




































In ternationa l
Scholars
Journa ls

 

African Journal of Environmental Economics and Management ISSN 2375-0707 Vol. 7 (6), pp. 001-007, June, 
2019. Available online at www.internationalscholarsjournals.org © International Scholars Journals 

 

Author(s) retain the copyright of this article. 
 
 
 

Review 
 

Environmental ethics: An African understanding 

 
Ojomo P. A 

 
Department of Philosophy, Lagos State University, Ojo, Lagos State, Nigeria. E-mail: philoojomo@yahoo.com. 

 
Accepted 16 February, 2019 

 
Global concerns about the current environmental crisis have culminated into some controversial environmental 
ethical theories, that is, normative environmental ethics, sentientist ethics, biocentric ethics, ecocentric ethics and 
eco-feminist ethics. One of the fundamental underlying features connecting these environmental ethical theories is 
their grounding in Western perspectives and cultural experiences. Given that environmental concerns are global 
concerns, and that the imperative of environmental ethics is challenging those life-threatening concerns, critical 
explorations of environmental ethics need to go beyond the Western horizon. But with respect to the African 
perspective to environmental ethics and the people’s cultural understanding of the environmental crisis, little has 
been done in this penultimate area. However, Segun Ogungbemi and Godfrey Tangwa have pioneered philosophical 
discussions on environmental ethics from an African vantage point. Hence, Ogungbemi defends what he calls 
“ethics of nature-relatedness,” while Tangwa proposes “eco-bio-communitarianism” as a definitive theory of an 
African orientation to environmental ethics. This paper is therefore a contribution to the consolidation of an African 
orientation to environmental ethics through a critique and reconstruction of some of the misrepresentations of the 
African perspective to the environment, implicit in the arguments of Ogungbemi and Tangwa. 

 

Key words: Environmental ethics, ethics of nature-relatedness, eco-biocommunitarianism. 

 
INTRODUCTION 

 
Africa has a complex history of valuable heritages as well 
as multifaceted challenges in her cultural-politico 
evolution. Since primordial times, Africans have had a 
humane and peaceful society and environment informed 
by a sound ethics. But owing to some internal dynamics 
in the people‟s culture and some other external 
constraints and forces, African states are now 
experiencing acute developmental challenges which have 
impacted negatively on their environment. Besides 
political issues arising from leadership ineptitude and 
capitalist aggrandizement, which have brought about  
vices of corruption, injustice, poverty and 
underdevelopment of the continent, there is now a new 
dimension to the African crisis. And this is the 
environmental imbroglio.  

It is a known fact today that the environmental crisis is 
one of the most pressing concerns of our planet at the 
turn of the 21st century. As a global phenomenon, no 
society is totally immune against the threats and dangers 
which the environmental crisis poses to humanity and the 
rest of the ecosystem. But with respect to the African 
experience, a vast area of land rich in natural resources 
of all categories, flora and fauna of immense diversities, 

 
 
 

 
the dimension of the global environmental crisis in the 
continent has a peculiar character. The causes of 
environmental pollution and degradation, environmental 
injustice, poverty of effective coping and management 
strategies in challenging the environmental crisis, and 
lack of a viable environmental ethics that takes 
cognizance of the peculiar dynamics of the environmental 
crisis in Africa are issues worth courting with 
philosophically.  

In this paper, therefore, we seek to explore the role of 
African philosophical thinking on the African environment 
in particular and the contemporary society and global 
world order in general. The primary aim of doing this is 
not to ethno-philosophically describe, merely, how 
traditional Africans have managed their environment in 
pristine manner. Also, the focus of our defense is not to 
establish the primacy or superiority of the African option 
over and above the existing theoretical perspectives in 
environmental ethics in Western discourse. Rather, the 
primary objective of this paper is to contribute to the 
consolidation of an emerging orientation in African 
environmental ethics and effective environmental 
management. 



 
 
 

 

This paper considers some fundamental questions  
such as: What is the condition of the African 
environment? Why is the African environment more 
pathetic than other regions of the world? What are the 
efforts made and being made in the process of saving the 
African environment? Do Africans care for the 
environment? What are the factors to be considered in 
salvaging the African environment from further 
deterioration? What is the need for an environmental 
ethics that is African in orientation? How coherent is it 
with the existing known ethics of the environment:  
Enlightened (weak) anthropocentrism, animal 
liberation/rights theory, biocentrism and ecocentrism 
(which include the land ethic, deep ecology and the 
theory of nature's value)?  

