Good morning to everyone here in London and around the world. My name is Simon Thompson. I'm the Chairman of Rio Tinto and it's my pleasure to welcome you to our 2021 Annual General Meeting for Rio Tinto Plc. Due to COVID-nineteen restrictions here in England, we're holding a hybrid meeting this year. But I'm pleased to welcome in person here in London, Sam Laidlaw, Senior Independent Director for Rio Tinto Plc and Chairman of our Remuneration Committee Peter Cunningham, our Interim Chief Financial Officer and Steve Allen, our Group Company Secretary.
I'm also pleased to welcome all the other members of the Rio Tinto Board who are joining us remotely Jakob Stastho, our Chief Executive who's currently in Australia Megan Clark, Chair of our Sustainability Committee Michael Lestrange, Hinda Gabi, Simon Henry who is Chair of our Audit Committee, Simon McKeon who's the Senior Independent Director for Rio Tinto Limited, Jennifer Nason and Nari Woods. The notice of meeting containing the text of each resolution was published on our website and posted to shareholders on the 8th March. Copies are available within the documents tab on the Lumi platform through which you are watching this meeting. A guide to asking and submitting questions Jim should also be on the display on the platform. I can confirm that we have a quorum of shareholders physically present.
The poll for voting on the resolutions is now open and it will remain open for about 15 minutes after the conclusion of the meeting. Given that we are for all intents and purposes running this meeting virtually and mindful of the issues that can sometimes arise with connectivity, We have pre recorded introductory remarks from myself, Jakob and Sam Laidlaw as well as a short video. So could we play those recordings now please?
In every company's history, there are moments that change it forever. The destruction of the Juggen rock shelters had global repercussions. Our company will never be the same.
The blast has obviously had a really significant impact on the general public, PKKP and other stakeholders as well as our teams.
Through respect, we will build a better company because we will build Trust again. So if we can respect everyone we work with, including the traditional owners on the land in which we operate, we will regain and rebuild our reputation and come back
So our core values relate to integrity, safety and respect, and they're integral to Indigenous Iliens values and also how we engage with the land.
Jarrod Brockman, our actions have significance, and we have to get this right. So one of the changes we've seen since last year is people are actually asking questions about the cultural significant sites that are close to the areas of work. There's a thirst for learning, and I can actually Feel that, that working through the organization in many ways and showing itself in our leadership.
When the JUKAM event happened, It actually really significantly affected me. I felt personally responsible. So since we've had that event, we've had that more heightened Sense of awareness for the team on the ground. So if they see something that's not right, we've stopped the job. So the first step was to get the heritage maps on the walls to understand a little bit about what's The next step, what we really want to do is to get the stories on the wall for the heritage sites in which they're working in because people are really keen to understand more about They're ready to listen.
They'll make a better workplace because people actually then have a sense of responsibility and a sense of ownership of what's happening in the area.
So what we're seeing at the moment People are approaching the areas of cultural significance in the same way they would approach safety, looking at it as a hazard and then what are the effective
So we know that doing things the safest way is the most efficient way. We know that our safety culture has grown our Productivity and our production. What I'm looking forward to is being able to put culture in the same position, being able to know that Expect for traditional owners grows our productivity, grows our position and grows our business. So we have been working with the traditional owners
In a co management approach and long term,
that's the perfect solution because we are listening to each other now more than Taking our learnings home from site and educating our family to have them know and understand what happened And then have the education around heritage and what that means and the significance of Up On-site, I think will benefit us and future generations that come into mining as well. It might be my kids Up here one day.
Over the last 9 months after reviewing more than 1300 heritage sites, we have removed more than 54,000,000 tonnes from our plan. That is derisking our business and making sure that we're protecting and preserving sites of importance to Trish Liners and to the general Australian public.
Every contract we sign is more than just a contract. It provides so much more than that. It provides leaders and inspiration for families, communities and children to look up to and follow the journey.
I'm optimistic. We will learn from this. We have a lot of opportunity to make things better.
When we have more indigenous leaders in this company, we will understand the Host communities like we never have before. When we understand the host communities in that way, we will drive really deep Relationships and connections. Those deep relationships and connections will drive value for our company and the communities in which we operate.
I started this business 20 years ago, and I was proud to wear the shirt. I was proud to tell my parents and my friends and family where I worked. Last Last year, we lost a lot of that pride, and it drives me that we're going to regain it. We're going to have employees proud to wear the shirt again, And it's what's going to drive us to be better and to see success in the future.
2020 was a challenging year for everyone, but it was a particularly difficult year for Rio Tinto and it was also a year of sharp contrast. Our response to the COVID-nineteen pandemic was outstanding. As the virus threatened lives and livelihoods around the world, The entire group mobilized to safeguard our employees, contractors and local communities and to keep all our managed operations worldwide running safely and Smoothly. This resilient operational performance coincided with a period of high iron ore prices in part because of supply disruptions elsewhere in the industry, which in turn resulted in strong financial performance with underlying earnings of $12,400,000,000 and free cash flow of $9,400,000,000 The strength and resilience of our business enabled us to protect thousands of jobs across our supply chain and to continue to pay taxes and royalties to governments and dividends to you, our shareholders, when many other companies were forced to cut back. Our total economic contribution including payments to employees, suppliers, governments and shareholders, amounted to $47,000,000,000 including $8,400,000,000 in taxes and royalties.
And we were able to further strengthen our balance sheet with net debt at year end of $700,000,000 In view of this robust operational and financial performance, the Board is recommending a final dividend of US309 dollars per share and a special dividend of US0.93 dollars per share, taking total dividends declared to shareholders for the year to US9 $1,000,000,000 Given all the changes and uncertainty created by the pandemic, it would have been easy to lose focus on safety. So I'm very proud of the team for delivering a second successive year with 0 fatalities. We also made significant progress with our climate change strategy, providing greater detail on how we intend to meet our Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions reduction targets and setting out the objectives of our partnerships with customers and others to reduce Scope 3 emissions arising in the aluminium and steel value chains. In recognition of the importance of urgent action by business, governments, consumers and investors to tackle climate change. We are one of the first companies to commit to put our 2021 Climate Change Report to an advisory vote at our Annual General Meetings next year.
This say on climate will give shareholders the opportunity to express their views on our overall climate change strategy and implementation. However, all of these achievements were overshadowed by events at the Dukan Gorge in Western Australia in May last year. The destruction of the Jukan Rock Shelters was a breach of both our values as a company and of the trust placed in us by the Burugaynti, Garama and Binugurra people and other traditional owners of the lands on which our business operates. Last year Meghan Clarke and I visited the Dukan Gorge with the elders of the PKKP. The visit was my first opportunity to apologize in person and to see and feel their sadness and pain firsthand.
In 3 weeks' time, Megan and I will be going back to visit the PKKP to review the progress that we've made on the remedy process and rebuilding the trust that has been lost. As Chairman of your company, I am ultimately accountable for the failings that led to the tragic events at Dukan Gorge. Accordingly, I will not be seeking reelection at the AGMs next year. I will use my remaining time with Rio Tinto to provide continuity and support to our new Chief Executive, Jakob Staasholm and the new executive team and to oversee the implementation of the recommendations of the Board Review and the Parliamentary Inquiry to ensure that the destruction of a site of such exceptional cultural significance never happens again at a Rio Tinto operation. Last year we welcomed 3 new directors, Hinda Ghabi, Jennifer Nason and Nairi Woods.
And the Board has already benefited from their insights and expertise. We also appointed Simon McKeen to the new role of Senior Independent Director of Rio Tinto Limited to enhance board engagement in Australia. At the end of the year, I was delighted to announce the appointment of Yaakov as our new Chief Executive. As expected, Jacob has moved fast to appoint his new executive team and I feel confident that we have the right people in the right jobs to deliver our strategy and to implement all the necessary changes in our risk management, governance, work culture and relationships following the DUKAM tragedy. David Constable retired from the Board at year end and Michael Lestrange will retire at the conclusion of the Australian AGM.
