Investigating Barriers to Low-Carbon Policy Implementation among Mining Companies in Ghana

By inergency On Feb 22, 2024

[ad_1]

2.1. Study Area

For this study, we selected the southern part of Ghana, an area with a rich mineral resource endowment. During the 18th century, Ghana was known as the Gold Coast under the British colonial rule and was home to approximately 12 major large-scale mining companies [18]. These mining operations were dispersed across various regions within the southern area or so-called the “gold belt.” The gold belt is home to almost 90% of the country’s total estimated gold deposits [19].

Notable mining zones within this area include Upper Denkyira West, Obuasi, Asutifi North, and Tarkwa, all of which have a longstanding history of gold mining activities [20]. Upper Denkyira West District in the Central Region encompasses an area of 579.21 km² and houses a population of 91,025 [21]. Obuasi is a town in the Ashanti Region, covering approximately 162.4 km². This area is widely known for its prosperous gold mining activities. The town has a population of 104,297. Asutifi North District in the Ahafo Region encompasses 936 km² and is inhabited by 73,556 people [21]. In the Ahafo Region the Ahafo Gold Mine is operated by the Newmont Mining Corporation [22]. Tarkwa, a town in the Western Region, serves as a center for gold mining. Its mining operations are prominently associated with the Tarkwa Gold Mine, operated by GoldFields Limited. The town has a population of 218,664 in a land area of 97,826 km². Tarkwa is one of the largest gold mines in the nation.

Mining operations exert a multifaceted influence on local livelihoods and development. In 2020 alone, Ghana produced about five million ounces of gold [23,24], accounting for about 90% of the total mineral exports, and 49% of the total export value [25]. The government of Ghana receives 10% of the mining revenue in the form of taxes and royalties. The mining companies also create employment opportunities [26]. In 2023, a total of 12,294 people were employed in the mining industry in Ghana [27]. More importantly, mining enterprises have invested substantively in infrastructure developments, such as roads, educational institutions, healthcare facilities, and essential amenities [28]. Mining corporations have undertaken corporate social responsibility initiatives for education and healthcare [29].

Mining companies also have shown commitment to responsible and sustainable practices. For instance, the Tarkwa Goldfields Mine emphasizes environmental stewardship, community development, low-carbon practices in its infrastructure and community projects, as well as safety measures [30]. Similarly, AngloGold Ashanti, which oversees the redevelopment of the Obuasi mine, says that it adheres to carbon emission reduction, community engagement, safety, and environmental protection [31]. In Upper Denkyira West, Newmont’s Akyem mine announced that it has prioritized environmental stewardship, safety, and community development through rigorous environmental assessments, biodiversity conservation efforts, and safety protocols [32]. In Asutifi North District, Perseus Mining declares to maintain industry-standard emission reduction, safety, and environmental practices at the Edikan mine while actively engaging with local communities. These expressed efforts illustrate mining industry’s growing interest in sustainable and responsible operations [33].

However, the presence of mining operations has long raised concerns over carbon/environmental footprints. Previous research by Amoako et al., in 2018 identified that sizable gold mining operations (e.g., land use, explosives, mobile and stationary equipment fuel consumption, electricity consumption, waste disposal) were responsible for a substantial amount of CO₂ and GHG emissions. Among these factors, electricity usage and fuel consumption in transportation account for 92.46% of the overall GHG emissions. On average, the large-scale gold mining sector in Ghana contributed about 11% to Ghana’s total national greenhouse gas emission inventory.

2.2. Data Collection and Analysis

To gather information on the low-carbon practices of mining companies in Ghana, we initiated contact with the companies’ representatives. With permission, we conducted expert interviews using a semi-structured questionnaire format. These interviews were conducted between 27 April and 20 May 2022. For confidentiality purposes, we have denoted these companies as Company A, Company B, Company Y, and Company Z (Figure 1). These four companies according to Ghana Chamber of Mines 2016 report are recognized as major international mining enterprises in Ghana with operations spanning various mining zones.

In Ghana, Company A operates a gold mine in Obuasi. It is a prominent global gold producer with headquarters in South Africa. Company B also has South African roots and operates a mine at Tarkwa. Company Y is headquartered in Australia with operations at Ahafo. Company Z operates gold mines in the Upper Denkyire West area. Its headquarters is located in the United States.

All four companies (Company A, Company B, Company Y, and Company Z) are members of international organizations, including the International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM), Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosure (TCFD), Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI), and World Gold Council. All except Company Z are members of the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP), an international non-profit organization that focuses on environmental reporting and the collection of information related to potential low-carbon practices [34].

The four companies operate gold mining in different scales. In 2020, the Minerals Commission of Ghana report highlighted that company B was the largest employer among the four companies with a workforce of 4576 employees. Company A employed approximately 4210 individuals. Company Z had around 3343 employees. Company Y employed 2000 people. In terms of gold production, Company B was the highest producer with an annual output of 526.3 koz. Companies Y and Z produced 270 koz and 157 koz, respectively, while Company A’s annual gold production was approximately 127 koz. Company A reported an annual estimated revenue of USD 4427 million from gold sales. Company B’s annual revenue was about USD 927.7 million. Company Y reported an annual revenue of USD 467.8 million, and Company Z’s annual revenue was USD 139.4 million. Table 1 shows these companies’ workforce, annual gold production and revenue generated from the sales of gold.

