1. Community Perceptions of Gold Mining An Experience from Western Ghana Emmanuel Ato Aubynn EAubynn@gmail.com +1-720-771-2289 / +233-244-334465

2. Overview  Contexts  Methods  Results  Conclusions  Recommendations

3. CONTEXT World Bank Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs/ERP) on Ghana’s Mining Sector FeaturesPre-Reform [1957 – 1982] Post-Reform [1983 – To Date] Ownership of minesState-ownedPrivate sector-led Sources of capital StateForeign Investment inflowVery low High Mode of operationUndergroundSurface method Company-Community Conflict Very lowVery High

4. Mining method adopted after the SAP affects community landuse, and contributes to conflict Underground method Surface method

5. Macro/Micro Impacts of SAP on Mining By: steward redqueen 5 A drophits the surface produces revenues and creates a ripple effect and generates incomes and employment throughout the economy Investment in mining Direct community/company interaction (established ComRel Depts) Improved community development?? Land alienation Livelihood disruption—agriculture and small-scale mining Public concern for the environment and sustainable development Increased company/community tensions and poor relationships

6. The Purposes of the Study 1. Identify the socio-economic and environmental impacts of gold mining as perceived by three resource communities 2. Identify and attempt to explain the complex relationships between gold mining companies and their local communities 3. Offer recommendations for improved relationships to bolster mining sector growth

7. METHODS Used primarily qualitative and perception scale to examine key community informants’ perception of selected socio-economic and environmental impact indicators, using their pre-mining conditions as baseline. (Emphasis was on common experiences) Participants Selection (I promised anonymity) CompanyCommunityDistance from mine Site(Km) Sample size A—3A—7210 B—3B—7210 C—3C—7410

8. RESULTS 1 Perception of Impacts: (not an actual measurement) Perceived Net Economic Impacts

9. Perceived Net Social Impacts

10. Perceived Net Environmental Impacts

11. RESULTS 2:--Company/Community Relationships (Common themes—read vertically) Key Community Expectations Rationale for High Community Expectations Company Understanding of High Community Expectations Employment/ Contract/ Adequate Compensation Bears Negative Impacts (i.e. thought this is insurance for current and future impacts) Greed (i.e. Officials thought high expectation is based on greed Community Development Benefit Sharing (i.e. thought they are also stakeholders, own the res. Deep Pockets (i.e. thought community sees them as rich) Responsible Corporate Behavior Corporate Social Responsibility (i.e. every modern company supports its host communities) Paternalistic (i.e. based on mentality that the rich must support the poor)

12. RESULTS 2:-- Company/Community Relationships Company Responses to Comm’ty Expectations and Concerns: these are summative results of common community experiences and perceptions, and company’s common direct responses to the allegations Communities’ Concerns 1. Don’t dev community 2. Not employing locals 3. High cost of living 4. No land to farm 5. Disrupt our culture 6. Acute water shortage 7. They pollute our water 8. Blast affects buildings 9. They pollute with dust 10. Shd sustain us after mine Companies’ Responses 1. Gov’t is responsible 2. They lack education 3. National econs. malaise 4. Due to high population 5. Culture is not static 6. They mismanage water 7. Allegations were lies 8. We follow EPA standards 9. Sahara Desert effect 10. Local Gov’t responsible

13. CONCLUSIONS: Key Causes of Conflict/Tensions Poor company- community relationships Community high expectations and concerns of company operations Government ineffective facilitation of company/ community interaction Company’s dismissive, denial, & blame shifting responses/attitudes to community concerns and expectations 21 3

14. RECOMMENDATIONS  Harmonious company-community relationships requires a positive shift in policies and practices that would:  Reduce community expectations and concerns of mining operation (i.e. gov’t and community continue to play their traditional role, not shirk them onto companies)  Make companies change their attitudes and communication strategy to effectively manage concerns and expectations (i.e. show genuine commitment to sustainability; be less legalistic, scientific and dismissive in managing concerns; adopt a more human face…)  Make government perform effective facilitation of company/ community interaction (i.e. actively involve communities in key mining decisions; help them understand their rights; and resolve conflict in an unbiased manner)  By effectively managing mine-community disagreements, a nation has high potential to attract competitive foreign investment capital to its mining sector, while promoting sustainable mining and sustainable community development