reality of distinctive, beliefs and values of particular Aboriginal groups and ..... for Rio Tinto has shown that, in addition to regular training, there is a real need for ...
ENHANCING INDIGENOUS SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY THROUGH AGREEMENTS WITH RESOURCE DEVELOPERS David Martin, Jim Hondros and Ben Scambary
Background This paper has been developed as part of the Australian Research Council Linkage project “Indigenous community organisations and miners: Partnering sustainable development?” A key theme of this project concerns the capacity of agreements between miners and Aboriginal communities and organisations to deliver sustainable outcomes. Sustainability is typically understood as having three dimensions—environmental, economic, and social—and this paper focuses on establishing principles by which agreements can enhance social sustainability. The Aboriginal populations of mine hinterlands are typically diverse, with a wide range of connections to traditional lands (often internally contested), personal and group histories, aspirations, and attitudes to engagement with the resource industry. There is a complex political interplay between an emphasis on tradition and the past as providing the principles for a distinctive Aboriginal identity and way of life, and a focus on engagement with the wider society and its economic and other opportunities. In such circumstances, it is inevitable that there will be competing visions as to what might constitute a socially sustainable way of life, and the place of mining in it. This paper argues that diversity itself is one important component of social sustainability, and proposes a number of principles for resource developers to underpin their engagement with the Aboriginal people of their mine hinterlands and enhance socially sustainable futures.
Complementary and competing visions In considering how we might understand social sustainability in relation to agreements between Aboriginal people and resource developers, it is crucial that we recognise the ‘intercultural’ context in which they engage with each other. By ‘intercultural’, it is meant that while we must accept the reality of distinctive, beliefs and values of particular Aboriginal groups and communities, these have been produced, reproduced and transformed through a complex process of engagement with those of the dominant society. This is certainly not to deny difference; however, it is to argue against essentialising difference, and to acknowledge that the interconnections between Aboriginal people and others are not only social, political and economic but also involve mutual contributions to the symbols, values and practices by which people establish their identities (Martin 2004). Examples of intercultural phenomena in the context of the engagement of Aboriginal communities with mining companies include the use of resources from agreements to establish outstations on or near traditional country, to subsidise funerals of community members in the Gulf region of Queensland, and to mount the large scale initiations regularly held in the Pilbara region. The concept of ‘intercultural’ challenges the idea that there are separate and distinct Aboriginal societies, for it recognises that nowhere in Australia do (or indeed can) Aboriginal people live in self-defining and self-reproducing domains. It therefore has important implications for how we might understand ‘social sustainability’, for it too is an intercultural concept. Sustainability must take account of the reality that Aboriginal people of necessity live in contexts which are defined through their engagement in multiple ways with the dominant society, not in cultural, economic, and social enclaves.
What is ‘social sustainability’? The Western Australian Council of Social Services developed a Model of Social Sustainability (WACOSS 2000), which attempts to establish a set of criteria for identifying socially sustainable communities. The model has four parts: first a definition of social sustainability; second principles 1
of social sustainability; third, characteristics of socially sustainable communities; and forth, statements which address the characteristics of socially sustainable communities. The work by WACOSS itself forms one part of a larger sustainability framework developed by the Western Australian Government’s Sustainability Policy Unit. Their definition of social sustainability is as follows: Social sustainability occurs when the formal and informal processes, systems, structures and relationships actively support the capacity of current and future generations to create healthy and liveable communities. Socially sustainable communities are equitable, diverse, connected and democratic and provide a good quality of life. Based on this definition of social sustainability, a number of core interrelated principles of social sustainability were developed. The principles aim to capture the goals of socially sustainable communities and to this end are said to be aspirational and visionary statements that describe what makes a community healthy and liveable, both now and in the future. Equity – the community provides equitable opportunities and outcomes for all its members, particularly the poorest and most vulnerable members of the community. It’s noted that while equity is listed as a separate principle, that is such a fundamental component that it cannot meaningfully be separated from the other principles. Diversity – the community promotes and encourages diversity. Interconnectedness – the community provides processes, systems and structures that promote connectedness within and outside the community at the formal, informal and institutional levels. Quality of Life – the community ensures that basic needs are met and fosters a good quality of life for all members at the individual, group and community level. Democracy and governance – the community provides democratic processes and open and accountable governance structures. These principles are also consistent with those outlined by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner (2004) in an issues paper developing principles for economic and social development through Native Title based on a human rights framework. In relation to the principle of equity, characteristics were said to include equal opportunity for all members, equity for Indigenous people, and equity in relation to human rights. In relation to the principle of diversity, characteristics were said to be that the community is inclusive of diverse groups, and the community values difference. Interconnectedness