I would like to thank both for their wise counsel and outstanding contribution to the Board. As a consequence of these changes, we have 4 board searches currently underway, including for my successor as Chair and Jacob's successor as CFO. As we look to 2021, Rio Tinto remains an exceptionally strong business with outstanding people, world class assets and a resilient balance sheet. After a period of profound change at all levels in the organization, 2021 is all about stability and execution, recommitting to our purpose of producing essential materials in a way that creates value for all our stakeholders, safeguards the environment and respects our host countries and communities. There is an absolute determination to learn the lessons from Dukan Gorge, to rebuild trust with the traditional owners of the lands where we operate and to reestablish Rio Tinto as a leader in social and community performance.
And I am convinced that Rio Tinto will emerge from this crisis a better, a stronger and a more caring company. Thank you.
Thank you, Simon, and good morning. Good evening from Australia. I would like to acknowledge the traditional owners of the land where I'm presenting from today, the Batyuk Nunga people. I would also like to acknowledge and pay my respect to all traditional owners and indigenous people that host Rio Tinto's operations around the world. 2020 was for Rio Tinto a year of extremes.
It had its dark days, most notably, our destruction of the ancient rock shelters at Jukan Gorge, a terrible chapter in our history. Perhaps this cannot be said enough, so let me say it again. The rock shelters at Duke and Gore should not have been touched. We are so sorry. The destruction severely damaged many of our relationships, including that with the Bunru, Gunti, Gurama and Binigura people, for whom it was devastating and a significant breach of trust.
I visited Duke and Gorg earlier this year and expressed my deep regret for the damage we caused. I witnessed and felt firsthand the pain we have inflicted, and I will never forget that. The work we had to do at Duke and Gorge is beyond the remediation at the site. I am convinced that we must also work in partnership with traditional owners in Australia, Native Americans in the United States And indigenous people in Canada and elsewhere to secure our shared future. We must focus on real engagement With our communities understanding their felt experience and never forgetting that in so many places, We are guests on their land.
We must respect our hosts and our partners And work with them to understand their priorities and concerns and minimize our impacts. Over the last few months, I've had the privilege of meeting many people, both internally and externally, who care deeply about Rio Tinto. The open and honest conversations and feedback they have provided gives me confidence that together, We can rebuild Riuten to become a company that we can all be proud of every day. Last year, we also had to learn to live with COVID-nineteen, and I'm very proud of how we adapted to the pandemic. I want to thank and congratulate all of our employees and contractors on the resilience They demonstrated and continue to demonstrate.
It was a very challenging year for all of us. I'm also proud That we delivered another year with 0 fatalities because nothing is more important than safety. Our financial performance in 2020 was incredibly strong. We delivered underlying EBITDA of £23,900,000,000 and a return on capital employed of 27%. We generated free cash flow of £9,400,000,000 After paying €8,400,000,000 in taxes and royalties and investing €6,200,000,000 in growth and sustaining capital expenditure.
With net debt of less than €1,000,000,000 our balance sheet further strengthened. As you heard Simon say, we also advanced our actions on climate change by setting new Scope 3 goals. Rio Tinto has many strengths, but we must also ensure consistency and improve in certain areas. First, simply put, Rio Tinto must be the best operator. Our 2020 operational performance was good despite the disruption of COVID-nineteen, but there are opportunities to improve the consistency of our 2nd, I firmly believe that the foundation for our business is impeccable ESG credentials.
Thirdly, we must excel in development from identifying opportunities to maturing and developing them. We must do this to build our portfolio for the next decade and beyond. I know we can do it by leveraging our expertise and maintaining an absolute commitment to capital discipline. We will only consider opportunities that create value. Finally, we must also step up Our external engagement have become a more outward looking company, which is in more in tune with society.
This is our social license to operate. It is just by others, and it is essential for our long term success. All of us are determined to learn and hear from the events of 2020 To strengthen our culture and see we intend to emerge even stronger. We have a long road ahead of us, And I'm not underestimating the time and effort this will take. We now have a new executive committee in place with our new Chief People Officer joining us earlier this week.
Almost all of the team are new in their positions, and the transition is progressing well. Together, we will now drive this journey. Today's Annual General Meeting is an important part of this journey. It provides not only the opportunity to speak, but more importantly, a chance for all of us to carefully listen to each other. Your company, My company, our company, Rio Tinto is an amazing company.
It's full of great people, Has an extraordinary history and, in my view, an exciting future ahead. I look forward to continuing to engage With our employees, our partners, our stakeholders and all of you, our shareholders, on this journey. Thank you.
2020 was a challenging year for many organizations and one of the most challenging in Rio Tinto's history. The destruction of the Yukan Gorge rock shelters on the land of the PKK people in Australia should not have happened and does not reflect our values as a company. We as your Board understand that given the circumstances which led to the destruction of the rock shelters, Executive pay outcomes are a sensitive and contentious point for many stakeholders. The loss of cultural heritage was tragic, and many have understandably sought to allocate appropriate accountability and responsibility. Following the publication of the Board's review on the 24th August 2020, it became clear that a number of stakeholders Felt that the financial penalties alone that were applied to the Chief Executive, the Chief Executive of Iron Ore and the Group Executive Corporate Relations were insufficient and that to rebuild relationships with traditional owners and other stakeholders, Changes of leadership were required to move the company forward.
In agreeing that the 3 executives should leave Rio Tinto, The board was obliged to consider the following. There was no deliberate act or omission to act by the 3 executives. There was no compliance failure as all authorizations had been received from the Western Australian government. There was no fraud, malfeasance or cover up, which would have resulted in immediate dismissal and forfeiture of all invested awards. There was, however, a critical risk assessment failure going back many years.
This failure can be partially attributed to the 3 executives To fail to recognize and remediate systemic weaknesses in the heritage risk management process. And after the destruction of the rock shelters, the executive leadership team failed to apologize unconditionally And respond with sufficient empathy towards the PKKP and to recognize the gravity of what had happened within the wider societal context. Some have suggested that the failure of the 3 executives to respond appropriately should have resulted in the forfeiture Of all outstanding remuneration, the Board understands this sensitivity and deeply regrets the destruction of the rock shelters and the slow and initially insufficiently sensitive response of the company. Given these considerations As well as various market precedents, the Board concluded that it was not in a position to legally terminate the 3 executives for cause And forfeit all outstanding remuneration. Instead, it was more appropriate that the 3 executives' employment Be terminated by mutual agreement acknowledging the potential adverse effect that this may have on their longer term careers.
As such, while acknowledging the gravity of events at Yukon Gorge, the penalties applied to the responsible executives were in the best view of the Board The most that could durably be applied and legally defended in light of the extent of the executive's ultimate accountability for Yukon Gorge, especially when taking into account relevant market precedents and the fact that the employees were forfeiting their employment. Following the application of Mallos for the events at Yukan Gorge, the 2020 short term incentive plan outcomes for J. S. Shaq, Chris Salisbury and Sir Owen Niven were nil. In addition to this sanction for Mr.
Jacques Estimated at over £1,700,000 a further malice adjustment of £1,000,000 was applied to Mr. Jacques' Long term incentive plan. During 2020, in accordance with our triennial policy cycle, the remuneration committee Reviewed our remuneration policy. Now there's no significant change proposed to the overall design. However, The policy does need to be brought up to date and incorporate the lessons learned from the Yukon Gorge tragedy as well as aligning certain Aspects more closely to shareholders and broader stakeholder expectations.
Under the proposed new policy, We intend to introduce ESG measures into the short term incentive plan by reducing the individual performance component from 30% to 15%, with 15% now allocated to ESG moving forward. When taken together with the already 20% Already allocated for safety, 35% of the short term incentive plan now covers broader ESG metrics. We've also removed the 1.2 multiplier on short term incentive plans for Executive Directors and we've reduced pension benefits to 14% of base salary to align with the retirement benefits provided to other employees across the group. We've also importantly introduced a specific ability to apply malice and clawback if in the future there is a material impact Notwithstanding the unprecedented challenges posed by the COVID-nineteen pandemic, The group's overall performance was very strong. Rio Tinto achieved its 2nd successive fatality free year, An outstanding achievement in our history.
