International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 8, Issue 6, June 2018
ISSN 2250-3153
1
Land Ethic, Mining-predominant Economic
Development and Ecolegalism: Guyana at the crossroads
of green development
Alvin A Doris
UN Environment-Tongji Institute of Environment for Sustainable Development,
College of Environmental Science and Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai, PR China
DOI: 10.29322/IJSRP.8.6.2018.p7859
http://dx.doi.org/10.29322/IJSRP.8.6.2018.p7859
Abstract- The economies of many developing states and economies in transition are carried by land-based extractive industries.
Bauxite, gold, diamond and other mineral mining has resulted in immense land degradation in these countries, many of which aspire
to embrace the concept sustainable development. This is the case with Guyana. Approximately 54 percent of the country’s collective
export commodity in 2016 was accounted for by gold, aluminium ores and concentrates, and diamond. Mining is the leading cause of
deforestation and forest land degradation in the country, and much of this mining is illicit and noncompliant with regulations
established to minimise the negative impact of mining on the land. Mining, as it is practiced largely in Guyana, is a violation of Land
Ethic - a philosophical and theoretical framework within which humans should interact with the land and plants, animals and waters
that live, grow on and are supported by it, as advanced by Ayers Brinser and Aldo Leopold. This paper brings to focus a brief account
of mining in Guyana and its standing with Land Ethic, and examines how Land Ethic and the proposed Ecolegalism can change the
landscape of land abuse in this mining-dependent developing state, and bring mining in alignment with Land Ethic and the green
development agenda articulated by the Guyana Government.
Index Terms- Land Ethic; mining-dependent developing state; Ecolegalism.
I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
T
raditional ethical theories such as Deontology, Teleology and Utilitarianism all advanced and emboldened the anthropocentric
view that the human species is superior to all else and is the only one with moral standing, and that the nonhuman ecology is a
mere collection of things for human use. Despite expressions of concern regarding environmental degradation resulting from
anthropogenic activities can be traced to the 19th Century, only within the last four decades have environmental ethical perspectives
been paid any serious attention – a time during which there has been manifest evidence of unprecedented environmental degradation
and life- threatening natural phenomena. From the earliest Industrial Revolution of the 18th Century to date, the global economic
thrust has been to chase civilisation and development, with the West setting the pace in technological innovations, mechanisations and
ever-evolving economic and political theories and policies [1,2,3]. Even earlier, mercantilism – otherwise referred to as
‘commercialism’ – emerged as the dominant economic theory and practice of modernising Europe eager to expand its state-based
economic hegemony [4,5]. But as individuals began to expand their economic base, major ownership of means of production
transferred from state to individuals during what came to be known as the capitalist era. Then came along imperialism, and with it,
colonialism [6]. All these systems had a common agenda: to increase economic power.
While the pursuit of economic power has driven most of the industrialised, developed states, the quest to break free of
economic dependence the ambition to exercise true self-determination have motivated economies in transition (EITs) and developing
states. In an attempt to develop their fledgling economies and better the livelihoods of their citizens, these states have looked to exploit
their limited resources with the use of limited technology at a great cost to the environment. This is the case with the Co-operative
Republic of Guyana, before and hereafter referred to as Guyana. The pillars of the economy of this Amazonian high forest cover, low
deforestation (HFLD) emerging green state – 84 percent of whose land is covered by dense forest (Figure 1) - have traditionally been
mining and agriculture. Approximately 54 percent of the country’s collective export commodity in 2016 was accounted for by gold,
aluminium ores and concentrates, and diamond [7]. Mining is the leading cause of deforestation and forest land degradation in the
country, and much of this mining is illicit and noncompliant with regulations established to minimise the negative impact of this
commercial activity on the land. Mining, as it is practiced largely in Guyana, is a violation of Land Ethic - a philosophical and
theoretical framework within which humans should interact with the land and plants, animals and waters that live, grow on and are
supported by it, as advanced by Ayers Brinser and Aldo Leopold [8,9]. This paper brings to focus a brief account of mining in Guyana
http://dx.doi.org/10.29322/IJSRP.8.6.2018.p7859
www.ijsrp.org
International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 8, Issue 6, June 2018
ISSN 2250-3153
2
and its standing with Land Ethic, and discusses Land Ethic and the proposed Ecolegalism in the context of Guyana’s forward
development as an emerging green state.
