Accepted Manuscript

Uranium Mining and First Peoples: The nuclear renaissance confronts historicallegacies

Geordan Graetz

PII: S0959-6526(14)00287-X

DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.03.055

Reference: JCLP 4162

To appear in: Journal of Cleaner Production

Received Date: 31 July 2013

Revised Date: 13 March 2014

Accepted Date: 18 March 2014

Please cite this article as: Graetz G, Uranium Mining and First Peoples: The nuclear renaissanceconfronts historical legacies, Journal of Cleaner Production (2014), doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.03.055.

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service toour customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergocopyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Pleasenote that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and alllegal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Uranium Mining and First Peoples: The nuclear renaissance confronts historical legacies Geordan Graetz1 1Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia 1Corresponding author e-mail: g.graetz@uq.edu.au Phone: +61 7 3346 4005 Fax: +61 7 3346 4045 Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining Sustainable Minerals Institute Sir James Foots Building (47A), Staff House Road The University of Queensland Brisbane QLD 4072 Australia

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1

[9,024 words inclusive of abstract, keywords, references and tables] Uranium Mining and First Peoples: The nuclear renaissance confronts historical legacies

Abstract: Forecasts of an increase in nuclear electricity generation would require a commensurate increase in the mining of uranium; however, there are a number of impediments to its successful extraction. These include government regulation, bans on uranium mining and exploration, and environmental, waste management and nuclear proliferation concerns. While literature on these issues exists, less is known about the effects of community opposition to uranium developments, particularly from First Peoples. This area of study is important for uranium companies, as 70 per cent of uranium deposits are located on the traditional lands of First Peoples. Crucially, the history and legacy of relationships between First Peoples and uranium companies would suggest that opposition by host communities could disrupt future uranium production. This paper explores these issues and reviews the experiences of First Peoples and uranium companies in Australia, Canada, the United States and several African states. It argues that if companies were to prioritise more respectful engagement with host communities, social and business risks may be reduced and more mutually beneficial development outcomes may be achieved. Keywords: First Peoples; mining; nuclear renaissance; rights; risk; uranium

1. Introduction

In the context of sustainability issues in the global supply of energy, this paper draws

particular attention to the social dimensions associated with the mining of uranium, a major

source of electrical energy when used as fuel in nuclear power plants. As global demand for

energy increases, observers of the nuclear power industry have discussed the possibility of a

nuclear renaissance (for example, Squassoni, 2008; Sovacool, 2010; Guidolin and Guseo,

2012). While there are numerous demand-side constraints that may call into question the

viability of such a renaissance (Way, 2013), it is clear from current projections (IAEA, 2012)

that nuclear power will continue to be a feature of energy supply and that uranium mining

must expand to meet the increased demand for nuclear fuel. However, there also are supply-

side impediments that may disrupt the expansion of the uranium industry, including access to

uranium deposits, opposition by political leaders and domestic constituencies to uranium

developments and the nuclear fuel cycle more broadly, and opposition by First Peoples to

uranium projects on traditional lands. The paper explores this latter constraint, focusing on the

history, continuing legacy and current status of relationships between uranium companies and

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

2

First Peoples globally. This is important, first, because approximately 70 per cent of global

uranium deposits are located on the traditional lands of First Peoples (Dowie, 2009), and,

second, because First Peoples’ opposition to uranium mining often is greater than it is for

other commodities, due to heightened perceptions of social and environmental risks and

concerns about the nuclear fuel cycle. Third, such opposition can escalate from the local to

the national or international level, drawing in other actors and stakeholders, potentially

occasioning political and business risks for mining companies. Fourth, given that the right of

First Peoples to control access to their lands increasingly is being recognised both in

international and domestic law and jurisprudence (Graetz and Franks, 2013), failure to

understand and address First Peoples’ opposition to uranium developments could affect the

development of new uranium projects and, thus, the supply of nuclear fuel.

This paper is organised in to six sections. The present section describes the aims and

context of the work, while the following section briefly examines the possibility of a nuclear

renaissance. The third section discusses major issues affecting uranium production globally.

In the fourth section, relationships between First Peoples and uranium companies are

reviewed, with examples principally drawn from Australia and Canada; reference also is

made to noteworthy examples from the United States and Africa. The fifth section discusses

recent advancements in industry engagement with First Peoples in Australia and Canada. The

examples demonstrate that relationships between uranium companies and First Peoples may

be improved, and business risks reduced, through more respectful engagement with, and

attention to the concerns of, host communities, particularly those concerns that pertain to

unwanted social impacts and the maximisation of benefits. The final section presents

concluding observations and proposes that future work focus on the incorporation of human

rights instruments into corporate decision-making mechanisms and on elaborating theory on

the interface between social risk and business risk.

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

3

2. A nuclear renaissance?

Since the 11 March 2011 earthquake and tsunami that triggered the meltdown of three

of Tokyo Electric Power Company’s four Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power reactors, the

long-standing debate on the future of the nuclear power industry has gained new life. Critics

have raised concerns about the construction of new nuclear power plants (Lovins, 2011;

Green, 2011; Sovacool, 2011), while the political leaders of Australia, Belgium, Israel, Japan,

Mexico, The Philippines, Spain, Switzerland, Taiwan and Venezuela either have

commissioned reviews of their states’ existing nuclear programs or have announced that they

will refrain from pursuing a nuclear power future (Sun, 2011; Taylor, 2011; Pons, 2011;

Rodriguez, 2011). In addition, Chancellor Angela Merkel reinstated Germany’s previously

abandoned commitment to phase out its nuclear power program by 2022 (Breidthardt, 2011),

and Italy held a referendum in which citizens overwhelmingly voted to preserve their

country’s non-nuclear status (Ministero Dell’Interno, 2011).

Notwithstanding questions about the safety of nuclear technologies, participants in the

nuclear power industry remain optimistic about the role that the technology can play both in

meeting rising global demand for energy and responding to climate change and energy

security challenges (WNA, 2012; Jamard, n.d.). Moreover, expressing confidence in the

future safety and viability of the technology, the leaders of China, India, Turkey, USA and

Vietnam have reaffirmed their commitments to their existing or planned nuclear power

programs (RFE, 2011; Manthorpe, 2012; Lichtblau, 2011). There are now more than 70

reactors in various stages of construction worldwide (NEI, 2014); China is overseeing the

bulk of this development, with 29 reactors currently under construction, while India plans to

increase the share of nuclear power to 25 per cent of its electricity market from the present

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

4

level of three per cent by 2050 (Srivastava, 2011). Russia and South Korea also have sizeable

expansion plans (NEI, 2014).

While it is questionable whether this wave of development can be labelled a nuclear

renaissance considering the shift in many governments’ positions on the technology since

Fukushima (Joskow and Parsons, 2012), what is more certain is that current and planned

reactors will rely on a stable and necessarily growing supply of nuclear fuel. However, there

are significant supply-side constraints, which may disrupt uranium production.

3. Global issues in uranium production

The importance of supply side constraints cannot be overstated in view of the current

production deficit. In 2012, global uranium production totalled 58,394 tU (68,864 t uranium

oxide – U3O8), meeting approximately 86 per cent of reactor fuel needs (WNA, 2013). The

remaining 14 per cent was drawn from decommissioned nuclear weapons, commercial

stockpiles, recycled plutonium and reprocessed used fuel (WNA, 2012a). While these figures

represent a marked decrease on the previous two years’ production deficit—in 2010, uranium

production (53,671 tU) met only 78 per cent of global reactor fuel needs—stockpiles are

being depleted. Demand is expected to grow to 72,680 tU in 2015 (WNA, 2013), and the

Nuclear Energy Agency and the International Atomic Energy Agency forecast that “world

annual reactor-related uranium requirements are projected to rise to between 97 645 tU and

136 385 tU by 2035” (OECD 2012, p. 12).

