Fortescue Ltd (FMG.AX) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Thank you, and welcome, everyone. It's a pleasure to join you from Perth today for our First Nations Engagement Roundtable. I'd like to begin by acknowledging the Traditional Custodians of the land on which we're holding this roundtable today and pay my respects to their Elders past, present and emerging. I'd also like to extend this respect to other Aboriginal people and Torres Strait islanders who are present today. Joining me is Warren Fish, Director, Communities, Environment and Government; and Rosli Wheelock, General Manager of First Nations. The purpose of this roundtable is to discuss Fortescue's approach to First Nations engagement and share some insights on the implementation of Western Australia's new Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act, which came into effect just last month. We know our approach to First Nations engagement is very important to our shareholders and the investment community. So I'm going to begin by making some opening remarks, and then I'll pass to our subject matter experts, Warren and Rosli, to take you through today's presentation, which you can view on the webcast. After that, we'd be very happy to take questions. So firstly, our approach to heritage management. Fortescue's commitment to preserve and promote First Nation's history and culture is embedded in our approach to operating sustainably and responsibly. Like everything we do, it's guided by our values. We work in partnership with the First Nations people of the land where our operations and projects are located to ensure sites of cultural significance are identified and managed. We have strong relationships with the First Nations people, which are built on open and transparent engagement, mutual respect and the development and ongoing operation of comprehensive Native Title agreements. And this is evident through our 7 major Native Title agreements with Native Title groups in the Pilbara, 3 of which are underpinned by registered indigenous land use agreements. Coming to the business, I've been really impressed by Fortescue's approach more broadly to First Nations engagement. There's a range of practical initiatives driving economic and employment opportunities. I'm incredibly proud that First Nations people are such a significant and valued proportion of our workforce, representing 10% of our total workforce and 16% of our operational workforce. Key to these strong employment outcomes has been our Vocational Training, Employment Centre program, which we call VTEC. And this has been providing sustainable career pathways into the company for First Nations Australians for over 15 years. The program is an important part of our training and development strategy, which has seen more than 1,200 First Nations Australians gain full-time employment with Fortescue. First Nations leaders are critical to enabling a culture that supports and allows First Nations people to thrive. And Fortescue provides a range of professional development opportunities for First Nations employers with leadership aspirations. We're also strongly committed to building thriving communities and ensuring we support First Nations businesses as part of that. Our award-winning Billion Opportunities program has awarded over AUD 4.6 billion Australians in contracts to over 190 First Nations businesses since it was established. Well, today, we're going to primarily talk to our engagement throughout the Pilbara region. Our approach to cultural heritage applies to all of our activities globally. So I'll now hand over to Warren to provide some further details.

