The Economic Analysis of The Kartong Mining

The government of any given society must play it cards well to prevent chaos. This might be inevitable where economics and legal analysis are handle poorly. For any democratic government to maintain its loopholes out of transparency, its economic and legal boards must be strong. They must manifest beyond doubts that their policies and operations are to the best interest of the masses.

Mining as any other natural resource exploitation are important for the development of any society. This is not news of course to any unattended development oriented citizen. Mining at Kartong should be promoted if it suits the developmental goals of The Gambia and the people of Kartong only secondarily.  It must be stopped if the yields are opposite to the welfare of The Gambian people and to the people of Kartong. A review on the mining operations at Kartong should be held to see if truly it provides more economic opportunities to the people of Kartong or not.

To begin with, let us look at the economic growth of The Gambia without natural resources inclusive. We know that agriculture and tourism are the main economic pillars that sustain the people of The Gambia,(needless to go into that transparent analysis) and this is even truer for Kartong. But let say the people of Kartong are not farmers neither do they attract tourism, then our analysis will be different. Maintaining that Kartong is a farming community and a source for tourism, than many other local communities, and that the mining activities is or will directly affect the growth of both industries negatively without producing outstanding economic growth to The Gambian people as a whole, no economics analysis will support the exploitation. If by any means, the extraction of any type of natural resources will meaningfully elevate the GDP of The Gambia, compensations should be given to the dwellers of Kartong where necessary and the mining operations will continue to boom the economic status of the nation regardless to whether the Kartong people support it or not.

Were the citizens of Kartong did not benefit from the mining activities at all, and the benefits of the mining activities are not enjoyed by the Gambian people, no bad government will continue with such economic ends. However, if employment is provided, infrastructure sustained or is/to be improved and agriculture unaffected, the mining should go ahead. Even where the tourism sector is brought to a standstill, agricultural activities affected, and the people of Kartong benefits nothing directly from the mining activities, our main concern should be what is the most productive economic and sustainable means to our developmental goals? Are we for the mining or the agricultural and tourism industries?

For simplicity, if $10 is the output of the agricultural sector and $15 from the tourism industry, and with these $25 altogether,  The Gambia GDP still remains very low and with the operations of the mining industries, $50 double increment to the GDP is sustainable, the mining activities should even be given more support. Let us suppose that the people of Kartong are not happy with the mining industry because they are unwilling to abandon their unproductive farms and are happy with showing their culture to tourists, or the mining activities are a potential source of nuisance, however,  where development is the main concern, the Kartong people might remain to be unhappy but the economic analysis will give way to the mining activities to continue. And even when the government (or the mining company) pays compensations of say 10% of the total output of the mining industry, it is still more profitable for the mining industry to continue operations both for the welfare of the Kartong people and to that of The Gambia as a unit.

At the worst stage, supposing that the mining industry is more promising and sustainable towards our economic goals, even though the old culture of agriculture and tourism are abandoned, is less important. The economic and legal analysis might only give compensations to those whose livelihoods are directly affected by this mining industry regardless to whether the mining industry is itself a Gambian or not. Even were the products of the industry are to be sold to the local dwellers, this is not sufficient for the mining industry to seize it operations if the taxes it gives to the government are greater.

When we turn our lenses to welfare economics, Kartong dwellers will still have to adapt with the new development. The land which belongs to the government must not be used for unproductive means especially when matters of development are at stake. Cultures are lenses of perception, sources of moral reality and cannot be static. Culture itself is developmental from philosophy to practise. The culture of Kartong is embed in one or more other cultures in The Gambia and the even though the culture of Kartong should not be arbitrarily altered, it must also welcome development. If the economic analysis of the government of The Gambia favours mining activities at a profitable rate and these profits (regardless to whether they are totally consume by corruption or not) make up the GDP grow, the activities must continue. Even Welfare Economics looks first at where there are resources and later distribute them. We must first recognised the economic realities behind our activities and then rightfully allocate resources accordingly.

For any mistake from the government to abandon the mining activities to win votes from the local people of Kartong, given no importance to economic analysis first, still the people of Kartong under any circumstance are not maximizing the utilities of their resources. It will be more effective and efficient when the two ends meet to reach meaningful conclusions for peace and development.

Since our analysis are over a social product and not a private one, we should give it a general overview before picking up only to making grave mistakes against our developmental visions. The government legally will support it activities and can also do so without imprisoning the ignorant jingoistic citizens of Kartong. Detaining them(kartong Youths) will restrict the activities of the locals and promote the activities of miners but will not tell good of a legal activity(if at all it is). And detaining or imprisoning ignorant patriots will only eat into the GDP without any economic justification especially over matters that could be easily solved by breaking a Colanut between the parties  in conflict.

This analysis’ main attention has, of course, centred on mining which the author considered as both a solution and a problem into the Gambian political atmosphere. For any progress into mining the natural resources of The Gambia, the locals must be given the active part. That is, they must take part in the decision making process and transparency should dictate every other thing therein. When transparency is assured, the Kartong people will be less violent. But where mining activities are done clandestinely, “disappointments” like that claimed by the youths of Kartong will prevail unstop.

But what if a bigger problem than what is at play now should happen because of the mining activities? Still economics has a better solution. Economic analysis will prevent the violence by appropriately dislocating those lives that are affected by the activities. Even though this will bring another economic analysis in settling these people to new homes, is does not really matter if the GDP highly depends on their dislocation.

The Government of The Gambia and the people of Kartong are one and should work together towards finding an amicable developmental solution to this issue also as a gateway to other exploitations.