Formalise responsible mining, not just activity

Formalise responsibility—not merely activity.

The Chamber of Licensed Gold Buyers (CLGB) supports a credible, inclusive and enforceable programme to formalise Ghana’s artisanal and small-scale mining (ASM) sector. We align with the current national drive, including the GoldBod-led engagement on formalisation, as an opportunity to address a longstanding policy failure: the persistence of a large livelihood-generating sector outside an adequately accessible, trusted and effectively enforced regulatory system.

In this context, the reported comments by GoldBod Chief Executive Officer, Sammy Gyamfi, about operators whose activities do not interfere with water bodies should be understood not as a licence for illegality, but as an invitation to apply policy with care: regulate what can be made compliant and firmly stop what causes serious harm. The comments raise an important policy question.

This should prompt serious discussion, rather than create a false choice between protecting water bodies and recognising livelihoods. However, the principle must be stated carefully: not polluting a water body is a necessary consideration, but it is not a complete test of legality, environmental responsibility or suitability for formalisation.

Mining can harm land, forests, farms, public health and worker safety without directly entering a river. Sediment, chemicals and contaminated runoff can reach water bodies indirectly or over time. Some impacts are cumulative and may not be visible during a brief inspection. Accordingly, eligibility must be based on a full, site-specific assessment covering lawful mineral rights and land access; locations outside prohibited and protected areas; water, land and biodiversity safeguards; worker safety; responsible processing; rehabilitation plans; and traceable production and sales.

Formalisation must not become a blanket amnesty for unlawful mining. Neither should enforcement presume that every small-scale operator is a criminal. The policy objective should be to clearly distinguish between operators who can meet legal standards and those who cannot or will not. Eligible operators should be given a practical route into compliance, while operations in protected or prohibited locations, as well as those causing serious or repeated harm, should be stopped.

THE CHAMBER’S POLICY POSITION

The Chamber of Licensed Gold Buyers’ position is clear: Ghana must distinguish between mining that is illegal or environmentally destructive and artisanal and small-scale mining that can be conducted lawfully, safely and responsibly.

The Chamber supports a staged, conditional pathway into legality, built on five principles:

1. Clear Eligibility and Non-Negotiable Exclusions

Government should publish objective criteria for eligible sites and operators. Protected areas, prohibited river zones, critical water sources and locations where mining is incompatible with public safety or ecological protection must remain off-limits. A claim that a site is “not in a water body” should not, on its own, qualify an operator.

2. Accessible Licensing and Land Access Registration

Licensing should be understandable, affordable, time-bound and decentralised where possible. Operators need lawful access to suitable mineralised land. A permit that cannot be obtained in practice, or that is disconnected from land access, will not bring the sector into the law. Community engagement and legitimate land-tenure arrangements must be integral to site approval.

3. A Genuine Compliance Compact

Formalisation should combine enforceable obligations with practical support, including environmental and safety training, technical extension services, access to suitable equipment and finance, responsible processing, and credible rehabilitation arrangements.

Compliance requirements should be proportionate to the scale and risk of each operation, but never so weak that formal status becomes a licence to externalise environmental and social costs.

4. Traceable Gold and Responsible Buying

GoldBod, regulators, miners and licensed buyers should work towards a reliable chain of custody from approved mining sites to the point of sale.

Licensed buyers must conduct due diligence, maintain transaction and source records, ensure fair and transparent weighing and assaying, and refuse gold from prohibited or unverifiable sources. A formal market is only as credible as its ability to distinguish responsibly produced gold from illicit production.

5. Independent Monitoring, Consequences and Remedy

Site inspections must be regular and risk-based, with public reporting of key compliance outcomes. Where a breach can be remedied, operators should be given a clear corrective-action process and deadline. Serious, repeated or deliberate violations should result in suspension, revocation, prosecution where appropriate, and the restoration of damaged areas.

Formal status must be earned and maintained, not granted once and treated as permanent.

Formalisation must not become a shortcut to legitimising unlawful operations. Equally, enforcement must not treat every small-scale operator as an environmental criminal.

WHY FORMALISATION MATTERS BEYOND THE MINE

The GoldBod-led drive to formalise the ASM sector offers an opportunity to move beyond a cycle of informality, exploitation and periodic crackdowns.

A credible system should make legal operation practical through accessible licensing, clear rules, fair and traceable gold purchasing, responsible financing, technical support, regular inspections and meaningful penalties for breaches.

Gold buyers have a particular responsibility in this system: to conduct due diligence, maintain reliable transaction records and avoid purchasing gold whose origin cannot be verified. Formalisation must be a chain of accountability—from the mine site to the market—not merely a registration exercise.