According to the Sustainability Report (2021), Companies A and B reported carbon dioxide emission levels of 40 kg/t CO₂e and 33 kg/t CO₂, respectively, for the year 2020. Companies Y and Z primarily focused on scopes 1 (direct emissions) and 2 (indirect emissions) in their carbon emissions intensity assessments without providing specific numerical figures. All four companies rely on grid electricity for their mining activities. However, Company B supplements its energy supply with solar and natural gas [35].

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic that prohibited us from conducting an in-person survey in Ghana, the survey was carried out by two local enumerators. Based on the information we obtained from published sources, we prepared a set of questions for the survey. The enumerators strictly adhered to these questions. One enumerator was responsible for Company A, while the other handled companies B, Y, and Z. To ensure clarity, we had detailed phone discussions with the enumerators, thoroughly explaining the questionnaire content. Responses were received from the environmental departments of the respective companies.

Our questionnaire interviews focused on identifying the companies’ challenges in adopting low-carbon technologies. We listed the following eight possible barriers for the respondents to choose: (1) lack of government policy on low-carbon emissions, (2) information availability on low-carbon mining, (3) cost of low-carbon technology, (4) the availability of long-term payment schemes, (5) availability of low-carbon technology, (6) power generation capacity, (7) low-carbon policy decision making, and (8) technical expertise. We assessed the degree of their agreement by defining 1 as strongly disagree and 5 as strongly agree on a 5-point Likert scale. To protect respondent anonymity due to the sensitivity of their opinions, we maintained confidentiality.

To understand perceptual variations among the companies’ responses, we conducted a means analysis to compare the average rating of each mean value on 5-point Likert scale intervals to determine the overall responses. The ranges on 5-point Likert scale intervals and mean values were calculated as follows:

Step 1: To estimate the Likert scale ranges, we first computed the average value by:

Subtracting the 5-point Likert scale lowest value from the highest value (5 − 1 = 4).
Dividing by the 5-point Likert scale number of responses (4/5 = 0.8).
Adding (0.8 + 1 = 1.8). Where 1 = lower standard range (scale of 1 to 5) and 0.8 is the average mean value. Since the 5-point Likert scale has a range of 1 to 5, we expressed the first range as (1–1.8), where 1 = lower range and 1.8 = upper range.
We added 0.8 to obtain the following upper ranges. [(1.8 + 0.8 = 2.6), (2.6 + 0.8 = 3.4), (3.4 + 0.8 = 4.2), (4.2 + 0.8 = 5)].
The lower ranges were determined as a sequence value of each upper range.
[(1.8 → 1.9), (2.6 → 2.7), (3.4 → 3.5), (4.2 → 4.3)].
We computed the ranges, and an interpretation was made as “strongly disagree” (scale 1 to 1.8), “disagree” (scale 1.9 to 2.6), “not sure” (scale 2.7 to 3.4), “agree” (scale 3.5 to 4.2), and “strongly agree” (scale 4.3 to 5).

Step 2: To find the mean values (Table 2), we modified the frequency mean distribution formula and developed an equation:

(\sum R) / T N C

. Where ∑R = sum of responses and TNC = total number of companies.

Table 2.
Calculation of mean values.

$T N C = 4$
Responses Rate (Table 3)	$(\sum R)$	$(\sum R) / T N C$	Mean Value
Statement 1	4 + 2 + 3 + 4 = 13	13/4	3.25
Statement 2	1 + 5 + 2 + 3 = 11	11/4	2.75
Statement 3	5 + 5 + 4 + 5 = 19	19/4	4.75
Statement 4	4 + 4 + 5 + 2 = 15	15/4	3.75
Statement 5	1 + 1 + 2 + 1 = 5	5/4	1.25
Statement 6	1 + 2 + 1 + 2 = 6	6/4	1.50
Statement 7	4 + 5 + 2 + 4 = 15	15/4	3.75
Statement 8	4 + 3 + 4 + 4 = 15	15/4	3.75
∑R = sum of responses and TNC = total number of companies.
(Scale 1 to 5): SD = 1, D = 2, NS = 3, A = 4, SA = 5 (Reference Table 3)

Table 3.
Companies’ responses about low-carbon implementation barriers.

Statement	Company A Mines	Company B Mines	Company Y Mines	Company Z Mines	Mean	Interpretation
1. The government does not give us specific policy frameworks to reduce carbon emission	Agree	Disagree	Not sure	Agree	3.25	NS
2. Mining companies do not have sufficient information about low-carbon-emission	Strongly disagree	Strongly agree	Disagree	Not sure	2.75	NS
3. Low-carbon technology is costly	Strongly agree	Strongly agree	Agree	Strongly agree	4.75	SA
4. We need long-term payment plans for acquiring low-carbon technology	Agree	Agree	Strongly agree	disagree	3.75	A
5. Low-carbon technology is not available	Strongly disagree	Strongly disagree	Disagree	Strongly disagree	1.25	SD
6. Low-carbon technologies is not our priority	Strongly disagree	Disagree	Strongly disagree	Disagree	1.50	SD
7. Electricity produced by low-carbon technologies is insufficient for mining operations	Agree	Strongly agree	disagree	Agree	3.75	A
8. We need more trained workers to handle low-carbon technologies	Agree	Not sure	Agree	Agree	3.75	A

[ad_2]