In addressing this host of fundamental questions, this 
paper proceeds with a discussion of ethics and the 
environment, after which it surveys the arguments of 
Ogungbemi and Tangwa, respectively on an African 
understanding of environmental ethics. Finally, we posit 
some critiques of their argument. 
 

 

ETHICS AND THE ENVIRONMENT 

 

Ethics is a normative study of the principles of human 
conduct in relation to justice and injustice, good and evil, 
right and wrong, virtue and vice. It questions what ought 
to be done and the extent to which there is justification for 
a past action that had been done. By environment, we 
mean man and his surrounding, including the life support 
provided by the air, water, land, animals and the entire 
ecosystem of which man is but a part (Osuntokun, 2001: 
293). Ethics has something meaningful to do with the 
environment, it questions humanity‟s relationship to the 
environment, its understanding of and responsibility to 
nature, and its obligations to leave some of nature‟s 
resources to prosperity (Pojman, 1997: 1-2). 
Environmental ethics is a field in applied ethics that asks 
fundamental questions about humans and the 
environment, it examines the moral basis of 
environmental responsibility.  

Environmental ethics is a diversified discourse with 
competing different ideas and perspectives. Generally, 
discourse on environmental ethics can be categorized 
into five schools of thought: Enlightened (weak) 
anthropocentrism, animal liberation/rights theory, 
biocentrism, ecocentrism (which includes the land ethic, 
deep ecology and the theory of nature's value) (Yang, 
2006: 28) and eco-feminism.  

Normative (and traditional) ethical theories 
(teleologism, utilitarianism and deontologism), which form 
the first category, are very anthropocentric and short-
sighted in matters concerning the future generation as 
their reference to rights and duties are limited to the 
present generation. From an anthropocentric point of 
view, humans have a moral 

 
 
 
 

 

duty only towards one another, any duty they seem to 
have towards other species or entities is really only an 
indirect duty towards other beings.  

Animal liberation/rights theory notably championed by 
Peter (1975) expands the object of duty to include all 
animals and to all species in the universe. They contend 
that the pleasure and pain that animals experience are 
morally relevant, and that sentience is the necessary and 
sufficient condition for a creature to receive moral 
consideration. From the point of view of animal rights 
theory, the only right way to treat animals is to treat them 
as ends in themselves, never as mere means, because 
animals, like us, have rights that precede other's 
interests. As the holder of rights, animals deserve our 
respect. This theory has been criticized on the ground of 
being individualistic, and does not promote the interest of 
communities through common good and equilibrium of 
the entire ecosystem (Fadahunsi, 2007: 6).  

In order to break radically from anthropocentric ethics, 

non-anthropomorphic environmental ethical theories 

emerged, the biocentric and ecocentric approaches. 

Biocentrism maintains that all life forms are `moral patients' - 

entities to which we should accord moral consideration. We 

therefore have a duty towards all forms of life. It is their TELOS 

that gives each individual organism inherent worth and that 

all living organisms possess this worth equally because all 

individual living beings have their TELOS. The equal inherent 

worth of all living beings warrants according to them, equal 

moral status: therefore, we must respect all living organisms 

(Fadahunsi, 2007: 6).  
Upon realization that biocentrism is not radical enough 

ecocentrism emerged and expands the definition of what 
is a „moral patient‟ to include nature as a whole. This 
implies respect for our fellow members and respect for 
the community as such. Ecocentrism focuses on the 
integrity of the ecosystem and the value of species. 
Under ecocentrism, we have the land ethic, deep ecology 
and the theory of nature's value. Aldo (1966) summarizes 
the land ethic in the maxim: „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'. 
 