Uranium currently is mined in 19 countries (Table 1). Six new mines are forecast to

commence production in the period 2013 to 2015; these will be located in Australia, Canada,

Finland, Namibia, Niger and Russia (WNA, 2013). In 2012, the top eight uranium-producing

companies in descending order were KazAtomProm, Areva, Cameco, ARMZ - Uranium One,

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

5

Rio Tinto, BHP Billiton, Paladin and Navoi, which together accounted for 82 per cent of

global uranium production (WNA, 2013).

[Insert Table 1 here]

The uranium industry has staked its future on the responses of national governments to

climate change, declining energy security, population growth, diminishing fossil fuel

resources and the inadequacy of many renewable technologies to deliver reliable and cost-

effective base-load electricity supply. The industry contends that nuclear power represents a

viable solution to such challenges, and maintains that uranium is a proven, safe, cost-effective

and emissions-free source of energy (WNA, 2012b). However, against this optimism, Smil

(2010, p. 105), points to several key hurdles that may slow the uptake of nuclear power,

saying:

[T]he combined challenges of the industry’s public acceptance, long-term fuel availability, permanent waste storage, and nuclear weapons proliferation do not make any early vigorous and widespread renaissance very likely.

This goes to the heart of public concerns about the risks to individuals and

communities from uranium developments, which arguably are greater than those posed by the

extraction and processing of other commodities (Wallace and Smiles, 2007). Chief concerns

include possible exposure to the carcinogenic gas, radon; disposal of toxic waste; safe and

secure transportation of uranium oxide and other radioactive materials; and surface and

groundwater contamination, affecting both human and environmental health (Brugge and

Goble, 2002; Conde and Kallis, 2012). Furthermore, disasters at the Three Mile Island,

Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear power plants have contributed to perceptions that the

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

6

nuclear and—by extension—uranium industries are unsafe and morally questionable (ACF,

2012).

While it is important to draw a distinction between the uranium industry (mining and

exploration activity) and end use services in the nuclear industry (for example, nuclear

electricity generation, medical imaging, isotopic food preservation and weapons fabrication),

attitudes toward risks associated with these end use services can—and do—influence

perceptions of risk at the mining and exploration stages. This is evident in critiques of the

uranium industry, which are symbolic of the often emotive political debates that focus on the

commodity, and which draw in a range of political actors, such as non-governmental

environmental organisations and anti-nuclear groups. The conflation of the uranium and

nuclear industries arguably has helped to foster community perceptions of heightened risk at

the mining stage. These perceptions can trigger potential business risks for uranium

companies, which may arise in the form of political opposition to proposed developments,

reputational risk, withdrawal of government support for projects due to electoral concerns,

and denial or withdrawal of the social licence to operate.

Government regulation and political barriers can hinder growth in the uranium sector.

Regulatory impediments include: international and national supervisory agency requirements

governing the use, beneficiation and export of uranium; environmental governance regimes;

national mining laws; and the outcomes of statutory social and/or environmental impact

assessments, which may result in restrictions being placed on uranium projects or aspects

thereof (for example, mine design and location in order to protect cultural heritage sites). In

contrast, political impediments primarily stem from the machinations of electoral politics, as

two recent Australian cases exemplify. In the first, the former Northern Territory Labor

government withdrew its support in 2010 for Cameco Australia and Paladin’s Angela and

Pamela proposed joint venture projects on the outskirts of the Territory’s second largest city,

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

7

Alice Springs, in order to appease crossbenchers who opposed the development and thus

maintain the Government’s parliamentary majority. In the second, the South Australian

government banned mining in that State’s privately-owned and uranium-rich Arkaroola

Wilderness Sanctuary through the enactment of the Arkaroola Protection Act 2012 (SA)

(Austl.), ostensibly to prevent one company, Marathon Resources, from developing its Mt

Gee uranium tenement, which lay within the boundaries of the Sanctuary (ABC News, 2011).

Other noteworthy political impediments include party platforms, such as the

Australian Labor Party’s former ‘Three Mines Policy’ (Clarke, 2011) and, until recently, its

ban on the sale of uranium to India (Packham 2011), as well as jurisdictional bans on uranium

mining and exploration activity, for example, in New South Wales (only exploration is

permitted), Queensland (until 2012), Western Australia (until 2008) and the Navajo Nation

(discussed below). Civil society, activist and Green party opposition to the nuclear fuel cycle;

‘not in my back yard’ (NIMBY) sentiment; and opposition by some First Peoples to uranium

exploration and mining activity on traditional lands also are key issues (Graetz and Manning,

2011).

This last point has emerged as a crucial barrier to the extraction of uranium, as the

majority of uranium developments in leading uranium producing countries (excluding

Kazakhstan) occur on or adjacent the lands of First Peoples. First Nations’ rights to control

access to these lands, such as the right of free, prior and informed consent, and to receive

benefits in return for access, increasingly are being recognised in domestic and international

law (Graetz and Franks, 2013; O’Faircheallaigh, 2013). However, industry participants have

been criticised for being slow to recognise these rights, and in the past have been accused of

rights violations (Katona, 2001; Marsh, 2010).

4. The uranium industry and First Peoples

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

8

In their 2011 study, Graetz and Manning established that opposition by First Peoples

to uranium projects is an under-theorised, yet consequential, subject of inquiry, and that such

opposition represented a critical, though not insurmountable, impediment to the future

prosperity and longevity of the uranium industry in Australia. This paper elaborates on Graetz

and Manning’s finding, and suggests that First Peoples’ experiences of social risks—defined

here as potential unwanted social impacts that either are experienced or perceived (Graetz and

Franks, 2013)—provides the grounds for such opposition, which, in turn, can transmute into

business risks for uranium companies. Understanding social risk, then, is key to (1)

minimising business risks and (2) to addressing future barriers to nuclear fuel supply.

In this section and the next, relationships between First Peoples and uranium

industries in Australia, Canada, the United States and Africa are examined. Discussion on

Australia and Canada is prioritised for the reason that these states at once are home to some of

the world’s largest uranium deposits, have sizable and historically significant First Peoples on

whose traditional lands uranium deposits are located, and domiciled uranium mining

companies are some of the world’s largest producers of processed uranium. Major global

uranium developments and details about the operator of each site and the affected First Nation

are provided in Table 2.

[Insert Table 2 here]

4.1 Australia

Australia is estimated to have 31 per cent of the world’s recoverable uranium, but

supplies only 11 per cent of the global market (WNA, 2013a). Four mines currently are

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

9

operating: Olympic Dam, Ranger1, Beverley and Honeymoon; with Four Mile expected to

commence production in the near future. Uranium exploration and mining activity is

permitted in the Northern Territory, Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia,

while exploration alone has been allowed in New South Wales since 2012 (Swanepoel, 2012).