Short term incentive plan financial and safety targets set For 2020 were either exceeded or met except for flexed underlying earnings, which fell just short of target, resulting in a combined payout of 76% of maximum for those two components. The estimated vesting for the 2016 Long Term Incentive Plan award combining the 2 TSR and earnings before interest and tax Margin portions is 66.7 percent of maximum. The TSR vesting outcome underlines the group's Strong overall performance during the 5 year period and the shareholder experience over that time frame with just under half of the vesting value attributable to share price appreciation. The final vesting outcome of The 2016 award will be known at the end of May with the assessment of the EBIT margin measure. As always, I welcome shareholder feedback and comments on the 2020 Remuneration Report.
Thank you, Jacob and Sam. I'd now like to proceed to the Q and A session by inviting questions from shareholders on any matters relevant to the business of the meeting. If you have not already submitted a question and would like to do so, you may submit questions through the Loomi platform or by calling the teleconference number provided. Or by calling the teleconference number provided. If you're asking your question in person, please state your name and if you represent an organization, the name of your organization before proceeding with your question.
We also have a number of pre submitted questions. So to allow us to answer as many questions as possible, please keep your comments short and to the point. Let's start with one of the pre submitted questions.
Thank you. Our first question comes from Market Forces. Rio Tinto's Scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions are reported as 519,000,000 tonnes in its 2020 climate report. To put this in perspective, the total greenhouse gas emissions of the UK were 455,000,000 tonnes in 2019. I hope the Board appreciates shareholders' concerns that this exposure could become a massive liability if carbon pricing and decarbonization Pass on costs or force customers who cannot decarbonize out of business.
Rio Tinto's annual report has four goals to address Scope 3 emissions that don't really address what is a serious looming liability. At no point does the report clarify the extent to which the Board is prepared To expose Rio Tinto to the liability of Scope 3 emissions in future, what is the degree of liability Rio Tinto is prepared to be exposed to In terms of emissions, in millions of tonnes per annum or as a proportion of underlying EBITDA in 2025, 2030 And 2,040.
Well, it's thank you for that question. And It's obviously a very important issue, but I do think the question is somewhat misleading because if There is a liability for carbon pricing. The polluter pays principle will apply. In other words, the company that is actually directly responsible for The Scope 1 emissions will pay the carbon price. And as you correctly point out, Rio Tinto's Scope 1 emissions are actually relatively low.
And of course, we've been working very hard to reduce those. We've achieved reductions of over 46% since 2,008. I think the Scope 3 emissions that the question refers to relate largely to the direct emissions of our customers. And the majority of those come from steel mills in China and Korea and Japan. And importantly, during 2020, all three of those countries committed to a national target of achieving Net 0 by 2,050 in the case of Japan and Korea and carbon neutrality by 2,060 in the case of China.
And that plays well into the partnerships that we've established with our customers in those countries, which are focused on R and D projects, which will help them to achieve the greenhouse DAS reductions that have now been set by their governments. Now if the governments or both countries do indeed Adopt carbon pricing as a way of incentivizing investment in low carbon technologies. The steel mills will have to pass on some or all of that cost to their customers. And that will have an impact on the cost of steel. But actually since steel is often a relatively small proportion of the total cost of an end product, The cost to customers may be quite limited.
So for example, the Energy Transitions Commission have calculated That the cost of net zero steel would add about 2% to the price of a new electric vehicle. And that's not a large increase. And indeed, many customers I think would be willing to pay a premium for a green product, which was contained 0 net 0 carbon steel. So As we look at this, I mean the implications of transitioning to net zero steel are that they will have to apply new technologies. There are feasible ways of doing that either by using hydrogen as a reductant or potentially using CCS.
If the route that is chosen is to use hydrogen, the impact of that would clearly be a reduction in demand for coking coal. And that's precisely why we sold our coal operations in 2018. But there are technologically feasible ways to produce 0 carbon Steel, they're not unduly expensive. And we don't think that they will materially impact demand for steel because There really are no alternatives to steel, no low carbon alternatives to steel in many applications. And in fact our climate change report which we published Earlier this year sets out a number of scenarios.
And the one where our portfolio performs best is the one where governments do indeed adopt proactive Climate change policies such as carbon pricing. So we absolutely recognize the urgent need to work with our customers to reduce Scope 3 emissions, but we don't accept that this represents a liability for Rio Tinto. In fact, we see this as an opportunity. Could we have the next question please?
Thank you. Our next question comes from Bat Oriol Batalga. Rio Tinto documents state that from 2017 onwards, Oyu Tolgoi will face water shortages, but the transfer of water from the Orhan River through the Orhan Govee project is out of the question due to its impact as well as its cost. The World Bank project has continued consultations and encouraged the Gobi population to demand the transfer of water to replace depleted resources. We are hearing from local communities that the Aukan Gobi project is still being discussed.
This involves construction of a 1,000 kilometer Water pipeline and water extraction project that will kill the Auckland River, which is an important ecological feature In the valley, itself a protected UN heritage site, what is your plan B for the water for the mine? Is it in fact the Auckland Gobi project?
Thanks very much for that question. And the short answer is no. I mean, Oyu Tolgoi actually uses water which is From a large deep brackish aquifer, which is discovered by our geologists as part of The project, it doesn't use surface water for its operations. And this brackish aquifer is not possible, but it is Appropriate, we can use it within our processes. The best estimates that we have at the moment indicate that Oyu Tolgoi will consume About 20% of that aquifer during the entire life of the project.
So there are sufficient deep underground water resources to safely meet the needs of the project. And the project itself is extremely water efficient. It consumes about 30% of the water consumed by similar mines around the world. So Oyu Tolgoi is not part of the Auckland Gobi project. We understand that's a government of Mongolia project supported by the World Bank.
But we certainly have no need of that water because we have adequate licensed supply from our own aquifer. Could we take another question?
Thank you. The next question comes from Henry Munoz, Chair of the Concerned Citizens and Retired Miners Coalition. I've lived in Superior, Arizona all my life. I've had 23 years underground mining experience working at the Magma mine at Oak Flat Until the 1982 closure and at the BHP San Manuel block cave mine for 14 years. With my experience with block Cave Mining, I know the devastating effects your proposed mine would have on my town and the region.
Your proposal would destroy the surface of Oak Flat and both drain and pollute the deep aquifers around Superior and the water supply of farmers and residents of the Valley of East Felix. Based on my experience with block caving in Arizona, the depth of this deposit and the problems you have with building your block cave at Oyu Tolgoi, Your design will not work. If you destroy Oak Flat, you destroy our town's chance to build a recreation based sustainable economy. Will you abandon the project so that we may enjoy Oak Flat and prosper for many generations to come?
Yes. Thank you, Mr. Munoz for the question. I know that we've had a number of Pre submitted questions on resolution. It probably makes sense if you could read out the other question as well.
And then I'll try and answer both because they do overlap to some extent. Okay. Unfortunately, we will have to answer them separately. But let me Can I start by just explaining why resolution is important? It's important because Under any scenario, the only way we can tackle climate change is by extended level of investment in renewables and electrification.
And that will require A substantial increase in the production and use of copper. And the Resolution mine has the potential to supply 25% of the United States demand for copper. So it is potentially if the project is developed an extremely important part of helping the United States to make the transition to a low carbon economy. And everybody agrees that copper is essential to tackle climate change. But the question is where is that copper going to come from?
And of course, all mines have an impact on the environment and they have an impact on local communities and all mines are controversial. But I think compared to many of the alternatives Resolution has the potential to be a relatively low impact mine. And I say that because it is located within the copper triangle in Arizona, which is an area that has a legacy of mining dating back well over a century. And in fact the project itself sits within the footprint of an existing mine. The project is also broadly supported by many of the local communities.
