INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT: BEYOND A DISPUTE BETWEEN TWO NATIONAL INSTITUTIONS

The Fisheries Commission’s objection to the reported grant of an offshore reconnaissance licence to Gold Coast GRC Ghana Ltd, covering approximately 10,000 square kilometres of Ghana’s shallow continental shelf, goes beyond a disagreement between two state institutions. It poses a fundamental question for Ghana's ocean governance: Can a terrestrial mining regulatory template adequately govern a major extractive activity in the marine environment?

The answer should be no.

Ghana has sovereign rights to explore and exploit mineral resources within its maritime jurisdiction, but those rights coexist with obligations to protect fisheries, marine biodiversity, and the marine environment. The issue is therefore not whether Ghana may explore offshore mineral resources, but whether the regulatory process adequately reflects the environmental, scientific, and socioeconomic characteristics of the sea.

The Fisheries Commission’s concerns are consequently material. A framework referring principally to terrestrial considerations cannot substitute for marine-specific information on bathymetry, seabed characteristics, oceanography, water quality, fisheries resources, benthic habitats, spawning and nursery grounds, underwater noise, vessel interactions, pollution risks, and fishing livelihoods.

Ghana’s offshore petroleum experience is instructive.

Owusu, Lawer, Adjei and Ogbe (2023), writing in Maritime Studies, document conflicts between offshore petroleum activities and small-scale fisheries, including competition over marine space and effects on coastal livelihoods.

Adjei and Overå (2019) similarly demonstrate the institutional and livelihood tensions arising from coexistence between petroleum operations and small-scale fisheries.

The offshore gold proposal should therefore be assessed against lessons Ghana has already learned from another offshore extractive industry.

EEZ, CONTINENTAL SHELF, AND THE AREA: THE LEGAL GEOGRAPHY MATTERS

Three maritime concepts are particularly relevant under this discussion: the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), the continental shelf, and the Area. They are legally distinct.

Under UNCLOS Articles 56 and 57, Ghana’s EEZ may extend up to 200 nautical miles from the applicable baselines. Within it, Ghana enjoys sovereign rights to explore, exploit, conserve, and manage living and non-living natural resources of the waters, seabed, and subsoil, together with jurisdiction over specified matters including marine scientific research and protection and preservation of the marine environment.

The continental shelf concerns the seabed and subsoil, not the superjacent water column. Under UNCLOS Article 76, every coastal State possesses a continental shelf at least to 200 nautical miles where the continental margin does not extend that far. Where the geological conditions specified by Article 76 are satisfied, the continental shelf may extend beyond 200 nautical miles. Its outer limit is subject to detailed formulae and constraints. In relevant circumstances, one of the principal constraints is a 350-nautical-mile limit from the baselines, although UNCLOS also contains an alternative 100-nautical-mile limit measured from the 2,500-metre isobath and special rules concerning submarine ridges.

It is therefore more accurate to say that a State’s continental shelf may, where UNCLOS Article 76 criteria are satisfied, extend beyond 200 nautical miles and, subject to the applicable rules, up to the 350-nautical-mile constraint. It is not correct to assume that every coastal State automatically possesses a 350-nautical-mile continental shelf. Ghana secured its 350nm continental shelf extension on September 5, 2014.

For offshore gold, Article 77 is particularly important. It gives the coastal State exclusive sovereign rights to explore and exploit mineral and other non-living resources of the continental shelf. If Ghana does not exploit those resources, no other entity may do so without Ghana's express consent.

This makes the distinction between the EEZ and continental shelf important. Fish and other living resources in the water column primarily engage Ghana's EEZ jurisdiction, whereas gold occurring in the seabed or subsoil engages Ghana's continental-shelf rights. Beyond the limits of national jurisdiction over the seabed lies what UNCLOS formally calls “the Area.” Under Article 1(1) (1), the Area means the seabed and ocean floor and subsoil thereof beyond the limits of national jurisdiction. Under Article 136, the Area and its resources are the common heritage of mankind.

No State may claim sovereignty or sovereign rights over any part of the Area or its resources: Article 137 expressly prohibits such appropriation. Mineral-resource activities in the Area consequently operate under the international regime established by UNCLOS Part XI and the International Seabed Authority rather than the exclusive resource jurisdiction of an individual coastal State. This distinction matters for environmental assessment because marine environmental effects do not necessarily stop where legal jurisdiction ends.