can be promoted by appropriate and effective structures governing social processes, public and civic institutions, the quality and quantity of social processes, and community services. In relation to the principle of quality of life, characteristics of socially sustainable communities included that members have a sense of belonging, place and self worth, members have a sense of safety, and the community members have a good quality of life in relation to such matters as education, health, employment, and standard of living, as well as opportunities for personal and social development. With respect to the principle of Democracy and governance, characteristics of social sustainability included that community members have access to information, knowledge and expertise, participation processes are open and accountable, democratic processes and governance structures are effective, there is integrity of democratic processes and governance structures, and that these processes and structures are accountable, and incorporate justice and legal rights. Not all the aspects of social sustainability outlined above are amenable to measurement through robust metrics, or put another way, metrics may give a false sense of certainty that what is being measured correlates with complex social reality. These difficulties are likely to be exacerbated in the kinds of intercultural situations which are typically encountered in the mine hinterlands of remote Australia. Here, those aspects of social sustainability which are more amenable to measurement, for example health and income status, may not be accorded particular value by many of the Aboriginal people in the communities whose sustainability we are trying to measure. 2
It is important too not to assume that social sustainability equates with a lack of change in the society or group concerned. This point has been made, for example, by Neil Barr in relation to the social sustainability of Australian farming communities. Barr talks about the social sustainability of these communities in terms of the future of ongoing change and restructuring, and notes that society cannot be sustained without the capacity to adapt to change (Barr 2002).
Supporting social sustainability through Agreements The principles for social sustainability proposed by WACOSS provide a useful framework for examining how agreements between Aboriginal people and resource developers might best enhance social sustainability. They provide a useful counterpoint to the usually exclusive focus on economic development in much discussion around the benefits that potentially accrue to Aboriginal people from engaging with mining activity in their regions.
Equity The WACOSS model of social sustainability establishes equity as a fundamental component of sustainability that cannot be separated from the other principles. By equity it means in part that the community provides equitable opportunities and outcomes for all its members, particularly those who are the poorest and most vulnerable. It is important to distinguish equity from equality; while equity suggests fairness or impartiality or being just, equality suggests sameness or equivalence in relation to a particular indicator or status. Equity is very clearly a concept drawn from the general Australian political and administrative discourse, and does not necessarily sit easily with welldocumented principles of Aboriginal groups. Here, people typically have intense loyalties and obligations to close kin and family, and notions of fairness and impartiality in providing access to resources or services for a wider group, or indeed the concept of the wider common good, may have no particular currency. Furthermore, Aboriginal people’s access to resources is typically legitimated through particular entitlements, arising through such factors as membership of a particular family or kin group or traditional connections to country, rather than principles of need or equity applying equally to all those in the relevant region. Different understandings of this kind can lead to conflict over the implementation of agreements. For example, one of the issues which led to a sit in at the Century mine in the Gulf in November 2002 was the relatively few Waanyi people benefiting from employment and business development opportunities associated with the mine in comparison with other Aboriginal people from the region, particularly since the mine itself was on Waanyi traditional lands. From the mine operator’s perspective, the objectives of the Gulf Communities Agreement (GCA) in terms of maximising ‘local Aboriginal’ employment were being met, since this targeted both traditional owners and other Aboriginal residents of designated communities in the region. As the company saw it, Waanyi people lived disproportionately in the relatively disadvantaged communities of Doomadgee and Mornington Island, and interrelated factors such as poor health, lower education outcomes, and substance abuse issues meant that relatively few residents of these communities were work ready or were even necessarily interested in working on the mine site. From the Waanyi perspective however, while many recognised the reality of such factors, they felt that they were entitled as the traditional owners of the mine site itself to benefits from the mining operation, including those associated with employment and business development. The importance of the principle of equity is based on the assumption that a just and fair society is more likely to be sustainable than one marked by inequitable differentials in (for example) living standards or health. Agreements between major resource developers and Aboriginal people can direct very significant resources to people who are severely disadvantaged in socioeconomic terms. However, we must recognise that equity not only applies as between Aboriginal and nonAboriginal people in a region, but also amongst the Aboriginal people of the region themselves. Agreements which deliver significant benefits to relatively small groups of traditional owners or native title holders within a broader regional Aboriginal population, while of course recognising the right to country of those groups, can create significant income differentials. In terms of maximising 3
the possibilities for socially sustainable regional outcomes from agreements, there is therefore a challenge to balance the access to benefits based on assertions of entitlements such as native title rights on the one hand, with principles of equity and fairness – while remembering that equity in access does not necessarily equate to equality in outcomes.
