Presentation

Indigenous culture, socio-economics
and the ‘social licence to operate’
Howard David Smith
Northern Land Council, Australia
The Northern Land Council – who we are, what we do
Based in Darwin, the Northern Land
Council is the largest of 4 land councils
created in 1976 under Federal Legislation
- the Aboriginal Land Rights Act.
This act is relevant only to the Northern
Territory (and not to Australia’s other
states).
The Northern Land Council – who we are, what we do
•
The Northern Land Council serves as a liaison between Aboriginal people and the
wider community. We deal mainly with land management issues and matters
that seek Aboriginal economic independence.
•
We are a non-regulatory, but statutory body created under the Australian
Government's Aboriginal Land Rights Act. This Act provides Aboriginal people
with freehold ownership of their tribal lands and the right to veto development.
•
A second Act – the Native Title Act – covers some land over which Aboriginal
people do not have freehold title. Under this Act, Aboriginal people maintain
certain rights – such as the right to hunt and fish, but do not enjoy exclusive
ownership.
•
The Northern Land Council is working on projects linking Traditional Ecological
Knowledge and Land Management practices with closure criteria 1,2. Now we are
looking at wider definitions of the cultural environment by examining the use of
cultural landscaping and risk management from the Aboriginal perspective.
The Social Licence to operate and other cultural perspectives.
Social acceptance of a project (social licence to operate) can become complicated where
cross-cultural matters need to be considered.
In the Northern Territory, most Environmental and Social Impact Assessments do not
adequately address how Aboriginal people perceive the environment or the role that
some flora and fauna species play in their social and cultural capital.
This leads to significant concern amongst Aboriginal people about project development
and subsequent lack of acceptance of many projects, especially where the right to veto
projects exists.
Additional tools may be required to overcome the cross-cultural barriers if a social
licence to operate is to be achieved.
Objectives

This presentation is aimed at providing tools and information that may assist
companies to achieve a social licence to operate where Aboriginal cultural systems
need to be considered.

It briefly outlines the main constituents of the social and cultural capital of a typical
Australian Aboriginal traditional society.

Using two case studies, it applies a standard risk assessment methodology to
demonstrate how Australian Aboriginal people perceive the threat that development
of mines might have on their culture and socio-economic systems .