The stakes are social and cultural as well as economic. ASM supports livelihoods and local businesses, and in many communities, mining is woven into household survival and local identity.

A policy that ignores these realities risks pushing operators further underground and weakening trust in public institutions. However, livelihoods and tradition cannot excuse harm. A just transition should involve mining communities, chiefs, local authorities, workers, women and young people in decision-making; protect workers’ rights and safety; and ensure communities share fairly in the benefits while having a voice in how land and water are protected.

Social and Cultural Impacts

ASM is not only an economic activity. In many communities, it supports household income, local commerce and intergenerational livelihoods. It is also intertwined with local ideas of land, work, opportunity and community authority.

A policy that dismisses these realities may deepen distrust, drive operators underground and make enforcement less effective. Conversely, recognising community realities does not mean excusing environmental damage or unlawful conduct.

A credible programme should involve miners, traditional authorities, local government, landholders, women, young people, licensed buyers and affected residents in site planning and monitoring.

It should address worker safety, child labour, occupational health, access to grievance mechanisms and the distribution of local benefits. It should also recognise that women often participate in processing, trading and other parts of the value chain while having less influence over decisions and less access to finance and formal recognition.

The social test of formalisation is therefore not simply how many miners receive cards or permits. It is whether the system improves safety and trust, reduces harmful practices, gives affected communities a meaningful voice and makes lawful work more viable than evasion.

Economic Impact

A well-designed system can help bring more gold into traceable and legitimate channels, improve the integrity of Ghana’s gold supply, reduce opportunities for smuggling and illicit financial flows, and support more reliable public revenue.

It can also encourage investment in safer equipment, processing and local services, while giving legitimate operators and buyers greater confidence to plan and transact.

However, formalisation is not automatically pro-poor or growth-enhancing. If licensing is expensive, procedures are slow, legal sites are inaccessible, or official buying arrangements do not offer transparent and competitive terms, operators may continue to sell through informal networks.

If the costs of compliance are placed entirely on miners without access to finance or technical assistance, formalisation may exclude the very people it is intended to include. Similarly, if market access is concentrated in a few hands, the sector may be formal on paper but inequitable in practice.

The economic measure of success should therefore include not only formal gold volumes and state revenue, but also miners’ net returns, compliance costs, the share of gold sold through verifiable channels, access to lawful finance, local employment and the cost of remediation.

In summary, responsible economic formalisation can improve the traceability and credibility of Ghanaian gold, reduce opportunities for smuggling and illicit financing, widen access to legitimate markets, and create a basis for increased public revenue and investment.

These gains are not automatic. They depend on fair prices, predictable rules, reliable weighing and assaying, and controls that prevent politically connected or well-financed actors from capturing the benefits while small operators bear the costs.

Technological Impact

Technology can make regulation more practical and verifiable. Geospatial mapping can help identify approved and excluded zones. Digital registration and production records can connect a miner, site, output and transaction.

Satellite monitoring and periodic field inspections can help identify new disturbances, while digital weighing, assaying and payment records can improve transparency in trade. Affordable and appropriate processing technologies can improve recovery and reduce exposure to mercury and other hazardous practices.

However, technology is not a substitute for good governance. A digital registry cannot prove that a site is safe; satellite images cannot establish who holds legitimate land rights; and traceability software cannot correct a market in which source information is false or inspections are compromised.

Systems must work in areas with low connectivity, protect legitimate personal and commercial data, allow corrections and appeals, and be independently audited. Technology should strengthen accountability, not create a digital appearance of compliance.

LESSONS FROM INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE

International cases offer useful lessons, but none should be copied wholesale. They show that formalisation is a long-term institutional process, not a one-off registration campaign.

Mongolia: Support, Organisation and Practical Standards

Mongolia’s Sustainable Artisanal Mining (SAM) experience is frequently cited for combining government engagement with support for miners’ organisations and practical improvements at pilot sites.

The lesson for Ghana is that miners are more likely to adopt improved practices when they are organised, involved in designing rules and receive technical support alongside formal recognition.

The transferable idea is not that registration alone solves environmental problems, but that formalisation can create a platform for better organisation and practices when backed by sustained support.

Reference: Alliance for Responsible Mining, “Mongolia Case Study”

https://www.responsiblemines.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Case_Studies_Mongolia_June_2012.pdf

Peru: Simplified Routes Help, but Post-Registration Support Is Essential

Peru’s formalisation efforts demonstrate both the value and limitations of simplifying the route to legal status.

