Same project, different responses: Unravelling varied community consent to mining-induced displacement in ghana's lithium sector

IF 4.3 2区 社会学 Q2 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
Gerald E Arhin
{"title":"Same project, different responses: Unravelling varied community consent to mining-induced displacement in ghana's lithium sector","authors":"Gerald E Arhin","doi":"10.1016/j.exis.2025.101716","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Why do communities under the same mining project respond differently to resettlement negotiation processes? This paper addresses this puzzle by examining the contrasting responses of two communities to mining-induced displacement and resettlement (MIDR) in Ghana's Ewoyaa Lithium Project. Whilst Ewoyaa's community has demonstrated largely positive consent to relocation, Krampakrom shows significant resistance, despite both communities facing displacement under identical corporate and regulatory frameworks. Employing Hickey's power domains framework, we analyse how varying power dynamics, interests, and ideas across different governance scales shape these divergent institutional outcomes. Through extensive qualitative research, including in-depth interviews, focus group discussions, and participant observation, the study reveals how context-specific power dynamics and governance arrangements critically influence MIDR outcomes in varied ways. The research demonstrates that while Ewoyaa's virtuous cycle of transparent leadership, consistent community engagement, and deep cultural instruments has successfully built community trust and meaningful participation, Krampakrom's vicious cycle of autocratic leadership, poor communication channels, and coercive tactics has produced profound community alienation and systematic disempowerment. The study makes two significant contributions to the field: firstly, it substantially advances theoretical understanding of how community particularities and mining domain power dynamics interact to shape institutional outcomes; secondly, it provides valuable early insights into how transition mineral governance is fundamentally transforming MIDR negotiations across Sub-Saharan Africa. We argue that successful resettlement negotiations require careful attention to local power dynamics and governance arrangements rather than simply following standardised international protocols. These insights are particularly crucial as the global energy transition drives increased demand for minerals like lithium, potentially affecting more communities across the region.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":47848,"journal":{"name":"Extractive Industries and Society-An International Journal","volume":"24 ","pages":"Article 101716"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Extractive Industries and Society-An International Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214790X25001054","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Why do communities under the same mining project respond differently to resettlement negotiation processes? This paper addresses this puzzle by examining the contrasting responses of two communities to mining-induced displacement and resettlement (MIDR) in Ghana's Ewoyaa Lithium Project. Whilst Ewoyaa's community has demonstrated largely positive consent to relocation, Krampakrom shows significant resistance, despite both communities facing displacement under identical corporate and regulatory frameworks. Employing Hickey's power domains framework, we analyse how varying power dynamics, interests, and ideas across different governance scales shape these divergent institutional outcomes. Through extensive qualitative research, including in-depth interviews, focus group discussions, and participant observation, the study reveals how context-specific power dynamics and governance arrangements critically influence MIDR outcomes in varied ways. The research demonstrates that while Ewoyaa's virtuous cycle of transparent leadership, consistent community engagement, and deep cultural instruments has successfully built community trust and meaningful participation, Krampakrom's vicious cycle of autocratic leadership, poor communication channels, and coercive tactics has produced profound community alienation and systematic disempowerment. The study makes two significant contributions to the field: firstly, it substantially advances theoretical understanding of how community particularities and mining domain power dynamics interact to shape institutional outcomes; secondly, it provides valuable early insights into how transition mineral governance is fundamentally transforming MIDR negotiations across Sub-Saharan Africa. We argue that successful resettlement negotiations require careful attention to local power dynamics and governance arrangements rather than simply following standardised international protocols. These insights are particularly crucial as the global energy transition drives increased demand for minerals like lithium, potentially affecting more communities across the region.
相同的项目,不同的回应:解开加纳锂行业采矿引起的流离失所的不同社区同意
为什么同一采矿项目下的社区对重新安置谈判过程的反应不同?本文通过研究加纳Ewoyaa锂项目中两个社区对采矿引起的流离失所和重新安置(MIDR)的不同反应,解决了这一难题。虽然Ewoyaa的社区对搬迁表现出了很大的积极同意,但Krampakrom却表现出了强烈的抵制,尽管这两个社区在相同的企业和监管框架下面临着流离失所。采用希基的权力域框架,我们分析了不同治理尺度上不同的权力动态、利益和思想如何塑造这些不同的制度结果。通过广泛的定性研究,包括深度访谈、焦点小组讨论和参与者观察,该研究揭示了具体情况下的权力动态和治理安排如何以不同的方式对MIDR结果产生关键影响。研究表明,虽然Ewoyaa透明的领导、持续的社区参与和深厚的文化工具的良性循环成功地建立了社区信任和有意义的参与,但Krampakrom的专制领导、不良的沟通渠道和强制策略的恶性循环造成了深刻的社区异化和系统性的权力剥夺。该研究为该领域做出了两个重大贡献:首先,它实质性地推进了对社区特殊性和矿业领域权力动态如何相互作用以塑造制度结果的理论理解;其次,它提供了宝贵的早期见解,了解过渡矿产治理如何从根本上改变撒哈拉以南非洲地区的中重税谈判。我们认为,成功的重新安置谈判需要仔细关注当地的权力动态和治理安排,而不是简单地遵循标准化的国际议定书。随着全球能源转型推动对锂等矿物的需求增加,这些见解尤其重要,这可能会影响到该地区更多的社区。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
19.40%
发文量
135
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信