Download this complete Project material titled; Evaluation Of The Implementation Of Environmental Sanitation Programme By State Environmental Protection Agencies (Sepas) In South-East Nigeria with abstract, chapters 1-5, references, and questionnaire. Preview Abstract or chapter one below

  • Format: PDF and MS Word (DOC)
  • pages = 65

 3,000

ABSTRACT

The study was aimed at evaluating the implementation of environmental sanitation programme by State Environmental Protection Agencies (SEPAs) in the South East States of Nigeria. In line with the objectives of the study, four research questions were posed, and five null hypotheses, tested at 0.05 level of significance were used to guide the study. The design of the study was descriptive survey. The target population of the study is 26,489 respondents, made up of four hundred and twenty nine (429) SEPAs staff and twenty six thousand, and 60 (26,060) community leaders in South East States. Multi-stage, proportionate random sampling technique were used to compose a sample of two hundred and fourteen (214) SEPAs staff and eight hundred (800) community leaders totalling one thousand and fourteen respondents for the study. Questionnaire was the instrument used for data collection. The instrument used for the study was 52-item ENVIENSPOQ structured questionnaire. The instrument was face validated by three experts: one from the Department of Adult Education and Extra-Mural Studies, another from the Department of Educational Foundations, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, and the third expert from the Ministry of Petroleum and Environment, Owerri. Its reliability was ensured using Cronbach Alpha estimate. Reliability co-efficient of .81 was obtained. Mean was used to answer research questions one to five. The t-test statistics was used to test the null hypotheses at 0.05 level of significance. Copies of the instrument were administered to the respondents through direct delivery technique. The findings of the study revealed that environmental sanitation programme amongst other services were implemented to a low extent.  The major barriers encountered in the course of the implementation of environmental sanitation programme were corruption and favouritism, inefficiency among SEPAs staff, poor maintenance of service equipment and limited funding. Four out of the five null hypotheses were accepted showing that there was no significant difference in the mean weighted scores of SEPAs Staff and Community leaders except in the case of challenges encountered. Based on the findings, recommendations were proffered which include: that government should employ experts in environmental matters who have credible reference, monitor SEPA staff to check corruption, conduct periodic inspection and evaluation of SEPAs’ activities, fund SEPAs adequately and procure appropriate equipments, and SEPAs should initiate awareness creation programmes for promoting implementation of environmental sanitation programme. Necessary conclusions were therefore made.

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Page                                                                                                                                i

Approval Page                                                                                                                                    ii

Certification                                                                                                                            iii

Dedication                                                                                                                              iv

Acknowledgements                                                                                                                v

Table of Contents                                                                                                                   vi

List of Tables                                                                                                                          ix

Abstract                                                                                                                                  x

 

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION                                                                                1

Background of the Study                                                                                                       1

Statement of Problem                                                                                                             20

Purpose of the Study                                                                                                              21

Significance of the Study                                                                                                       22

Research Questions                                                                                                                 24

Research Hypotheses                                                                                                              25

Scope of the Study                                                                                                                 26

 

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE                                      27

Conceptual Framework                                                                                                       28

Concept of Evaluation                                                                                                  28

Concept of Implementation                                                                                          32

Environmental Sanitation                                                                                              34

Environmental Protection                                                                                             41

Concept of modern technology                                                                                       Schematic Representation of the Study                                                                             52

Theoretical Framework                                                                                                        53

Evaluation Theories                                                                                                  53 Scriven’s Goal Free Evaluation Theory                                                                   53

House’s Deliberative Democratic Evaluation Theory                                     54              Implementation theories                                                                                               55 Normalization Process Theory                                                       55

Theory of Organizational Readiness for Change                                                        57

Environmental Theories                                                                                           59

Malthus’s Theory of Population Growth and Resource Scarcity                               59

Mill’s Theory of the Steady State Economy                                                              60

The Miasmatic Theory of Disease                                                                               62

Germ Theory of Disease                                                                                             64

Models of Evaluation                                                                                                65

Tyler’s Objective Model of Evaluation                                                                      65

CIPP Model of Evaluation                                                                                         67

 

Review of Related Empirical Studies                                                                                  72

Studies on programme evaluation                                                                               72

Studies on programme implementation                                                                      75

Studies on Environmental sanitation                                                                          77

Studies on environmental protection                                                                          81

Studies on basic modern technologies                                                                        82

Studies on challenges in environmental sanitation programme                                  85

Summary of Literature Review                                                                               87

                                                                                               

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHOD                                                                 90

Design of the Study                                                                                                                90

Area of the Study                                                                                                                   90

Population of the Study                                                                                                          91

Sample and Sampling Technique                                                                                            92

Instrument for Data Collection                                                                                               94

Validation of the Instrument                                                                                                  95

Reliability of the Instrument                                                                                                   95

Procedure for Data Collection                                                                                                96

Method of Data Analysis                                                                                                       97

 

CHAPTER FOUR: PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA                          98

Summary of major findings                                                                                                    111

           

 

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION     114

Discussion of the Findings                                                                                                     114

Educational Implications of the Research Findings                                                               122

Conclusion                                                                                                                              124

Recommendations                                                                                                                  126

Limitations of the Study                                                                                                         127

Suggestions for further study                                                                                                 127

 

REFERENCES                                                                                                                    128

 

APPENDICES

Appendix I:     Population distribution of community leaders and SEPAs staff from the         five states under study                                                                                                136

 

Appendix II:   Sample distribution of the study                                                                    137

Appendix III:  Questionnaire                                                                                                  139

Appendix IV: Validates’ comments                                                                                      145

Appendix V:   Computation of field trial test using cronbach alpha                                      146

Appendix VI: Questionnaire Return Rate                                                                             147

 

 

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study

Man, as a rational being, naturally has a sense of decency. Prior to the introduction of Western education in Africa, and Nigeria in particular, the populace had basic environmental sanitation tradition of sweeping their surroundings, cleaning-up the local path-ways, and planting economic trees around their environment with manageable wastes being generated. However, the burden of wastes generated or pollutants were not experienced during these earlier times, but were felt during the period of urban population growth and industrialization. Thus, Nkwocha and Emeribe (2008) asserted that the growth of urban cities resulted to increased wastes being generated which have become a menace to the inhabitants. Consequently, there was need to manage these wastes in order to create conducive atmosphere for the sustenance of the people. The need to achieve sustainable promotion and protection of environment and human health in Nigeria brought up the idea of environmental sanitation (Federal Ministry of Environment (FMOE), 2005).

1

Environmental sanitation is the act of controlling all the activities that negatively affect the environment in order to preserve the lives of the people and the natural resources from damages. Environmental sanitation according to Agunwamba (2001) is the control of all conditions that contribute to contamination and that might permit the spread of diseases or infections. In another definition which explains environmental sanitation in a more specific manner asserted that environmental sanitation involves the disposal and management of human wastes or excreta, sometimes diluted with water as sewage. It also includes drainage and disposal of sludge and solid wastes or refuse (Federal Republic of Nigeria, 2004a). Stating further definition of environmental sanitation, the FMOE (2005) defined environmental sanitation as the principles and practices of effecting healthful and hygienic conditions in the environment, promoting public health and welfare, improving quality of life, reducing poverty, and ensuring a sustainable environment. It can be inferred from the above definitions that environmental sanitation is the act of carrying out activities in the environment which create basic environmental conditions favourable to humans in order to enhance good health and general well-being of the people.

Environmental sanitation, in the context of this study, means activities geared towards ensuring that the environment is protected from depletion or deterioration that may result to poor hygienic practices in the environment It involves such practices as sweeping the streets, collecting and properly disposing of wastes, protecting the natural resources from overuse or degradation, demolition of unauthorized (disaster-prone) structures, the planting of trees and flowers, and the construction of structures that add to the beauty of the environment.

The aim of environmental sanitation according to Iroegbu (2004) is to protect and improve the quality of health and life of the people living in an environment. It also includes control of environmental pollution and its associated hazards for the benefit of present and future generations. The issue of environmental sanitation is of paramount importance to the individual and the nation in general to realize their potentials. This is because no nation can live above its sanitation indices as it is a well-known fact that health is wealth. There cannot be a healthy nation without a healthy environment. This implies that sanitation which results to an improvement in the quality of life of an individual or a nation will help the individual or nation in question to rise above limitations like poverty, ignorance, diseases and other challenging situations in the environment in order to meet and solve their basic needs. According to the  FMOE (2005) poor environmental sanitation conditions have contributed significantly to high prevalence of communicable diseases in the country, which include malaria, cholera, typhoid, diarrhoea, acute respiratory infections, tuberculosis and helminthic infections. On the other hand, apart from the issue of aesthetics and orderliness, the importance of environmental sanitation also includes activities that reduce the possibilities of food contamination to avoid the spread of diseases and infections. Thus, it is understandable that when the contamination of food is controlled and the spread of diseases and infections are avoided or minimized, the lives of the members of a society are better enhanced, and health-risks which are indicators of underdevelopment are limited. In this regard, Abubakar (1990) noted that the benefits, such as reduced mortality and morbidity, improved productivity of labour, technological innovation and increased amenities, are enhanced through environmental sanitation particularly in the developing countries.

