One of the world’s largest mining companies has learned from a serious mistake it made earlier this decade regarding responsible cultural heritage management.
In May 2020, Rio Tinto shocked the resources sector and First Nations peoples around the globe when it allowed the destruction of two rock shelters at Juukan Gorge as part of its iron ore operations.
Located in the Hamersley Range, about 60 kilometres northwest of Tom Price in Western Australia, the site hosted a significant structure that demonstrated continuous human occupation for over 46,000 years.
Unfortunately, the gorge stood in the way of Rio’s plans to expand its Brockman 4 mine and was cleared for development.
In the immediate aftermath, the company expressed regret that the traditional owners, the Puuti Kunti Kurrama and Pinikura (PKKP) people, were upset.
Rio defended its actions, stating they were entirely legal – an argument that disregarded fundamental principles of cultural heritage management that have since become entrenched in the mining sector’s environmental, social, and governance (ESG) framework.
To its credit, the company later apologised and implemented several policies aimed at preventing such a tragedy from occurring again.
STRICTER GUIDELINES SET
Recognised as an essential component of the mining sector’s social responsibility, cultural heritage – according to the US-based Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance (IRMA) – is defined as the legacy of physical structures and artefacts, as well as intangible attributes of a group or society that have cultural, scientific, or religious value.
Over the past few decades, the resources sector has had to learn the importance of respecting this legacy. This involves recognising the relationship between objects, landscapes, and beliefs to foster constructive dialogue with First Nations people while appreciating the impacts of operations on local communities.
This has put pressure on heritage managers to develop relationships and adopt processes that acknowledge not only the official narrative of national culture but also local beliefs surrounding natural and ancestral spirits. Additionally, scientific insights regarding the significance of material objects discovered during mining must be integrated.
In this context, archaeology and anthropology play crucial roles in informing heritage management and facilitating intercultural dialogue. IRMA recommends developing a cultural heritage management plan that outlines actions and mitigation measures necessary to preserve this heritage.
“If mining projects affect indigenous peoples’ cultural heritage, the operating company should collaborate with them to establish procedures for sharing information related to cultural heritage,” the watchdog stated.
“Companies must ensure their employees receive training in cultural awareness, site recognition, and procedures for cultural heritage management.”
Following the Juukan Gorge disaster, Rio acknowledged it had fallen “far short” of its values and had caused significant anguish to the PKKP people, breaking trust and damaging relationships with various stakeholders.
“This tragedy prompted serious introspection at all levels of Rio and a renewed focus on listening to our stakeholders,” the company said.
“We have introduced sweeping reforms in how we engage with indigenous communities, not only in Australia but globally.”
This reform process included a comprehensive review of decision-making relating to cultural heritage and a commitment to a partnership-oriented approach with traditional owners, enabling local suppliers to compete for business opportunities within the company.
Ultimately, this led to the signing of a remedy agreement with the PKKP Aboriginal Corporation and the establishment of the Juukan Gorge Legacy Foundation.
“It is about self-determination,” said Tim Eckersley, Rio’s general manager of agreements review.
“The Puuti Kunti Kurrama people came to us with their ideas for collaboration.
“While nothing can erase the pain caused by the destruction of the rock shelters, they wanted to engage with us on how we could aid their cultural, social, and economic aspirations for the future. The foundation will not be managed by Rio Tinto; instead, it will create opportunities for the PKKP to build commercial capacity and networks.
“I believe we have recommitted to our values, and there’s a genuine willingness to change. We are more responsive now, aiming to make decisions in a timely manner.”
CASE LEARNT FROM AND EMBRACED
Another Australian operator that has successfully adopted this ethos is Sydney-based Evolution Mining, which has developed and implemented a risk-based cultural heritage management plan (CHMP) in consultation with indigenous stakeholders.
This plan includes protocols for accessing relevant information channels and recognising cultural and intellectual property rights designed by qualified professionals.
Where feasible, Evolution ensures that infrastructure and activities are designed to avoid disturbing cultural heritage.
Relevant records are made available to heritage bodies and groups that value indigenous assets. Furthermore, all allegations, grievances, or complaints related to unauthorised disturbances are recorded and investigated.
Regular reviews and updates of the CHMP ensure compliance with legislation to prevent damage to cultural assets without the prior consent of heritage custodians.
“This standard defines the minimum requirements for identifying and protecting both tangible and intangible culture, values, and heritage, as well as areas with spiritual or cultural significance within the project’s influence,” Evolution stated.
BRUTAL HONESTY IS KEY TO TRANSPARENCY
For Rio, a vital aspect of the updated process involves soliciting feedback from affected landowners and publicly acknowledging it – even when it offers criticism.
In 2003, during a moment of self-reflection, the company acknowledged that comments received regarding its cultural heritage approach following the Juukan Gorge incident were a “mixed bag”.
Several traditional owners asserted that they felt Rio had not adequately listened to their concerns about the impact of historical mining on their land, despite efforts to foster dialogue.
“Despite our challenges to Rio Tinto to address these historical wrongs, we have dealt with a company that has not shown true adherence to its values of care, curiosity, and courage – values that should ensure respect for us and our cultural places,” traditional owners expressed.
“We are the custodians of the land on which you operate as guests. Regarding your commitment to change based on our feedback, we are dissatisfied with Rio Tinto. We have encountered instances where commitments have been made, yet ultimately unfulfilled.”
Despite these reproaches, Rio has made strides in collaborating on various initiatives. “The focus has shifted towards working together to rectify a history of poor outcomes,” the company added.
“We are now dedicated to creating significant improvements in employment, exploring business development opportunities, and enhancing cultural competence training and heritage management.”
