By Jennifer B. S. Bangura
Sierra Leone’s rivers are becoming the new frontline in the country’s struggle against illegal mining. From the Sewa and Moa rivers in the southeast to the Pampana, Jong and Rokel systems further north, waterways that have sustained communities for generations are facing growing pressure from mechanized dredging and other unauthorized mining activities.
These rivers are more than channels carrying water. They provide drinking water, support fishing, irrigate farms, sustain local businesses and contribute to the survival of thousands of people. Yet in some communities, riverbeds are being excavated, water is becoming heavily turbid, riverbanks are being disturbed and aquatic habitats are being damaged.
At the centre of the government’s response is the Environment Protection Agency Sierra Leone (EPA-SL), working with the Republic of Sierra Leone Armed Forces, the Sierra Leone Police and other institutions to remove illegal dredges and dismantle unauthorised operations.
But the campaign raises a deeper question: how much environmental damage can Sierra Leone’s rivers absorb before the cost of extracting gold becomes greater than the value of the gold being recovered?
Illegal dredge mining is driven mainly by the search for gold. Gold has significant economic value and mining can provide income where formal employment opportunities are limited. The environmental consequences, however, can last far longer than the immediate financial gains.
Dredges operate directly in river channels, excavating riverbeds and disturbing sediments. Their activities can destroy aquatic habitats, destabilize riverbanks and reduce water quality.
Mercury is particularly concerning. The World Health Organization identifies it as a substance of major public-health concern. Improper handling can expose people through contaminated water, soil, food and air. Because contaminants can move downstream and enter aquatic food chains, people do not necessarily have to work on a dredge to face potential risks.
The government says enforcement has intensified. In Bo District, more than 20 floating and stationary dredges were reportedly destroyed along the Sewa River during recent operations. In Kailahun, authorities reportedly dismantled 22 dredges. Coordinated operations covering Tonkolili, Bombali and Kono reportedly resulted in the destruction of 199 dredges. The EPA-SL has also reported that more than 500 illegal dredges have been destroyed nationwide since 2022.
Behind mechanized mining can be equipment owners, financiers, laborers, fuel suppliers, transporters, gold buyers and other intermediaries. If those networks remain untouched, one dredge can be replaced by another. The real measure of success should therefore not only be how many machines are destroyed, but whether authorities can dismantle the financial and logistical systems that make illegal dredging profitable.
The EPA-SL maintains that mining within river channels and protected buffer areas is prohibited and that unauthorized operations require environmental and mining approvals. Section 24 of the Environment Protection Agency Act, 2022, has been invoked as part of the legal basis for enforcement.
Environmental clearance and mining licensing are not the same thing. The EPA is responsible for environmental approval and compliance, while the National Minerals Agency plays a central role in regulating mining licences. An operator cannot claim legality simply because gold exists beneath a river.
The licensing challenge was highlighted during a discussion on SLIK TV’s Today Show, where Henry Heren Kamara, Community Affairs and Social Development Manager at the National Minerals Agency, acknowledged the environmental damage associated with illegal dredging while explaining the licensing process.
This raises another question: why are investors continuing to put money into dredging when legal requirements are known and enforcement is becoming more aggressive?
Mechanized dredging requires investment in machinery, fuel, transport and labour. That means the focus should extend beyond workers at mining sites to the people financing operations and purchasing the extracted gold.
Communities, meanwhile, are caught in the middle. Many residents depend on mining-related income because alternative employment opportunities are limited. Mining can provide quick financial benefits, particularly in areas where other economic opportunities are scarce.
But those gains may conceal longer-term costs. Damaged farmland can reduce agricultural production. Sedimented rivers can affect fishing. Unsafe water can force households to spend more money finding alternatives. The economic burden is eventually carried by communities.
This also connects river protection to Sierra Leone’s food-security ambitions. Fishing communities depend on healthy aquatic ecosystems, while farmers need reliable water for agriculture. Protecting rivers is therefore not an obstacle to development; it is part of development.
Sierra Leone shares borders with Guinea and Liberia, both of which have active mining sectors. Mining equipment and materials can move across borders, making cooperation on intelligence, customs enforcement and illegal mining essential.
Environmental laws must also be applied consistently. The credibility of the campaign will depend on whether citizens see the same rules applied regardless of wealth, influence or political connections.
Ultimately, Sierra Leone does not have to choose between mining and environmental protection. Mining can contribute to economic development when it is properly licensed, monitored and conducted responsibly. Illegal dredging, however, transfers much of the environmental cost to society while concentrating financial benefits among a smaller group.
Sierra Leone needs stronger surveillance of vulnerable waterways, effective licensing systems, community monitoring, intelligence-led enforcement and closer cooperation among environmental, mining, security and local authorities.
The rivers cannot speak for themselves. They have provided water, food and livelihoods for generations. The gold extracted today may provide immediate income, but a damaged river can impose costs for decades.
The real test of Sierra Leone’s anti-dredging campaign is therefore not how many machines can be destroyed. It is whether the country can make illegal dredging difficult to finance, difficult to operate and impossible to protect through influence.
Because when the gold is gone, the question will remain: what will Sierra Leoneans drink, fish from and farm with if the rivers have been destroyed?
Effective enforcement must protect rivers today while preserving livelihoods and resources for generations to come.
That is the cost future generations should not be forced to pay.
