1.Identify five (5) case study specific stakeholders and explain:

(a) What it meant to them in terms of Uluru being open for climbing, and

(b) How the closure of the climb affects them

2.Identify an ethical issue for one of the stakeholders identified in the case and, using the three approaches to ethical decision making, explain why it is an ethical issue.

3.Discuss some of the social sustainability challenges you can identify from the case study

4.Is it possible to balance the social, environmental and economic sustainability challenges you can identify from the case study? If yes, how? If no, why not?

Uluru is both symbolically and geographically a centre of Australia as a nation. Also known as Ayers Rock, Uluru can serve as a gauge of Australian society, specifically relations between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. In 2017, the Board of Management of Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park announced that climbing Uluru would be banned by 2019 - a decision which became a source of significant debate and controversy. Through an analysis of the changing circumstances of Uluru, this case study invites us to reflect on ethical issues that relate to the recognition of the Indigenous peoples' autonomy and laws and embracing the Aboriginal 'perspectives' in the broader Australian society.

Case Study: Climbing Uluru, Banning the Climb and (Un)Settling Australia

From Uluru to Ayers Rock and back again

Aboriginal Australia has been described as possessing the oldest living cultures on Earth. Current dating records these cultures as going back at least 60,000 years. Recent research has demonstrated that Aboriginal Australia had sophisticated methods of land management and cultivation practices (Pascoe, 2014). This was not recognised at the time of British invasion, conquest and settlement. British authorities justified their colonisation through arguments of terra nullius (a legal phrase used to justify occupation as the colonists saw Australia as land belonging to no one (see Connor, 2005).

The region now described as Uluru- Kata Tjuta National Park has been under the custodianship of the Anangu people (a term for Pitjantjatjara and Yankunytjatjara language speakers) for tens of thousands of years. "Tjukurpa (pronounced 'chook-orr-pa') is the foundation of Anangu culture. Just as a house needs to stand on strong foundations, so their way of life stands on Tjukurpa" (National Parks "Culture and History, n.d.).

Tjukurpa, Anangu traditional law, knowledge and religious philosophy, guides everything that happens in the park - as it has done for thousands of years. This concept is expressed on the cover of the Plan of Management by the words:

'Tjukurpa Katutja Ngarantja' - Tjukurpa above all else (National Parks, "Park Management", n.d.).

Colonial exploration of Central Australia began in the mid-1800s. In 1862, John McDouall Stuart completed the first return, south-north crossing of Australia. In 1873 with explorations for pastoral development and the overland telegraph, William Gosse reached the site and named it Ayers Rock in honour of the then Chief Secretary of South Australia. In that same year, Ernest Giles became the first European to climb Uluru, together with Khamran, an Afghan camel driver (National Parks "History of the park", n.d.).

However, it was not until the 1930s, when tourism began in this iconic site, with the Anangu being simultaneously pushed out, as the assimilation policy of the day took hold. The 1950s witnessed the declaration of Ayers Rock National Park, the construction of vehicle tracks, tourism promotion and the development of tourism services. Tourism expanded in 1959 with the granting of the first motel lease and the construction of an airstrip right next to the northern side of Uluru. This era marked a time when tourism developments were increasing as Anangu people continued to be displaced

The land rights movements of the 1970s inspired a change with Anangu beginning to return to their country, asserting their rights as custodians and pressing for a change in the circumstances (see Appendix 1).

The late 1970s and early 1980s marked the steps to the handback of the national park to the Anangu. Key pivotal moments during this time included:

In 1985 Ayers Rock was returned to its original name of Uluru.

The change of legislation in 1985 (National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975 and the Land Rights Act) allowed the park to be returned to the Aboriginal people, under a 99-year lease agreement to Parks Australia. The park was to be jointly managed by Anangu and the Commonwealth, with Anangu to receive an annual rent and share of park revenue in return.

26 October 1985 - Handback. A symbolic highpoint for Indigenous land rights. Then Governor General Sir Ninian Stephen delivers deeds of grant under the Land Rights Act to Anangu.

10 December 1985 - The Uluru Board of Management, with a majority of Anangu board members is established under the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975.

22 April 1986 - The Uluru Board of Management meets for the first time (National parks "history of the park, n.d.).

In 1987, Uluru- Kata Tjuta National Park was added to the UNESCO World Heritage list in recognition of its natural features. In 1994, "the park became only the second in the world to be acclaimed for its cultural landscape as well. This listing honours the traditional belief systems as part of one of the oldest human societies on earth" (Parks Australia "World Heritage", n.d.).

