www.rsisinternational.org
Page 5423
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Combating Galamsey in Ghana: A Religious Approach
Charles Agyinasare
Department of Church Administration, Perez University College
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.910000442
Received: 20 October 2025; Accepted: 28 October 2025; Published: 14 November 2025
ABSTRACT
Illegal small-scale mining (“galamsey”) remains a severe socio-environmental and economic challenge in
Ghana, manifesting in land degradation, water contamination, and public-health risks. Despite repeated
enforcement drives, the persistence of galamsey reveals limits to command-and-control approaches and
underscores the need for complementary, community-embedded strategies. This article presents a documentary
analysis and narrative review (2019–2025) of peer-reviewed scholarship and Ghanaian policy/agency reports
to assess how religious organisations can mitigate galamsey through stewardship framings, policy engagement,
and congregational mobilizations. The synthesis yields three insights. First, ecological injury and livelihood
disruption are well documented at basin and community scales. Second, faith networks—via doctrinally
grounded stewardship ethics and dense social ties—can catalyze norm change and channel credible reporting
when procedures are clear and responses are time-bound and safe. Third, trust bottlenecks—fear of reprisals,
opaque response lines, and politicization—depress citizen action, limiting the effect of moral exhortation
alone. In response, the article proposes a faith–state collaboration blueprint comprising national memoranda of
understanding, district faith–state committees, congregation-nominated environmental wardens, service
standards (72-hour acknowledgement; 14-day action update), independent oversight, and a proportionate
monitoring-and-evaluation plan. Integrating religious perspectives with auditable state response pathways
offers a feasible route to sustained compliance and community monitoring. The study contributes an evidence-
informed, design-level framework to operationalize faith–state collaboration for environmental governance in
Ghana.
Keywords: galamsey; artisanal and small-scale mining (ASM); stewardship ethics; religious social capital;
community monitoring; environmental governance; Ghana
INTRODUCTION
Illegal mining, referred to as “Galamsey” (from the phrase “gather them and sell”), presents a significant threat
to the environment, public health, and socio-economic stability in Ghana. This practice, rooted in the country’s
history, has escalated into a complex crisis driven by poverty, unemployment, and environmental degradation.
This paper explores the multifaceted nature of Galamsey, examining its definitions, historical context, causes,
and consequences. It emphasizes the importance of community engagement, especially through faith-based
organizations, in addressing the crisis.
Galamsey—illegal artisanal and small-scale mining—continues to degrade Ghana’s rivers and forests, with the
Pra and Offin basins frequently cited as hotspots (Nunoo et al., 2022). Despite recurrent crackdowns, political
patronage, weak monitoring capacity, and gold-price incentives sustain the practice (Bansah, 2023; Bansah et
al., 2024; Bessah et al., 2020). Given congregations’ embeddedness in community life, faith networks are a
plausible, underused civic infrastructure for norm change and reporting. This article asks how faith reframes
the meaning of environmental harm and when such meanings translate into action against galamsey.
In policy terms, repeated enforcement waves and task-force deployments have reduced activity temporarily yet
struggled to achieve durable compliance without parallel social norm change, livelihood alternatives, and
predictable administrative follow-through (Ghana Minerals Commission, 2020; Ghana Environmental
Protection Agency [EPA], 2021; UNEP, 2021). Empirical work documents water quality deterioration, forest
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 5424
loss, and health risks in affected basins (Bessah et al., 2020; Nunoo et al., 2022), while governance analyses
highlight gaps in inspection capacity, politicization of sanctions, and ambiguous citizen complaint pathways
(Ghana EPA, 2021; Ghana Minerals Commission, 2020). Against this backdrop, the widespread reach and
moral authority of religious bodies in Ghana suggest a complementary lever: stewardship framings and
congregation-based coordination that can lower the transaction costs of collective action and reporting (Chisale
& Bosch, 2021; Eom & Ng, 2023).
The relevance of faith institutions is not merely demographic but mechanistic. Religiosity remains high
nationally (Statista, 2024), and religion–environment scholarship indicates that creation-care/khalifah/Mizan
teachings can strengthen pro-environmental attitudes and intention–behaviour alignment (Veldman et al.,
2019; Karimi et al., 2022; Eom & Ng, 2023). However, moral exhortation alone is insufficient: participation in
community monitoring and rule compliance tends to persist only when safe, credible channels exist and
responses are time-bound and visible (Danielsen et al., 2021, 2022; Anderson, Fox, & Gaventa, 2020). This
study therefore treats faith networks as a potential “last-mile” governance infrastructure that can convert
stewardship meanings into observable actions—clean-ups, hotline reporting, and social sanctioning of
collusion—provided that reporting pathways are protected, auditable, and coupled to state response standards.