There are two notable basic ethical principles in deep 
ecology. The ecosphere egalitarianism principle says that 
all organisms and entities in the ecospere, as parts of the 
interrelated whole, are equal in intrinsic value (Callicott, 
1992). And all things in the ecosphere have equal rights 
to live and blossom and to reach their own individual 
forms of unfolding and self-realization. To harm nature is 
to harm ourselves, and to defend earth is self-defense. 
Rolston's (1989) theory of nature's value derives our 
„duties‟ to nature from the „value in nature‟. According to 
this theory, nature is a kind of subject with teleology, 
creativity, intelligence and a capacity to value. 
Instrumental value, intrinsic value and systematic value 
exist objectively in nature. These values in nature impose 
on us the imperative to 



 
 
 

 

care for the earth. Humans, therefore, should be Earth's 
moral overseers. Ecocentrism, like the existing 
environmental ethical approaches before it, equally has 
its shortcomings. It is alleged that it leads to unacceptable 
treatment of individuals, and requires excessive sacrifice 
by humans (Fadahunsi, 2007: 7).  

Ecofeminism, as a school of thought and theory in 
environmental ethics seeks to end all forms of 
oppressions, including oppression of the environment. It 
does so by highlighting the interconnections between the 
dominations of humans by race, gender and class on the 
one hand and the domination of the earth on the other 
hand. It uses the lens of gender to reveal the logic of the 
interrelated dominations. Ecofeminists like Warren (1994) 
agree that there are important connections among 
systems of domination (for example, historical, literary, 
political, empirical, and ethical connections), and any 
adequate feminism, environmentalism, or environmental 
policy must recognize these connections. Susan Feldman 
notes the problem with ecofeminism when he points out 
that the claim that the domination of nature is wrong in 
the same way that the domination of women is wrong 
makes no sense, since domination can only be 
considered to be unjust when the object dominated has a 
will (Feldman, 2007: 1).  

When we take a closer look at all the aforementioned 
theories, it is evident that each has its own internal 
problems, and the environmental ethical theories have 
been, to a reasonable extent, a creation of Western 
scholastic mindset. It is worthy to note that the 
shortcomings of the various existing environmental 
ethical theories suggest the possibility of some further 
theories, which may not necessarily come from the 
Western world. And given that environmental concerns 
are global concerns, and in view of the imperative of 
environmental ethics in challenging these life-threatening 
concerns, critical explorations of environmental ethics 
therefore need go beyond the Western horizon. Some 
African scholars have recognized the importance of this, 
and have consequently made some reflective leads in 
this respect. Two of such scholars that shall engage our 
attention are: Segun Ogungbemi and Tangwa Godfrey. 
 

 

SEGUN OGUNGBEMI ON AN AFRICAN 
PERSPECTIVE TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL CRISIS 

 

Ogungbemi in his paper, “An African perspective on the 
environmental crisis,” discusses the nature of the 
environmental crisis in Africa. In doing this, he came to a 
number of conclusions concerning the principal causes of 
the environmental crisis in Africa and proposes some 
ethical reflections and practical suggestions on how to 
mitigate the challenges posed by the environmental 
crisis.  

Ogbungbemi construes environmental crisis in global 
content as one of the greatest global problems of our 

 
 
 
 

 

time. In his thinking, environmental crisis is a conjunction 
of some natural disaster such as earthquakes, volcanic 
eruption and storms, together with man‟s activity of 
exploration and utilization of natural resources through 
the ingenuity of science and technology, which have 
impacted negatively on the environment. While 
recognizing the universality of the environmental crisis, 
Ogungbemi notes that in understanding the nature of the 
environmental crisis within the content of sub-Saharan 
Africa, three points are sacrosanct: 

 

1) Ignorance and poverty 
2) Science and technology  
3) Political conflict, including international economic 
pressures. 

 

He argues that in order to properly understand the nature 
of the environmental crisis in Africa, we need to 
understand the ways in which both traditional and modern 
social structures have led to environmental degradation. 
 

Concerning the factor of ignorance and poverty, 
Ogungbemi explains that the majority of traditional 
Africans lived in rural areas where the people wallow in 
poverty, and lack basic amenities such as good water 
supplies, adequate lavatories and proper energy use. As 
a consequence, the rivers are polluted with human waste, 
exposing the people to avoidable water-borne diseases 
such as dysentery, typhoid and cholera. And the 
excessive use of fuel wood and constant bush burning 
which is a predominant practice in traditional Africa, 
increases air pollution. This affects air quality adversely 
and depletes the forest and other natural habitats. This 
factor of poverty cum ignorance on the part of traditional 
Africans, Ogungbemi argues, “does not necessarily 
exonerate our people from their contribution to 
environmental hazards (Ogungbemi, 1997; 204). This is 
particularly so given that the relevant patterns of 
behaviour may come, at least in part, from an inability to 
exploit nature because of low levels of economic and 
technological development. 
 

