Good morning to everyone in London and to those of you joining virtually. First, I'd like to acknowledge and pay my respects to all traditional owners and First Nations people that host our operations around the world. As Chair of Rio Tinto, I have the privilege of welcoming you to our 2024 annual general meeting. The AGM is an opportunity for us to have an open conversation about Rio Tinto's progress, our opportunities, but also our challenges. However, before the meeting begins, I think it's right that we take a moment to remember the six people who were killed in a plane crash near Fort Smith in Canada earlier this year. We lost four colleagues from our Diavik Diamond Mine: Diane Balsillie, Howard Benwell, Joel Tetso, and Sean Krawec. We also lost Paszolo Alba and another airline crew member who is not being named publicly.
We at Rio Tinto are completely devastated. We continue to be in touch with the families and the community at Fort Smith as they grieve for their relatives, colleagues, and friends. We know this tragedy will affect them for years to come. Our colleagues are dearly missed, and our thoughts remain with their families, everyone at Fort Smith, and our team at Diavik. I suggest we pause to reflect and to remember. Thank you.
Again, it's a privilege to be here and to introduce my fellow board members of the Rio Tinto Board: Dean Dalla Valle, Chair of our Sustainability Committee, Simon Henry, Chair of our Audit and Risk Committee, Kaisa Hietala, Sam Laidlaw, Senior Independent Director of Rio Tinto plc and Chair of our People and Remuneration Committee, you'll be hearing from him a little later, Susan Lloyd-Hurwitz, Peter Cunningham, who's our Chief Financial Officer, Jakob Stausholm, our CEO, Simon McKeon, Senior Independent Director of Rio Tinto Limited, Martina Merz, Jennifer Nason, Joc O'Rourke, Ngaire Woods, and Ben Wyatt. We also have our Group Company Secretary, Andy Hodges. We've made more changes to the board since last year, and this is reflecting our desire to address the skill mix and experience needs identified in the review we did in June 2022.
I'm pleased to say that since our last meeting, Joc O'Rourke and Martina Merz have joined our board, and Sharon Thorne will join us in July. Together, they will deepen our mining, project building, downstream customer and audit experience, as well as our approach to sustainability and organizational culture. As part of a phased transition, Simon McKeon will step down as a director at the end of these annual general meetings, and we are extremely grateful to Simon for his invaluable contributions and leadership, particularly after Juukan Gorge, and we wish him very well for the future. I'm very excited to be leading a board that shares such a commitment to help Rio Tinto achieve its full potential. Last year, we continued to stabilize our operations, particularly in the iron ore business, and we are carrying that momentum with us in 2024.
We are maintaining a focus on the four strategic objectives that Jakob laid out three years ago: to become best operator, to strive for impeccable ESG credentials, to excel in development, and to deepen our social license. Our strong results in 2023 demonstrate progress towards these objectives and financial discipline. This discipline has enabled us to invest in the future of our business while at the same time delivering more attractive returns to you, our shareholders, with total dividends declared of $7.1 billion. Our strong balance sheet also allows us to invest in improving the health of our existing assets while also shaping our portfolio for the long term. I'm excited about our growth, particularly as we execute projects at scale, even in the most challenging of conditions. We are ramping up copper production at Oyu Tolgoi underground.
It's an ore deposit equivalent to the area of Manhattan in New York, at a depth of 1.3 km below the Gobi Desert in Mongolia, and connected by around 200 km of tunnels. At Simandou in Guinea, we're working with our partners to build a mine and 600 km of new rail to unlock incredibly high-grade iron ore, which will enable low-carbon steelmaking. At the Rincon Lithium Project in Argentina, we've made progress developing a small starter battery-grade lithium carbonate plant where production is expected to start by the end of the year. This project involved building an airstrip in a region that stands 3.8 km above sea level. This gives you, I hope, a sense of how physically and operationally demanding it is to provide the vast quantities of metals and minerals the world needs to grow and transition to renewable energy.
But I believe we are more than ready for this challenge. It's in the company's DNA. We are fortunate to have an incredible exploration team with a wealth of expertise and data supported by one of the largest multi-commodity exploration budgets, a budget that has been consistent throughout the cycle over the last 15 years. In fact, we have one of the best exploration pipelines in years, totaling more than 100 projects across our commodities of interest. As we prepare for the future, we are working very hard to embed our commitment to ESG and deepen our social license in all aspects of our decision-making. I and other board members have had the chance to visit 15 Rio Tinto sites in the last 12 months, and we've been encouraged to see how this commitment extends throughout the mining lifecycle, from exploration right through to closure.
Technology and innovation are also key to how we are driving progress, creating safer and more efficient operations while decarbonizing our processes and value chains. We are serious about what it takes to reduce our carbon footprint. We are no longer just setting targets. We are taking action to deliver them. We hit a major milestone at the beginning of the year signing two agreements to purchase wind and solar power, totaling 2.2 GW for our aluminum assets in Queensland, Australia. Electricity usage for our Pacific operations accounts for about 26% of our carbon emissions, so repowering these assets with renewables, sun and wind, instead of coal, is essential to meeting our overall commitments. Still, the challenge of decarbonizing the world's economy and the activities of societies across the world, as you know, is immense.
There is a large gap between what current technology can deliver and what's needed for the global energy transition. This will require a significant research and development effort to find new technologies and better ways of doing things, let alone the sheer quantity of materials, the metals, to enable the energy transition. Rio Tinto has a strategic role to play in closing these gaps and to help societies resolve some of their most urgent issues. This includes tackling climate change and helping customers to secure the supply of the materials they need, which also contributes to national and global economic growth. As a board, we have spent considerable time with governments, customers, NGOs, and partners around the world to better understand how combining our knowledge and capabilities can create win-win opportunities.
However, to make the most of these opportunities, we need to do three things: achieve consistent performance, get better at making the argument for our industry, and navigate the underlying tension between environment and social needs. First, operational performance. We need to keep striving for greater consistency and reliability across all our assets. Our strategy and four objectives provide a roadmap to build a stronger Rio Tinto for the long term, but we don't always get it right. We are still learning how to build upon our successes and failures to continuously improve. This applies to Rio Tinto's ongoing cultural change journey, which is fundamental to financial performance and our long-term performance and success. Two years since we started learning from the findings and implementing the recommendations of the Everyday Respect Report, the positive momentum continues.
But creating and maintaining a culture where everyone can be at their best requires time and constant effort. Elizabeth Broderick is returning this year to conduct a review, and we will again publicly release the review once she completes it. By building an environment where everyone feels safe, respected, and empowered, we can become a home to even more talented people who drive innovation and operating performance and also act as our biggest advocates to society, which brings me to our second challenge. We need to keep advocating our role in society. We are imperfect as an industry, but what we produce is essential. The World Economic Forum recently published a report which stated that no generation of mining leaders have faced greater complexity, speed, or scale of change than today. Consider copper.
Most projections consider we'll need 700 million tons in the next 20 years if we want to meet our net-zero targets of 2050. That amount, 700 million tons, is as much as humans have produced through all of our history, over 100,000 years. It's a huge demand, and there's a huge gap. We face a clear opportunity and challenge in this energy transition. The International Energy Agency, the IEA, says the world added 50% more capacity to generate renewable electricity in 2023 than in 2022 and predicts the next five years we'll see the fastest growth yet, so encouraging news. However, investment in renewable energy and infrastructure has been lagging. For the global energy system to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, the IEA also predicts investment here will need to triple from current levels of just over $1 trillion a year to $4 trillion by the end of this decade.
All this infrastructure requires the materials that we produce at Rio Tinto. Meanwhile, we are still experiencing traditional drivers of demand. Indeed, we are essential to so many aspects of our daily lives. Before you arrived here, you may have seen clips from our new podcast, Things You Can't Live Without. I'm a fan of this series because it helps to do something we need to do more of. It helps people understand what it takes to create the objects that we rely on and that we may take for granted: our phones, cars, electric bikes, even the paint on our walls. And it explores how we can find better ways to produce them. People need our products. However, public perception of our industry does not always reflect the importance of the industry to society.
Mining is needed but certainly not wanted by all, and we must work to shape a better understanding of our industry and what we do. Thirdly, as society's ESG expectations evolve, and we are excited by that evolution, a tension remains between the environmental and the social elements of ESG. At a global level, we know we need mining to help avert a climate disaster, but this reality is sometimes challenged at a local level. Even where governments are supportive, one of the biggest challenges isn't the mining operation itself but the permitting process. It's a trend we see across other sectors, for example, the renewable energy sector.
Speaking to the World Economic Forum last year, wind turbine manufacturer Vestas Wind Systems said, "There is four times more wind generation capacity caught in permitting delays than under construction in Europe." We know we need to keep deepening our connection with stakeholders to earn trust, to resolve conflicts, and to strengthen our social license. If we don't make progress on this, we won't be able to rise to the physical challenge of the energy transition. An important part of this connection is our engagement with civil society organizations. I took part in all our civil society roundtables in Australia, the U.S., and the U.K. last year. Dean and Ben and I also recently met with the four civil society organizations in Guinea when we were there earlier in March this year. They provided valuable feedback about our operations, what's working well, but most importantly, what we need to do better.
For example, we've been encouraged to forge ahead on establishing nature and biodiversity targets. We are recognized as being able to bring international standards with us wherever we work, which we do and we will adhere to. We know that we're not perfect. Where there are challenges, we need to keep getting around the table with our stakeholders to develop better ways of working together to address these. There is no doubt we're living in turbulent times of volatile geopolitical landscape, rapid technology changes, increasing polarization, and an uncertain economic backdrop. This complex world requires complex solutions, but I look to the future with optimism. There has never been greater demand for what we do, and the quality of our people, partnerships, assets, and the technology give me great confidence that we can deliver for all our stakeholders.
Jakob, his executive team, and all our 53,000 colleagues have been doing a terrific job steering us through the many challenges. We're at a point where we can reiterate that we will deliver what we say we will do, hopefully to be boringly consistent. Our operations are stabilizing. Our culture is improving. We are making progress against our four objectives, and we are continuing to learn so we can find better ways to deliver for the future. Thank you. I will soon hand over to Jakob, who will provide his update on the business. Then, as I mentioned earlier, we'll hear from Sam Laidlaw, who chairs our People and Remuneration Committee, to say a few words on our proposed remuneration policy. But first, we'll play a short video. We think it encapsulates the spirit of where we are going on our culture journey as a company. Thank you.
We want our culture to be all about finding better ways for everyone, everywhere, every day.
Our values at the core of our culture, care, courage, and curiosity are more than words.
