Social Impact of Mining Projects

This assignment delves into the complex social impacts of mining projects, particularly concerning Indigenous communities. Students are tasked with analyzing the provided scholarly articles that discuss various aspects of this issue, including Social Impact Management Plans, customary land tenure, cultural ecosystem services, and the challenges of meaningful Indigenous participation in environmental assessments.

Running head: SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Social Impact Assessment
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author Note:

1SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
The essay focuses on Social Impact Assessment (SIA) and indigenous rights on the
Aboriginal people in Australia. Social Impact Assessment (SIA) defined as a structure that
involves the procedure of identification, monitoring and analyses of the positive and negative
impact on the people of Australia affected intentionally or unintentionally due to the process of
development. The primary purpose of SIA however lies in guiding the decision making thereby
leading to the creation of economic, socio cultural and biophysical environments. Therefore, SIA
is meant for addressing both the rail and the mine components of a project and is prepared as per
the Terms of Reference (TOR) for a particular project issues by the co-coordinator general of the
state of Queensland. Thus, SIA involved a robust methodology for ensuring clearance in
assumptions and tactics, appropriate analysis and data collection and consideration of social
equity. However, the methodology followed is in accordance with the principles and guidelines
of International are prepared in close consultation of the government of Coordinator General of
the government of Queensland. The SIA however outlines the influence of cultural and social
aspect, engagement of the community with parties affected thereby helping in display of baseline
for a social study, profile for workforce, potential project impacts, strategies and measures
strategies in mitigating the project.
The study area of SIA refers to the locations where operation, construction and project
decommissioning might lead to culturally and socially influencing the people of Australia.
However, from the point of view of impact assessment the social impacts occur either in the
immediate areas of the projects, in the closer locality or communities or in the regional centre
closer to the area of the project. The potential impact of SIA included impacts on existing
mining, economic impacts locally, accommodation and demand for housing, roads and traffic,
impacts on amenity and landholder, the capacity of infrastructure and social service in dealing

2SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
with the development, the potential of changing the values of the community. However, at the
same time there were certain strategies adopted for responding to these potential impacts that
includes landholder agreements, stakeholder engagement, accommodation and housing,
management of the workforce, participation plan of the local industry, health and safety of the
community, planning and consultation of the emergency service, initiatives for the development
of the community. The essay also discusses about the indigenous land rights of the Aboriginal
people of Australia.
Present State of Cultural Activities and Values of Aboriginal
Over the period of 50, 000 years, the Aboriginal people have inhabited the region
surrounding Ranger. The cultural activities and values of the people have undergone changes to
the external environment that ranged from changes in the climate to the rise in sea level,
European colonization and interest on agricultural, conservation and mining on the traditional
lands (De Rijke 2013). These have resulted in a varied range of lifestyles, practices and beliefs
with the incorporation of other cultural influence and traditional elements.
The Aboriginal population consists of traditional owners, resident of Torres Strait and
other portions of Australia. The traditional owners in the region indentified under the Australian
Law that helps in acknowledging and establishing rights to the land. This includes knowledge of
sites, primary spiritual responsibility for the area and traditional mechanisms (Leonard et.al
2013). These traditional owners possess customary responsibilities and obligations for the
impacts and activities taking place on their lands that includes protection of sacred sites and land,
management of resources that are traditional, ensuring protection of visitors from any harm and
decisions regarding issues that affects land. The obligation however, applies to the future and

3SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
current generations of the Aboriginal people in the region. The achievements of the obligations
and responsibilities put forward reinforcement and active expression of the culture (Selin 2013).
The remoteness, limited interaction amongst the aboriginal people has helped in enduring the
traditional culture as a part of the everyday life though there has been immense social change
taking place in the area. The social change is thus a contribution of the changing lifestyles and
commencement of modernization.
Activities Contributing to Social change
The continued development process of Ranger has contributed to its social change and
has substantially affected the activities and cultural values of the Aboriginal people (Franks and
Vanclay 2013). However, the activities that contributed to the social change of Ranger are the
development of the Jabiru town as the service centre of the locality and ensuring establishment
of the infrastructure in Ranger that includes processing plant, pits and dams thereby resulting in
the changes of qualities of the land environment around the mines and its physical characteristics
Social changes also attributed to distribution of various royalties and other benefits that arose in
Ranger. This resulted in the contest and division between and within the communities and groups
of Aboriginal people. Social change ensured through extensive consultation with Mirrar and
other Aboriginal people by using the processes related to not only Ranger but also traditional
land interest. However, examples of this include SIAs, negotiations and campaign related to
Jabiluka mine and management of royal distributions. Further, the ability of the Aboriginal
people in the region to safely use and manage resources such as sacred sites, traditional foods
and water also affected the change. Social change depended on the safety of the community or
mineworkers on the land of Mirarr or incidents that arose from the extracted resources of the
land. Moreover, the actions and decisions of the government, companies dealing with mining and

4SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
other organization that affected the prospect of the culture and the land also contributed to social
change. There were further decisions on the negotiation of the finest response on the
opportunities and risk related to mining. Other recent developments have also contributed to the
social change in the region. These changes include the finalization of the new agreement on
Mining and other related agreements in the month of January 2013(Ghimire 2013).The
appointment of Gundjehmi Aboriginal Corporation (GAC) as a part of the Ranger Minesite
Technical Committees also contributed to the change. Further, changes ensured by the
formulation and execution of land rights of the Aboriginal and other legislation amendment bill
in 2013 enabled arrangements of settlement for the natives of Jabiru. There were changes in the
administrative, legislative and government policy that contributed to the social change. Even
changes in the structure and nature if the regional employment and industries like the tourism
and pastoral industries were responsible in bringing the social change.
Proposed Ranger 3 Deeps Development
Energy resources of Australia (ERA) operate and own the uranium mine of Ranger and
located in the Ranger Project Area (RPA) in river regions of Alligator. The Kakadu National
Park (KNP) surrounds the RPA and falls on the aboriginal land. However, the traditional owners
of the land are the Mirarr people legally recognized as the traditional landowners (Graetz 2015).
Thus, ERA is trying to seek approval for the development of an underground mine for accessing
34,000 tons of Uranium Oxide in the Ranger 3 Deeps. However, the proposal for development is
within the Ranger project area and existing mining operation.
ERA proceeded with the exploring the ore body of Ranger 3 Deeps in the year 2006 and
started constructing the exploration decline in the year 2012 that enabled further underground

5SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
drilling for defining the resource (Blackwell and Dollery 2014). However, the proposal if
approved, the anticipation of ERA is that the activities for mining of Ranger 3 Deeps has begun
in the latter half of 2015 and is about to undergo processing by the year 2021.
SIA Findings with Focus on Aboriginal Cultural Values and Activities
Social Impact Assessment (SIA) that relates to the aboriginal cultural values and
activities are however limited to the development process of Ranger 3 Deeps and the activities
due to the control and influence of Energy Resources of Australia (ERA) (Jackson et.al 2012).
The development of Ranger 3 Deeps has the ability to impact the social environment both in a
positive and negative context. These include increased ability of the aboriginal people in using
water and the land, the trust of Aboriginal people on the management of water and land and
ability of these indigenous people in developing and maintaining the culture. In this context, the
SIA have led to the identification of risk and opportunities related to the social factors. These
social factors include control over management and use of land, confidence in the ERA’s Ranger
site management and the endurance and strength of the aboriginal culture.
However, the risk identified by SIA for the Ranger 3 Deeps development include loss of
relationship and trust amongst the ERA, affected Aboriginal people and traditional owners. This
has led to the perception of the Stakeholders who believes that the management decisions related
to environment in relation to Ranger 3 Deeps development made purposefully against whims of
the traditional owners and the affected Aboriginal (Raymond et.al 2014). In addition, there is a
consistent belief that the decisions of Ranger 3 Deeps development in connection with land
management has been unknowingly made against Mirrar’s whims thereby leading to stress in
ERA and Mirrar relationship.

6SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
The SIA findings thus indicate that development of Ranger 3 Deeps influences the ability
of the aboriginal people in managing the use of their water and land both in a positive and
negative manner. This ensures a balance between the medium and low risk opportunities.
However, some of these risks and opportunities hold an indirect relationship with the impact.
Thus, for realizing the opportunities and mitigating the risk, Energy Resources of Australia
(ERA) continues to manage activities like participation of the technical committee of ranger
minesite, relationship committee and monitoring initiative of joint water (Hanna et.al 2014).
ERA also ensures monitoring practices, environmental management and heritage management
practices. Moreover, it engaged GAC and traditional owners by means of existing mechanisms.
There were also contractor and management procedures workforce. Further, ERA also ensured
initiatives for community relations that included Kakadu West Arnhem Social Trust Board
participation. In addition, other activities took place in the region that contributed to the ability of
the Aboriginal people in managing the use of water and land. This included KNP management
practice, communication with the Aboriginal stakeholders in managing the water and land and
initiatives that led to influencing the relationship of the Aboriginal people with the country and
heritage (Barber and Jackson 2012.).
Discussion of Aboriginal Social Impact Assessment (ASIA)
The Aboriginal Social Impact Assessment (ASIA) carried out as a component of
commonwealth and the strategic assessments of state for a proposed common user of liquefied
natural gas precinct (LNG Precinct) for the processing gas from the Browse Basin that is located
in the outskirts of the West Coast of Kimberley (Esteves, Franks and Vanclay 2012). However,
the proposed location for LNG Precinct identified as the neighborhood area of James Price Point
on the coast of Kimberley.

7SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Moreover, the ASIA designed for information regarding the negotiations taking place
between the traditional owners of the area of James Price Point, the Western Australia state
government and the first proponent that included group of companies guided by Woodside
Energy Ltd. Further, the ASIA is relevant to the negotiations of the Indigenous Land Use
Agreement (ILUA) (Owen and Kemp 2013). However, Indigenous Land Use Agreement (ILUA)
designed for identification of the impacts on the aboriginal people also puts forward a procedure
for the traditional owners that allow them in reaching an agreement with the Woodside and State
arrangements. Therefore, ASIA and ILUA brought together on the approval for LNG precinct
development will not only make the impacts acceptable and manageable to the traditional owners
(Franks 2012).
However, ASIA adopted an overall strategy for undertaking an motivated program for
working of the period ranging from August 2009 to February 2010 and using it in providing the
urgently required inputs in negotiations of ILUA and other agreement among traditional owners,
the state, the Woodside and the KLC ( Kimerley Land Council). These negotiations are
responsible for addressing the key impacts issues related to LNG precinct (Sadler and Dalal-
Clayton 2012). Further, ensure meeting the additional initiatives relating to management and
monitoring of the social and cultural impacts arising from the LNG precinct. Further, the strategy
adopted also provides input for KLC for the Strategic Assessment Report that is related to the
indigenous impact. This refers to recommendations drawn in accordance to the conditions of
approval of LNG Precinct by the commonwealth and state ministers of environment. This also
includes recommendation on approval subjected to the condition where conduction of
comprehensive and additional ASIA as well as social impact monitoring takes place. (Beckwith,
J.A., 2012).

8SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Goals of Aboriginal Social Impact Assessment (ASIA)
The objectives of Aboriginal Social Impact Assessment (ASIA) include ensuring the
affected aboriginal people and the native groups in playing a vital role in the project approval
process and impact assessment for the Gas Precinct. Identification of the social impacts for
development related to hydrocarbon with the view of maximizing the positive and minimizing
the impacts that are negative on the Precinct included through informing sharing with the
claimants of the native title and in the negotiation process of ILUA and other agreements with
other proponents, Woodside and state (Vanclay et.al 2017). Additionally, ensure discussions
with the common wealth for ensuring that it is able to meet the assigned responsibilities on gas
development and thereby provide necessary support to the aboriginal people and other native
groups. Providing an input basis into the process of statutory impact assessment by the
Aboriginal people concerning the process of strategic assessment undertaken by the state and the
commonwealth in terms of the development related to Kimberley hydrocarbon (Feschet et.al
2017). One of the objectives also includes providing assistance in the development of sustainable
and effective approaches for the regional benefit packages and benefit sharing related to the
process of gas development.
Limitations and Constraints
The critical limitation faced by ASIA was the time constraint that restricted the scope of
work of the ASIA. There were serious time limitations that raised serious issues regarding the
ability and willingness of the Woodside, who was the foundation proponent and the state for
accepting the requirement of decision making for appropriate culture and in responding and
understanding the concerns and aspiration of the Aboriginal people of Australia. There are also

9SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
serious concerns raised about the representative’s body of the traditional owners. There were also
challenges due to the climatic conditions in performing the fieldwork for ASIA due to humidity
and high temperatures (Winthrop 2014). Moreover, many people were not in good health
therefore wide information regarding the development of gas and discussion of the issues of
impact cannot only be challenging intellectually but also emotionally. The other factors however
included skepticism and fatigue regarding the thought whether process of ASIA will have an
impact on the decision making of the government and oil companies at large. On the other hand,
the indigenous communities not only subjected to consultation by numerous public but also by
other indigenous and private sector agencies (Udofia, Noble and Poelzer 2017). There were
another limitation that focused on the reluctance of some of the organizations in assisting the
ASIA to access relevant data and other information. Though there were few organizations that
willingly shared information there were a minority that after repeated oral and written requests
did not assist ASIA. On the other hand, some of the health organizations that promised to
provide assistance failed to do so. Further, there were many government agencies that did not
enabled differentiation between the non-indigenous and indigenous staff. There also existed a
smaller percentage of agencies that engaged in a refusal with ASIA due to certain personal view
of the staffs about the LNG precinct.
Further, there was a fundamental and important constraint on ASIA about access of
information regarding LNG precinct. For instance, environmental studies and social studies that
were necessary for the Kimberley LNG precinct faced completion before the consultation with
ASIA (Baydala, Ruttan and Starkes 2015). Therefore, basic decisions about the environmental
impacts was not made for instance the decision for water extraction for the Precinct is from
amplifiers located in the Peninsula or through construction of desalination plant.

10SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Indigenous Land Rights
The year 1976 is marked as the year when the government of commonwealth took the
initiative in enacting the Aboriginal Land Rights (NT) Act (ALRA) considered as the strongest
land tenure act of the Aboriginals of Australia. The ALRA mentioned the right to veto for
mining considered one of the initial forms of informed consent and legislated free prior that
existed around the world. However, in cases of Ranger and Mirrar, the legislation of ALRA
included a unique provision that excluded Ranger Project Area (RPA) (Garling et.al 2017). The
provisions allowed Mirrar to have a lease in the land of Ranger for the Aboriginal although they
were excluded them from the mining right or exploration under ALRA. Therefore, this forced the
government in enacting legislation of land rights for the benefitting the Aboriginal people of
Australia. The government however provided no mechanism for dealing the Aboriginal people
who opposed its development. This resulted in a situation where Mirrar, although recognized as
the traditional landowners with RPA was unable to proceed with the development. Moreover,
left with no option they had to undergo a negotiation of agreement for mining with Peko-
Wallsend Limited who owned Ranger during that time (Glaskin and Weiner 2013).
The essay is an analysis on the social impact assessment (SIA) and indigenous land right
with focus on the aboriginal people of Australia. From the essay, one can get an idea about the
present state of cultural values and the activities of aboriginal people of Australia inhabiting the
ranger region of Australia. The essay also describes how the aboriginal have undergone a
cultural change due to the impact of various external factors. There is also an analysis the
activities that attributes to the social change of the Aboriginal people. These activities
contributed to various developments of the infrastructure and localities. The essay also gives an
overview on the proposed development of Ranger 3. There is also a detailed analysis of the SIA

11SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
findings on the activities and cultural values of the Aboriginal. The concept of Aboriginal Social
Impact Assessment (ASIA) also finds a mention in the essay. There is also a section of the essay
focusing on the goals of the Aboriginal Social Impact Assessment and its limitations and
constraints.

12SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
References
Barber, M. and Jackson, S., 2012. Indigenous engagement in Australian mine water
management: The alignment of corporate strategies with national water reform
objectives. Resources Policy, 37(1), pp.48-58.
Baydala, L., Ruttan, L. and Starkes, J., 2015. Community-based participatory research with
Aboriginal children and their communities: Research principles, practice and the social
determinants of health. First Peoples Child & Family Review, 10(2), pp.82-94.
Beckwith, J.A., 2012. A social impact perspective on the Browse LNG Precinct strategic
assessment in Western Australia. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 30(3), pp.189-194.
Blackwell, B.D. and Dollery, B., 2014. The impact of mining expenditure on remote
communities in Australia: The ranger uranium mine and the Tanami gold mine in the Northern
Territory. Australasian Journal of Regional Studies, 20(1), p.68.
De Rijke, K., 2013. Coal seam gas and social impact assessment: an anthropological contribution
to current debates and practices. Journal of Economic & Social Policy, 15(3), p.29.
Esteves, A.M., Franks, D. and Vanclay, F., 2012. Social impact assessment: the state of the
art. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 30(1), pp.34-42.
Feschet, P., Macombe, C., Garrabé, M., Loeillet, D., Saez, A.R. and Benhmad, F., 2013. Social
impact assessment in LCA using the Preston pathway. The International Journal of Life Cycle
Assessment, 18(2), pp.490-503.

13SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Franks, D., 2012. Social impact assessment of resource projects. International Mining for
Development Centre, 3.
Franks, D.M. and Vanclay, F., 2013. Social Impact Management Plans: Innovation in corporate
and public policy. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 43, pp.40-48.
Garling, S., Hunt, J., Smith, D. and Sanders, W., 2013. Contested governance: culture, power
and institutions in Indigenous Australia (p. 351). ANU Press.
Ghimire, K.B., 2013. Social change and conservation (Vol. 16). Routledge.
Glaskin, K. and Weiner, J., 2013. Customary Land Tenure and Registration in Australia:
Anthropological Perspectives (p. 306). ANU Press.
Graetz, G., 2015. Ranger Uranium Mine and the Mirarr (Part 1), 1970–2000: The risks of ‘riding
roughshod’. The Extractive Industries and Society, 2(1), pp.132-141.
Hanna, P., Vanclay, F., Langdon, E.J. and Arts, J., 2014. Improving the effectiveness of impact
assessment pertaining to Indigenous peoples in the Brazilian environmental licensing
procedure. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 46, pp.58-67.20.
Jackson, S., Tan, P.L., Mooney, C., Hoverman, S. and White, I., 2012. Principles and guidelines
for good practice in Indigenous engagement in water planning. Journal of Hydrology, 474,
pp.57-65.
Leonard, S., Parsons, M., Olawsky, K. and Kofod, F., 2013. The role of culture and traditional
knowledge in climate change adaptation: Insights from East Kimberley, Australia. Global
Environmental Change, 23(3), pp.623-632.

14SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Owen, J.R. and Kemp, D., 2013. Social licence and mining: A critical perspective. Resources
Policy, 38(1), pp.29-35.
Raymond, C.M., Kenter, J.O., Plieninger, T., Turner, N.J. and Alexander, K.A., 2014.
Comparing instrumental and deliberative paradigms underpinning the assessment of social
values for cultural ecosystem services. Ecological Economics, 107, pp.145-156.
Sadler, B. and Dalal-Clayton, D.B., 2012. Strategic environmental assessment: a sourcebook and
reference guide to international experience. Earthscan.
Selin, H. ed., 2013. Nature across cultures: Views of nature and the environment in non-western
cultures (Vol. 4). Springer Science & Business Media.
Udofia, A., Noble, B. and Poelzer, G., 2017. Meaningful and efficient? Enduring challenges to
Aboriginal participation in environmental assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment
Review, 65, pp.164-174.
Vanclay, F., Esteves, A.M., Aucamp, I. and Franks, D.M., 2015. Social Impact Assessment:
Guidance for assessing and managing the social impacts of projects.
Winthrop, R.H., 2014. The strange case of cultural services: limits of the ecosystem services
paradigm. Ecological Economics, 108, pp.208-214.