Scientists, lawyers petition Mahama over proposed offshore gold activities

Scientists, researchers, academics and legal practitioners have warned of potentially long-term environmental, fisheries, economic and human-rights risks associated with proposed offshore gold reconnaissance activities in Ghana.

They are urging President John Dramani Mahama to suspend further progression towards exploration or extraction until the potential impacts are fully assessed.

Below is the full letter:

OPEN LETTER

TO H.E. THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF GHANA

His Excellency John Dramani Mahama
President of the Republic of Ghana
Jubilee House
Accra, Ghana

30th September, 2026

RE: EXPERTS CAUTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL, ECOLOGICAL, SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND LEGAL RISKS FROM GOLD MINING WITHIN GHANA’S TERRITORIAL WATERS

Your Excellency,

Background

We, the members of the scientific community, researchers, academics and legal practitioners in Ghana, refer to an article circulating on Newsfile Corporation in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, since January 26, 2026, which reads:

“GoldCoast Resource Corp. ‘GoldCoast’ or the ‘Company’ is pleased to announce that it has been granted a series of 10 contiguous Offshore Reconnaissance Licenses (collectively, the ‘Licenses’) covering approximately 10,000 square kilometres along Ghana’s western offshore continental shelf (the ‘License Area’).

The Licence Area covers approximately 53% of Ghana’s total offshore coastline. The Licenses provide GoldCoast with the exclusive right to conduct offshore reconnaissance activities, including airborne and marine geophysical surveys, bathymetric mapping and seismic surveys, magnetometry, coring, and sediment sampling, for the purpose of identifying areas of mineral potential.

Targeted commodities include gold and associated heavy minerals. The License Area extends along approximately 300 kilometres of coastline, situated at Half Assini, in western Ghana, eastward to Winneba, Ghana, and covers shallow-water offshore zones influenced by multiple gold-bearing river systems draining established onshore gold belts in Ghana.”

(Retrieved 21st September 2026).

Ghana’s continental shelf in the Gulf of Guinea supports important marine ecosystems, fisheries resources, offshore petroleum operations and coastal livelihoods. Although commercial seabed gold mining has not yet been established on Ghana’s continental shelf, any future seabed mining for gold or associated minerals could have significant environmental, economic, social and legal consequences.

1.0. Potential Impacts of Seabed Gold Mining on Ghana’s Continental Shelf

1.1 Loss of Benthic Biodiversity

The continental shelf and adjacent seabed areas contain diverse benthic demersal communities, including fish species, corals, sponges, molluscs, crustaceans, worms and microorganisms that play critical roles in nutrient cycling and ecosystem functioning.

Mining activities would physically remove or disturb seabed habitats, lead to loss of endemic and poorly known species, disrupt ecological food webs and reduce ecosystem resilience to climate change, potentially causing irreversible damage because seabed organisms grow slowly and recover over extremely long periods.

1.2 Sediment Plumes and Water Quality Degradation

Seabed mining generates large sediment plumes when mining equipment disturbs the seabed. These plumes may spread over considerable distances, increasing turbidity and reducing water quality.

Research indicates that suspended sediments can affect marine ecosystems several kilometres beyond the mining site. Sediment plumes could smother benthic organisms, reduce light penetration into the ocean, affect fish spawning, nursery and feeding grounds and consequently introduce contaminants into the marine food web.

1.3 Fisheries Decline

Marine fisheries are a major source of food security, employment and income in Ghana. The continental shelf hosts important fishing grounds for small pelagic and demersal fish species, crustaceans and cephalopods.

Seabed mining could affect fisheries through habitat destruction, noise pollution, sediment contamination, displacement of fish populations and alteration of feeding and breeding areas.

A decline in fish populations could threaten coastal livelihoods and worsen food insecurity, particularly among artisanal fishing communities.

1.4 Noise and Vibration Effects

Mining operations involve heavy machinery, pumps, drilling systems and support vessels that create underwater noise and vibrations.

Potential consequences include disturbance of fish migration patterns, behavioural changes in marine mammals, reduced communication among marine species and disruption of feeding and breeding behaviour.

These impacts are especially concerning because many marine organisms, especially cetaceans, rely on sound for navigation and communication.

1.5 Release of Toxic Metals

Seabed mining may release naturally occurring heavy metals trapped in sediments and mineral deposits.

These substances can enter marine food webs and accumulate in fish and shellfish. Potential contaminants include mercury, arsenic, cadmium and lead.

Bioaccumulation of these metals may affect marine organisms and create risks for human consumption of seafood.

1.6 Climate and Carbon Implications

Seabed sediments store significant quantities of carbon. Disturbance of these sediments could release stored carbon and weaken the ocean’s role as a carbon sink.