They define who we are and how we show up every day in every site, location, and office around the world.
Lasting culture starts with the simplest everyday behaviors and actions.
I care about the impact my team and Rio Tinto has on others, communities, and the environment.
I have the courage to speak up and challenge when we can do better.
I expand my curiosity by exploring and being open to different perspectives from colleagues and the wider world.
Together, we are building an environment of trust where we all feel safe, respected, and empowered.
We are Rio Tinto.
Thank you, Dom. I would also like to acknowledge and pay my respect to all traditional owners and First Nations people that host our operations around the world. As you saw in the video, our values of care, courage, and curiosity are at the core of our culture journey. Over the last few years, we have been embedding culture change and shaping Rio Tinto's strategy. We introduced our four objectives underpinned by the values and our purpose of finding better ways to provide the materials the world needs. As time goes on, our strategy makes, in my view, even more sense. Rio Tinto is at the heart of the energy transition and therefore facing an opportunity-rich world. We are still seeing powerful traditional drivers of long-term demand, and our core markets are growing.
At the same time, emerging trends are opening up new opportunities for us to deliver value for you, our shareholders. As both a mining company and a processing company with a global footprint, we are well positioned to realize those opportunities working alongside our partners. We can help countries grow their economies and secure supplies and materials critical for renewables. We can also provide customers with the sustainable and traceable materials they increasingly demand. As Dom earlier said, we still need to strengthen our foundations for success, but we are confident in our strategy. By following our four objectives, we are putting Rio Tinto in a stronger position for the long term. We have a lot to do, but that is the exciting bit. There's so much ahead of us. Our 2023 results prove that we are on the right track. Our business is very robust.
Last year, we delivered a 20% return on capital employed despite a $1.5 billion negative impact from lower commodity prices. I'm pleased we're delivering stable, profitable growth. Overall, production grew 3%, and we achieved underlying earnings of $11.8 billion. Even as we stepped up capital expenditures, made acquisitions, and paid out a large dividend to you, our shareholders, net debt was unchanged from 2022. It shows we are investing with discipline to ensure our success over the long term while delivering consistently through the year. To succeed over the long term, we are investing in the health of our people, our assets, and our alliances. This is how we can create the conditions for consistent performance to get us back to our DNA as best operators. Evolving our culture is key to how we unlock performance.
We are only a couple of years into that, into what is a long and complex journey, but having visited nearly a dozen sites in recent months, I can see the culture is changing. We are embedding best practices and empowering our people by deepening the rollout of our Safe Production System. The Safe Production System has already helped deliver real improvements in our iron ore business, and we can see an example of what best operator looks like at Oyu Tolgoi in Mongolia. Just over a year since we started underground production, we are on course to become one of the world's leading suppliers of copper. For me, one of the key differences I have seen in Rio Tinto is how we are moving from strategy to real actions. We are finding an economic pathway to reach our targets on decarbonization in partnerships with governments, customers, and communities.
Shifting to renewables is a core part of that journey, including repowering our Pacific Aluminium operations. At the same time, we are reimagining manufacturing through the development of low-carbon technologies, and we are providing more options for our customers through the circular economy. Last month, I visited the Ontario site of our new Matalco joint venture, which produces high-grade recycled aluminum at scale. More broadly, our approach to ESG is informing our decision-making at every level. We are working closely with communities to improve in areas such as biodiversity and water management and to help countries realize the full opportunities for economic development. We will never be perfect, but we will keep setting the bar high. We are committed to listening, learning, and striving to do better. We are applying this commitment to ESG as we grow in the materials essentials for the energy transition.
We have an attractive pipeline and considerable momentum in developing projects. With our Oyu Tolgoi underground going from strength to strength, I believe we can repeat the success at the Simandou project in Guinea, where we are at an earlier phase. Simandou has really matured over the last year. It is a unique project, both in its challenges and opportunities. It can be a country maker for the people of Guinea, and it can provide the world with high-grade iron ore needed for green steel. And in March, I visited our Rincon lithium project in Salta, Argentina. It was really insightful to see how our team is laying the groundwork for our first lithium production by the end of this year. As Dom mentioned, we have an incredible exploration team.
It was great to visit Chile as well to learn more about our joint venture to explore for copper in the country. Of course, we cannot realize the full potential of these assets without a strong social license. Our understanding of this is deepening across our teams. How we are progressing with social license is difficult to say, as it's not judged by us but society at large. However, as I engage with stakeholders, my overwhelming feeling is that we are more and more finding mutual ground. We are embedding our approach to co-management and co-development through the business while continuing to work closely with traditional owners to ensure better outcomes for everyone. This includes partnering for prosperity, such as working with the Yindjibarndi Energy Corporation to explore renewable energy projects in the Pilbara in Western Australia.
We know we need to continue listening to voices from the communities where we operate and work very closely with civil society to understand what we can do better. If we keep listening, sticking to our values, and find better ways to work together and build trust, I believe we can be a miner that people, communities, governments, and customers choose to work with. I'm super optimistic about Rio Tinto's future. I believe the best opportunities are ahead of us. I'm also optimistic about what we are achieving today to capture those opportunities. Our focus is on securing the enduring health and success of our business with an emphasis on disciplined, stable growth. We are moving from strategy to actions on decarbonization and shaping our portfolio with an eye to the future, and we are changing the culture of our company.
While there's still much to do, it is leading to a workplace where everyone can feel safe, respected, and empowered. This is what will drive our performance and enable us to deliver for our shareholders and all our stakeholders in 2024 and beyond. Thank you. I will now hand over to Sam Laidlaw, the chair of our People and Remuneration Committee.
Thank you, Jakob, and good morning, everybody. 2023 was another year of solid operational performance and strong financial results, as you've heard from Jakob. As well as stabilizing production, we made steadfast progress developing our culture and diversifying in the materials needed for the global energy transition. While there were no fatalities at our managed operation last year, as you heard, tragically, in January 2024, we lost four colleagues from our Diavik mine and two airline crew members in an aircraft accident. We're continuing to support the authorities as they investigate what happened. The findings are going to form part of the People and Remuneration Committee's consideration for the outcomes at the end of this year. In the second half of 2023, I engaged with many of our shareholders as well as the key UK and Australian advisory bodies on the review of our next remuneration policy.
Thank you to everybody who took part in that consultation. When the committee last reviewed our policy in 2021, it made no material amendments. Since then, there have been considerable shifts in the market for executive compensation, particularly among the companies that Rio competes with for talent, as well as an increased emphasis on the strategic decarbonization. That's why we propose more substantive changes to the policy than in the previous triennial reviews. However, before I propose and explain the proposal in further detail, I'll address the remuneration outcomes for 2023. 2023 was the first of our new short-term incentive plan scorecards, and this is how we determined the bonuses of more than 26,000 eligible employees as well as members of our executive committee. At its heart, the short-term incentive plan scorecard is focused on collective group goals and success.
Half of the scorecard is based on financial measures of underlying earnings and free cash flow. The other half addresses the broader strategic-related goals of safety, carbon reduction, diversity and inclusion, ESG credentials, excelling in development, and strengthening our social license. After assessing each component of the scorecard, the committee determined the overall outcome was 56% of the maximum. With this outcome, the financial component performed just below target, while the strategic measures performed slightly above target. An individual multiplier is also in place to be used sparingly in cases of either exceptional or inadequate performance. The committee did not apply the individual multiplier for either of the executive directors, but it was selectively applied to some members of the executive committee. For our long-term incentive plan, our sustained share price performance and strong dividend yield delivered a total shareholder return of over 100% for the five-year period to 2023.
This exceeded that of the two indices that we measure our performance against. One's made up of mining companies, and the other an index of over 1,000 large global corporates. Achievement against these measures delivered an overall vesting outcome of 94% of maximum. We remain committed to relative total shareholder return as a key performance measure of our long-term incentive program, as it does provide close alignment to the experience of you, our shareholders. Now, turning back to our proposed policy, by seeking feedback at early stages of our review in 2023, the committee received a helpful range of perspectives from our shareholders, allowing us to refine and better shape our proposal. At its core, our proposal has three aims. First, to strengthen the alignment between reward and our strategic priorities. Second, to simplify our reward framework.
Finally, to ensure that the level of compensation is positioned appropriately to attract, motivate, retain the very best executive talent. To continue to achieve superior total shareholder returns, we have a clear strategy to build a stronger Rio Tinto for the longer term through our four objectives, as you've heard from Jakob. Delivering against these objectives will help improve productivity, reduce carbon intensity, and assist us in becoming a global mining partner of choice. Most notably, there have been no increases to our incentive opportunities since the policy first came into effect in 2013. Indeed, as part of our 2021 renewal of our policy, the maximum long-term and the target short-term award for the Chief Executive were reduced. Now, these changes, though appropriate during the pandemic years, have impacted our positioning relative to peers in the talent market.
Given the scale of the strategic ambition, it's vital that Rio Tinto secures the talent required to achieve our objectives. The market for talent is increasingly competitive. Despite this competition, the committee is seeking to maintain a measured approach to pay. Although U.S.-style pay practices continue to be materially higher in other jurisdictions, we're not seeking to match these award levels. Instead, we focused on ensuring executives are aligned with similarly sized, globally complex FTSE 100 and mining companies. The overarching finding from our review was a widening gap in remuneration relative to our major peers and competitors. In addressing this gap, the committee were firm in its belief that it should be delivered predominantly through the long-term incentive plan with stretching performance hurdles.
Hence, the committee have proposed that future long-term incentive awards to executive directors and other executive committee members are capped at 500% of base salary compared to 400% of salary under the current policy. This would position award levels more in line with FTSE 100 peers, where the median long-term incentive plan maximum award is in excess of 500%, yet still materially below U.S. award levels. The additional long-term incentive plan increment of 100% is going to be directly linked to the achievement of our climate change strategy. The group's decarbonization strategy is multifaceted, with the additional long-term incentive plan opportunity aligned to robust decarbonization targets measuring residual emissions, project delivery, technology development, and the delivery of our transition strategy. The committee have proposed retaining our relative total shareholder return metric for the remaining long-term incentive plan opportunity of 400% of salary.
We also propose rebalancing of the metric, with 2/3 measured against sector peers and 1/3 measured against the broader index. The committee also proposes moving to a three-year long-term incentive plan performance period accompanied by a two-year hold period. This follows mainstream practice in the U.K. to offer more tangible targets to participants, but with an overall five-year timeframe that remains towards the upper end of practice in all markets, including Australia. This is better suited to setting long-term performance targets for decarbonization, where the landscape's going to continue to evolve at pace. Additionally, the committee have proposed an increase in shareholding requirements for the executives to 500% of salary for the Chief Executive and 400% of salary for other executives. The committee firmly believes that our new policy is in the best interests of shareholders.