GHANA'S NATIONAL LAW: THE FIRST LINE OF REGULATION

The immediate regulatory analysis should begin with Ghanaian law. Mineral-resource jurisdiction does not exclude fisheries and environmental jurisdiction merely because the proposed activity is classified as mineral reconnaissance. Once the activity occurs at sea, several statutory mandates may be engaged simultaneously.

Section 50 of the Fisheries and Aquaculture Act, 2025 (Act 1146) is particularly relevant. It addresses non-fishing activities likely to have a substantial impact on fisheries or other aquatic resources and provides for Fisheries Commission involvement and Fisheries Impact Assessment where the statutory threshold is met.

Importantly, the fisheries assessment requirement operates in addition to applicable requirements of the Environmental Protection Authority. The consequence is significant: neither a mineral reconnaissance licence nor a general environmental authorisation necessarily exhausts the regulatory requirements applicable to an offshore activity.

The Fisheries Commission, Minerals Commission and Environmental Protection Authority therefore exercise distinct but intersecting statutory mandates. Depending upon the nature of the operation, the Ghana Maritime Authority and other competent institutions may also have responsibilities concerning navigation, vessel operations, marine pollution and safety.

The relevant regulatory question is not which institution “owns” the project, but which statutory mandates are triggered by its location, activities and potential effects.

WHY THE FISHERIES COMMISSION’S INTERVENTION IS ESSENTIAL

The Fisheries Commission's involvement in the grant of the reconnaissance is both statutory and technical. Under section 50 of the Fisheries and Aquaculture Act, 2025 (Act 1146), non-fishing activities likely to substantially affect fisheries or aquatic resources require appropriate fisheries assessment. A credible marine baseline should therefore cover seabed conditions, oceanography, water quality, marine habitats, fish stocks, spawning and nursery grounds, fishing areas, vessel movements and fisheries-dependent livelihoods. Without this baseline, project-related impacts cannot reliably be distinguished from existing pressures from fishing, shipping, petroleum operations and other activities. The Commission's scientific expertise and fisheries data are therefore essential for identifying direct and cumulative impacts and determining appropriate mitigation and monitoring measures.

UNCLOS: RESOURCE RIGHTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL DUTIES

UNCLOS does not separate resource development from environmental responsibility. Article 192 establishes the obligation to protect and preserve the marine environment, while Article 193 recognises the sovereign right to exploit natural resources subject to that environmental duty. Article 194 requires States to take measures to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment.

These provisions apply alongside Ghana's resource rights under Articles 56 and 77. Ghana's sovereign right to exploit offshore resources does not displace its obligation to protect the marine environment; both obligations must be implemented together.

ARTICLE 206: ASSESSMENT BEFORE ENVIRONMENTAL HARM

UNCLOS Article 206 provides the principal EIA Bridge. Where a State has reasonable grounds to believe that planned activities under its jurisdiction or control may cause substantial pollution or significant and harmful changes to the marine environment, it must as far as practicable, assess their potential effects.

The importance of this provision extends beyond the immediate project location. Ocean currents, sediment movement, pollution, underwater noise, migratory species and ecological processes do not necessarily conform to jurisdictional boundaries.

Accordingly, an activity authorised within national jurisdiction may produce effects beyond it. This is why environmental assessment must consider not only where an activity occurs, but also where its effects may occur.

The International Court of Justice's decision in Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (2010) reinforces the preventive role of EIA where activities present risks of significant adverse transboundary effects. The jurisprudence of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea has likewise developed the due-diligence content of States' obligations to protect the marine environment.

FROM NATIONAL JURISDICTION TO THE AREA: WHY SPILLOVER MATTERS

The distinction between Ghana's continental shelf and the Area makes the environmental question particularly important because, within its continental shelf, Ghana exercises sovereign rights over seabed resources. Beyond the outer limit of national jurisdiction, however, the seabed becomes part of the Area, where no State possesses sovereignty and the resources are governed under the common-heritage regime.

An environmental effect originating within Ghana's jurisdiction can nevertheless move beyond that jurisdiction. Where pollution, sediment plumes, ecological disturbance or other significant effects reach marine environments beyond national jurisdiction, the matter ceases to be exclusively domestic in character. It engages international environmental interests and potentially international obligations.

