Search

This paper examines communicating geoscience to indigenous peoples using a communication model that closely follows geological models for pollution issues. Although geoscientists will expend large amounts of energy in understanding a scientific process, relatively little energy is often expended in the analogous communication model. Reasons for this include a narrow focus on pure science, lack of confidence in engaging in communication and negative perceptions of communication ideas. Indigenous peoples are defined as ‘first occupiers’ of regions or nations relatively untouched by the predominant ‘Western–Asian’ technological-oriented culture. Few indigenous peoples are totally ‘untouched’ by the dominant world culture. Four cases studies from the Solomon Islands explore communication strategies relating to land access, a live volcanic event, the setting up of a gold mine, and raising awareness of volcanic hazards. Generic best practice advice offered includes the following: understanding of indigenous culture, customs, values, taboos and political–governance structures; involvement of indigenous people at every level of the communication process; identifying and including all stakeholders; a clear message, method and outcome focus; usage wherever possible of face-to-face communication and pictures as well as words; involvement of the community in practical exercises; a thorough follow-up and evaluation process; and sufficient time to allow the process to be effective.

This paper reviews the principles and applications of sustainable development as applied to minerals (sustainable minerals). The key pillars of sustainable minerals are well known and include economic, community, environmental, and political considerations. The ideal solution is one that finds a balance between community benefit, economic development, profit, and minimal negative environmental and political impacts. This is, of course, fine in theory but in the ‘real world’ difficult to achieve. From a geoscience perspective this paper argues that non-private sector geoscientists have a crucial role to play in developing the sustainable minerals paradigm to an intellectually mature and usable form. The geoscience approach includes re-interpreting the rich legacy of geoscience data and acquisition of new data (geological mapping, 3 and 4D modelling, geophysical and geo­chemical information) and contextualizing this information with socio-economic and environmental data (e.g. ethnicity, social mix, wealth indicators, environmental sensitivity indicators) to assist with strategic and localized decision-making, maximizing benefits, and minimizing adverse impacts. This approach also involves modelling the full lifecycle of minerals, mines, mineral commodities, and mineral-bearing land in an attempt to quantify benefits and disbenefits of mineral extraction. One crucial key element of a sustainable minerals approach is a mix between ‘hard’ science and social science and genuine inclusion and consultation with stakeholders, especially impacted communities. As geoscientists we are in a position to explain clearly the benefits of mineral development to society and the disbenefits of ‘nimbyism’ (e.g. exporting problems to countries less able to manage mineral extraction) and promote a ‘custodianship’ ethos of mineral development that is the only way to realizing the key principle of sustainability, i.e. leaving the planet in a state that our grandchildren can enjoy.

The composition of mining waste varies according to the nature of the mining operation and many other factors, but where the same mineral is extracted from a similar style of metalliferous or industrial mineral deposit or coal, the waste usually has similar characteristics. There are many potential sources of industrial minerals from mining waste. Waste from one mine may be a byproduct or coproduct in a mining operation elsewhere. Much technical research work on mine waste utilization, for example studies on slate waste, has included a manufacturing process. The waste is invariably an inferior material compared with an industrial mineral from a primary resource for the manufacturing process. Successful markets have not been found. Four scenarios are proposed where an industrial mineral product made from mining waste may be marketed successfully. These are a bulk product for a local market made with minimal or no processing; a low unit value product and a cost-effective alternative source of a mineral for local industry; an industrial mineral commodity traded nationally or internationally; and extraction of a high unit value rare mineral. Making an industrial mineral product from mining waste and successfully marketing it should involve minimal processing of the waste consistent with the value of the mineral product.

The Pacific small island state of Solomon Islands gained independence from Britain in 1978. Solomon Islands has a population of around 400 000 mainly Melanesian people distributed across six moderately sized islands and hundreds of smaller islands. The traditional economy has been based on hunter-gatherer and small-scale farming activities, with the bulk of the population residing in self-sufficient rainforest and coastal villages. Melanesians have a particularly strong cultural attachment to land, which is considered to be within the custodianship of the community at large. Individual land ownership in the Western economic sense is largely unknown. Melanesian society and culture is strong and complex. Colonial and post-independence Solomon Islands has had to face the challenges of a transition from a traditional society to a partially urbanized society and a rapidly increasing population and changing economic drivers and dynamics. Mining and mineral development is one area of economic activity that holds the promise of generating hard currency quickly to develop the country, but that needs to be achieved in a sustainable manner. Gold Ridge is situated in Central Guadalcanal, some 22 km southeast of the country’s capital town, Honiara. Gold Ridge hosts around 1.4 million ounces of epithermal volcanic-hosted gold. Ross Mining NL began the construction of Solomon Islands’ first gold mine in 1997 and operated a highly successful gold mine between 1997 and 2000, when ethnic tensions (unrelated to the mine) closed the operations. This paper documents the painstaking negotiations and planning that took place from 1993 and particularly from 1995 – 1996 which paved the way forward for the development of a gold mine within a fragile tropical rainforest environment among traditional Melanesian people who had little prior knowledge of modern mining activities.

At 07:45 a.m. on 2 April 2007, a tsunami hit Ghizo Island, western Solomon Islands in the south-west Pacific. Thirty-three people died on Ghizo, of whom 31 originated from a relatively small migrant Gilbertese community (transmigrated in the 1950s–1970s from Kiribati), while only two were from the majority Melanesian community. This paper documents an extensive 4-year study that addresses the potential core reasons for this asymmetrical casual impact. Community-participatory social science research was undertaken in two Gilbertese villages and two Melanesian villages. The four villages had similar spatial vulnerabilities due to their coastal location, although they had variable access to the safer higher ground. Gilbertese villages had less diverse ocean-reliant livelihoods, a limited knowledge of hinterland bush resource utilisation, uncertainties regarding land rights, and perceived ethnic discrimination. Melanesian villages had strong wantok and kastom social reciprocity cultures, a diverse set of livelihoods, wider social capital with other Melanesian communities, and greater security regarding land rights. This paper argues that these key factors—linked to the lower status as a migrant community of the Gilbertese, a limited sharing of knowledge between communities, government blind spots and power hierarchies—explain both the disproportionate impacts of the disaster and issues that impact longer-term aid intervention and social cohesion.

At 07:45 a.m. on 2 April 2007, a tsunami hit Ghizo Island, western Solomon Islands in the south-west Pacific. Thirty-three people died on Ghizo, of whom 31 originated from a relatively small migrant Gilbertese community (transmigrated in the 1950s–1970s from Kiribati), while only two were from the majority Melanesian community. This paper documents an extensive 4-year study that addresses the potential core reasons for this asymmetrical casual impact. Community-participatory social science research was undertaken in two Gilbertese villages and two Melanesian villages. The four villages had similar spatial vulnerabilities due to their coastal location, although they had variable access to the safer higher ground. Gilbertese villages had less diverse ocean-reliant livelihoods, a limited knowledge of hinterland bush resource utilisation, uncertainties regarding land rights, and perceived ethnic discrimination. Melanesian villages had strong wantok and kastom social reciprocity cultures, a diverse set of livelihoods, wider social capital with other Melanesian communities, and greater security regarding land rights. This paper argues that these key factors—linked to the lower status as a migrant community of the Gilbertese, a limited sharing of knowledge between communities, government blind spots and power hierarchies—explain both the disproportionate impacts of the disaster and issues that impact longer-term aid intervention and social cohesion.