So the mayors Of all of the towns within the copper triangle have written to President Biden indicating their support for this project. So has the Governor of Arizona. And one of the reasons, of course, that there is that level of support within the community local community and the state It's because the project, if it goes ahead, is likely to create an economic contribution to Arizona of about $60,000,000,000 over the life of the mine. And that will be in the form of well paid jobs in communities which currently have low income and relatively high unemployment rates including of course some Native American communities. There have already been 11 years of consultations on this project.
The land swap agreement, which will enable us to conduct A detailed feasibility study on the project was put into law by the Obama 7 years ago in 2014, but that was subject to a detailed environmental impact assessment and consultation process managed by the U. S. Government through the U. S. Forest Services.
And during that 7 year period, there have been 550 Documented consultations with communities, business leaders, Native American tribes, NGOs as well as county, state and federal government. And if the land swap agreement is approved, We still need to do the feasibility study. And as part of that study, we would continue to engage, not least with the 11 Native American tribes that have historic associations with this part of Arizona. Now of those tribes, 9 are broadly supportive of the project. And indeed we introduced during the EIS Consultations a number of changes to the design of the project to accommodate some of their concerns.
So for example, we I transferred Apache Leap into a special management area. This is Apache Leap is a culturally significant site for a number of the Native American tribes We have historic associations with this region of Arizona. We also carved out the Garden Canyon from the land swap package. Again, This is a site which has both cultural and biodiversity significance. But 2 of the tribes the San Carlos Apache And the White Mountain Apache opposed the project.
And that is because Oak Flat, which sits within The land exchange package is a culturally significant site for both tribes. It's also I have to say a very beautiful place, which is used by rock climbers and mountain bikers and hikers. So as part of the feasibility study, we really want to engage with the San Carlos and the White Mountain Apache. We want to really understand the significance of the site to them and we want to work with them to address Any concerns that really understand their concerns and see that we can identify measures to address them as well as working with them and indeed all the other tribes that have historic associations with this region to try and protect their customs and traditions. So maybe I should stop there and we'll take the other question later on, on resolution.
Could Could we have a question from the line? I'll see if there are any questions on the line.
There aren't any questions currently on the line. So we will proceed to the next Written question.
Thank you.
The next written question comes from Ivan Arengo, Director of the Andrew Lees Trust. You say that your company won't be the same after Duke and Gorge. So why is Rio Tinto QMM currently telling communities And stakeholders in Madagascar, the elevated levels of uranium in water downstream of the QMM mine, 50 times higher than the Our HO, safe drinking water limit in some places, is all naturally occurring. You have no evidence to make Claim and it contradicts existing data, including QMMs, that shows QMM is contaminating waterways With elevated heavy metals and uranium in its discharge waters, why do you continue to obfuscate the findings and mislead traditional Communities and your shareholders, how does this build trust?
Yes. Thanks. Thanks, Yvonne, for the question. For the benefit of shareholders who may not be familiar with QMM in Madagascar. This is a mineral sands project.
And the mineral sands that we mine there I have a low level of naturally occurring radiation. Now when we mine those sands, We do not add any chemicals. Nothing is added during the processing apart from water. However, the process of dredging the sand does indeed result in some of the sand and other Sediment being accumulated in the water so that it's in suspension in the water. We maintain the water table of the mining ponds below the level of the water in the external environment, so that water cannot Flow from the ponds into the external environment.
But periodically, we do have to release water from the mines into the environment. And before we do that, We transfer that water into settling ponds so that any sediment that may be in suspension settles out of the water. And then we release the water into the environment and at the same time sample it to make sure that the quality of water going into the environment It's at least as good as the water upstream of the mine. And we have had a whole series of Reviews of this, we've had 3rd party audits in 2,001, 2012, 2014, 2018. And we are at the moment in the middle of a 5th independent study by JBSNG, a very well known consultancy.
Unfortunately, that has been delayed slightly because of COVID, which has prevented them from going out and taking samples But we are trying to progress with that study. And we will of course share that publicize it and share that Once it has been peer reviewed, Yvonne is correct in saying there have been exceedances, temporary exceedances in the quality of the water, which has been released to the environment where exceedances in aluminium and in cadmium. And for that reason, we have Again stepped up our water management program. We have a team working on this drawing on expertise from around the group To make sure that we do not have a recurrence of those exceedances, we've also of course shared all of the sampling Of the water quality with ALT and indeed with all of the a broad range of other stakeholders and on our International Advisory Panel who help us with these issues, but also local communities, mayors, governments, CSOs and so on. So that 5 year set of data was released.
And we will continue to work hard to improve The quality of our water management on-site and ensure that we do not have exceedances of the water that is released To the environment. Can we just check whether there are any calls on the line? Any questions on the line?
There currently are no questions on the telephone.
Still none on the line. Okay. Let's move to the next pre submitted then. Question then please.
We have 2 corollary questions in relation to QMM here from Kettikandriana Raffitosan. When it comes to the rural poor of the Inosi region in Southern Madagascar, those very people targeted to be lifted out of poverty by the presence of the QMN mine. Villagers tell us that their water has been polluted and degraded Over the last 10 years since the QMM mine started its operation, local people are reliant on natural water resources for survival. All existing water data and studies point to the contamination and the detrimental effect of QMM operations on local waterways And water quality of the region. How does Rio Tinto QMM explain and justify its reluctance and delay to address safe water drinking levels?
And when will Rio Tinto concede the QMM mine is contaminating water rays around the mine and provide safe drinking water to the affected communities, made up of poor fisher folk and rural producers living on less than $1.5 a day. Why the delay? The second question reads, why have we been researching the Qumem's mine contamination of local waterways in Anosi for over 4 years With the help of an expert hydrologist and also a radioactivity specialist, I want Rio Tinto to explain why QMM is insisting To the affected communities and civil society and why Rio Tinto tells its shareholders that it uses no chemicals for extraction At the QMM mine, only water. It leads with this when asked to answer questions about QMM's contamination of water With elevated levels of uranium, lead, cadmium and aluminium, why is Rio Tinto not explicitly admitting what they know? The QMM's extraction processes causes the elevated levels of uranium and heavy metals in its mining pond and discharge waste waters that are subject of the inquiry.
Why is the company apparently trying to take advantage of the lack of Scientific understanding of the situation in its audiences to divert attention from the facts, our concerns about water contamination and our demands
Yes. Thanks for both of those questions. I think I've partially answered The second question in my response to Yvonne earlier, but to be clear we're not we are Not trying to confuse people at all. We are trying to be as transparent as we can be and that's why we have this very active engagement with local community, with the mayors, with CSOs to try and ensure that they do understand the precautions that we are taking and the work that we're doing and continue to do on improving our water management. As I mentioned earlier, the data From the water discharge points did indeed show elevated levels of aluminium and cadmium.
It did not show elevated levels of uranium and and led. However, I do acknowledge we do acknowledge that there is genuinely a problem across the whole of Southern Madagascar in relation to access to fresh water. And to be clear that that's partly a function of the drought that the area has been suffering, but it's also a function of the very high rate of population growth with a 3% population growth in that part of Madagascar. The population doubles roughly every 20 years. And certainly in terms of access to fresh water that is exacerbated by slash and burn agriculture, which It impacts the quality of the steep the water share to the water that's flowing into the rivers.
And there's no question that across the region there are endemic health risks from waterborne diseases. So we do acknowledge the issue around access to fresh water. And when the mine was built, we did invest together with the World Bank to improve water access and sanitation in Port Dofa area, including putting 20 wells into local communities and improving their waste disposal and sewage treatment to try and ensure that the waters are not contaminated. And QMN continues to provide technical support to the government to improve access to potable water in the Fort Dofa area and to Rural municipalities that neighbor the mine. But I would say that this issue, The impact of sash and burn agriculture and the lack of access to Freshwater, the high population group, these are all associated with poverty.