The importance of environmental sanitation and its positive effects on a wide range of development indicators have been a global concern. Environmental issues, according to Eneh (2011), gave rise to the 1972 United Nations Stockholm Conference on Human Environment, and to the 1992 United Nations Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit. These were part of the United Nations’ interventions to solve environmental problems. The Stockholm conference on human environment declared a new International Economic Order that was meant to defend and improve the environment for present and future generations. In response to that declaration, there were series of regional meetings of environmental education experts which led to a ten-day International Environmental Education workshop at Belgrade in Yugoslavia from the 13th to the 22nd of October, 1975. The outcome of this workshop as briefly stated, is that environmental education should constitute a comprehensive lifelong education responsive to changes in a rapidly changing world. An education that should prepare the individual for life. The results of the workshops gave rise to first ministerial inter-governmental conference on Environmental education at Tbilisi, Georgia in 1977 and the subsequent Moscow congress of 1987 which culminated to declarations and recommendations that established the conceptual framework and guidelines for the activities of the International Environmental Education programme. A programme which will make it possible to develop among the populace, awareness and concern about the environment and its associated problems and which has the new knowledge and skills, values and attitudes in a drive towards a better quality of environment and higher quality of life for the present and future generations living within the environment.

United Nations (UN) (2011) also reported that the consciousness to develop the resources of the world in ways which will benefit all of humanity, and provide the potentials for raising the quality of life for everyone, led to the establishment of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) to be achieved by the member countries – of which Nigeria is one – by the year 2015. One of these goals is to achieve environmental sustainability. In this regard, the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) brought to the fore the need to balance development with its costs to the environment, hence, making sustainable environmental development a global concern in order to realize a sustainable environmental development. National and state legislations on the environment have consistently been considered a major instrument to correct the actions/attitudes of citizens which degrade the environment and at the same time guide and control natural resource exploitation (Ibaba, 2010).

Nigerian government keyed into this recommendation to integrate the principles of sustainable environmental development in her policies and programmes in order to reverse the loss of environmental resources. In line with this recommendation, 2008 was declared the International Year of Sanitation during which issues on sanitation were discussed in so detailed a manner that sanitation received much attention such as organising yearly sanitation conferences in various regions of the world to ensure that sanitation remains on the political agenda (UN 2011). The aim is to improve the living conditions of the people through sanitation.

In Nigeria, the government has made efforts during the colonial and post-colonial eras to provide and maintain environmental sanitation services. To mention but a few of them were: The Waterworks Act of 1915, which was an effort made to keep water from being polluted by obnoxious or harmful substance; the Public Health Act of 1917, which was an effort to prohibit the fouling of water and vitiation of the atmosphere by harmful human activities; Waste Management Regulation of 1991, which was an effort made on waste management; Nigerian Industrial Standards for potable Water, and Natural Mineral Water of 1992, which was an effort made in the area of public health protection (Akpabio, 2012). Commenting on the above efforts, Federal Republic of Nigeria (FRN 2004b) stated that poor sanitation practices before the colonial administration were attributed to lack of awareness, poverty, and poor planning. Consequently during the colonial era, the history of sanitation was reported to be interwoven with the growth and expansion of early settlements, especially in Lagos Island by 1862. The government then mandated the citizens to clear bushes around their homes. Efforts were made towards straightening, widening, and sweeping the streets and premises. There were also the construction of drainages and removal of other sources of nuisance in Lagos Island and an appointment of an inspector of nuisance (First sanitary Inspector) to effect all these. In addition to cleaning the streets and collecting garbages, night soil workers were introduced around 1899 to reduce ground water pollution which was based on the discovery that 202 out of 203 wells tested were polluted.

However Adelegan (2004) opined that from the onset of British rule in Nigeria in the 1900s, Nigeria’s environmental sanitation efforts have been enforced merely through bye-laws. Adelegan also stated that the colonial economic development policies and plans contained little or no stringent rules to conserve the natural resources or to limit pollution. Over the years, there has been an increased awareness of the problems of water pollution with no positive step taken in the right direction to avert it. As a result, developing countries, including Nigeria, suffer from a number of primary environmental problems mainly attributed to underdevelopment and the attendant poor living conditions. Commenting further on the pollutants in the country, Akpabio (2012) was of the view that the colonial masters made inadequate provision of the sanitation system to solve the environmental problems of the people. Thus, Akpabio, (2012) held that there are still lapses in the practices of urban dwellers following the instances of human excrements on urban roads, gutters and dumpsites which reflected inadequacy of available sanitation systems and infrastructures to cope with the expanding demographic realities.

In addition, during the post-colonial era, the Nigerian government had tried to act in line with the demands of the United Nations to tackle environmental problems. Consequent upon the koko toxic waste episode in Delta state, Eneh, (2011) stated that Nigeria, in 1987 made some efforts to stem the tide of unacceptable level of environmental degradation. She became an environmentally conscious nation by establishing some policies on environment which include the following: the promulgation of the Harmful Wastes Decree no.42 which was part of the country’s response to the dumping of toxic waste by foreign firm (Italian) in koko; Federal Environmental Protection Agency (FEPA) Decree 58 of 1988 and 59 (amended) in 1992, which established an environmental management agency charged with the overall responsibility for environmental management and protection; the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Act of 1992, which is the core legislation that governs environmental impact assessment in respect to proposed projects in Nigeria.

Following from the FEPA Act of 1988, Nigerian government, in November 1989, launched the National Policy on Environment (NPE). The policy prescribed the guidelines and strategies for achieving the policy goal of sustainable development. According to Eneh (2011) the broader aims of the national policy on environment include the following:

  • Securing the quality of the environment for health and well being;
  • Conserving and using the environment and natural resources for the benefit of present and future generations;
  • Restoring, maintaining and enhancing the ecosystem and ecological processes essential for the functioning of the biosphere to preserve biological diversity and the principle of optimum sustainable yield in the use of natural resources;
  • Promoting public awareness on the link between development and the environment; and
  • International cooperation with countries and international organizations in the protection of the environment (p.255).

The aims of the NPE have implications with the current study which seeks to evaluate the extent environmental sanitation programme at the various state levels in South East States of Nigeria have been implemented in line with the above aims in order to provide an acceptable level of environmental sanitation that will enable the citizens to achieve socially and economically productive lives.

FEPA act of 1988 also led to the establishment of State Environmental Protection Agencies (SEPAs) in each state of the federation which have offices in local government areas (Adelegan, 2004). In order to involve full participation of all tiers of government in environmental sanitation, Federal Republic of Nigeria introduced an efficient environmental management system throughout the country by directing that the issue of municipal waste disposal and sanitation are the responsibility of the local governments who also have powers to pass bye-laws (Nkwocha, Pat-Mbano, and Dike, 2011). This act was enacted in order to provide sanitation at the grass root in a more effective manner. There was also set procedures and procurement of service equipments for the implementation strategies. Thus, the state government, to provide technical assistance and logistic support to local government areas on the implementation of the National Environmental Sanitation Programme. The establishment of FEPA provided legal frameworks for enforcing environmental protection and sanitation among Nigerians. With respect to the effort made so far, the environmental sanitation practices then were haphazardly carried out, as a result of unsatisfactory implementation of environmental sanitation practices. Hence,  there  was the need to address environmental problems of the various ecological and industrial zones and to place within the reach of the state the required technical advisory support needed by the State Environmental Protection Agency (Adegoke, 2012).

In the course of time, the federal government authority being aware of the important role environmental sanitation plays in the maintenance of sound public health decided that a separate and specific policy is required to address environmental sanitation. The federal government also recounted that efforts of past governments had achieved minimal success because of the absence of an appropriate policy instrument to provide focus and direction for necessary planning and implementation. Thus, the FMOE (2005) stated that a national environmental sanitation policy was developed in accordance with the National Policy on Environmental (1989), Millennium Development Goals, world summit on sustainable Development targets and the aims of New Partnership for African Development (NEPAD) initiatives; to address specifically only environmental sanitation conditions. The policy is therefore put in place to serve as a veritable instrument for securing quality environment for good health and social well being of present and future generations. The goal of national environmental sanitation as stated in this policy is to ensure a clean and healthy environment by adopting efficient, sustainable and cost-effective strategies, so as to safeguard public health and wellbeing in line with the national development objectives. With reference to these national environmental sanitation goals, the federal government charged the states (State Ministries of Environment/Agencies responsible for sanitation both private and public) with the following roles and responsibilities amongst other functions for environmental protection and improvement. These roles include:

  1. Ensuring compliance with environmental sanitation standards or lay down guidelines;
  2. Monitoring and evaluating environmental sanitation activities (environmental sanitation/protection activities);
  3. Coordinating the national environmental sanitation day exercises and providing health education to the public through enlightenment campaigns;
  4. Ensuring the regular cleaning of streets and drainages in the state;
  5. Ensuring and coordinating the storage, regular collection, transportation and disposal of solid waste in the urban areas;
  6. Ensuring proper citing of final deposit waste sites for waste management;
  7. Ensuring adequate management of sewerage system;
  8. Providing technical assistance and logistic support to LGA on the implementation of the national environmental sanitation policy and guidelines;
  9. Conducting research on environmental sanitation technologies in line with local customs and practices;
  10. Adopting a master plan on solid waste management and biomedical wastes as well as ensuring implementation at state level;
  11. Forward biannual reports on environmental sanitation activities to the national technical committee (FMOE 2005 p. 46).

These roles or activities as stated above have relevance to the current study which aims at ascertaining the extent to which environmental sanitation activities have been implemented by SEPAs in south east states. Effective implementation of these roles would help to provide a clean and healthy environment so as to sustain health and wellbeing in line with the national development.

Accordingly, FRN (2007) reported that FEPA and other relevant departments such as Federal Ministry of Health, Petroleum, Housing and Urban Development and Water Resources were later on merged to form the Federal Ministry of Environment (FMOE) in 1999 so as to expand the function of FEPA.  This was done alongside State Ministries of Environment (SMOE) in all the states of the federation. SEPAs in some states metamorphosed into Ministry of Environment while some states retained SEPA of which Abia, Anambra, Ebonyi, Enugu and Imo are amongst. However, FRN further stated that this was done without an appropriate enabling law on enforcement issues. This deficiency implied ineffective enforcement of environmental laws, standards, and regulations in the states.