The industry is relatively small when compared with other commodity/export sectors. For

example, in 2010-2011, coal, iron ore and concentrates, and natural gas exports were valued

at AUD$43.9 billion, AUD$58.4 billion and AUD$10.3 billion respectively, while uranium

exports—6,950 tonnes U3O8—had a value of AUD$610 million (WNA, 2013a). However,

this was expected to rise to 14,000 tonnes ($1.7 billion) by 2014, and the industry has forecast

that, if barriers to its expansion were removed, exports could reach 37,000 tonnes per year by

2030, contributing an additional $17.4 billion to Australia’s gross domestic product (DIE,

2008). These forecasts—especially for 2014—may be overly optimistic, given the latest

available production figures (see Table 1, above). However, this would not be the first time

that the industry has overestimated the economic potential of uranium mining for Australia, as

documented by Leaver (2011).

As Table 2 makes clear, most uranium developments in Australia are on or adjacent

First Peoples’ traditional lands. Perhaps as a result of this proximity, Traditional Owners’

views of uranium mining principally have been negative, with the relationship between

uranium companies and Australia’s First Peoples historically characterised by conflict and

mistrust. Poor corporate community relations processes, inaccurate reporting of the social and

environmental risks of uranium mining and the nuclear industry, campaigns by, and alliances

with, anti-nuclear activists, and a general lack of understanding about the industry and its

processes also have contributed to this perception (Graetz and Manning, 2011).

1 At the time of writing (January 2014), processing of stockpiled ore at Ranger mine had been suspended due to an operational incident. It is unclear if and when regulators will allow the mine to resume operations. Following the incident, the Traditional Owners expressed concerns about the mine’s procedures and management, and also criticised regulatory oversight and independence (ABC News, 2013).

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

10

However, two particular events stand out in shaping First Peoples’ perceptions of the

uranium industry and in both the affected First Nation has suffered long-lasting social

impacts. First, between 1955 and 1963, the Australian government permitted Britain to

conduct nuclear tests at Maralinga in outback South Australia. The government facilitated the

forced relocation of the Maralinga-Tjarutja from their lands—though it is believed that not

all were successfully removed—at great social cost to the community’s members (Cane,

2002). Those who were removed suffered from lost access to their traditional homelands,

among other negative social impacts, while those who remained were exposed to large doses

of radiation (McClelland, 1985). While the Spinifex People, as they colloquially are known,

were allowed to return to their ancestral lands in the late 1980s, the social and environmental

impacts have not been forgotten. Indeed, the 2008 Indigenous play, Ngapartji Ngapartji,

confronted this history, by “address[ing] issues of isolation, cultural dislocation, alienation

and survival. It [also made reference to] the impacts – physical, psychological and emotional

– of the testing on past and current generations of Spinifex people” (Grehan, 2010, p. 40), and

tied the Maralinga-Tjarutja experience to “the bombing of Hiroshima and the Cold War-led

nuclear arms race of the 1950s and 1960s” (Varney, 2011, p. 212), pointing to First Peoples’

concerns about the nuclear fuel cycle more broadly.

The industry’s reputation was further eroded as a result of the findings of the

Australian government’s Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry (Fox, 1977), which

recommended that the then proposed Ranger uranium mine in the Northern Territory be

allowed to proceed despite opposition by some of the region’s Traditional Owners, including

the Mirarr , the recognised Traditional Owners of the land on which the mine was to be

constructed. Particularly alienating was the fact that the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern

Territory) Act 1976 endows Indigenous Territorians with title over their lands with an

accompanying right to veto proposed developments. However, the Ranger Project Area was

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

11

“exempted from this provision under sub-section 40(6)” of the Act (GAC, n.d.) by agreement

between the Commonwealth government and the then newly formed Northern Land Council;

as a consequence, the Mirarr were prevented from vetoing the mine.

The Mirarr claim (Katona, 2001; Margarula, 2005) that they have experienced severe

negative social and cultural impacts as a consequence of the Ranger mine, and the

community’s campaign against Ranger and the proposed development of the adjacent

Jabiluka uranium deposit in the mid-1990s became a focal point for national and international

anti-uranium and anti-nuclear activism (Hintjens, 2000; Katona, 2001), with attendant

business risks for the developer, Energy Resources of Australia, and its parent companies,

North Limited and, later, Rio Tinto. Foremost among these was the mothballing of the

Jabiluka deposit and the decision to place Jabiluka under a Long-Term Care and Maintenance

Agreement, which was finalised in 2005. The Agreement states that Rio Tinto will not mine

Jabiluka without the free, prior and informed consent of the Mirarr .

In light of the experiences of the Maralinga-Tjarutja and Mirarr , First Australians

have expressed concerns about proposed uranium developments elsewhere in the country. In

Western Australia, BHP Billiton’s plan to mine the Yeelirrie deposit (since acquired by

Cameco Australia) was criticised by Wongatha community members Geoffrey Stokes and

Kade Muir. Stokes disputed the need for uranium mining, saying, “We have sun, we’ve got

wind, we’ve got people. Why should we pollute our country for money?”, while Muir

questioned the inter-generational benefaction of uranium developments: “We don’t want this

product disturbed from the ground. We don’t want to bequeath a legacy for future generations

of a toxic environment” (Boylan, 2010). Similarly, South Australian Adnyamathanha

Traditional Owner Enice Marsh has been strident in her opposition to the Beverley uranium

mine and its subsequent expansion, as well as to the proposed expansion of Olympic Dam,

where uranium is extracted as a by-product at the predominantly copper-gold mine. Marsh

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

12

says: “We regard any disturbance of these sites as a threat to our health, our environment, our

culture and our heritage. It’s totally at odds with our beliefs and values. This dangerous

substance should be left in the ground” (Webb, 1999). Moreover, in the Northern Territory,

the plan by joint venture partners Cameco Australia and Paladin to develop the Angela and

Pamela deposits was opposed by some members of the Arrernte, as well as by local and

national environmental activists and tourism operators. Concerns centred on the potential for

contamination of the potable water supply of Alice Springs, reduced air quality, erosion of

traditional culture and threats to the eco-tourism industry (Clarke, 2009). As noted above, the

Northern Territory government withdrew its support for the joint venture project in response

to this opposition, rendering the development defunct.

4.2 Canada

Canada is one of the world’s largest producers of uranium, and is home to

approximately ten per cent of global uranium reserves. Production principally has been

concentrated in the province of Saskatchewan, but in recent years exploration activity has

surged in other provinces, notably, Nunavut and the Northwest Territories. As with Australia,

the majority of uranium developments in Canada have been located on, or adjacent to,

traditional tribal lands. It is noteworthy that Canadian legislation recognising the rights of its

First Nations has matured over a number of years, with the Supreme Court ruling in 1973

that: “Canada’s indigenous people have an ownership interest in the lands that they and their

ancestors have traditionally occupied, and the resources that they have traditionally used”

(Anderson et al., 2006, pp. 49-50). Moreover, as Anderson et al. (2006, p. 49) write:

Over the last 25 years of the 20th century, grudgingly and in fits and starts, the policy of the Canadian federal government has shifted from contesting indigenous claims to land, resources, and some form of ‘nationhood’, to negotiation. Accompanying this shift to negotiation there has been another

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

13

fundamental change. Increasingly, the national government has come to view the settlement of Aboriginal claims less as a cost and more as a vehicle for improving Aboriginal socioeconomic circumstances, a view long held by the indigenous people.

However, uranium companies have faced significant opposition by First Peoples to the

development of new mines in parts of Canada. Indeed, as Kneen (2011) states:

It was uranium exploration, and its impacts on the li[f]e-giving caribou herds, that helped start the whole land claims process for Inuit in what eventually became Nunavut. In Baker Lake, a proposed uranium mine called “Kiggavik” became the centre of controversy in the late 1980s and it was withdrawn from the environmental assessment process in 1990 after the community voted 90 per cent against uranium mining.