And the mine is certainly not going to solve all of the problems of Southern Madagascar. But what it has done is create 2,000 extremely well paid jobs, 80,000 people in the local community I have access to power provided by the utilities on the mine. And as I say, we are providing technical support to the local municipalities and the government as they seek to improve access to water within Fort Dauphin and the other municipalities that are close to our mine. But this we will continue to very much focus on this area. Can we just check once again whether there are any questions on the telephone lines?
The next question is a telephone question. Operator, next question please.
Yes. The next question comes from the line of Andrew Hickman. Hello, Mr. Chairman. This is Andrew Hickman.
I've come to AGNs Regulator for many years now. And you may remember, I always almost always ask about the Grasberg mine in West Papua, Just north of where you the company destroyed Joakan Gorge. I want to ask this question because again, because we've been in correspondence and I We received a letter from your representative in June. And I was asking and have been asking for many years about responsibility for the destruction and the destructive legacy of the Grasberg mine. And I think I wanted to ask this question in person.
I have actually submitted the question again in writing, but I wanted to ask it in person In the context of what you've been saying about your dual kind of gauge, you've been very clear about The fact that the company has failed or that the company executives have failed in certain respects, You've talked about being guests on the land and the lands where you operate. And you've even said sorry. Those same issues apply to what you have been doing And you've been responsible for at Grasberg for many years. I know that we know that you're now you've now exited Grasberg. And my question is quite a simple one.
Is put aside any questions of the legal Or financial reputational risk. Do you recognize a moral responsibility for your actions? Do you recognize that those moral responsibilities do not stop just with a legal clause On a contract for a check, can you now say sorry for what, For the destruction and the legacy of destruction that Rio Tinto has caused in West Papua. Thank
you. Thanks. Thanks, Andrew. And I do indeed recall you've asked This or similar questions at many previous AGMs. I mean just to give the background here.
Rio Tinto was never actually a shareholder in Grasberg and we were certainly not managers of Grasberg. What we had was a metal strip that entitled Rio Tinto to a proportion of production above an agreed level. And Andrew, you on many previous AGMs encouraged us to divest from Grasberg because of your concerns about the mine. And indeed, we did Sell our rights in 2018. And as part of that process, We did not assume any continuing liabilities post divestment.
That's not hiding behind contracts. We didn't walk away from our liabilities. We sold them to a company owned by the Indonesian government. And they of course were fully aware of all of the issues surrounding the mine when they entered into that transaction with them. And the reason that they did that was because the government of Indonesia has said for many, many years that it was its ambition to increase It's ownership interest in the Grasberg mine, which is an operating mine in which they continue to regard as a strategic national asset.
So that is the background to our exit from Grasberg. Can we see if there are any other questions on the line?
There are no further questions on the line at this point. We will go to the next Written question which comes from Councillor Doug McMurdo, Chair of the Local Authority Pension Fund Forum, a group of 82 local authority pension funds and 7 pooled companies that have come together to promote corporate responsibility In the interest of long term shareholder value, the question concerns human rights. Working closely with mining companies over the past couple of years, I've noticed there's very little reporting by companies on the financial impacts of their social failures. Rio Tinto's 2020 Annual Report Suggests on Page 344 in Footnote T that there has been a reduction of iron ore reserves of around 54,000,000 tons In the wake of Dukan Gorge, is that correct? In light of this figure and other operational, reputational and legal impacts of Dukan Gorge, What do you estimate the financial impacts to be of Rio Tinto and its investors?
Would you be willing to report on the financial impact Of Rio Tinto's Social Challenges in Future Reporting.
Yes. Thanks, Doug for that question. And of course we've had a number of conversations over the past few months About Jucan, so yes, the number that you refer to there is correct. As part of our new integrated heritage Management Plan. We have gone back to review all of the heritage sites that we manage, obviously starting with those that are potentially going to be impacted by our operations over the next 2 years.
And as it said, I think in the introductory Video we have reviewed now just under 2,000 heritage sites as part of this process. And we have ranked them first of all according to their significance making sure we do have a very thorough understanding of their significance. Secondly, ensuring that we do have the free prior informed consent of the traditional owners for any impacts that there may be on those sites and thirdly, by just ranking them by the degree of that impact, which obviously varies depending upon how close The site is to the mine. And wherever there is any doubt about either the significance of the site or our Confidence that we have the consent of land owners, we've taken the precautionary principle of reclassifying those sites from Clear 2 Mining back to protected. And as a consequence of that we have sterilized as you said in your question 54 1,000,000 tonnes of ore.
And that's really just by creating buffer zones around sites where we are not absolutely certain that we understand the significance or have consent for impacts. To put that 54,000,000 tonnes in context, Our overall reserve position in the Pilbara is about 3,000,000,000 tonnes. And our overall resource position is about 24,000,000,000 tonnes. So the 54,000,000 tonnes of ore that has been sterilized is a relatively modest proportion of our total Reserves and Resources. And the impact of those precautionary actions is reflected in our Production guidance for next year and the impact is minimal because we have the flexibility to mine elsewhere.
It's very hard to put a number on the cost of all of the social Programs that we have underway and it's very hard to put a precise cost on the integrated heritage management plan that we have put in place and all of the other Improvements that we have made to our risk management and governance processes. But again All of those I mean it's quite hard to actually single out the impact of those because Frankly, there are things that we should be doing in any event. And there is, so far as I'm aware, no legal cost associated with DUKAM because sadly the Aboriginal Heritage Act which is currently being reformed of course, But it was approved under that act. Now we all recognize that Rio Tinto should I've gone well beyond the minimum requirements of the law here and prevented the destruction of this site, but there is unlikely to be a legal liability associated with this. And of course, we still don't know at this stage what the impact will be of the reformed Aboriginal Heritage Act when that is brought in.
But at the moment, all of our production guidance that we have provided includes our best estimate of the impact of ensuring We never have a repeat of Dukan Gorge. Can we just check the telephone lines and see whether we have any other questions there?
No further questions on the lines at this time. The next four questions concerns the Yadal project. The first two are from Maria Olimpic, and the second two are from Alexandra Velimanovich from EarthThrive. Do Rio Tinto shareholders know that the Drina is an international transboundary river that flows into a rich march Ecosystem, which is currently in the process of being legally protected. And how can Rio Tinto shareholders guarantee that groundwater And surface water pollution will not occur.
How do you plan to ensure the preservation, cultural and spiritual use for future generations Of the significant archaeological, historical and religious heritage spanning at least 3,500 years, In particular, the Bronze Age site in the planned mining area and the important church and graveyard in the projected direct impact zone. What are your exact plans to protect the rich biodiversity and natural landscapes in the Yadar mine site area as it is situated in a key water basin and close to an area with international and national protected animals and plants. Why did you initiate the elaboration of the spatial plan to the Serbian Ministry of Construction, Transportation and Infrastructure in December 2016, years before you had the information about the project such as The ore reserve declaration, the planned lifetime of the mine, the water use for the technical process and the exact location and volumes
Thank you for that question. Look, I'm going to pass that question over to Jacob in Perth, because Jacob has visited Yada, and unfortunately, I hadn't had the opportunity to do that yet. So Jacob, why don't you take that one?
Yes. Thank you very much for the questions. It's they're all highly relevant, and it's questions that we are working very, very hard on getting full answers. So let me give you And an update to all of them. First of all, we discovered the significant lithium and borrowed deposit, Jada, In Serbia in 2004.
And since then, we have spent several $100,000,000 on progressing Studies of all kinds of nature. Right now, we're in the middle of progressing the feasibility study While we in parallel are progressing the environmental impact study, so I don't have Full answers to you yet on a couple of the questions as we will get that When we finalize this, what you can say, first of all, on the river, there will be no There will be no impact To the river that was mentioned before, we are we will discharge only water treated Water into the Yara River and not into the other. Our analysis indicates that there should be no impact On the river, in case of water treated disposal into the Yara River, We on your other question, I can assure you that we will be following the highest standard When it comes to cultural heritage management, ongoing impact assessments and project designs to ensure that there will be no Adverse impact on cultural heritage. And on your third question With regards to why we were progressing barriers, how we can keep assurance that this will have no impact. I have to say to you, right now, we're in the middle of finalizing the environmental impact study.
