Services.
Indigenous cultural heritage ethnographic assessments and surveys.
The approach taken to an Indigenous cultural heritage survey or assessment depends on a number of factors: any methodological preferences held by the relevant Aboriginal corporation or representative native title body; the needs of the proponent and the stage of project development; the nature of the work program proposed; the extent to which the nominated location has been subject to previous surveys, the Traditional Custodians available to participate in consultations; and the type of information needed to meet legislative requirements. Generally, assessments are classified as either Work Program or Work Area Heritage Assessments (these are also referred to as Work Program or Work Area Clearances); however, methodological variations to suit particular purposes are always possible, if all parties are in agreement.
In most instances, cultural information will be recorded to a Site Avoidance level. If a more comprehensive level of recording is required, for example, to support an application to disturb a site under section 18 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act (1972) (AHA), a Site Identification level of recording will be followed (also known as a section 18 recording). Again, variations on these can be agreed between the parties. These are described further below.
Work area heritage assessments
A Work Area Heritage Assessment method (often referred to as Work Area Clearance) entails a similar approach to a Work Program Heritage Assessment, but is undertaken over larger areas for which a program of works is proposed. When the precise location of works is yet to be determined and a degree of flexibility is required, a Work Area Heritage Assessment approach may be the most appropriate. Any heritage places found will usually be recorded to Site Avoidance level. This method can provide a proponent with greater flexibility in determining the final location of works, but it is important to keep in mind that survey work is time consuming and labour intensive, and this approach may be less cost effective. Although this approach can assist the proponent to avoid the need to seek Ministerial consent under section 18 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act (1972), in many instances, Traditional Custodians are reluctant to survey broad work areas and a more well-defined approach is often more successful.
Regardless of the type of assessment undertaken, opportunities are made throughout a field survey, and during the final survey meeting for Traditional Custodians and the consultant(s) to review and discuss the survey progress and results and draft recommendations and advice in the absence of the proponent. This is to ensure that Traditional Custodians are able to speak freely and fully and that the advice they provide is an accurate representation of their views and given without any perceptions of duress.
Once survey team members agree that all matters have been addressed, they may be comfortable sharing the results with the proponent. Any informal verbal advice given at this stage, however, must be considered non-definitive. Formal written advice will be provided within the agreed period of time.
All heritage places recorded to Site Avoidance and Site Identification levels are documented through notes, photographs and GIS spatial data showing location and extent. With Traditional Custodian permission, voice recording and film may also be used to increase transparency and detail.
Site Identification (Section 18) recording
For an application to disturb an Aboriginal site to be considered by the ACHC, places that will be impacted by the proposed development need first to be comprehensively recorded to a Site Identification level. This should provide adequate information for the ACHC to be able to make a determination as per section 5 of the AHA (1972). Ethnographic site recording to Site Identification level involves considered discussion with relevant Aboriginal people and groups to record a site’s story and values. Sites may be significant to Aboriginal people for spiritual, social, aesthetic or historical reasons (Burra Charter 1992).
An important part of Site Identification recording is an assessment of the significance of a place, which can be informed by other guidelines such as the Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter (1992) including Practice Note: The Burra Charter and Indigenous Cultural Heritage Management (Version1: November 2013) and the 2001 Australia ICOMOS Statement on Indigenous Cultural Heritage. There is no definitive approach to assessing the significance of a place of Aboriginal heritage value in Western Australia, or nationally, and not all criteria are relevant to the significance assessment of every heritage place. At times, Traditional Custodians may not wish some cultural information to be shared with the proponent. In some cases, a separate confidential section of a report can be prepared, if acceptable to participants.
Pre-field desk-top research
All field assessments are preceded by a desk-top review of relevant literature and databases including previous heritage surveys reports undertaken within the same region, known heritage sites recorded on the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Inquiry System (ACHIS) maintained by the Department of Planning, Land and Heritage (DPLH), anthropological and historical literature and published research, media and grey literature.
Relevant information in the form of maps showing the location of proposed works, survey areas and previously recorded heritage places, and excerpts and summaries from previous reports are prepared by the anthropologist and shared with the Traditional Custodian survey team. Copies of reports may also be taken and shared with Traditional Custodians to ensure that participants are fully informed; of particular importance is having knowledge of previous advice given by senior Traditional Custodians, who may have since passed away, the adequacy of methods followed and the reliability of results.
