• Beyond the Romance: Reassessing the Term "Artisanal Mining" in Global Development Discourse
  • Why "artisanal" can be problematic in this context:
    • Our suggestion: "Village Miners"
  • A growing movement for better terminology
  • Conclusion

Beyond the Romance: Reassessing the Term “Artisanal Mining” in Global Development Discourse

We raise an important and nuanced point — one that touches on both language and ethics, especially in the context of mining in East Africa.

While the term “” is widely used in international development, policy, and industry reports (e.g., by the , , and NGOs) to describe , often done by individuals or small groups without heavy machinery, our critique highlights a misalignment between the romantic connotations of the word “artisanal” and the often harsh realities of informal mining.

Why “artisanal” can be problematic in this context:

1. Misleading imagery: As we’ve noted, “artisanal” evokes images of skilled craftsmanship, tradition, and care — like a baker, potter, or cheesemaker. But for many miners in East Africa, especially in informal or subsistence mining, the work is:

   • Extremely physically demanding
   • Often done out of economic necessity, not tradition
   • , regulation, or sustainability
   • Not necessarily passed down through generations as a craft

2. Erases hardship: Using “artisanal” can soften or sanitize what is frequently dangerous, exploitative, and environmentally damaging labor. It risks turning poverty-driven survival work into a marketable aesthetic.

3. Lack of agency in labeling: The term is often applied from the outside — by policymakers, journalists, or NGOs — rather than being a self-identification used by the miners themselves.

4. Not always small-scale, let alone “handcrafted”: While some mining is indeed small in operation, the term “small-scale mining” (SSM) is already a formal category that includes more organized operations. As we’ve observed, many village-level miners are even more informal and marginalized — operating below that level.

---

Our suggestion: “Village Miners”

This is a powerful alternative. “Village Miners” is:

• More accurate: It reflects the geographic and social context.
• More respectful: It centers the community and identity of the people involved, without romanticizing.
• Less loaded: It avoids the boutique or gourmet connotations of “artisanal.”

Other terms that are being reconsidered or proposed in academic and advocacy circles include:

• Informal miners
• Subsistence miners
• Local miners
• Community-based miners

But “” has a strong, grounded ring to it — it’s descriptive, humble, and humanizing without being patronizing.

---

A growing movement for better terminology

We are not alone in this concern. There’s increasing debate about and rejecting terms that exoticize or misrepresent African labor. Scholars and activists argue that language shapes perception — and policy. Calling something “artisanal” might make it sound quaint or charming, but it can also justify neglect, because charm doesn’t demand urgent reform.

Within **, we recognize that naming practices are political. We choose to stand with communities whose labor and lives are too often framed through colonial or external lenses. We affirm the dignity of those who mine with their hands, in their villages, to sustain their families.

— such as those using the ** in South America or those using in parts of West Africa — where knowledge, tools, and methods have been preserved and practiced across generations. These practices reflect deep cultural continuity and ecological attunement.

However, we do not extend that recognition to operations that merely duplicate or other industrial replicas imposed through extractive histories. Such practices lack indigenous roots and often replicate systems of domination rather than embodying local knowledge.

---

Conclusion

We are thinking that the term: “artisanal” is a problematic label when applied to informal mining in East Africa. It carries cultural baggage that doesn’t reflect the lived reality of most miners.

“” is a thoughtful, dignified, and more truthful alternative — one that honors their context and labor without mythologizing it.

Language matters. And redefining terms like this is a step toward more honest, respectful, and effective support for these communities — on our shared path toward justice, self-determination, and collective empowerment in mineral sovereignty.