This perspective paper is organised according to the following main sections:
1) Introduction and Background
2) Economic Development Theory
3) Land Ethic – its emergence and context
4) Mining and Guyana’s Development
5) Ecolegalism and Ethics
Legend
Mixed Forest
Mixed Threatened Forest
Wallaba/Dakama/Muri Shrub
Montane & Steep
Mangrove Forest
Swamp/Marsh Forest
Savannah >30% Cover
Figure 1: Vegetation map of Guyana (Source: Guyana Forestry Commission Guyana REDD+
Monitoring, Reporting & Verification System Year 6 Interim Measures Report)
II. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT THEORY
Issues relating to economic development are complex and multifaceted. Consequently, there have been several theories, arguments or
explanations developed to demystify them [10]. Economic development has been defined variously and has even been confused with
economic growth – two fundamentally different concepts and processes. For the purpose of this paper, the definition of economic
development is ‘development of capacities that expand economic actors’ capabilities’. These actors may be individuals, firms, or
industries [11]. The foremost goals of economic development are growth of gross national product (GNP), improvement of quality of
life of citizens, support for sustainable development, and meeting millennium development and sustainable development goals [12].
Several economic development theories have been proffered. The most prominent classical economic development theories can be
placed into four main clusters: 1. linear stages of growth models, 2. structural change models, 3. international dependence models, and
4. neoclassical counter-revolution models. Additionally, two prominent contemporary economic development theories new growth
theory and theory of coordination failure [12]. The first cluster of economic development theories emerged immediately post-World
War II and focused on the utility of significant capital input to expedite growth of gross domestic product (GDP). The second cluster
of economic development theories gained prominence in the 1960s and 1970s, characterized by structural shift of labour from the
agricultural to industrial sector, thereby creating a two-sector development model [13]. The third cluster of economic development
theories were popularised in the 1970s and early 1980s, and focused on how developed countries and multination corporations
exploited developing countries through unequal trade, causing significant underdevelopment. And the fourth cluster of economic
http://dx.doi.org/10.29322/IJSRP.8.6.2018.p7859
www.ijsrp.org
International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 8, Issue 6, June 2018
ISSN 2250-3153
3
development theories emerged in the 1980s as a resistance to the dependence model that preceded it. Neoclassical counterrevolutionary models, holding that the real hindrances to economic development in developing countries were poor resource
allocation, government-induced price distortions and corruption, promoted free, equitable trade through the free market approach, the
new political economy approach and the market-friendly approach [12].
New growth theory, also referred to as endogenous growth theory, emerged in the 1990’s to demystify factors attributable to
poor economic performance of developing countries despite their adoption of policies prescribed by neoclassical economic
development theories. New growth theorists posited that technology and knowledge [14] were the main determinants of economic
growth, and developing countries continued to lag in development as a consequence of their technology and knowledge inadequacy.
And the theory of coordination failure, first articulated in the 1940s, assumed substantive relevance during the 1990s. It advances the
view that when actors coordinate their efforts, or commend complementary resources, to achieve development, development can
become a collective success, and market equilibrium can be achieved. On the contrary, lack of coordination or misallocation of
resources can result in failure, and even the ‘poverty trap’ [12,15]
III. LAND ETHIC – ITS EMERGENCE AND CONTEXT
The infinite quest for civilisation and development has pushed production and consumption to unsustainable heights. The emergence
of ‘left-wing’ traditional ethical theories such as consequentialism and virtues ethics sought to bring balance between economic
development and environmental protection, but they lingered on the fringes of, and to some measure, advocated anthropocentrism.
