Ghana Must Measure Mining Value Beyond Taxes and Royalties — Ben Boakye
The Executive Director of the Africa Centre for Energy Policy, Ben Boakye, has urged Ghana to broaden how it measures value from the mining sector, warning that a narrow focus on taxes, royalties and production volumes risks distorting the country’s resource nationalism debate.
Speaking during the NorvanReports XSpace Special Edition on Ghana’s mining sector, Mr Boakye said the national conversation must move beyond how much gold is produced and how much government receives directly to a deeper assessment of how mining activity supports jobs, local enterprise development, supply-chain participation, community transformation and capital retention within the domestic economy.
According to him, the current debate often fails to account for the full economic ecosystem behind mineral production.
Mining companies, he argued, do not simply extract minerals and hand over the proceeds to the state. Their operations involve exploration, mine development, equipment procurement, engineering services, logistics, labour, community obligations, financing costs and risk absorption. For that reason, he said, any serious assessment of Ghana’s mining benefits must trace the full value chain and identify how much of that activity is retained locally.
Mr Boakye said Ghana’s mining industry has experienced what he described as a “seismic shift” over the past two decades, with more Ghanaians now occupying key operational, managerial and technical roles across the sector.
“If we enter a mine today, you may struggle to see a white person there because Ghanaians are now operating and managing many of these assets,” he said.
His comments come amid intensifying public debate over whether Ghana is asserting legitimate resource sovereignty or risking investor confidence through increasingly nationalist mining rhetoric.
The debate has been sharpened by recent developments in the sector, including questions over lease renewals, local participation, state control, community benefits and whether foreign mining firms are delivering sufficient value to the Ghanaian economy.
But Mr Boakye cautioned that such discussions must be supported by data rather than political emotion.
He said claims that Ghana is not benefiting enough from mining may be valid in some areas, but they must be proven through measurable indicators. These include employment data, local procurement ratios, Ghanaian ownership in supplier companies, value retained by domestic contractors, taxes paid, royalties disbursed, community investments and the number of Ghanaian firms building productive capacity from mining-related contracts.
For him, the critical question is not merely whether a company is foreign or local, but whether mining activity is creating a deeper domestic economic base.
He challenged government agencies and sector regulators to trace how mining revenues circulate within the economy, particularly through procurement and contracting.
That, he said, means identifying which local firms receive mining contracts, where procurement inputs are sourced, whether Ghanaian suppliers are building manufacturing or technical capacity, and whether the money earned from mining services remains in the country.
Mr Boakye questioned whether some companies classified as local suppliers are genuinely creating domestic value or simply importing products from foreign markets and reselling them to mining companies.
That distinction, he noted, is important because local content must not become a box-ticking exercise.
If a Ghanaian-owned company merely imports mining inputs from China, South Africa or Europe without developing local production, engineering, fabrication or maintenance capacity, the country may still lose much of the value it claims to have retained.
The ACEP Executive Director’s argument points to a deeper weakness in Ghana’s local content conversation: ownership alone is not enough. Domestic value creation must be measured by capacity, skills, production, reinvestment and long-term competitiveness.
This is particularly important because mining is one of Ghana’s most strategic sectors. Gold remains a major export earner, a source of fiscal revenue and a key contributor to foreign exchange inflows. Yet mining communities continue to raise concerns about poor infrastructure, environmental damage, unemployment and limited transformation despite decades of mineral extraction.
For Mr Boakye, that contradiction cannot be resolved through slogans. He said the government must lead a more informed public conversation by clearly communicating its policy direction on mining reforms, local participation and resource nationalism.
Without such clarity, he warned, misinformation could distort public perceptions of the sector and create uncertainty for investors.
That warning is especially relevant as Ghana seeks to consolidate macroeconomic stability, reduce investment risk premiums and attract lower-cost capital after its IMF-supported programme and transition into a non-financing Policy Coordination Instrument framework.
Mining investors, like all long-term capital providers, require predictability. They need clarity on licensing, fiscal terms, lease renewal rules, local content obligations, environmental requirements, state participation and dispute-resolution mechanisms.
If Ghana’s policy posture is seen as unclear or politically reactive, the risk premium attached to the country’s mining sector could rise, making capital more expensive and potentially delaying new exploration and mine development.
But Mr Boakye’s intervention should not be read as a rejection of greater Ghanaian participation in mining.
Rather, his argument is that Ghana must pursue resource sovereignty intelligently.
That means asking sharper questions: How much of mining procurement stays in Ghana? How many local firms are moving from trading to manufacturing? Are Ghanaian engineers and technicians occupying senior operational roles? Are mining communities receiving sustained economic infrastructure? Are royalties being used productively by local authorities? Are local suppliers competitive beyond one mine site? Is capital earned from mining reinvested locally or externalised?
These are the questions that can turn resource nationalism from rhetoric into policy.
The challenge for Ghana is to build a mining model that captures more value without undermining the investment base needed to sustain production. That model would require stronger data systems, transparent reporting on local procurement, deeper supplier development, better royalty utilisation, local manufacturing incentives, skills development and clear rules around state and Ghanaian equity participation.
It would also require the government to educate the public on how mining economics work, including the difference between gross mineral output, operating revenue, taxable profit, royalties, dividends and retained local expenditure.
Mr Boakye’s message was, therefore, direct: Ghana must not reduce mining value to what the government collects at the centre. The real value of mining is also found in the businesses built around the mines, the workers trained by the sector, the communities transformed by mineral revenues, the suppliers that become competitive, and the capital that remains in the Ghanaian economy after the minerals are exported.
