The Pharmaceutical Society of Ghana (PSGH) has intensified its engagement with the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) over proposed environmental processing and permit fees for retail and wholesale pharmacies.

A PSGH delegation comprising the Executive Secretary, Rev. Dr. Dennis Sena Awitty, and the Chairperson of the Community Practice Pharmacists Association (CPPA), Dr. (Pharm.) Therestella Obosu Tei-Kwabla, met an EPA team on Thursday, 30 July 2026, to review the proposed charges and seek clarity on the environmental responsibilities that would apply to pharmacies.

The engagement forms part of continuing consultations between the pharmacy profession and the EPA following concerns about the implementation of Ghana’s new environmental regulatory framework and its implications for licensed pharmaceutical facilities.

New environmental regulatory framework

Ghana’s Environmental Protection Act, 2025 (Act 1124) established the Environmental Protection Authority, replacing the former Environmental Protection Agency and expanding its mandate to regulate and protect the environment. The legislation consolidated aspects of Ghana’s environmental laws and strengthened the Authority’s powers in environmental permitting, monitoring, hazardous-waste management and enforcement.

In January 2026, the EPA announced a nationwide compliance exercise requiring regulated businesses to regularise their environmental permits. The exercise covered several industries and commercial activities, including pharmaceutical manufacturing, warehouses, shops and offices. Failure to comply could attract administrative penalties, closure or prosecution under the applicable environmental laws. Read more about the EPA compliance exercise.

The PSGH and Pharmacy Council subsequently held discussions with the EPA in February 2026 to clarify how the new requirements would apply to pharmacies and to prevent uncoordinated enforcement while consultations were ongoing. The latest meeting therefore represents a further step towards developing a clear and proportionate framework for the pharmacy sector.

EPA classifies pharmacy facilities

At the meeting, the EPA explained that facilities are classified according to an Environmental Impact Assessment scale comprising five levels:

1. Micro
2. Minor
3. Small-scale
4. Medium
5. Large

Under the proposed classification, over-the-counter medicine sellers’ shops were placed in the micro category, retail pharmacies in the minor category and wholesale pharmacies in the small-scale category.

The proposed EPA charges comprise a processing fee and a permit fee, with permits valid for two years.

PSGH calls for proportionate fees

The PSGH delegation expressed concern that the proposed charges would add another layer of regulatory cost to pharmacy operations. It noted that pharmacies already pay annual business operating fees to the Pharmacy Council, their primary sector regulator, in addition to other statutory charges. The delegation also referred to the applicable licensing charges imposed by the Health Facilities Regulatory Agency and other public bodies.

PSGH accordingly proposed that the EPA charges applicable to pharmacies should not exceed half of the corresponding Pharmacy Council business operating fees. As an alternative, it urged the EPA to reconsider the proposed environmental classifications by placing retail pharmacies in the micro category and wholesale pharmacies in the minor category. The Society argued that most retail pharmacies operate with a relatively limited environmental footprint compared with industrial, manufacturing and other higher-risk commercial activities. It maintained that the regulatory approach should distinguish clearly between pharmaceutical manufacturing, which may involve chemicals, industrial emissions and production waste, and retail or wholesale pharmacy operations.

While pharmacies have important environmental responsibilities relating to expired medicines, pharmaceutical waste, sharps, damaged products and safe disposal, the PSGH stressed that fees and compliance requirements should be proportionate to the actual environmental risks posed by each type of facility.

PSGH demands clarity on responsibilities

The delegation also requested a detailed description of the services and regulatory responsibilities the EPA would undertake after collecting the proposed fees. PSGH called on the Authority to clearly outline the inspections and monitoring activities covered by the permit, the environmental standards applicable to retail and wholesale pharmacies, and the requirements for managing expired, damaged or recalled medicines, including pharmaceutical-waste segregation and disposal. The Society further sought clarification on the frequency of inspections and reporting, the relationship between the EPA’s requirements and those already enforced by the Pharmacy Council, Food and Drugs Authority, HeFRA and local authorities, and the measures that would be introduced to prevent duplicated inspections, requirements and charges.

The Society emphasised that pharmacies must receive clear written guidance before the proposed requirements are implemented. This would allow facilities to understand their responsibilities, prepare for compliance and avoid inconsistent interpretation by regional enforcement officers.

Concerns over medicine prices

PSGH further warned that the cumulative effect of regulatory charges could ultimately increase the operating costs of pharmacies and contribute to higher medicine prices. Community pharmacies already face costs associated with professional supervision, facility licensing, staff, utilities, rent, inventory management, regulatory compliance and the safe handling of medicines. Additional charges are likely to be absorbed into operating expenses and may eventually be passed on to patients. The Society therefore called for coordination among state regulators to prevent regulatory duplication and ensure that environmental protection objectives are achieved without undermining access to affordable medicines.

PSGH stressed that it supports responsible environmental regulation and the safe management of pharmaceutical waste. Its concern, however, is that implementation must be risk-based, clearly defined and sensitive to the role of pharmacies as essential healthcare facilities.

EPA takes concerns under advisement

Responding to the submissions, the EPA explained that its fees are determined independently and are not calculated by reference to the charges imposed by another regulator. The EPA team nevertheless acknowledged the concerns raised by PSGH and indicated that the proposals would be referred to the Authority’s management for further consideration. It also agreed to provide detailed information on the responsibilities the EPA would undertake and the environmental obligations expected of regulated pharmacy facilities.

No final resolution on the proposed charges was reached at the meeting. The EPA is expected to revert to the PSGH after its internal review. The PSGH has assured pharmacists that it will continue engaging the EPA, Pharmacy Council and other relevant agencies to secure a regulatory framework that protects the environment while remaining proportionate, transparent and supportive of affordable pharmaceutical care.

Further guidance will be communicated to members when the EPA formally responds to the proposals.