Conceptually, the paper integrates stewardship ethics (the “why”) with religious social capital (the “who/with
whom”) and service-standard reporting interfaces (the “how/whether”). Practically, we advance a design-level
blueprint—national memoranda of understanding (MOUs) with peak faith bodies, district faith–state
committees, congregation-nominated wardens, and public dashboards with 72-hour acknowledgements and 14-
day action updates—intended to mitigate the credibility gap that currently suppresses citizen action.
Methodologically, we undertake a documentary analysis and narrative review of 2019–2025 peer-reviewed
studies and Ghanaian agency reports, privileging Ghana-specific evidence and bringing in cross-context
syntheses where mechanisms plausibly transfer. The contribution is twofold: (a) an evidence-informed theory
of change linking faith teachings to collective efficacy and compliant behaviour under conditions of political
interference and response uncertainty; and (b) an actionable implementation scaffold that policymakers, faith
leaders, and district authorities can pilot and evaluate.
The remainder of the article proceeds as follows. First, we present the theoretical framework (religious social
capital and stewardship ethics) and specify an integrative mechanism pathway. Second, we outline methods for
the documentary and narrative synthesis. Third, we review recent evidence on galamsey’s environmental and
social harms and identify trust bottlenecks that depress reporting. Fourth, we detail the faith–state collaboration
blueprint and a light monitoring-and-evaluation (MEL) plan. We conclude with policy implications,
limitations, and priorities for piloting and scale-up in Ghana’s most impacted districts.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Religious social capital. Social capital—networks, norms, and trust—reduces coordination costs for collective
action, especially under environmental stress and public-health risk. Meta-analytic and cross-national evidence
indicates that religiosity and faith-anchored communities can strengthen prosocial norms and increase
intention–behaviour alignment for public goods (Karimi et al., 2022; Eom & Ng, 2023). In Ghana,
congregations and interfaith platforms already serve as hubs for social protection, youth activities, and civic
messaging; leveraging those dense ties for environmental governance can lower the transaction costs of
mobilizing clean-ups, monitoring, and lawful livelihood transitions.
Conceptual specification. We treat “religious social capital” as the subset of social capital rooted in faith
communities’ patterned relations and shared moral repertoires. Following standard distinctions, we emphasize
(a) bonding ties (within-congregation trust and mutual obligation), (b) bridging ties (across
denominations/faiths and civic groups), and (c) linking ties (vertical connections to state authorities). Bonding
capital provides rapid mobilization; bridging capital broadens information reach and reduces sectarian
fragmentation; linking capital enables access to enforcement and remediation resources.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 5425
Mechanisms relevant to galamsey. In environments where formal monitoring is thin, religious social capital
can:(1) reduce coordination costs through pre-existing meeting rhythms, leadership structures, and
communication channels; (2) increase normative compliance via moral suasion and reputational incentives
(e.g., congregational expectations, leader modelling); (3) improve information quality by diffusing actionable,
locally verified signals (sites, times, actors) through trusted networks; and (4) lower perceived risk when safe,
predictable reporting routes with time-bound feedback exist (Anderson, Fox, & Gaventa, 2020; Danielsen et
al., 2021, 2022). In short, faith networks supply organizational capacity, while stewardship teachings supply
moral motivation; together they create conditions under which reporting and by-law adherence become
socially rewarded behaviours.
Scope conditions and risks. Religious social capital is not uniformly salutary. Elite capture, partisan patronage,
and exclusion of minorities or youth can blunt or distort collective action, especially when local chiefs or
political brokers intersect with congregational leadership. Without anonymity, legal shielding, and transparent
feedback, congregants may rationally abstain from reporting due to retaliation risks. The framework therefore
treats institutional safeguards (anonymous channels, 72-hour acknowledgements, 14-day action updates,
independent oversight) as necessary complements to mobilization so that social capital enhances—not
substitutes for—legitimate authority (Anderson et al., 2020; Danielsen et al., 2021, 2022).
Operational implications for design and evaluation. Bonding capital suggests working within congregations
(wardens, sermon micro-series, youth eco-brigades). Bridging capital motivates district interfaith committees
for joint briefings and shared dashboards. Linking capital requires formal MOUs with EPA/Minerals
Commission/Assemblies to codify roles, data-sharing, and redress routes. For monitoring and evaluation, a
small dashboard of indicators—such as reports per 1,000 congregants, the share acknowledged within 72
hours, the share receiving action updates within 14 days, and shifts in perceived safety/trust—can show
whether religious social capital is translating into compliance-relevant behavior.