It will strengthen the alignment between the reward of our strategic priorities, simplify our reward framework, and increase our competitiveness in attracting, motivating, and retaining key executive talent. So once again, I'd like to thank all shareholders for their engagement and collaboration during 2023. As always, I welcome feedback and comments on our 2023 remuneration report and the proposed policy. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Sam, and thank you, Jakob. We're now going to move to the formal business of the meeting. The required notice of the meeting has been given. With your consent, I propose that the notice of the meeting should be taken as read. Thank you. There are 26 resolutions to be voted on today. Resolutions one to 22 will also be voted on at the Rio Tinto Limited meeting on the 2nd of May, so we'll get the results after then.
Resolutions 23 to 26 will be voted on by Rio Tinto Plc shareholders only, and the results will be published after this meeting. We'll now take questions from shareholders on any matters relevant to the business of the meeting before we vote on the resolutions. For those in the room, if you have a question, please raise your hand, and a microphone will be brought to you. Before asking a question, please state your name and organization if you represent one. For those of you attending virtually, you may submit written questions or ask them through the Lumi platform. Please keep the questions short and to the point so we can take as many as possible. If we receive multiple questions online on the same topic, we may provide a single answer to avoid repetition to keep things running. Again, look forward to the questions and a discussion.
We've got the board here, a good number of our exco members, so we're keen to hear your questions and get your input. So maybe we'll start on the floor first, and then we'll take a few questions online. We'll start with number one and then to number two afterwards. One.
Thank you very much. And thank you, Mr. Chair, and the rest of the board for allowing me to ask a question. By way of introduction, my name is Councillor Doug McMurdo. I'm chair of the Local Authority Pension Fund Forum. And most of you will know that this is a forum of local authority pension funds in the U.K. that represents 87-member funds and seven pool companies with an AUM of about GBP 450 billion. Its members understand that good social and environmental practices by companies improve financial performance and investor returns in the long term. So I move, Mr. Chairman, to my question. And first, many thanks to you, Mr. Barton, and your colleagues for meeting with LAPFF on numerous occasions over the last six months to discuss Rio Tinto's approach to water management.
It is clear that Rio Tinto has started to take its water management strategy more seriously and that it is engaging a range of stakeholders in its discussions around water management. That said, I still believe that our discussions have not quite reached a point of settling on a definition of independent water impact assessments. Rio Tinto has made it clear that social licence - and it's been said several times this morning - social licence to operate is a crucial aspect of its strategy and operations. Notwithstanding its progress in establishing a social licence since the Juukan Gorge incident, I think the board will acknowledge that it is - excuse me - it still has some work to do. Independent assessments are the only way I can see at this point to establish this social licence.
Given that water is an area that is important for all of us in terms of global security in the context of climate change and that Rio Tinto itself has acknowledged it as important for its own security, I would once again ask the following: What is Rio Tinto's definition of an independent impact assessment? Two, will Rio Tinto commit to undertaking independent water impact assessments as agreed with its stakeholders at its mine sites, starting urgently with QMM and OT, and then setting out a timeline for the rest of the mine sites in a meaningful consultation with affected stakeholders at those sites? And finally, will Rio Tinto commit to sharing the consultants' reports, that being the full JBS&G and WSP water quality assessment reports, for QMM on your website? Mr. Chair, thank you for allowing the questions.
Thank you. Well, thank you very much, Doug, and it's good to see you again. Thank you for your engagement not only on water but other issues as well that you have alerted us to and pointed us to. I think on water, as you mentioned, that we have a very strong commitment to ensuring that we are using water resources carefully and properly in how we work it. I would also just want to point out again that in 2023, Rio Tinto was the first mining company to disclose actually our water usage and allocations on an interactive map of our sites covering 66 facilities. We are doing our best to be as transparent as possible about our water use in all of our sites.
In terms of the independent audit, your question on that front, I think it's our view is that we need to have independent groups do the assessment, which we have been doing, for example, in QMM and other sites. We can get into more detail on that. Then what we believe is then making those results transparent for people to be able to look at, criticize, look at where the challenges and the issues are. So having a third-party review what we've been doing with water and then allowing that to be disclosed and reviewed publicly is very important. You mentioned QMM, and I'm sure we're going to get into more discussion on that today. But you talked about the JBS&G study. This was a three-year independent study on radiation that started in November in 2019 and finished in October 2022.
That actually was released for people to look at. The conclusions were quite clear on the radioactive side, and we've had commentary on that from various different groups. So again, it's our ambition or aspiration to make sure that we do focus on how we're using the water, that we study how that works. And in a sense, we are also the first to call out an issue if we see it. We're not waiting for someone to try and discover it as best as we can. I don't know, Jakob, if there's anything else you want to add or yeah. Okay.
Good morning, Mr. Barton. I think you know me. I'm a retiree from Rio Tinto. I retired in 2020, a while back. But I'm here today to actually question the operation of the 3 Cs in a dispute that we have with you over pensions that have been discontinued. I know it's before the courts. We're suing you for oppression, and I know that that must be off the record and will not be covered here. What I would like to question Mr. Stausholm on is the nature of the way 3 Cs operated in the way we have approached you to try to resolve this question without going to court. Back in 2021, I'd been requested by some other retirees to draft the history as to the indexation policy, which in fact was one designed to add shareholder value in addition to providing some inflation protection for retirees.
It was linked together. If the business was suitably profitable, it would be automatically indexed for retirees every two years. That was a very simple, straightforward policy initiated in 1981. You purchased us in 1989. We were purchased three times in that decade, firstly from Kennecott by Standard Oil, then by BP, and finally, we ended up in your lap. And quite frankly, as the leader of the company, I felt very well treated by Rio Tinto. I worked for you for another 12 years. Everything was fine. The policy we had for retirement and so on was honored by Rio Tinto. And then several years later, in 2012, it was arbitrarily stopped, in my view. Now, I wrote to you, Mr. Stausholm, and I expressed the fact that I thought this should be revisited. I thought you'd actually lost the records because it was before you owned us.
I explained what the history was, why I thought it was a good policy, and why I couldn't understand why it would have been stopped. You didn't reply to me personally, but I got a very polite letter from your Chief People Officer, which said, "You have zero obligation. Sorry to tell you that, but we're out of here." I immediately wrote back to him and said, "That's just not true." We started a dialogue. The 3 Cs were already in operation, as far as I understood it. This was the new culture. You listened, and you tried to ensure you had social license, etc., etc. We negotiated with you off and on for several months, and we insisted that there was an obligation, and we had the record to prove it.
The policy had been enacted and in place for over 30 years. And yet, you maintained you had no obligation. It, to me, was inconceivable. But at the end, in fact, we determined you'd had done no proper due diligence. You'd never obtained the CEO's approval for stopping the indexation. You'd never considered whether or not the company was doing well or not when you stopped it. In fact, it was making record profits. And you never advised the retirees you were changing the policy. Now, this was all between us before we went to court. But so on June 22nd, in 2022, I received a letter, and I'm quoting from it, "We do not intend to share any internal non-public company documentation." So you threw down the gauntlet and suggested to us that the talks are ended.
If you want to make any further progress, it's the courts or nothing. So I was a fairly experienced executive before I retired, and I understood all about things like exhaustion policy. And you're a Goliath and we're David. But we consulted with our lawyers, and they pointed that out. They said, "Rio Tinto's got such huge resources. You'd be silly to sue them." But a group of us retirees, there were nine of us, we clubbed together, and we looked at the situation and said, "We've absolutely got to sue them. How can it be that they would take advantage of retirees like that?" And so we started down in the law courts. And I don't think I should go there because I know a lot of that should be off the record. But we have not been successful in the law courts so far.
You tried to dismiss us because you said we didn't have standing, because you didn't even want to have the merits of the situation reviewed. You failed in that dismissal. We had to go to court to get you to disclose documents. We succeeded in that mission. Here we are at loggerheads with a company that I worked for, respected, and was usually on your side of the fence. Quite frankly, I just do not see where the 3 Cs, which is this famous new culture, have come into play with respect to what has happened to us in the last few years. I know we weren't perfect in the past, but we also tried to achieve social licence. We also tried to act safely. It's not new. I personally was involved in Africa. We started schools, clinics, and so on and so forth.
So it's not new what you're doing. But the 3 Cs, apparently, is meant to be something novel which you're going to basically follow and take care of your people and have social licence. And I think you can tell from my voice. I'm very frustrated now. It's almost three years into this dispute. And all right, we're in the courts, and we can't talk about that here. But we know we're already over 20 months in the courts, and it'll be many months to go. But when the trial takes place, I'm just saying to you, it's all going to come out in the open anyway. So it seems to me you should listen to us, hear us out, accept the fact that you did not do an appropriate job looking back into your obligation, that you do have an obligation.
And I'd like, please, Mr. Stausholm, if you could answer that because you're the 3 C propagator, if I may call it that. Thank you.
No, thank you very much. I can only say that I'm very sad about having that dispute. And for information for the wider audience of the room here, we have a very important business in a town called Sorel-Tracy, the world's largest producer of titanium slag there. We know we play a very important role in that society. And it goes without saying that when such issues are being raised, we look at it very seriously. And of course, we have responded what we think is the right thing, but we have done a few more things. And just for clarification, it's not that any pension schemes has been changed. There has been a change of there have been years where we have indexed for inflation. And apparently, I learned that it is a discretionary decision every year. And from 2012, that policy was discontinued.
I would just remind you that actually, I went to Sorel, and I met with a number of the pensioners, and I tried to really understand the issues. We have tabled some countermeasures that we think are attractive solutions. You have a different view and decided to take it to court. It's very difficult to discuss the dispute here.
That was two years ago. Jeez, that was two years ago.
Sure. And we have tried on a number of occasions. I will ask, but it's not that I don't want to answer the question, but Peter Cunningham, our CFO, is deeper involved in it. It hurts my heart when you say it's compromising the 3 Cs. We're trying to do this with care, but there are sometimes where there are opposite views on things. And we believe that we are fully meeting our obligations. We understand.
You do due diligence. How do you know what your obligations are?
We let Jakob just answer.
We feel that we are doing this in a very thorough way. I'll ask Peter to explain the situation. But I obviously sense your frustration, and that hurts my heart because you and the pensioner have done a terrific job for the company. So we want harmony, but that doesn't mean that we can just meet any requests that we are being faced with. So I hope the current resolution process we are going through will lead to the right outcome. And Peter, maybe you can just table the current discussions.