Thank you very much, Fiona, and good morning, everyone. By way of introduction, I'm an archeologist by profession and immigrated to Australia about 25 years ago. I've spent my career in executive positions in the resources industry, much of which is involved negotiating land access agreements. I ran my own company for several years, and in 2020, was approached by PKKP Aboriginal Corporation to lead their negotiations with Rio Tinto in the wake of the destruction of the rock shelters at Juukan Gorge. It was an absolute privilege and pleasure to spend significant amounts of time on country with senior Elders and holders of culture and lore. To say I learned a lot is an understatement. I bring those lessons with me into the role I currently hold at Fortescue. The tragic event at Juukan Gorge has fundamentally and irrevocably changed the landscape in Western Australia, Australia and indeed the world. The way that the resources industry reacts to this change will have far-reaching impacts on business. And let's be clear here: there has been an impact on access to ground and access to inventory. This impact is both in timing as well as in permanent change. It's difficult to generalize or quantify the impacts as they really occur on a case-by-case basis. This has been experienced industry-wide and Fortescue has not been immune. An example of this is the change in mine plan and schedule at our Eliwana operation, which has resulted in a different product mix than originally planned for. Our response to this has been to go back to our roots and look to what we do well. One of the fundamental pillars of Fortescue is First Nations engagement and opportunity provision, including capacity building. We have tapped into the DNA of the company, and Rosli will talk more to this shortly. We have coupled the strong record with the concept of co-management, which allows for a very different relationship with Traditional Custodian partners than has historically been the case across the industry. One of the criticisms of the resources industry from First Nations communities is that they are only consulted when something is required of them in return. Outside of this, contact is minimal. In some instances, these relationships are managed as part of an approval process, and thus, are transactional in nature. At Fortescue, we see relationships with Traditional Custodians as strategic in nature and absolutely vital to the health of our business. This means that we seek advice and involvement from all -- in all of the 3 main phases of the resources life cycle. Firstly, in planning, taking into account sensitive and significant places and managing them along with Traditional Custodians. We have direct Traditional Custodian involvement in our mine planning process. Secondly, operations. This entails benefit sharing, capacity building, commercial opportunity and the like. And lastly, mine closure. We plan to leave country in a state fit to be handed down to the next generation. We jointly plan and execute this with our Traditional Custodian partners. In order to do this, we have to establish and maintain meaningful partnerships based on trust and driven by mutual benefit. A further consequence of Juukan Gorge is that consultation requirements from First Nation communities has increased sharply. There is now a First Nations lens on most approvals, but these communities simply do not have the capacity to respond to these new requirements. A tremendous amount of effort goes into assisting First Nations communities to build capacity in order to respond to this workload, but also to enable them to take full advantage of the myriad opportunities that are now in front of them. This is in everyone's best interest and further contributes to having different relationships than we've had in the past. The sum total of this is that we're looking to a very different First Nations landscape and relationships with Traditional Custodians. Legislative reform is driving proponents to think about how they manage and maintain relationships with First Nations people. We are supportive of this and are developing frameworks to respond in a coherent and controlled manner. Pillars underpinning this are capacity building, strategic partnership management and commercial opportunity provision. In a word, partnership. Fortescue is well placed to do this as many of the prerequisites are already in our DNA. We have a demonstrated track record of this -- track record in this regard extending 20 years. We will extend this approach to our decarbonization projects and are currently in discussions with a number of Native Title parties providing innovative partnerships and benefit-sharing models. In closing, I'd like to make a few comments about a topical issue, the Yindjibarndi compensation plan. Fortescue has offered compensation to the Yindjibarndi people in the past, and we continue to be ready to settle this dispute by paying compensation. We would like this matter resolved as quickly as possible and preferably outside of the courts. I'd like to hand over now to Rosli Wheelock for further comment.