As a result, there has been ever increasing environmental degradation due to high population pressures and prevailing critical socio-economic conditions which erode the country’s environmental wealth. It was in the effort to address this lack that the Obasanjo-led administration, through an Executive Bill, in November 2006, established a regulatory and enforcement agency known as the National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency (NESREA). NESREA is a body responsible for the effective enforcement of environmental laws, standards, and regulations, with its focus on the protection and sustainable development of the environment and its natural resources. The agency’s vision is to ensure a cleaner and healthier environment for Nigerians, while the mission is to inspire personal and collective responsibility in building an environmentally-conscious society for the achievement of sustainable development in Nigeria. Despite these efforts made by the Nigerian government to formulate policies and establish agencies – such as FEPA, FMOE and NESREA amongst others, much needs to be done in the area of environmental sanitation if  the quality of environment that is liveable for the Nigerian people is to be achieved. The current situation with regards to environmental sanitation in the areas of study and Nigeria in general is such that there are lots of nuisance affecting the environment. According to Aina (1990), among the many environmental degradation problems facing the country are soil and coastal erosion, deforestation, oil pollution, solid waste management, liquid waste, and toxic and hazardous substances. If these dangers are not put under control, it might result in widespread human suffering in the foreseeable future.

However, it has been observed by FRN (2004c) that the ever increasing urbanization is one of the most pervasive phenomenal issues occurring in sub-Saharan Africa in general, and Nigeria in particular. It further reported that the rate of urban growth in Nigeria is one of the highest in the world, exceeding 6.5 percent per- annum. This growth has caused diverse problems in urban areas such as water scarcity, dense housing, traffic congestion, and dumps of solid wastes which are the most intractable of the problems according to Nkwocha and Emeribe (2008). Much refuse were generated especially during weekends when people find time to clean-up their homes and environment. As a result of this, refuse evacuation has become more herculean due to the blockage of roads and drainages with refuse. Nkwocha and Emeribe, further noted that it is not uncommon to find streets, roads, undeveloped plots and drains, deposited with solid wastes. Moreso the accumulation of these wastes generally reduces the aesthetic value of the urban environment, destruction of the land-scape, and pollution of rivers which serve as sources of water supply for many rural communities. Much more problems about dumping of solid wastes were also noted by FMOE  (2005)  that the accumulation of  these wastes also accounts for a significant percentage of morbidity (malaria, dysentery, diarrhoea, hepatitis, hookworm, cholera, typhoid, tuberculosis, and so on) and mortality from sanitation-related diseases as well as the cost of medical treatment, especially among the local residents; a scenario, which is associated with impoverishment and poor standard of living among the populace.

Furthermore, the issue of accumulated solid wastes in the country has also been criticized by some  authors. Ogu (2000) stated  that  in many Nigerian cities, the volume of solid waste has overwhelmed urban administrators’ capacity to plan for their collection and disposal. This constitutes serious environmental nuisance and health hazards due to poor sanitation which are inimical to healthy living. Adelegan, (2004), opined that the services of the established environmental sanitation agencies in Nigeria were limited by such factors as the absence of clear health and hygiene education, weak political will, role conflicts among government agencies, poor funding/financing, shortage of management skills and administrative enforcement capacities in the implementation of sanitation programmes. For these reasons, the implementation of environmental sanitation by the sanitation Agencies is still questionable with what is on ground. Adelegan also asserted that most developing countries though have long established laws of formal governmental structures to address their serious environmental problems but few have been successful in alleviating these problems.  To this regard Eneh (2011), opined that the impeccable policies in Nigeria often suffer failures at the implementation stage. This is attributed to corrupt practices prevalent among Nigerian administrators which hamper implementation.

In the South-East of Nigeria, Environmental Sanitation Agencies such as Abia State Environmental Protection Agency (ASEPA) – established by the  state in 1992 Act, ratified in 1994, and amended in 1995 (source; Enhance Environmental management strategies in  Abia State by Iroegbu);  Anambra State Waste Management Agency (ASWAMA) – formerly called Anambra State Environmental Sanitation Authority (ASESA) – formed by Edict no. 15 of 1985 ratified on 17th May, 2011 (source: Anambra  State Waste management Agency  2011); Ebonyi State Environmental Protection Agency (ESEPA) – established on 28th May, 1999 (source: Ebonyi State Environmental Protection Agency law CAP. 53 ); Enugu State Waste Management Authority (ESWAMA) – formerly called Enugu State Environmental Sanitation Authority (ESESA) – first established in 1994; then ratified on 29th July, 2004 (source Enugu State Waste  Management Authority law No. 8 2010); and  Environmental Transformation Commission, Imo State (ENTRACO) – formerly called Imo State Environmental Protection Agency (ISEPA), ratified in 2008 (source Imo State of Nigeria 2008 law no. 3) were all established to tackle environmental sanitation issues in the states. These Agencies, though answer different names as preferred by the state government, have common role to play in environmental sanitation. Therefore, they will be addressed in the current study as State Environmental Protection Agencies (SEPAs)

The State Environmental Protection Agencies in these areas of the country were established, and in some cases ratified later, because the State Houses of Assembly were empowered in November 27th, 1989, to enact laws instituting and regulating the activities of these Agencies (Ibaba, 2010).  Accordingly, the various states’ legislatives enacted laws governing the activities of SEPAs in the states.  They also stated the functions or activities of `these agencies in accordance with the roles established by Federal Ministry of Environment. To harmonize what the agencies are doing for the purpose of this study, the general responsibilities and activities of these State Agencies as deduced from the set roles prescribed by the FMOE which provide the benchmark against which these   agencies’ performances can be measured have been briefly stated as follows:

  • to develop and maintain a sustainable environmental sanitation and environmental protection services;
  • co-ordinate the environmental sanitation in all the local government areas;
  • initiate policies for modern technologies in refuse collection, treatment and disposal in the states. (FMOE, 2005: p.46).

Having   charged these Agencies with the above responsibilities for over 15 years, it is necessary to evaluate the extent to which these Agencies have implemented their functions for which they were set up. The evaluation of the activities of these Agencies at this stage of implementation will help in making right decisions so as to avoid wastes in resources and time.

Evaluation is simply defined as a way of checking if things are going on as planned. As a process, it focuses on obtaining some pieces of information that are meant to guide in making decisions regarding the continuation, modification, or termination of what is being evaluated (Gboko and Lekoko, 2007). Evaluation can take place during or at the end of the programme development. Programmes are meant to be evaluated, to be cross-checked whether they are achieving the intended goals, and/or the level of success or failure, so as to make modifications or terminate any that may waste resources. It is therefore important that the programme and services of SEPAs be evaluated against SEPAs’ stated objectives to ascertain the extent to which the Agencies have implemented environmental sanitation services, environmental protection services, co-ordinated environmental sanitation services in all the local governments, adopted basic modern technologies for waste disposal, and to consider challenges that might hinder implementation of sanitation programme in these areas.

Implementation which is an important stage of any organizational task needs to be evaluated because it is the stage of carrying out or discharging what has been planned in an organization. Implementation according to Hornby, (2010) is the act of carrying out something that has been officially decided. Different aspects of implementation include: fidelity, dosage, quality, participant responsiveness, programme differentiation, monitoring of control, programme reach and adaptation (Durlak and Dupre, 2008). The implication is that all these aspects are highly interrelated and must function together to effect an outcome which is the objective of the programme. Adeniyi, (1990) noted that the success or failure of implementation would have to a large extent been determined by the quality of planning that has taken place. After the adoption of planned activities to achieve a set objective, the activities ought to be carried out through adequate execution/action so that set objectives would be achieved. If it is not so, the plans become aborted. Besides, there will be loss of resources and people will suffer as a result of non implementation of the activities to bring a change that will improve on peoples’ health and environment. With regards to the current study which seeks to evaluate the extent to which environmental sanitation is carried out in South East States, there will be environmental pollution which also de-generates into environmental de-gradation and several other hazards such as wide spread epidemics, depletion of natural habitats. These problems impede the socio-economic development of Nigeria as a nation (Ityavyar and Thomas, (2013).

Environmental sanitation is a major objective of SEPAs. Environmental sanitation is the control of those conditions that might permit the spread of diseases. It is important to evaluate the environmental sanitation services of SEPAs because the environments humans live in have been affected drastically by the activities of human beings such as gas flaring, oil spillage, crude dumping of refuse, improper disposal of industrial wastes, deforestation, and so on. Ogunsola-Bandele (1997) opined that they are really caused deliberately but mostly as a result of ignorance, or by-products of widely accepted economic and social activities and tradition practices.  Thus, if efforts are not made to check-mate these activities by carrying out environmental sanitation as well as environmental protection activities, the environment will continue to suffer degradation. This degradation will result to poor health and poor living conditions of the people.

Environmental protection services which place restraints on activities that can cause environmental degradation need to be evaluated. Environmental protection and environmental sanitation are two sides of a coin. They are inseparable and one cannot be discussed without the other. Thus there is also the need to protect the natural resources in the environment so that these resources will not come to extinction.  The result of growth in population which may lead to high rate of consumption will bring about overuse of the natural resources and the resultant effect of diminishing returns if these usages are not properly checked.  Thus, as a measure to conserve the environment everybody in Nigeria has been enjoined to go green (promote green economy) within their locality based on the ground that environmental endowment in Nigeria was largely degraded (Eyo, 2012). For instance forestation, one of the ways of preserving the natural environment was stated to provide multiple goods and services that are vital for poverty reductions and sustainable development in Africa and at global level (Tutu and Akol, 2009). These are specifically the major reasons for which Nigerian government set-up environmental protection agencies at the different levels and in different local governments which supposedly co-ordinate activities pertaining to environmental sanitation.

