Hey there, welcome to The Forward! I’m Bronwyn, I spent many years leading social performance and community relations in mining, including as Head of Social Performance at Rio Tinto. Now I run Cantilever, where I advise mining and resources companies on sustainability strategy and complex stakeholder engagement.
If you want to talk about your strategy, get in touch with me here.
Read time: 5 mins
Last week we looked at Whitehaven's annual report against a Queensland bill that changes the game in terms of who can object to a mine.
This week, I’m looking at what a company needs to have in place before it commits to building, or in this case rebuilding, a mine.
On 2 September, Sibanye-Stillwater's board approved a A$490 million restart of the Mt Lyell copper mine at Queenstown, on Tasmania's west coast. The mine first produced copper in 1892 and has been in care and maintenance since 2014.
A lot changed while the mine was quiet. In 2012 the International Finance Corporation made the consent of Indigenous people a condition of project finance. In 2013, and again in 2024, the International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM) committed its members to the same standard. Sibanye-Stillwater is an ICMM member.
So I read the company's report with one question in mind: the agreements Mt Lyell relies on were written before the mine closed. Do they still measure up in 2026?
- Bronwyn
Sibanye-Stillwater
Source: Sibanye-Stillwater Sustainability Report 2025 (106pp) · Published 24 April 2026 · Reporting period 1 January to 31 December 2025 · Prepared with reference to GRI and ICMM · Selected figures independently assured
Sibanye-Stillwater is a Johannesburg company most Australians would not think of as a copper miner. It is one of the world's largest producers of platinum and palladium, a big South African gold miner, and increasingly a re-miner: recycling autocatalysts in the United States, retreating zinc tailings at Century in north-west Queensland, and now restarting Mt Lyell. South Africa is 96 per cent of its workforce.
The restart: first copper in early 2029, an initial 23-year mine life, up to 300 jobs, $9.5 million from the Tasmanian Government for early works and $25 million in reimbursed payroll tax and royalties once mining resumes.
Passage 1: Two mines, two agreements
Sibanye has two Australian sites, and the report describes heritage management at both in a single sentence.
In Australia, heritage sites at Century are managed under legislative requirements and the Gulf Communities Agreement, while at Mt Lyell, 29 sites are protected under established management approaches aligned with the Copper Mines of Tasmania Agreement.
In one sentence, everything appears in hand, however, the two agreements are different kinds of things.
The Gulf Communities Agreement was signed in 1997 between the Century mine, the Queensland Government and three native title groups, the Waanyi, Mingginda and Gkuthaarn-Kukatj. It has engagement forums, a benefits trust and a seat at the table for Traditional Owners for the life of the mine. It is one of the earliest agreements of its kind in the country.
The Copper Mines of Tasmania Agreement is a 1999 agreement between the company and the Tasmanian Government, ratified by the Tasmanian Parliament. It sets the terms for the mine between the company and the state. It is not an agreement with Traditional Owners, and given that Tasmania has no determined native title, there is no equivalent to the Gulf agreement sitting behind it.
The 1999 agreement was made with the government, more than a decade before FPIC became a lending condition and an ICMM commitment.
Plain English: One agreement has Traditional Owners at the table; the other has the government. The report suggests both are the same.
Passage 2: Good disclosure
A word before the quote, because this area is often misunderstood in a mining context. Free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) is the principle that Indigenous people should agree to a project on their country before it proceeds, without pressure, with enough time to consider it, and with transparency. It is often treated in Australia as a native title concept but it isn't. The right to negotiate under the Native Title Act requires good-faith negotiation for a set period, after which a tribunal can decide if the project can go ahead. FPIC came into mining through project finance and ICMM membership, and it is the standard Sibanye's human rights due diligence measures the company against. Page 86, in the governance section, is that assessment for the Australian operations.
The highest-priority risks identified at the Australian operations — based on severity and likelihood — relate to First Nations cultural heritage and free, prior and informed consent (FPIC), and to discrimination affecting safe and fair working conditions. [...] Key gaps identified: Limited understanding of FPIC among workers and no clear segment process to secure FPIC for new project approvals; Cultural-heritage responsibilities concentrated in a single individual, with procedures insufficiently formalised; Limited structured measures to prevent sexual harassment and cultural discrimination at the operational level.
The report says 29 heritage sites are managed under an agreement and also notes that heritage and consent are the top human rights risk in Australia, that there is no clear process for securing consent on the project approval, and heritage responsibility sits with one person.
Almost no ASX-listed company writes “no clear process to secure FPIC for new project approvals” about itself. Sibanye did, in a public document, and measured itself against a commitment it has made as an ICMM member. That is what honest due diligence looks like on the page. It also hands the Mt Lyell team its work programme: a consent process with Tasmanian Aboriginal people and a formalised heritage function, both in place before early works start in 2027.
Plain English: The heritage pages tell you what the company is managing from a heritage perspective. The due diligence pages show you where the risks lie.
The Frame
So, do the agreements Mt Lyell relies on still measure up in 2026?
Legally, yes, but there is work to do, especially since Sibanye is a member of ICMM.
Page 79 gives you the reassuring version: sites counted, agreement named. Page 86 gives you the diagnosis, in the company's words: heritage and consent are the top risk, the consent process does not yet exist, and heritage depends on one person. A reader who stops at page 79 thinks Australia is the quiet corner of the portfolio. A reader who reaches page 86 knows exactly what stands between the board's decision and first copper, and knows that in Tasmania the company will have to build that process itself.
That is the value of due diligence written honestly. It is the one part of a sustainability report that describes the future rather than the past.
Two practical takeaways for anyone who reads or prepares the community and heritage sections of a report:
Read the human rights due diligence results before the heritage pages. Site counts and agreement names describe what is in place. The ranked risks and named gaps describe what the company itself thinks it still has to fix, which is what you need before an approval, an investment or a negotiation.
When two agreements are named in one sentence, check what kind each one is. A native title agreement and a state agreement are both agreements. Only one of them has Traditional Owners as a party, and that is the one that carries consent.
Glossary
Free, prior and informed consent (FPIC).
The principle that Indigenous people should agree to a project affecting their country before it proceeds: freely, without pressure; prior, with time to consider; informed, with full information. It has no statutory footing in Australia and enters mining practice through lender requirements and ICMM membership.
Native title agreement.
An agreement between a company and the native title holders or claimants for an area, setting out heritage protection, benefits and engagement for the life of a project. The Gulf Communities Agreement (1997) at Century is one.
State agreement.
A contract between a company and a state government, ratified by Parliament, setting the terms for a major project. The Copper Mines of Tasmania Agreement (1999) is the instrument the report cites for heritage management at Mt Lyell.
Human rights due diligence.
A structured process for identifying, ranking and addressing the ways a company's operations could harm people, expected under the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. Sibanye-Stillwater reports its results by region, with the Australian gaps on page 86.
What did you think of this newsletter?
This week at CFS - cultural heritage and agreement-making
Most of the agreements I have negotiated or reviewed share the same architecture, whether they run to 30 pages or 300, and the difference between a good one and a difficult one is usually decided before anyone sits down: who is at the table, and what each side is there to secure. Cantilever helps companies work out both, from the heritage protocol to the implementation committee that keeps the relationship working after signing. If that is a conversation worth having, get in touch by emailing Bronwyn directly at [email protected].