No, thanks, Jakob. And Bruce. Good to see you. I mean, I think you've set it out well, Jakob. I mean, we do see that the pension plan is competitive. It is well-managed. I mean, our approach is to follow best practices in terms of pension management, and that's really all about optimizing the security of the benefits that we've promised while minimizing financial risks associated with the plans. The funds have been fully funded by the company over time. But our view, which we've talked about, is clearly the pension plan does not provide for indexation of benefits. And thus, it is really, as Jakob said, a voluntary decision of the company. What we have done recently is just written to the non-unionized plan members to say that there's two things we can do and have offered to do, and we'll set that out more in June.
And that is to enhance medical benefits for members and also to set up a temporary hardship fund for those who need it. So we do think those are the right measures for us to take in the circumstances. But Bruce, thank you.
I think I'll take two questions then online from Lumi, and then we'll go back to the floor. So could we start if we have a question that's a written-in question? I'm going to read it out. And Peter, I'm actually going to direct this to you on it. But I'm just going to read it for everyone's benefit from Philip Clark. One, I found your report and accounts to be excellent and give a very clear view of our business. Thank you. Page 24 features a table reconciling underlying EBITDA between 2022 and 2023.
I'm going to read it a bit slowly so you have a chance, Peter, to get it. One item in the reconciliation is operating cash unit costs, which reduced EBITDA by $1.4 billion. This item was an increase in costs over and above inflation, but I was not clear as to what this represents. Can you please help me understand?
Mr. Clark, thank you very much for the question. First of all, thank you for the feedback on the overall report and accounts. The $1.4 billion is about unit costs, and it really has two major drivers. One is that the world and our industry has been through now two or three years of very high inflation over and above the normal general inflation in the economy. But that's been lagged in the way it's flowed through our cost base because a lot of our contracts and inputs to the business are actually repriced on an annual basis. So last year, we really were still seeing rising costs over and above general inflation in the industry, and a large portion of that $1.4 billion is represented by that.
At the end of the year, we really had seen that starting to moderate and going into 2024, a much more stable cost base for the group. But we're in the same position as pretty much every participant in the industry. It's just been a general industry drive. The second factor, though, was that at two specific operations, we did see some disruption to production. At our Kennecott operation, we had a major, major shutdown of the smelter. And that did mean that our unit costs were temporarily in 2023 much higher. And in our iron ore operations in Canada, a forest fire took out production for a month, again having a major sort of temporary impact on their unit costs. So those are the drivers that explain that $1.4 billion.
Thank you, Peter. And again, thank you, Mr. Clark, for the question. The second question I'm taking, again, it's written. It's relating to Oyu Tolgoi, but Bold may get you to provide some more specifics on this. But I'm going to just read exactly as it's written. It's from, again, Mr. Richard Solley. My question concerns operations at Oyu Tolgoi in Mongolia. It is from Battsengel, a herder who lost livelihood through loss of access to his pasture and water resources. In July 2023, he saw the floor of tailings cell two of the Oyu Tolgoi mine. He was told that a new floor was being constructed at 12-18 meters below ground on the bedrock but did not understand why the natural vegetation was still there when he visited in July. TC2 is in use now.
He's asking for a guarantee that the current TC1 and TC2 at the Oyu Tolgoi mine have been built in compliance with Rio Tinto's own and international tailings dam standards, along with documents proving such compliance. Obviously, I'm going to hand it to you, Bold, for a second if you could take it. But how we're dealing with tailings and water usage in OT is of significant focus and importance for us. We're monitoring that, Doug, to your point on any seepage and so forth. But Bold.
Yeah, thank you. Thank you. And thank you very much for the question. And obviously, we take water scarcity in the Gobi Desert very seriously. I am from Mongolia, and we want to make sure our nomadic community around the mine has access to water. So we actually dug 255 wells since we started operation, as well as we have coming back to the question around the independence of the reviewer. The IFC and the EBRD, who are the lenders to our project, have appointed an independent expert. And they have been doing the audits for 18 times over the last decade since we've been there. And all those reports are public on OT's website. We fully disclose that. There have been no major nonconformances. And there was one minor nonconformance related to a seepage to a monitoring borehole that is about 60 meters outside of our mining lease area.
We took immediate remedial actions and isolated that to make sure that the wells further into the herder community are not affected. The closest herder that is living to our mine site is about 8 km. We can confirm through an independent review that there is no impact on the quality of water. It is within the international standards. As far as the tailings is concerned, yes, absolutely, we do adhere to the Rio Tinto standards as well as ICMM. In fact, we have an independent tailings-nominated executive, and his name is Clayton Walker, out of North America. His team makes sure that the operations have another reviewer, another set of eyes to make sure those standards are adhered to and are compliant with ICMM. Every year, I sign off on the adherence as far as the product group that this is actually happening.
We are, of course, monitoring the situation. We'd be happy to sit down with Mr. Battsengel at OT and understand a bit more specificity around the particular loss. I'll just give you numbers. The number of herders around OT has actually increased since we started the operation. The total camel population increased to over 60,000 by over 70% during that time. We have not seen actually a loss of the nomadic pastures. We actually take our partnership with our neighboring 18 families very seriously. Thank you for the question.
Thank you, Bold. I'm going to go to the floor right here, number two. Then I'll go to number three.
Hello. I'm Roger Featherstone, director of the Arizona Mining Reform Coalition. I live in Tucson, Arizona, in the United States. I'm here to ask a question about your proposed Resolution Copper project that would destroy Oak Flat, a Native American sacred site that is a recreational and ecological haven. Oak Flat is one of the few remaining desert riparian areas left in Arizona and is vital for the survival of many plants and animals. Your proposed block cave mine would replace that delicate and irreplaceable web of life with a crater 3.2 km wide and 305 m deep. It would dump 1.5 billion tons of toxic waste on the ground behind a 150 m tall dam. It would damage over 60 sq km of land. Your proposed project would use the same amount of water as a city of 150,000 people for the life of the mine.
Arizona is in the 24th continuous year of drought and is in the worst drought we've faced in 1,200 years. There simply is not enough water for your proposed mine and for communities, farmers, and our environment. As Rio Tinto admits, the technology to build this mine does not now exist. For a variety of reasons, the mine proposal is a failed experiment. You first proposed the Resolution Copper project 20 years ago, in 2004. You planned to begin construction at Oak Flat in 2014 and to begin production in 2020. You now concede that it will be at least another 10 years before you could begin mining at Oak Flat. We've worked with an amazing coalition of citizens from all walks of life to stop this failed experiment to date, and we're committing to continue to do so for as long as it takes.
Your proposed mine simply is not compatible with life as we know and enjoy it in Arizona. Mining is one of the most polluting industries on the planet. Your bromides that you must destroy Oak Flat to protect the world from climate change don't make sense from a technical, economic, or social standpoint. For all of these reasons, you would be doing all of us, especially your shareholders, a favor by abandoning your Resolution Copper proposal now. Walk away now before you do any more harm to your reputation. As we've discussed many times, if you really want to produce copper from Arizona to combat climate change, you have other options. So again, when will you announce that you'll be abandoning the Resolution Copper proposed mine? Thanks.
Thank you, Roger. Thank you for flying all the way over here to be at our AGM. I'm also going to have Bold say a couple of things in his copper role. I would say, as you mentioned, we've had many ongoing dialogues with the local communities, with the various different First Nations groups. That's actually helped to reshape significantly the project, including the location of major facilities to avoid areas of cultural significance and the ancestral sites, as well as medicinal plants, seeps, and springs. We found it challenging to be able to engage with the two chairs of the San Carlos Apache tribe. They don't want to talk with us. We've been able to talk with the other 10 groups. We are listening very carefully to members of the San Carlos council, elders, and community.
We would just say that it represents potentially 25% of America's copper demand. It's a huge deposit. Obviously, it would have to be done extraordinarily carefully in terms of making sure that we respect the cultural rights and traditions of the people that are on that land, and also to your point, how water is used. But I might ask Bold if you want to give any of the latest in these long ongoing discussions.
Thank you, Mr. Featherstone, again for coming and having a meeting with us. As we have discussed, water in Arizona definitely is something we deeply care about. In fact, we have been providing over 7 billion gallons of water to the agricultural sector in Arizona, about 430 million gallons per year, to make sure that 73% of the Arizona agriculture sector is dependent on that water. We actually provide not all of it, but we try to contribute to make sure that we manage through this drought together. Obviously, climate change is impacting many of our communities. We, of course, taken very seriously all of your comments around making sure that we get the right social licence. In fact, the U.S. is probably the leading world-class environmental standard sovereign nation in the world. They have the most stringent standards.
In fact, we have been actually in consultation for over 10 years with the U.S. Forest Service in making sure that we mitigate as much as possible the environmental impact. At the moment, we don't have a permit to build a mine. So it's a bit premature for us to talk about what could be the solutions in the future. But based on the U.S. Forest Service recommendations and the consultation with the 11 Native American tribes, we have made significant modifications to our mine as well as the location of our tailings dam and, in fact, are contributing permanently into protection numerous Apache sites of historical significance such as Apache Leap, etc. So we definitely are waiting for the decision on the environmental impact statement. It has been public on the website. It is over 7,000 pages.
There's been 10 years of consultation going on with the community. It's a very transparent process. We expect a decision patiently. Thank you.
Thank you. I think I said I would take a question back there. It was three. Yeah.
Hello. Thank you, Chairman. My name is Jamil Bakhir. I'm a private shareholder via Barclays Stock Brokers here in London. I have a comment on item five in the resolutions where you are asking to increase the cap for non-executive directors. I suggest a different solution to that. Why don't you reduce the number of directors? I don't see the, and I've worked when I was working with companies where the directors really do not really do much. It's the executive directors that run the show. So do you need 15? What about 10? And then you don't have to raise the cap. Thank you.
Thank you. Excellent question. And I might let Sam also jump in. I think, as I mentioned, the board is going through a transition. It's not our intent to have 15. We won't be at 15. The peak is at 14. Our view is to get to 12. But as we're transitioning people, we're bringing a lot of new people in, six new people. I want to make sure that we also have the transition with the most experienced people on the board as we go through that. So that's the background to the size issue. And as I mentioned in my opening remarks, we were talking about the skill mixes that we need to have to be able to help provide the right governance for the organization. There's been a lot of changes on that front.