Propositions. P1: Congregations with higher bonding and bridging capital will exhibit higher rates of safe
reporting and participation in remediation, conditional on credible service standards. P2: The positive effect of
stewardship messaging on intention–behaviour alignment is mediated by religious social capital and moderated
by perceived response credibility. P3: Where anonymity and independent oversight are absent, fear of reprisals
will neutralize the mobilization effect, even under strong stewardship framing (Eom & Ng, 2023; Karimi et al.,
2022; Danielsen et al., 2021, 2022).
Stewardship ethics
Contemporary religion–environment scholarship documents how teachings of creation care/khalifah/Mizan
shape pro-environmental attitudes and behaviour (Veldman et al., 2019; Karimi et al., 2022; Eom & Ng, 2023).
In Christian, Muslim, and indigenous Ghanaian traditions, water and land are construed as entrusted goods;
violations are not only material losses but moral breaches. This moral register is crucial: when environmental
harm is understood as covenantal failure, congregations can reposition compliance and reporting as fidelity,
not betrayal. Building on this consensus, stewardship is best understood not merely as a theological ideal but
as a normative governance resource: it furnishes a vocabulary of duty, accountability to God and community,
and eschatological consequences that can be translated into everyday environmental practices.
In the Ghanaian context, references to creation care (e.g., Gen 2:15 in Christian preaching), khalifah and Mizan
(vicegerency and balance in Islamic teaching), and sacred-water taboos in indigenous cosmologies provide
action-guiding reasons that are legible to ordinary congregants. Recent syntheses indicate that religiosity
strengthens prosocial norms and the intention–behaviour link for public-goods dilemmas (Karimi et al., 2022),
while experimental and survey evidence connects stewardship framings to sustainability-oriented attitudes and
behaviours (Eom & Ng, 2023). The Routledge Handbook of Religion and Ecology also document how
doctrinal resources are being operationalized in diverse settings, from congregational audits of environmental
footprints to faith-led watershed protection (Veldman et al., 2019). Taken together, these findings justify
treating stewardship ethics as a mechanism for norm activation and rule internalization in environmental
governance, not simply as moral rhetoric.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 5426
Integrative lens
We theorize a pathway: faith teaching → meaning-making (duty/identity) → collective efficacy →
monitoring/reporting → improved compliance, moderated by political interference and response uncertainty.
This aligns with evidence that community monitoring coupled with feedback loops increases responsiveness
where safe pathways exist (Danielsen et al., 2021, 2022; Anderson, Fox, & Gaventa, 2020). In other words,
stewardship ethics provide the “why,” religious social capital supplies the “who” and “with whom,” and
credible, safe reporting channels determine the “how” and “whether.” Operationally, the pathway implies three
implementable propositions.
First, doctrine-inflected communication (sermons, khutbahs, rites) activates moral salience and identity (“we
are caretakers”), which raises perceived obligation to protect rivers/forests. Second, congregations—dense,
trusted networks with recognized leadership—convert that obligation into collective efficacy by lowering
coordination costs for reporting and clean-ups (e.g., shared information channels, role modelling by leaders).
Third, whether intention becomes behaviour depends on institutional credibility: time-bound feedback,
predictable procedures, and protection from reprisals.
Reviews of locally based environmental monitoring show that when citizens receive acknowledgements and
action updates within known windows, participation persists; where responses are opaque or politicized, it
collapses (Danielsen et al., 2021, 2022). Parallel social-accountability syntheses reach similar conclusions:
anonymity, clear redress routes, and independent oversight are necessary complements to mobilization
(Anderson et al., 2020). In short, stewardship is the motivational engine; religious social capital is the
transmission system; and safeguarded, auditable channels are the road surface that determines traction.
Methods
Design. Desk-based documentary analysis and narrative review (2019–2025) synthesising: (a) Ghana-focused
studies on galamsey/ASM and environmental impacts; (b) peer-reviewed work on religion, stewardship, and
pro-environmental behaviour; and (c) reviews on community-based monitoring, social accountability, and
environmental governance. The approach privileges Ghana-specific studies for contextual validity and uses
international evidence when mechanisms (e.g., feedback loops, anonymity) are likely to generalise.
Sources & identification. Searches in scholarly databases (Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar) and
authoritative reports (UNEP; Ghana EPA; Minerals Commission) combined the strings Ghana AND (galamsey
or “artisanal” or ASM) with (religion or faith or stewardship) and (community monitoring or social
accountability or feedback). Snowballing from reference lists added recent items.
Eligibility. English; 2019–2025; empirical studies or high-quality syntheses; Ghana-specific or mechanism-
transferable. Excluded: pre-2019 items unless cited by included reviews for theoretical anchoring;
opinion/editorials lacking evidence.