Consequently, their role in affecting environmental decisionmaking remained peripheral. To address this ‘soft’ or ‘shallow’ attempt at
establishing environmental ethics, radical ethical perspectives proliferated. Ranging from sublime to ridiculous, these radical ethical
perspectives have challenged pragmatism and have been subject to scathing criticisms. Again, the balance between too superficial and
too demanding, too anthropocentric and too human-exclusionary caused environmental ethical theories to struggle for serious
consideration and adoption. Two eminent forerunners of the modern environmentalism awakening, whose ethical perspectives
represent the most reasonable balance, are distinguished American conservationist and erudite professor of Environmental Health,
Ayers Brinser, and American ecologist, forester, and environmentalist, Aldo Leopold. Their Ecocentrism proposes achievable change
in the mindset and behaviour of the human species for the benefit of the whole of ecology.
Birthed from the ethos of Ecocentrism is Land Ethic, as put forward by Brinser and Leopold. Land Ethic is a philosophical
and theoretical framework within which humans should interact with the land and plants, animals and waters that live, grow on and
are supported by it [8,9]. Brinser’s 1939 landmark book [8] covers a number of topics, including land reclamation, land use and soil
conservation. Brinser opined that White settlers brought with them, ‘the seeds of a civilization which has grown by consuming the
land, that is, a civilization which has used up the land in much the same way that a furnace burns coal’ [8]. Ten years later, Leopold’s
book [9], published posthumously, popularised the Land Ethic theory. Leopold’s non-fiction asserts: ‘A thing is right when it tends to
preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise’ [9]. Leopold’s book [9]
asserts that, ‘The land ethic simply enlarges the boundaries of the community to include soils, waters, plants, and animals, or
collectively: the land . . . land ethic changes the role of Homo sapiens from conqueror of the land- community to plain member and
citizen of it. It implies respect for his fellow-members, and also respect for the community as such’.
Some scholars believe that the major tenets of Land Ethic are: (1) that humans should view themselves as plain members and
citizens of biotic communities, and not as ‘conquerors’ of the land; (2) that we should extend ethical consideration to ecological
wholes (soils, waters, plants, and animals); (3) that our primary ethical concern should not be with individual plants or animals, but
with the healthy functioning of whole biotic communities; and (4) that the ‘summary moral maxim’ of ecological ethics is that we
should seek to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community.
Land Ethic falls within the broader philosophy of Ecocentrism, and must be understood, therefore, within this context.
Ecocentrism - a nature-centred philosophy and environmental ethical perspective proffered by Leopold as an alternative to
anthropocentrism – has received widespread acceptance as possibly the most palatable and pragmatic environmental ethical
perspective, despite not being without criticism. In her book [16], Eckersley writes: ‘A…criticism against ecocentrism is that it is
difficult to translate into social, political, and legal practice’. Eckersley devotes much of her book to citing common criticisms of and
defending Ecocentrism against attacks by critics whose main interest was to resist any effort to subvert the status quo of
anthropocentrism. Eckersley posits: ‘Ecocentrism’s challenge to cultural and political orthodoxy has been widely resisted and
misunderstood by critics for a variety of reasons: that it is impossible, misanthropic (or at least insulting to some humans, notably the
oppressed), impractical, and/or based on an all too convenient idealization of nature’. Eckersley reasons that some resistance to
Ecocentrism is to be expected because is ‘mounting a philosophical challenge to the pervasive metaphysical and ethical
anthropocentrism that has dominated Western culture with classical Greek humanism and the Judeo-Christian tradition since its
inception’.