Areva subsequently assumed ownership of Kiggavik and, in 2007, the company

commenced a feasibility study and environmental assessment of the site. While the Nunavut

government reluctantly supports the development of the uranium industry in the province,

citing the need for revenue and employment opportunities for citizens (Government of

Nunavut Uranium Policy Statement, 2012), the majority of Baker Lake Inuit still are opposed

to uranium mining (Bernauer, 2011). While this opposition, too, has softened, with some

community members coming to see opportunities for jobs and greater prosperity, as well as

expressing faith in the regulatory system to monitor social and environmental impacts

(Kneen, 2011), other Inuit are concerned about the impacts on the local social economy

(Bernauer, 2011). Areva has launched a concerted public relations effort in the community in

a bid to counter community unease about the project.

Another Nunavut First Nation, the Dené, also experienced negative social impacts as a

consequence of radium and uranium mining on their ancestral lands between 1934 and 1962.

The community now faces the prospect of new uranium mines, to which they have expressed

opposition. As Tufts (2010) documents, the Dené have raised concerns about the impacts of

past direct dumping of mine waste in to Great Bear Lake, the continuing effects of radiation

exposure on mine workers and community members, impacts on food production, caribou

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

14

herds and water quality, and the possibility of a loss of spiritual and cultural connection. As

with the Kiggavik project, and notwithstanding community resistance, the government of

Nunavut has indicated that it supports uranium mining in the region in order to supply fuel for

nuclear power plants (Tufts, 2010).

4.3 The United States

Uranium mining has been a feature of industrial activity in the United States (US) for

many decades, and the industry’s impacts on First Peoples have been pronounced. The

Navajo simultaneously were the short-term beneficiaries and long-term victims of the

uranium boom that centred on the Navajo Nation reserve and the Colorado Plateau, which

spans parts of Utah, Arizona and New Mexico (Brugge and Goble, 2002). While many

Navajo men sought and gained employment in the uranium mines, for many of the Navajo

workers, their exposure to radioactive materials resulted in their contracting lung cancer.

Samet et al. (1984) found that of the 32 Navajo men in their control study (which took

account of smoking rates) who contracted lung cancer between 1969 and 1981, 23 had

worked in uranium mines. Navajo also have experienced higher incidences of thyroid disease,

birth defects and other cancers (Mayo, 2010); aquifers have been contaminated, and there are

significant lasting social and environmental impacts from abandoned mines (Brown and

Lambert, 2010).

The Navajo Nation’s experiences of social impacts as a consequence of community

proximity to, and employment at, uranium mines has turned the Nation and its allies in civil

society and Congress against the uranium industry, and has resulted in numerous legal actions

(Brugge and Goble, 2002). In a crucial development, in April 2005, then Navajo Nation

President Joe Shirley Jnr. signed the Diné Natural Resources Protection Act of 2005, “which

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

15

prohibits all uranium mining within Navajo Indian country, thereby foreclosing an estimated

twenty-five percent of the recoverable uranium within the United States” (Cooley, 2005-2006,

p. 393). (The percentage share of uranium reserves on tribal lands in the United States is in

the vicinity of 60 per cent; Johansen, 1997). The purpose of the Act “is to ensure that no

further damage to the culture, society, and economy of the Navajo Nation occurs because of

uranium mining within the Navajo Nation” (Diné Natural Resources Protection Act of 2005).

As Cooley (2005-2006) notes, this represents a considerable assertion of Navajo sovereignty,

and it has regulatory, human rights and business risk implications, both internal and external

to the United States.

4.4 Africa

Africa represents the new “frontier” (Conde and Kallis, 2012, p. 597) for the uranium

industry, with the continent’s share of global uranium production standing at 18 per cent

(Dasnois, 2012). There are significant ore deposits in Namibia, where uranium is mined at

Rio Tinto’s Rössing mine and Paladin’s Langer Heinrich mine, and Niger, where the Société

des Mines de l’Air and the Compagnie Miniere d’Akouta mine the Arlit/Arlette, Tamou,

Tagora and Artois, and Akouta, Akola and Afasto/Ebba deposits, respectively. Uranium also

is mined at the Kayelekera mine in Malawi and is obtained as a by-product of gold mining at

the Ezulwini mine and Vaal River Area Mines in South Africa. There are substantial deposits

associated with other minerals, such as phosphate and copper, in other African states,

including Algeria, Botswana, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo,

Morocco and Tanzania.

While the terms ‘Indigenous’ or ‘First Nations’ seldom are adopted by, or applied to,

Africa’s Tribal Peoples, uranium companies have faced, and are likely to continue to face,

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

16

similar challenges in their engagement with African host communities to those that they

experience with First Peoples in other uranium-rich regions. For example, in 2002, the

Botswanan government evicted more than 600 San Bushmen from their tribal lands in the

Central Kalahari Game Reserve in a move that some argue was made to pave the way for

uranium mining and the extraction of other commodities (Survival International, 2009). The

San fought their eviction in the High Court and in 2006 won the right to return to their

homelands (Survival International, 2009). Notwithstanding the Bushmen’s opposition, 16

uranium exploration licences have been granted over the reserve. The San have been

supported in their campaign against mining by several international civil society

organisations, including Survival International. The involvement of such an organisation and

the clear community opposition to uranium mining could result in business risks for uranium

companies, particularly with regard to reputational risk and operational stoppage time arising

from protest campaigns.

In another case, the Topnaar, an Indigenous Nama ethnic group in central Namibia,

have voiced concerns about the proposal by Australian miner, Reptile Uranium, to develop

the company’s Aussinanis tenement. Concerns centre on the location of the mine and its

potential effects on grazing areas and wildlife, and dust and noise pollution (Conde and

Kallis, 2012). Members also have reported community fragmentation, due to concerns about

payments that the company has made to the Chief of the community. There has been notable

community opposition to uranium mining in South Africa (Scheele, 2011), Tanzania (Nzwili,

2012), Zambia (SAIEA, 2011), and to the Kayelekera mine in Malawi (Hajat, 2008).

5. Community engagement with First Peoples: a brief review of developments in

Australia and Canada

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

17

Notwithstanding the opposition that the uranium industry has faced from First Peoples

around the world, in Australia, a détente of sorts has emerged between key industry and

national Indigenous leaders. There are several reasons for this. First, during the last decade,

the industry has come to understand the need to engage better with First Peoples. This

realisation did not come easily; indeed, it has been described as “a kicking and screaming

approach” by Australian Uranium Association (AUA) board member and prominent

Indigenous leader, Warren Mundine (Graetz and Manning, 2011). Industry and national

Indigenous leaders hope that this understanding will lead to strengthened relationships and

improved avenues for dialogue and negotiation between stakeholders.

Second, the prevailing sustainable development paradigm means that the industry

must abide by different rules with regard to corporate social performance. For example,

businesses are expected by industry associations, civil society organisations, host

communities, concerned members of the public and governments to: voluntarily disclose their

social and environmental performance (Jenkins and Yakovleva, 2006) in line with

organisations such as the Global Reporting Initiative; meet stakeholder demands; respect

human rights; and meet legal and regulatory requirements. While there are some industry

participants who are moved to play by these rules out of genuine concern and respect for First

Peoples’ rights and well-being, the shift in corporate attitudes largely comes down to the fact

that there is a good business case to be made for changing industry practice. Industry leaders

understand that First Peoples may be more willing to grant access to their lands if companies

engage with host communities on a more equal footing. At the same time, some First Peoples

have identified opportunities to improve community development outcomes if they negotiate

with developers to grant access to their traditional lands (Pearson, 2007; AUA, 2009). Among

these benefits, revenue sharing, employment opportunities, local procurement contracts,

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

18

community development, skills training, and other forms of social and human capacity

building figure prominently.