Thank you, Warren, and morning, everyone. It's great to be joining you all and providing an update on Fortescue and our approach to First Nations engagement. My name is Rosli Wheelock, I'm a Badimaya/Wajarri man from Western Australia and I've recently been appointed to General Manager, First Nations. In actual fact, I would have met a lot of you back in October last year when we had our investor tour up in the Pilbara at our Eliwana operation. I've been working with Fortescue for a little over 12 years now. And in my time at Fortescue, I've held key leadership positions and management roles and worked across a number of our operations, including Cloudbreak, Solomon and Eliwana where I was recently the Operational General Manager. My newly created role places all of our First Nations-related work streams under one portfolio. At Fortescue, we recognize that we needed to consolidate these departments. This way, we can leverage with greater impact the amazing work that all these portfolios deliver not only to our core business, but also to our Traditional Custodian partners and the broader Aboriginal community. This includes, in my team, cultural heritage, Aboriginal business development, Native Title, First Nations relations and our highly successful VTEC program. It fills me with immense pride to say that Fortescue is one of Australia's largest employers of Aboriginal people. Last year, we had 100 VTEC trainees go through our program, almost half of which were Traditional Custodians from within the communities where we operate. And pleasingly, year-on-year, we continue to increase the percentage of Aboriginal leaders within our business. Across our Pilbara operations, we have 16% Aboriginal employment. And across our total workforce, we have 10% Aboriginal employment. And for context for our international listeners, at Australia's last census, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people represent 3.2% of Australia's population. And with a total of 1,200 Aboriginal people employed through VTEC since 2006, we continue to demonstrate a strong commitment to empowerment through employment. There have been 2 and 3 generations of employees that have come through the VTEC program. And as an example of this, we had a mother who started in the mining industry in our operations many years ago. Her son followed and is still operating our big heavy haulage trains in the Pilbara. And just last week, his daughter joined Fiona Hick as the CEO for a day at our June quarterly results. She is doing great things as a leader in the water management team at our Christmas Creek operation. This is a demonstration of the generational impact our VTEC program is having on the community. Our Billion Opportunities program forms a critical element of our approach to ensuring economic opportunity and growth for the Traditional Custodians of the regions in which we operate. Since its commencement in 2011, the program was awarded contracts and subcontracts worth more than $4.6 billion to over 190 Aboriginal businesses. Billion Opportunities is complemented by a range of practical initiatives that provide Aboriginal businesses with the tools to build value and sustainability, which, in turn, creates employment and development opportunities. Through its continued success, it is hoped the program will inspire other businesses to implement Aboriginal procurement strategies and provide opportunities for thousands of Aboriginal businesses across the country. One recent example of this is the signing of our drill fleet partnership with Nyamal Aboriginal Business Corporation, which Fiona touched on earlier. Fortescue signed a major agreement with the Nyamal Traditional Custodian Group to provide mining equipment for our Iron Bridge Magnetite Project. The $18 million agreement will see Nyamal Aboriginal Corporation initially provide 5 contour drill rigs, 1 stemming loader and 2 platform rigs to Fortescue. This will grow to include 6 additional platform rigs over the next 2 years to meet the Iron Bridge mine plan. From the outset, Fortescue has been focused on practical initiatives that drive economic and employment opportunities for indigenous Australians. Contracts like this support the growth of indigenous businesses, which in turn provides ongoing economic benefits to communities. And a major barrier for Aboriginal business is accessing capital. Since 2017, we have partnered with ANZ to offer a funding program that allows eligible Aboriginal businesses to access finance at a competitive rate. Fortescue acts as guarantor, which removes the need for the Aboriginal business to provide security. The Aboriginal all business owns the assets during the term of the contract and is then able to use these assets as security in the future. This initiative has already guaranteed $99 million in funding to 17 Aboriginal businesses. More than 200 mobile assets have been purchased using this funding, including excavators, water carts, graders, prime movers, buses and light vehicles. Pleasingly, in the history of the program, there have been no defaults. So the above Nyamal agreement is an example of our approach to co-management. And recently, we signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Puutu Kunti Kurrama and Pinikura people, PKKP. This is not new to Fortescue. In fact, we have been working very closely and collaboratively with all of our Native partner titles -- Native Title partners for many years on the protection of heritage, early engagement as well as business and employment opportunities. By signing this MoU, we are formalizing our co-management way of working with the specific needs, aspirations and the approach that best suits the PKKP people. We are in discussions with all of our groups on co-management. However, co-management in reality is just giving a title to something that we do and is the way that we do things with our Traditional Custodian groups. So what's in it for the Traditional Custodians and Fortescue? Simplistically, our Traditional Custodian groups want greater trust and certainty on the protection of cultural heritage and Fortescue want greater certainty on our projects. This aligns with the needs of both PKKP and Fortescue. For us, this means sharing mine and project plans as early as possible so that we get early engagement and feedback. Co-management is not an afterthought or a regulatory tick-the-box. We must work with our Native Title partners and Traditional Custodians to protect culture and give the PKKP people an equal say in what happens on their country. This will apply to every aspect of the mine life cycle from the planning to closure and rehabilitation. It requires mutual obligation and shared responsibility. Fortescue and PKKP must be committed to the best outcome for it to work successfully. Co-management makes clear how we both communicate and resolve differences. It gives PKKP and the community a greater role to work on the ground monitoring and engaging with our operations team. And in practice, for us, we have PKKP monitors on our site at our Eliwana operation embedded with our operations team. Working closely and strategically with our Traditional Custodian partners is vital to the success of our operations. And at Fortescue, we have a strong foundation to build on in order to maintain the level of trust and mutual benefit for many years to come. So as many of you would be aware, WA's new Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act came into effect last month. Fortescue supports the legislative reform and the modernization of the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act. The core objectives of the act are that it focuses on agreement making with Aboriginal people to ensure they can protect and manage their cultural heritage. And it involves decision-making regarding identification, conservation and management of cultural heritage to Aboriginal people. It also establishes a tiered system for activities to be categorized and a corresponding process for each of these teams. This helps determine the level of due diligence that needs to be undertaken. So what has not changed? What has not changed is our focus on cooperative co-management approach to activities with our Native Title partners nor has our practice of undertaking heritage surveys in collaboration with senior Traditional Custodians, our long-standing approach to avoiding impact on heritage where possible. Where Aboriginal cultural heritage will not be impacted by activities, well, then no approval is required and the heritage sites and places of outstanding significance were protected under the former act. Likewise, activities that may harm Aboriginal cultural heritage require approval. This principle existed under the old act for 50 years. The requirement for us to engage with the Native Title representatives in areas in which we operate hasn't changed and they are now to be called the Local Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Services. In short, a lot of the requirements of the new act are in line with the way Fortescue has operated for many years. Having been at Fortescue for 12 years and working closely with our Native Title partners both in operations and now as the General Manager First Nations, I believe we are strongly positioned to ensure our partnerships continue to flourish and provide mutual benefit for generations to come. On that note, I'll now move to Q&A as part of the roundtable.

