Representatives of fishing associations, coastal communities and civil society organisations have called on President John Dramani Mahama to suspend the progression of reported offshore gold exploration activities covering about 10,000 square kilometres of Ghana’s western coastline.
The groups have expressed concern over the reported granting of 10 contiguous Offshore Reconnaissance Licences to GoldCoast Resource Corp., covering an area stretching approximately 300 kilometres from Half Assini towards Winneba.
The signatories said their concerns are not directed at mineral exploration itself but at the scale and location of the licensed area and the potential implications for fisheries, marine ecosystems and coastal livelihoods.
They argued that the marine space covered by the reported licences supports thousands of artisanal fishers, fish processors, traders and other businesses whose livelihoods depend on the sea.
According to them, the area also contains fish habitats, spawning and nursery grounds and other ecological systems that contribute to food security and the economic wellbeing of coastal communities.
The groups acknowledged that a reconnaissance licence should not be equated with a mining lease or an authorisation for commercial extraction.
However, they said the reported exploration programme involves activities including geophysical surveys, bathymetric and seismic investigations, coring and sediment sampling, which could have implications for the marine environment.
They further pointed to public discussions about prospecting and the possible use of shallow-water dredging in the future, arguing that such activities could result in greater disturbance to the seabed and marine environment.
The groups said experience from offshore and coastal mineral extraction in other jurisdictions had demonstrated that seabed disturbance, sediment resuspension and increased turbidity could affect benthic habitats, fisheries and marine biodiversity if appropriate safeguards and baseline information are not established.
They therefore urged the government to intervene before the exploration programme advances to activities they consider potentially more disruptive.
The groups outlined four major demands in their letter to President Mahama.
1. Immediate suspension and comprehensive review
They are calling for an immediate suspension of further implementation or progression of the reported GoldCoast offshore gold exploration programme.
They want an independent and transparent review to establish how the 10 licences are granted, their exact coordinates and boundaries, the technical and economic justification for the licences, the proposed work programme and the consultations undertaken before their issuance.
The review, they said, should also examine the relationship between the licensed areas and fishing grounds, fisheries management areas, environmental and social risks, as well as the adequacy of Ghana’s existing legal and institutional framework.
Pending completion and publication of the review, the groups want government to prevent the project from progressing to prospecting, bulk sampling, dredging, substantial seabed disturbance or other activities that could move it closer to commercial extraction.
2. Independent environmental and fisheries assessment
The groups are also demanding a comprehensive environmental, fisheries and livelihood impact assessment covering the entire licensed area and possible future stages of the project.
They said the assessment should establish reliable baseline information on fishing grounds, fishing seasons, catches and fishing effort, as well as fish spawning, nursery and feeding areas.
It should also assess seabed and benthic habitats, sediment characteristics and movement, water quality and turbidity, marine biodiversity and navigation.
The livelihoods of fishing communities, processors, traders and other coastal businesses should also form part of the assessment, they said.
The groups specifically want the assessment to consider the possible effects of seismic surveys, coring, sediment sampling, bulk sampling and any future shallow-water dredging.
They said issues such as sediment plumes, seabed disturbance, impacts on fish habitats and potential restrictions on access to fishing grounds must be properly examined.
The signatories further insisted that the assessment should not be controlled solely by the project proponent.
They want independent scientific review, participation by fishers, community consultations and public disclosure of the findings to be incorporated into the process.
3. Multi-sector and community review mechanism
The groups have proposed the establishment of a formal review mechanism bringing together key government institutions, researchers, fishing communities and civil society organisations.
Institutions proposed for participation include the Minerals Commission, Fisheries Commission, Environmental Protection Agency, Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources, Ministry of Fisheries and Aquaculture, Ghana Maritime Authority and relevant research institutions.
Fishing associations, coastal communities, traditional authorities and civil society organisations should also be represented.
The groups want government to make public the licences, maps and coordinates, work programmes, environmental requirements, regulatory approvals and conditions associated with the project.
They are also demanding disclosure of consultations already undertaken and the proposed pathway from reconnaissance to possible future prospecting or extraction.
A major concern raised in the letter is the role of fishing communities in decisions concerning the project.
The groups said communities should not merely be informed after key decisions have already been made, but should have a meaningful opportunity to participate in decisions that could affect fishing grounds, safety and livelihoods.
They also want the review to determine whether Ghana’s existing marine spatial-planning and regulatory framework is sufficient to manage potential conflicts between mineral exploration, fisheries, conservation, petroleum activities, shipping and other uses of the ocean.
4. No commercial extraction without safeguards
The groups further called on government to make it clear that commercial offshore gold extraction, or substantial seabed disturbance, should not proceed unless independent evidence establishes that the activity can be undertaken without unacceptable harm to marine ecosystems, fisheries, food security and coastal livelihoods.
They proposed that any future approval should be subject to appropriate environmental, fisheries and livelihood assessments, as well as cumulative-impact assessments.
They also called for clearly defined environmental performance standards, controls on sediment and turbidity, independent monitoring, public reporting and effective grievance and redress mechanisms.
Where legitimate losses occur, they said appropriate mitigation and compensation measures should be established.
The groups are also urging the government to develop a clear national policy and regulatory framework for offshore mineral development before commercial extraction is permitted.
The signatories described the reported 10,000-square-kilometre offshore mineral licence as more than a conventional mining issue, arguing that it raises broader questions about the governance of Ghana’s marine resources.
They said Ghana’s ocean should be viewed as a productive economic, ecological and social system that supports food security, employment and coastal livelihoods, rather than simply as an area available for mineral exploitation.
The groups said they believe Ghana can pursue its mineral potential while protecting fisheries and coastal livelihoods, but stressed that such a balance would require transparency, scientific evidence, coordinated regulation and meaningful participation by affected communities.
They have therefore appealed to President Mahama to halt further progression of the reported offshore gold project and convene an urgent meeting involving government, affected fishing communities, fishers’ associations and civil society organisations.
The groups said they are prepared to provide evidence, community perspectives and technical expertise as part of any transparent national review of the project.
By 1960news.com