The last time we looked at that cap, I think, was in 2013. And it's not meant to say that that's where we want to take it. But given that we do these reviews once in a while, every three years, we thought it would be the right time to do it. But Sam, you may want to provide more specifics.
No, I think Chairman summarised it well. It's partly a consequence of a larger board. But the point's taken that actually we're going through a transition. And the board will probably get smaller in time. But the other component is the fact that the responsibilities of directors have increased. And also, in common with the marketplace, directors' fees have increased. This is, as has been said, the last time we looked at this was 2013.
It is time actually to introduce a larger cap to compensate for slightly higher fees, increased responsibilities for the directors. You've heard a lot about the energy transition. The role, for instance, of the Sustainability Committee has increased very significantly over the period. It's to encompass all those factors, a larger board, but also higher fees and increased responsibilities.
I think I'll take a question from the online system. I'm going to read it out. It's from Mr. Philip Clark. Page 77 of the annual report and accounts features a table on MyVoice cases. Thank you for publishing this data so openly. Doing so reflects really well on the company. The data does cause some concern, though. The number of reported cases has increased rapidly, doubling in the last five years. This may be a good thing as it reflects employee trust and engagement in the process.
However, the percentage of cases that are substantiated remains doggedly high. Is this a leading indicator of problems in the future? I might take a first shot. If you want to add anything, Jacob. I think, as mentioned in the opening remarks, both myself and Jacob, but also in the video, the cultural change has been a very significant initiative that's been underway led by Jacob. With Liz Broderick's report in 2021, released in early 2022, which we published, it outlined some major issues that we faced around sexual harassment, bullying, and racism. The short answer to this is that we actually think it's an encouraging sign that there's actually more voice, if you will, that people feel confident to be able to discuss these things. If in two years from now I'm saying the same thing to you, I'm going to be very embarrassed.
I don't think that's what we want to see. But in talking with Liz, our feeling and her feeling is that that is something that she hoped for, expected. But hopefully, we're learning from this as we move through it. And we are spending time analyzing what the complaints and concerns are and then actually what happens through the investigation, to those situations, and how quickly we work through it. I don't know, Jakob, if you want to.
No, I think, honestly, Chairman, it's an excellent question that Philip Clark is raising. There's no doubt that when you try to get more psychological safety in your culture, one of the good things is that people feel more comfortable of coming forward with issues. So we have clear indicators that we have moved in the right direction. But where's the end goal? And I think we just need to remain very humble here and saying we keep on searching and trying to uncover things. And that's why we are having this Broderick on another discovery tour where she will talk in safe rooms with our staff to see what can be learned further. I firmly believe that we just have to keep on going down that route. Culture change does take a number of years.
Not just because it's the right thing, also because when you get the right culture, you will perform better as a company. There's no way back here. I cannot give a full answer on a leading indicator of problems in the future. I can only see that we are taking steps going forward. But we will keep on fronting the issues that we may uncover. Thank you.
Thank you, Jakob. Back to the floor. I'll take right in the middle of the room, number three. And then I'll go to number two.
Morning, Mr. Barton, Mr. Stausholm. My name's Yvonne Orengo. I'm a shareholder. I'm also the director of the Andrew Lees Trust, a charity that's been serving Southern Madagascar for nearly 30 years. Before my question, I want to take a moment, in the same way that you did earlier today, to acknowledge and mark the deaths of three Malagasy community members who were shot dead while participating in a protest related to the QMM mine in Madagascar last October. Monsieur Damy, Madame Francie, Monsieur Jean Salomon all lost their lives in what appear to be extrajudicial killings. The absence of a public inquiry, a complete media blackout, all have left the bereaved families without closure and many questions about human rights defenders' policy at QMM. Thank you for this moment to acknowledge these losses.
This speaks actually also to comments that have already been raised about the 3 Cs. It hurts my heart that I have to be back here again raising questions. The conflicts are concerning and pertinent because they also relate to people's extreme worries about the degradation of water quality around the QMM mine. Our organization and others, civil society members who have reached out to be listened to by Rio Tinto, have raised since five years about high uranium and high lead levels in water downstream of the QMM mine, 50 and 40 times respectively the WHO's Safe Drinking Water Guidelines. These have not largely been addressed. They've been regularly dismissed with the uranium as natural background, water contamination as simply our interpretations. The company has recently employed the JBS&G report that was mentioned earlier to assert that there's no concern for health risks.
However, I want to share with the investors here and the shareholders that this report has been reviewed by an expert industry specialist in the subject. And it is not conclusive, as you mentioned earlier, Mr. Barton, far from it. And our analysis is available for anyone who wants to read it. But there is insufficient evidence and data to support the company's claims regarding radiation exposure. So neither Rio Tinto nor we can be sure there are no health risks. The water report that was shared earlier, we've had concerns because there were two sets of data. So this report, which has been shared, we don't even know which dataset is correct. So it's like a double accounting problem, which I'm sure those accountants in the room will be concerned about. And it's all part of the ongoing transparency issues around water governance at QMM.
What we do know, because after four years of pressing the company, we finally managed to get pre-mining water data, is that there is a significant increase in uranium and lead levels from upstream to downstream after the mine began operations, of lead levels, too. So most importantly, and things get worse here, these worrying levels of lead have been found in the bodies, in the blood, of local people. They exceed WHO thresholds. These are people who are using water and natural resources downstream of the mine. The levels of lead pose a serious risk to health. They require attention.
Lead is especially harmful for children, young children, causing permanent brain damage, cognitive and behavioral disorders, which, on top of the poor nutrition they're already suffering because of deepening poverty levels, presents a serious threat to the future of a whole generation of Antanosy citizens and to the Antanosy region as a whole. So the company now faces a lawsuit. It's in the news today from human rights firm Leigh Day, brought by the local people who are seeking accountability for the damage caused to their local environment and to their health. So here are my questions. Could you please explain to the communities, to us, and to the investors present, why you have failed to address the elevated uranium and lead levels around QMM that we have raised persistently for at least five years?
Do you have a comment about the lawsuit that is now faced by the company as a result of this failure to address those issues? Secondly, following up from Lap's request to you, we also ask you, as Malagasy civil society have done for the last four years, to please commit to independent audits of the water, an independent water impact assessment, and the remedy that might come out of that. Please do not tell me that everything is in the public domain because the WRG report on fish deaths has been deliberately withheld. We've been asking for it for two years. There is not the transparency that is spoken about here. So please, could you address those two questions? Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you, Yvonne. Thank you for coming back here again. I'm going to make a couple of comments and then ask Sinead to make some comments as well, who's here. First, as I think I've mentioned before, I visited our site last year, spent time with NGOs, with the fishing communities, and others to listen, to hear what the issues are. As I said, I think it's important that we visit and see what's actually happening and see the different groups that are there. I also want to acknowledge and appreciate you mentioning the three people who died at the site. Our thoughts are also with the families that are affected on that front, with the confrontations that have gone on around elections and so forth. Last year, we talked about releasing information on reports.
I want to make a couple of things clear and then hand over to Sinead. One was around the JBS&G study. This was a three-year independent study on radiation from November 2019 to October 2022, again done by international environmental experts, JBS&G, Australia. They concluded, and again, that information has been published. You've had a chance to also have that reviewed. It's our conclusion from that that local food sources, water, air, and dust are safe from a radiological perspective. Again, I encourage people as well to look at the information that has been shared and has been debated back and forth. But that's our view. We care deeply about water quality and what's happening. We do commit to understanding more about what's happening and then publishing that and then having viewpoints of that that many different groups can look at.
But Sinead, you may want to talk more specifically.
Thank you. Thanks for the questions. Maybe a couple of comments, particularly on the question around water and quality of water. We've recently issued a report which is in line with some of the feedback we've actually had from civil society, a much simpler, easier, explainable report on water quality. It essentially shares data on uranium, lead, and other elements, quality above the mine, so upstream of the mine, away from the mining impact, at the mine, and then downstream of the mine. What we've seen in our recent analysis is there's no discernible difference in the quality impact upstream and downstream of the mine. All of those samples that were taken were analyzed independently and outside of the country. We actually send them overseas to be analyzed. That report's available on our website.
So we've worked very hard at QMM over the last year to really take the feedback about being simpler in our communications and also being more transparent. And so we publish all of our water reports online. And we also have a dashboard that's recorded or reported monthly to ensure that people can actually see the data and ask questions on it. So thank you for that. Maybe a comment on the fish report. So last year, we had a discussion at the AGM. And we said we would like to issue the outcome of the consultants' report. So we had an independent South African consultant look at the reason for the fish deaths at QMM. The report outcome was inconclusive. And it said that we cannot find any direct evidence of any heavy metals contamination that's caused the fish death. But also, we couldn't find any conclusion.
As a result of that, their recommendation was to do more work, look at the receiving environment, and do a much more comprehensive report on aquatic health. We are in the process of scoping that work. They've had their first site visit. We look forward to sharing some of that information when it's conclusive and when we can actually share some scientific data that we can rely on. Thank you.
Please do share the WRG report. I don't think it's transparent to withhold that when you've promised it, not just to us but to your investors.
Thank you. Number one.
Hello. My name's Jonathan Kaufman. I'm from Advocates for Community Alternatives in West Africa. I wanted to ask a question about the Simandou project in Guinea, which I was happy to hear you all address a bit earlier. Rio's consortium is entering this project on the heels of the winning consortium, which is already affecting communities by polluting water bodies, taking land without adequate compensation, and ruining farmers' fields. It has worried civil society groups by failing to disclose project documents, postponing key environmental and social management studies until the project is underway, and making claims about green steel without being able to show in any way what arrangements are in place to actually deliver that. So far, Rio's limited record is not encouraging. You started work on your part of the project before the updated environmental and social impact assessments were approved.
You still haven't made public your studies, assessments, and management plans. We've heard no credible plan for ensuring that high environmental and social standards on the project infrastructure components that you will be sharing with winning will be respected. We know that the mining project will have devastating impacts on water sources in the Simandou range that feed the Niger River and protected Ramsar wetland sites, among other major water bodies. I would like to suggest a few concrete steps that you could take to give communities confidence that things will be better with Rio Tinto. I would like to hear whether these are things that you can commit to. Number one, as some other folks have suggested here, agree to an independent, transparent, and participatory assessment and audit of water impacts and mitigation measures.
