Multi-Stakeholder Governance initiatives: Addressing the challenges of ASM sector in Ghana

1. Multi-Stakeholder Governance initiatives: Addressing the challenges of ASM sector in Ghana Natalia Yakovleva*, Diego Vazquez-Brust *Winchester Business School, University of Winchester, UK Centre for Business, Responsibility, Accountability, Sustainability and Society (BRASS), Cardiff University, UK Annual Meeting of the American Association of Geographers, 12-16 April 2011, Seattle, Washington, USA

2. What is Governance? Collective and consensual actions to address and regulate welfare conflicts that go beyond the capacity of Governments to solve. Governance requires: • Balance of economic, social and environmental concerns • Minimum framework of principles, rules and laws necessary to tackle identified problems • Multi-sector approach: states, markets, citizens and organizations, both inter- and non-governmental . • Articulation of collective global interests • Consensus on the definition of rights and obligations • Acceptance and Mediation of differences: Deliberative Democracy.

4. Institutional design for governance solutions (Paavola, 2007; Hall & Soskice, 2001) • Governance functions • Exclusionofunauthorisedusers • Regulationofauthorisedresourceuses • Distribution of benefits and risks • Provision and Recovery of Costs • Monitoring and Enforcement • Conflict resolution • Enablement of Deliberation • Institutional rules • Rules of exclusion • Entitlement rules • Monitoring rules determine • Decision-making rules • Protection rules • Functional tiers: • Operational • Institutional • Constitutional • Governance solutions: • Community-based • State-based • Co-management • Multi-level

5. Interviews with the range of stakeholders of ASM sector in Ghana (2005 and 2008) * includes NGO and university

6. Challenges • Transition from Community Based ( tribal law) to State-Based Governance Solution (Mining Code and Small Mining Regulation) • Customary governance: unified property regime ( surface and mineral rights). State-Based: Separated Property regime (surface and mineral rights). • Design and implementation of to State-Based Governance Functions • Conflict: • Multiple land (farming, fishing, mining) use with traditional ASM vs. Exclusive land Use ( only mining) with current LSM. • Lack of institutions providing employment/unemployment protection for surplus of industry specific labour ( Hall & Soskice, 2001) • Lack of institutions providing deliberation spaces. ( Hall & Soskice, 2001)

7. Initiatives for ASM sector in Ghana • Small-Scale Mining Project (World Bank, GTZ) 1989 : Provide institutions and rules to implement transition of governance regime (Constitutional) • Mining Sector Development and Environment Project (World Bank) 1995-2001: Land use, allocation of land to ASM (Collective/Operational) • Prestea Action Plan (World Bank) 2005: Enforcement of rights of authorised ( state-based) users, protection of excluded (customary users) (Operational)

8. Initiatives • Alternative Livelihood Project 2005, Protection of excluded land-users/ surplus of mining labour, providing pathways for alternative development based of skills. ( Institutional) • Abatement of Mercury Pollution Programme (UNIDO) 1998-2001 Provision of technical supply to reduce ASM health and environmental risks ( Operational)

9. Outcomes • Small-Scale Mining Project (World Bank, GTZ) 1989 : Acceptance at Constitutional level but failed at operational level. • Mining Sector Development and Environment Project (World Bank) 1995-2001: Excessive focus on policy but little effect on operations. • Prestea Action Plan (World Bank) 2005: Failed to protect ( reallocate) customary users.

10. Outcomes • Alternative Livelihood Project 2005, Failed to provide viable and widely accepted alternatives. • Abatement of Mercury Pollution Programme (UNIDO) 1998-2001 Failed to provide widely accepted alternatives

11. Factors for success/failures of governance solutions • Design failure: • Constitutional:State-based governance is not an appropriate solution for Ghana. Co-management, multilevel governance is required when local knowledge and cooperation is a condition for success. • Institutional: No initiatives to promote institutions/skills that enable deliberation . • Assumes that ‘unregistered’ can be excluded from governance solutions and these would still be viable • Operational: Lack of assessment what works on the ground

12. Factors (continued) • Implementation failure • Top-Down approach fails to interpret acceptance factors at operational levels (limited consultation with end users) • Suspicion of ‘quality of expertise’ • Limited transparency • Focus on general advice rather than specific solutions

13. Conclusions • Future programmes should focus on working on improving deliberation to create co-management solutions (including customary stakeholders – informal supply chain, chiefs, galamsey, etc) to address following governance problems: • Exclusion of small-scale miners from access to mineral resources. • Entitlement: No availability of land for ASM. • Distribution of benefits: ASM cannot prospect but LSM can. • Provision of financial and technical support to ASM • No proper system in place to monitor unauthorised users • Enforcement: Implementation of viable alternatives to use of force

14. Policy Implication • Land Regime: Double System of Alternate users for mineral concessions where small scale miners operate on a surface for a short period of time in controlled conditions, followed by large scale operations • Implementation: Negotiated Agreement as alternative to legislative reform