Sanitation Must Be Treated As A Continuous Public Service, Not An Event Unit Committee Members Propose 6-Step Management System
The National Association of Unit Committee Members has called for a fundamental shift in how Ghana governs sanitation, insisting that sanitation must be treated as a continuous public service and community governance responsibility, not primarily as an event.
At a press conference held on Monday, 21 September 2026, at The Madina Job Center under the theme “SANITATION IS A COMMUNITY GOVERNANCE RESPONSIBILITY – Building Cleaner, Healthier and Better Managed Communities from the Unit Level Up,” the Association said Ghana’s sanitation situation requires urgent national attention.
“Because the real test of sanitation is not whether we can make a community clean on a particular day. The real test is whether we can keep that community clean: tomorrow, next week, next month and next year,” the statement said.
Ghana Has A System Problem
The Association argued that Ghana does not simply have a cleanliness problem but a sanitation-system problem that requires system solutions.
“We see waste accumulating in communities. We see refuse dumped in unauthorised places. We see blocked drains. We see plastic waste entering waterways. We see sanitation facilities requiring attention. And we see the consequences in public health, flooding, environmental degradation and quality of life,” it said.
Citing the 2021 Population and Housing Census, it noted that only 33.4% of households nationally had their solid waste collected at the time – 51.4% in urban and 5.8% in rural areas – with heavy reliance on burning. It cautioned these are historical figures, not a measure of September 2026, but proof of a long-standing structural gap.
It therefore posed eight system questions: Do the necessary services exist? Are they reliable? Are responsibilities clear? Are resources adequate? Are service standards defined? Are communities informed? Is performance monitored? What happens when the system fails?
Who Does What, Where, With What Resources?
The central question of the proposal is: “If sanitation is everybody’s responsibility, what exactly is each person and institution responsible for?”
It lists that central government, MMDAs, Assembly Members, Presiding Members, Unit Committees, waste-management operators, businesses, households, traditional authorities, religious institutions, civil society and citizens all have responsibilities.
“The problem begins when we say everybody is responsible but fail to answer: Who does what, where, with what resources, according to what standard, by when, and under whose supervision?”
It proposes a stronger accountability chain: Responsibility Resources Standards Service Monitoring Reporting Corrective Action.
The Sanitation Chain Must Work
Under Section 6, “THE SANITATION CHAIN MUST WORK,” the proposal stressed that sanitation must be thought of as a complete chain beginning with waste generation. If any link breaks, the community suffers.
“We cannot solve sanitation at only one point in the chain. We cannot simply remove yesterday’s waste without addressing how tomorrow’s waste will be managed,” it stated.
Assembly Members and Unit Committees Must Work As A System
The solution is not competition between Assembly Members and Unit Committee Members but making local governance work as a system.
Assembly Members are the link between the electoral area and the District Assembly. Presiding Members provide deliberative and accountability leadership by convening and presiding over Assembly meetings.
The document was emphatic: “Unit Committee Members are not waste-management companies. They are not engineers. They are not environmental health officers. They are not contractors. They are not substitutes for the professional departments.”
Their role is community engagement, public education, identification of local problems, mobilisation, communication, feedback and monitoring. The MMDA remains central to planning, coordination, service delivery and enforcement.
It proposes a clear institutional pathway: Unit Committee Assembly Member Assembly Appropriate MMDA departments/services Community feedback.
We Need Responsible Citizens And Responsive Institutions
The Association warned against reducing the problem to “Why don’t citizens behave?” While citizen behaviour matters, it said citizens need services that work, appropriate collection arrangements, accessible infrastructure, information and reporting channels.
“We need responsible citizens and responsive institutions. One cannot sustainably substitute for the other.”
Community Sanitation Profile And Step Cycle
Each electoral area should develop a Community Sanitation Profile covering 13 items: major hotspots, waste-generation areas, collection arrangements, frequency, public facilities, blocked drains and environmental risks, illegal dumping locations, service providers, responsible authorities, reporting channels, outstanding problems, actions taken, and status of unresolved problems.
“This does not require sophisticated technology to begin. A community can start with a simple register. A standard form. A community map. Photographic evidence where appropriate. A reporting log.”
It then proposed a practical 6-step management cycle that is more effective than just another clean-up Identify: What sanitation problem exists?
Document: Where is it, what is the evidence, and how serious is it.Assign Which institution, service provider or actor has responsibility Act: What intervention iss required, and who will undertake it
Verify: Was the intervention completed? Did it solve the problem
Follow Up: Has the improvement been sustained?
This gives: Identify Document Assign Act Verify Sustain
The Association also called for every MMDA to strengthen clear reporting channels so a resident knows: Where do I report this? Who receives the report? What happens next
From Campaign Measurement To System Measurement
The proposal asked: Does improvement remain after the clean-up, Are residents participating.
This must move Ghana “From campaign measurement to system measurement.”
As a practical next step, it proposed a Community Sanitation Scorecard not a political scorecard asking five questions: Is the area reasonably clean? Is waste collection functioning Are drains and facilities receiving attention. Are reported problems receiving institutional attention? Is improvement being maintained?
It concluded that clean-up exercises should not be abandoned but must lead into management systems.