Co-ordination of environmental sanitation activities in all local governments in Nigeria also needs to be evaluated since there is a global concern for the issue of environmental sanitation to be tackled world-wide and up to the grass-root. Environmental sanitation could be difficult to achieve in the various levels or localities if the state does not harmonise its environmental sanitation activities with what are being done at the local levels. Roles or responsibilities need to be categorized and organized as well as setting up work relationship that will also ensure that environmental sanitation activities at the local government levels are properly co-ordinated to increase the effectiveness of environmental sanitation services at the various levels. This is to enable both the state and the local government areas to realise their mutual objectives. Thus, to realize sound sanitation practices in homes and communities, Okorodudu-Fubara (1990) asserted that government will undertake appropriate measures including effective coordination of intra-agency actions designed to promote environmentally sound patterns in the state.

To effectively carry out environmental sanitation services, there is the need to evaluate the adoption of basic modern technologies for waste disposal such as use of tractors, recycling machine, which are indispensable elements for safe-keeping of the environment. In this modern era, it is unhealthy to live in an environment where there is uncontrolled discharge of waste materials into the environment. The use of modern basic technologies in waste disposal needs to be considered very important because of the nature, type, and volume of wastes being generated from homes and industries. If these wastes are not properly controlled and removed in a safe and sound way that is rid of pollution, using appropriate facilities, they become harmful to people. On the other hand, proper waste disposal helps to keep the environment clean, reduce the possibilities of food contamination, and control the spread of diseases. These wastes require modern technologies for compression before their disposal since it is difficult to find sites to dump them.  Eyo (2012) opined that the practice of moving wastes indiscriminately from point of generation to all sorts of illegal dumpsites is environmentally unsustainable and unhealthy. As a result, the need for “hierarchy of waste management” known as 3RS, (reduce, reuse and recycle) may perhaps be considered. This is a kind of technology that also reduces the use of chemical based fertilizer by promoting the use of organic manure for agricultural purpose.  It is also important to find out the extent to which SEPAs in the South Eastern States apply modern technologies or keep abreast with technological developments in refuse disposal in the South East States.

Every programme that is being implemented must face some challenges. But the issue is how these challenges are tackled in order to carry out effective implementation of the programme. Thus Eneh (2011) condemned corruption among Nigeria populace which hampers implementation of good polices. Other challenges identified by Adelegan (2004) are absence of clear health and hygiene education, weak political will, role conflicts among government agencies, poor funding/financing, shortage of management skills and administrative enforcement capacities in the implementation of sanitation programme. It is therefore necessary to ascertain the challenges facing the SEPAs with the aim of arriving at some remedies or solutions to enable the programme in question to continue to be effective and result-oriented. These findings have to be inferred from the people who are concerned with the responsibilities of implementing environmental sanitation activities.

For the purpose of getting proper findings or judgement of this study, the researcher deemed it right to consider the opinions of people who are directly involved in the programme being evaluated. In the case of this study, the staff of SEPAs in the states under study are knowledgeable and therefore better subjects to provide relevant information on the implementation of environmental sanitation. In order to cross-check the answers given by this group for  more authentic data to be obtained, the autonomous community leaders (traditional rulers) are also considered useful to provide the information required for this study. These community leaders include the traditional rulers (government authorities in the community levels), the cabinet members who are responsible for advising and deciding on governmental policies of the communities and some key influential figures in the communities. The key influential figures are not mainly members of the cabinet but their pieces of advice and contributions in taking decisions in the communities matter much. They are opinion moulders in their communities. These are known in this study as community leaders. The opinions of these leaders of the communities under study are considered relevant because they are aware of the various developmental activities going on in their communities and have the mandate to oversee these activities.  They also represent the opinion of the masses and act as intermediaries between government and the people. They represent the government at the community levels and carry out government initiatives in the community levels. This is why it is pertinent to compare the responses from the two groups.

From the information obtained in the background, it is obvious that the Federal Government of  Nigeria has made various efforts towards improving the poor environmental conditions in the country. Though SEPAs have been set-up to tackle the problems of environmental pollution/degradation, yet, what is on ground shows that a lot still needs to be done to solve this problem. It is in the light of the above background that this study intends to evaluate the implementation of environmental sanitation programme by State Environmental Protection Agencies (SEPAs) in the South-East states, (Abia State, Anambra State, Ebonyi State, Enugu State and Imo State) Nigeria.

 

 

 

 

Statement of Problem

It is a global issue that there is environmental degradation and Nigeria is not exempted. There had been conferences and workshops to tackle environmental problems. The United Nations Organization (UNO) and the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) have made efforts to reverse as much as possible, what has been lost due to environmental degradation. One of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) also hinged around the awareness of the urgent need to protect the environment from degradation. Environmental Protection Legislation in Nigeria dates back to the colonial period in 1862. More conscious efforts have been taken by the Nigerian government after koko toxic waste episode in Delta state towards solving environmental problems. There are evidences of numerous environmental laws in Nigeria as mentioned in the background of the study. These laws were meant to combat the challenges imposed on the environment due to degradation. In achieving the objectives of environmental sanitation, Nigerian government has established and sponsored FEPA, EIA, FMOE, NESREA. If these objectives are realized, it would help the citizens to live in an environment that is free from pollution. The environment that will result from realizing these objectives will not permit the spread of diseases and infections, or the destruction of landscape and pollution of rivers, but rather will enhance the aesthetic value of the urban environment and maintain appropriate balance in the various ecosystems.

Despite the efforts made by the federal and state governments, many cities in Nigeria, especially in the South-East States are experiencing ever increasing rate of urbanization and population boom which is not commensurate with expansion in sanitary facilities. This results to pressure on available resources and infrastructures, inadequate housing, inadequate water supply, open defecation among the poorer segments of the society, hard-to-manage volume of solid wastes, blockage of drainages, flood disasters, erosion, open burning and dumping of refuse. These conditions enable mosquitoes, houseflies and other disease carriers to rapidly breed on them, thus causing the spread of infections and diseases to human beings. They also destroy the aesthetic value of the cities, the landscapes, and also pollute the rivers which in some cases are the sources of water supply for some. The monthly environmental sanitation exercises seemed to have stopped functioning in some states like Imo. These lapses continue to constitute huge threats to the health of the entire population in the state, and country, hence, the essence of this study.

SEPAs was set up to take care of environmental sanitation at the grassroots. These agencies though were established at different times in different states – have been there for over 15 years and there is need to evaluate the extent they have been able to realize the objectives of SEPAs. The problem of this study is to evaluate the extent to which SEPAs have implemented:  environmental sanitation services, environmental protection services, coordination of environmental sanitation services in all the local government areas, adoption of basic modern technologies in environmental sanitation services, and the challenges hindering implementation as well as proffer ways of effective environmental sanitation programme in the South-East States, Nigeria.

 

Purpose of the Study

The general purpose of this study is to evaluate the extent of the implementation of environmental sanitation programme by State Environmental Protection Agencies in the South-East States, Nigeria, as provided in the objectives used in setting them up. Specifically, this study intends to:

  1. ascertain the extent to which State Environmental Protection Agencies in the South-East States have implemented environmental sanitation services in the South East States;
  2. ascertain the extent to which State Environmental Protection Agencies in the South-East States have implemented environmental protection services in South East States;
  3. ascertain the extent to which State Environmental Protection Agencies in the South-East States have coordinated  environmental sanitation services in all the local government areas in the South East States;
  4. ascertain the extent to which State Environmental Protection Agencies in the South-East States have adopted basic modern technologies in implementing environmental sanitation services in the South East States;
  5. Ascertain the challenges that hinder the State Environmental Protection Agencies in the South-East States from implementing environmental sanitation programme in the South East States.

 

Significance of the Study                                

The significance of this study is made up of two parts: namely theoretical and practical.

Theoretically, the finding of this study will show the efficacy of Mill’s Theory of Steady State Economy on environment in analysing evaluation of implementation of environmental sanitation programme. Mill’s Theory of Steady State Economy was propounded by John Stuart Mill in 1884. The theory stated that wherever there is increase in industrialization and population there will be increase in environmental pollution which also degenerates into environmental degradation. Mill’s Theory of Steady State Economy will show how environmental degradation is associated with high population growth and technology from an effective evaluation of implementation of an environmental sanitation programme like the present study. The Theory will provide an analysis of how these challenges occur and proffer possible ways of protecting and preserving the environment so that effective implementation of environmental sanitation programme can be realized. The findings of this study will therefore lend credence to the tenets of this theory.

Practically, the findings of the study will be significant to Nigerian government (the federal, state, and local government authorities), SEPAs, community leaders, the Nigerian citizens (masses) and researchers.

This study will be beneficial to Nigerian government because it will provide information that will help them know the extent to which they have achieved the road-map for the attainment of the objectives to which SEPAs were set up to achieve after 15 years of existence. It will also provide information for making decisions whether to modify initial plans, show more commitment, or to terminate the programme. Information on the worth and merits of this programme at the state level will be made known to them in this study.

The results of this study will provide information to the State Environmental Protection Agencies on how they have performed so that possible modifications can be made where necessary. It will provide information on the extent they have co-ordinated the programme in all the local government areas and on the extent of adaptability of the modern technologies in areas they are actually needed. The study will not only provide information on the challenges hindering the effective discharge of their functions, but it will also suggest ways these challenges can be minimized for effective implementation to be achieved.

The community leaders will also benefit from this study since they are part of the driving force in developmental programmes. The study will give them information to know what they are expected to do in monitoring and supervising various components of the community to ensure their compliance to environmental policies in order to help SEPAs function better.

The study will be useful to Nigerian citizens (masses) because it will generate information on how they can package and dispose their wastes/refuse. It will also give them information about the importance of environmental sanitation and the way to keep clean their environment so as not to damage the aesthetic values of their environment. Information on how to preserve the natural resources, plant, trees, and adopt modern technologies in refuse/waste disposal exercises will also be revealed in this study.