Besides the crude contribution of traditional African 
societies to the world environmental crisis, mention must 
be made of the more catastrophic contribution of modern 
Africa to the environmental crisis. Ogungbemi is of the 
opinion that the drive to catch up with the developmental 
pace of the Western world by African states government 
is responsible for the mass destruction of our ecosystem 
through unguided explorative engagements with African 
natural resources, the flora and fauna. Many African 
nations are rich in resources but because their 
economies are not structured to take full advantage of 
these resources, they are exported with little or no 'value 
added'. The net results are relatively few jobs and other 
economic advantages (that are often siphoned by the 
corrupt elite), as well as considerable environmental 
damage. Moreover, this damage often results in loss of 



 
 
 

 

agricultural land that the poor rely upon, and significant 
pollution of waterways.  

Ogungbemi argues that the way in which natural 
resources such as land, water and air are being used 
goes contrary to the traditional practice of environmental 
conservation. (Ogungbemi, 1997: 205). With respect to 
land for instance, the drive to develop has led to 
increased deforestation with its incalculable effects on 
turbidity, erosion, flood and desertification. In another 
instance, “in its bid to catch up with developed nations, 
modern Africa has exploited some of its essential 
minerals, namely: gold, copper, oil, diamonds, coal, 
uranium, etc., thereby creating ecological imbalance and 
environmental problems.  

Water is another essential natural resource that has 
been adversely affected in modern Africa through human 
activities. The deposition and dumping of toxic waste on 
the African coasts and inland by industries, both within 
and outside the continent, pollution of water through oil 
exploration and spillage, and through bacteriological and 
chemical agents like fertilizers have made our waters 
unsafe not only for humans but also other species in our 
waters.  

Ogungbemi further pointed out how air, which is an 
essential natural resource for living, has been threatened 
by human techno-scientific activities. Most fundamental in 
this regard is the uncontrolled nature of the emission 
coming out from automobiles, industrial machines, 
artillery air raids and such likes. In addition to the causes 
of pollution of the air, land and water in Africa, 
Ogungbemi equally identified the unprecedented 
population growth in contemporary Africa as another 
factor that has continued to aggravate the destruction of 
the environment in Africa. The logic here is that, the more 
the population, the more the stress on the natural 
resources and consumption ipso facto increases. More 
consumption results in more disposal of waste and where 
waste is carelessly managed as it is the case in many 
African states, the more the hazard the environment is 
prone to. It needs be stated that however, Ogungbemi 
says that it is not clear whether population, by itself, is the 
key problem. Rather, it is inequitable distribution of global 
wealth.  

Granted that many African traditional folks as well as 
their contemporary counterparts have in some ways 
contributed to the general environmental problems of the 
world today, Ogungbemi equally underscores how 
traditional Africans have loved nature with respect and 
awe. He writes on traditional environmental management. 
In our traditional relationship with nature, man and 
women recognize the importance of water, land and air 
management. To our traditional communities the ethics of 
not taking more than you need from nature is a moral 
code. Perhaps this explains why earth, forests, rivers and 
wind and other natural objects are traditionally believed to 
be both natural and divine. The philosophy behind this 
belief may not necessarily be religious, but a natural 

 
 

 
 

 

means by which the human environment can be 
preserved. The ethics of care is essential to traditional  
understanding of environmental protection and 
conservation (Ogungbemi, 1997: 204).  

By ethics of care, Ogungbemi (1997: 208) meant an 
orientation in which one is not taking more than one‟s 
needs from nature. However, Ogungbemi is quick to note 
that this moral code is not unique to African societies as it 
has a universal appeal and applications, and that there 
are some interlocking questions that may obliterate its 
sensibility and justification and adoption in contemporary 
African order. Pertinent among these questions are: How 
do we know how much we need, given the nature of 
human greed and insatiability? Who judges whether we 
have been taking more or less than we need from the 
natural resources? If we have been taking more than we 
need, what are the penalties and how fair are they? 
(Ogungbemi, 1997: 208).  