It also seeks to show how cultural landscaping can be used to demonstrate an
Aboriginal view of land values and therefore social and cultural capital in nonmonetary terms.
Consultation process
Two distinct Aboriginal groups were
interviewed – the Yolƞu people of north-east
Arnhem Land near Gove and the Mirarr
people close to the Ranger Uranium mine
near Jabiru.
Consultations were undertaken using
traditional protocols which consider gender,
inter-clan relationships and other cultural
matters
Category
Sub-categories
Potential risk
Spiritual Heritage
Dreaming trails
Destruction or damage to trails leading to spiritual damage
Totems
Loss of totemic species leading to spiritual damage
Archaeological
Heritage
Rock art sites
Inability to preserve or protect site due to loss of access
Artefact scatters
Physical loss of artefacts
Anthropological
Heritage
Walking trails
Diminished capacity to make contact with the land
Hunting practices
Loss of access to productive hunting areas
Ceremonial practices
Loss of access to ceremonial grounds
Loss of culture due to neglect of ceremony
Camping
Loss of access for recreational activities
Management of land
Loss of access to land preventing traditional land
management practices from occurring
The categories represent the traditional social
and cultural capital of typical Australian
Aboriginal people.
Many of these cannot be expressed in
monetary terms and many of the natural
resources don’t have equivalent market
values.
Loss of cultural knowledge through neglect of practices
Loss of connection with the environment leading to
inappropriate cultural practices
Environment
Flora
Loss of species having medicinal and food value
Increased health risks through contamination of species
having medicinal or food value
Ecological damage through loss of vegetation patterns
Disturbance of land management practices caused by loss
of species that act as visual cues
Fauna
Loss of food species
Increased health risks through contamination of species
having food value
Water
This makes it difficult to evaluate them in
terms consistent with
the cost-benefit
analyses typically applied to Environmental
and Social Impact Statements.
Cultural values of water are lost
Aboriginal people are concerned that the
risks to their culture may be catastrophic.
Increased health risks through contamination of water
Traditional Ecological
Knowledge (TEK)
Knowledge lost through a combination of events
Culture and knowledge not propagated to future
generations
Loss or surrender of Intellectual Property Rights
Social Structure
Health
General chemical and radiological contamination of the
environment
Socio-economics
Loss of socio-economic structure as a result of loss of TEK
and critical species
The Aboriginal perspective is based
around the preservation of land
values for future generations
The complex interplay between environment, social and cultural values in a traditional
Aboriginal society means that even small changes may be considered by Aboriginal
people to have catastrophic outcomes. Consequently, the standard risk assessment
matrix was modified to include a fourth category – extreme.
Probability
>80% (Almost
Certain)
>50% - 80%
(Likely)
>30% - 50%
(Moderate)
10% - 30%
(Unlikely)
<10%
(Rare)
Insignificant
Minor
Consequence
Moderate
Low
Medium
High
Extreme
Extreme
Low
Medium
High
Extreme
Extreme
Low
Medium
High
High
Extreme
Low
Low
Medium
High
Extreme
Low
Low
Medium
High
Extreme
Major
Catastrophic
The Aboriginal perspective is based around the preservation of land values for
future generations
We are in the process of developing baseline cultural maps and databases for most of
the major mines in the tropics and for areas where exploration is currently underway.
They are designed to show:
Principal resources and their use
Patterns of resource use
Culturally based land management practices
They provide us with a list of key framework species of cultural significance around which
land management and mine closure practices are derived
We will now look at two examples – the Rio Tinto Alcan Gove alumina refinery and
Energy Resources of Australia’s Ranger Uranium Mine.
Aboriginal assessment of the risks of various aspects of the Gove alumina refinery on
social and cultural capital.
Category
Spiritual
Heritage
Archaeological
Heritage
Anthropological
Heritage
Environment
Social Structure
Mining
Processing
Wastewater
Treatment
Red Mud
Disposal
Extreme
Extreme
Low
Extreme
Extreme
Extreme
Low
Extreme
Extreme
Extreme
Low
Extreme
High
Low
High
Low
Low
Low
Extreme
High
The current cultural
landscape of the Ranger
Uranium Mine is shown
on the left and that
perceived for the future
is on the right.
Red dots represent art
sites; yellow cultural
sites; white camping
areas; and blue is a
burial site. Walking trails
are shown in yellow.
The large, circular areas
on the right hand
diagram represent areas
that will be avoided in
the future
Aboriginal assessment of the risks of various aspects of the Ranger uranium mine on
social and cultural capital.
Category
Spiritual
Heritage
Archaeological
Heritage
Anthropological
Heritage
Environment
Social Structure
Mining
Processing
Wastewater
Treatment
Tailings
Disposal
High
High
High
High
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Extreme
Low
Extreme
Low
Extreme
Low
Extreme
Low
Outcomes
Social acceptance of a project (social licence to operate) can become complicated where
cross-cultural matters need to be considered.
Cultural Landscaping is one tool that may have value in defining impacts in terms that
Australian Aboriginal cultures can understand – in turn this may lead to an increased
possibility of social acceptance.
Undertaking risk assessments from the Aboriginal perspective may allow the mining
company to develop protocols and procedures that lead to better long-term outcomes and
further increase the possibility of social acceptance of their project .
Inclusion of these issues in a standard Environmental or Social Impact Assessment may
require some innovative thought as many aspects of the environment that represent social
or cultural capital can’t be expressed as typical monetary or market values.
Thank you for listening
Acknowledgments:
The Northern Land Council, especially my
CEO and Chairman;
And GECAMIN
If you have any questions the author can be contacted via:
howard.smith@nlc.org.au
Mr Kim Hill - CEO
Mr Wali Wunungmurra - Chairman
Northern Land Council, 45 Mitchell Street
Darwin, NT 0800, Australia
Phone: +61 8 8920 5241
Mobile: +61 417 967 114
References:
1. Smith HD, Using Traditional Ecological Knowledge to Develop Closure Criteria in Tropical Australia
.Proceedings of the Third International Seminar on Mine Closure, 14-17 October 2008, Johannesburg,
South Africa. Pages 47 – 56.
2. Smith HD, Strangers in a Foreign Land. Proceedings of the Fourth International Seminar on Mine Closure, 1417 October 2008, Perth, Western Australia. Pages 47 – 56.