The delimitation of jurisdiction therefore determines who has authority over the resource, but it does not create an ecological barrier capable of containing environmental effects.

BBNJ: WHEN EFFECTS CROSS THE JURISDICTIONAL LINE

The BBNJ Agreement principally concerns marine biological diversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction, and it does not displace Ghana's sovereign rights within its EEZ or continental shelf. However, its EIA provisions recognise that activities conducted under national jurisdiction or control may have environmental consequences beyond national jurisdiction.

Part IV, Articles 27–39, establishes a detailed framework covering screening, scoping, impact assessment, consultation, mitigation, decision-making, monitoring, reporting and review. Of particular importance, Article 28 addresses planned activities under the jurisdiction or control of a Party that may have effects in areas beyond national jurisdiction, creating an important connection between domestic assessment and international responsibility.

If an offshore activity authorised by Ghana remains environmentally confined within national jurisdiction, Ghana's domestic legal framework and applicable UNCLOS obligations provide the principal regulatory basis. If its potential effects extend into areas beyond national jurisdiction, however, the international dimension becomes materially stronger.

This is precisely why a robust EIA should be undertaken before activity begins: assessment should identify potential pathways and geographical reach of impacts rather than wait until environmental effects cross the jurisdictional boundary. Tanaka (2024), analysing the BBNJ EIA regime in Ocean Development & International Law, emphasises its preventive character and its importance where marine biodiversity damage may be difficult to reverse.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS: THE OCEAN IS ALREADY UNDER PRESSURE

The proposed reconnaissance activity will not enter an unused marine environment. Ghana's waters already support fisheries, shipping and offshore petroleum activities and are exposed to pollution, climate-related pressures and other human impacts. Owusu, Lawer, Adjei and Ogbe (2023) document conflicts between offshore petroleum development and small-scale fisheries in Ghana, particularly over access to marine space and coastal livelihoods.

Adjei and Overå (2019) similarly demonstrate that tensions between extractive industries and fisheries have already emerged in Ghana's offshore development experience. These findings strengthen the case for cumulative impact assessment.

The relevant question is not only what one reconnaissance operation may do in isolation, but what its impacts may become when combined with existing and reasonably foreseeable pressures on the same marine ecosystem.

FROM REGULATORY SILOS TO INTEGRATED OCEAN GOVERNANCE

The Fisheries Commission's proposal for inter-agency review should therefore be supported. A significant offshore activity may simultaneously engage mineral resources, fisheries, biodiversity, navigation, pollution prevention, maritime safety and coastal livelihoods. No single regulator possesses all the necessary expertise.

Ghana should institutionalise an Inter-Agency Marine Environmental Assessment and Ocean Governance Mechanism, drawing upon the mandates of the Fisheries Commission, Minerals Commission, Environmental Protection Authority, Ghana Maritime Authority and other competent institutions.

Its purpose should be practical: coordinated screening and scoping, marine and fisheries baselines, cumulative-impact assessment, stakeholder consultation, data sharing, mitigation, emergency planning, monitoring and adaptive management.

CONCLUSION

Ghana possesses clear sovereign rights over offshore mineral resources. UNCLOS Articles 56 and 77 establish those rights within the EEZ and continental shelf, respectively. Article 76 establishes the legal framework for the outer continental shelf, while the Area beyond national jurisdiction is governed by UNCLOS Part XI as the common heritage of mankind. But the boundary separating national jurisdiction from the global commons is a legal boundary, not an environmental wall.

UNCLOS Articles 192-194 require protection of the marine environment, while Article 206 requires environmental assessment where the prescribed risk threshold is met. Ghana's Fisheries and Aquaculture Act, 2025 (Act 1146), provides the domestic fisheries-assessment dimension, while BBNJ Part IV strengthens the international framework where activities may affect marine biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction.

Finally, Ghana has the sovereign right to explore its offshore resources, but it must assess and manage the environmental consequences of exercising that right, including consequences capable of extending beyond national jurisdiction. This is particularly important because once significant effects cross into areas beyond national jurisdiction, the environmental consequences are no longer exclusively Ghana's concern. The appropriate approach is therefore neither prohibition nor unqualified exploitation. It is assessment before authorisation, coordination before conflict, and prevention before remediation.

That is the standard required for credible ocean governance.