The fundamental questions raised by Ogungbemi are 
quite strong and as a consequence, he attempted a 
reformulation of the traditional environmental practice of 
“ethics of care” in order to make it applicable to 
contemporary African situation. This conceptual 
reformulation is what Ogungbemi (1997: 208) called 
“ethics of nature relatedness.  

According to him, “ethics of nature-relatedness asserts 
that our natural resources do not need man for their 
existence and functions…. The ethics of nature-  
relatedness can be succinctly stated as an ethics that 
leads human beings to seek to co-exist peacefully with 
nature and treat it with some reasonable concern for its 
worth, survival and sustainability (Ogungbemi, 1997: 208-
209). In Ogungbemi‟s submission, ethics of nature-
relatedness has three basic elements: reason, 
experience and the will. It does not attribute natural 
resources to a spiritual nature nor does the creation of 
natural resources have any religious affinity. With this 
new ethical thinking, Ogungbemi‟s expectation is that our 
present reckless use of nature can be curtailed.  

In addition to this environmental ethics he envisages, 
he offers some practical suggestions on how to mitigate 
the current environmental crisis in Africa. First, he 
suggested the generation, transmission and distribution 
of solar energy at a reasonable cost as a safety value in 
reducing African over-reliance on firewood, coal, 
kerosene, gas and petrol as sources of energy. Secondly, 
on the issue of population, Ogungbemi prophesized that 
“when our population has reached an alarming situation, 
nature will invariably apply its break (through volcanic 
eruptions, earthquakes, etc.) and have a drastic reduction 
in our population growth rate. Thirdly, he recommended a 
turn-around in Africa‟s political leadership in order to put 
in place good policies that are environmental friendly. He 
urged them to demonstrate the political will that is 
necessary for reducing the amount of industrial and 
agricultural wastes and properly dispose of them so that 
both our industrial and commercial centers, as well as our 



 
 
 

 

rural areas are safe from air and water pollution 
(Ogungbemi, 1997: 209).  

There are some critical problems in Ogungbemi‟s idea 
of environmental crisis in Africa and his environmental 
ethics. But before exposing these, it suffices to note first, 
the perspective of Godfrey Tangwa on an African 
orientation in environmental ethics.  

Godfrey Tangwa on an African perspective to 
environmental ethics Tangwa is another African 
philosopher that has made some reflections and 
contributions toward creating philosophical awareness on 
the need for an ethic of the environment in Africa. Though 
his work has no reference to the earlier work of 
Ogungbemi, but their point of focus is essentially similar. 
That is, towards developing an environmental ethics that 
can confront environmental crisis. In his paper, “Some 
African Reflections on Biomedical and Environmental 
Ethics,” Tangwa bases his conception of an African 
orientation in environmental ethics on the metaphysical 
outlook of pre-colonial traditional African societies, which 
he called “eco-bio-communitarianism.”  

This metaphysical worldview involves the “recognition 
and acceptance of inter-dependence and peaceful 
coexistence between earth, plants, animals and humans” 
(Tangwa, 2004: 389). This metaphysical outlook 
underpinned the ways, manners and cosmically relations 
between human and his fellow humans. It is also 
responsible for why traditional Africans were more 
cautious in their attitude to plants, animal and inanimate 
things and the various invisible forces of the world 
(Tangwa, 2004: 389). Tangwa noted that traditional 
Africans were more disposed towards the attitude of „live 
and let live‟. He emphasized further that within the 
traditional African metaphysical worldview, the dichotomy 
between “plants, animals, and inanimate things between 
the sacred and the profane, matter and spirit, the 
communal and the individual, is a slim and flexible one” 
(Tangwa, 2004: 389). It is in line with this metaphysical 
framework that one can consistently and coherently 
situate the people‟s belief in transmigration of the soul 
into animals, plants or into forces such as the wind. On 
the basis of this metaphysical understanding of nature 
and the nature of man, Tangwa says such a mindset has 
very significant implications for the way nature is 
approached and treated by traditional Africans.  

