PRESENTATION ON

NAVIGATING CORRUPTION
RISKS IN LARGE-SCALE MINING LICENSING AND
PERMITTING:
INSIGHTS FROM GHANA

JACOB TETTEH AHUNO

PROGRAMME OFFICER-GII 7TH MAY, 2024
 PURPOSE OF PRESENTATION

The purpose of this

presentation is to:

• Accountable Mining
Programme – MACRA Tool
• Highlight the key findings of
the research on mining
license approval corruption
risks assessment
 INTRODUCTION
Transparency International Accountable Mining Programme
Over 20 TI Chapters analysing the best ways to prevent
corruption in mining licencing decisions
Stopping Corruption, Before Ground Is Even Broken

• Strengthen responsible business conduct in the mining sector.

• Decisions to explore, open and expand new mines are

transparent and accountable.

• Working with companies, governments and communities to

enhance transparency, improve mining sector governance,
and raise business integrity standards
 INTRODUCTION
• Licensing is one of the areas in which risks and
vulnerabilities for corruption in the mining value-chain
occur

• Eliminating the risks and vulnerabilities is an important

part of effort towards enhancing the contribution of mining
to the national economy

• Understanding the nature and sources of corruption risks

and vulnerabilities in the licensing process is the
necessary first step towards their elimination
 THE RESEARCH PROBLEM

• Corruption has been noted to be key obstacle to maximizing

the net benefits of mining in Ghana

• Licensing is an area in which the risks and vulnerabilities for

corruption in the mining value-chain begins
 OBJECTIVES OF THE RESEARCH

The research aimed at improving the mining licensing award

system by identifying and kick start the process addressing its
weaknesses
The objectives of the research was to:
1. Map the mining award process and practice
2. Identify vulnerabilities to corruption present within the
mining award process in Ghana
3. Assess the corruption risks emanating from the
vulnerabilities
4. Make recommendations for improving the mining award
process in Ghana
 SCOPE OF THE RESEARCH

The research began in 2019 with a focus on:

• Ghana as a case country in the global context

• Large-scale Mining - Gold Mining sub-sector

• The process for granting mineral right with emphasis on
reconnaissance, prospecting and lease
 METHODOLOGY

• The research was guided by the Mining Awards

Corruption Risk Assessment (MACRA) Tool
developed by Transparency International ( for the
Accountable Mining Programme (AMP).
• MACRA) is a tool for helping users to identify and
assess incentives for corruption risks and
vulnerabilities in the mining licensing process
• Qualitative data were collected through desktop
research, interviews and focus group discussions
• Data collected were analyzed in line with the
requirements of the MACRA Tool
 MACRA TOOL
• Mining Awards Corruption Risk Assessment (MACRA) is a tool for
helping users to identify and assess incentives for corruption risks and
vulnerabilities in the mining licensing process

• The tool was developed by Transparency International for the Mining

for Sustainable Development Programme (M4SD)

• It aims to enhance transparency and accountability in the award of

mining sector licenses, permits and contracts

• It is designed for legal mining, not for illegal mining or oil and gas sector

• The tool can be used by any person seeking to identify, assess and
mitigate corruption risks and vulnerabilities in the mining awards
process
 KEY CONCEPTS OF THE TOOL
• Awards-licenses, permits and contracts

• Formal Small/Large-Scale Mining Sector- all mining

activities registered and regulated by the national law

• Corruption- the intent and act of receiving, giving,

embezzling, misappropriating, diverting, etc

• Vulnerabilities- weaknesses in the different stages of the

awards process that provide opportunities for corruption to
occur, or to pass undetected.

• Risks-threats and dangers in the award process that

provide opportunities for corruption to occur
 THEMATIC PARTS OF THE TOOL

• The tool has three main thematic parts

 Part 1 is the mapping of the mining award process and
the context

 Part 2 is the assessment of the corruption risks and

vulnerabilities

 Part 3 is communication of the findings of the

assessment
• Each part provides a step-by-step guide for users

• The sequence of the parts help the researcher to avoid

bias while ensuring objectivity
 PART 1:MAP THE MINING AWARDS PROCESS
AND CONTEXT

There are three main logical steps involved in part one

• Step 1:Define the scope
 Determines the type of award processes to examine
 Provides the reason of your choice

• Step 2: Map the award process and practice

 Map the official licensing process and the actual licensing practice
 Identify vulnerabilities to corruption in the process and practice

• Step 3: Analyse the awards context

 Analyse the context in which the process takes place
 Identify vulnerabilities to corruption in the awards context
 PART 2: ASSESS THE CORRUPTION RISKS

Part 2 involves four logical steps as follows:

• Step 4: Identify corruption risks
 Use Annex 1 to identify risks to match vulnerabilities

• Step 5: Analyse your risks

 Analyse evidence around likelihood and impact

• Step 6: Score each risk

 Score likelihood and impact for each risk

• Step 7: Validate the risk results

 Use impact, urgency and feasibility
 PART 3: COMMUNICATING FINDINGS

Part 3 involves two logical steps as follows:

• Step 8: Prioritising the risks

 Use impact, urgency and feasibility to prioritise the risks

• Step 9: Write the final report

 Review findings and priorities

 The report should meet the Programme’s and your own

chapter’s requirements
 METHODOLOGY
Corruption risks that correspond to the vulnerabilities are identified
 METHODOLOGY

• In a scale of 1-5, the likelihood & impact for each risk was scored.
 Likelihood
1-means the risk is unlikely to occur
2-means the risk can occur but sparingly
3-means the risk has occurred at least once or twice
4-means the risk has occurred many times
5-means a certainty of the risk occurring many times
 Impact
1-means impact is very low
2-means is low
3-means High
4-means is very high
5- means impact is disastrous and systemic
 The total scores (Likelihood x Impact) are plotted on a two-dimensional
matrix to establish the scale or level of the risk.
RESULTS
RESULTS
RESULTS
 RESULTS OF THE STUDY
What is the risk that there will be political influence in the
CF1 processing and granting of gold mining license application?

What is the risk that speculative activities on land subject to

CF2 mining will result in license holders and landowners resorting
to circumvent the proper process of resolving grievances?
What is the risk that there are no laid down procedures for the
prevention and management of conflict of interest involving
CF3
Contextual Factors (CF)

public officials and politicians in the mining license application

process?
What is the risk that the licensing application process has been
CF4 structured to favour private sector mining interest above the
public interest?
What is the risk that access to mineable areas by new
CF5 applicants is not transparent?

What is the risk that the first-come-first-served system creates

CF6 incentives for license holders and Cadastral Officials to engage
 RESULTS OF THE STUDY

What is the risk that face-to-face

processing of applications is
PD1 expensive and time consuming and
Process Design (PD)

will create opportunities for

corruption?

What is the risk of Parliament’s

inability to ratify signed agreements
PD2
between the government and the
applicant?
 RESULTS OF THE STUDY

PP1 hat is the risk that lack of legal backing for the
Technical Committee on Mineral Titles creates
opportunity for the approving authority to easily
ignore fair and impartial recommendations of the
Committee in order to favour a non-qualified
applicant?
Process Practice (PP)

PP2 What is the risk that multiple decision-makers are

involved in the application process?
PP3 What is the risk that Cadastral Agency does not
comply with standard timelines for the processing of
applications?
PP4 What is the risk that details of areas that have been
licensed for reconnaissance prospecting and lease
are not fully and publicly disclosed?
 RESULTS OF THE STUDY

What is the risk that the lack of specific date for

receipt of gazette by the Minerals Commission
PP5
creates incentives for manipulating stakeholder
engagement?
What is the risk that notices about the gold
Process Practice (PP)

mining licensing applications are given in

PP6 languages and channels that are not accessible
by women and men directly affected by the gold
project?

What is the risk that geological data about

license areas are not publicly available creating
PP7 opportunity for applicants to involve in
influencing officials to make decisions in their
favour?
 RESULTS OF THE STUDY

CC1 What is the risk that the gatekeeper role of

chiefs in the licensing process empowers
them to engage in under-hand dealings with
applicants?
CC2 What is the risk that lack of meaningful
community consultation creates opportunities
munity Consultation (CC)

for applicants and Cadastral Officials to abuse

community rights and engage in non-
compliance and corrupt practices?
CC3 What is the risk that the Free Prior informed
consent will be ignored?
CC4 What is the risk that compensation packages
for property owners will not be fair and
publicly disclosed?
 RESULTS OF THE STUDY

5 (GRC 1; 2; 4; 7; 14;
(GRC 3; 11; 13)
Certainty of the risk 5 10 15 16; 17; 18; 19)
occurring many times 20
25

4 (GRC 5; 10; 12; 15) (GRC 8)

Occurs many times 4 8 12
16 20

3
(GRC 6; 9)
Occurs at least once or 3 9 12 15
twice 6
LIKELYHOOD

2
Occurs but sparingly 2 4 6 8 10

1
Unlikely to occur 1 2 3 4 5

5
1 2 3 4
Disastrous &
Very low Low High Very high
systemic

IMPACT
 RESULTS OF THE STUDY
• The study also identified and assessed 19 risks to corruption;
Risks to Corruption
7
6
6 4
3 2
0

• In a likelihood scale of 1-5;

 14 out of the 19 identified risks scored the likelihood of 5;
 5 risks scored the likelihood of 4.

In a Impact scale of 1-5

 11 out of the 19 identified risks scored the impact of 5;
 6 scored the impact of 4; and
 2 risk factors scored the impact of 2.
 ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
• The highest number of risk factors for the PP suggests that the
potential for corruption is highest in the practice, while the least
number of risks in the process design suggests that the design by
itself has been good

• The highest scores for both likelihood and impact of all the
four (4) risks under CC means that CC is a priority risk area
• Also, the 4 risk factors with high impact scores in CF underlines
the importance of policy & should be priority risk factors
 PRIORITIZATION OF RISKS

• Based on the results and analysis, the study prioritised 6 out of the 19 risk
factors for action

• The following determinants were used to prioritise the risk factors:

 Urgency-there is moment for action or to build upon

 Impact- the score is high and colour is red

 Feasibility-there is public interest, resources and time

 PRIORITY RISK 1
Risk What tells me the What tells me What tells me
risk is urgent addressing the risk addressing the
will have an impact? risk is feasible?
CC2: What is the Likelihood score-5 Impact is disastrous & High stakeholder
risk that lack off systemic (5/5) interest
community Impact score-5 Wider impact Can be expensive
consultation
creates Total score-25 But worth the
opportunities for effort
applicants and Colour Red
Cadastral Officials
to abuse Mining licenses Addressing CC2 will Exercise could
continue to be also address CC1, take couple of
community rights issued CC3 & CC4 years
and engage in
non-compliance Minerals and Mining
and corrupt Act, 2006 (Act 703)
practices? being reviewed
 PRIORITY RISK 2
Risk What tells me the What tells me What tells me
risk is urgent addressing the addressing the
risk will have an risk is feasible?
impact?
Risk PD1: Likelihood score- Impact is High stakeholder
What is the risk 5 disastrous & interest
that face-to-face systemic (5/5)
processing of Impact score-5 Wider impact Funding opportunity
applications is Total score-25 Addressing this
expensive and Colour Red risk will minimise About a year to
time consuming the potential for complete
and will create corruption;
Minerals
opportunities for reduce time and
Commission is
corruption? cost for
already working
processing
on migration to
applications.
electronic system
of application
 PRIORITY RISK 3
Risk What tells me the What tells me What tells me
risk is urgent addressing the risk addressing the
will have an impact? risk is feasible?
Risk PD2: Likelihood score- Impact is disastrous Could be part of
What is the risk 4 & systemic (5/5) annual budget
that Parliament Impact score-5 Wider impact A year is enough
did not ratify Total score-20 Addressing this risk
signed Colour Red would save the Good established
agreements approving authority working
between the Parliamentary and relationship
ratification is a applicants/leasehold between
government
legal and ers from legal suit Parliament and
and the administrative
applicant? and potential losses the Minister of
requirements of revenue to Mines
which must be investors and the
met at all times country.
 PRIORITY RISK 4
Risk What tells me the What tells me What tells me
risk is urgent addressing the addressing the
risk will have an risk is feasible?
impact?
Risk PP4: What Likelihood score-4 Impact score 4/5 Budget support
is the risk that Impact score-4 big and wide About 2 years
details of areas spread impact
that have been
licensed for Total score-16
reconnaissance, Colour Red
prospecting and Electronic
lease are not fully cadastral
and publicly Full public stakeholder
management disclosure would consensus on full
disclosed? system being promote public disclosure
developed to transparency of the cadastral
support full public and system
disclosure of accountability
licensed areas
 PRIORITY RISK 5
Risk What tells me the What tells me What tells me
risk is urgent addressing the addressing the risk
risk will have an is feasible?
impact?
Risk PP6: What Likelihood score-5 Impact score 5/5 Cost can be
is the risk that expensive, but
notices about can be shared
the gold mining Impact score-5 big and wide Action on risk is
licensing spread impact not time bound
applications are
given in Total score-25
languages and Colour Red Forms and
channels that licenses awards location of All stakeholders
are not continues & Notices create are willing to
accessible by extraction creates barrier to host collaborate with
women and pollution, affect communities local communities
men directly community rights
affected by the
mining project?
 PRIORITY RISK 6
Risk What tells me the What tells me What tells me
risk is urgent addressing the risk addressing the risk
will have an impact? is feasible?

Risk CF3: What Likelihood score- Impact score 4/5 High stakeholder
is the risk that 5 interest
there are no laid
Impact score-4 Big impact human and
down
Total score-20 financial
procedures for
resources to
the prevention
initiate and
and
complete
management of
procedures exist
conflict of
interest, Colour Red Procedures for
involving public managing conflict of
officials and Recent media A year
reports of interest will deter
politicians in the abuse of office and
mining license corruption in
mining involving protect the integrity
application of the application
process? government
officials process.
 CONCLUSIONS & KEY RECOMMENDATIONS

• The Minister of Mines and the Minerals Commission should put in place
effective & efficient mechanism for sustained & meaningful stakeholder
engagement and consultation to empower stakeholders/communities to
engage in the mining license application process

• The Minerals Commission should substitute the manual system with an

electronic system of processing mining license applications so as to
minimise or eliminate the risk of corruption

• Legal and or administrative reform is required to provide schedules and

timelines within which the Minister must submit signed agreements to
Parliament for ratification

• Full public disclosure of licensed areas to promote transparency &

accountability, minimize illegal encroachment of concessions & deters
corruption
 CONCLUSION & KEY RECOMMENDATIONS

• Notices on mining licenses application process should be published

in languages and at locations, which are easily accessible to people
in communities that host, the concession

• The Minerals Commission should prepare and publish procedures

for managing conflict of interest, involving public officials and
politicians in the mining license application process

• Minerals Commission should re-design its advertised map on the

website so as to provide more accurate and comprehensive
information for the public

• MinCom must develop a guideline for meaningful consultation as

part of the licencing process
 www.tighana.org

facebook.com/ghanaintegrityinitiatiive
twitter.com/GhanaIntegrity