[Operator Instructions] Your first question comes from Hayden Bairstow with Macquarie.

Thanks for the call. It's much appreciated to get that more clarity on it. Just keen to understand a couple of things from my side. Firstly, just on the approvals process and how that lines up with what you have to do with the EPA? Is the sort of time frame now more aligned? Or is securing all of the Native Title approvals and getting all the surveys done now have to be done at the front end before we can start doing all the EPA work? And then the second one would be just on, more broader, on mine planning. Do we -- I guess the industry standard was more detailed planning for 3 years. Does that now need to extend and you need to push that planning -- detailed planning process out to more of a 5-year view to make sure you can get all these approvals done in time?

Thanks, Hayden. It's Warren Fish speaking. I'll just have first crack at that answer, if you don't mind. Your question about the EPA is a really interesting one. What we have seen in a world post Juukan Gorge is that there's a First Nations lens on all approvals. And certainly, the EPA are a lot more interested now in Aboriginal content or in First Nations content in the approvals process. So it's something we are planning for and we realize is a part of the world we live in right now. So yes, it does make things more complex. I'm not too concerned about timing from an EPA perspective, I'm more concerned at providing enough capacity in our indigenous Native Title partners to be able to respond to that. For me, that's the key that we're putting a lot of effort into right now. With regard to mine planning, I think you're absolutely spot on, and I'll ask Rosli to comment on this in more detail. But I think we certainly need to start looking at horizons that are a bit further out to make sure that we have our house in order with regard to the entire approvals process, most of which these days seems to focus around the First Nations issues. Rosli, would you like to add to that?

Yes. It's Rosli here. To your point about more certainty in mine plans, even under the old regime, the more detailed, the more certain our plans are, obviously that's better for everyone and for the approvals process. So clearly, for us, getting more sophisticated with our mine plans and understanding the constraints within that early time horizon is really important. To say that we've had to change anything specifically because of the new act, I don't think so. We work really hard to make sure that all of our mine plans have as much certainty for a longer period every time we run our life of mine and 5-year mine plans.

Your next question comes from David Radclyffe with Global Mining Research.

So my first question is on Eliwana and access there and what's happening. If we go back to the site visit last year, you'd said some sites were being investigated further and you would have liked to have had access. But the message was more of deferral rather than sterilization. And you did obviously talk to change in the product mix. So just wondering if there's a bit of an impact -- update there on the potential impact? And how could we think about this eventually coming through in terms of reserves as well? Could some of those actually be taken out of the mine plan?

Yes. So the base case for us for now is that we don't expect to see any material change to our broader portfolio Pilbara hematite product mix. At Eliwana, as you mentioned, we're producing 15 million tonnes of Western Pilbara Fines product and we predict that product mix to be stable over the short term. And we're also working very closely with our Traditional Owners in a constructive way to understand some of those resource limitations. And obviously, with our annual report, we will release and disclose our mineral resource and ore reserves, which takes into account heritage-restricted areas where appropriate, they've been excluded from the estimate.