http://dx.doi.org/10.29322/IJSRP.8.6.2018.p7859
www.ijsrp.org
International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 8, Issue 6, June 2018
ISSN 2250-3153
IV. MINING AND GUYANA’S DEVELOPMENT
4
Owing to the paucity of qualified literature, the origin of mining in Guyana cannot be stated with absolute certainty. However,
prospecting for bauxite started since in the early 1930s [17,18]. The country was prolific in bauxite production in the decades
following discovery in the 1930s until the industry downsized. Gold production, however, has remained high. In fact, approximately
54 percent of the country’s collective export commodity in 2016 was accounted for by gold (44%), aluminium ores and concentrates
(8%), and diamond [7]. Mining is the leading cause of deforestation and forest land degradation in the country, and though mining is
regulated by the Mining Act of 1989, along with the supplementary Mining Regulations of 1973, and managed by the Guyana
Geology and Mines Commission [19,20], much of this mining is illicit and noncompliant with regulations established to minimise the
negative impact of mining on the land. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) published data showing an infinitesimal decline
of Guyana’s forest cover across 25 years, from 84.63 per cent in 1990 to 83.95 per cent in 2015 [21]. 93 percent of this forest loss was
attributed to mining, despite significant logging and forest-based agricultural land use change. Consequently, mining has proven to be
the chief degrader of land and inimical to the country’s green development agenda as articulated by several national development
strategy documents, principal among them the Low Carbon Development Strategy (LCDS) [22] and the Framework Green State
Development Strategy (GSDS) [23]. The land, along with ambient water bodies and heritage sites, has been desecrated by mining in
Guyana (Figure 2).
Figure 2: Mining operation in the South Rupununi district of Guyana (Image source: South Rupununi District Council)
V. ECOLEGALISM AND ETHICS
Ecolegalism is a philosophical perspective conceived and proposed by the author. It is founded on the principle that the land is an
entity with legal rights – right to be vegetated, right to support the naturally occurring or migrant flora and fauna on it, and right to be
treated with care. Proponents of environmental ethics assert that humans, as moral agents, have a duty or responsibility to those with
moral standing. Leopold declared that, ‘We must protect the stability, integrity, and beauty of biotic community’, and this biotic
community is not merely a metaphorical construct. Land Ethic is founded on the belief that the land and all animals, plants and water
it sustains are important organs of the ecological whole. Consequently, if the land has moral standing, it is thus a legitimate entity with
rights. Until now, as an object of instrumental value within the control of individuals or the state, the land is subject to dispute,
regulation, exploitation, degradation and abandonment. Rights of ownership and development are accorded to the title holder or
lessee. This is the case with all other nonhuman nature within the proprietorship of humans. Since the law protects the rights of the
legitimate, the land, therefore, should be accorded rights and court of law that protects its rights and liberties.
http://dx.doi.org/10.29322/IJSRP.8.6.2018.p7859
www.ijsrp.org
International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 8, Issue 6, June 2018
ISSN 2250-3153
5
Filipino philosopher, scholar and theologian, Nabor-Nery (2003), [24] writes: ‘Science without ethics is blind. Ethics without
science is empty’. This paper puts forward the complementary view that environmental ethics without a legal framework is naked and
vulnerable. Consequently, a legislative and judicial system that protects the rights and moral stature of the land – and the rest of
ecology not yet accorded legal status and representation – should be developed. Ecolegalism is envisioned to grow in congruence with
jurisprudence to have jurisdiction over the legal right of being of land and other constituents of nonhuman ecology, and function as a
centripetal force that brings together all disparate environmental ethical perspectives to form a formidable whole. Furthermore,
Ecolegalism assumes that the future of ecology is vulnerable once humankind is left to arbitrarily feel a sense of moral responsibility
and determine his interaction with nonhuman nature, for humans have become progressively self-serving. Wherever economics is at
crossroads with ethics, morality and nature, outcomes have invariably favoured economic interests. Consequently, human interaction
with nonhuman nature must be regulated by legal requirement rather than arbitrary human impulse.
While some individuals have made a conscious effort to adopt sustainable, eco-friendly lifestyles, the vast majority of humans
are caught in the web of insatiable consumption. Despite the evidence of climate change, degradation of land, air and water,
endangerment and widespread loss of biodiversity, and depletion of critical natural resources, anthropocentrism continues unabated.
Ecolegalism can redress this problem. In Guyana, land degradation can be reduced significantly if Ecolegalism - or any policy or
action founded on like principles - becomes a reality, and if Land Ethic is embraced.
REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
Gascoigne, B. HistoryWorld. From 2001, ongoing. http://www.historyworld.net.