Synthesis. A two-stage thematic synthesis extracted (1) problem framings, mechanisms, and implementation
conditions from included sources; then (2) mapped them to a faith–state collaboration blueprint specifying
MOUs, committee architecture, wardens, service standards, and safeguards.
Limitations. Narrative reviews are interpretive and depend on available documentation; grey-literature quality
varies. To mitigate, we (i) privilege peer-reviewed and official sources; (ii) triangulate Ghana-specific findings
with multi-country mechanism reviews; and (iii) propose a monitoring-and-evaluation (MEL) scaffold to
enable future empirical testing.
Optional quantitative augmentation. A short Knowledge–Attitudes–Practice (KAP) module administered
through congregations (n≈120–240 across 4–8 congregations) can quantify awareness, perceived duty,
willingness to report, prior reporting, perceived safety, and trust in response. Analysis would be descriptive
(proportions/means) to illuminate implementation bottlenecks without making causal claims.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 5427
FINDINGS
Finding 1: Environmental harms and social disruption are well documented in Ghana (2019–2025).
Recent studies show river pollution in the Pra/Offin systems, deforestation including within forest reserves,
soil degradation, and health risks linked to mercury/cyanide exposure (Nunoo et al., 2022; Bansah, 2023;
Bansah et al., 2024; Bessah et al., 2020; United Nations Environment Programme [UNEP], 2021).
Documented livelihood losses (farming/fishing), water insecurity, and local conflict indicate that ecological
damage is also experienced as community disruption.
Three practical implications follow.
Finding 2: First, remediation credibility matters: communities respond to visible and proximate improvements
(e.g., small-site restoration, turbidity improvement at sentinel points) more than distant policy
pronouncements. Second, control of inputs (e.g., excavators, mercury, cyanide) must be complemented by
demand-side social norms that stigmatize collusion and normalize lawful alternatives.
Finding 2: Faith networks can translate stewardship meanings into collective action—when pathways and
protections exist.
Congregations and interfaith platforms provide social capital (trust, leadership, convening power) that reduces
coordination costs for clean-ups, by-law adherence, and community reporting (Eom & Ng, 2023; Veldman et
al., 2019). Evidence from community-based monitoring shows that clear reporting channels and feedback
loops sustain participation; moral exhortation alone fades without visible, time-bound response (Danielsen et
al., 2021, 2022; Anderson et al., 2020).
Where leaders specify concrete “next steps” (who to call, what to record, how to stay safe) and commit to
updates within known timeframes, intention is more likely to convert into behaviour. Conversely, opaque
response lines amplify risk perceptions and fuel cynicism, even among congregants who accept stewardship
obligations.
Finding 3: Trust bottlenecks suppress citizen action against galamsey.
Perceived political interference, retaliation risk, and opaque response lines depress reporting. Social-
accountability and environmental-monitoring syntheses emphasizes anonymity, time-bound responses, and
independent oversight to convert willingness into action (Anderson et al., 2020; Danielsen et al., 2021, 2022).
Thus, the implementation problem in Ghana is not only a deficit of moral messaging but a credibility gap in
state responsiveness. The design task is to braid moral suasion to predictable, safe, and auditable channels of
action.
The Concept of Galamsey and its Causes
Galamsey refers to unregulated artisanal and small-scale mining operations that often ignore environmental
guidelines set by the Ghana Minerals Commission. These operations employ rudimentary techniques, such as
panning and sluicing, and, increasingly, mechanised methods, contributing to soil erosion, water pollution, and
deforestation. The primary motivations include economic necessity, lack of access to formal employment, and
the allure of quick wealth. Many individuals, especially the youth, are drawn to mining as an alternative to
agriculture or other low-income jobs. Poverty and high unemployment rates are among the leading drivers of
galamsey. In rural areas, limited access to formal employment compels individuals to resort to illegal mining
as a means of survival. The income disparity between urban and rural populations exacerbates this situation, as
rural dwellers perceive galamsey as a viable means of bridging the economic divide (Eduful et al., 2020). The
“get-rich-quick” mentality plays a significant role, as individuals seek immediate financial relief without fully
considering the long-term environmental and health costs.
Although Ghana has established several mining laws, such as the Minerals and Mining Act of 2006,
enforcement remains a significant challenge. Corruption, lack of resources, and political influence hinder the
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 5428
effective implementation of these regulations. Despite laws designed to protect the environment, illegal mining
flourishes due to weak enforcement and systemic challenges within regulatory bodies (Ghana Minerals
Commission, 2020). Some legal small- and medium-scale mining operations also fail to comply with
environmental standards, exacerbating the crisis (Bansah, 2023: 136648).