Number two, commit to working with communities to design a project grievance mechanism applicable to all elements of the project, with procedures and scales of compensation that are transparent and advertised in advance, with an independent mechanism available in case of escalation. Number three, practice radical transparency. Publish your contracts, your environmental and social impact assessments, your environmental and social management plans, your environmental conformity certificates and other authorizations, and your environmental management plan implementation reports proactively, without waiting for the government or blaming the government for delay. And finally, join a credible, independent, human rights-based audit scheme and commit to publishing all audit reports. So I'd like to hear your reaction to those proposals and whether these are things that you can agree to. Thank you.
Yeah. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Kaufman, for your comments and also for your specific ideas, the four ideas. As I mentioned, Dean, myself, and Ben visited Guinea to see the Simandou effort. We actually flew over the whole proposed rail line and then looked at the mine sites and looked at the communities that are around those areas and also the natural forests. There's also, as you know, too, some significant things we need to worry about in terms of the western chimpanzee, elephant routes, and so forth, and just to understand that. We spent time, as I mentioned, with four NGOs. We spent basically half a day hearing their views of where things are. I think I just I guess what I'm saying in my opening comments here is that the importance of ESG and adhering to that is extremely important for us.
What the NGOs were saying to us is, "We are expecting you, even though you may only be a partner with the other groups that are involved, to adhere to the high standards that you have. And we want to have a dialogue with you in terms of how that works." And we were, I think, quite impressed with the NGOs that were actually on the ground looking at these issues. I think you mentioned the four key areas. Water, it's something that we are very much focused on, on the mine site and the surrounding areas, the communities that are around there and the dispute mechanisms that can be put in place. We think there's a lot we can learn from what we've done in other regions, including in, for example, Mongolia with the Tripartite Council.
The radical transparency, I mean, this is something we've been very clear with our partners about the importance on everything on the ESG side. Safety is one level. Human rights, as you mentioned. Ngaire did some work looking at the age when people work and how we make sure that we're following the standards we need to on that front, given the demographic and how things work. It's also a very poor, uneducated group. We're worried about the immigration and issues like that that will occur. We're very concerned about the community impact and effect of what's happening. I don't know if, Dean, you want to make any comment on that.
Yeah. Thank you, Dom. Thank you for your questions and your concern. It's certainly a unique area for those who aren't familiar with our Simandou project. To give you an idea of the isolation, it would take a regular fuel tanker you would see on the roads of the U.K. six days to actually arrive at the mine site from the port. So it gives you an idea of the isolation and the area in which we're working. This project is going to be so transformational for the people in that area.
I have to say, when we visited the site, the team, very seasoned team, very attuned to the environmental issues, very attuned to the water, walked us around the site very clearly, could articulate where land will be disturbed, where it will be preserved, how water will be managed, how it will be actually managed in perpetuity. And obviously, as you know, there is one particular sensitive area there that Pic de Fon, very clear plans on how it would be preserved. In fact, in some ways, you could argue that without mining, would the country be able to protect those areas on their own?
The other interesting point that I think the level of environmental concern is so attuned that the team on site showed us another area which has not been identified in the past, an area called the Boye-Boye Forest, where we're looking at actually protecting that and putting more measures in place. So we left more comfortable, I should say, that our team on site, our plans, our working with the regulators there are very aligned. And on the last day, we met with the civil society organization. I have to say that we spent a good hour. They had a very good dialogue with us. I'd say it's more one-way. We listened more. And my takeaway at the end of that is that we are very aligned. What they want us to achieve in this project, what we want to achieve in this project have great alignment.
I left more confident that we will achieve the goals we need to achieve. Certainly, it's something our shareholders will be proud of. If you get to see the project on picture, it certainly is nation-changing infrastructure that's going in. I think it will be recognized as something that's made a major difference for Guinea.
Also, thank you very much, Dean. I think on your four specific recommendations, we'll follow up with you on that. I do think that having NGOs that can help us, and that's what, again, we were doing in the visit when we were there, are going to be important for all the parties. So we'd be very keen to follow up with you on how we can take them forward. So thank you for the input.
I just want to stress that Rio has an opportunity to show that this is going to be done differently. I understand that you, Ben, Darren came back feeling insecure. That is not necessarily shared. So the proposals that I've made are not that this fixes everything, but these are proposals that can go some way towards showing people that you mean business. That is a lot of what's being said.
Yeah. Thank you, Donald. And again, I think those are 4 very interesting proposals. And again, I don't think Dean or Ben or I would say we came away feeling all as great. It was more listening to hear what the issues are. I think we were feeling good about a process to make sure we can be comfortable with that. And that's an area we'll obviously be spending more time, but look forward to following up. And again, thank you for the ideas. Two. Two.
Hello. Good afternoon. Thank you all for taking the questions today. My name is Louisiana Salge. I am asking a question on behalf of EQ Investors, which is a UK-based wealth manager with sustainable investment expertise. EQ Investors is also part of the Climate Action 100+ Collaborative Engagement Group as a signatory. Firstly, I wanted to acknowledge the really positive step that happened about three weeks ago where Rio Tinto committed to enhance its disclosure on the emission reduction plan associated with a material part of its Scope 3, the processing of iron ore for steel. That was on part of some of the shareholder pressure that has been happening. We really recognize that as a positive step. So thank you for that.
This new information will really help us investors better understand the preparedness of Rio Tinto in respect of mounting financially material climate risks. So thank you. My question today extends from the same aim, really, hoping to gain more clarity over Rio Tinto's climate transition plan, focusing, though, on future-proofing its commodities portfolio. It is clear that meeting the Paris Agreement, it's been said many times, many proven technologies require significant amounts of what we call future-facing commodities, with the IEA suggesting a quadrupling of current requirements by 2040. This is a really strategic opportunity. It's been mentioned by Mr. Stausholm and Barton today. And we think that Rio Tinto can play an important role in doing this responsibly. However, while your strategic report confirms your commitment to grow in materials enabling the energy transition, your current forward-looking disclosures do not specify plans or specific targets.
So while we understand, of course, that it takes time to develop and expand Rio Tinto's portfolio in these key commodities while also establishing social licenses to operate, my question to the board today is, will Rio Tinto commit to provide greater detailed articulation of its strategy towards future-facing commodities, including delivered and planned long-term capital allocation to and partnerships in these areas? Thank you very much.
Thank you. Thank you very much for your comments. I'll say a couple of comments, and then Jacob, jump in as well. I think, as you said and you heard us, our commitment to helping play a key role on the energy transition is fundamental. I mean, the materials that we are focused on are all focused on those areas. Our strategy is completely aligned. All the materials that we are focused on producing relate to helping with the energy transition, including steel, by the way, given how much steel is actually required in the green transition in wind turbines and so forth. So there's a strategic focus which Jacob and the team put in place. And then, as you said, we have set fairly aggressive targets, I think, on our Scope 1 and 2, particularly for 2030 and 2050. And we're beyond setting targets.
I think that, again, there's so much for us to do. We have to be learning and humble about it. But I would point out, I don't know of a mining organization that has made the commitment that we have actually for the renewable transition, for example, the 2.2 GW that we're doing in Australia on solar and wind. Those are the largest renewable projects in Australia. We want to do more. And we are very focused on how that will help us reduce our carbon footprint as it relates to those targets. And as you mentioned, on Scope 3, we have a range of initiatives that we have underway to deal with that, both with our consumers of the iron ore, the steel companies, but also with the suppliers and the shipping and so forth that are there. So it's fundamental to what we do.
I think what Sam mentioned in terms of the remuneration policy, the shift from 400%-500%, that's all going to be based on how well the executives do on how they deliver on the decarbonization. I have to tell you, that's come from management. It didn't come from the board. The management wanted to have some teeth into the targets that we have. We obviously have a lot of work that we have to do. We have a lot of initiatives in the pipeline. We're learning as we're moving through it, as the technology's changing. Again, our strategic focus is on these materials for the energy transition. Then we're in the delivery mode on the decarb.
Yeah. Thank you very much. Thanks for your kind words as well around disclosures. We definitely want to, as some person earlier said in this meeting, committing to radical transparency. But we can, of course, only provide transparency of what we have clarity around. First of all, I and we firmly believe that it's actually good business for you shareholders, what we are doing, on pushing hard on decarbonizing, but benefiting from the energy transition. But we are not credible playing for the energy transition if we are not pushing the boundaries on decarbonizing our existing operations, plus really helping our customers, namely to reduce the Scope 3, help our customers. That was what you mentioned. We have made quite a commitment around being very transparent about what experiments and research and development we are doing and what we are putting money into right now.
It's a lot because our customers, the biggest CO2 emitters, are the steelmakers, both in China and in Japan, where we have our biggest customers are actually very committed. And they're looking towards us for helping them to solve that. So this is something that is critical for us. The way I heard your question, I'd say, yes, we want to push radical transparency. But the point is, of course, it's very difficult to lay out a very precise roadmap to 2050 because we're basically doing 10x more than what will happen because a number of research and development will not turn out positive, but some will. And what we are trying to do is committing, showing where we are spending the money, and then show you every time steps are happening. So I was very proud last year.
We were the first mine site in the world who could say, "This mine is 100% on biofuels." This was at Boron in California. We're now. Following right now, there's only biofuels being used at the Kennecott sites. And we do that, but we can't kind of change everything because there's not enough biofuels. So things take time. I do think changing the manufacturing processes is the most difficult part, but we are making real progress. The Blue Smelting at Sorel is really a real breakthrough. And other parts is really together with the steelmakers. And then, as our chairman just mentioned, I'm very proud, and we still haven't signed up for everything, but just the two underwritings of the biggest wind project and the biggest solar project in Australia is actually moving the dial in Australia.
Look, I don't know whether I'm answering fully your questions because there will always be uncertainty. We need to make rational decisions. Sometimes it's better to put effort here than there, and that will determine the sequence. I hope I've left no doubt that we are absolutely committed, and we want to be a pace-setter in industry on this. Thank you.
Hear two and then one after. Yeah.
Hi. Hello, everybody. My name is Sofia Stefanović, and I am speaking today on behalf of a coalition of different groups that have been resisting the Rio Tinto lithium mine in Western Serbia. Also, as a PhD researcher at the University of Cambridge, combining organizing and insights from academia, alongside my colleague Nina, our insights and questions come from both academia, organizing, and lived experience. It's not on behalf of one group but a coalition. I note that the Jadar project hasn't been mentioned today despite your ongoing activities, including your representative in Serbia announcing the company was now actively campaigning to revive the Jadar project just this week, a few days ago, on national TV. Hundreds of thousands of citizens have been saying no to the project for years.
