Image source: World Gold Council
Artisanal and small-scale mining (ASM) is one of the largest and least understood mining sectors in the world. Tens of millions of people depend on it for livelihoods, yet its scale, dynamics, and governance challenges remain difficult to characterize consistently across regions. Improving visibility into where ASM occurs and how it evolves over time is becoming increasingly important for governments, industry, and development organizations. At EarthDaily, we are examining how large-scale Earth observation can contribute to this understanding. This article is the first in a multi-part series exploring the scale, governance, and decision challenges associated with ASM.
ASM is defined primarily by how mining is conducted rather than by what is produced or where activity occurs. Operations are typically small in scale, labor intensive, and focused on near-surface deposits that can be accessed without substantial capital investment or mechanization.
This operating model supports a large global workforce. Current estimates suggest that between 40 and 45 million people worldwide are engaged in ASM, contributing materially to global mineral supply. In the case of gold, the World Gold Council estimates that ASM accounts for approximately 20 percent of global production, with higher proportions likely in some jurisdictions.
ASM activity has been reported in more than 80 countries, with particularly high concentrations across Africa, Latin America, and Southeast Asia. ASM commonly occurs adjacent to operating mines and exploration projects, in regions where mineralization is known, but large-scale mining has not followed, and in historical or abandoned mining districts where shallow deposits remain accessible. It is especially prevalent where poverty and limited livelihood options intersect with governance gaps, including absent or unfit-for-purpose ASM policy, unclear formalization pathways, and limited enforcement capacity.
Despite this scale, ASM is frequently poorly characterized. Activity is dispersed, seasonal, and dynamic, and often remains below the threshold of attention until it intersects with competing land uses such as licensed mining tenements, infrastructure, agricultural land, or protected areas. As a result, knowledge of ASM is often localized, qualitative, and reactive. This results in a fragmented picture that limits:
When activity is observed consistently across large areas and over extended periods, clearer patterns emerge. ASM activity correlates with known geology, access routes, established settlements, and proximity to formal mining investment. These patterns are not random, instead they reflect human behavior constrained by demographics, governance structures, geological opportunity, accessibility, and local conditions.
As illustrated in the image above, the physical patterns and impacts of ASM are observable at the surface and correlate with mineralization; however, their characteristics only become apparent through repeated observation across space and time. Being able to observe ASM and determine its characteristics is one thing, but decision makers need to be able to put this characterization into the context of existing or emerging ASM governance to be able to make high impact decisions.
To understand how this activity can be managed, it is necessary to distinguish between the different regulatory realities under which ASM operates.
In Part 2 of this series, we examine the spectrum of ASM — from formal and informal operations to illegal extraction — and why these distinctions matter for policy and governance.