Possible consequences include altered carbon cycling, reduced carbon sequestration capacity and increased greenhouse gas effects indirectly through ecosystem degradation.

1.7 Economic Risks

While seabed gold mining may generate revenue through royalties and taxes and create employment opportunities, the opportunity costs could be substantial.

These costs include the loss of significant artisanal fishing grounds, destruction of the ocean benthic floor and associated ecosystem services, and the risk of heavy-metal pollution.

These impacts could displace over 20% of Ghana’s active labour force currently engaged in fishing, negatively affect the livelihoods of fishing communities, reduce the availability of fish and consequently animal protein consumption by approximately 60%, and result in an estimated US$0.5 billion loss in fisheries-related revenue annually.

Given the economic, livelihood, food-security and ecosystem-service values associated with artisanal fisheries, these potential costs must be carefully weighed against the fiscal and employment benefits expected from seabed gold mining.

1.8 Governance and Regulatory Challenges

Ghana would require robust environmental safeguards, monitoring systems, marine spatial planning, environmental and fisheries impact assessments before permitting any seabed mining activities.

Key governance needs include precautionary environmental and fisheries impact assessments, current biodiversity status studies, continuous ecological monitoring, stakeholder participation and alignment with international marine governance frameworks, including those administered by the International Seabed Authority.

2.0. Implications of Seabed Gold Mining for Ghana’s Marine Protected Areas (MPAs)

The development of seabed gold mining within or adjacent to Ghana’s continental shelf could have significant implications for the effectiveness, ecological integrity and management of Ghana’s existing and proposed Marine Protected Areas (MPAs).

Given that MPAs are intended to conserve biodiversity, protect critical habitats, support fisheries recovery and enhance ecosystem resilience, seabed mining presents risks that may undermine these conservation objectives.

Marine Protected Areas are designed to safeguard marine habitats and species from human pressures. However, sediment plumes, underwater noise and chemical contamination generated by seabed mining can extend far beyond the mining site itself.

As a result, even MPAs located some distance from mining operations may experience ecological impacts as stated above.

Ghana’s MPAs are expected to contribute to national biodiversity targets under the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.

Seabed mining could increase pressure on already stressed marine ecosystems by introducing additional habitat disturbance and pollution. This may result in loss of rare and endemic marine species, reduced ecosystem resilience, greater vulnerability to climate change and ocean warming, and difficulty achieving national biodiversity conservation targets.

3.0. Challenges for Marine Spatial Planning

The emergence of seabed mining would introduce new competition for marine space within Ghana’s Exclusive Economic Zone.

Balancing mining interests with fisheries, shipping, offshore petroleum operations, tourism and conservation objectives would become increasingly complex.

This highlights the need for integrated Marine Spatial Planning, Strategic Environmental Assessments, precautionary zoning of ecologically sensitive areas, clear demarcation of exclusion zones around MPAs and other Key Biodiversity Areas, and consideration of risks to Blue Carbon Ecosystems.

Although most mining would occur offshore, disturbances to marine ecological processes may indirectly affect coastal blue carbon ecosystems such as mangroves, seagrass beds and estuaries that are often included within coastal protected areas.

4.0. Environmental Damage May Be Long Lasting or Irreversible

Evidence from seabed mining experiments and disturbed seabed sites indicates that recovery of deep-ocean ecosystems occurs extremely slowly, if at all.

Seabed habitats are characterized by low temperatures, limited food availability, slow biological processes and species that often require decades to centuries to mature.

Consequently, physical disturbance of seabed habitats can result in ecological impacts that persist for generations.

Studies from mining test areas have found that biological communities and ecosystem functions remained significantly altered many years after disturbance, with some habitats showing little sign of recovery.

Sediment plumes generated during mining can further extend impacts beyond the extraction site, affecting adjacent ecosystems and biodiversity over large areas.

5.0. CASE STUDIES ON SEABED MINING: LESSONS FOR GHANA

5.1 France’s Call for a Seabed Mining Ban

In recent years, France has emerged as one of the strongest advocates for a global ban on seabed mining.

French policymakers concluded that scientific knowledge of deep-ocean ecosystems remains inadequate to support commercial extraction. France has argued that biodiversity risks and potential irreversible ecosystem damage outweigh potential economic benefits.

Lesson for Ghana: Countries do not necessarily have to choose extraction over conservation. Strategic protection of marine biodiversity can be viewed as a long-term investment in ecosystem resilience, fisheries and climate adaptation.

5.2 Papua New Guinea’s Solwara 1 Project

The Solwara 1 project in Papua New Guinea was the world’s first proposed commercial seabed mining operation targeting seafloor massive sulphide deposits.