A joint management approach has been taken to managing the national park and has modelled best practice cooperation. In this case, joint management means Parks Australia and Anangu custodians work together bringing scientific knowledge and Indigenous knowledge together for the protection of the site and its cultural values; a majority of the members of the Board of Management are Anangu. The aim of this management is to:

maintain Anangu culture and heritage

conserve and protect the integrity of the ecological systems in and around the park

provide for visitor enjoyment and learning opportunities within the park (National Parks, Park Management, n.d.).

The agreement to return Uluru site under the join management of the Park Australia and the Anangu people were undertaken with at aim of providing better economic opportunities, also via tourism. Subsequently, a relocation of tourism facilities from the southeast base of Uluru to the purpose-built resort town of Yulara was undertaken, as the old tourist site became the base for the Anangu community of Mutitjulu (Cheer, 2019)

The Climbing of Uluru

Despite this impressive joint management approach, the fact the handback was followed by a 99-year lease to the Commonwealth National Parks authority resulted in the climbing of Uluru being allowed. This was despite the Anangu people's opposition to the climb (see "Please don't climb Uluru").

Rather than banning the climb, the Anangu asked visitors to respect their law and culture by choosing to not climb (Parks Australia, n.d.). They explained that traditional law banned the climbing by the public, that as custodians they had a duty of care to visitors and the climb is dangerous, with some deaths occurring. As Traditional Owner Kunmanara said:

"That's a really important sacred thing that you are climbing... You shouldn't climb. It's not the real thing about this place. The real thing is listening to everything. And maybe that makes you a bit sad.But anyway that's what we have to say.We are obliged by Tjukurrpa to say. And all the tourists will brighten up and say, 'Oh I see. This is the right way. This is the thing that's right.This is the proper way: no climbing" (Parks Australia, n.d.).

Extensive effort was made to inform visitors that the Anangu custodians prefer that visitors do not climb Uluru, including in park materials, on the park entrance ticket and on a large sign at the access point to the climb. Some have criticised this as too late when some tourism agencies have marketed Uluru for the climb. In addition, the Parks authorities explained that climbing resulted in environmental degradation, through effluent washing down the face of the rock and into waterholes, and polluting the water for the many plants and animals in the park (National Parks, "Please don't climb, n.d.).

Why do tourists climb?

Despite the effort to discourage the tourists from climbing Uluru, the tourism industry continued to market the climb and tourists arrived still expecting the chance to "conquer" Uluru and see the sites from the top. Souvenir shops sold stickers and T-shirts with "I climbed Uluru" on them and bloggers blogged about their exploits.In a 1999 visitor survey, 71% of people indicated that they came to Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park to climb the "Rock", one of the highest scoring motivations of surveyed visitors (MacDonald, 1999, p. 17). McKercher et al. were inspired to research the motivations of the climbers after visiting the site. They stated, "The number of climbers was surprising, given the apparent widespread acceptance that it was no longer socially acceptable, repeated requests not to climb and widespread media reports that it had fallen out of favour" (2008, p. 381). In their study of 91 blogs written between the 1990s and 2006, they identified eight broad rationalisations bloggers gave for their decision to climb Uluru (McKercher et al. 2008).

(From McKercher et al., 2008, p. 376)

Two of these eight themes suggest outright hostility to Aboriginal authority and cultural values expressed at Uluru. Under the theme "rejection of legitimacy of Aboriginal values", the author of blog 4 wrote: "Aboriginals would prefer that all white people left Australia. I ignore the request to leave Australia just the same as I ignore the request not to climb a ROCK" (cited in McKercher et al., 2008, p. 377). An example from the theme of "cultural hypocrisy" (identified in the table as: "I climbed because of Aboriginal hypocrisy" stated: "if it's so important to the aboriginals (sic), why did they sell out and rent the land to your government? They must have known that it is likely people will choose to climb ... It's as though the aboriginals (sic) are inviting people to disrespect their beliefs" (cited in McKercher et al. 2008, p. 378). Other themes suggested the dominance of tourists' values, the challenge of the climb or even alternative spiritualities.

A recent newspaper headline gives a more interesting take on the motivations of the climbers: "Determined to be ignorant: The drongos who climb Uluru" (Power, 2017):

The Uluru Statement of the Heart - written on Anangu lands nearby - asked how it was possible that its "peoples possessed a land for 60 millennia and this sacred link disappears from world history in merely the last 200 years" [see Appendix 2]. "We seek constitutional reforms to empower our people and take a rightful place in our own country. When we have power over our destiny our children will flourish. "They will walk in two worlds and their culture will be a gift to their country," it said. Walking around Uluru is to walk in their world. That's a gift to all Australians. Climbing it is an insult (Power, 2017).