In an effort to improve its outreach to Australia’s First Peoples, in 2009, the AUA

launched a Dialogue Group with Indigenous leaders to assist in the formulation of the

industry’s strategy to contribute to the economic development of Australia’s First Peoples

(AUA, 2009). One outcome has been the establishment of a plan to set percentage targets for

employment of First Peoples at uranium developments (Morgan, 2012). The AUA also has

established a scholarship fund for Indigenous tertiary students who are enrolled in mine

engineering and other industry-related degree programs (AUA, n.d.). These small steps

forward demonstrate the industry’s growing recognition that business risks can be reduced,

and opportunities enhanced, if companies attend to the social risk and rights concerns of host

communities.

Three cases are illustrative of the dividends that can accrue to companies that

prioritise respectful engagement with First Peoples. First, with regard to Marathon Resources’

proposal to develop its Mt Gee tenement in the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary,

Adnyamathanha Traditional Lands Association (ATLA) chairperson, Vince Coulthard (2010),

stated:

It saddens me to say that we get far more respect from mining companies in [consultation] than we do from the State Government. The mining companies understand they have to negotiate with us, the Traditional Owners, to get access to the land and to complete work area clearances…. The reality is the only stakeholder who [has] shown us respect in this whole situation is Marathon Resources, they have shown us the respect that is rightfully ours.

In 2011, the Native Title holders, through the ATLA, voted in favour of mining on

their traditional lands, and expressed support for the Mt Gee project (Gage, 2011). In

legislating to ban mining within the boundaries of the Sanctuary, arguably the Native Title

holders were denied free, prior and informed consent with regard to the use of, and provision

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

19

of access to, their lands. It also is noteworthy that Mr. Coulthard supported Heathgate

Resources’ plan to develop the Beverley uranium mine (now operational), which is located on

Adnyamathanha traditional lands.

Second, in October 2012, the Western Desert Lands Aboriginal Corporation

(WDLAC) and Cameco Australia signed a memorandum of understanding in which the

company secured the community’s support for its proposal to mine the Kintyre deposit,

located on Martu lands in northern Western Australia. Cameco also has secured an

Indigenous Land Use Agreement with the Martu. Upon signing the memorandum, WDLAC

chairman Teddy Biljabu said: “The Kintyre Agreement opens the door to a range of business,

employment and cultural initiatives which ensure Martu have a strong stake in the future of

the development” (Cameco and WDLAC, 2012). Cameco Australia’s managing director,

Brian Reilly, commented: “We’ve developed a strong relationship with the Martu leadership

and are pleased that the community supports this agreement” (Cameco and WDLAC, 2012).

Finally, in Canada, there are examples of First Peoples, such as those situated in the

Athabasca Basin, coming to accept the uranium industry, and, further, welcoming the benefits

that have accrued to their communities. Through their development arm, the Athabasca Basin

Development Limited Partnership, Athabasca Basin First Nations provide a range of services

to uranium (and other mining) companies in the region. Similarly, some uranium companies

operating in the Basin have come to see the benefits of successful engagement with First

Peoples. For example, Cameco believes that “partnerships with aboriginal communities

anchor support for its existing operations and facilitate the prospects of expansion and new

mine development” (Sloan and Hill, 1995, p. 35). Moreover, the Athabasca Working Group

(AWG), comprising Cameco, Areva, and six of seven Athabasca communities, was founded

in 1993 with the aim of signing an Impact Management Agreement. The AWG reached an

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

20

agreement in 2001, which governs employment, training, business relationships,

environmental protection and benefits to the Basin communities (AWG, 2011).

6. Conclusion and future developments

While consensus has not been reached on whether we are witnessing a new nuclear

renaissance, it is clear from current projections that uranium production is likely to expand to

meet rising global demand for nuclear fuel. However, this paper suggests that the uranium

industry will continue to face opposition by First Peoples to the development of uranium

deposits in a number of jurisdictions around the world. The central thesis is that such

opposition may affect future uranium supply, and thus the nuclear power industry. The

examples from Australia, Canada, the United States and Africa demonstrate that opposition

by First Peoples to uranium mining can draw in multiple actors, with local campaigns quickly

transmuting into national or international debates. Moreover, the Australian and Navajo

Nation cases established that such opposition also can translate into regulatory and political

constraints on the number of new mines being permitted.

This paper has documented First Peoples’ principally negative encounters with

uranium developments, and has suggested that this history has shaped successive generations’

perceptions of the uranium industry and their opposition to new developments. However, the

paper also notes that evidence for improving relationships can be found in the Australian

uranium industry’s outreach to communities through initiatives such as the Dialogue Group,

the setting of Indigenous employment targets and the establishment of scholarship programs

for Indigenous tertiary students, as well as in Canada’s Athabasca Basin, where uranium

companies and First Nations have developed relationships based on engagement, but more

importantly, the provision of Indigenous-operated services to the mining industry.

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

21

Notwithstanding this progress, the uranium industry has a long way to go with regard

to incorporating best practice community relations processes into corporate decision-making

mechanisms. The practise of community engagement with First Peoples, community relations

more broadly, and the use of social impact assessments (SIA) to identify unwanted social

impacts from developments and opportunities for their mitigation, require reform if they truly

are to realise their potential. Several practitioners (Vanclay and Esteves, 2011; Esteves et al.,

2012) have pointed to the theoretical and practical deficiencies in SIA that arguably hinder the

achievement of successful development outcomes and relationship building between First

Peoples and businesses. For example, O’Faircheallaigh (2011, p. 140) contends that, due to a

“history of dispossession and economic and political marginalization,” as well as past

negative experiences of SIA, First Nations are wary of “state-initiated or state-controlled

regulatory processes including impact assessment.” Indeed, in the case of the Ranger and

Olympic Dam developments, inadequate attention to the rights of the affected First Peoples

and their social risk concerns has resulted in reports of negative social impacts, as well as

reputational damage to the developers and regulatory agencies (Katona, 2001; The Flinders

News, 2009; cf. Garrett, 2008).

While there is not scope in this paper to address these issues in sufficient detail, it

should be noted that a debate on the future of SIA, possible alternative avenues for

engagement, and the incorporation of human and Indigenous rights considerations into

corporate policy has commenced. One possible pathway forward that has been advanced in

the literature is the process of human rights impact assessment (HRIA) (Harrison, 2011;

Bakker et al., 2009; de Beco, 2009; NomoGaia, 2012). It is proposed that future work in this

area focus on the strengths and weaknesses of SIA and HRIA, as well as the development and

application of Indigenous rights instruments and the subsequent incorporation of human rights

considerations into corporate decision-making processes. First Peoples increasingly are

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

22

cognisant of their rights, and the promulgation of Indigenous rights instruments over the last

two decades has enhanced their bargaining position vis-à-vis uranium companies. If

companies fail positively to respond to this new paradigm, they will find it increasingly

difficult to gain and maintain the important social licence to operate.