Work program heritage assessments
For assessment of discrete areas such as access tracks, drill holes, drill pads, small camp locations or the installation of infrastructure a Work Program Heritage Assessment (often referred to as a Work Program Clearance) method may be most appropriate. This is a targeted survey that will inspect and assess the areas nominated. Any cultural heritage values or places identified will be recorded, in the first instance, to Site Avoidance level; that is, the location and extent of the place and a general description and characterisation will be recorded to enable the proponent to avoid the location and protect any Aboriginal heritage values identified. During the field assessment, Traditional Custodians and proponent may choose to jointly consider and agree on modifications to the proposed work program to avoid these locations. If time permits and necessary permissions are secured, these additional areas may be incorporated into the field survey. Proponents are advised to discuss this with the representative body for Traditional Custodians before commencing and to consider whether enough time has been allowed for surveying any additional areas. Having a company representative available on the ground enables decisions to be made about alternative routes or work areas. Traditional Custodians may also request modification to the types of activities that can occur within a survey area, or section of a survey area. For example, in some places, drilling may not be allowed, but construction of an access track may be acceptable.
Sites with ethnographic values intersecting with survey areas will be recorded by an anthropologist typically, but not exclusively, working closely with older or more senior Aboriginal people; it is important, however, than younger Traditional Custodians also contribute to and take part in these assessments in culturally appropriate ways so as to capture intergenerational views, nurture discussion and support the transfer of knowledge from older to younger participants. Often this is undertaken at the same time as, or following, an archaeological assessment of the same areas. This affords Traditional Custodians the opportunity to take into consideration any archaeological evidence when assessing the ethnographic values of the area. While the ethnographic and archaeological survey teams may choose to work together, the anthropologist and senior Aboriginal people may drive or fly to recognised points in the landscape to discuss and record the ethnographic values of the country.
Site Avoidance recording
During Site Avoidance level recording the location and extent of a site and a general description and characterisation will be recorded to enable the proponent to avoid the location and protect any Aboriginal heritage values identified. Site Avoidance recording will not provide a detailed description of the cultural values of places and is therefore not sufficient for the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Committee (ACHC) to make a decision on whether a place meets the criteria for an Aboriginal site under section 5 of the AHA (1972). It does, however, provide the proponent with enough information to be able to protect Aboriginal heritage values in the project area and to hold a certain level of appreciation of the significance of the land to its Traditional Custodians. If places with heritage values are found on the land and the development is unable to avoid them, it will be necessary for the proponent to apply under section 18 of the AHA (1972) for permission to disturb the land on which the sites are located.
Important considerations
Proponents should provide Traditional Custodians with accurate information on a proposal, including technical detail, and be prepared to answer any questions they may have regarding the proposed works. It is not possible for Traditional Custodians to assess the potential impact of a proposed program of works on cultural heritage values or places in the absence of knowledge of the full scope and nature of those works. The Consultation Policy for Section 18 Applications (November 2023) stipulates the need for “full disclosure of information relevant to the application in relation to possible impacts on Aboriginal heritage, such as sites or objects” as well as the provision of “information on any feasible alternative locations or any feasible alternative methods as to how the landowner may undertake the proposed purpose, which may have alternative or lower impacts on the Aboriginal sites or objects.” (Consultation Policy for Section 18 Applications, 2023, p. 2)
Traditional Custodians should not be asked to consider isolated pockets of land and parts of projects without knowledge of how these may be connected to works proposed on adjoining areas or larger projects. In the absence of such disclosure, Traditional Custodians are not in a position to provide informed advice.
Social surroundings consultations and assessments.
As part of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process in Western Australia, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as per Part IV of the Environmental Protection Act (1986) (EP Act), requires proponents to take full and comprehensive consideration of the potential impact that a proposal may have on a range of environmental factors. The environmental factor of social surroundings—or the social environment—is one of two factors under the EPA-designated theme of People. The EPA is paying increasing attention to this factor and the ways that it intersects with other environmental factors, namely, biological and physical factors, across all other themes: Sea, Land, Air and Water. The aim of the EPA in regard to this factor is “to protect social surroundings from significant harm.”
Proponents are required to demonstrate satisfactory consultation with stakeholders and adequate consideration of their concerns and values in regard to potential impacts of a proposal on their social environment such that the EPA is able to identify specific environmental outcomes and determine whether these are “significant.” A range of considerations are addressed by the EPA in assessing significance such as the consequences of mitigation strategies, connections and interactions between impacts, cumulative and residual impacts and the extent of impacts, which may exist beyond the geographical boundaries of the project footprint.