So the current campaign to revive it, through the media as well as significant investments in the country, both to different projects for local communities but also otherwise. After the project's cancellation and following the citizens' resistance, it sounds like the opposite of listening, which you have been talking to us about a lot today, and the opposite of care, frankly. It is perceived as undemocratic and a social engineering of acceptance. And it also threatens to stoke social conflict. I'd say if you were actually listening, you'd hear that the answer was a firm no, and it has been for a while, coming from many different groups in Serbia and internationally.
So my question first, and then I'll move on to a question that remains unanswered from the local groups, is, in line with your ESG and the 3C commitments, why do you not accept and clearly communicate to your ownership that you have lost trust in Serbia? Why do you not take the responsibility for this flop, repair the impacted land, and withdraw, as the local groups alongside allies have been asking you to do for a while? And I move to the questions from the local groups that remain unanswered despite these being asked at many events organized by the company as well as other stakeholders, including the government. Why had you started buying up land and properties in the Jadar Valley before receiving the necessary permits and project approval?
In light of the statements made by government officials alluding to corruption, had any promises been made to you around the project going ahead given the ahead of time? So those are my questions. I'll hand over to Nina after her comments.
Sure. Okay. Well, let me start, and then I get Sinead or Jakob to add to it. I think that, first of all, we have heard the concerns. We see that the people have about the project. We don't believe that the project has to come at the cost of the natural environment and the region's agricultural industries. We think there's significant potential for the country. And we have been listening, talking to 3,000 different people to hear more views of where they are. But I would just underscore all of this by saying it's ultimately up to the people and the government of Serbia as to whether we would be permitted to do anything. It's up to the people of Serbia and the government. That's where it is. I don't know, Sinead, if you want to add anything.
Thank you. I think the comments you've made are very valid, and thanks for the question. We firmly believe that the Jadar project, which will be an underground lithium mine built to the highest environmental standards and to international standards, both from the EU and outside the EU, is a very possible project to develop without compromising on the well-being of the environment and the region. We completed environmental impact assessments as part of the permitting process many years ago, and we did not publish those reports because the permits were annulled by the Serbian government, and we fully respect that decision. We've really been doing two things since that time.
We've been really working to engage, as the chairman has said, with as many people as will speak to us in all walks of life in Serbia to really understand and listen to their concerns and also to provide them with information on the project because we never really had the opportunity to explain what the project will be as part of that permitting process because the permits were cancelled before that time. The second thing we've been doing is publishing as much information as we can on our website and also sharing that both locally, regionally, nationally, and internationally to explain what the project would be if it is built and really taking that information on board as well. So we remain committed to continuing to engage with the Serbian people, with civil society, and also with the government and stakeholders to look at the merits of the project.
As the chairman has said, it will be ultimately to the Serbian people to decide, but we believe it's still worth looking deep and hard at that project to see how it could be developed responsibly for the benefit of the people of Serbia. Thank you.
Second question.
Social engineering. Also, can you please address the question around buying up land, property, and corruption that was made from local groups? Please.
Sorry. Yes. Yeah, I heard your second question. Look, we bought a lot of land when we had the licenses, and then two years ago, they were annulled. And that's the reason why we own a lot of the land.
If I can just follow up on that. Thank you. My name is Nina Djukanović. And as Sofia mentioned, we work as colleagues. I'm also a researcher at the University of Oxford, and I spent the last few years working with the local community and in solidarity with them and other activist groups. I want to follow up on some of your comments that you made in your initial speech where you stressed this tension that you see between the social and environmental issues and the permitting process as one of the main challenges toward tackling climate change, essentially. And we heard a lot about the importance of critical raw materials and the role that Rio Tinto sees as having.
I think in the context of lithium in Serbia, this is very important because you continue to talk about this in the, excuse me, in the context of the green transition. But in fact, you're creating the false binary between climate change and protecting the environment because the local groups in the Jadar Valley are living in close relationship with their environment. And you are saying that they are going to decide, but they have already decided multiple times. I appreciate that you have talked to anyone who is willing to talk to you. And you mentioned about 3,000 people. May I remind you that during the protests, we have seen more than 100,000 people at the height of the protest that was in autumn and winter 2021 across more than 50 Serbian cities blocking highways, roads, and bridges for several weeks, ultimately leading to the cancellation of the project?
Why do you continue to engage with this? And why do you continue to promote this narrative, which frankly is a very narrow understanding of the energy transition, which does not take into account anything regarding justice and anything regarding the local rights? The locals have rejected the mine. And to suggest, as some representatives of your company in Serbia have and as you have now, is that the rejection of the project somehow means ignoring the importance of tackling climate change is a gross distortion of reality on the grounds where people are protecting their right to have a different sustainable future that is based on their relationship with the land and on the clean water, air, and soil.
So frankly, my question is whether you are going to acknowledge that Rio Tinto is one of the most polluting companies historically and that the mining industry is one of the biggest drivers of deforestation and biodiversity globally. And the government data in Serbia have shown that carbon emissions from mining and pollution are projected to rise dramatically, and a few wind turbines and solar panels are not going to change that. Are you going to acknowledge that? And why do you continue this greenwashing narrative despite the clear rejection from the local population and the wider activist groups, both in Serbia and elsewhere? Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you. Thanks very much. I think, as Sinead said, there was not very much information at all that Rio Tinto was able to put out. You mentioned the impact assessment. We were trying to follow all of the policies. And so we think that there is a lot of not all of the information that should be out there is out there. And that's on us in terms of how we communicate. But there's a sense too of making sure that all the information that we have is there for people to understand at least what it is holistically. As Sinead said, there's also been the input that we heard affected and changed the design of how that would work.
But at the end of the day, I just go back to what I said before, it's going to be up to the people and the government of Serbia to decide whether to do it. That's the bottom line. One, and then we'll go here.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Andy Whitmore, longtime shareholder and also co-chair of London Mining Network. And if I may, I have a short question on the Ranger mine which I've asked before or asked around before, but I really would like to follow up on the issue around energy transition minerals because obviously, you've made such a big thing of it earlier on in the meeting, and you do in your materials. And it just strikes me very much I mean, it is obviously absolutely necessary to ensure that we're dealing with a climate crisis.
It's great that there's so much shareholder concern around it and that the company is addressing issues around carbon. But I think the problem is that it's only one crisis amongst many. We have the biodiversity crisis. We have land issues. We have associated issues we've heard a lot about. So I mean, you mentioned various reports at the start. I mean, I would draw people's attention, if they're not aware, to the International Resource Panel report that came out, its Global Resources Outlook this year. And there, they looked across the expansion of resources, including metals. And it's an exponential growth. And that's not just to do with the energy transition. It has been rising.
So, to me, I think if you're looking at sustainable development, if the sustainable part of sustainable development means anything, then it has to basically consider the idea that minerals are part of a wider problem. So, I guess, again, you mentioned circular economy. And I think what's important is that the moment we're looking at oil and gas companies, they're considering that they need to phase out oil and gas. But to me, it seems that mining is still part of the problem in terms of those large multiple crises. And maybe the board's strategic thinking needs to be how increasingly you're not dealing with primary production, which is most of what the complaints are around here, but safely moving into the idea of a circular economy. But anyway, sorry. Apart from that, I'll get on to my question now.
So in previous years, as I mentioned, I raised issues around the Ranger Uranium Mine in the Kakadu National Park in Australia, which is operated by Rio Tinto's subsidiary, ERA, where the focus is now on closure and rehabilitation. I obviously want to start by acknowledging the announcement just before the AGM that ERA has appointed Rio Tinto to manage the Ranger Rehabilitation Project. Mirarr representatives, the traditional representatives in Australia, have recognized the greater capacity they should bring to rehabilitation. And it appears this is consistent with Rio Tinto's previous commitments, which you've given here, to continue funding of that necessary rehabilitation work. However - and you probably guessed there was a however - it's still a concern that the ERA remains the primary corporate decision-maker on the nearby Jabiluka project.
Despite explicit opposition from the Mirarr people, ERA has recently applied for a formal extension of the Jabiluka mineral lease. So therefore, my question is, does Rio Tinto stand by previous commitments to respect the wishes of the Mirarr people? And will you commit to working with the traditional owners and others in civil society to ensure Jabiluka is permanently protected? Thanks. Thank you.
Thank you for your introductory comments and also the question on ERA. Kellie, I might go to you. Kellie is the CEO of Australia, is here, and is heavily involved on the ERA side. But I might just say a couple of comments at the beginning. I think I look forward to reading that report. You mentioned the International Resources Panel. Any way that we're looking at it, I think it's going to be very difficult to the energy transition without, for example, copper.
Unless there's some new technological insight that we haven't heard of, there is going to be a need. If you think about the amount of copper that's in an electric vehicle versus an internal combustion vehicle, it's about three times more in an electric vehicle. We know that that's a part of the transition that we need. We need the metals. You may say, "Unfortunately," but we need these metals to be able to do it. I do think your point about recycling and the circular economy, that is something that we are looking at very closely. Jakob mentioned Matalco, which is an initiative that we've launched to understand more about this, particularly in North America on the aluminum side. But that's something that we're very keen looking at, the notion of urban mining, if you might call it that.
But we have to also be, I think, realistic about the gap, the timeframe, because there's also something else, I think you mentioned, just transition. I mean, so we can either turn off all the taps, but what does that do in terms of a just transition and where things are? So we're grappling with that, but look forward to the report and any other insights you have. But this is just some perspective on it. But maybe that was the more interesting part, your question on ERA. Kellie.
Thanks, Dominic. And thanks, Andy, for your question. As the CEO of Australia, I've had the real honour to be able to walk on Mirarr country. I've seen the mining lease at Jabiluka and seen the deep culture and connection to country that the Mirarr people have.
I've had the pleasure of working with them to ensure that we can step in and significantly support ERA to do the Ranger project rehabilitation because what's important on that project is water. Mirarr people walk on bare feet. When you have mined in a uranium mine, ensuring that you can walk on country with bare feet is important. So I'm really committed to making sure that the rehab is completed to the standard that it's required at Ranger. Working with the Mirarr people around Jabiluka, there is a care and maintenance agreement across the top of the lease, and it's got a veto right in it. So the ERA board decided that the lease expires on the 11th of August this year. They wanted to ensure that veto right was maintained.
So they applied for an extension of that lease to ensure the veto was remained, and they had that right. There's quite a lot of work that's happened with the Northern Territory Government and the Commonwealth Government to ensure that a cultural understanding is mapped to not only understand the tangibles but the intangibles around Jabiluka. So a decision about protection of Jabiluka can be made, which we are super supportive of.