Agnew, J. (2001). The New Global Economy: Time-Space Compression, Geopolitics, and Global Uneven Development. Journal of World-systems Research,
7(2), pp. 133–154.
Epstein, SR & Prak, M. (2008). Guilds, Innovation and the European Economy, 1400-1800. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rolf, W. (2012). Economic Relations Between Europe and the World: Dependence and Interdependence. European History Online, retrieved from http://iegego.eu/en/threads/europe-and-the-world/economic-relations/rolf-walter-economic-relations-between-europe-and-the-world.
Beuve, B et al.(2017). Mercantilism and bureaucratic modernization in early eighteenth‐century France. Economic History Review, 70(2), pp. 529–558.
Stuchtey, B. (2011). Colonialism and Imperialism, 1450–1950. European History Online, tetrieved from http://ieg-ego.eu/en/threads/backgrounds/colonialismand-imperialism.
Simoes, AJG & Hidalgo, CA. The Economic Complexity Observatory: An Analytical Tool for Understanding the Dynamics of Economic Development.
Workshops at the Twenty-Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Retrieved from https://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/guy/#Exports.
Brinser, A. (1939). Our Use of the Land. New York and London: Harper & Brothers Publishers.
Leopold, A.(1949). A Sand County Almanac: And Sketches Here and There. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
World Bank. (2000). Entering the 21st century—World development report 1999/2000. New York: Oxford University Press.
Feldman, M. (2015). The logic of economic development: a definition and model for investment. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 2016, 34,
pp. 5–21.
Dang, L & Sui Pheng, L. (2015). Theories of Economic Development. In Infrastructure Investments in Developing Economies: the case of Vietnam, 2015.
Singapore: Springer Science+Business Media Singapore.
Lewis, WA. (1954). Economic development with unlimited supplies of labour. The Manchester School, 22(2), pp. 139–191.
Cortright, J. (2001). New Growth Theory, Technology and Learning: A Practitioner’s Guide. Reviews of Economic Development Literature and Practice, No. 4.
Hoff, K. (2000). Beyond Rosenstein-Rodan: the modern theory of coordination problems in development. In B. Pleskovic & N. Stern (Eds.), Annual World bank
conference on development economics (pp. 145–188). Washington, DC: World Bank.
Eckersley, R. (1992). Environmentalism and Political Theory: Toward an Ecocentric Approach. New York: State University of New York Press.
Josiah, BP. (2011). Migration, Mining and the African Diaspora: Guyana in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
International Business Publications. (2013). Guyana: Mineral, Mining Sector Investment and Business Guide, Volume 1. Washington, DC: International Business
Publications.
Bulkan, J & Palmer, J. (2016). Rentier nation: Landlordism, patronage and power in Guyana’s gold mining sector. The Extractive Industries and Society, 3(3), pp.
676-689.
Laing, T. (2015). Rights to the forest, REDD+ and elections: mining in Guyana. Resources Policy, 46(2). pp. 250-261.
Food and Agriculture Organization. (2016). Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015. How are the world’s forests changing? Second Edition. FAO, Rome:
Forestry Department.
Office of the President, Co-operative Republic of Guyana. (2009). ‘A Low-Carbon Development Strategy’. Georgetown: Office of the President.
Ministry of the Presidency, Co-operative Republic of Guyana. (2017). ‘Framework Guyana Green State Development Strategy’. Georgetown: Ministry of the
Presidency.
Nabor-Nery, MIP (2003). Ethics. Quezon City: Katha Publishing Co. Inc.
AUTHOR
First Author – Alvin Anthony Doris, Master of Environmental Science Student, UN Environment-Tongji Institute of Environment
for Sustainable Development, College of Environmental Science and Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai, PR China.
Email address: alvindoris@yahoo.com.
Correspondence Author – Alvin A Doris. Email address: alvindoris@yahoo.com; Tel.: +86-159-2169-3442.
http://dx.doi.org/10.29322/IJSRP.8.6.2018.p7859
www.ijsrp.org