When we have finalized that, we will share it openly with you, And we are not going to take any decisions on progressing the project before we have assisted ourselves and satisfied that it is meeting the highest ESG standards that we set for this project. I am very enthusiastic about the project, and I believe that we will be able to find a solution That meets all the consideration based on the questions here, but we will learn more about that in the course of the year, and I'd encourage you for further consultations when we can present more information ahead of a decision Whether to sanction the project or not, which we anticipate will happen towards the end of this year. Thank you.
Thanks. Thanks, Jakob. Can we just check the lines again to see if there are any other questions coming in on the telephone lines.
No questions on the telephone lines at present. The next written question comes from Andrew Whitmore. In 2020, communities in Bougainville filed a human rights complaint against Rio Tinto in Australia About the legacy of the vast amount of mine waste left behind by the company's Panguna mine from which Rio Tinto divested in 2016. The communities report that tailings have blocked parts of the river, causing widespread flooding of their lands, water pollution And destruction of their livelihoods and sacred sites. They've called on the company to fund an independent human rights and environmental assessment To identify risks posed by the mine and contribute to an independent fund to address the impacts on local people and assess with the cleanup.
Given Rio Tinto's recent commitment to ensure that it leaves a positive legacy to learn from its mistakes And rebuild trust with indigenous peoples impacted by its operations. Will the company now publicly commit to fund an impact assessment of Pangoona And address the devastating problems left by the mine.
Yes. Thanks, Andrew, for that Question and again perhaps for the benefit of shareholders who are not familiar with the history of Bougainville, but This was a mine which was owned Pangoona was a mine that was owned and operated by Bougainville Copper, which was a listed company in Australia in which CRA had a 54% shareholding. Production at the mine started in 1972 And it continued until the Civil War in Bougainville resulted in the operations being suspended in 1989. And at that point, All BCL personnel were evacuated from the site. The Civil War then continued for about 9 years After the suspension of the mines, so the Civil War came to an end in 1998.
But even after the war ended, The security situation in Bougainville was such that BCL was not able to resume the operations of the mine. So the mine was never closed. The mine was suspended in 1989 more than 30 years ago and no Rio Tinto personnel have had access to the mine since then. So to be clear, BCL didn't walk away from Bougainville. It was in effect expropriated because of the Civil War.
Now the Human Rights Legal Centre has made allegations Rio Tinto is in breach of OECD guidelines and Ewing Guiding Principles of Business and Human Rights and has filed a complaint with the Australia National Contact Point. And we absolutely acknowledge their concerns and the concerns expressed by you Andrew, about the human rights and environmental issues in Bougainville. And we take those allegations very seriously. And we are taking all the necessary steps to assess any involvement that Rio Tinto may have had in these adverse impacts. But I think what is very clear to us is that any lasting solution to this Very complex legacy issue really does require engagement of all stakeholders and that obviously must include all of the local communities, the autonomous Bougainville Government, the Government of Papua New Guinea, BCL and others.
So we do hope that the Australian National Contact Point will help to clarify this very complex History of Bougainville and we are working with other stakeholders to try and find a mutually agreed and lasting solution. And those discussions are actively ongoing as we speak. Can we check the lines to see whether that any Any questions coming in on the call?
Nothing on the lines at present.
Let's take another pre submitted one then.
The next question is from Sukurel Douguisuran. It's an additional question on Oyu Tolgoi. At Oya Tolgoi, members of the affected communities are concerned about the lack of assessments of the impacts of land subsidence On their pastures and general living environment. There are also worries about the subsidence potentially affecting the stability of the massive tailing ponds. The current cost overruns have been caused by land instability.
Will you conduct an analysis of alternative mining technologies To replace the controversial block caving method. And do you plan to carry out an environmental and social impact assessment That will include the impacts of the alleged new land instability on block caving, land subsidence And potential failing of tailings facilities in the unstable zone.
Yes. Thanks for that question. So Just to put this in context, the subsidence that We are anticipating from Oyu Tolgoi will impact about 400 hectares of land out of our total license area of about 8,500 hectares. So the substance will be well within the mine fence and a long way away from any land use by the community. And obviously the tailings and indeed all of the other surface Facilities around the mine were all designed and built at a safe distance from away from that area of substance.
And The Environmental and Social Impact Assessment that we carried out as part of the approval process for Oil Torgoi Evaluated that subsidence impact and we will continue to monitor that throughout the life of the mine very closely, but it always formed the basis of the consultations that we had both with the government of Mongolia and indeed the local communities. And it is all contained within the mine fence and will not impact community grazing land. Can we check Can we just check the lines again? Any questions there?
No questions on the lines at present. We'll proceed to the next written question, which is a follow-up question from Councillor Doug McMurdo. Thank you for the ongoing engagement with the Climate Action 100 plus Engagement Group, which includes the Local Authority Pension Fund Forum. I'd also like to thank you for agreeing to votes at both 20 20 AGMs on climate reporting in line with the task force on climate Related financial disclosures. Could you share with us what your contribution as a FTSE 100 company is to the anticipated steel and aluminum Global value chain work to be highlighted at COP26 in Glasgow.
Yes. Thanks for that question, Doug. We are in active contact with the COP26 high level champions leader. As you know, the planning for COP26 is still fairly fluid, but we're actually engaged in a number Of discussions at the moment, both with government and with industry associations and others on how we can Constructively participate in the conference in Glasgow, which we do see as an extremely important step towards confronting the challenge of climate change. So we are attending a CEO level Jakob is attending a CEO level meeting with the U.
K. Government which is planned in May. I am a commissioner on the Energy Transitions Commission and the ETC is certainly very much involved in planning for COP26. We are involved with their Mission Possible partnership on net 0 Steel Initiative. And we are also talking to, for example, the Aluminium Stewardship Initiative about how we can again as an aluminium industry collectively contribute to COP26.
So there is a lot Of activity going on, a lot of planning, it is still relatively fluid, but we hope that we'll be in a position to provide a bit more detail on that over the coming months. Can you check the lines?
Thank you. The next question is a telephone question. Operator, thank you.
Yes. The question comes from the line of Andrew Hickman. Please ask your question. Please allow me to do a brief follow-up question to my previous question about Grasberg, the reason I'm following it up is I really don't think that you answered the question. And it was I'll try and make it as simple as possible.
It's an ethical question. And perhaps the best way to illustrate it is to ask you, if you had sold Your operations in Yorktown Gorge, would you not be saying sorry? So The relevance here is, although you have sold your operations in at Grasberg, you are Failing to take responsibility. And I'm asking you an ethical question. The company prides itself on being a responsible member of the community.
Can you not see that there is a responsibility for What has happened at Grasberg beyond the life of the mine itself and beyond your involvement in that mine? Thank you.
Thanks, Andrew. And look to be clear where we are responsible even if we have not operated the mine Then we absolutely take that responsibility. So an example would be the Holden mine in the United States that we inherited when we acquired Alcan. And in fact, I think originally Holden was owned by Pechno. So It goes back through the chain a long way, but this is a mine which I think closed in the 1950s if I'm not mistaken and certainly Rio Tinto never operated it.
But By virtue of acquiring Alcam, we were responsible for the closure of that mine and we closed that mine at a cost of roughly $500,000,000 But in the case of Grasberg, Grasberg is an operating mine. It's a very long life mine. It has Many, many years of production ahead of it. Freeport continues to be the operator of Grasberg as they have been. They discovered, developed and operate the mine.
