Given the evidently rich array of theoretical and empirical work on ASM and ASM reform, how does a political ecology perspective, outlined in Section 2.2, improve on
these individual critiques? This question gets to the heart of current debates in the ASM literature, which have increasingly questioned the value and application of more critical academic research to the sector and its millions of participants. Hilson and Maconachie (2017), for example, criticize what they see as a lack of dialogue between what they characterize as the ‘policy’ and ‘academic’ debates, with critical academics – for them – out of touch with policy makers’ concerns. These contentions seem to speak to Dempsey and Robertson's (2012, p. 759) adumbration of the ‘internal’ policy debates – that are ultimately seeking to improve policies on “empirical grounds” – and the ‘external’ debates that are trying to “investigate underlying assumptions and epistemological framings” of the policy agenda.
The argument in this thesis however is that these distinctions may be false dichotomies that overlook how more critical perspectives inherent to political ecology (that focus on dimensions such as the politics of knowledge construction, the differentiated social impacts of policy, and the subtle socio-ecological materialities of economic activity, for example) can inform, challenge, and transform policy in new ways. Indeed, a range of work in the political ecology tradition has applied this hybrid methodological approach to the analysis of other environmental policy narratives and policy approaches, offering rich empirical evidence that challenges both dominant and populist discourses, and that highlights more inclusive and effective policy approaches. In this regard, Peluso’s (1992) work on forest politics and policies in Indonesia and Fairhead and Leach’s (1995) work on environmental change and policy interventions in West Africa are exemplary works. According to Robbins (2011, p. 20), political ecology practised in this way is driven by the “normative understanding that there are very likely better, less coercive, less exploitative, and more sustainable ways of doing things.” In this sense, it is aligned with Foucault’s definition of ‘critique’, which as Cavanagh and Benjaminsen (2017, p. 103), citing Hardt (2011, p. 19), note, is not necessarily limited only to practices of “fault finding”, questioning of authority, or efforts to expose the operations of power; but also “suggests the possibility of a more substantive form of critical theory, one that aims not simply at analysis and conceptualization, but ‘at constructing a new life and creating or at least prefiguring a new world.’”
Political ecology perspectives that synthesize the broad range of theoretical approaches and methodological tools laid out in Section 2.2 have however not yet been brought to bear in the study of ASM policy reform agendas. While research has examined particular
dimensions of gold mining that touch on the concerns of political ecology, such as the justice implications of large-scale investment or the impact of formalization policies on local communities (e.g. Bebbington (2012) and Spiegel (2009a)), such work has tended to focus on the social dimensions of mining investment or policy directives, and has under-analysed both the more technical aspects of mining and the more intimate interactions between political and ecological phenomena in shaping policy success and social marginalization (c.f. Malpeli and Chirico (2013); Lanzano (2018)). Furthermore, while critiquing the insensitivity and justice implications of policy approaches, such work has not engaged in an explicit unpacking of the epistemologies of specifically
environmentally-oriented ASM reform agendas, potentially leaving observers without a
clear understanding of why specific policy framings are leading to negative or ineffective outcomes (e.g. Hilson and McQuilken (2014)). Work that has engaged explicitly with post-structural political ecology to unpack environmentally-informed ASM discourses has, meanwhile, generally not engaged in detailed empirical, site-based studies that examine how the micro-practices and micro-politics of mining are being re-shaped by policy agendas, thus obscuring a better understanding of how policy discourses play out – and are resisted – on the ground (e.g. Hirons 2011b).
The lack of work that simultaneously analyses the specific framings of environmentally- oriented ASM reforms, the ground-level experiences of the sector’s participants, and the intimate interactions between social and ecological dimensions – combining discourse analysis and ethnographic research methods while also engaging with quantitative and spatial data – arguably leaves a gap in the literature that this thesis on ASM reform in Guyana aims to address. In designing an approach for examining these interactions, Hajer's (1995) concept of a ‘storyline’ may be helpful as an analytical device that can enable a view of formalization policies as not merely a set of practices and institutions, but as also embodying specific assumptions and representations about social and ecological reality.
Recapitulating the three components of the storyline introduced in Section 2.3.1 and allying them with the theoretical critiques of ASM reform in Section 2.4 produces Table 2.1. The first component identifies the nature of the ‘problems’ of the mining- environment relationship inherent to ASM, and the corresponding critiques draw attention to the complexity that surrounds the true nature of this relationship. The second component focuses on the recommended formal institutions, and the corresponding
critiques highlight the social justice implications of formalization policies. The third component emphasizes the mechanisms through which the formal institutions achieve their aims and the corresponding critiques draw attention to a range of factors that may inhibit policy success. Taken together, these combined theoretical counter-arguments – or hypotheses – encapsulate the political ecology research programme upon which this thesis is predicated.
The ‘storyline’ thus serves as a device through which to interrogate holistically the range of normative concerns suggested by the aforementioned theoretical critiques of ASM – thus fulfilling political ecology’s commitment to understanding how outcomes for poorer actors may be the result of interactions between material and discursive dimensions across scales and temporalities. It may also offer insights into how the different objects of interest of the three different critiques interact with each other. For example, how do patterns of economic and social injustice mediate miners’ ability to adhere to rules and regulations – and thus influence the overall environmental aim of interest? Alternatively, how do geographical and spatial dimensions of mining interact with social and political relationships to influence small miners’ exclusion from the sector?
Table 2.1: Political ecology framework
Source: Author
Mainstream storyline component
Mainstream storyline assumption Theoretical critiques
1. Mining-environment relationship
ASM miners, particularly the illegal ones, are causing negative environmental and social impacts
Mining-environment relationship is more complex and contested than assumed
2. Formal institutions
Formal institutions are the legitimate way of dealing with the problem identified above
The state can install these institutions
If designed correctly, and if support is provided, institutions won’t exclude poorer miners
Formal institutions may not be accepted as legitimate
Formal institutions may discriminate against poorer miners
Formal institutions may be culturally specific or inappropriate
3. Mechanisms of change
The existence of the formal institutions, overseen by the state, will be effective in guiding miners towards improved mining practices.
A range of social and ecological factors can undermine the functioning of formal institutions