The project faced strong opposition from scientists, local communities and environmental organizations due to concerns over biodiversity impacts, fisheries risks and uncertain economic returns.

Eventually, the project collapsed financially without commencing commercial production.

The case highlighted major challenges including high operating costs, technical uncertainties, weak social acceptance, environmental concerns and financial risks for governments and investors.

Lesson for Ghana: Anticipated economic benefits from seabed mining may not materialize. Environmental and financial risks should be carefully evaluated before public resources are committed.

5.3 Clarion-Clipperton Zone (Pacific Ocean)

The Clarion-Clipperton Zone (CCZ), located in the Pacific Ocean between Hawaii and Mexico, is the world’s most intensively studied seabed mining region.

It contains extensive deposits of polymetallic nodules rich in manganese, nickel, cobalt, copper and traces of precious metals.

Experimental mining and disturbance studies found that biodiversity losses and physical seabed scars persisted for decades after disturbance, with some ecological functions showing little evidence of recovery.

Lesson for Ghana: Even limited exploratory mining can cause long-term ecological changes. Recovery of seabed habitats may take centuries, making prevention and avoidance critical policy tools.

5.4 DISCOL Experimental Area, Peru Basin

The DISCOL Experimental Area in the Peru Basin is one of the most important scientific case studies on seabed disturbance.

In 1989, German scientists deliberately ploughed a section of the seabed to simulate mining impacts.

Follow-up surveys conducted more than 25 years later showed that the disturbed areas remained visibly altered, with reduced biological abundance and changes in ecosystem functioning.

Sediment layers had not fully recovered, and many benthic species remained less abundant than in undisturbed reference sites.

Lesson for Ghana: Environmental impacts from seabed mining can persist across generations, suggesting that post-mining restoration may not be a practical conservation strategy.

5.5 New Zealand’s Chatham Rise Phosphate Mining Proposal

In New Zealand, several proposals sought approval to mine phosphate deposits on the Chatham Rise.

The country’s environmental authorities ultimately rejected the applications due to uncertainties surrounding impacts on marine biodiversity, fisheries, seabed habitats and ecosystem services.

Regulators concluded that available scientific information was insufficient to demonstrate that environmental effects could be adequately mitigated.

Lesson for Ghana: Regulatory decisions should prioritize environmental safeguards where scientific uncertainty exists. Lack of evidence of harm should not be interpreted as evidence of safety. Strong precautionary regulation can prevent irreversible ecosystem losses.

6.0. LEGAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS

Your Excellency, for coastal communities across the Greater Accra, Central, Western, Volta and Western North coastal corridors, the sea is not merely a natural resource.

It is the foundation of life, livelihood, culture, heritage and food security.

Artisanal fisheries support hundreds of thousands of fishers, processors, traders, transporters and other value chain actors.

Entire communities have evolved around these fisheries over generations, making fishing not only an economic activity but a way of life.

The prospect of large-scale offshore mineral exploration within a substantial portion of the Inshore Exclusive Zone (IEZ), therefore, raises legitimate concerns regarding the enjoyment of several fundamental human rights guaranteed under the Constitution of Ghana and international human rights instruments to which Ghana is a party.

First, offshore mining reconnaissance activities have the potential to threaten the right to work and the right to livelihoods.

Article 6(1) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) recognizes the right of every person to gain a living through work freely chosen and further provides separately, under Article 1(2), that “in no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.”

For artisanal fishers, access to fishing grounds is synonymous with access to work.

Any activity that substantially restricts access to traditional fishing grounds or compromises fish stocks risks undermining the economic survival of thousands of households.

Similarly, Article 24(1) of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana guarantees economic rights and places obligations on the State to pursue policies that advance the welfare and economic wellbeing of citizens.

Articles 24, 36 and 37 collectively underscore the State’s duty to safeguard opportunities for dignified livelihoods and social welfare.

Second, there are significant concerns relating to the right to food and national food security.

Fish remains one of the most important and affordable sources of animal protein for millions of Ghanaians.

Any disruption to artisanal fisheries could have consequences not only for fishing communities but also for national nutrition and food availability.

Article 11(1) of the ICESCR recognizes the right to an adequate standard of living, including adequate food, and requires States to protect access to the natural resources upon which communities depend for their survival.

Similarly, Article 11(2) recognizes the fundamental right to be free from hunger and calls for measures to improve the production, conservation and distribution of food.

Third, reconnaissance activities within ecologically sensitive marine areas may pose risks through activities such as acoustic surveys, coring and sediment sampling to the right to a healthy and sustainable environment.

Scientific studies from offshore extractive activities elsewhere have demonstrated that seabed disturbances, underwater acoustic surveys, sediment plumes and other exploratory activities can adversely affect marine biodiversity, fish breeding habitats and migratory patterns.