Finally, attention also should be paid to the development of theory on social risk and

business risk, and their interconnections, especially as social risk applies to the extractive

industries. Social risk is relatively under-theorised in the literature on the extractive

industries, with more empirical and theoretical work needing to be performed to demonstrate

its appropriateness as a prism through which to engage First Peoples who are confronted with

uranium developments. The recent thawing in relations between some First Peoples and the

Australian and Canadian uranium industries arguably is attributable to the recognition both of

the rights of First Peoples and the business risk consequences of not getting engagement right.

Acknowledging the importance of this point, AUA Chief Executive Officer, Michael Angwin,

says: “We don’t believe we can develop [our] projects, we don’t believe we can develop our

industry, unless we have very good relationships with indigenous people” (Morgan, 2012).

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Daniel Franks, David Brereton, Kathryn Sturman, Peter

Woods and three anonymous reviewers for their comments on drafts of this paper. An earlier

version of this paper was presented at the 32nd Annual Meeting of the International

Association for Impact Assessment 27 May – 1 June 2012, Centro de Congresso da

Alfândega, Porto – Portugal.

References

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

23

ABC News. (2011) Marathon to meet Government on Arkaroola mining ban.

Http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-26/marathon-resources-compensation-

arkaroola/2810680 (accessed 2 February 2014).

ABC News. (2013) Traditional owners call for stronger regulation of Jabiru uranium mine

after string of incidents. Http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-10/traditional-owners-

call-for-stronger-regulation-of/5147150 (accessed 10 December 2013).

Anderson, R.B., Dana, L.P. and Dana, T.E. (2006) Indigenous land rights, entrepreneurship,

and economic development in Canada: ‘Opting-in’ to the global economy. J World Bus

41(1), 45-55.

Arkaroola Protection Act 2012 (SA) (Austl.).

Athabasca Working Group (AWG). (2011) 2011 Annual Report.

Http://us.areva.com/home/liblocal/docs/Operations/Mining/AWG%20Annual%20report

%202011%20Final.pdf (accessed 21 February 2013).

Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF). (2012) Stop Australian uranium fuelling the next

nuclear crisis. Http://www.acfonline.org.au/articles/news.asp?news_id=3376

(accessed15 February 2012).

Australian Uranium Association (AUA). (2009) 17 February 2009 – Indigenous leaders,

uranium industry establish dialogue.

Http://www.aua.org.au/Content/170209MRLSIndigenousDialogueGroupEstablished.as

px (accessed 8 January 2011).

Australian Uranium Association (AUA). (n.d.) Uranium industry supports young Indigenous

men and women in tertiary education.

Http://www.aua.org.au/Content/Indigenousscholarship.aspx (accessed 8 January 2011).

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

24

Bakker, S., van den Berg, M., Düzenli, D. and Radstaake, M. (2009) Human Rights Impact

Assessment in Practice: The Case of the Health Rights of Women Assessment

Instrument (HeRWAI). J Hum Rights Pract 1(3), 436-458.

Bernauer, W. (2011) Mining and the Social Economy in Baker Lake, Nunavut, Linking,

Learning, Leveraging (LLL): Social Enterprises, Knowledgeable Economies, and

Sustainable Communities, a research report of the Northern Ontario, Manitoba, and

Saskatchewan Regional Node of the Social Economy Suite, funded by the Social

Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Saskatoon: University of

Saskatchewan.

Boylan, J. (2010) Enough of Uranium Mining, Say Aboriginal Communities. Galdu.

Resource Centre for the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Guovdageaidnu-Kautokeino,

Norway.

Breidthardt, A. (2011) German government wants nuclear exit by 2022 at latest. Reuters, 30

May.

Brown, J.J. and Lambert, L. (2010) Blowing in the Wind: The Navajo Nation and Uranium.

The Evergreen State College, Olympia, WA.

Brugge, D. and Goble, R. (2002) The History of Uranium Mining and the Navajo People. Am

J Public Health 92(9), 1410-1419.

Cameco and Western Desert Lands Aboriginal Corporation (WDLAC). (2012) Media

Release: Cameco Signs Milestone Agreement with Martu. 12 October.

Cane, S. (2002) Pila Nguru: The Spinifex People. Fremantle Arts Centre Press, Fremantle.

Clarke, D. (2009) A uranium hole in the heart. Green Left Weekly, 22 August.

Http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/42296 (accessed 25 January 2011).

Clarke, M. (2011) The Third Wave of the Uranium Export Debate: Towards the Fracturing of

Australia’s Nuclear ‘Grand Bargain’. In Australia’s Uranium Trade: The Domestic and

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

25

Foreign Policy Challenges of a Contentious Export, eds. M. Clarke, S. Frühling and A.

O’Neil, 109-135. Ashgate, Surrey.

Conde, M. and Kallis, G. (2012) The global uranium rush and its African frontier. Effects,

reactions and social movements in Namibia. Glob Environ Change 22(3), 596-610.

Cooley, B.D. (2005-2006) The Navajo Uranium Ban: Tribal Sovereignty v. National Energy

Demands. J Land Resour Environ Law 26(2), 393-422.

Coulthard, V. (2010) Letter to Mr Jason Irving, Manager Policy and Planning, Department for

(sic) Environment and Heritage, 25 January. Department of Primary Industries and

Resources.

Http://www.pir.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/word_doc/0007/129058/Coulthard_V.doc

(accessed 18 August 2010).

Dasnois, N. (2012) Uranium Mining in Africa: A Continent at the Centre of a Global Nuclear

Renaissance. Occasional Paper No. 122. Governance of Africa’s Resources Programme.

South African Institute of International Affairs, Johannesburg.

de Beco, G. (2009) Human Rights Impact Assessments. Neth Quart Hum Rights 27(2), 139-

166.

Deloitte Insight Economics (DIE). (2008) Outlook for the Uranium Industry: Evaluating the

economic impact of the Australian uranium industry to 2030. Deloitte Insight

Economics and the Australian Uranium Association, Melbourne.

Diné Natural Resources Protection Act of 2005 (Navajo Nation Council).

Dowie, M. (2009) Nuclear Caribou: On the front lines of the new uranium rush with the Inuit

of Nunavut. Orion Magazine. January-February.

Http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/4247/ (accessed 2 February

2014).

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

26

Esteves, A.M., Franks, D.M. and Vanclay, F. (2012) Social Impact Assessment: The State of

the Art. Impact Assess Project Appraisal 30(1), 34-42.

Fox, R.W. (1977) Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry: Second Report. Australian

Government Publishing Service, Canberra.

Government of Nunavut Uranium Policy Statement. (2012) Http://www.uranium.gov.nu.ca

(accessed 21 February 2013).

Gage, N. (2011) Title owners approve Arkaroola mining. ABC News, 15 August.

Http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-15/arkaroola-vote/2839442 (accessed 2 February

2014).

Garrett, P. (2008) Beverley Uranium Mine Expansion. Media Release PG/127, 28 August.

Graetz, G. and Franks, D.M. (2013) Incorporating Human Rights into the Corporate Domain:

Due Diligence, Impact Assessment and Integrated Risk Management. Impact Assess

Project Appraisal 31(2), 97-106.

Graetz, G. and Manning, H. (2011) The Politics of Uranium Mining in Australia. In

Australia’s Uranium Trade: The Domestic and Foreign Policy Challenges of a

Contentious Export, eds. M. Clarke, S. Frühling and A. O’Neil, 137-163. Ashgate,

Surrey.

Green, J. (2011) Monbiot goes nuclear: too much too soon. The Drum Opinion, 25 March.

Http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/45612.html (accessed 16 August 2012).