The debate about banning the climb continued at the Federal government level.In 2009, the Minister for the Environment, Peter Garrett, voiced his support for banning the climb, but has been opposed by then Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd. More recently, the Turnbull government and his Environment Minister said they had no plans to ban the climb. The then Northern Territory Chief Minister Adam Giles (a man of Aboriginal descent) stated his opposition to ending the climb and said it was not different than climbing the Sydney Harbor Bridge or Paris' Eiffel Tower. Giles' statements were based on his argument that the tourism industry is vital and that the jobs from tourism should not be endangered by a climbing ban (see Davidson, 2016).

Climbing will stop

The 2010-2020 Uluru- Kata Tjuta Management Plan (National Parks, 2010) stated that the climbing of Uluru would stop when the proportion of visitors climbing the rock falls below 20%, or when the park board is satisfied adequate alternative experiences have been established, or when "the cultural and natural experiences on offer are the critical factors when visitors make their decision to visit" (National Parks, 2010, p.92). On 1 November 2017 the Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park's Board of Management voted unanimously to end the climbing of Uluru by 26 October 2019. Chairman of the Board Sammy Wilson stated:

Some people, in tourism and government, for example, might have been saying we need to keep it open but it's not their law that lies in this land. It is an extremely important place, not a playground or theme park like Disneyland. We want you to come, hear us and learn. We've been thinking about this for a very long time (cited in Aikman, 2017).

In the press release announcing this decision, Mr. Wilson was quoted:

The land has law and culture. We welcome tourists here. Closing the climb is not something to feel upset about but a cause for celebration. Let's come together; let's close it together. If I travel to another country and there is a sacred site, an area of restricted access, I don't enter or climb it, I respect it. It is the same here for Anangu. We welcome tourists here. We are not stopping tourism, just this activity (National Parks, 2017).

The decision the ban climbing Uluru raised several important questions about the reaction of the visitors to this assertion of full custodianship, and the support from the tourism industry. As the issue attracted growing attention in the national media, a range of often conflicting views have been expressed that exposed the fractured views on the issue. On the political spectrum, Pauline Hanson expressed her opposition to the ban, comparing Uluru to Bondi Beach and claiming that the negative tourism-related and economic impacts should over-write any cultural sensitivity to the issue:

I can't see the cultural sensitivity when people have been climbing the rock for all these years, and all of a sudden they want to shut it down? I don't get it, I really don't get it, and how are they going to pay back the Australian taxpayer? (Meade, 2019)

At the same time, the tourism industry was largely in support of the ban, expecting limited impact on the visitor numbers and the revenue. Tour operators have highlighted the changing types of visitors who travel to Uluru, with most visitors having been educated about the wishes of the Indigenous people in respect to the climb (Jonscher, 2019).Earlier, research undertaken on the climb indicated that some 98% of people asked said that the banning of the climb would not change their decision to visit Uluru (National Parks, 2010, p. 90). However, it was uncertain how this changing attitude would manifest in visitors' response to the ban and the overall effect on the tourism industry in area.

The ban and its impact

When the decision to close the climb was final, a rush of tourists to the site ensued to beat the ban on climbing. In July 2019, about 57,000 tourists visited the park, 10,000 more than in July 2018 (Jonscher, 2019). On 25^th October 2019, the last day climbing was allowed to take place, hundreds of visitors lined up to enter the climb. When interviewed, most of the tourists claimed that climbing the "Rock" before the ban came into an effect was the main reason to travel to Uluru. Many visitors argued that, as a part of a national park, Uluru climb should remain to be accessible to all Australians (Tarabay, 2019). For instance, a couple travelling from Adelaide said that it was "important to them [to climb Uluru] as Australians, because the rock is a symbol for all of us" (Readfearn & Allam, 2019). Others claimed they came to climb 'out of respect' for the Indigenous people (Vivian & Jonscher, 2019).

With many of the visitors driving thousands of kilometers to climb Uluru, and the overall numbers of tourists not seen for more than 15 years, the closure of the Uluru climb became a case of Last Chance Tourism - tourist visited specifically to get the climb off the "bucket list" before its banning (Vivian & Jonscher, 2019). With the resurgent popularity of the climb in the final weeks before the closure, some visitors argued that the decision to close the walk was a mistake; and a large number of last-minute travellers to the site was perceived as a justification to keep the climb opened indefinitely. As expressed by one of the visitors:

Every day, thousands of people are climbing; they're expressing their opinions by their actions," he said. "Everyone has a right to experience this place on their own terms without being bothered by petty bureaucracy and the religious views of others. (Tarabay, 2019).

