Decolonising the interface between Indigenous peoples and mining companies in Australia: Making space for cultural heritage sites

Abstract

Howitt (2009) claims that state control over mineral and energy resources and developer-Indigenous relations constitute the 'active erasure' of Indigenous knowledge and governance. The cultures and interests of Indigenous players are diverse and at times conflicting during Indigenous-mining interface, and collective bargaining has been shown to substantially weaken these positions, especially in regard to those Indigenous players primarily concerned with the protection of localised heritage. This paper explores a case study from a remote region of South Australia to document this erasure and its implications and to advocate decolonisation of the regulatory interfaces between mining and Indigenous peoples in resource, environmental and heritage governance. It adopts an Indigenous standpoint for research and argues the need for academic research to accept responsibility for some weaknesses in existing systems. The experiences of Adnyamathanha people are used to support an argument that Indigenous empowerment through informed decision-making and a decolonising engagement strategy are yet to be fully realised as key components of an effective interface between Indigenous and commercial players.

Social Life Cycle Assessment Used in Indigenous Contexts: A Critical Analysis

“…The heavy focus on stakeholder inclusion in order to make assessments locally relevant and legitimate is important and when it comes to assessments of products in Indigenous contexts this potentially places S-LCA in a league of its own. While the right to have one's voice heard on equal terms is often promised in situations like our hypothetical case, it is rarely realized when economic profit is prioritized over Indigenous connections to land [12,52]. S-LCA is simply an assessment tool to provide information about potential social impacts and as such it does promise to include stakeholder voices, however, it does not promise to create change or steer decision making processes.…”

“…Indigenous standpoints flow from Indigenous ontologies, an example from Australia is 'Yura Muda' or ancient human connections including spiritual, economic, and deeply personal kin ties between people and country [52]. These connections form the basis from which Indigenous peoples are empowered and free from colonialism, or continuously re-traumatized by the destruction of places of cultural significance, often due to commercial interests that are far removed from Indigenous interests.…”

“…In analyzing the interface between Indigenous peoples and mining companies in Australia, Marsh found that there were inherent weaknesses with regards to treatment of Indigenous peoples in regulation processes around mining: "questions remain as to how to better respond to the ongoing absence of recognition of Indigenous rights, ancient traditions and practices, sovereignty, and continuity with land and spirit." [52] (p. 175). One alternative could be to embrace Indigenous narratives in ways that would build mutually respectful relationships; however colonial praxis deeply embedded within legislation and policy often create a default setting that trigger each other and effectively exclude Indigenous ontologies.…”

Returning land to country: Indigenous engagement in mined land closure and rehabilitation

“…In addition, the Native Title Act governing cultural aspects of resource development does not actually represent Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ways of thinking, instead prioritising western/settler ways of assigning value (e.g. fiscally) without taking adequate measure of the complex inter-group relationships (Byrne, 2012; Marsh, 2013). In terms of employment opportunities over the life of mines, communities around some mines still experience inconsistent benefits over the life of mining projects, with opportunities tapering off further towards mine closure (Doyle et al, 2015; Everingham et al, 2013; Tiplady and Barclay, 2003).…”

Mining, risk and climate resilience in the ‘other’ Pacific: Latin American lessons for the South Pacific

“…The extent of these overlaps is significant and speaks to a double exposure that is important both at the national and sub‐national level. Such overlaps also speak directly to debates in Asia Pacific Viewpoint on ‘contested geographies of coexistence in natural resource management’ (Howitt et al ., ) contestations that involved not merely the overlapping of land use claims, but also of ontologies of the environment and landscape (see also Marsh, and Doohan, ). It should be noted, however, that the extent to which the exposure and contestation produced by these overlaps is real versus potential is a point of debate.…”