Social Impact Assessment-Free-Samples for Students-Myassignment

Question: Discuss about the Social Impact Assessment (SIA) and Indigenous Rights on the Aboriginal People in Australia. Answer: 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 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 an d 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 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 among st 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 i nclude 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 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 Gun djehmi 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 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 ERAs 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 Mirrars whims thereby leading to stress in ERA and Mirrar relationship. 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 Boar d 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. 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). 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 th e 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 serious concerns raised about the representatives 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 proc ess 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 precin ct. 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. 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, althou gh 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 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 Imp act Assessment and its limitations and constraints. 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., Garrab, 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. 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), 19702000: 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. 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.