The former Member of Parliament for Anyaa Sowutuom, Dr. Dickson Adomako Kissi, has vehemently opposed the proposed 281% tariff hike by the Ghana Water Limited (GWL), arguing that the Ghana Gold Board (GoldBod) should bear the financial responsibility for water treatment costs. Dr. Adomako Kissi contends that the burden of escalating water treatment expenses, largely attributed to pollution from illegal mining activities (galamsey), should not be transferred to ordinary Ghanaians. He emphasizes that GoldBod, as the entity profiting from gold purchases, including gold extracted through illegal means, should be held accountable for the environmental damage and consequently, the increased cost of water purification. He argues that a portion of the substantial revenue generated by GoldBod should be specifically allocated to address the nationwide water treatment challenges.
Dr. Adomako Kissi’s argument pivots on the principle of responsibility and fairness. He underscores the injustice of imposing the financial burden of water treatment on consumers who are not directly responsible for the pollution. He points to the glaring disparity between the windfall profits enjoyed by GoldBod, including profits derived from gold sourced from illegal mining operations, and the proposed imposition of exorbitant water tariffs on citizens. He believes that making ordinary Ghanaians shoulder the financial burden of water treatment is a misdirected approach, particularly when a clear beneficiary of the damaging activities, GoldBod, can and should be held accountable.
Furthermore, Dr. Adomako Kissi challenges the rationale presented by GWL for the proposed tariff hike. While GWL cites the increased cost of water treatment due to galamsey-related pollution, alongside other factors such as foreign exchange pressures and rising import costs, Dr. Adomako Kissi argues that the root cause of the problem, the pollution itself, needs to be addressed at its source. He posits that instead of focusing on passing the cost down the line to consumers, the focus should be on holding accountable the entities profiting from the activities that necessitate the increased treatment costs. This approach, he believes, would not only be more equitable but also more effective in the long run in addressing the underlying issue of water pollution.
Dr. Adomako Kissi’s stance is a direct challenge to the current approach of managing the fallout of illegal mining activities. His argument calls for a fundamental shift in responsibility, advocating for a direct link between the profits generated from gold, both legally and illegally mined, and the cost of remediating the environmental damage caused by these activities. He contends that this direct linkage is not only logical but also morally sound. It acknowledges the direct correlation between the mining industry, including its illicit component, and the degradation of water quality, thereby necessitating increased treatment costs.
The debate surrounding the proposed tariff hike highlights the complex interplay between environmental degradation, economic interests, and social equity. Dr. Adomako Kissi’s intervention frames the issue not merely as a matter of tariff adjustments but as a fundamental question of who should bear the responsibility for the environmental costs associated with resource extraction. His argument forces a reconsideration of the current system, which effectively places the burden of environmental remediation on the shoulders of ordinary citizens, while those profiting from the activities that necessitate the remediation remain largely insulated from the financial consequences.
This call for accountability and a more equitable distribution of environmental responsibility resonates with broader concerns about sustainable development and environmental justice. It raises crucial questions about the role of regulatory bodies like GoldBod in mitigating the environmental impact of industries under their purview. Ultimately, Dr. Adomako Kissi’s challenge invites a broader discussion about the equitable distribution of the costs and benefits associated with resource extraction, pushing for a system where those who profit from such activities bear a proportionate share of the responsibility for mitigating their environmental impact. This would necessitate a fundamental shift in policy and practice, moving away from a system that externalizes environmental costs onto the public and towards one that internalizes these costs within the industries responsible for generating them.
