Ghana is losing more than GH?6.2 billion each year to diseases linked to poor waste management and sanitation, according to a new study by the Institute of Statistical, Social and Economic Research at the University of Ghana.

The findings were unveiled at a high-level stakeholder engagement in Accra on Thursday, February 26, 2026, where policymakers, Members of Parliament, local government officials, development partners and private sector actors examined the economic implications of the country’s sanitation challenges.

The study, led by Prof. Peter Quartey and Dr. Kwame Adjei-Mantey, is titled “An Economic Analysis of the Benefits of Adequate Investment in Waste Management and Sanitation in Ghana.” It evaluates both the economic and social costs of current sanitation practices and models the potential returns from increased and better-targeted investment.

According to the research, five diseases closely associated with poor sanitation — malaria, cholera, pneumonia, typhoid fever and diarrhoea — are responsible for nearly 31.9 million lost workdays annually and an estimated 177,222 deaths. Direct medical treatment costs were calculated at about GH?5.8 billion per year, while productivity losses account for an additional GHS 650 million, bringing the total annual burden to more than GH?6.2 billion.

Despite the scale of these losses, the study found that Ghana spends on average about GH?38 per tonne of waste generated. The researchers described this level of expenditure as modest when weighed against the magnitude of the health and economic damage linked to inadequate sanitation systems.

Using cost-benefit modelling, the team estimated that under the current business-as-usual scenario, every GH?1 invested in waste management yields approximately GH?180 in economic returns. Under a more ambitious best-case scenario, where investment rises to around GH?1,028 per tonne in line with lower-middle-income country benchmarks, returns could increase to GH?556 for every GH?1 invested.

In absolute terms, projected national benefits under the enhanced investment scenario could reach GHS 58 billion in 2025 and climb further to GHS 67.2 billion by 2032. These gains are driven largely by expected reductions in disease incidence, mortality and productivity losses.

Presenting the findings, Prof. Quartey urged government to reframe sanitation spending as a strategic investment rather than a marginal budget line. He stressed that waste management must be treated as a high-return development priority capable of safeguarding public health and reinforcing economic growth.

The presentation triggered a detailed question-and-answer session, with participants probing the methodology behind the disease attribution estimates. Some stakeholders questioned how much of the disease burden could be directly linked to waste exposure. The research team explained that their modelling drew on global health datasets and assumed that about 45 per cent of the selected disease cases were attributable to waste exposure. They added that sensitivity analysis was conducted to test different attribution levels.

Concerns were also raised about the practicality of the best-case scenario, particularly in informal settlements and rural communities where waste collection remains inconsistent. Prof. Quartey acknowledged that sanitation delivery in such areas presents logistical and financial challenges, noting that flexible and smaller-scale collection systems may be required rather than a one-size-fits-all national model.

Participants highlighted the persistent problem of uncollected waste and indiscriminate dumping in drains and water bodies. The researchers responded that their projections were based on standardised benchmarks for lower-middle-income countries and incorporated assumptions about infrastructure gaps and collection inefficiencies.

Members of Parliament at the forum emphasised the need for stronger institutional coordination. While some proposed establishing a National Sanitation Authority to centralise oversight, others cautioned against creating additional layers of bureaucracy and instead advocated strengthening existing structures.

The discussion also touched on the employment potential within the waste management sector. Prof. Quartey referred to earlier regional studies on green jobs and recycling, arguing that investment in skills development and public education could stimulate job creation while improving environmental outcomes.

The research team concluded that Ghana’s sanitation-related losses significantly outweigh current levels of expenditure. They called for sustained increases in investment, targeted interventions in high-risk communities and improved data and budgeting systems within Metropolitan, Municipal and District Assemblies to ensure sanitation is treated as a core pillar of national development rather than an afterthought.