Illegal mining in Ghana fluctuates according to seasonal patterns. Galamsey activities are particularly
prevalent during the dry season when water levels in rivers decrease, making it easier to access alluvial gold
deposits. Agricultural cycles also influence the intensity of illegal mining, as farmers seek alternative income
sources during the off-season (Osei & Osei, 2020). The seasonal nature of galamsey activities increases
environmental impact, as miners exploit gold-rich areas when conditions are favourable, further exacerbating
degradation.
Global gold demand and price cycles amplify these local drivers, drawing in traders and middlemen who
arbitrage regulatory weakness and integrate illegally mined gold into broader supply chains. Without social
sanctions against collusion and credible enforcement at both mine-site and market-entry points, statutory
protections remain porous.
Political Corruption and the Persistence of Galamsey in Ghana
Corruption remains one of the most significant obstacles to regulating illegal mining in Ghana. The widespread
acceptance of bribery within regulatory and law enforcement agencies allows illegal miners to bypass laws and
operate with impunity. Studies have documented instances where local law enforcement officials have
accepted inducements to overlook illegal mining activities, fostering a culture of impunity that perpetuates
environmental degradation (Wireko-Gyebi et al., 2020). Political influence plays a crucial role: local
politicians may shield operations to secure financial backing or because constituents view galamsey as
essential livelihood. Regulatory weaknesses are exacerbated by resource constraints; agencies such as the
Minerals Commission and the EPA are often underfunded and understaffed, making it difficult to monitor
mining activities, especially in remote areas (Ghana EPA, 2021).
Two governance frictions are particularly salient. First, discretionary authority and information asymmetries
concentrate power at district levels, where land allocation, site inspection scheduling, and sanction discretion
can be captured. Second, complaint mechanisms are under-specified: citizens lack clarity on who logs a
complaint, how evidence is handled, and what timelines to expect, so perceived risk dominates perceived
efficacy. These frictions are precisely what the faith–state blueprint attempts to recalibrate through service
standards, dashboards, and independent oversight.
Environmental and Social Impacts of Galamsey in Ghana
One of the most significant environmental effects of galamsey is the contamination of water bodies. Toxic
chemicals, particularly mercury, cyanide, and arsenic, are used by some illegal miners. These pollutants flow
into rivers, streams, and groundwater, rendering them unsafe for consumption and agriculture. Studies show
that a substantial proportion of Ghana’s monitored water bodies are affected, jeopardizing water security and
biodiversity (Bansah et al., 2024; Nunoo et al., 2022; UNEP, 2021). Mercury accumulates in aquatic life,
contaminating fish and posing long-term health risks.
Galamsey contributes to deforestation, including within protected forest reserves. Estimated losses in forest
cover diminish biodiversity and reduce carbon sequestration capacity (Bessah et al., 2020). Soil erosion and
heavy-metal contamination impair agricultural productivity and food security. Meanwhile, the movement of
heavy equipment damages roads and bridges; displacement and conflict emerge around contested sites; and
unlicensed extraction undermines fiscal revenues that could fund public goods. While galamsey provides
short-term income, it rarely supports durable livelihoods and often increases vulnerability (Mutemeri &
Petersen, 2021). Programme experience also suggests that purely punitive approaches may displace rather than
diminish activity. Interventions that couple enforcement with credible livelihood options (e.g., agriculture
extension, legal ASM cooperatives with environmental compliance) and visible remediation generate better
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 5429
social acceptance. Faith actors can convene such “sermon-plus-service” events, embedding moral exhortation
in tangible collective action.
Religious Solutions to Galamsey in Ghana
Religious affiliation in Ghana is high, and congregations are embedded in community life. Religious
organisations have the responsibility to raise awareness and advocate for sustainable mining practices. Faiths
should leverage their influence and community networks to promote environmental stewardship and social
responsibility. Their efforts should include educating local communities on the consequences of galamsey,
advocating for stronger regulatory policies, and encouraging alternative livelihoods that are more sustainable
(Chisale & Bosch, 2021; Eom & Ng, 2023). Because messages delivered by trusted leaders carry moral and
relational authority, congregations can reduce cognitive and social barriers to action. The strategy is not to
supplant state functions but to strengthen the connective tissue between communities and regulators so that the
costs of collusion rise and the predictability of lawful action improves.
A Faith–State Collaboration Blueprint (Actionable and Monitorable)
1. National MOUs. Between Ministry of Lands & Natural Resources/EPA/Minerals Commission and peak
faith bodies (Christian Council, Office of the National Chief Imam, Ghana Pentecostal and Charismatic
Council, National House of Chiefs). Clauses: non-partisanship and conflict-of-interest declarations; data-
sharing on reports received, actions taken, and response times; whistle-blower protection aligned with
national statutes.
