Introduction
The problem of galamsey in Ghana has become almost intractable in our national developmental space and discourse and well-meaning Ghanaians have all become concerned over the last one or two years.
As a ‘Ghana watcher’, I have been following the issue for some time and, like most people, obviously have been concerned in terms of galamsey’s devastating effect on the country’s water bodies, soil and forest cover among others. Beyond its immediate effects on our nation, there is also the trans-boundary effect it has posed to our neighbours in Cote D’Ivoire, as the President mentioned in one of his address in July 2017.
We know the problem has two facets: the ‘out and out galamseyers’ (typically referred to as illegal miners) and those who are properly licensed and permitted to operate at particular locations but use their licenses to operate at different locations, thus making their operations illegal. How can both be curbed?
To curb the problem, it seems to me that an insight into the cause of the problem might also be helpful. To my mind, the cause of the problem stems from, among others i) lack of adequate jobs, ii) retrenchment of former mine workers in some mining companies, and iii) inability of the nation to develop an indigenous mining company as employment avenues.
For the sake of space, I will not delve deeply into the analysis of the cause of the problem but suffice it to say that, of course, the huge economic benefits to those who engage in it remains a major reason why the problem persists and has become such an intractable issue to curb. It is a shame that after about 100 years of mining Ghana has not been able to develop indigenous companies in the mining sector as a means of employment to the teeming youth.
Yet recent efforts by the government seem to have yielded some results for which the government and the security agencies need some degree of commendation. As a result of the initiative, thankfully, it seems the (illegal) activity has been abated; and our water bodies and environmental systems seem to have had a new lease of life.
That notwithstanding, the problem doesn’t seem to have been completely stopped but continues to simmer because, among others, those who engage in it find it difficult to get away because it means their livelihoods.
So, the state apparatus continues to police the forests, make arrests, etc. in attempt to bring the situation under total control. As such, the state continues to spend money to help to keep the problem in check. The questions I pose here then are:
- a) How long can the state continue to spend money in an attempt to halt the problem, that is if it could even be stopped, by constantly deploying the security to the galamsey areas?
- b) Is there a way that if the state needs to continue policing (till thy kingdom come), the policing task would be self-financing?
- c) Is there a way or a model we, as a nation, could adopt to make galamsey and/or other small-scale mining beneficial to all sides, if need be?
When I say ‘to all sides’ I am referring to i) the state, ii) the galamsayers, iii) the foreigners (e.g. the Chinese), iv) Nananom, and v) even local market women.
Because again, I know or have heard some local market women complaining that the banning of galamsay has resulted in low patronage of their wares/products. This gives the impression that local economies of galamsay communities have also been affected.
But, certainly, there could and should be a solution to this. Let me also clarify that my reference ‘to all sides’ is not to suggest by any stretch of the imagination that ‘all sides’ are in the illegality. Exploring answers to the questions above leads to the need for the formation of indigenous small-scale mining companies for and run by the galamseyers.
Proposed Solution
Semi-Autogestion: SMALL-SCALE MINING COMPANIES (Public/local community/private partnership)
Without needing to go through the theory of autogestion, I question whether this may be a useful model/framework the nation could consider as the way forward into the future in addressing the galamsay menace.
That is, simply, a type of company that is self-managed or in one sense owned and managed by the local people themselves. But of course, because of the huge public interest nature of the galamsay challenge, the state needs to be involved. Hence not full autogestion but semi-autogestion! The question then is how?
So, I am proposing a model that hopes to make it a win-win for all sides. Or in other words, a variant of the so-called public-private partnership; that is a public-local community-private sector partnership.
In that case, however, it seems to me that in this particular instance, the government of the day may need to make a strategic shift in its ideological position with respect to its development policy: the idea that the state has no business in business. As a nation, we should be considering the long-term prospect of building perhaps indigenous mining companies that can hold or sustain best practices comparable to any of the foreign mining companies working in Ghana. After 100 years of mining, we should have enough know-how to establish and run at the least a small-scale company.
So, I am proposing a setting up of SEVERAL SMALL-SCALE MINING COMPANIES with the state taking up 20% shares in EACH OF THEM. For the sake of argument let’s say 10 of such companies will be set up. But, of course, we can start with a pilot one from the outset.
This should also not be a difficult thing for the state because in the case of oil and gas, perhaps because of strategic interest/policy considerations, the state takes a percentage share. Small-scale mining could be seen in the same light.
Then, Nananom will take 5% share on the basis that most lands in Ghana is held in trust by chiefs for the people. Of course, within Ghanaian laws, any land that contains minerals automatically becomes a state property.
The assumption here therefore is that the 5% would operate like the current royalties paid by mining and oil companies in Ghana. As such a system could be developed to ensure that this share goes into the development of communities. Then, the foreigners also take 20% so that they could bring in their input in terms of equipment, etc. LOCAL galamsayers (emphasis on LOCAL) will also take 30% of the shares in such a company.
