Sachet Water Costs Ghanaians 60 to 100 times What Piped Water Costs

Sachet drinking water is comparatively one of the most expensive source of drinking water in Ghana. Households pay 60 to 100 times the residential piped tariff (Ghana Water Limited) for it. That makes up approximately GHS 6.45 billion a year larger than the operational cost of running piped services to same households. Add an estimated 84,000 tonnes of sachet plastic and the costs gets worse if we factor in environmental and public health cost.

A 500ml of drinking water bought in a 25-50 pesewa sachet costs a Ghanaian household between 60 to 100 times what the same volume costs through a Ghana Water Limited (GWL) piped supply. More than one in three Ghanaians pay that premium daily, and the aggregate national bill is approximately GHS 6.45 billion a year, larger than the operating cost of providing piped service to those same households. That figure does not include the environmental cost of approximately 84,000 tonnes of sachet plastic discharged annually into Ghana's drainage and surface-water systems, nor the public-health cost of waterborne disease, which falls disproportionately on children under five.

The conventional reading of this gap is that piped water is unavailable, and the conventional fix is to build more public infrastructure.

Perliminary Findings on Sachect Water Cost to the Ghanaian

In our preliminary results from a national household survey led by Prof. Kwabena Biritwum Nyarko at the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, with funding from UNICEF Ghana, we (Dr. Eugene Appiah-Effah, Dr. Barbara Gyapong-Korsah, Dr. Victor Osei Kwadwo, Godwin Armstrong Duku and Ebenezer Acquah) find reason to question both the reading and the fix.

The study covered 911 households across four hydroclimatic zones of Ghana. Preliminary findings reveal that the strongest predictor of sachet use is not the absence of piped infrastructure. Households with piped water delivered to their homes have the highest predicted probability of being predominant sachet water users.

Why would a household that already has piped water in their homes pay thirty pesewas a sachet, several times a day, for drinking water?

The preliminary answer lies in two further findings. Perceived sachet water safety, raises the preference for sachet water use. Perceived problems with piped-water quality, on the reverse, discourages its use. The driver of sachet water consumption, at least from our sample, is not infrastructure access but rather household's perception that the pipe borne water is unsafe or unreliable, and thus, the willingness to pay 60 to 100 times the piped tariff to avoid drinking it.

Figure 1: The difference between piped water tariff and sachet water costs

On the one hand, this finding reframes the need for public investment in safe and reliable piped water. Universal piped coverage (safe and reliable) is a necessary condition for sachet water substitution.. However, this is not the binding constraint. The binding constraint is whether households trust what comes out of the tap. Where the perception of safety has collapsed, more pipes do not produce more drinkers of piped water; it produces more sachet water customers.

On the other hand, the absence of trust is not a costless choice. The “trust premium” Ghanaian households pay shows up nationally as GHS 6.45 billion in private spending, 84,000 tonnes of plastic in drainage and waterways, and several thousand diarrheal deaths every year that disproportionately fall on children under five. The cost of distrust is paid by everyone, including parties that never bought a sachet.

Next steps

These are preliminary findings. The official and several analytical components of the study remain to be completed. The 60 to 100 times retail price gap, the GHS 6.45 billion aggregate sachet bill are robust to the specifications we have tested so far. We treat them as provisional pending the final rounds of validation.

The final report is expected to provide evidence-based policy and investment recommendations to support Ghana’s efforts toward sustainable and equitable drinking water services.

Improving public confidence in piped water systems would require not only infrastructure expansion, but also stronger quality assurance, service reliability and public education. Prior to the official report, the policy direction is clear enough to act on.

Ghana's drinking-water decision is not only an infrastructure question. It is a trust and political economy question. The capital to build the public service is justifiable but do we have the money to invest?

Our preliminary evidence suggests the household money to operate it is already being spent. What is needed is how to re-channel these amounts into a public piped systems that are sustatinable and efficient.

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Governance and Development Advisory, or any institution with which the author is affiliated. This piece is written in a personal capacity to contribute to critical dialogue on water and sanitation in Ghana. The original blog, reproduced here can be found at https://coe.knust.edu.gh/news/news-items/knust-researchers-advocate-greater-investment-public-water-systems.