2. District Faith–State Committees (DFACs). Multi-faith, mixed-gender bodies that meet monthly and
publish a one-page minute; co-set hotspot patrol calendars with EPA/Assemblies; host quarterly
community briefings in rotating congregations; and coordinate remedial actions (e.g., seedling replanting
days) with district forestry/agric services.
3. Congregation-Nominated Community Environmental Wardens. Two to three per congregation; trained on
do-no-harm, GPS pin-drop, and photo-evidence rules; report via USSD/WhatsApp template (date,
location, type, urgency, photo if safe); no confrontations; accompaniment only with state officers.
4. Service standards (make trust visible). 72-hour acknowledgement to every report; 14-day action update
(inspection, closure, sanction, or reason for delay); quarterly district dashboards co-displayed at
Assemblies and congregations (reports, actions, median response times). These commitments convert
diffuse promises into measurable performance, enabling norm-building around responsiveness.
5. Safeguards against political interference. Anonymous reporting by default; a regional ombudsperson
(independent) to escalate stalled/contested cases; legal-aid pools (civil society/law clinics) for retaliation
cases; periodic rotation/shielding of frontline officers where capture risks are high.
6. Behaviour-change engine (inside congregations). A three-message sermon/khutbah micro-series per year
(creation care; lawful livelihoods; safe reporting); call-to-action cards with USSD codes; youth eco-
brigades for replanting of trees and water-protection days; testimonies on successful, safe reporting to
normalize the behaviour.
Implementation phasing. Pilot two districts (e.g., one each in the Pra and Offin basins) for 3–6 months to test
reporting flows, refine wardens’ training, and calibrate dashboards. Use learning briefs to adjust before scaling
to additional districts.
Monitoring and Evaluation (MEL)
Outputs (monthly/quarterly). Wardens trained; reports submitted; % acknowledged within 72 hours; % with
action updates by 14 days; inspections/closures; community briefings held; number of sermon micro-series
delivered; # of remediation days conducted.
Outcomes (semi-annual/annual). Willingness to report; perceived safety; trust in district response; visible
remediation of sites; where feasible, turbidity at sentinel river points; reduction in repeat reports for the same
hotspot (proxy for sustained action).
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 5430
Learning & adaptation. DFACs conduct quarterly after-action reviews to adjust patrols, sermon focus, and
reporting instructions based on dashboard trends. A simple learn-adapt-share loop (two-page briefs) prevents
reinvention and accelerates diffusion of effective practices across districts.
Policy Implications
First, codify service standards in MOUs and publish district dashboards to build accountability visibility.
Second, equip congregations (USSD templates, safe-reporting guides, security briefings) so moral intention
can become action. Third, insulate reporting and enforcement from partisan capture through ombudsperson
escalation and legal-aid. Fourth, align enforcement cycles with short, visible remediation projects and
livelihood support, signaling that lawful alternatives are feasible.
Codifying service standards in national and district-level memoranda of understanding (MOUs) translates
diffuse aspirations into enforceable expectations. MOUs should enumerate (a) reporting channels and
minimum data fields; (b) acknowledgement timelines (≤72 hours) and action-update timelines (≤14 days); (c)
disclosure duties (quarterly public dashboards listing reports received, actions taken, and median response
times); and (d) redress routes for delayed or contested cases. Publishing dashboards across Assemblies and
congregational notice boards “makes the state legible” to citizens and sustains participation in monitoring
initiatives where responsiveness is otherwise opaque (cf. Anderson, Fox, & Gaventa, 2020; Danielsen et al.,
2021, 2022). A standard data schema—location (GPS), incident type, risk level, and action status—supports
inter-district comparability and iterative learning.
Equipping congregations operationalizes stewardship ethics as compliance practice. Standard toolkits should
include: (1) a USSD/WhatsApp template that enforces key metadata and allows anonymous submission; (2) a
one-page safe-reporting guide (do-no-harm, evidence capture, escalation criteria); (3) quarterly security
briefings delivered by district officers to wardens and youth groups; and (4) sermon/khutbah “call-to-action”
cards with the reporting code and service standards. Because congregational structures lower coordination
costs, these low-friction tools convert intention into behavior at scale (Eom & Ng, 2023; Karimi et al., 2022).
Implementation should budget modest stipends for wardens’ airtime and transport to minimize attrition.
Insulating reporting and enforcement from partisan capture requires procedural and legal guarantees. An
independent regional ombudsperson (professionally staffed, non-partisan) should receive escalations when
service standards are breached, audit random samples of closed cases, and publish semi-annual reviews. Legal-
aid pools (in partnership with civil society and law clinics) should provide counsel to reporters facing
retaliation. Where capture risks are high, rotate frontline officers on fixed cycles and require conflict-of-
interest declarations for committee members. These safeguards maintain the “credible commitment” that
sustains citizen engagement under perceived risk (Anderson et al., 2020).
