By Gerald D. S. Quoie Jr. M.S.c Environmental Policy & Management Candidate, University of California, Davis, United States.
In some mining towns in Liberia, you can stand at the edge of a flooded pit and be told, “This used to be our cassava field.”
That statement should halt the nation abruptly. Mining in Liberia is devastating agricultural land, contaminating waterways, and leaving hazardous pits adjacent to communities. Corporations extract gold and iron ore and subsequently depart, with official acquiescence. This is not progress; it is the gradual demise of rural existence.
Let’s be specific. In counties such as Bong, Nimba, Gbarpolu, and Grand Cape Mount, large mining companies like
ArcelorMittal, China Union Investment Company (Bong Mining Company), and Bea Mountain Mining Corporation extract iron ore and gold. Other companies, including BHP Billiton, Vale Liberia, and Putu Iron Ore Mining Inc., have arrived over the years to explore, clear, drill, and move material. When they are active, trucks are visible. When they leave, pits remain.
The pattern is the same across communities: forests are cleared, soil is exposed, and topsoil is removed. That topsoil is not just “dirt”; it is fertility built over years by farmers. Once stripped and mixed with waste rock, farmland becomes useless. A 2017 review of Liberia’s mining sector described widespread land degradation, erosion, and contaminated water linked to iron ore and gold operations. Environmental teams working in Bong Mines and Grand Cape Mount County have documented polluted runoff from mine sites, including discharges that residents say have killed fish and made streams unsafe to drink. In some cases, tailings and chemical waste were allowed to enter wetlands, creeks, and rivers.
This is happening in places where people drink directly from those creeks and rivers.
After extraction, most sites are not restored. Instead, miners leave open pits filled with stagnant brown water. These pits block access to gardens, cut across footpaths, and become mosquito breeding grounds. Local clinics then face malaria cases and skin infections, but the company that dug the hole is already gone. You cannot call that “investment.” You cannot call that “jobs.” You must call it what it is: dumping the cost on rural people.
Yes, people will say, “But mining brings jobs.” That is true in the short term. ArcelorMittal hires. China Union hires. Bea Mountain hires. Even informal pit bosses hire young men to dig, wash, and haul. Cash flows into towns where money is scarce. But we must be honest about the trade. A wage today does not replace a farm forever.
If a family loses its cassava plot, swamp garden, and clean water source, and gains only a small wage for a few years, that family becomes more vulnerable than before. It is now dependent and no longer controls its own food security. That is not empowerment; it is dependency disguised as opportunity. This is not just an environmental problem. It is a national security problem.
When land stops producing food, prices rise. When streams are polluted, people become ill. When mosquito pits surround villages, malaria spreads. When communities feel used and abandoned, anger grows. That anger is already evident in Grand Cape Mount, where residents have protested against Bea Mountain Mining Corporation over water quality and contamination concerns. It is also present in Bong Mines, where in 2024 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of Liberia shut down China Union’s iron ore operations and accused the company of operating without proper environmental permits, discharging waste into wetlands, and ignoring repeated warnings. When a regulator must publicly accuse a concession company of polluting a wetland without authorization,
it is not a minor paperwork issue. It is a warning siren. And let’s be very clear: it is the government’s job to protect people, not just negotiate with companies. Under African human rights law, people have the right to live in a healthy environment. This right has been interpreted to mean that governments are responsible for preventing pollution, regulating companies, and cleaning up environmental damage that threatens livelihoods. In plain language: if a 2company destroys your land and poisons your water and the state allows it to happen, the state is not neutral. The state is failing you.
Liberia cannot keep pretending this is normal. What actions should be taken? I recommend three actions, to be implemented immediately. First, mandate a restoration bond prior to the commencement of any excavation activities. All operators—large concessionaires, subcontractors, or small-scale pit managers—are required to contribute to a cleanup fund in advance. Disbursement of funds shall occur solely when an impartial team verifies that trenches are filled, slopes are stabilized, and the land is restored for safe utilization. If the corporation withdraws, the cleanup funds remain intact. Currently, corporations acquire the resources, while communities are left with the void. That must be inverted. Secondly, restrict access to agricultural land unless sanctioned by the community. No individual should engage in mining activities within another’s swamp garden, cassava field, or drinking water supply without the complete participation and approval of the local inhabitants. One cannot assert the intention to alleviate poverty while undermining the sole assets possessed by impoverished
individuals.
Third, see abandoned pits as a criminal offense rather than a mere annoyance. A submerged mine hole adjacent to a village is not merely “unsightly.” It serves as a breeding ground for disease restricts household mobility, and poses a physical threat to children. Abandoning that should entail significant repercussions.
Certain investors will express dissatisfaction. Allow them. Companies that decline to adhere to fundamental safety, restoration, and community-respect standards are not “partners in growth.” They are temporary extractors. Accountable operators can function within stringent regulations. Those who are irresponsible may threaten to depart — such an outcome is not detrimental.
This comes down to one question: What is Liberia going to value more — ore or land? Ore depletes. Consistently. Such is the essence of extraction. Land is intended to endure. Land constitutes an inheritance. Land represents sustenance, well-being, and honor. By prioritizing short term mineral extraction over long-term land preservation, we are inflicting harm not only on ecosystems. We are undermining the nation’s capacity for self-sustenance and destabilizing local communities.
Therefore, I am imploring the Liberian populace, including farmers, youth leaders, chiefs, county superintendents, business owners, union members, and women’s farming organizations, to reject the
notion that “this is the standard of development.” Inquire. Request to inspect permits. Before the
initial vehicle departs, request to review the cleanup strategy. I am also encouraging environmental groups, health workers, journalists, traditional leaders, church leaders, student unions, and civil society to continue their efforts. Collaborate with the Ministry of Mines and Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency, but do not remain silent when they neglect to enforce regulations. Require restoration contracts. The protection of agricultural land is imperative. Enforce repercussions for abandoned ditches.
Because this is the line:
No more poisoned creeks and rivers.
No more mosquito pits left for children to fall into.
No more calling stripped, dead land “progress.”
The land we defend today is the country we will still have tomorrow.
Author-Bio:
Gerald D. S. Quoie Jr. is a graduate student in Environmental Policy & Management at the University of California, Davis. He holds an M.S. in Environmental Science and a B.Eng. in Environmental Engineering and has published over 12 scientific articles in reputable journals. His work focuses on land degradation, water resource management, and mining-related pollution.