Grehan, H. (2010) Aboriginal Performance: Politics, Empathy and the Question of

Reciprocity. Australasian Drama Stud 56 (April), 38-52.

Guidolin, M. and Guseo, R. (2012) A nuclear power renaissance? Technol Forecast Soc

Change 79(9), 1746-1760.

Gundjeihmi Aboriginal Corporation (GAC). (n.d.) A History of Duress: A GAC Research

Project. Http://www.mirarr.net/duress1.htm (accessed 12 January 2011).

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

27

Hajat, R. (2008) Kayelekera and the uranium mining saga in Malawi. In Towards the

Consolidation of Malawi’s Democracy. Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung, Lilongwe, Malawi,

75-100.

Harrison, J. (2011) Human Rights Measurement: Reflections�on the Current Practice and

Future Potential of Human Rights Impact Assessment. J Hum Rights Pract 3(2), 162-

187.

Hintjens, H. (2000) Environmental direct action in Australia: the case of Jabiluka Mine.

Community Dev J 35(4), 377-390.

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). (2012) IAEA Updates Its Projections for

Nuclear Power in 2030. Http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/2012/np2030.html

(accessed 31 January 2014).

Jamard, M. (n.d.) Fukushima Response: Areva. World Nuclear Association. Http://world-

nuclear.org/fukushima/areva.html (accessed 27 March 2012).

Jarding, L.J. (2011) Uranium Activities’ Impacts on Lakota Territory. Indigenous Policy J

22(2), 1-21.

Jenkins, H. and Yakovleva, N. (2006) Corporate social responsibility in the mining industry:

Exploring trends in social and environmental disclosure. J Clean Prod 14(3-4), 271-284.

Johansen, B.E. (1997) The High Cost of Uranium in Navajoland. Akwesasne Notes 2(2), 10-

12.

Joskow, P.L. and Parsons, J.E. (2012) The Future of Nuclear Power After Fukushima. WP-

2012-001, CEEPR Working Papers; 2012-001, Center for Energy and Environmental

Policy Research: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/70857 (accessed 31 January 2014).

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

28

Katona, J. (2001) Mining uranium and indigenous Australians: The fight for Jabiluka. In

Moving Mountains: Communities Confront Mining and Globalisation, eds. G. Evans, J.

Goodman and N. Lansbury, 195-206. Mineral Policy Institute, Bondi Junction.

Kneen, J. (2011) Baker Lake struggles under pressure to allow uranium mining. Rabble.

Http://rabble.ca/news/2011/04/crossroads-tundra-baker-lake-struggles-under-pressure-

allow-uranium-mining (accessed 21 February 2013).

Leaver, R. (2011) The Economic Potential of Uranium Mining for Australia. In Australia’s

Uranium Trade: The Domestic and Foreign Policy Challenges of a Contentious Export,

eds. M. Clarke, S. Frühling and A. O’Neil, 87-107. Ashgate, Surrey.

Lichtblau, E. (2011) Lobbyists’ Long Effort to Revive Nuclear Industry Faces New Test. The

New York Times, 24 March.

Lovins, A.B. (2011) Foreword. In The World Nuclear Status Report 2010-2011: Nuclear

Power in a Post-Fukushima World: 25 Years After the Chernobyl Accident, eds. M.

Schneider, A. Froggatt and S. Thomas, 4-6. Worldwatch Institute, Washington.

Manthorpe, J. (2012) Vietnam defies post-Fukushima qualms and pursues nuclear generation

program. Vancouver Sun, 5 March.

Margarula, Y. (2005) Foreword. In Submission to House of Representatives Standing

Committee on Industry and Resources Inquiry into Developing Australia’s Non-Fossil

Fuel Energy Industry. Gundjeihmi Aboriginal Corporation, Jabiru, 1-6.

Marsh, J.K. (2010) A Critical Analysis of Decision-making Protocols used in Approving a

Commercial Mining License for the Beverley Uranium Mine in Adnyamathanha

Country: Toward Effective Indigenous Participation in Caring for Cultural Resources.

Manuscript. Department of Geographical and Environmental Studies, The University of

Adelaide, Adelaide.

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

29

Mayo, M. (2010) David and the Uranium Goliath on New Mexico’s Colorado Plateau. In

Dimensions in Health: A Sample of Rural and Global Health Issues, ed. J.B. Averill,

70-84. The University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

McClelland, J.R. (1985) The Report of the Royal Commission into British Nuclear Tests in

Australia. Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.

Ministero Dell’Interno. (2011) Referendum popolari 12 e 13 giugno 2011.

Http://www.interno.gov.it/mininterno/site/it/sezioni/sala_stampa/speciali/referendum_2

011/ (accessed 21 January 2014).

Morgan, M. (2012) Uranium Industry to Set Indigenous Jobs Benchmark. Yahoo! 7 News, 27

April. Http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/latest/13535393/uranium-industry-to-set-

indigenous-jobs-benchmark/ (accessed 27 April 2012).

Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). (2014) Nuclear Unites Under Construction Worldwide.

Http://www.nei.org/Knowledge-Center/Nuclear-Statistics/World-Statistics/Nuclear-

Units-Under-Construction-Worldwide (accessed 31 January 2014).

NomoGaia. (2012) A Methodology for Human Rights Impact Assessment. NomoGaia,

Denver.

Nzwili, F. (2012) Tanzania Churches Oppose Uranium Mining. All Africa, 18 June.

Http://allafrica.com/stories/201206191378.html (accessed 20 February 2013).

O’Faircheallaigh, C. (2011) Social impact assessment and Indigenous social development. In

New Directions in Social Impact Assessment: Conceptual and Methodological

Advances, eds. F. Vanclay and A.M. Esteves, 138-153. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.

O’Faircheallaigh, C. (2013) Extractive industries and Indigenous peoples: A changing

dynamic? J Rural Stud 30(April), 20-30.

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

30

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2012) Uranium 2011:

Resources, Production and Demand. A Joint Report by the OECD Nuclear Energy

Agency�and the International Atomic Energy Agency. OECD/NEA Publishing, Paris.

Packham, B. (2011) Labor backs sale of uranium to India. The Australian Online, 4

December. Http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/in-depth/labor-backs-sale-

of-uranium-to-india/story-fnba0rxe-1226213416704 (accessed 21 August 2012).

Pearson, N. (2007) Noel Pearson: Boom and dust lifestyle. The Australian, 3 February.

Pons, C.R. (2011) Chavez Halts Venezuela Nuclear Plans After Japanese Crisis. Bloomberg,

15 March.

Radio Free Europe (RFE). (2011) Turkey’s Erdogan Pays Visit to Tatarstan.

Http://www.rferl.org/articleprintview/2340790.html (accessed 7 March 2012).

Rodriguez, C.M. (2011) Mexico Scraps Plans to Build 10 Nuclear Power Plants in Favor of

Using Gas. Bloomberg, 30 November.

Samet, J.M., Kutvirt, D.M., Waxweiler, R.J. and Key, C.R. (1984) Uranium Mining and Lung

Cancer in Navajo Men. New England J Med 310(23), 1481-1484.

Scheele, F. (2011) Uranium from Africa: Mitigation of uranium mining impacts on society

and environment�by industry and governments. World Information Service on Energy

and Stichting Onderzoek Multinationale Ondernemingen, Amsterdam.

Sloan, P. and Hill, R. (1995) Corporate Aboriginal Relations. Hill Sloan Associates, Toronto.

