Title: Formalizing Artisanal and Small-Scale Mining: Insights, Contestations and Clarifications
Author/Institution: Gavin Hilson & Roy Maconachie – University of Surrey / University of Bath
Publication Year: 2017
Unpacking the Realities Behind the Formalization Debate
Hilson and Maconachie’s work is one of the most influential critiques of how governments, donors, and international organizations conceptualize the formalization of artisanal and small-scale mining (ASM). Drawing on decades of empirical research across Africa, Latin America and Asia, the authors argue that policymaking has been dominated by simplified assumptions: that informality stems from illegality, that miners resist regulation, and that formalization merely requires better administrative procedures. Instead, the paper shows that ASM is deeply embedded in local livelihoods, rural economies, and social networks, making formalization a far more complex and context-dependent process than traditionally portrayed. The result is a powerful reframing: ASM is not a problem to be eliminated but a livelihood system to be understood.
The Institutional Misalignments That Undermine Reform
Through conceptual analysis and rich case evidence, the authors demonstrate how formalization efforts repeatedly fail because they overlook structural constraints. Regulatory frameworks often impose requirements—permits, environmental plans, licensing fees, and geological studies that are impossible for small operators to meet. In many countries, state agencies lack the capacity to support miners through the transition, while overlapping jurisdictions create contradictory mandates. Hilson and Maconachie highlight how donor programs frequently push “best practices” designed for industrial mining, ignoring the local political economies that shape ASM. This misalignment between policy design and ground reality fuels contestation: miners see formalization as punitive, while governments interpret resistance as evidence of illegality, reinforcing a cycle of mistrust.
The paper’s central contribution is its call for a fundamental rethinking of what effective, equitable formalization entails. According to the authors, sustainable outcomes require regulatory models that match the socio-economic realities of miners, the capacity of states, and the territorial dynamics of extraction. This includes simplified licensing, flexible environmental standards proportional to scale, accessible financial instruments, and partnerships that build miner-led governance. In an era of rising global demand for gold and critical minerals, the authors warn that ill-designed formalization will deepen social conflict, harm rural livelihoods, and undermine the legitimacy of mining governance. Their analysis offers a critical reminder: transforming ASM is ultimately a political and developmental project, not an administrative one, and lasting change will depend on institutions’ ability to align regulatory ambition with lived realities on the ground.