We have sold the rights that we had, the metal strip that I referred to earlier to a company owned by the government of Indonesia. And as I said earlier, the basis of that Sale and indeed the price that we received recognized that the state owned company in Indonesia We would take over our responsibilities for any closure and rehabilitation and other costs going forward. But this is not in any event this is not a legacy mine. This is a very active mine which employs many people and is a significant tax there in Indonesia and one which the government as again as I mentioned earlier As always been clear about its ambition to increase its shareholding and we were able to facilitate that. Could we check whether there are any other calls queued on the telephone lines?
At present, there are no questions on the line. So we will move To the next written question, which is from Roger Featherstone, Director of the Arizona Mining Reform Coalition. Resolution's copper plans to destroy Oak Flat will fail. Moving forward with this experiment is bad enough, But destroying Oak Flat, a sacred recreational and ecological haven is beyond reason. After you blew up the sacred rock shelters at Dukan Gorge, You promised it would never happen again.
If your words mean anything, you have no choice but to abandon the project. You will suck our water dry to export unfinished Trade abroad during a decades long drought with projected water shortages starting next year. You would devastate a people's culture and religion. You would destroy a valley with a mountain of toxic tailings that would cover the City of London 5 feet deep. The project will use the same amount of water that would supply Tempe, Arizona with 180,000 residents.
Would you deprive Arizona of $500,000,000 of revenue earmarked for educating our future students? Will you keep your word and leave Arizona alone?
Yes. Thanks, Roger, for the question. And obviously, I gave quite a lot of Background information on resolution when I asked to answer the question from Mr. Munoz. But to address a couple of the specifics in your question on water, If the project goes ahead and again just to repeat at this stage what we are discussing is a land swap agreement excuse me which would enable us to conduct a full feasibility study on the project.
But if that takes place Then the project were to proceed and that is many, many years off because we have to do the feasibility study. And again as I mentioned earlier, we have to absolutely continue with our consultations with all interests and affected parties not least with the Native American tribes that have historical associations with the area and in particular with the San Carlos I'm the White Mountain Apache both of whom regard Oak Flats as a sacred site. But the if it does go ahead, the water will actually represent a pretty small percentage of the total consumption in Arizona. And as part of the environmental impact assessment carried out by the U. S.
Government through the U. S. Forest Services, there was a tremendous amount of work done with Regulators to ensure that there would be an adequate supply for both the project and indeed all the other future Development plans are for that region of Arizona, which is clearly a region that does suffer from water scarcity. And for that reason, the mine is designed like Oyu Tolgoi to be highly water efficient. And all of the analysis that we have done and The U.
S. Forest Services have done has been independently reviewed by 3rd party experts as disclosed in the Environmental Impact Study, which was put out for consultation last year and which is now being reviewed by the Biden administration. And if and when the mine goes into production, Obviously, all of the ground and surface water impacts of the mine Would be monitored and that monitoring would be shared with the federal and state agencies to ensure compliance with all the relevant Standards and legislation. So there has been a huge amount of work done on water. Tailings of course another major Issue for any copper project, any copper sulfide project.
And there again a tremendous amount of work has been done on both The design of the tailings facility, but also its location, where we changed the location of the Tailings to Avoid Encroaching on National Forest Land. And we have very deliberately of course supplied All of the lessons from the tailings disasters that we've seen in Brazil to the design of the Resolution Tailings, which will embrace the very best standards of tailings management. And of course you raised JU CAN. And again I should emphasize that all of the lessons that we have learned from JU CAN are also being applied to resolution that we very much want to engage with the San Carlos and the White Mountain Apache in particular but all of the 11 Native American tribes that have historic associations with this part of Arizona. We have already redesigned the project to avoid Apache Leap, which is significant to I think 5 or 6 tribes.
We've removed Guyana Canyon from the land package as well because of its cultural and indeed biodiversity significance. And we very much want to engage and work with All of the Native American tribes to understand their concerns about this project to see whether we are able to take measures that address those concerns and continue to work with them to try and preserve their customs and traditions. So There is a lot of work still to be done on this. And we welcome the current review of The land swap agreement by the Biden administration, we do think that is just another important step in making sure that if we proceed with this project that we do have the support of the majority of the interested and affected parties. Can we check the telephone lines?
Currently no further questions on the telephone line. So we'll proceed to the next Written question which comes from Felicia Olney. There have been lots of grovelling apologies for the Dukan Gorge rock shelter debacle, But I still don't understand how you allowed it to happen.
Yes. I think the best way to answer that question is to refer you to the Board review, which is published and available on our website. It does run to I think about 18 or so pages, which goes through all of the root causes of the tragic events at Jukan and our response to that. But rather than talk about the causes, perhaps we should focus on what we are doing about it and the steps that we are taking to ensure that it never happens again. And Megan, I'm going can actually pass this to you in a moment, but let me just very quickly summarize some of the steps that we are taking there.
So we are in discussions with the PKKP and Megan and I are going to visit them again In 3 weeks' time to discuss progress on the remedy process with Ben. We have declared a moratorium on mining around the Jukan Gorge. And we are working again with the PKKP very much involved in monitoring all of the things that we're doing on-site to try and rehabilitate The rock shelters, we think we can certainly rehabilitate 1 and potentially allow safe access to it. And we will certainly do whatever we can to remediate to the other as well as re vegetating the gorge and recreate so far as possible a sense of place there. The artifacts that were recovered from the rock shelters during the 3 archaeological surveys Have now been transferred to a purpose built facility for storage and we're in discussions again with the PKKP about a permanent keeping place or cultural center to have those artifacts.
We are well advanced on negotiations with the PKKP and other groups about modernizing our agreements in particular to remove any confidentiality clauses that they may contain or any restrictions on the ability of traditional owners to apply statutory rights on heritage protection. And we have said Subject to the consent of traditional owners, we would be very happy to make those agreements public so that again we increase transparency around the nature of the agreements we have with the owners of the land where we operate. We've changed responsibility for the relationships with the communities from a function to The product groups, they now have primary ownership of that relationship and we're ensuring that we are training all of our frontline operators to make sure they have the skills and indeed the access to the subject matter expertise experts that they need To support good decision making, I talked earlier about the Integrated Heritage Management Plan, which has resulted in the sterilization of about 54,000,000 tonnes of ore in order to make sure that we do have appropriate buffer zones around sites. We've also invested $50,000,000 in a program to accelerate the Career Development of Indigenous Australians. On the video earlier you saw Brad Welsh talk about the importance of making sure that we have a more diverse leadership team To really give indigenous Australians a louder voice, not just in our local communities, but within our operations as we step up our performance, our social performance in this area.
And there are What else should I mention? The Indigenous Advisory Group, this I think is a really important step that we are Again, in order to really make sure that we have coaches and mentors for our senior managers who can Help them navigate their way through the renegotiations agreements with the traditional owners. We are setting up an indigenous advisory group. That I think also has the advantage of providing a completely separate channel of communication directly to the Board if they are hearing or are feeling concerned that Our activities locally on the ground are not consistent with the policies that are being set by the group. But Megan, can I pass over to you because obviously you are the person who is primarily responsible in your role as Chair of the Sasko in overseeing the implementation of all of the recommendations that were set out in the Board review and indeed the parliamentary inquiry?
Thank you very much, Simon, and thank you, Felicia, for the question. So Simon has outlined many of the changes And actions that are already being put in place. So let me just cover 2 areas, How we're improving our governance and oversight, but also how we're going to verify that we have the right behaviors On the ground, the right culture on the ground and that those changes are being effective. So if we just look firstly at the governance, Our operating and governance structure for our communities and social performance has been strengthened and it now mirrors our safety operating model, one that is working What we have in place to make sure that we're living up to our standards, Which, Felicia, in this case at Juggen Gorge, we did not live up to our standards. We have three lines of defense.