Diversity The diversity principle proposed by WACOSS emphasises the importance of the community being inclusive of diverse groups, and of difference being valued. This principle of social sustainability can be seen as parallel to that in environmental sustainability, where complex and diverse ecosystems in general are more robust and sustainable than less diverse ones such as agricultural monocultures. This principle is particularly important and challenging in the intercultural context of agreements between large resource developers and the Aboriginal people of their mine hinterlands. The production and efficiency imperatives underlying mining company operations, and their necessary integration into globalised commodity markets, can lead to a corporate culture in which the mining company focuses its engagement with Aboriginal people on what it feels it may well do best – facilitating skills development, employment, business development and so forth (Harvey and Gawler 2003: 5). These are extremely important objectives, and we make reference to them in a following section in relation to developing a good quality of life. However, modern mining is not labour intensive and is likely to become even less so over the next decades, and even the best of employment outcomes would mean that only a relatively small proportion of a region’s working age Aboriginal population could be employed at its mines, even if they wanted to. While in addition to employment itself, skills development and so forth, a crucial contribution to economic sustainability which agreements can catalyse is the development of viable Aboriginal businesses, it must not be assumed that all Aboriginal people necessarily aspire to such forms of engagement with mining companies. Many Aboriginal people choose lifestyles which accord with their own values and priorities, and which may be inimical to ‘mainstream’ employment, individual wealth creation, running viable businesses and so forth (Martin 1995, 2004). So, how can agreements support diversity as a core component of contributing to social sustainability? One way is to embed support for and recognition of diversity within corporate culture and practice, both in the workplace itself (see Harvey and Gawler 2003) and in the company’s interactions with the people of its mine hinterlands. Cross-cultural training of mine personnel is only one component of this, and to be frank, not always particularly useful if it focuses on the more esoteric aspects of Aboriginal beliefs, spirituality, and so forth. Effective cross-cultural training will give both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people practical tools to work more effectively with each other in workplaces which value diversity. Another way of supporting diversity is to structure agreements so that the kinds of benefits that can be accessed, or the kinds of economic, social and cultural processes that are supported, encourage the achievement of diverse Aboriginal aspirations including those which relate to the non formal, customary and community economies where this is feasible.
Interconnectedness This aspect of social sustainability refers to processes, systems and structures that promote connectedness within and outside the community concerned at formal, informal and institutional levels. One of the key factors underlying Aboriginal disadvantage is the ongoing social, political and economic isolation of Aboriginal people from the broader society around them. Historically, as has been well documented, Aboriginal people were subject to discriminatory policies and laws which failed to recognise either the intrinsic worth of their own cultures or their rights to the lands and waters they traditionally occupied. Over recent decades there have been major changes to the laws impacting on or relating to Aboriginal people, such as the High Court’s Mabo decision in 1993 and the consequent Native Title Act.
