Nigeria produces more than 32 million tonnes of waste each year, with plastics representing a substantial and growing portion of that total. In response, Osita Victor Egwuatu, researcher and expert in International Business and Sustainable Development, undertook a study titled The Feasibility and Impact of Implementing the Finnish Method of Plastic Recycling in Nigeria to evaluate whether elements of Finland’s widely regarded recycling system could be adapted to address Nigeria’s waste-management challenges and unlock economic opportunities. Drawing on comparative case studies, interviews with stakeholders across the waste-management chain, and a review of international best practices, the research frames plastic pollution as a potential source of economic value if managed through a carefully tailored circular approach.
The study begins by situating Finland’s model as an outcome of sustained policy commitment, coordinated infrastructure, and deep public engagement. Finland’s system emphasizes extended producer responsibility, integrated collection networks, and long-term investment in public education, factors that have fostered high recovery rates and created downstream industries for recycled materials. Against this backdrop, the research examines Nigeria’s present reality of fragmented collection systems, limited formal recycling capacity, and reliance on informal waste pickers who operate without social protection or formal recognition. Methodologically, the project combined field visits to municipal collection points, site observations at recycling facilities, and semi-structured interviews with government officials, private recyclers, informal sector representatives, and civil-society actors to create a granular picture of practical opportunities and constraints.
Key findings indicate that Nigeria’s main structural impediments are uneven infrastructure and weak enforcement of existing regulations. Where Finland has an integrated network linking collection, processing, and market uptake, Nigeria’s landscape is marked by ad hoc collection routes, under-equipped processing centers, and insufficient market incentives for recycled resin. Equally significant is the role of communities and the informal sector in Nigeria. Informal waste collectors perform essential collection functions yet lack safety nets, stable incomes, and pathways into formal value chains. The study documents that, while Finland’s success stemmed in part from formalizing participation and providing social and economic support, any transfer of model elements to Nigeria must account for the entrenched importance of the informal workforce and seek to upgrade, rather than displace, their role.
Policy and governance emerge as decisive levers. The research finds that Nigeria possesses policy frameworks that, on paper, align with circular-economy goals but suffer from inconsistent implementation and insufficient regulatory teeth. In contrast, Finland’s use of extended producer responsibility creates financial flows and accountability mechanisms that sustain collection and processing systems. Public awareness and long-term education campaigns are also central: Finland’s decades-long investments in civic education about recycling have normalized source-separation behaviors that remain nascent in many Nigerian cities. Without a concerted effort to raise awareness and incentivize behavioral change, investments in infrastructure risk being underutilized.
Despite these challenges, Egwuatu said ” We can identify tangible economic opportunities if Nigeria adapts Finland’s lessons thoughtfully. Local recycling can reduce dependence on virgin plastic imports, stimulate small and medium enterprises in collection and processing, and generate formal employment while improving urban health outcomes by reducing landfill use and uncontrolled burning”. Egwuatu emphasizes that “plastic waste in Nigeria is more than an environmental challenge, it is a missed economic opportunity,” and argues that coordinated policy, targeted infrastructure investment, and inclusive programs for informal workers can translate waste streams into value chains.
Nigeria should not attempt a direct transplant of Finland’s model but rather pursue selective adaptation. This would involve strengthening regulatory enforcement, designing EPR schemes adapted to local markets, investing in modular processing facilities that suit urban and peri-urban contexts, and implementing community-centered education campaigns. Crucially, measures to formalize and protect informal waste workers, through training, health protections, and contractual inclusion in collection schemes, would reconcile social realities with technical ambitions. If pursued with political will and stakeholder collaboration, such adaptations could shift Nigeria toward a circular economy where plastics are reused and repurposed rather than discarded, yielding environmental relief and new economic pathways for cities and communities across the country.