So sitting at the foundation of that Are our standards and our guidance and it's not enough just to have the right standards. As we've seen, they must be So the Sustainability Committee undertakes deep dives to look at these standards and make sure they're being lived at our businesses and that we're building true partnerships with our traditional owners and communities and First Nations people. There's a couple of very important change that we've made to that first line of defense, which is at our operations. Simon has mentioned the integration of our heritage Considerations into the mine planning and that's done through the Integrated Heritage Management Plan. And secondly, that the primary responsibility For the relationship with the traditional owners now sits with the Asset General Manager and the traditional owners have told us that they want direct dialogue with those who control the Sitting above that line of defense at the operations is what we call our second level of assurance And this will be covered by our area of expertise.
So we've put together a new area of Expertise in Communities and Social Performance and we've just appointed a new leader. And what's important here is that, That brings in experts from our risk area. It brings in subject matter experts to support the businesses and the sustainability committee will do deep dives into the effectiveness Of the area of expertise on a regular basis. Also at this level, we have internal audit. So this is a way For our internal team to check and verify what's happening on the ground and that our standards are being applied and that reports directly to the committee.
And then thirdly, our 3rd line of defense is actually to bring independent audits in and bring that outside in view to look at what we're doing and this is very important. So we've strengthened all of those areas around community and social performance. But you might ask the question is how do we make sure that those changes are effective on the ground and we have the right culture and behaviors. So there's a few things that we will do there at every one of our meetings. We are making sure That we have effective management and controls over those community risks.
So we're reviewing, As Simon mentioned, the progress on the implementation of the recommendations of the parliamentary inquiry and our own board review. We're also receiving an update from our iron ore business team on their progress with this reform and the remedy aspects. And we have requested and are now receiving updates on an audit of our global community and social performance risks. And the Integrated Heritage Management plan also allows now for immediate escalation of approvals Relating to areas of high priority or high significance. And that brings in CEO level approval and if necessary, all the way up to the Board.
As to date, no approvals have needed to be escalated because we have had action on the ground and review of, as Simon said, well over 1,000 heritage sites. So as well as receiving these reports, We're using other channels to ensure that the measures we're undertaking are meeting the expectations of the traditional owners. So regular site visits, As Simon mentioned, he and I visited the Durgin Gorge and really saw firsthand the hurt That had been caused and put our personal apologies to the Board of Guenther Guentherme and Binuguda people. And as Chair Chair of Sustainability Committee, I will also be returning to the Pilbara to check that we're meeting those expectations. In fact, I go next week and Simon and Jacob will be part of some of those visits.
We're also putting together, as Simon mentioned, the Indigenous Advisory Group. And certainly, if invited, I will attend that as an observer. It's not just that we're looking at What's been recommended in the parliamentary inquiry, but we're also looking to take those lessons globally. So we will look to integrate that integrated heritage management Plan and implement that across as appropriate, implement that globally and we'll oversee that at our committee. And then as I said, we'll also oversee this audit of our global CSP risk.
To keep you and other stakeholders up to date, Felicia, We will together with the traditional owners and we'll report progress on this reform and we'll do that when we I report some of our financial results. Thank you.
Thanks. Thanks very much, Megan. Can we check the lines again? Any
Thank you. Our next question is a telephone question. Operator, next question please.
Yes. Next question comes from the line of Yvonne
Yes. Simon, forgive me a follow-up question, Mr. Thompson, about Madagascar and the QMN mine and water quality. I just want to point out to you and to all of the shareholders that we're getting the same answers to the questions we've been asking since 2019 despite Significant amount of studies and data that have been provided to you, which show that there is a serious concern and cause for concern about water quality Around QMM Mine and its operation, let's be clear. There is no evidence that you have been able to provide yet over More than 2 years to show that the QAn Settling Ponds are effective at removing solids, for example, heavy metals and uranium.
And let's also be clear what that means. The health impacts, for example, of uranium, kidney damage, neurological development, multiple illnesses, Led development of children's brains that can have a generational impact. Let's also be clear, this is not about general access to water in the region. It's nothing to do with Tabby and Flash and Burn Agriculture, Drought or Population Growth. It's specifically related to QMM contamination Of Waterways.
However, given the poverty in the region that you referred to and all the other challenges the poor of the region are facing, I repeat Ms. Raffutersen's question. How can Rio Tinto justify not providing safe drinking water to the affected communities? Thank you.
Yvonne, look, I absolutely accept that we haven't made as much progress on this over the last 12 months as you and we hoped. And that of course as you well know is because of the pandemic. We did listen to you and indeed other NGOs When you raised these concerns with us, we did as a result of those discussions launch that 5th Study of water quality and radiation risk, we did That in December 2019 and we made some progress on it before the pandemic struck, but sadly not as much as we would have wished. And that As you know, that process has been delayed, but now we are getting back on track and with the sampling. And again, as I said earlier, we will make sure that this further study on this question will be peer reviewed.
It will be public. And of course, we will share it as we have done and indeed all the other monitoring data that we have with our external advisory group with the local communities, the mayors, government and CSOs. So this is a continuing dialogue. And I know, Yvonne that you have a meeting or maybe you've had a meeting already with Sinead who's taking over responsibility for this area. And we will continue to keep you very much up to date with progress on that important study.
But we recognize we have to do more work here to make absolutely sure that we address the concerns that you raise. Can we check the telephone lines?
We have no further questions on the telephone line, and these are our final two Written questions which come from Philip Clark. How many shareholders have joined this virtual meeting? How does this compare with the numbers of attendees At the normal physical meeting, congratulations on achieving a second year without a fatality and the sharp reduction in the all injury frequency rate. What can you do to further improve from here? And can you share the reasons for your success stories across the industry
Great. Thank you, Mr. Clarke for those questions. So Steve Allen, our company secretary has just passed me a little piece of paper saying that we apparently currently have 35 shareholders on the line. And typically when we have a physical meeting in London, we would expect to have 150 to 200 shareholders present.
So it is significantly lower. It may well be that there are other people listening in, but that's That appears to be the number of shareholders that we have. On the safety point, Jakob, I'm going to pass that over to you to talk about the further steps We can take to improve our safety.
Yes. Well, thank you, Chairman, and thank you very much For the nice work words, Mr. Philip Clark. I'm also very proud of What the organization have delivered last year in terms of safety performance, I'm always a bit humble about it because you're never better than tomorrow, and we are managing safety risks every day. What do I believe is the reason for the strong performance of Rio Tinto?
Well, I've and I have worked in a number of other companies as well. What I Seeing Rio Tinto is very, very deeply in our value of safety. It's really in the hearts and in the minds. And I think The performance we have here is good. It's very good.
But I would say to you as well, as a leadership team, We are committed to do better, and we believe we can do better. We are working very hard on what we call our safety maturity models, And we have clear plans how to further improve from here. We also want to be very transparent about it and anything we can do to Support the industry, amongst others, through the ICMM. We are always happy to do so. It is only in our interest To improve safety performance, not just in Rio Tinto, but across the industry.
And by the way, we are also learning from other industries. It's not enough to learn from within the industry. And in fact, what we are trying to take us to the next step is exactly by looking at best practices in other industries. Thank you very much for the question.
Thanks. Thanks very much, Jakob. So do we have any questions? Nothing on the line. And do we have a final pre submitted question, is that right?
No further questions.
No further questions. Well look in that case, thank you very much indeed for all of your questions. We will now move to the formal business of the meeting. Many of you have already sent in your proxy cards and therefore do not need to vote today. But If you have not voted, you are eligible to do so and have not appointed a proxy.
You should complete your votes through the Lumi platform now. And if you have any difficulty, please refer to Page 13 of the notice of meeting for full instructions. Voting will close approximately 15 minutes After the end of this meeting, the results of the shareholder votes on resolutions 1 to 17, which are dealt with under the joint electorate procedure with Rio Tinto Limited We'll be published after the Rio Tinto Limited AGM in Australia which is on Thursday, 6th May. And the results The shareholder votes on resolutions 18 to 22 will be announced as soon as possible after this meeting and will also be posted on our website. On behalf of the Board, I'd like to thank our shareholders for their participation today and I declare the meeting closed.