4
Arguably however, many government policies and programs over this period have served as much to mire Aboriginal people in welfare-dependent enclaves as to provide them with any real capacity to change their circumstances (e.g. Pearson 2000). These enclaves are not only social and geographic, but also attitudinal; in many of the regions where major resource developments are now situated in Australia, Aboriginal people are not only marginalised through such factors as overt racism and discrimination, but also by a tendency amongst both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people to live and interact primarily with those of similar worldviews and lifestyles. Properly structured and implemented agreements with resource developers can provide crucial means for those Aboriginal people who wish to do so to break down these enclaves, and to strategically leverage engagement with the wider regional economy and society. Using the leverage provided by agreements to develop partnerships between resource companies, Aboriginal people and their organisations, government, and others including the philanthropic and private sectors, is essential to establishing multifaceted approaches to supporting social sustainability (see also Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner 2004: 7). At the formal and institutional levels, well constructed agreements provide a range of mechanisms and structures such as special-purpose organisations, committees and other consultation mechanisms, and education and training and business development strategies, which necessarily serve both to connect Aboriginal people to the wider region and also to potentially enhance connections among Aboriginal individuals and family and other such local groups. The development and implementation of agreements with resource developers also can provide opportunities and incentives at the informal level for Aboriginal people who may have been socially marginalised and excluded to establish relationships with and put their aspirations to a whole range of individuals, companies and other private sector organisations, government agencies and so forth. A notable example of the capacity of agreements to build connections between Aboriginal people and others at the informal level is provided by the Century mine, where some 20 per cent of the workforce is now local Aboriginal people. While naturally issues arise from time to time, the GCA has had a profound effect on the workplace culture at the mine site, in part through the sheer numbers of Aboriginal people working there, and has provided an unprecedented opportunity for Aboriginal people of the Gulf region to interact from a position of relative equality with nonAboriginal people and institutions. From this perspective, the objective of agreements between mining companies and Aboriginal people should not be seen so much as a form of self-determination which has at its core separatism or some misguided notion of economic independence, but rather self-determination in terms of people’s enhanced capacity to meaningfully direct and control their own affairs in an intercultural context.
Quality of life This aspect of social sustainability requires that people’s basic needs are met and that a good quality of life is fostered for people at individual, group and community levels. By stating this principle in terms of people’s ‘basic needs’, it is implicitly being assumed that while there may be disparities in individual or group wealth and living standards, these are not such that segments of the population are living in conditions of significant relative poverty. However, it must also be noted here that what are perceived as basic needs may differ between individuals and groups. For example, Aboriginal people may live in circumstances which appear materially impoverished to others, but which from their own perspectives are rich in terms of social and cultural values – such as living close to significant family members and on or near their traditional lands. This is certainly not an attempt to recast the situations of real poverty and social dislocation and trauma which are all too common in Aboriginal Australia as somehow resulting solely from and people’s lifestyle choices. However, it is to say that what people see as their basic needs varies between individuals, groups and cultures, and that very typically many Aboriginal people place a higher value on richness and complexity in interactions with kin and family for example than they do on richness in their material circumstances. This provides another illustration of the interrelationships 5
between the principles of social sustainability, for providing for a good quality of life and recognising diversity are necessarily interrelated in the intercultural contexts to be found in mine hinterlands. How then can mining agreements foster a better quality of life for Aboriginal individuals, groups and communities in their hinterlands? While of course it is not feasible for all demands to be meant, and agreements on their own cannot realistically be the sole drivers of change, they must be closely linked to community agendas. Most recent mining agreements include consideration of the wider social agendas of communities in a supportive and sustainable manner (e.g. Kauffman 1998). Significant agreements in Western Australia and Queensland include such aspects as;
Commitments to employment and training – Employment remains the single most powerful form of economic engagement, and efforts in this area are ultimately beneficial not only to individuals but also to the community as a whole. Along with employment comes a raft of other ‘life’ skills such as self-esteem, confidence and fiscal management which contribute to both individual and community enhancement. However, direct employment in mines themselves can only ever provide an option for a relatively small proporation of Aboriginal people.
Commitments to small business development – Opportunities exist to service the mining operation and the provision of regional services. The former opportunities really only exist while the mine is operational, and careful consideration needs to be given to what happens with these businesses beyond the mine life. The later situations rely on servicing existing communities or opening new areas of potential, such as tourism. An advantage of mine site businesses is that significant amounts of support that can be provided to by mining operators.
Individual capacity development – for example scholarships and work experience opportunities for individuals who have shown a desire to succeed in this area. This also includes identifying and working with potential entrepreneurs.
