2C | Environmental protection level in waste treatment and protection | Medium ((Total score 50%) |
The findings in Table 4 show the evaluation of the reference indicators and associated environmental control variables. Due to the above facts, we rate the qualitative indication (3A) at 25%. There is inadequate information about the informal recycling sector. Therefore, more emphasis should be placed on this issue.
The Community Perceptions, Awareness, Attitudes, and Behaviors in Solid Waste Management
Community Knowledge and awareness of solid waste separation
Table 5
Waste separation status in Kigali city
| Waste separation status |
No | | Frequency | Percentage |
1 | Yes | 5 | 2% |
2 | No | 199 | 98% |
| Total | 204 | 100 |
Table 5 shows that 98% of respondents don't separate solid waste. Citizens lack knowledge about waste management and its effects. Environmental education and knowledge are key to raising public awareness of environmental issues.
Table 6
The reason why citizens do not separate solid waste
| The reason why I do not separate waste |
No | | Frequency | Percentage |
1 | Ignorance | 31 | 20,5% |
2 | Laziness | 30 | 19,9% |
3 | I don't think it is necessary to sort out | 14 | 9,3 |
4 | Waste collection companies are responsible, not citizens | 71 | 47 |
5 | I don't have any knowledge of sorting out | 5 | 3,3 |
| Total | 151 | 100 |
In Table 6, the study looked at factors that can affect waste segregation at the household level. The lack of waste sorting equipment affects the performance of waste sorting programs and the lack of public awareness of environmental problems.
The Community Perceptions, Attitudes, and Behaviors in Solid Waste Management
The results show that 83% of households have solid waste disposing of the container and 17% do not (Fig. 4). They dump their solid waste at inappropriate places and in their backyard.
Community and SWM Payment Services
The private-public partnership works on average, and households pay a reasonable charge based on their categorization of social class (Ubudehe). Fees range from 1000 Rwf (USD1.2) to 5000 Rwf (USD6) monthly. Category 1 (poor people) is exonerated. Private garbage collection companies continue to generate revenue despite complaints that the garbage collection fee is insufficient.
The citizens are expected to pay a waste collection fee. However, some households fail to pay waste collection fees due to poverty or ignorance; they dump their waste on illegal dumpsites. The results showed that 14.7% of citizens do not pay solid waste collection fees (Fig. 5).
The legal and regulatory framework
Table 7
Benchmark indication (6F) qualitative evaluation for SWM framework.
Indicator | Description | Observations |
6F.1 | Regulations and legislation | Medium compliance |
6F.2 | Policy and Strategy | Medium compliance |
6F.3 | Procedures for implementation and guidelines | Medium compliance |
6F.4 | National institution responsible for SWM implementation policy | Medium compliance |
6F.5 | Regulation control | Medium compliance |
6F | Adequate the national framework for SWM | Total score 46% |
Municipal governments have guidelines for the laws and strategies implementation; however, existing approaches to MSW-related concerns are insufficiently holistic. The baseline studies are insufficient; the Ministry of Environment is the national agency in charge of policymaking, although it is not in charge of policy implementation or coordination. The municipal government implements the regulations (see scores for 6F.3, 6F.4, and 6F.5). Based on these facts, the qualitative indicator (6F) score is 46 percent (Table 7).