In addition to a consideration of significance, the EP Act (1986) (Section 3[2]) requires that to be considered within an EIA there must be a clear direct link between a proposal’s impact on the physical or biological surroundings and the social surroundings. That is, the social surroundings, defined as a person’s or a group’s “aesthetic, cultural, economic or other social surroundings” are either directly affected by the proposal’s impacts on the physical and biological surroundings or the proposal’s impacts on the social surroundings, in turn, impact biological or physical surroundings. Again, these impacts need to be assessed as significant.
Consideration of social surroundings can include, but is not limited to, matters pertaining to tangible and intangible Aboriginal cultural heritage; natural and historical heritage; visual and other amenity; quality of life; access to country; noise, dust and odour; and, importantly, water resources. Increasingly, however, in the context of modernising Indigenous Land Use Agreements and greater attention to the human impacts of proposals alongside physical and biological impacts, proponents are choosing to consider impacts that are important to Indigenous stakeholders beyond EP Act (1986) definitions. This can include the full range of native title rights, a broader understanding of economic impacts, consideration of impacts beyond the immediate project location and adjacent areas, intergenerational impacts, impacts that are not limited to those derived directly from a proposal’s impacts on the physical or biological environment and impacts that may not align with EPA criteria for significance.
The relationship between the EP Act (1986) and the AHA (1972) in social surroundings assessments is often confused, as both address matters of Aboriginal heritage. The EPA considers that many of the impacts of a proposal that may damage or disturb Aboriginal cultural heritage can be mitigated by the processes of the AHA (1972), provided these processes are likely to result in avoidance or harm minimisation. If, however, the EPA determines that AHA (1972) processes are not reasonably likely to meet the EPA’s objective to protect social surroundings from “significant harm” or if the AHA (1972) does not apply to a particular place or impact, an EPA assessment may still be required. Proponents are required to provide information on how Aboriginal cultural heritage will be protected by AHA (1972) processes and demonstrate that reasonable steps have been taken to consult with relevant stakeholders and that stakeholders have been provided with sufficient information to enable meaningful consultation. Proponents should seek EPA advice on the full range of information required.
Acacia Heritage facilitates social surroundings consultations with Indigenous stakeholders and proponents in Western Australia through formal meetings and on Country and provides advice to both Aboriginal corporations, other representative bodies and proponents on the scope and methodology appropriate to particular circumstances. Our goal is to ensure that Indigenous stakeholders are fully informed and have established processes for formal engagement with proponents to collaboratively address, mitigate and monitor potential impacts on the social environment. Ideally, Traditional Custodians have access to documentation and technical experts who can advise on a range of matters such as mining landforms, hydrogeology, ecological change, rehabilitation, and demographic and economic impacts. Consultation should be, as per EPA advice, early and broad; that is, they should commence during the pre-feasibility stage of a proposal and engage with the full complement of stakeholders and issues so that decision-making processes and risks are understood by all and avoidance and mitigation strategies can be jointly developed.
Mine-closure and the post-mining landscape: Indigenous stakeholder consultations.
At a time when many mines across Western Australia are reaching their end of cross-generational operational lives, mine closure, as practice, policy and legacy, is yet to become a primary concern of Aboriginal corporation boards, internal heritage and environment committees or formal discussions and engagement agreements with proponents. To the extent that they are addressed, these topics are generally considered in a piecemeal fashion as a component of other discussions such as life-of-mine planning or during consultations, for example, on the impact of mining activities on cultural heritage.
Traditional Custodians, as primary stakeholders and land users, are often poorly informed about the potential, limitations and risks associated with the post-mining landscape, particularly in terms of residual impacts—what cannot be undone (e.g., new landforms, altered visual amenity, different elevations, access to Country; permanently altered or destroyed water ways and water resources). This is compounded by the comparatively lower priority given to the socio-cultural impacts of mine closure in comparison to biophysical and geochemical factors.
Acacia Heritage facilitates consultations between Traditional Custodians, proponents and other disciplinary experts (e.g., in the areas of mining landforms, hydrogeology, ecology and landscape architecture) on the topic of mine closure and the post-mining landscape. Ideally, consultations commence at the feasibility stage of mine-planning. This maximises the potential for mitigating risks and realising opportunities, such as the repurposing of extant mine-sites, from an informed position. Our goal is to support better outcomes for all stakeholders and the environment.
Other services.
Other services provided by Acacia Heritage include:
Cultural landscape mapping
Community values assessments
Genealogical / native title research
Historical research