By using the term local I mean indigenes who are galamseyers or those who have lived and worked as galamseyers in these local communities such that they are known to be community people. The idea behind this is to ensure that local people get a chunk of the wealth.
Further they also get the opportunity to improve upon their know-how. This will help with scaling up in the future. Local community could be organized into cooperatives associations such that the stake/share to the local community would be through these cooperatives.
They will form the labor base for the companies. Then the rest of the 25% could go to NON-LOCAL Ghanaian galamseyers or (the licensed) small-scale miners or Ghanaian businessmen who may be interested in small-scale mining. If a particular chief shows interest in acquiring higher (or personal) shares, it could come under that of the 30% for the local people or beyond his jurisdiction under non-locals’ 25%.
Rationale
The rationale for this suggestion is that with this model;
- There is a chance to scale up such a small-scale company to become a proper gold mining company with time. This will be beneficial for the country’s industrialization and job creation
- The involvement of the state, which among others may include management and monitoring the location and operations, will be to ensure the right thing is done and the environment is protected. There is also the opportunity for the state to ensure that the areas mined are restored or reclaimed to avert or ensure least possible environmental damage whilst monitoring nearby water quality, etc. The state will also, through this, be able to raise revenue to hopefully support policing of other areas that are not supposed to be mined or ‘galamsayed’. Possibly, proper over-sight will be ensured through the minerals commission, etc. In that case, the commission also will help identify appropriate concession areas/locations. There may be the argument that with the various state organs, e.g. EPA, Forestry Commission, etc. the state is already involved and may not need to take a share but equip these organs to work. However, the state stands to earn revenue because most galamsayers and other illegal operatives do not pay tax. Joining them this way gives access to additional revenue. Additionally, the escalation in the galamsay menace itself suggests a need for a new kind of approach. I argue this model offers a new approach.
- A reasonable number of all interest groups will be represented in this company. On that score, the local economies of the communities will also be likely reinvigorated.
- I am proposing several, because there are several communities across the country where galamsay takes place and the local people should have the option to participate or have a stake. Because it seems galamsay operations go on with overt and covert approval of local communities. Hence, the need to ensure the company is owned, to a substantial degree, by local galamsayers/communities. With that, it seems to me, local galamsayers would have the incentive to ensure that the company works!
- The idea is aimed at getting small scale miners and galamsayers to work under one umbrella. Hence having say ten companies operating at specified and recognized locations with the state and other private sectors involved will hopefully make the monitoring less arduous than the current situation where unlimited number of small scale licenses may be issued (some of whom use the license to operate illegally). Monitoring is more difficult in the latter. But combining the several small-scalers presents a good opportunity for growth. United we stand, divided we fall.
- Finally, I am proposing several companies also as a means of encouraging healthy competition. In that case a ranking system could be put in place much similar to the current ranking of district assemblies, as part of the monitoring system. A supervisory body or monitoring group could be set up at the ministry or in consultation with the minerals commission that will assess the operations of these ‘public-local community-private sector partnerships’ small-scale mining companies. Hopefully again, these companies through such competitions would improve through knowledge sharing and ultimately be grown into full-fledged mining companies.
Some perceived Challenges
Some perceived challenges include the possibility of ‘state capture’! Once the state gets involved, its presence gets so large especially where other stakeholders are all Ghanaians to the extent that other stakeholders become less visible. Our history is replete with how publicly-run projects are literally ‘state-captured’ with the attendant bureaucracy (and sometimes inefficiencies) leading some to argue that the state has no business in business.
Yet, our developmental agenda revolves so much around the state that virtually nothing could be done without some degree of state involvement. At least the oil and gas sector indicate that such state involvement may not completely be out of place where key strategic public interest is of the essence.
On that score, again, it seems that once the model is streamlined and well-thought through and becomes a working national policy document for addressing the intractable galamsey problem, some decent foreigners (with clout) may likely get involved as well as Ghana’s private sector and this will likely help give the needed counter-weight to the issue of ‘state-capture’. Of course, implementation of any such model needs well-thought out plans and well-spelt out roles for all stakeholders.
Then also the question of which laws would govern the involvement of foreigners in such a company may be another issue. Policymakers may obviously need to address the issue of the necessary legal and regulatory framework.
Further a company (perhaps a limited liability) that has local community people as shareholders may be an entirely new concept in our nation. This may come with its own challenges. Yet, it is known in Ghana that some (multi-national) companies leave a small percentage of shares to employees. So, this model may not be entirely new in Ghana. Besides, there are models around the world that could act as a guide for Ghana.
In concluding, I believe the problem of galamsey could potentially become an opportunity if we continue to have a national discourse on it. I might have possibly neglected several other angles to the problem and as such may have considered this a bit too simplistically. On that score, this model is only being suggested as a possible framework and may likely need to be fine-tuned if it is found to be useful.
–
By: Alexander K. Eduful (Oxford University Center for the Environment, UK)