CaseStudy -DestructionofAncientAboriginalSite-Who'stoblame!

InMay2020,RioTinto-themininggiant-blasted theJuukanGorge1and2-Aboriginalrocksheltersdating back 46,000 years; only to access $135 million worth of iron ore. It is believed that theseshelters weretheonlysitesinAustraliapreservingthesignsofhumanoccupationcontinuingthroughthe last ice age. More importantly, these sites had historical and cultural significance for the land'straditional owners - the Puutu Kunti Kurrama and Pinikura people.Note that Aboriginal culturalheritageisafundamentalpartofAboriginalcommunitylifeandculturalidentity.Ithasglobalsignificance and forms an important component of the heritage of all Australians. While the miningblast caused significant distress among the Puutu Kunti Kurrama and Pinikura people, it also receivedsignificant condemnation nation-wide. Watch below video to find out how Aboriginal people feelabout theincident:

However, the destruction of these rock shelters was not unlawful. In 2013, Rio Tinto was givenministerialconsent toproceedwiththeexpansion ofitsironoremineinthearea.Therefore,RioTintowasabidingbyWesternAustralia'slawofAboriginalHeritageAct1972-whichisnownearly50yearsold. While Section 17 of the act makes it an offence to excavate, destroy, damage, conceal or in anywayalteranyAboriginalsitewithouttheministerialconsent,itsnextconsecutivesection(Section18),allows an owner of the land - and this includes the holder of a mining license - to apply to theAboriginalCulturalMaterial Committeeforconsent toproceedwithadevelopmentaction.Therefore,Section18fundamentallybreaches Section17indicatingseriousloopholesinrelevantlegislativeacts.TheCommittee thenevaluatestheimportanceandsignificanceofthesiteandmakesarecommendation to the minister. In this case, the minister allowed Rio Tinto to proceed with thedestructionofthesite.Theconcern hereisthatthereisnolegislativerequirementensuringtraditionalowners are consulted. This means traditional owners are left out of vital decisions regarding themanagementandprotectionof their culturalheritage.

Itisalsobelieved thatthePuutuKuntiKurrama andPinikurapeoplewasprovided withincomplete/misleading information by Rio Tinto about the development options in the area, leadingto the destruction of the rock shelters. Following the after-destruction incidents, the mining giantadmitted that a better communication with the traditional owners of the land could have paused thedestruction plan. The blast crisis has caused serious damages to Rio Tinto reputation leading toremoval of the mining giant CEO from the office, serious calls for more accountability by miningcompaniesandchanges torelevant Aboriginal legislative acts.

Questions

1. ExplaintheimportanceofinvolvingAboriginalcommunitiesinproject initiationandplanning? Do you think they were the main stakeholders and had the right to beinvited in the decision-making of the Rio Tinto blast project from its initiation toexecution phases? Present your argument for your answer based on stakeholdermanagementtheory andprovide examplesfromthe casestudy.
2. Identify other stakeholders around the blast crisis using an appropriate stakeholdermapping tool. How better communication approach and stakeholder engagementstrategies using stakeholder mapping could have resolved the issues encountered bytheRio Tintoblastproject?
3. Identify some major risks and uncertainties associated with the Rio Tinto blastproject. If those risks were identified at the early phases of the project, what couldbetheappropriateriskresponsestrategy tomanagethose risksanduncertainties?Discussyourrationale?