Illustrating his positions on the conciliating relation 
between humans and the environment in traditional 
African culture, Tangwa cited the instance of his own 
culture, the Nso in Cameroon. According to him, the “Nso‟ 
attitude toward nature and the rest of creation is that of 
respectful co-existence, conciliation, and containment, 
there are frequent offerings of sacrifices to God, to the 
divine spirits, both benevolent and malevolent, to the 
departed ancestors and to the sundry invisible and 
inscrutable forces of nature” (Tangwa, 2004: 390). 
 

In all these, the point of Tangwa is  that  African  culture 

 
 
 
 

 

is not against technology whole handsomely, but 
consistent with cautions and piecemeal use of 
technology. And given the respect for natural human 
values that adorn traditional African culture, there are 
some lessons to be learnt by western culture that has 
subjected such values to the caprice of the god of 
technology, industrialization and capitalism.  

As against the western worldview, which Tangwa sees 
as predominantly anthropocentric and individualistic,  
African worldview, he maintains, is eco-bio-
communitarian (Tangwa, 2004: 392). This distinction 
notwithstanding, Tangwa is aware that, that does not 
necessarily have an automatic consequence on the 
environment. He holds: 

 

An anthropocentric ethic, even an individualistic one, if it 
were sufficiently rational, need not necessarily endanger 
the environment, just as an eco-bio-communal one may 
not necessarily forestall all dangers to the environment 
(Tangwa, 2004: 392-393). 

 

The point Tangwa is making is that there is nothing wrong 
with the technology in and of itself but only with the 
motivation for its development and the uses to which it is 
put. He condemns the motivation for development of 
western technology and the uses to which it has been 
put, which he identified as the will to possess and 
dominate the world. In his submission, a more humble 
motivation for the pursuit of science and technology 
based on the eco-bio-communitarian attitude of „live and 
let live‟ can be substituted for the aggressive motivation 
of domination to the immeasurable advantage of the 
whole of mankind (Tangwa, 2004: 394). 
 

 

SOME CRITICAL COMMENTS ON AFRICAN 
ORIENTATION IN ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS 

 

Ogungbemi‟s proposal of a reconstructed return to the 
traditional attitude reflected in the "ethics of care" 
regarding our interactions with the environment led him to 
what he termed “the ethics of nature-relatedness.” This 
ethics of nature-relatedness is not a preservationist 
approach, nor is it in any way non-anthropocentric. It 
does not even imply, as he observes, “that natural 
resources actually have a spiritual nature” (Ogungbemi, 
1997: 208). Rather, it is an approach that recognizes that 
humans necessarily rely upon the natural world for 
existence. Because of this reliance, we must treat the 
environments in which we live with due respect - for the 
sake of current and future human well being. One major 
problem with Ogungbemi‟s ethics of nature-relatedness is 
that it bears little affinity or no semblance with African 
cultural experience and ontology. It is not grounded in the 
metaphysics of African cultural belief system. Though 
Ogungbemi‟s discourse shows a good understanding of 
the African dimension of the environmental crisis, 



 
 
 

 

especially with his analysis of the traditional and modern 
African societies‟ contributions to the complexity of the 
environmental crisis, his position on the needed 
environmental ethics is alienation of the African spirit and 
peculiar experiences.  

As he rightly noted, environmental problem in Africa 
and anywhere else, is primarily a consequence of human 
actions. And as value systems inform our actions, we 
need to search for a viable environmental ethics that is in 
agreement with African ontology. This is essential in 
order to pave way for environmental policies that will be 
compliant with the historic cultural experiences of the 
people. In fact, Ogungbemi‟s alarming recommendation 
that nature should invariably apply its brake through 
volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, and others in order to 
have a drastic reduction in Africa‟s population growth rate 
is reflex of the disconnectedness of his ethics of nature-
relatedness and African ontology.  

The aforementioned mark of deficiency in Ogungbemi‟s 
ethics of nature-relatedness is the strong point of  
Tangwa‟s environmental ethics of eco-bio-
communitarianism. Though, not without its own problem, 
the merit of Tangwa‟s position is that he recognized the 
indispensability of African metaphysics in the construction 
of a meaningful African environmental ethics. The 
absence of the dichotomy between plants, animals and 
inanimate things, between the sacred and the profane, 
matter and spirit, the communal and the individual in the 
African metaphysical worldview informed the traditional 
African disposition and attitude of „live and let live‟. Such 
metaphysics is not one of domination instigated by greed 
nor is it consumerist in nature. The belief is that there is 
reason for whatever is, although man may not know 
immediately why a thing is created, but they all serve a 
purpose. Being is therefore conceived as the whole range 
of existent things. Latent in that metaphysics are folkloric 
assertions and certain taboos that are conservational of 
ecological balance of the environment.  

