The new agenda by the government to aggressively build Ghana’s foreign reserves through increased gold purchases from the artisanal and small-scale mining (ASM) sector is drawing sharp scrutiny from policy analyst Alfred Appiah.
The analyst fears that the strategy may undermine the country’s fight against illegal mining, widely known as galamsey.
At the centre of the debate is the Ghana Gold Reserve Accumulation Programme (GANRAP), a policy initiative aimed at strengthening Ghana’s external buffers by significantly increasing gold reserves. The programme envisions raising reserve cover to approximately 15 months of imports by 2028.
This level, the government believes, would substantially enhance macroeconomic stability and investor confidence.
The mechanism of the policy is mopping up more gold from the small-scale mining sector. But Alfred Appiah believes that approach raises uncomfortable questions.
The Galamsey Contradiction
Ghana’s battle against galamsey has been described as a national emergency. Illegal mining has ravaged forests, polluted major water bodies, and displaced farming communities.
Successive governments have pledged decisive action, deploying task forces, tightening regulations, and vowing to dismantle illicit operations.
Yet, according to Appiah, aggressively increasing gold purchases from the small-scale sector risks incentivising the very ecosystem the state is trying to dismantle.
“Government needs to explain how it plans to mop up significantly more gold from the artisanal and small-scale mining (ASM) sector to bolster foreign reserves while also dealing decisively with galamsey,” the analyst noted.
He continued, “Productivity in the small-scale mining sector is low. As things stand, ramping up production in the small-scale sector would also mean more environmental destruction.”
For him, if the state is signalling higher gold absorption from ASM operators to build reserves, the pressure to increase output could fuel more mining activity, both legal and illegal, in an already fragile regulatory environment.
Policy Incoherence?
The analyst describes the situation as potential policy incoherence: fighting galamsey with one hand while expanding dependence on the same ecosystem with the other.
While not all small-scale mining is illegal, enforcement gaps and regulatory weaknesses mean that illegal operators often operate alongside licensed miners, blurring distinctions on the ground.
If the defence of GANRAP is that illegal mining would continue regardless of whether the government buys gold from the sector, Appiah suggests that such reasoning amounts to admitting defeat.
His position challenges policymakers to clarify how increased gold aggregation will avoid creating indirect demand incentives that embolden illegal activity.
“It therefore begins to look like policy incoherence to pursue an aggressive anti-galamsey agenda while simultaneously ramping up gold purchases from the small-scale sector, where galamsey thrives,” he noted.
He added, “If the defense is that galamsey would continue whether the government buys gold from the small-scale sector or not, then we should all be honest with each other that we are not winning the fight. We should accept that reality and stop the pretense.”
The Bottomline
Aside from the macroeconomic impact, the debate on the illegal mining menace touches real lives. Communities downstream from illegal mining operations continue to grapple with contaminated water, degraded farmlands, and health risks.
Environmental restoration costs are rising, and the social consequences are deepening.
Alfread Appiah’s concern is that reserve accumulation cannot come at the expense of environmental sustainability and regulatory credibility.
If small-scale output rises without strict oversight, the country may gain foreign reserve buffers while losing ecological stability, a trade-off he suggests is neither sustainable nor morally defensible.
