| Literature DB >> 26393627 |
Niladri Basu1,2, Elisha P Renne3,4, Rachel N Long5.
Abstract
Artisanal and small-scale gold mining (ASGM) is growing in many regions of the world including Ghana. The problems in these communities are complex and multi-faceted. To help increase understanding of such problems, and to enable consensus-building and effective translation of scientific findings to stakeholders, help inform policies, and ultimately improve decision making, we utilized an Integrated Assessment approach to study artisanal and small-scale gold mining activities in Ghana. Though Integrated Assessments have been used in the fields of environmental science and sustainable development, their use in addressing specific matter in public health, and in particular, environmental and occupational health is quite limited despite their many benefits. The aim of the current paper was to describe specific activities undertaken and how they were organized, and the outputs and outcomes of our activity. In brief, three disciplinary workgroups (Natural Sciences, Human Health, Social Sciences and Economics) were formed, with 26 researchers from a range of Ghanaian institutions plus international experts. The workgroups conducted activities in order to address the following question: What are the causes, consequences and correctives of small-scale gold mining in Ghana? More specifically: What alternatives are available in resource-limited settings in Ghana that allow for gold-mining to occur in a manner that maintains ecological health and human health without hindering near- and long-term economic prosperity? Several response options were identified and evaluated, and are currently being disseminated to various stakeholders within Ghana and internationally.Entities:
Keywords: Minamata Convention; anthropology; artisanal mining; economics; gender; gold mining; history; implementation; mercury; policy; public health; small-scale mining; social sciences
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26393627 PMCID: PMC4586700 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph120911683
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1An Integrated Assessment brings together groups normally separated along disciplinary or sectoral lines to facilitate multi-disciplinary dialogue and work towards building consensus. Figure is reproduced with permission from the Michigan Sea Grant.
Figure 2A simple bibliometric analysis using Scopus reveals that Ghanaian researchers are amongst the most prolific worldwide. On 19 March (2015), the term “gold mining” was searched resulting in 2531 papers. Research hailing from Ghana was in the top 10 of all countries.
Outline of meeting activities as part of our integrated assessment.
| Meeting # | Dates | Participants (# in Brackets) | Key Activities |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 6–7 August 2012 | Organizer (1), Co-Leaders (9) | policy relevant question defined |
| 2 | 11–12 April 2013 | Organizer (1), Co-Leaders (9), Workgroup Members (11) | 22 research presentations delivered by individuals |
| 3 | 28–30 April 2014 | Organizer (1), Co-Leaders (9), Workgroup Members (13), External Advisors (4), Facilitators (2), Observer from Funding Agency (1) | 3 summary presentations on each workgroup’s findings and recommended response options |
| 4 | 21–22 April 2015 | Organizer (1), Co-Leaders (3), Facilitators (2), External Advisors & International Stakeholders (5), Decision Makers (25) | summary presentations on findings and recommended response options |
Key steps of the integrated assessment.
| Brief Overview of Integrated Assessment Steps | |
|---|---|
| 1 | Define policy-relevant question |
| 2 | Document status/trends; causes/consequences |
| 3 | Identify desired outcomes/policy options |
| 4 | Evaluate policy options |
| 5 | Provide technical guidance for implementation |
| 6 | Assess uncertainty |
| 7 | Evaluation |
| 8 | Submit findings for peer review and public comment |
Figure 3Participant evaluation scores from the third meeting. Scores are representative of other meetings. The evaluation criteria presented here include: A—Clear communication of project goals, activities, and timeline; B—Organization of planning process; C—Inclusion of appropriate stakeholders; D—Value in addressing the problem and research questions; E—Exchange of knowledge; F—Formation of partnerships; G—Integration among diverse stakeholders/experts.
Representative comments of the integrated assessment from the evaluations.
| Positive Aspects of the Integrated Assessment Process and/or Meetings |
|---|
| Most impressive were the far reach and depth of discussion of this multifaceted, difficult problem among so many disciplinary perspectives. |
| The poll strategy was very effective in getting the thoughts of individuals synthesized despite the short period available. |
| People openly discussed ideas and respected each other’s opinions. Was a sense that people were open to new ways of looking at things. |
| The [Delphi] poll strategy was very effective in getting the thoughts of individuals synthesized despite the short period available. |
| Negative aspects of the Integrated Assessment process and/or meetings: |
| In my opinion, the IA process can be improved by engaging the local communities. |
| There is the need to identify all relevant stakeholders who are in a position to support the initiative and get the results to influence policy. |
| Inclusion of policy makers during the process could improve ownership and hence facilitate policy dialogue and implementation. |
| Time for each presentation should be increased to elicit extensively detailed information from groups. |
| The options were quite confusing during the [Delphi] poll. Took a long time during the workshop to re-define the options. |