The problem with Tangwa‟s exploration of an African 
environmental ethics is that it is an ethno-philosophical 
defense of indigenous African treatment and 
management of the environment. He never recognized 
the ways and manners by which traditional Africans 
contributed to the degradation of the environment, albeit 
ignorance and poverty. This is the strong and 
commendable point explicit in Ogungbemi‟s position.  

In the accounts of both Ogungbemi and Tangwa, some 
fundamental questions, which are critically essential to a 
plausible African orientation in environmental ethics, are 
left un-raised let alone discussed, what should be the 
nature of African obligation and role of the relationship 
between Africans (non-Africans in Africa inclusive) 
towards the future generation in Africa, sentient beings, 
non-human animals, African environment in particular 
and nature in general? What is the need for an 
environmental ethics that is African in orientation? And 
must such be exclusionary of the existing known 

 
  

 
 

 

environmental theories from the West? What are the 
political, cultural, economical, educational, legal, and 
moral imperatives to be taken into consideration in the 
construction of an African environmental ethics in order to 
salvage the African environment from further 
deterioration?  

While it is not the primary task of this paper to explore 
in details, considerations of answers to the 
aforementioned raised questions, it is significant to note 
that the questions are meant for further examination in a 
separate study.  

Be that as it may, the solution to environmental 
destabilization is not purely technological or exclusively 
attitudinal. Environmental ethics no matter how grounded 
in African experience it could be or intellectually 
sophisticated it could be, cannot alone solve the 
environmental crisis in Africa. There has to be an 
orientation that keeps in mind the various imperatives as 
mentioned previously, as well as other recommendatory 
notes: 

 

Bearing in mind that improved technology, which is at the 
root of the environmental crisis, is still much inevitably 
craved for in Africa and cannot be done without in our 
today‟s world, it is our recommendation that only 
technologies, which are more benign to the environment, 
should be developed in the continent and allowed to be 
imported into Africa. This will aid in curbing the use of 
environmentally harmful technologies. 

 

It is a possibility that testing how harmful some 
technologies are may not be immediately foreseeable or 
proven, in such instances, the technologies can be 
deemed guilty until proven innocent. This reasoning is 
premised against the backdrop that it is better to 
eliminate potential hazards and err on the side of caution, 
than to discover hazards when much damage has 
already been done. This should be the attitude towards 
science and technology in Africa. The green technology 
of bio-fuel is environmentally friendly efforts in this regard. 
 

Currently, the world is assiduously moving towards 
green technology, especially the use of bio-fuels at the 
detriment of the use and of fossil fuels. Though 
economically expensive and at present, Africa may be 
lacking in the technical skills and human capital requisite 
for the smooth adoption of this technology in her shores, 
the cosmopolitan onus falls on the developed nations to 
assist Africa without exploitation, in matching up with the 
current pace. This perhaps informed the debate at the 
recently concluded conference in Cancun, where rich 
nations were encouraged to help (through funding) poor 
nations tackled environmental problems.  

Environmental managers of existing regulatory bodies 
in Africa must ensure that organizations and agencies 
meet local and international environmental standards and 
other legal policy requirements. Government and 



 
 
 

 

non-governmental bodies have to do their part in 
ensuring a good environment in Africa. This ought to be 
done through public enlightenment of the need to 
preserve and protect the environment. In the absence of 
proactive environmental awareness campaign, many see 
environmental agencies as avenues created for siphoning 
financial interests from the government and soliciting for 
international loans. The adoption of a more pragmatic 
approach by these bodies in the issue of environmental 
concern will instill environmental consciousness in the 
minds of many (Nneji, 2010: 37).  

Furthermore, environmental consciousness and 
appreciation should be instilled into students through the 
introduction of environmental issues in their course 
contents. Such environmental issues and topics should 
aim at making students appreciate the principles of 
sustainability as it relates to biodiversity, non-renewable 
resource and the quality of human life in the biosphere.  

