Last week in Nasarawa State, two environmental developments offered an important window into the state’s approach to environmental governance. In Lafia, the state government shut down the popular Tomato Market over poor sanitation, blocked drainage and concerns about the unhygienic handling of perishable goods. At the same time, Governor Abdullahi Sule commissioned heavy-duty machinery under the Agro-Climatic Resilience in Semi-Arid Landscapes (ACReSAL) Project to strengthen the state’s capacity to tackle flooding, erosion, land degradation and other environmental challenges. Although the two developments may appear unrelated, together they raise an important public-policy question: Is Nasarawa moving from reacting to environmental problems to preventing them?
The decision to close the Lafia Tomato Market followed repeated warnings to traders and market authorities over poor sanitation. The Commissioner for Environment, Solid Minerals and Mining, Dr. Magrate Itake Elayo, said the market had accumulated refuse, suffered from poor drainage and had concerns around the hygienic handling of perishable goods. The government also indicated that cleaning exercises had previously been undertaken, yet the situation persisted. From a public-health perspective, the intervention is understandable. A market where food is sold in an unsanitary environment is not merely an environmental concern; it can quickly become a public-health threat.
However, enforcement alone cannot be the entire policy solution. Closing the market for two days may compel immediate compliance, but it may not address the structural reasons why the market repeatedly becomes dirty. Where are the designated refuse collection points? Is there an adequate waste-disposal system? Are the drainage channels properly designed and maintained? Who is responsible for daily cleaning? Does the market association have enforceable sanitation rules? Are traders provided with the facilities necessary to comply? Most importantly, what happens after the government reopens the market?
If the same conditions return weeks after reopening, then the intervention would have achieved temporary compliance rather than sustainable change. The sanitation exercise should therefore be used as an opportunity to establish a more permanent environmental management system within the market.
The government’s impounding of 37 tricycles for operating during the sanitation period also demonstrates its determination to enforce environmental regulations. Enforcement is necessary, but effective public policy should combine enforcement with education, accountability and practical alternatives. Citizens need to understand not only what the rules are, but why they exist and what is expected of them. Market associations, traders, transport operators and residents must therefore become partners in environmental management rather than seeing sanitation as something that belongs exclusively to government.
This is where the second major environmental development of last week becomes particularly relevant. The commissioning of an amphibious swamp buggy, grader, bulldozer, dump truck and low-bed truck under ACReSAL gives Nasarawa greater practical capacity to address environmental challenges, particularly desilting waterways, flood mitigation, land restoration and broader environmental management. This is significant because climate change and environmental degradation are no longer abstract issues. Communities are increasingly dealing with flooding, erosion, damaged infrastructure, displacement and disruption of livelihoods.
But machines, important as they are, are not a complete environmental policy. A bulldozer can clear a blocked waterway, but it cannot prevent people from returning to the same waterway and constructing on it. A grader can improve drainage, but it cannot correct poor urban planning. A dump truck can remove refuse, but it cannot create a culture of responsible waste disposal. Equipment provides capacity; good governance determines whether that capacity produces lasting results.
The real test, therefore, will not be the commissioning ceremony. It will be what happens months and years after the machines begin operation. Who will control their deployment? How will priority areas be identified? How frequently will waterways be desilted? Who will be responsible for maintenance? How will fuel, repairs and replacement costs be managed? Will communities be involved in identifying environmental hotspots? And will there be a transparent system for tracking where the equipment is deployed and what results it produces?
These are not questions intended to undermine the government’s intervention. They are questions of sustainability and accountability. Public projects should ultimately be measured by their outcomes, not simply by their launch or commissioning. The real question should not only be how many machines Nasarawa has acquired, but how many kilometres of waterways have been restored, how many flood-prone communities have been protected, how much waste has been properly managed and whether environmental risks are actually declining.
The two developments from last week therefore reveal two sides of environmental governance. The closure of the tomato market represents reactive governance: a problem emerges, warnings are issued and government eventually intervenes. The ACReSAL equipment creates an opportunity for proactive governance: identifying environmental risks early and deploying resources before those risks become disasters. Nasarawa needs both approaches, but the ultimate objective should be to gradually move from reaction to prevention.
Nasarawa is expanding, and with population growth, urbanisation, commercial activity and changing climate patterns, environmental pressure will only increase. Environmental governance can therefore no longer be treated as an occasional sanitation exercise or an emergency response whenever flooding occurs. It must become part of everyday governance, urban planning and community life.
The government must enforce environmental standards, but citizens must also take responsibility. Market associations must ensure that traders comply with sanitation requirements. Traders must keep their surroundings clean. Transport operators must respect designated sanitation periods. Residents must stop treating drainage channels and public spaces as dumping grounds. Government, on its part, must provide the infrastructure and systems that make compliance practical.
The challenge before Nasarawa is therefore bigger than closing a market or commissioning heavy-duty machinery. It is about building an environmental culture in which sanitation, proper drainage, responsible waste disposal, flood prevention and climate resilience become routine parts of governance and citizenship.
Last week’s developments should therefore not be viewed as isolated government actions. They should be seen as an opportunity to ask whether Nasarawa can build an environmental governance system that is preventive, accountable, participatory and sustainable.
The machines have been commissioned. Enforcement has been demonstrated. The bigger test is whether Nasarawa can turn these interventions into lasting environmental outcomes.
That is where sustainable public policy begins.