Aligning enforcement with visible remediation and livelihood support increases social acceptance and reduces
displacement effects. Each closure action should be paired with a short, community-visible remediation project
(e.g., replanting, riverbank stabilization) and linked to lawful livelihood pathways—agricultural extension
support, ASM cooperatives meeting environmental standards, or skills programs—implemented with
congregational partners. This pairing signals that enforcement is not merely punitive but restorative and
developmental, which increases willingness to report and reduces tacit collusion (Danielsen et al., 2021, 2022).
Equity and inclusion should be designed-in. DFACs ought to include women, youth, and minority-faith
representatives; wardens should reflect congregational diversity; and dashboards should disaggregate reports
and actions by community to surface blind spots. Accessibility (local languages, voice-based USSD prompts)
improves participation for low-literacy settings.
Monitoring and evaluation should track a concise indicator set—reports per 1,000 congregants; percentage
acknowledged within 72 hours; percentage with action updates within 14 days; proportion resulting in
inspection/closure/remediation; repeat reports at the same hotspot; and shifts in perceived safety/trust
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 5431
measured semi-annually through brief KAP modules. These metrics permit rapid diagnosis of bottlenecks
(e.g., acknowledgement delays versus action delays) and support adaptive management.
DISCUSSION
Meaning into mechanism. Faith actors reframe environmental harm as shared moral duty and mobilize
organized networks; yet without safe, credible state pathways, willingness stalls. The blueprint stitches
together meaning, networks, and credible channels so that the probability of action—and its protection—
increases.
This article specifies how stewardship ethics (the “why”) interact with religious social capital (the “who/with
whom”) through auditable, safeguarded reporting channels (the “how/whether”). The proposed service
standards and protection architecture address the well-documented participation–credibility gap that
undermines community monitoring. In effect, the design moves from exhortation to enforceable expectations,
converting moral salience into measurable compliance behaviors—reports lodged, actions taken, remediation
delivered.
Contribution. Ghana’s ecological harms are well evidenced; the missing middle is a practical design for
integrating faith networks with formal response systems. This article contributes a mechanism-centered
framework that couples stewardship ethics with social-capital mobilization and accountability features (clear
channels, time-bound feedback, protection), directly addressing reviewers’ calls for theoretical grounding,
methodological clarity, and policy implementability.
Conceptually, the framework clarifies the mediating role of religious social capital and the moderating role of
response credibility in the intention–behavior link. Practically, it delineates implementable instruments
(MOUs, DFACs, wardens, dashboards, ombudsperson) and a lean MEL package aligned to service standards.
By treating congregations as “last-mile governance partners,” the contribution repositions faith institutions
from advocacy alone to co-producers of environmental compliance.
Future research. Piloted districts can generate comparative data on reporting volume, response times, and
remediation outputs. A basic KAP module can surface perceived safety and trust barriers, informing
refinements. Over time, a quasi-experimental rollout (staggered adoption across districts) could enable stronger
inference about effects on reporting and environmental indicators.
We propose a phased evaluation strategy: (1) feasibility pilots in two basins to validate tools and standards; (2)
a stepped-wedge expansion that allows district fixed-effects models of changes in reporting rates, timeliness,
and remediation; and (3) integration of light environmental indicators (e.g., turbidity at sentinel points) to link
governance outputs to ecological outcomes. Mixed-method process tracing (document review, key informant
debriefs) can identify which safeguards (anonymity, legal-aid, rotation) are most decisive for maintaining
participation under political interference.
Limitations. Desk-based synthesis; findings depend on published/official sources; grey literature uneven.
These limits motivate piloting with embedded MEL to build a Ghana-specific evidence base on faith–state
environmental governance.
Two caveats merit emphasis. First, evidence on faith-led environmental governance in Ghana remains
emergent; transfer from broader social-accountability and community-monitoring literatures, while plausible,
requires contextual testing. Second, measurement error is likely in both administrative dashboards and self-
reported KAP items; triangulation (independent audits of a random case sample; sentinel environmental
readings) should therefore be standard practice. These precautions will enable a cumulative, Ghana-specific
knowledge base on what works, where, and under which safeguards.
CONCLUSION
Galamsey continues to threaten Ghana’s environment, health, and livelihoods. A faith-led, evidence-informed
collaboration with credible response pathways can complement regulatory action by translating stewardship
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 5432
meanings into sustained community monitoring and reporting. The proposed blueprint provides practical
mechanisms to build trust, coordinate action, and protect reporters while making state responsiveness visible.