Also, cognizance of the improvement in compliance to 
environmental laws, environmental policies and 
regulations should be revisited to deal seriously with the 
attitude of recklessness towards the environment. This is 
with special reference to the business sectors that are 
almost insensitive to environmental concerns. In curbing 
such negligence, every business organization must be 
compelled to conduct an environmental impact 
assessment (EIA) and produce such report before the 
corporate affairs commission (CAC) can register it. The 
corporate affairs commission is the body in charge of the 
registration of business organizations in Nigeria. Many of 
such bodies do exist in other African countries (Nneji, 
2010: 39). 
 

 

CONCLUSIONS 

 

The point of this paper on an African orientation in 
environmental ethics should not be misconstrued. It is not 
seeking for an entirely unique environmental ethics for 
the African world alone. Rather, its point of emphasis is 
that, not just any environmental ethics will do for the  
continent because of certain peculiarities in 
environmental degradation in Africa. If need be, there 
could be borrowings from the existing Western ethical 
approaches to the environment, but such borrowings 
must critically have in addition, a concern for the African  
environmental experience. While the known 
environmental ethics in Western discourse are not 
infallible, their respective deficiencies left us open to the 
question of which ethics is most appropriate and ought to 
be embraced in effectively challenging the African 
condition.  

The task of fashioning what should constitute the 
ethical principles of the African environment is one of the 
most fundamental challenges and issues contemporary 

 
 
 
 

 

African philosophy continent must deal with. Not until this 
intellectual imperative is settled, collaborative efforts by 
government, NGOs, environmental agencies and 
mangers, as well as other sub sectors of the society 
towards orientation and sensitization, policy formulation 
and implementation on sustainable environment in Africa 
would not yield the desired result.  

Finally, and more importantly, consideration of profit 
rather than human need, must be looked into seriously by 
multinationals and rich nations. The reckless exploitation 
of the environment is borne out the value placed on profit. 
And as long as powerful predatory nations of the world 
continue to exploit poorer nations, as long as they fail to 
treat these poor nations with respect, environmental crisis 
will remain or become even more serious than we 
experience it today. We must accept the fact of inter-
relatedness of the world, the interconnectivity of the entire 
globe. Whatever happens in one part of the world, affects 
other parts. Since this is the case, the philosophy of 
exploitation must be dropped for the philosophy of 
respect for, not only persons, but for nature as well. 
 

 
REFERENCES 
 
Aldo L (1966). A Sand County Almanac: W ith Essays on conversation 

from Round River. New York: Oxford University Press. 
Fadahunsi  A  (2007).  “Challenging  Africa's  Environmental  Crisis:  The  

Ethical Imperative.” www.utexas. edu/conferences/africa/ 
2009/09abstracts_a-g.htm.  

Nneji B (2010). “Eco-Responsibility: The Cogency for Environmental 
Ethics in Africa.” Essays Philos., 11: 1. www.commons. 
pacificu.edu/eip/vol11/iss1/5.  

Ogungbemi S (1997). “An African Perspective on the Environmental 
Crisis.” In Pojman, Louis J., ed. Environmental Ethics: Readings in 
Theory and Application. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing 
Company. 

Osuntokun A (2001). Environmental Problems of the Niger-Delta. 
Ibadan: Davidson Press.  

Peter S (1975). Animal liberation. A New Ethics for our Treatment of 
Animal. New York: Random House.  

Pojman PL (1997). “On Ethics and Environmental Concerns.” In 
Pojman, Louis J, ed. Environmental Ethics: Readings in Theory and 
Application. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company. 

Rolston H (1989). Environmental Ethics: Duties to and values in the 
Natural W orld. Philadelphia: Prometheus Books.  

Tangwa G (2004). “Some African Reflections on Biomedical and 
Environmental Ethics.” In Kwasi W, ed. A Companion to African 
philosophy. Oxford: Blackwell publishers.  

Warren K (1994). "The Power and Promise of Ecological Feminism." 
Reprinted in Donald Van DeVeer and Christine Pierce. The 
Environmental Ethics and Policy Book. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth 
Publishing Co.  

Yang T (2006). "Towards an Egalitarian Global Environmental Ethics." 
In Environmental Ethics and International Policy. Paris:  
UNESCO. 