Smil, V. (2010) Energy Transitions: History, Requirements, Prospects. Praeger, Santa

Barbara.

Southern African Institute for Environmental Assessment (SAIEA). (2011) Strategic

Environmental Assessment for the central Namib – Uranium Rush – Main Report.

Ministry of Mines and Energy, Windhoek.

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

31

Sovacool, B. (2010) Critically Weighing the Costs and Benefits of a Nuclear Renaissance. J

Integr Environ Sci 7(2), 105-123.

Sovacool, B. (2011) Questioning the Safety and Reliability of Nuclear Power: An Assessment

of Nuclear Incidents and Accidents. GAIA 20(2), 95-103.

Squassoni, S. (2008) Nuclear Renaissance: Is It Coming? Should It? Carnegie Endowment for

International Peace, Washington, D.C.

Srivastava, S. (2011) India’s Rising Nuclear Safety Concerns. Asia Sentinel, 27 October.

Sun, Y. (2011) Quake-Prone Taiwan Halts Nuclear Expansion as Japan Struggles at

Fukushima. Bloomberg, 13 April.

Survival International. (2009) 112 mining licences granted on Bushman land since evictions.

Http://www.survivalinternational.org/news/4286 (accessed 20 February 2013).

Swanepoel, E. (2012) NSW overturns uranium exploration ban. Mining Weekly, 15 February.

Http://www.miningweekly.com/print-version/nsw-overturns-uranium-exploration-ban-

2012-02-15 (accessed 18 February 2013).

Taylor, R. (2011) Australia weighs nuclear push after Japan crisis. Reuters, 22 March.

The Flinders News. (2009) Uranium mine called ‘World’s worst practice’. The Flinders

News, 21 August.

Tufts, H. (2010) The impacts of uranium mining on indigenous communities. Peace, Earth

and Justice News, 12 February.

Http://pejnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8041 (accessed

2 February 2014).

Vanclay, F. and Esteves, A.M. (2011) Current Issues and Trends in Social Impact

Assessment. In New Directions in Social Impact Assessment: Conceptual and

Methodological Advances, eds. F. Vanclay and A.M. Esteves, 3-19. Edward Elgar,

Cheltenham.

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

32

Varney, D. (2011) New and Liquid Modernities in the Regions of Australia: Reading

Ngurrumilmarrmiriyu [Wrong Skin]. Australasian Drama Stud 58(April), 212-227.

Wallace, P. and Smiles, V. (2007) Uranium mining and the question of corporate social

responsibility. ECOS Magazine 138, 20-22.

Way, C. (2013) The Politics of the Nuclear Renaissance: A Comment. In The Nuclear

Renaissance and International Security, eds. A. Stulberg and M. Fuhrmann, 154-174.

Stanford University Press, Stanford.

Webb, E. (1999) Indigenous People Oppose Beverley Uranium Mine. Green Left Weekly, 24

March. Http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/19996 (accessed 4 January 2011).

World Nuclear Association (WNA). (2012) After Fukushima: Nuclear power will continue to

expand. Http://world-

nuclear.org/uploadedFiles/org/PageMaker/Fukushima/WNA_Press_Release_08_March

_12.pdf (accessed 27 March 2012).

World Nuclear Association (WNA). (2012a) Supply of Uranium. Http://www.world-

nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Uranium-Resources/Supply-of-Uranium/ (access 2

February 2014).

World Nuclear Association (WNA). (2012b) Energy for the World – Why Uranium?

Http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Introduction/Energy-for-the-

World---Why-Uranium-/ (accessed 2 February 2014).

World Nuclear Association (WNA). (2013) World Uranium Mining Production.

Http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Mining-of-Uranium/World-

Uranium-Mining-Production/ (accessed 2 February 2014).

World Nuclear Association (WNA). (2013a) Australia’s Uranium. Http://www.world-

nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-A-F/Australia/ (accessed 2 February 2014).

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Tables

Table 1: Uranium Production by Country - 2012 Country Uranium Production - 2012 (t/U) Australia 6,991 Brazil 231 Canada 8,999 China 1,500 Czech Republic 228 France 3 Germany 50 India 385 Kazakhstan 21,317 Malawi 1,101 Namibia 4,495 Niger 4,667 Pakistan 45 Romania 90 Russia 2,872 South Africa 465 Ukraine 960 The United States 1,596 Uzbekistan 2,400 Total 58,394 Data drawn from WNA 2013.

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 2: Uranium Mining and Exploration Activity on First Peoples’ Lands Country Site Company Status Indigenous Group(s) Australia Olympic Dam BHP Billiton Operational Barngarla, Kokatha, Kuyani,

Adnyamathanha, Yandruwandha/ Yawarrawarrka, Arabunna

Australia Ranger Energy Resources of Australia (Rio Tinto)

Operational Mirarr

Australia Beverley (incorporating Beverley North)

Heathgate Resources

Operational Adnyamathanha

Australia Honeymoon Uranium One Operational Adnyamathanha

Australia Jabiluka Energy Resources of Australia

Stalled Mirarr

Australia Kintyre Cameco Exploration Martu Australia Angela Cameco-Paladin JV Exploration Central Arrernte Australia Yeelirrie BHP Billiton Exploration Wangai Australia Manyingee Paladin Exploration Ashburton Aboriginal Corporation Australia Ben Lomond Mega Uranium Exploration Malanbara Australia Mt Gee Marathon

Resources Defunct Adnyamathanha

Australia Four Mile Quasar Resources, Alliance Resources

Exploration Adnyamathanha

Australia Wiluna Toro Energy Feasibility Martu Australia Lake Maitland Mega Uranium Exploration Martu, Ngaanyatjarra, Wongi, Yamatji,

Wiluna, Punmu, Jigalong Australia Mulga Rock Energy and

Minerals Australia Exploration Ngaanyatjarra

Australia Valhalla Paladin Exploration Kalkadoon Canada McClean Lake Areva Operational Métis, other First Nations groups Canada Rabbit Lake Cameco Operational Hatchet Lake Denesuline First Nation,

Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation Canada McArthur River Cameco-Areva Operational Athabasca First Nation, Métis groups Canada Cigar Lake Cameco Exploration Athabasca First Nation, Métis groups Canada Dawn Lake Cameco Exploration Athabasca First Nation, Métis groups Canada Millennium Cameco Exploration Athabasca First Nation, Métis groups Canada Shea Creek Areva-UEX Exploration Athabasca First Nation, Métis groups United States

Crow Butte Cameco Operational Oglala Sioux (Pine Ridge Reservation)

United States

Grants Mineral District, New Mexico, encompassing various leases including Church Rock

Miscellaneous Exploration Navajo, Acoma and Laguna Indian Reservations

United States

Willow Creek (Christensen Ranch)

Uranium One Operational Eastern Shoshone, Northern Arapaho

Namibia Aussinanis Reptile Uranium Exploration Topnaar (Nama) Niger Arlit (SOMAÏR) Areva Operational Tuareg Niger Akouta (COMINAK) Areva Operational Tuareg Niger Imouraren Areva Commissioned Tuareg

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Highlights of the paper: Uranium Mining and First Peoples: The nuclear renaissance confronts historical legacies

• The nuclear power industry requires augmenting fuel supply in the coming decades

• Reactor fuel supply will be impeded if uranium production cannot expand • A consequential barrier to uranium production is opposition by First Peoples

to new mines • The uranium industry suffers from the historical legacy of poor community

relations • The industry should place greater emphasis on community engagement with

First Peoples