Great. Thank you. What I think is important, particularly in terms of the company, you have made commitments, particularly around the free prior informed consent on Jabiluka. So it'd be great to follow up. And I'd love to continue the more general questions. At the end of the day, that is the real question, what a just transition means. And a lot of the IEA statistics, they're based on assumptions.
So the question is, what type of transition we do need? And I think people need to bear that in mind. But thank you.
Thank you. Two.
Hi. Good morning. My name is Gabriel Voigt. I'm asking this question on behalf of the Long-term Investors in People's Health Program, a chair action . LIPH is a coalition of 45 investors with over $5 trillion in assets under management. My question relates to Rio Tinto's action on air quality. Worldwide, air pollution is the leading environmental cause of death and disease, killing at least 7 million people annually. As Climate Action 100+ explains in its recent investor briefing, Clearing the Air, air pollution is not only physically harmful but also places financial risk on companies like Rio Tinto and their shareholders. We note that in the Rio Tinto Sustainability Factbook, there is extensive disclosure of toxic air pollutants.
The additional disclosure of fine particulate matter, PM 2.5, goes a step further than some other mining and metals companies. We also recognize the establishment of multi-year air quality improvement projects at many of your operational sites. However, more progressive action must be taken to protect the world from these severe impacts. Forward-thinking companies are starting to recognize that their responsibility extends beyond complying with the existing regulations. To that end, we would like to see Rio Tinto seize the opportunity to set the bar high amongst your peers and become a global leader on tackling air pollution. Could you commit to meeting with the long-term investors in People's Health Group to discuss this further, please? Thank you.
Yeah. Thank you very much for your intervention. We'd be very happy to do that.
I think that's something that was talked a lot about in the sustainability committee on each of our sites. It obviously varies depending on what we're doing. But that's an important element that we look at. So we'd be very keen to follow up and learn more about what you think we could do further. One more. We're heading toward the end. Maybe two more questions. One and then two.
Stephen Power from the Jesuits in Britain. It's a trust within the Catholic Church in Britain. I've had some questions before at AGMs on QMM's work in Madagascar. The company agreed that community relations there are at a very low ebb. And now I understand that the company are employing consultants from London to address some of this.
Part of the problem in the communication and dealing with local communities around the world in lots of places is, presumably, scientific data and technical data is not relatively accessible to people who don't have the education on that. It, in fact, raises suspicions and hostility. Can you say a little bit about what method are consultants from London going to assist or develop this? Or how is that going to work in improving the situation?
Yeah. Well, I think there's a number of different groups that are helping us. We have had help from London. Some of that's on the research side. And I'll let Sinead maybe talk in more specific about it. But so we do draw on international experts. You mentioned South Africa, Australia, the U.K. But there's also a lot of engagement locally.
As I mentioned, from visiting there myself and meeting with the local groups that are there. And I think Sinead mentioned it. One of the comments that we've had from people there is, "You need to explain your information in ways that is useful for us. Who are you providing this information for?" So there actually is quite a lot of dialogue with the different community groups that are there near the mine site. I don't know, Sinead, if you want to add anything.
Yeah. Thank you. And thanks for the question. I think, as the chairman has said, and I mentioned earlier on, we have really tried at QMM to listen to everybody and explain to people what the operation is about and invite people to come and visit. We've been using support consultants on environment, on water quality, on engagement.
We've also improved the transparency around our website and how people have access to information. We also want to improve the education and understanding that people have in the local community of what the mine is and what the quality and monitoring systems are. I'm not sure specifically which consultants you're talking about, but I'm more than happy to meet at the end of the meeting and get some more specifics. But yes, we are using quite a lot of people. But to my knowledge, we're not using community consultants in the community to engage directly with people. But we are getting advice from everybody that we can. But happy to talk specifics after the meeting here if that helps.
University of London. But if sort of community relations there were better, would that have enabled the publication of the WRG report?
Because I understand that the unresolved nature of that report could lead the company to think it would be misunderstood in the wrong way. But that's product of poor community relations, isn't it?
So as I said, we have a lot of work. We've heard very clearly we need to improve communication. And we're doing a lot of work on that front with our communities team in Madagascar. And we'll continue to do that. So happy to discuss the consultants' question on university consultants afterwards. But look, again, on WRG, we have a report that says we have an inconclusive piece of data and that we need to do more work. We've already commissioned the additional work that we need to do, which is a much more comprehensive study on aquatic health rather than a point-in-time incident where we can't get clear data.
So we really want to make sure that we can provide the right information and the right science to the community and help people to actually understand what that science means. Thank you.
Thank you. Two. Yes.
My name is Martine Caplette. I had a 35-year career at QIT now called RTFT up to my retirement in 2011. I was responsible for employee benefits, which included managing each cycle of the RTFT pension indexation policy that had been in place for 30 years. This pension policy has not been applied for the last 12 years. No reasons or explanation whatsoever on this situation were provided to retirees despite the many questions raised during these years. RTFT's retirees have been losing purchasing power for the last three years, 30% so far.
Many are struggling to make both ends meet with an average pension income of approximately CAD 32,000 or the equivalent of GBP 18,000 a year. This is not what I would call a generous pension plan, as Mr. Cunningham mentioned earlier. As a shareholder and impacted retiree myself, this is my third attendance at the AGM to represent RTFT's retiree interests. At last year's meeting, both you, Mr. Barton, and Mr. Cunningham said you wished to settle this dispute by talks between the parties to forestall any need for us to return in 2024. Well, here we are. Mr. Stausholm made the same commitment when he visited RTFT last September. My colleagues and I were in agreement with Mr. Stausholm. However, all talks between the parties have been unsuccessful so far to this day. Enhancing health benefit or setting a hardship fund is not what retiree needs.
They need to protect their pension income, which is already very low, against inflation. You should know that health benefit for retirees is being covered by the government. They don't need enhancement of health benefit for private plan. During other non-confidential talks Rio had with other retirees, it was mentioned that a major impediment preventing any form of settlement was some unidentified and very mysterious ripple effect. So my question to you, Mr. Barton, is, could you please explain what is the ripple effect? And why is it such an impediment to us reaching a settlement that would greatly help us understand what is the showstopper to a settlement that would be acceptable to both parties?
Before you answer the question, I just want to say that because of that arbitrary and immoral decision taken by Rio's top management, our retirees are getting poorer and poorer. It is time to care for those retirees. Those who participated in the company's success, they should be considered as stakeholders. Thank you.
Thank you very much. And thank you for coming again. As you mentioned, I know we've tried. There's been at least three attempts, I think, at having conversations between the parties to get to the bottom of it. And I think, as Jakob has mentioned, talks don't necessarily. It doesn't mean that whatever someone asks for is what we should do. We should look at exactly what were the requirements, what were in the provisions. And we have a different view than you on that.
We would love to be able to figure out a way to get to a conclusion. But there just seemed to be no room whatsoever. And I'll just put some facts on the table. We can talk about these afterwards if you think they're off base. But I just want to for people's information, first of all, the plan has been fully funded by the company. There are no employee contributions. As an example, based on average employee salary, a retiree who retired in 2015 with 30 years of service would be entitled to a pension plan with a present value of between $1 million-$1.5 million, 100% funded by the company. So again, I don't know how that compares to what you're saying. I'm just saying we have information that would suggest that we want to follow what has been in place.
We do want to make sure that people are being taken care of. But as we look at the numbers and where we are and I know that Peter and Isabelle had conversations, there's a very different perspective on where it is and where the impact is. And unfortunately, now it's heading toward the courts to go through it. We wish it wouldn't have to do that. But if there's such a difference, that's the piece. But perhaps we can talk. If you think I've got these are not correct facts, let me know as we go through it. But there is a different view in terms of where that is.
My question was about the ripple effect. Could you please answer the question?
The ripple effect is basically that when you have pension plans that are in different jurisdictions with different rules, if you start retroactively changing it, you need to be careful in thinking about what impact that has. But I think here, the more critical issue is what was actually in the agreement that was there? What did Rio Tinto commit to or the companies that had been bought, as Bruce had described before, multiple? What was that? And what did that look like? And again, we have a different interpretation. I don't like to jump in.
But I was impressed with the company when that was approved with the board. And you have not done due diligence beyond the time that you've acquired us, eight years later. And you keep saying that you have no obligation. You never even knew.
You never even looked at what the obligation was, I may say. The frustration, I'm sure, is coming through to you. But you have not given us any answers. You've stonewalled and stonewalled and stonewalled. And we've had to take you on in the courts, nine of us, trying to tackle Rio Tinto with your billions and billions of dollars. Now, that takes a lot of commitment on our part to try that. And it's very expensive. And it's very galling. And you say the Three Cs is what governs your behavior? Well, it's very difficult for me to see that, very, very difficult.
Well, again, I'm very sorry to have frustrated you so much. We'll follow up on what the stonewalling is. That's not my understanding of what the team has done.
But if that's how you feel, let's follow up to understand where it is that we haven't been describing it. But right now, I just say we have a different view. Are there any more questions?
May I just say that I just want to say that I think communities feel very similar frustrations, many who've been represented today by different groups, and particularly those who've had to resort to legal action to get attention on the issues. They've been trying very hard through civil society action with you directly in dialogue to get you to pay attention to. And that level of frustration needs to be registered by the investors because it's all very calm and lovely in these meetings.
But actually, those feelings that are being expressed there are being felt in many, many places around the world, in Serbia, in Mongolia, in Madagascar, as well as with the people who are here dealing with and the people we're talking about are living on less than $2 a day. So $18,000 would be quite good for them. Thank you.
Thank you, Yvonne. Any other comments or questions? There's nothing more online. Yeah? Okay. Then I think we'll bring this to a close. I want to thank everyone for their questions and comments, both in the room and online. Many of you have already sent in your proxy cards. You don't need to vote again. Anyone who is eligible and wishes to vote but doesn't have a proxy should now complete the voting card.
If you're entitled to vote but don't have a card, please raise your hand and we'll bring you one. Please cast your votes by completing your poll card and either hand your completed card to the registrar's staff or post it into one of the ballot boxes at the exits as you leave the hall. If you have any difficulty, one of our attendants will be happy to assist. Anyone attending online should complete their votes now through the Lumi platform. The polls will close approximately 15 minutes after the end of this meeting. The results of the polls on resolutions 23 to 26, as I mentioned earlier, will be announced after this meeting and will be posted on the Rio Tinto website. The results on the remaining resolutions will be published on the 2nd of May. This brings us to the end of the meeting.
Thank you for all your participation and continued support. I hope you'll join us for some refreshments in the Pickwick Room on the first floor. I now declare the meeting closed. Thank you.