Finally, the study also has significance to the researchers. The study will contribute to existing information in the area of environmental sanitation study. Aspects of this study can be adopted by researchers to generate new ideas or review existing data on environmental sanitation, making it more relevant and current.

Research Questions

This study will be guided by the following research questions:

  1. To what extent have the State Environmental Protection Agencies in the South-East States implemented environmental sanitation services in these states?
  2. To what extent have the State Environmental Protection Agencies in the South-East States implemented environmental protection services in these states?
  3. To what extent have the State Environmental Protection Agencies in the South-East States co-ordinated environmental sanitation services in all the local government areas in these states?
  4. To what extent have the State Environmental Protection Agencies in the South-East States adopted basic modern technologies in carrying out environmental sanitation services in these states?
  5. What are the challenges that hinder the State Environmental Protection Agencies in the South-East States from implementing environmental sanitation programme in these states?

Research Hypotheses

Each of the following hypotheses will be tested at 0.05 level of significance:

HO1 There is no significant difference in the mean ratings of the staff of the State Environmental Protection Agencies and community leaders in the South East States on the extent to which State Environmental Protection Agencies in South-East States have implemented environmental sanitation services in these states.

HO2 There is no significant difference in the mean ratings of the staff of the State Environmental Protection Agencies and community leaders in the South-East States on the extent to which State Environmental Protection Agencies in South-East have implemented environmental protection services in these States.

HO3 There is no significant difference in the mean ratings of the staff of the State Environmental Protection Agencies and community leaders in the South-East States on the extent to which State Environmental Protection Agencies in South-East States have co-ordinated environmental sanitation services in all the local government areas in these states.

HO4 There is no significant difference in the mean ratings of the staff of the State Environmental Protection Agencies and community leaders in South-East States on the extent to which State Environmental Protection Agencies in the South-East States have adopted basic modern technologies in carrying out environmental sanitation services in these states.

HO5 There is no significant difference in the mean ratings of the staff of the State Environmental Protection Agencies and community leaders in the South-East States on the challenges that hinder the Environmental Protection Agencies in the South-East States from implementing environmental sanitation programme in these states.

 

Scope of the Study

This study focuses on the evaluation of the implementation of environmental sanitation programme by State Environmental Protection Agencies (SEPAs) in the South-East States. These states include: Abia, Anambra, Ebonyi, Enugu and Imo States. It further covers the extent to which State Environmental Sanitation Agencies carry out; environmental sanitation services, environmental protection services, co-ordination of environmental sanitation services in all the states and local government areas, basic modern technologies in refuse collection, treatment and disposal. The study also covers the challenges that hinder the implementation of environmental sanitation programme in the South East States.

INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study

Man, as a rational being, naturally has a sense of decency. Prior to the introduction of Western education in Africa, and Nigeria in particular, the populace had basic environmental sanitation tradition of sweeping their surroundings, cleaning-up the local path-ways, and planting economic trees around their environment with manageable wastes being generated. However, the burden of wastes generated or pollutants were not experienced during these earlier times, but were felt during the period of urban population growth and industrialization. Thus, Nkwocha and Emeribe (2008) asserted that the growth of urban cities resulted to increased wastes being generated which have become a menace to the inhabitants. Consequently, there was need to manage these wastes in order to create conducive atmosphere for the sustenance of the people. The need to achieve sustainable promotion and protection of environment and human health in Nigeria brought up the idea of environmental sanitation (Federal Ministry of Environment (FMOE), 2005).

1

Environmental sanitation is the act of controlling all the activities that negatively affect the environment in order to preserve the lives of the people and the natural resources from damages. Environmental sanitation according to Agunwamba (2001) is the control of all conditions that contribute to contamination and that might permit the spread of diseases or infections. In another definition which explains environmental sanitation in a more specific manner asserted that environmental sanitation involves the disposal and management of human wastes or excreta, sometimes diluted with water as sewage. It also includes drainage and disposal of sludge and solid wastes or refuse (Federal Republic of Nigeria, 2004a). Stating further definition of environmental sanitation, the FMOE (2005) defined environmental sanitation as the principles and practices of effecting healthful and hygienic conditions in the environment, promoting public health and welfare, improving quality of life, reducing poverty, and ensuring a sustainable environment. It can be inferred from the above definitions that environmental sanitation is the act of carrying out activities in the environment which create basic environmental conditions favourable to humans in order to enhance good health and general well-being of the people.

Environmental sanitation, in the context of this study, means activities geared towards ensuring that the environment is protected from depletion or deterioration that may result to poor hygienic practices in the environment It involves such practices as sweeping the streets, collecting and properly disposing of wastes, protecting the natural resources from overuse or degradation, demolition of unauthorized (disaster-prone) structures, the planting of trees and flowers, and the construction of structures that add to the beauty of the environment.

The aim of environmental sanitation according to Iroegbu (2004) is to protect and improve the quality of health and life of the people living in an environment. It also includes control of environmental pollution and its associated hazards for the benefit of present and future generations. The issue of environmental sanitation is of paramount importance to the individual and the nation in general to realize their potentials. This is because no nation can live above its sanitation indices as it is a well-known fact that health is wealth. There cannot be a healthy nation without a healthy environment. This implies that sanitation which results to an improvement in the quality of life of an individual or a nation will help the individual or nation in question to rise above limitations like poverty, ignorance, diseases and other challenging situations in the environment in order to meet and solve their basic needs. According to the  FMOE (2005) poor environmental sanitation conditions have contributed significantly to high prevalence of communicable diseases in the country, which include malaria, cholera, typhoid, diarrhoea, acute respiratory infections, tuberculosis and helminthic infections. On the other hand, apart from the issue of aesthetics and orderliness, the importance of environmental sanitation also includes activities that reduce the possibilities of food contamination to avoid the spread of diseases and infections. Thus, it is understandable that when the contamination of food is controlled and the spread of diseases and infections are avoided or minimized, the lives of the members of a society are better enhanced, and health-risks which are indicators of underdevelopment are limited. In this regard, Abubakar (1990) noted that the benefits, such as reduced mortality and morbidity, improved productivity of labour, technological innovation and increased amenities, are enhanced through environmental sanitation particularly in the developing countries.

The importance of environmental sanitation and its positive effects on a wide range of development indicators have been a global concern. Environmental issues, according to Eneh (2011), gave rise to the 1972 United Nations Stockholm Conference on Human Environment, and to the 1992 United Nations Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit. These were part of the United Nations’ interventions to solve environmental problems. The Stockholm conference on human environment declared a new International Economic Order that was meant to defend and improve the environment for present and future generations. In response to that declaration, there were series of regional meetings of environmental education experts which led to a ten-day International Environmental Education workshop at Belgrade in Yugoslavia from the 13th to the 22nd of October, 1975. The outcome of this workshop as briefly stated, is that environmental education should constitute a comprehensive lifelong education responsive to changes in a rapidly changing world. An education that should prepare the individual for life. The results of the workshops gave rise to first ministerial inter-governmental conference on Environmental education at Tbilisi, Georgia in 1977 and the subsequent Moscow congress of 1987 which culminated to declarations and recommendations that established the conceptual framework and guidelines for the activities of the International Environmental Education programme. A programme which will make it possible to develop among the populace, awareness and concern about the environment and its associated problems and which has the new knowledge and skills, values and attitudes in a drive towards a better quality of environment and higher quality of life for the present and future generations living within the environment.

United Nations (UN) (2011) also reported that the consciousness to develop the resources of the world in ways which will benefit all of humanity, and provide the potentials for raising the quality of life for everyone, led to the establishment of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) to be achieved by the member countries – of which Nigeria is one – by the year 2015. One of these goals is to achieve environmental sustainability. In this regard, the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) brought to the fore the need to balance development with its costs to the environment, hence, making sustainable environmental development a global concern in order to realize a sustainable environmental development. National and state legislations on the environment have consistently been considered a major instrument to correct the actions/attitudes of citizens which degrade the environment and at the same time guide and control natural resource exploitation (Ibaba, 2010).

Nigerian government keyed into this recommendation to integrate the principles of sustainable environmental development in her policies and programmes in order to reverse the loss of environmental resources. In line with this recommendation, 2008 was declared the International Year of Sanitation during which issues on sanitation were discussed in so detailed a manner that sanitation received much attention such as organising yearly sanitation conferences in various regions of the world to ensure that sanitation remains on the political agenda (UN 2011). The aim is to improve the living conditions of the people through sanitation.

In Nigeria, the government has made efforts during the colonial and post-colonial eras to provide and maintain environmental sanitation services. To mention but a few of them were: The Waterworks Act of 1915, which was an effort made to keep water from being polluted by obnoxious or harmful substance; the Public Health Act of 1917, which was an effort to prohibit the fouling of water and vitiation of the atmosphere by harmful human activities; Waste Management Regulation of 1991, which was an effort made on waste management; Nigerian Industrial Standards for potable Water, and Natural Mineral Water of 1992, which was an effort made in the area of public health protection (Akpabio, 2012). Commenting on the above efforts, Federal Republic of Nigeria (FRN 2004b) stated that poor sanitation practices before the colonial administration were attributed to lack of awareness, poverty, and poor planning. Consequently during the colonial era, the history of sanitation was reported to be interwoven with the growth and expansion of early settlements, especially in Lagos Island by 1862. The government then mandated the citizens to clear bushes around their homes. Efforts were made towards straightening, widening, and sweeping the streets and premises. There were also the construction of drainages and removal of other sources of nuisance in Lagos Island and an appointment of an inspector of nuisance (First sanitary Inspector) to effect all these. In addition to cleaning the streets and collecting garbages, night soil workers were introduced around 1899 to reduce ground water pollution which was based on the discovery that 202 out of 203 wells tested were polluted.