Research by Gavin Hilson and colleagues reports that Peru had formalised more than 9,600 artisanal miners during the period examined, while also documenting continuing challenges after registration.

The central lesson is that the state cannot treat a miner’s entry into a formalisation process as the finish line. Operators need continuing support to meet environmental, labour and production standards, while government needs the capacity to verify compliance over time.

Reference: Martinez et al. (2021), “Formalization is just the beginning: Analyzing post-formalization successes and challenges”

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301420721003998

Tanzania: Designated Areas and Service Centres, with Persistent Implementation Risks

Tanzania has pursued measures including designated small-scale mining areas and centres of excellence intended to improve access to services, knowledge and better practices.

Research on this approach highlights its potential to support miners and improve the organisation of the sector. However, broader evidence also identifies persistent barriers, including weak local government capacity, limited price guidance and the cost of operating formally.

Ghana’s lesson is twofold: service hubs and designated areas can make compliance more practical, but they will fail if they are poorly located, under-resourced, disconnected from viable mineral deposits or unable to offer fair market access.

References:

Kinyondo and Huggins (2020), “Centres of excellence for artisanal and small-scale gold mining”

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2214790X20300484

Mutagwaba et al., “Artisanal and small-scale mining in Tanzania”

https://www.iied.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/migrate/16641IIED.pdf

Across these cases, the consistent policy lesson is that the legal pathway must be realistic, the benefits of compliance must be visible, and monitoring must be credible.

Formalisation imposed without access to land, services, finance or dependable markets risks producing paperwork without changing practices.

A PRACTICAL GHANA MODEL

The Chamber proposes that Government, the Minerals Commission and GoldBod develop the formalisation programme through a staged model:

Stage 1 — Map and Consult

Map current ASM activities, sensitive areas, water sources, land rights, community interests and existing gold-buying routes. Consult miners, communities, traditional authorities, local governments, regulators and licensed buyers before establishing eligibility rules.

Stage 2 — Register and Screen

Create a simple and accessible registration process and screen operators and sites against published legal, environmental, land-access and safety criteria.

Registration should not be represented as authorisation to mine unless the relevant approvals have been secured.

Stage 3 — Authorise Eligible Sites with Conditions

Issue time-bound approvals for sites that meet the requirements, with clearly defined operating boundaries, production records, environmental safeguards, safety requirements and rehabilitation obligations.

Stage 4 — Support Compliance

Provide practical training, technical extension services, access to safer processing methods, suitable finance and market information. Establish local service points or hubs where they respond to actual conditions and are linked to responsible buyers.

Stage 5 — Verify and Enforce

Use a combination of field inspections, community reporting, environmental monitoring, geospatial tools and transaction records.

Publish anonymised or appropriately protected performance data and apply corrective actions or sanctions consistently.

Stage 6 — Measure Outcomes and Revise

Review the programme regularly against independently verified indicators, including water and land impacts, worker safety, formal sales, remediation, local livelihoods, women’s participation and compliance costs.

Revise the rules where evidence shows that they are unworkable or ineffective.

CONCLUSION

As a policy-thinking organisation, our position is that Ghana should neither legitimise mining simply because it is not visibly taking place in a river nor drive all ASM operators into illegality through rules they cannot realistically meet.

The proper policy distinction is between operations that can be brought into lawful, responsible production and those that must not continue.

The Chamber therefore calls for a conditional, evidence-based and enforceable pathway: identify eligible operators; support them to meet environmental, labour, safety and traceability requirements; monitor compliance openly; and suspend or revoke authorisations where operators fail to comply or cause prohibited harm.

Sensitive areas and protected water sources must remain off-limits, and remediation must be required where damage has occurred.

The policy choice is not between gold and clean water, nor between livelihoods and the law. Ghana’s task is to secure all three: LAWFUL LIVELIHOODS, RESPONSIBLE PRODUCTION AND PROTECTED NATURAL RESOURCES.

Formalisation will succeed only when it brings operators into a system that is both economically worthwhile and environmentally non-negotiable.

The national objective should be to protect water, land and public health while creating a lawful and dignified path for responsible miners, accountable buyers and affected communities.

GoldBod’s formalisation drive can contribute to that objective if it builds a transparent market and a credible chain of responsibility. However, no institution should mistake gold purchased, miners registered or permits issued for proof of success.

Formalisation succeeds only when legality is accessible, responsibility is verified, the benefits are fairly shared and environmental limits are enforced.

Ghana needs gold—but not gold whose hidden cost is polluted water, degraded land, unsafe work or weakened public trust.