Supporting diversity in lifestyles and aspirations -- as discussed, not all Aboriginal people wish or are able to directly engage with mine-related employment and business opportunities. In regions where Aboriginal people may have been centralised into townships and communities and had considerable difficulty in maintaining contact with traditional lands, agreements can provide mechanisms by which they can re-establish this contact. For example, Hamersley Iron has supported the establishment of a number of small decentralised communities in the Pilbara region, including through assistance in infrastructure support, where Aboriginal people are more easily able to maintain a preferred lifestyle including commitments to kin, ceremonial participation, and living on and caring for country. In the case of the Century mine, the GCA provided for the gradual handover of a number of pastoral properties, and this has allowed for a creative mix of significant income generation for traditional owners through subleasing areas of the properties, opportunities for training and work in pastoralism, and access for traditional owners to areas of country on the pastoral leases.
Such commitments, if realistically incorporated into company business, require considerable resources both financial and human. Experience across a number of agreements in northern Australia suggests that the resources which parties commit to in agreements are rarely adequate to achieve successful and sustainable implementation. There are usually substantial indirect costs (not contemplated in the original agreement) associated with their implementation. A further issue for the mining company is to think holistically about opportunities that will be sustainable beyond the life of the mine. In a paradoxical twist, the real benefit for companies is to directly invest in developing small businesses (and the ongoing support necessary) that support the mine site infrastructure. In most cases this results in an unsustainable dependency of the business on the mine. This is not necessarily regionally sustainable, although the skills and experiences gained by individuals involved are of regional value. 6
In the case of the GCA, the approximate breakdown of contributions from both the Queensland government and the company (over an expected mine life of 20 years) as established by the agreement are:
35% on roads and infrastructure to mine and surrounding areas;
23% on economic development;
23% on employment and training initiatives;
11% on direct payments to claimants;
2% on cultural, environment, consultative network and personal development; and
6% on the pastoral properties
However, a comparison of cost commitments actually spelt out in the GCA with additional implementation costs (primarily for agreement support) over the first 6 years of operation, indicated that for every dollar committed by the company in accordance with the ‘letter of the law’ of the agreement, it spent another 50 cents on GCA support. A figure such as this of course has important implications for all parties in the negotiation of agreements, since financial viability of the resource development is (in complex ways) related to the long-term sustainability of an agreement associated with that development. However, the success of the GCA employment and training initiatives in particular has also led to a leveraging of significant additional funding (some $3 million over six years) from the Queensland government over its formal commitments under the GCA.
Governance Good governance is foundational to social sustainability. Both Australian and international research suggests there is a link between the effectiveness and legitimacy of a community’s governance institutions, and the general well-being and development of that community (e.g. Cornell 2002, Dodson and Smith 2003). Many – although not all – of the regions in which major mines are situated a characterised by fragile and often conflict-ridden Aboriginal institutions. As the Social Justice Commissioner notes (2004: 6), agreements should provide for Aboriginal people’s capacity to set, implement and achieve their own development goals. If however there is an absence of stable and accountable decision-making structures through which these goals can be formulated and achieved, agreements provide a significant opportunity for the various parties to the agreement to establish a framework for building the capacities and institutions necessary for Aboriginal people’s own development goals to be achieved. This capacity development is, as the Commissioner observes, a long-term process that requires the investment of adequate and appropriate resources, including human resources. Governance refers to both the formal and informal means by which groups will communities make decisions about where they want to go, how they are going to get there, and the resources they will need to allocate to do so. So in the context of Aboriginal people, governance includes the processes by which decisions are made within family groups and relations are conducted between them. However, it is vitally important that miners, government and other parties to agreements avoid as far as possible direct involvement in the complex and fraught area of Aboriginal family politics. Where they can most usefully assist in the vitally important process of developing governance capacity through agreements is in working to support, where possible and appropriate, existing Aboriginal organisations such as Native Title Representative Bodies, and also working with Aboriginal people to enhance the viability, effectiveness and legitimacy of the various structures typically set up to monitor and implement agreements. This necessarily long-term capacity development work can pose major challenges for resource developers. The scale and focus of their own organisational governance structures and processes are fundamentally different in most respects from those relevant and appropriate to Aboriginal people, and there are a particular attitudes and skill sets required by people working in this area which at least in the past were not normally found within mining company cultures. Increasingly, mining companies are both developing the capacity of their existing staff and recruiting specialist 7
staff to enhance the development of robust, knowledgeable and multifaceted relationships between themselves and the Aboriginal people of their mine hinterlands. Furthermore, as in so many areas of agreement implementation, governance capacity development can be enhanced by partnerships between the Aboriginal people concerned, the resource developer, government and the private, philanthropic and NGO sectors. A good example of this is provided by the linkages being established between the Western Cape Communities Coexistence Agreement and the various regional Aboriginal organisations, government agencies, and private and philanthropic sector entities operating through Cape York Partnerships. Implementation of the GCA at Century mine provides good illustrations of both the risks in failing to recognise the importance of competent Aboriginal organisational governance, and also the very real successes that can be achieved through sustained, proactive and participatory organisational capacity development. The GCA established a complex network of committees, organisations and trusts to monitor and implement various components of the agreement (Martin 1998). Crucial Aboriginal-controlled organisations included the Gulf Aboriginal Development Corporation (GADC), whose key role was to represent the various native title parties to the agreement and to advocate and protect their interests, and a number of small associations to whom annual cash disbursements for members of the three native title groups were made under a formula set out in the agreement. The GADC however had completely inadequate resources under the agreement to discharge its contractual obligations. Its attempts to seek additional resources from other parties to the agreement and to establish an independent economic base failed, and despite considerable initial goodwill and support among the Aboriginal people of the region, within three years GADC had essentially become moribund. The organisation’s potential therefore to act as a vehicle through which the various native title groups and subgroups could develop the capacity to work cooperatively and strategically together – evident in its early stages – was lost. Also lost was its potential to play a more constructive role in the highly adversarial Aboriginal politics of the region. At the same time, most of the small associations receiving distributions had failed within a few years, largely through a lack of appropriate and targeted capacity building and an inability to meet compliance requirements under their incorporation statute. A major consequence of this was that under the terms set out in the GCA, payments received by the GADC on their behalf could not be distributed and a substantial amount of money accumulated – and GADC itself lacked the resources to undertake the consultations with native title groups required as a first step to redress the situation. Other parties inadequately understood the risks posed to successful implementation of the agreement through these failures of organisational governance, and the mining operation was ill-prepared for the subsequent sit-in in late 2002 by disaffected native title holders, which amongst other issues focused on the failure to distribute what was seen as their ‘compensation money’. There are many examples of organisations set up under agreements that are struggling with the terms of their charters, that of the GADC being just one instance. This incapacity to fulfil the goals for which they were established compromises the achievement of sustainable outcomes from agreements, and typically leads to discontent within the organisation, the relevant Aboriginal community and the mining company. This risks management or regulatory authorities advocating crisis-management intervention, which rarely results in sustainable outcomes. On the other hand, Century has demonstrated considerable successes in organisational capacity development, in such areas as the establishment of a number of viable Aboriginal businesses, in the generally successful operations of the Aboriginal Development Benefits Trust, and in the management of the Waanyi pastoral stations. From the beginning, it was recognised that it would be necessary to devote significant company resources to assist in the day to day running of these organisations. This support consisted of both tangible ‘in kind’ assistance including in administration, and less tangible support like the provision of advice and counsel. However, Aboriginal people will often interpret such support – and sometimes with justification – as attempts by a company to direct outcomes to suit its own interests. In the case of the Century project, 8
mining management had clearly formed the view that it was in the company’s strategic interests to support certain of the organisations arising under the agreement, but not others. More generally, the difficulty for mining company management is determining how much support is to be provided to ensure sustainable agreement outcomes, given financial constraints, community expectations, precedence issues and an understanding of the company’s core business. Mapped onto this is the added consideration of the risk of community dependency on the support provided by the company. An avenue to true sustainability occurs when there is reduced dependency on external bodies and an understanding of the need for mutual support built on trust and respect. Appropriate and ongoing training is absolutely essential to the capacity development of individuals, which then leads to increased competence of organisations and the establishment of building blocks for sustainability. The training needs to be practical and it needs to be regular. It also needs to extend to proxies and to staff employed by the organisations. Recent work by one of the authors for Rio Tinto has shown that, in addition to regular training, there is a real need for further support and assistance to organisations and individuals in the form of wide-ranging capacity development through mentoring, particularly that relating to corporate governance. Important processes such as individual and community capacity development and training (whether it be for organisational governance, business practice, or employment) are instances where it may not be possible or even appropriate for mining companies themselves to take the major roles, and partnerships between Aboriginal communities, miners, government, and private and philanthropic sector service providers can offer great advantages.
Concluding remarks The implementation of successful agreements requires resourced developers to operate on the basis that more than just a signed agreement is necessary to provide real and sustainable outcomes for both themselves and Aboriginal people. While the lawyers and accountants will look for compliance, successful agreement implementation focuses on long-term and sustainable outcomes, which inevitably requires more than mere compliance. This requires real leadership within mining companies, and indeed within the Aboriginal communities involved. Once an agreement is signed, it is easy to walk away from all but the legally binding conditions of the agreement. However, for true success companies need to be able to see beyond the specifics of compliance and drive towards a best practice approach (as exists with safety and environmental management). If the mind-set within the organisation is aligned and focussed on creating the conditions and providing the support, then social sustainability will more likely be achieved. The Century example also demonstrates that the robustness, viability and legitimacy of the organisations and other structures set up under agreements impact directly on their effectiveness, and conversely that the sustainability of an agreement’s outcomes is dependent in part on the viability and legitimacy of the institutions set up under it.
References Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner 2004. ‘Promoting Economic and Social Development through Native Title’, Land, Rights, Laws: Issues of Native Title 2(28), August 2004. Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, Canberra. Barr, N. 2002. “Social sustainability”, “triple bottom line”, “capacity to change” and the future of rural landscapes. Getting it Right Symposium, Adelaide, March 11 and 12, 2002. Pp 121-129. Available at < www.plevin.on.net/GIR/Barr.pdf > Cornell, S. 2002. The importance and power of Aboriginal self-governance: Evidence from the United States, Paper delivered at the Reconciliation Australia Aboriginal Governance Conference, 3–5 April 2002, Canberra (available at < http://www.reconciliationaustralia.org >).
9
Dodson, M. & D.E. Smith, 2003. ‘Governance for sustainable development: Strategic issues and principles for Indigenous Australian communities’, CAEPR Discussion Paper No. 250, Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, Australian National University, Canberra. Harvey, B. and J. Gawler, 2003. ‘Aboriginal Employment Diversity in Rio Tinto’, International Journal of Diversity in Organisations, Communities and Nations (3): 197-209 Kauffman, P. 1998, Wik, Mining and Aborigines, Allen & Unwin, St Leonards, N.S.W. Martin, D.F. 1995. ‘Money, business and culture: issues for Aboriginal economic policy’, CAEPR Discussion paper No. 101, Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, Australian National University, Canberra. Martin, D.F. 1998. ‘Deal of the Century? – a case study from the Pasminco Century project’, Indigenous Law Bulletin 4(11): 4-7. Martin, D.F. 2004 (in print). ‘Rethinking Aboriginal community governance: challenges for sustainable engagement’, in Community and Local Governance in Australia, P. Smyth, T. Reddel & A. Jones (eds), University of New South Wales Press, Sydney. Pearson, N. 2000 ‘Passive welfare and the destruction of Aboriginal society in Australia’, in P Saunders (ed.), Reforming the Australian Welfare State, Australian Institute of Family Studies, Melbourne. Western Australian Council of Social Service (WACOSS) 2000. Model of Social Sustainability, WACOSS, Perth. Available at < http://www.wacoss.org.au >
Acknowledgements David Martin is an Australian Research Council Research Fellow at the Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, Australian National University (CAEPR). Ben Scambary is a Doctoral student at CAEPR. Jim Hondros is Principal Consultant, JRHC Enterprises, and amongst other work consults regarding Aboriginal engagement to both Rio Tinto and the Century project. The CAEPR authors wish to acknowledge support provided to the Australian Research Council Linkage project “Indigenous community organisations and miners: Partnering sustainable development?” by the ARC, the Committee for the Economic Development of Australia (CEDA) and Rio Tinto, as well as in-kind support from Hamersley Iron and Pasminco/Zinifex.
10