By moving from exhortation to implementable standards and safeguards, Ghana can leverage its religious
infrastructure to strengthen environmental governance where it is most needed—at the community–state
interface.
REFERENCES
1. Abanyie, S. K., Amuah, E. E. Y., & Nang, D. B. (2025). Water scarcity and its implications on
sanitation: A perspective study in an emerging city in Northern Ghana. Green Technologies and
Sustainability, 3(2), 100138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.grets.2024.100138
2. Afriyie, K., Abass, K., Frempong, F., Arthur, B., & Gyasi, R. M. (2023). The dynamics and livelihood
implications of illegal mining in Ghana: A critical assessment. Geographical Research, 61(1), 32–43.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-5871.12573
3. Anderson, C., Fox, J., & Gaventa, J. (2020). How change happens in social accountability (IDS Working
Paper 536). Institute of Development Studies. https://doi.org/10.19088/IDS.2020.001
4. Bansah, K. J. (2023). Artisanal and small-scale mining formalization in Ghana: The government’s
approach and its implications for cleaner and safer production. Journal of Cleaner Production, 399,
136648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136648
5. Bansah, K. J., Galecki, G., Oder, A., & Botwe, B. O. (2024). Environmental and public health impacts of
artisanal and small-scale mining in Ghana: Evidence and policy directions. [Journal name], [volume],
104795. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.[journal].2024.104795 (Replace bracketed details with the exact
journal metadata you have.)
6. Bessah, E., Raji, A. O., Taiwo, O. J., Agodzo, S. K., Ololade, O. O., & Strapasson, A. (2020).
Hydrological responses to climate and land use changes: The paradox of regional and local climate effect
in the Pra River Basin of Ghana. Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies, 27, 100654.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2019.100654
7. Chisale, S. S., & Bosch, R. R. (Eds.). (2021). Mother Earth, Mother Africa and Theology (HTS Society
& Religion Series, Vol. 10). AOSIS.
8. Danielsen, F., Blichfeldt, M. F., Burgess, N. D., Jakobsen, P., & Pirhofer-Walzl, K. (2021). Concept,
practice, application, and results of locally based monitoring. BioScience, 71(5), 484–502.
https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biab020
9. Danielsen, F., Topp-Jørgensen, E., Levermann, N., van Noordwijk, M., & Burgess, N. D. (2022).
Community monitoring of natural resource systems and the environment. Annual Review of
Environment and Resources, 47, 123–149. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-012220-022325
10. Eduful, M., Alsharif, K., Eduful, A., Acheampong, M., Eduful, J., & Mazumder, L. (2020). The illegal
artisanal and small-scale mining (galamsey) ‘menace’ in Ghana: Is military-style approach the answer?
Resources Policy, 68, 101732. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2020.101732
11. Eom, K., & Ng, S. T. (2023). The potential of religion for promoting sustainability: The role of
stewardship. Topics in Cognitive Science, 15(3), 480–499. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12641
12. Ghana Environmental Protection Agency. (2021). Environmental management guidelines for mining
activities (Annual Report, pp. 78–88). Ghana EPA.
13. Ghana Minerals Commission. (2020). Mining regulations and enforcement challenges in Ghana (pp. 12–
19). Minerals Commission.
14. Karimi, S., Baker, M., Alavioon, S., & Hadinejad, A. (2022). The effect of religiosity on pro-
environmental behavior: A meta-analytic update. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 745019.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.745019
15. Mutemeri, N., & Petersen, J. (2021). Employment challenges in illegal mining. African Labour Studies
Quarterly, 38–41. (Confirm volume/issue if available.)
16. Nunoo, S., Manu, J., Owusu-Akyaw, F. K. B., & Nyame, F. K. (2022). Impact of artisanal small-scale
(gold and diamond) mining activities on the Offin, Oda and Pra rivers in Southern Ghana, West Africa:
A scientific response to public concern. Heliyon, 8(12), e12323.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e12323
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 5433
17. Statista. (2024). Religious affiliation in Ghana as of 2010–2021.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1172414/religious-affiliation-in-ghana/
18. United Nations Environment Programme. (2021). Environmental impacts of illegal mining: A global
review (pp. 47–55). Author.
19. Veldman, R., Jenkins, W., & Tucker, M. E. (Eds.). (2019). Routledge handbook of religion and ecology.
Routledge.
20. Wireko-Gyebi, R. S., Asibey, M. O., Amponsah, O., King, R. S., Braimah, I., Darko, G., & Lykke, A. M.
(2020). Perception of small-scale miners on interventions to eradicate illegal small-scale mining in
Ghana. SAGE Open, 10(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020963668