However Adelegan (2004) opined that from the onset of British rule in Nigeria in the 1900s, Nigeria’s environmental sanitation efforts have been enforced merely through bye-laws. Adelegan also stated that the colonial economic development policies and plans contained little or no stringent rules to conserve the natural resources or to limit pollution. Over the years, there has been an increased awareness of the problems of water pollution with no positive step taken in the right direction to avert it. As a result, developing countries, including Nigeria, suffer from a number of primary environmental problems mainly attributed to underdevelopment and the attendant poor living conditions. Commenting further on the pollutants in the country, Akpabio (2012) was of the view that the colonial masters made inadequate provision of the sanitation system to solve the environmental problems of the people. Thus, Akpabio, (2012) held that there are still lapses in the practices of urban dwellers following the instances of human excrements on urban roads, gutters and dumpsites which reflected inadequacy of available sanitation systems and infrastructures to cope with the expanding demographic realities.

In addition, during the post-colonial era, the Nigerian government had tried to act in line with the demands of the United Nations to tackle environmental problems. Consequent upon the koko toxic waste episode in Delta state, Eneh, (2011) stated that Nigeria, in 1987 made some efforts to stem the tide of unacceptable level of environmental degradation. She became an environmentally conscious nation by establishing some policies on environment which include the following: the promulgation of the Harmful Wastes Decree no.42 which was part of the country’s response to the dumping of toxic waste by foreign firm (Italian) in koko; Federal Environmental Protection Agency (FEPA) Decree 58 of 1988 and 59 (amended) in 1992, which established an environmental management agency charged with the overall responsibility for environmental management and protection; the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Act of 1992, which is the core legislation that governs environmental impact assessment in respect to proposed projects in Nigeria.

Following from the FEPA Act of 1988, Nigerian government, in November 1989, launched the National Policy on Environment (NPE). The policy prescribed the guidelines and strategies for achieving the policy goal of sustainable development. According to Eneh (2011) the broader aims of the national policy on environment include the following:

  • Securing the quality of the environment for health and well being;
  • Conserving and using the environment and natural resources for the benefit of present and future generations;
  • Restoring, maintaining and enhancing the ecosystem and ecological processes essential for the functioning of the biosphere to preserve biological diversity and the principle of optimum sustainable yield in the use of natural resources;
  • Promoting public awareness on the link between development and the environment; and
  • International cooperation with countries and international organizations in the protection of the environment (p.255).

The aims of the NPE have implications with the current study which seeks to evaluate the extent environmental sanitation programme at the various state levels in South East States of Nigeria have been implemented in line with the above aims in order to provide an acceptable level of environmental sanitation that will enable the citizens to achieve socially and economically productive lives.

FEPA act of 1988 also led to the establishment of State Environmental Protection Agencies (SEPAs) in each state of the federation which have offices in local government areas (Adelegan, 2004). In order to involve full participation of all tiers of government in environmental sanitation, Federal Republic of Nigeria introduced an efficient environmental management system throughout the country by directing that the issue of municipal waste disposal and sanitation are the responsibility of the local governments who also have powers to pass bye-laws (Nkwocha, Pat-Mbano, and Dike, 2011). This act was enacted in order to provide sanitation at the grass root in a more effective manner. There was also set procedures and procurement of service equipments for the implementation strategies. Thus, the state government, to provide technical assistance and logistic support to local government areas on the implementation of the National Environmental Sanitation Programme. The establishment of FEPA provided legal frameworks for enforcing environmental protection and sanitation among Nigerians. With respect to the effort made so far, the environmental sanitation practices then were haphazardly carried out, as a result of unsatisfactory implementation of environmental sanitation practices. Hence,  there  was the need to address environmental problems of the various ecological and industrial zones and to place within the reach of the state the required technical advisory support needed by the State Environmental Protection Agency (Adegoke, 2012).

In the course of time, the federal government authority being aware of the important role environmental sanitation plays in the maintenance of sound public health decided that a separate and specific policy is required to address environmental sanitation. The federal government also recounted that efforts of past governments had achieved minimal success because of the absence of an appropriate policy instrument to provide focus and direction for necessary planning and implementation. Thus, the FMOE (2005) stated that a national environmental sanitation policy was developed in accordance with the National Policy on Environmental (1989), Millennium Development Goals, world summit on sustainable Development targets and the aims of New Partnership for African Development (NEPAD) initiatives; to address specifically only environmental sanitation conditions. The policy is therefore put in place to serve as a veritable instrument for securing quality environment for good health and social well being of present and future generations. The goal of national environmental sanitation as stated in this policy is to ensure a clean and healthy environment by adopting efficient, sustainable and cost-effective strategies, so as to safeguard public health and wellbeing in line with the national development objectives. With reference to these national environmental sanitation goals, the federal government charged the states (State Ministries of Environment/Agencies responsible for sanitation both private and public) with the following roles and responsibilities amongst other functions for environmental protection and improvement. These roles include:

  1. Ensuring compliance with environmental sanitation standards or lay down guidelines;
  2. Monitoring and evaluating environmental sanitation activities (environmental sanitation/protection activities);
  3. Coordinating the national environmental sanitation day exercises and providing health education to the public through enlightenment campaigns;
  4. Ensuring the regular cleaning of streets and drainages in the state;
  5. Ensuring and coordinating the storage, regular collection, transportation and disposal of solid waste in the urban areas;
  6. Ensuring proper citing of final deposit waste sites for waste management;
  7. Ensuring adequate management of sewerage system;
  8. Providing technical assistance and logistic support to LGA on the implementation of the national environmental sanitation policy and guidelines;
  9. Conducting research on environmental sanitation technologies in line with local customs and practices;
  10. Adopting a master plan on solid waste management and biomedical wastes as well as ensuring implementation at state level;
  11. Forward biannual reports on environmental sanitation activities to the national technical committee (FMOE 2005 p. 46).

These roles or activities as stated above have relevance to the current study which aims at ascertaining the extent to which environmental sanitation activities have been implemented by SEPAs in south east states. Effective implementation of these roles would help to provide a clean and healthy environment so as to sustain health and wellbeing in line with the national development.

Accordingly, FRN (2007) reported that FEPA and other relevant departments such as Federal Ministry of Health, Petroleum, Housing and Urban Development and Water Resources were later on merged to form the Federal Ministry of Environment (FMOE) in 1999 so as to expand the function of FEPA.  This was done alongside State Ministries of Environment (SMOE) in all the states of the federation. SEPAs in some states metamorphosed into Ministry of Environment while some states retained SEPA of which Abia, Anambra, Ebonyi, Enugu and Imo are amongst. However, FRN further stated that this was done without an appropriate enabling law on enforcement issues. This deficiency implied ineffective enforcement of environmental laws, standards, and regulations in the states.

As a result, there has been ever increasing environmental degradation due to high population pressures and prevailing critical socio-economic conditions which erode the country’s environmental wealth. It was in the effort to address this lack that the Obasanjo-led administration, through an Executive Bill, in November 2006, established a regulatory and enforcement agency known as the National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency (NESREA). NESREA is a body responsible for the effective enforcement of environmental laws, standards, and regulations, with its focus on the protection and sustainable development of the environment and its natural resources. The agency’s vision is to ensure a cleaner and healthier environment for Nigerians, while the mission is to inspire personal and collective responsibility in building an environmentally-conscious society for the achievement of sustainable development in Nigeria. Despite these efforts made by the Nigerian government to formulate policies and establish agencies – such as FEPA, FMOE and NESREA amongst others, much needs to be done in the area of environmental sanitation if  the quality of environment that is liveable for the Nigerian people is to be achieved. The current situation with regards to environmental sanitation in the areas of study and Nigeria in general is such that there are lots of nuisance affecting the environment. According to Aina (1990), among the many environmental degradation problems facing the country are soil and coastal erosion, deforestation, oil pollution, solid waste management, liquid waste, and toxic and hazardous substances. If these dangers are not put under control, it might result in widespread human suffering in the foreseeable future.

However, it has been observed by FRN (2004c) that the ever increasing urbanization is one of the most pervasive phenomenal issues occurring in sub-Saharan Africa in general, and Nigeria in particular. It further reported that the rate of urban growth in Nigeria is one of the highest in the world, exceeding 6.5 percent per- annum. This growth has caused diverse problems in urban areas such as water scarcity, dense housing, traffic congestion, and dumps of solid wastes which are the most intractable of the problems according to Nkwocha and Emeribe (2008). Much refuse were generated especially during weekends when people find time to clean-up their homes and environment. As a result of this, refuse evacuation has become more herculean due to the blockage of roads and drainages with refuse. Nkwocha and Emeribe, further noted that it is not uncommon to find streets, roads, undeveloped plots and drains, deposited with solid wastes. Moreso the accumulation of these wastes generally reduces the aesthetic value of the urban environment, destruction of the land-scape, and pollution of rivers which serve as sources of water supply for many rural communities. Much more problems about dumping of solid wastes were also noted by FMOE  (2005)  that the accumulation of  these wastes also accounts for a significant percentage of morbidity (malaria, dysentery, diarrhoea, hepatitis, hookworm, cholera, typhoid, tuberculosis, and so on) and mortality from sanitation-related diseases as well as the cost of medical treatment, especially among the local residents; a scenario, which is associated with impoverishment and poor standard of living among the populace.

Furthermore, the issue of accumulated solid wastes in the country has also been criticized by some  authors. Ogu (2000) stated  that  in many Nigerian cities, the volume of solid waste has overwhelmed urban administrators’ capacity to plan for their collection and disposal. This constitutes serious environmental nuisance and health hazards due to poor sanitation which are inimical to healthy living. Adelegan, (2004), opined that the services of the established environmental sanitation agencies in Nigeria were limited by such factors as the absence of clear health and hygiene education, weak political will, role conflicts among government agencies, poor funding/financing, shortage of management skills and administrative enforcement capacities in the implementation of sanitation programmes. For these reasons, the implementation of environmental sanitation by the sanitation Agencies is still questionable with what is on ground. Adelegan also asserted that most developing countries though have long established laws of formal governmental structures to address their serious environmental problems but few have been successful in alleviating these problems.  To this regard Eneh (2011), opined that the impeccable policies in Nigeria often suffer failures at the implementation stage. This is attributed to corrupt practices prevalent among Nigerian administrators which hamper implementation.

In the South-East of Nigeria, Environmental Sanitation Agencies such as Abia State Environmental Protection Agency (ASEPA) – established by the  state in 1992 Act, ratified in 1994, and amended in 1995 (source; Enhance Environmental management strategies in  Abia State by Iroegbu);  Anambra State Waste Management Agency (ASWAMA) – formerly called Anambra State Environmental Sanitation Authority (ASESA) – formed by Edict no. 15 of 1985 ratified on 17th May, 2011 (source: Anambra  State Waste management Agency  2011); Ebonyi State Environmental Protection Agency (ESEPA) – established on 28th May, 1999 (source: Ebonyi State Environmental Protection Agency law CAP. 53 ); Enugu State Waste Management Authority (ESWAMA) – formerly called Enugu State Environmental Sanitation Authority (ESESA) – first established in 1994; then ratified on 29th July, 2004 (source Enugu State Waste  Management Authority law No. 8 2010); and  Environmental Transformation Commission, Imo State (ENTRACO) – formerly called Imo State Environmental Protection Agency (ISEPA), ratified in 2008 (source Imo State of Nigeria 2008 law no. 3) were all established to tackle environmental sanitation issues in the states. These Agencies, though answer different names as preferred by the state government, have common role to play in environmental sanitation. Therefore, they will be addressed in the current study as State Environmental Protection Agencies (SEPAs)

The State Environmental Protection Agencies in these areas of the country were established, and in some cases ratified later, because the State Houses of Assembly were empowered in November 27th, 1989, to enact laws instituting and regulating the activities of these Agencies (Ibaba, 2010).  Accordingly, the various states’ legislatives enacted laws governing the activities of SEPAs in the states.  They also stated the functions or activities of `these agencies in accordance with the roles established by Federal Ministry of Environment. To harmonize what the agencies are doing for the purpose of this study, the general responsibilities and activities of these State Agencies as deduced from the set roles prescribed by the FMOE which provide the benchmark against which these   agencies’ performances can be measured have been briefly stated as follows:

  • to develop and maintain a sustainable environmental sanitation and environmental protection services;
  • co-ordinate the environmental sanitation in all the local government areas;
  • initiate policies for modern technologies in refuse collection, treatment and disposal in the states. (FMOE, 2005: p.46).

Having   charged these Agencies with the above responsibilities for over 15 years, it is necessary to evaluate the extent to which these Agencies have implemented their functions for which they were set up. The evaluation of the activities of these Agencies at this stage of implementation will help in making right decisions so as to avoid wastes in resources and time.

Evaluation is simply defined as a way of checking if things are going on as planned. As a process, it focuses on obtaining some pieces of information that are meant to guide in making decisions regarding the continuation, modification, or termination of what is being evaluated (Gboko and Lekoko, 2007). Evaluation can take place during or at the end of the programme development. Programmes are meant to be evaluated, to be cross-checked whether they are achieving the intended goals, and/or the level of success or failure, so as to make modifications or terminate any that may waste resources. It is therefore important that the programme and services of SEPAs be evaluated against SEPAs’ stated objectives to ascertain the extent to which the Agencies have implemented environmental sanitation services, environmental protection services, co-ordinated environmental sanitation services in all the local governments, adopted basic modern technologies for waste disposal, and to consider challenges that might hinder implementation of sanitation programme in these areas.

Implementation which is an important stage of any organizational task needs to be evaluated because it is the stage of carrying out or discharging what has been planned in an organization. Implementation according to Hornby, (2010) is the act of carrying out something that has been officially decided. Different aspects of implementation include: fidelity, dosage, quality, participant responsiveness, programme differentiation, monitoring of control, programme reach and adaptation (Durlak and Dupre, 2008). The implication is that all these aspects are highly interrelated and must function together to effect an outcome which is the objective of the programme. Adeniyi, (1990) noted that the success or failure of implementation would have to a large extent been determined by the quality of planning that has taken place. After the adoption of planned activities to achieve a set objective, the activities ought to be carried out through adequate execution/action so that set objectives would be achieved. If it is not so, the plans become aborted. Besides, there will be loss of resources and people will suffer as a result of non implementation of the activities to bring a change that will improve on peoples’ health and environment. With regards to the current study which seeks to evaluate the extent to which environmental sanitation is carried out in South East States, there will be environmental pollution which also de-generates into environmental de-gradation and several other hazards such as wide spread epidemics, depletion of natural habitats. These problems impede the socio-economic development of Nigeria as a nation (Ityavyar and Thomas, (2013).

Environmental sanitation is a major objective of SEPAs. Environmental sanitation is the control of those conditions that might permit the spread of diseases. It is important to evaluate the environmental sanitation services of SEPAs because the environments humans live in have been affected drastically by the activities of human beings such as gas flaring, oil spillage, crude dumping of refuse, improper disposal of industrial wastes, deforestation, and so on. Ogunsola-Bandele (1997) opined that they are really caused deliberately but mostly as a result of ignorance, or by-products of widely accepted economic and social activities and tradition practices.  Thus, if efforts are not made to check-mate these activities by carrying out environmental sanitation as well as environmental protection activities, the environment will continue to suffer degradation. This degradation will result to poor health and poor living conditions of the people.

Environmental protection services which place restraints on activities that can cause environmental degradation need to be evaluated. Environmental protection and environmental sanitation are two sides of a coin. They are inseparable and one cannot be discussed without the other. Thus there is also the need to protect the natural resources in the environment so that these resources will not come to extinction.  The result of growth in population which may lead to high rate of consumption will bring about overuse of the natural resources and the resultant effect of diminishing returns if these usages are not properly checked.  Thus, as a measure to conserve the environment everybody in Nigeria has been enjoined to go green (promote green economy) within their locality based on the ground that environmental endowment in Nigeria was largely degraded (Eyo, 2012). For instance forestation, one of the ways of preserving the natural environment was stated to provide multiple goods and services that are vital for poverty reductions and sustainable development in Africa and at global level (Tutu and Akol, 2009). These are specifically the major reasons for which Nigerian government set-up environmental protection agencies at the different levels and in different local governments which supposedly co-ordinate activities pertaining to environmental sanitation.

Co-ordination of environmental sanitation activities in all local governments in Nigeria also needs to be evaluated since there is a global concern for the issue of environmental sanitation to be tackled world-wide and up to the grass-root. Environmental sanitation could be difficult to achieve in the various levels or localities if the state does not harmonise its environmental sanitation activities with what are being done at the local levels. Roles or responsibilities need to be categorized and organized as well as setting up work relationship that will also ensure that environmental sanitation activities at the local government levels are properly co-ordinated to increase the effectiveness of environmental sanitation services at the various levels. This is to enable both the state and the local government areas to realise their mutual objectives. Thus, to realize sound sanitation practices in homes and communities, Okorodudu-Fubara (1990) asserted that government will undertake appropriate measures including effective coordination of intra-agency actions designed to promote environmentally sound patterns in the state.

To effectively carry out environmental sanitation services, there is the need to evaluate the adoption of basic modern technologies for waste disposal such as use of tractors, recycling machine, which are indispensable elements for safe-keeping of the environment. In this modern era, it is unhealthy to live in an environment where there is uncontrolled discharge of waste materials into the environment. The use of modern basic technologies in waste disposal needs to be considered very important because of the nature, type, and volume of wastes being generated from homes and industries. If these wastes are not properly controlled and removed in a safe and sound way that is rid of pollution, using appropriate facilities, they become harmful to people. On the other hand, proper waste disposal helps to keep the environment clean, reduce the possibilities of food contamination, and control the spread of diseases. These wastes require modern technologies for compression before their disposal since it is difficult to find sites to dump them.  Eyo (2012) opined that the practice of moving wastes indiscriminately from point of generation to all sorts of illegal dumpsites is environmentally unsustainable and unhealthy. As a result, the need for “hierarchy of waste management” known as 3RS, (reduce, reuse and recycle) may perhaps be considered. This is a kind of technology that also reduces the use of chemical based fertilizer by promoting the use of organic manure for agricultural purpose.  It is also important to find out the extent to which SEPAs in the South Eastern States apply modern technologies or keep abreast with technological developments in refuse disposal in the South East States.

Every programme that is being implemented must face some challenges. But the issue is how these challenges are tackled in order to carry out effective implementation of the programme. Thus Eneh (2011) condemned corruption among Nigeria populace which hampers implementation of good polices. Other challenges identified by Adelegan (2004) are absence of clear health and hygiene education, weak political will, role conflicts among government agencies, poor funding/financing, shortage of management skills and administrative enforcement capacities in the implementation of sanitation programme. It is therefore necessary to ascertain the challenges facing the SEPAs with the aim of arriving at some remedies or solutions to enable the programme in question to continue to be effective and result-oriented. These findings have to be inferred from the people who are concerned with the responsibilities of implementing environmental sanitation activities.

For the purpose of getting proper findings or judgement of this study, the researcher deemed it right to consider the opinions of people who are directly involved in the programme being evaluated. In the case of this study, the staff of SEPAs in the states under study are knowledgeable and therefore better subjects to provide relevant information on the implementation of environmental sanitation. In order to cross-check the answers given by this group for  more authentic data to be obtained, the autonomous community leaders (traditional rulers) are also considered useful to provide the information required for this study. These community leaders include the traditional rulers (government authorities in the community levels), the cabinet members who are responsible for advising and deciding on governmental policies of the communities and some key influential figures in the communities. The key influential figures are not mainly members of the cabinet but their pieces of advice and contributions in taking decisions in the communities matter much. They are opinion moulders in their communities. These are known in this study as community leaders. The opinions of these leaders of the communities under study are considered relevant because they are aware of the various developmental activities going on in their communities and have the mandate to oversee these activities.  They also represent the opinion of the masses and act as intermediaries between government and the people. They represent the government at the community levels and carry out government initiatives in the community levels. This is why it is pertinent to compare the responses from the two groups.

From the information obtained in the background, it is obvious that the Federal Government of  Nigeria has made various efforts towards improving the poor environmental conditions in the country. Though SEPAs have been set-up to tackle the problems of environmental pollution/degradation, yet, what is on ground shows that a lot still needs to be done to solve this problem. It is in the light of the above background that this study intends to evaluate the implementation of environmental sanitation programme by State Environmental Protection Agencies (SEPAs) in the South-East states, (Abia State, Anambra State, Ebonyi State, Enugu State and Imo State) Nigeria.

 

 

 

 

Statement of Problem

It is a global issue that there is environmental degradation and Nigeria is not exempted. There had been conferences and workshops to tackle environmental problems. The United Nations Organization (UNO) and the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) have made efforts to reverse as much as possible, what has been lost due to environmental degradation. One of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) also hinged around the awareness of the urgent need to protect the environment from degradation. Environmental Protection Legislation in Nigeria dates back to the colonial period in 1862. More conscious efforts have been taken by the Nigerian government after koko toxic waste episode in Delta state towards solving environmental problems. There are evidences of numerous environmental laws in Nigeria as mentioned in the background of the study. These laws were meant to combat the challenges imposed on the environment due to degradation. In achieving the objectives of environmental sanitation, Nigerian government has established and sponsored FEPA, EIA, FMOE, NESREA. If these objectives are realized, it would help the citizens to live in an environment that is free from pollution. The environment that will result from realizing these objectives will not permit the spread of diseases and infections, or the destruction of landscape and pollution of rivers, but rather will enhance the aesthetic value of the urban environment and maintain appropriate balance in the various ecosystems.

Despite the efforts made by the federal and state governments, many cities in Nigeria, especially in the South-East States are experiencing ever increasing rate of urbanization and population boom which is not commensurate with expansion in sanitary facilities. This results to pressure on available resources and infrastructures, inadequate housing, inadequate water supply, open defecation among the poorer segments of the society, hard-to-manage volume of solid wastes, blockage of drainages, flood disasters, erosion, open burning and dumping of refuse. These conditions enable mosquitoes, houseflies and other disease carriers to rapidly breed on them, thus causing the spread of infections and diseases to human beings. They also destroy the aesthetic value of the cities, the landscapes, and also pollute the rivers which in some cases are the sources of water supply for some. The monthly environmental sanitation exercises seemed to have stopped functioning in some states like Imo. These lapses continue to constitute huge threats to the health of the entire population in the state, and country, hence, the essence of this study.

SEPAs was set up to take care of environmental sanitation at the grassroots. These agencies though were established at different times in different states – have been there for over 15 years and there is need to evaluate the extent they have been able to realize the objectives of SEPAs. The problem of this study is to evaluate the extent to which SEPAs have implemented:  environmental sanitation services, environmental protection services, coordination of environmental sanitation services in all the local government areas, adoption of basic modern technologies in environmental sanitation services, and the challenges hindering implementation as well as proffer ways of effective environmental sanitation programme in the South-East States, Nigeria.

 

Purpose of the Study

The general purpose of this study is to evaluate the extent of the implementation of environmental sanitation programme by State Environmental Protection Agencies in the South-East States, Nigeria, as provided in the objectives used in setting them up. Specifically, this study intends to:

  1. ascertain the extent to which State Environmental Protection Agencies in the South-East States have implemented environmental sanitation services in the South East States;
  2. ascertain the extent to which State Environmental Protection Agencies in the South-East States have implemented environmental protection services in South East States;
  3. ascertain the extent to which State Environmental Protection Agencies in the South-East States have coordinated  environmental sanitation services in all the local government areas in the South East States;
  4. ascertain the extent to which State Environmental Protection Agencies in the South-East States have adopted basic modern technologies in implementing environmental sanitation services in the South East States;
  5. Ascertain the challenges that hinder the State Environmental Protection Agencies in the South-East States from implementing environmental sanitation programme in the South East States.

 

Significance of the Study                                

The significance of this study is made up of two parts: namely theoretical and practical.

Theoretically, the finding of this study will show the efficacy of Mill’s Theory of Steady State Economy on environment in analysing evaluation of implementation of environmental sanitation programme. Mill’s Theory of Steady State Economy was propounded by John Stuart Mill in 1884. The theory stated that wherever there is increase in industrialization and population there will be increase in environmental pollution which also degenerates into environmental degradation. Mill’s Theory of Steady State Economy will show how environmental degradation is associated with high population growth and technology from an effective evaluation of implementation of an environmental sanitation programme like the present study. The Theory will provide an analysis of how these challenges occur and proffer possible ways of protecting and preserving the environment so that effective implementation of environmental sanitation programme can be realized. The findings of this study will therefore lend credence to the tenets of this theory.

Practically, the findings of the study will be significant to Nigerian government (the federal, state, and local government authorities), SEPAs, community leaders, the Nigerian citizens (masses) and researchers.

This study will be beneficial to Nigerian government because it will provide information that will help them know the extent to which they have achieved the road-map for the attainment of the objectives to which SEPAs were set up to achieve after 15 years of existence. It will also provide information for making decisions whether to modify initial plans, show more commitment, or to terminate the programme. Information on the worth and merits of this programme at the state level will be made known to them in this study.

The results of this study will provide information to the State Environmental Protection Agencies on how they have performed so that possible modifications can be made where necessary. It will provide information on the extent they have co-ordinated the programme in all the local government areas and on the extent of adaptability of the modern technologies in areas they are actually needed. The study will not only provide information on the challenges hindering the effective discharge of their functions, but it will also suggest ways these challenges can be minimized for effective implementation to be achieved.

The community leaders will also benefit from this study since they are part of the driving force in developmental programmes. The study will give them information to know what they are expected to do in monitoring and supervising various components of the community to ensure their compliance to environmental policies in order to help SEPAs function better.

The study will be useful to Nigerian citizens (masses) because it will generate information on how they can package and dispose their wastes/refuse. It will also give them information about the importance of environmental sanitation and the way to keep clean their environment so as not to damage the aesthetic values of their environment. Information on how to preserve the natural resources, plant, trees, and adopt modern technologies in refuse/waste disposal exercises will also be revealed in this study.

Finally, the study also has significance to the researchers. The study will contribute to existing information in the area of environmental sanitation study. Aspects of this study can be adopted by researchers to generate new ideas or review existing data on environmental sanitation, making it more relevant and current.

Research Questions

This study will be guided by the following research questions:

  1. To what extent have the State Environmental Protection Agencies in the South-East States implemented environmental sanitation services in these states?
  2. To what extent have the State Environmental Protection Agencies in the South-East States implemented environmental protection services in these states?
  3. To what extent have the State Environmental Protection Agencies in the South-East States co-ordinated environmental sanitation services in all the local government areas in these states?
  4. To what extent have the State Environmental Protection Agencies in the South-East States adopted basic modern technologies in carrying out environmental sanitation services in these states?
  5. What are the challenges that hinder the State Environmental Protection Agencies in the South-East States from implementing environmental sanitation programme in these states?

Research Hypotheses

Each of the following hypotheses will be tested at 0.05 level of significance:

HO1 There is no significant difference in the mean ratings of the staff of the State Environmental Protection Agencies and community leaders in the South East States on the extent to which State Environmental Protection Agencies in South-East States have implemented environmental sanitation services in these states.

HO2 There is no significant difference in the mean ratings of the staff of the State Environmental Protection Agencies and community leaders in the South-East States on the extent to which State Environmental Protection Agencies in South-East have implemented environmental protection services in these States.

HO3 There is no significant difference in the mean ratings of the staff of the State Environmental Protection Agencies and community leaders in the South-East States on the extent to which State Environmental Protection Agencies in South-East States have co-ordinated environmental sanitation services in all the local government areas in these states.

HO4 There is no significant difference in the mean ratings of the staff of the State Environmental Protection Agencies and community leaders in South-East States on the extent to which State Environmental Protection Agencies in the South-East States have adopted basic modern technologies in carrying out environmental sanitation services in these states.

HO5 There is no significant difference in the mean ratings of the staff of the State Environmental Protection Agencies and community leaders in the South-East States on the challenges that hinder the Environmental Protection Agencies in the South-East States from implementing environmental sanitation programme in these states.

 

Scope of the Study

This study focuses on the evaluation of the implementation of environmental sanitation programme by State Environmental Protection Agencies (SEPAs) in the South-East States. These states include: Abia, Anambra, Ebonyi, Enugu and Imo States. It further covers the extent to which State Environmental Sanitation Agencies carry out; environmental sanitation services, environmental protection services, co-ordination of environmental sanitation services in all the states and local government areas, basic modern technologies in refuse collection, treatment and disposal. The study also covers the challenges that hinder the implementation of environmental sanitation programme in the South East States.

 

GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT»
Do you need help? Talk to us right now: (+234) 08060082010, 08107932631, 08157509410 (Call/WhatsApp). Email: edustoreng@gmail.com