Where environmental degradation threatens the survival of fishing communities, the implications extend beyond environmental concerns and become matters of human rights and intergenerational justice.

The African Charter to which Ghana is a signatory expressly recognizes a peoples’ right to a generally satisfactory environment favourable to development.

Under the Constitution of Ghana, the State is entrusted with the responsibility of protecting and managing the nation’s natural resources for the benefit of present and future generations.

Specifically, Article 36(9) directs the State to take appropriate measures to protect and safeguard the national environment for posterity; Article 41(k) places a duty on every citizen to protect and safeguard the environment; and Article 257(6) vests minerals in the territorial sea, exclusive economic zone and continental shelf in the President on behalf of, and in trust for, the people of Ghana.

Likewise, at the regional level, Articles 21, 22 and 24 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Banjul Charter) recognize the rights of people to development and to conditions favourable to their wellbeing and advancement.

Ghana ratified the Charter in 1989.

Fourth, the affected communities possess a legitimate right to information, consultation and participation in decisions that may significantly affect their livelihoods and future.

Article 21(1)(f) of the 1992 Constitution protects the right to information, subject to qualifications and laws necessary in a democratic society.

Also, Article 23 requires administrative bodies and officials to act fairly and reasonably and to comply with legal requirements.

Article 37(2)(a), as a Directive Principle of State Policy, directs the State to afford the people opportunities to participate in decision-making at every level of national life and government, while international human rights standards increasingly recognize meaningful consultation as a pre-requisite for development initiatives that affect local communities.

7.0. IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY

Because restoration of seabed ecosystems is highly uncertain and may be impossible within meaningful management timeframes, Ghana should adopt a precautionary approach to any proposed seabed mining activity.

Preventing damage through rigorous environmental and fisheries impact assessment, spatial protection measures and strict regulatory safeguards is likely to be far more effective and less costly than attempting to rehabilitate degraded seabed habitats after mining has occurred.

This reinforces the need to prioritize conservation of ecologically sensitive areas, including existing and proposed Marine Protected Areas, fisheries habitats and other key biodiversity areas on Ghana’s continental shelf.

The possibility of irreversible environmental impacts supports the inclusion of seabed mining as a strategic risk within Ghana’s marine biodiversity planning framework.

Any future decisions regarding seabed mineral extraction should be guided by the precautionary principle, comprehensive baseline ecological studies, long-term monitoring programmes and the maintenance of no-mining zones around critical biodiversity and fisheries habitats.

Your Excellency, it is important to emphasize that this appeal should not be interpreted as opposition to national development, responsible investment nor the sustainable utilization of Ghana’s natural resources.

Rather, it is a call for a development pathway that upholds the constitutional promise that economic progress must not come at the expense of the rights, dignity and wellbeing of vulnerable communities.

In this regard, we respectfully call upon Your Excellency to:

Direct an independent and comprehensive Human Rights Impact Assessment on the proposed offshore gold reconnaissance activities.
Ensure the conduct and public disclosure of a rigorous Environmental and Social Impact Assessment prior to any expansion of reconnaissance or exploration activities.
Suspend any further progression toward exploration or extraction within the affected areas until all potential impacts on artisanal fisheries and coastal livelihoods are fully understood and publicly assessed.
Establish a transparent multi-stakeholder dialogue platform involving fishing communities, traditional authorities, civil society organizations, fisheries experts, environmental scientists and government agencies.
Guarantee meaningful consultation and free, prior and informed participation of affected coastal communities in all decisions concerning the future use of the Inshore Exclusive Zone.
Develop clear safeguards and compensation mechanisms to protect livelihoods, food security and community welfare should any adverse impacts be identified.
Adopt the precautionary principle where scientific uncertainty exists regarding the potential impacts of offshore mineral activities on fisheries resources and marine ecosystems.

Your Excellency, the Inshore Exclusive Zone was established to preserve the livelihoods of artisanal fishers and secure the future of Ghana’s coastal communities.

At a time when many fishing households are already grappling with declining catches, rising operational costs and increasing economic vulnerability, any activity that may further threaten their access to marine resources warrants the highest level of scrutiny and protection.

The true measure of development lies not only in the extraction of natural resources but in the extent to which such development safeguards human dignity, protects livelihoods, promotes social justice and leaves no community behind.

We respectfully urge Your Excellency to ensure that the rights and welfare of Ghana’s artisanal fishing communities remain at the centre of all decisions concerning the future of Ghana’s marine resources.

Please accept, Your Excellency, the assurances of our highest consideration.

Yours faithfully,

Concerned Scientists, Researchers, Academics and Legal Practitioners

Cc: