Decentralising natural resource governance in Ghana: critical reflections on the artisanal and small-scale mining sector

This paper critically examines the impact of decentralization on contemporary and future governance arrangements in Ghana’s artisanal and small-scale mining (ASM) sector. The sector, while providing valuable employment in rural areas, is beleaguered by environmental and social issues. Proponents of decentralization argue that re-distributing decision-making authority leads to more responsive, transparent and efficient natural resource management. The analysis presented here, however, demonstrates how weak decentralization has exacerbated the complex, conflictual and clandestine nature of local resource politics surrounding ASM. If future decentralization reforms are going to reverse this trend and improve the governance of ASM in Ghana, then facilitating the participation of traditional authorities is imperative. It is argued that doing so requires addressing the reticence regarding the role of chiefs in resource governance; simply ironing out existing technical issues with decentralization reforms is unlikely to improve the social and environmental performance of ASM in the country. In light of the chronic resource management deficiencies in Ghana, epitomized in the ASM sector, fostering frank political debates on resource governance is becoming urgent

Shifting sand, shifting livelihoods? Reflections on a coastal gold rush in Ghana

Artisanal and small-scale mining (ASM) is often characterised as rush-type activity undertaken by people looking to ‘get-rich quick’. An alternative view posits ASM as poverty-driven activity which provides a valuable source of employment to a rural population where agriculture has failed to provide an adequate income. Against this dichotomy, this article critically reviews the short-lived, but high profile, gold rush which occurred on the beaches of Elmina, a fishing town in Ghana’s Central Region. At its peak, more than 1000 people, including local fishermen and career miners from the Western Region and Eastern Region of the country, were mining on the beaches. Drawing on interviews with miners and local business owners, the analysis explores the dynamics of the rush and its implications for understanding the ASM sector in Ghana. The discussion highlights the challenges associated with managing resources in dynamic and heterogeneous contexts, reconciling separate and conflicting sectoral priorities and the need to go beyond simplified and dualistic representations of the sector

Trees for development? Articulating the ambiguities of power, authority and legitimacy in governing Ghana’s mineral rich forests

The growth of mining activities in Africa in the last decade has coincided with increased attention on the fate of the continent’s forests, specifically in the contexts of livelihoods and climate change. Although mining has serious environmental impacts, scant attention has been paid to the processes which shape decision-making in contexts where minerals and forests overlap. Focussing on the illustrative case of Ghana, this paper articulates the dynamics of power, authority and legitimacy of private companies, traditional authorities and key state institutions in governing mining activities in forests. The analysis highlights how mining companies and donors promote a neoliberal model of resource management which entrenches their ability to benefit from mineral exploitation and marginalises the role of state institutions and traditional authorities in decision-making. This subsequently erodes state authority and legitimacy and compounds the contested nature of traditional authorities’ legitimacy. A more nuanced examination of foundational governance questions concerning the relative role of the state, traditional authorities and private interests is needed

Mining in a changing climate: what scope for forestry-based legacies?

This paper provides an interdisciplinary perspective on mine reclamation in forested areas of Ghana, a country characterised by conflicts between mining and forest conservation. A comparison was made between above ground biomass (AGB) and soil organic carbon (SOC) content from two reclaimed mine sites and adjacent undisturbed forest. Findings suggest that on decadal timescales, reclaimed mine sites contain approximately 40% of the total carbon and 10% the AGB carbon of undisturbed forest. This raises questions regarding the potential for decommissioning mine sites to provide forestry-based legacies. Such a move could deliver a host of benefits, including improving the longevity and success of reclamation, mitigating climate change and delivering corollary enumeration for local communities under carbon trading schemes. A discussion of the antecedents and challenges associated with establishing forest-legacies highlights the risk of neglecting the participation and heterogeneity of legitimate local representatives, which threatens the equity of potential benefits and sustainability of projects. Despite these risks, implementing pilot projects could help to address the lack of transparency and data which currently characterises mine reclamation

Understanding farmers’ cropping decisions and implications for crop diversity conservation: insights from central India

Conserving crop diversity is promoted for global food system stability and creating local benefits like improved farmer nutrition, incomes and adaptive capacities. However, little is known about how farmers make decisions shaping crop diversity, and how conservation efforts can be aligned with farmers' goals. This study examines how interacting values, rules and knowledge shape decisions of subsistence farmers in central India. Findings suggest that farmers' values play a central role in shaping crop diversity. Their culinary and health preferences for consuming various self-cultivated crops primarily drive portfolio decisions. Farmers are hesitant to invest in commercial agricultural because of unreliable returns. Furthermore, they prefer to control water availability and land quality as means of coping with environmental change, rather than resorting to crop diversification. Finally, a rich understanding of local crop diversity dynamics questions the ethics of expecting marginal farmers to shoulder the burden of conservation for global gain, suggesting ex-situ strategies are appropriate where in-situ practices are not autonomously selected. Overall, the analysis demonstrates the importance of understanding farmer-level decision-making for wider crop diversity conservation debates

From values to actions in agriculture: a web of actors shape Norwegian farmers’ enactment of relational values

1. A sustainable transition in the agri-food system holds society-wide implications. Farmers play central roles in responding to climate change, environmental degradation and sustainable food production. Still, factors underlying how farmers make decisions and manage their farms are often marginalised in efforts to develop policies to tackle these issues. 2. The concept of relational values, defined as preferences, principles and virtues based on human–nature relationships, recently emerged to expand understandings of environmental decision-making in general and that of farmers specifically. As agricultural landscapes are dynamic and characterised by the interaction of various actors with diverse values and interests, how these interactions influence farmers' decisions remains underexplored. 3. This paper engages with these issues by using qualitative data on Norwegian horticultural farmers' motivations, opportunities and challenges in farming. We find that their relational values (a) are influential in shaping farmers' decisions about farm management and (b) are continually unfolding and embedded within a web of other actors, including grocers, retailers, consumers, farm advisors and policymakers, which shapes farmers' enactment of their relational values. 4. In the context of agriculture, this research underlines the utility of an in-depth understanding of relational values as embedded in wider social systems to enrich analyses of farmer decision-making. How farmers' relational values are shaped and realised through interactions with other actors holds important implications for policy and programming to navigate tensions between different interests and actors for sustainable and long-term change

Going beyond market-based mechanisms to finance nature-based solutions and foster sustainable futures

Failure to address the climate and biodiversity crises is undermining human well-being and increasing global inequality. Given their potential for addressing these societal challenges, there is growing attention on scaling-up nature-based solutions (NbS). However, there are concerns that in its use, the NbS concept is dissociated with the social and economic drivers of these societal challenges, including the pervasive focus on market-based mechanisms and the economic growth imperative, promoting the risk of greenwashing. In this perspective, we draw on recent research on the effectiveness, governance, and practice of NbS to highlight key limitations and pitfalls of a narrow focus on natural capital markets to finance their scaling up. We discuss the need for a simultaneous push for complementary funding mechanisms and examine how financial instruments and market-based mechanisms, while important to bridge the biodiversity funding gap and reduce reliance on public funding, are not a panacea for scaling NbS. Moreover, market-based mechanisms present significant governance challenges, and risk further entrenching power asymmetries. We propose four key recommendations to ensure finance mechanisms for biodiversity and NbS foster more just, equitable, and environmentally sustainable pathways in support of the CBD’s (Convention on Biological Diversity) 2050 vision of “living in harmony with nature”. We stress that NbS must not be used to distract attention away from reducing emissions associated with fossil fuel use or to promote an agenda for perpetual economic growth and call on government policy makers to decenter GDP growth as a core economic and political target, refocusing instead on human and ecological well-being

Impact and collaboration in environmental research: moving universities from evidence producers to co-producers

This discussion paper explores the relationship between environmental research and its use in environmental policy. While there is a common perception of a gap between research and policy, efforts to bridge it often fall short of integrating knowledge effectively with environmental action. Common fixes, like improving dissemination and scientific literacy within government, overlook the politics and complexities of knowledge production and usage. We explore universities’ pivotal position in the science-policy ecosystem, particularly given their role in knowledge brokerage practices and the influence of ‘impact’ as a governance tool. Participatory approaches, such as co-production, offer promise for closing the ‘usability gap’ for research by facilitating collaborative generation of actionable knowledge. Co-production features high user participation, contributing to higher-quality research, fostering trust, and giving voice to knowledge users and interested parties. Understood and deployed in various ways, co-production also faces challenges such as the high potential costs or replication of wider knowledge production risks. A reflective approach to co-production, considering positionality and recognising political influences, can mitigate these risks and optimise its benefits. We highlight the potential of co-production in environmental research and policy and offers valuable insights and recommendations for its effective implementation. We hope that the material in this discussion paper provides a constructive basis for precipitating reflections and discussions amongst researchers and other people involved in the production and use of environmental research about their role in engaging with policy

Impact and collaboration in environmental research moving universities from evidence producers to co-producers – summary paper

This document is a summary of a discussion document that explores the relationship between environmental research and policy, the role of universities, and the emergence of co-production. It provides a set of provocative discussion questions to help funders, policy makers, practitioners, and researchers engage with these topics. The report was launched in June 2024, a recording of the launch webinar can be found on the Agile website

The role of publics and deliberation at the environmental science-policy interface

This discussion paper reviews the role of publics and deliberation at the environmental science-policy interface. We highlight two dominant ways to think of public(s), as either a homogenous whole, or as multiple and emerging around particular issues. The way we conceptualise public(s) will shape how and why public participation might be used. Environmental researchers and decision makers may choose to engage in public participation to steer environmental research towards more “democratic” outcomes, or to co-create new knowledge alongside publics. Deliberative democracy is one way of engaging the public through informed dialogue, reflection, and consideration of the conflicting ideas and values which are embedded in environmental challenges. We describe the foundations of deliberative democracy and some core complexities and considerations of deliberation, while assessing the role of different sources of knowledge in these processes. Public deliberation is no panacea for complex environmental challenges. It comes with risks including perpetuating a depoliticised image of global challenges as “solvable” through expert knowledge, rational conversation, and technological solutions. We attempt to articulate a path through these challenges towards a public participation which is reflexive and contextualised, and can contribute to building effective and just environmental knowledge and policy. We hope that the material in this discussion paper provides a constructive basis for precipitating reflections and discussions amongst researchers and other people involved in the production and use environmental research about their role in engaging with publics