As the last the last tourists walked down the rock face of Uluru, followed by the Indigenous park rangers, the Anangu people celebrated the end of the climb, with one Aboriginal elder saying that it was time to for this most sacred of places to "rest and heal" (BBC, 2019).

The prolonged debate and controversy about the closure of the climb illustrate the broader divisions that continue in the Australian society. Despite efforts at "Reconciliation" from the 1990s and more recent efforts at "Recognition", Australia continues to have unsettled relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. The case of Uluru may also be illustrative of a persisting colonial attitude held by non-Indigenous Australia, and a reminder that for at least this segment of the population, the sovereignty of Aboriginal land rights is still an issue (Tarabay, 2019). As argued by Liddle (2019), the behavior of the last-minute climbers showed a "conqueror complex", with disrespect for traditional owners and a lack of desire for cultural learning about the land which they were visiting (ibid).

.

Image 2: A crush of vehicles at sunset (Abbott, 2019b)

The controversy generated by the decision to ban the climb must be considered from the perspective of the Anangu people, including the pressure that was placed on the community to justify their laws and authority over their land. As argued by Rogers, "[those] people who say they accept ownership [of the Anangu people] without accepting [their] control have not really considered what the word 'ownership' really means" (citied in Tarabay, 2019). In that sense, the closure of the climb was about returning true control over the land and an expression of the assertion of sovereignty by the Anangu people.

From the tourism perspective it can be argued that until the climb was banned, the Anangu traditional owners were forced to accommodate forms of tourism activities that violated their laws and culture. Stopping the climb provided an opportunity to re-examine the role of tourism for the Anangu people - the adherence of tourists to its laws and values, as well as economic benefits that can be derived from tourism spending. As mentioned earlier, as per the 1985 joint management agreement between the Parks Australia and the Anangu people, one of the main aims was to develop, through the use of tourism, stronger economic opportunities that would benefit the local community. However, as argued by Cheer (2019), this strategy, turned out to be a 'spectacular failure':

Today, Yulara and Mutitjulu stand in stark contrast. Yulara is filled with cashed-up, bucket-list travellers from all over the world, while Mutitjulu is an outpost of lingering disadvantage where overcrowding, underemployment, poverty, high rates of suicide and preventable diseases remain pervasive problems. (Cheer, 2019)

While some share of the gate fee royalties (obtained from the $25 access fee paid by tourists to enter the Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park)) has been increasingly directed to developing Mutitjulu's public infrastructure and housing, it has also been recognised that the process has been slow (Cheer, 2019). The positive economic impacts of tourism also involved creating employment pathways for the Anangu people (largely the park rangers and staff in Uluru resorts), but given the overall scale of tourism in the area, its benefits for the community are majorly underutilised (Zillman, 2019). Even before the closure of the climb it was acknowledged that new more sophisticated tourism products were needed, which would deliver increased economic contributions while fulfilling safety and environmental standards and promoting more authentic cultural engagement of visitors (Zillman, 2019). Cultural walks around the Uluru's base, a viewing platform, a premium cultural centre and fine dining experiences were already being developed (see Parks Australia "Top 10 experiences", n.d.). More recently, creative events have also been used to expand the tourism experiences on offer at Uluru. However, these initiatives will require further effort and time in order to generate the desired benefits.

As indicated by early data, the visitor numbers to Uluru dropped following the implementation of the ban in October 2019. By late January, it was reported that the hotel occupancy rates for the Uluru resorts declined by over 10% and that some accommodation provider decreased their prices by 40% (Coe, 2019). Some of the drop was attributed to the inflated visitations that preceded the ban. However, there was also an added impact from the bushfires that have affected Australia in summer 2019/2020, which resulted in substantial cancelation of overseas bookings (ibid). In March it became clear the area continued to experience a decline in visitor numbers, which prompted a former head ranger of the park to deem the ban a 'negative decision' (Aikman, 2020). In mid-March, an attempt to increase the number of visitors to the Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park was made, by waiving the entry fee for tourists. However, due to the outbreak of the COVID-19 virus, a decision to close the park until further notice was announced on the 24th of March 2020 (National Parks, 2020). In early April, the largest accommodation provider in the park, and the operator of the Uluru resort, the Voyages Indigenous Tourism Australia, has announced their decision to reduce their operations and to stand down over 500 staff (Fenwick, 2020). A combination of several factors largely linked with the pandemic were blamed for the employment losses.It is now expected that there will be substantial and prolonged impact on the tourism visitations to the area, which is likely to undermine the objectives of developing and promoting more authentic cultural experience of Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park.