Okay. All right. Then maybe as a follow-up, can we come back to the Yindjibarndi and can you clarify that there's still no Native Title agreement? I know you've been seeking one for a long, long while now. And then how that process might go going forward, like is it predicated on sorting out the compensation claim? And the lack of agreement is still not really, from your perspective, impacting on the ground in terms of Solomon and Eliwana in the day-to-day. And then what sort of next -- what should we be looking for next in terms of this process?

Thanks, David. I'll take that question. I think, again, I'd like to reiterate the fact that we seek agreement and we have sought an agreement with Yindjibarndi over a long period of time. We're certainly very happy to pay compensation, and that matter is before the courts, so I'm not -- I certainly can't comment on [ quantum ] or anything like that right now. We'd love to settle this out of court. Clearly, there was a court process that's been mandated. That will continue. As of right now, we're acting and accessing country in a completely and absolutely legal way and there's no current impact to operations. We will, at some stage, need to negotiate an agreement with Yindjibarndi, but I think there is enough in front of us at the moment with regard to the court proceedings to get those out of the way first.

Your next question comes from Rahul Anand with Morgan Stanley Australia.

Thanks for the call, really helps us understand the important parts of the business here. Look, I just wanted to continue on from David's question on Eliwana. If you could help us understand perhaps in a bit more detail what are some of the pending issues on-site? Obviously, Warren, you talked about the blend being maintained in the near term. But like how far down are you in the past of sort of defining what sort of impact this may have in terms of the reserves at perhaps not just Eliwana but the rest of the portfolio. We saw some small downgrades by other players like Rio earlier this year and also last year and they were attributable to Traditional Owner rights and issues. I'd just be keen to understand, firstly, the specifics around the challenges you're seeing at sites for Eliwana. And how far down are you the path of relooking at some of the mine plans and the reserve side of things in terms of potential sterilization?

Sure. It's Rosli here, I'll tackle that question. So mine planning, as you're all aware, is an iterative process and we're always updating mine plans based on new information, new constraints. And some of the issues that arose through Eliwana, but not necessarily to do with obviously the new act, we had the disruption of Juukan Gorge. There was also the disruption of COVID, which meant surveys stopped. So a large part of some of the constraints is around just resourcing and getting back to unlocking a lot of those areas and work that we were doing with PKKP. But having said that, we've got other areas that we can go and mine as we can work through these. So like I said, there's no material impact or change to our product mix. Eliwana will continue to produce 15 million tonnes of Western Pilbara Fines. So at this stage, apart from the fact that what we'd originally planned has come down, 15 million tonnes look to be a stable mix. Also, I mean maybe one of the other things that you're talking about is Flying Fish. So Flying Fish was a project that we had to bring forward by 1.5 years, 2 years based on those constraints. That was always in the mine plan to come forward. So as mentioned, it's part of that iterative mine planning process where, as constraints come forward, we just make changes to the mine plan and adjust.

Got you. Okay. So it sounds more like delays rather than disagreements. And then Flying Fish still with the Eastern Guruma, right? So that's basically your extension through post Solomon?

No. Flying Fish is on PKKP country and it's about 30 kilometers east of the main Eliwana mine.

Your next question comes from John C. Tumazos with John Tumazos Very Independent Research.

I want to apologize for asking a naive question as a distant American friend. But if there's no change in mine plan or reserves and the new law conforms essentially to Fortescue practices, I'm wondering why we're having the call. Are there some people in your investor audience that think the new law is a problem for Fortescue? Or are there other mining companies in iron ore or gold or other sectors for whom this law changes practices? I'm just trying to understand the context of the call.

Look, thanks very much for your question. It's Fiona here. The reason that we're holding this investor roundtable is because there's investor interest in what we do and how we do it, and the new act has been generating some media activity here in Australia. So we just thought it was prudent to provide some further detail on Fortescue's approach. That's really the summary of the rationale for holding the call. I'm going to hand over to Warren and in terms of you also asked a question more generally around the industry. Obviously, we're here to talk about Fortescue specifically, but Warren might be able to share a bit more broadly.

Thanks, Fiona. So the impacts of legislative reform, I think as we've tried to demonstrate, is I think we're quite well positioned to respond. There are some parts of the industry that perhaps might be a little bit more concerned about the new regime, and initial thoughts for myself certainly goes straight to the exploration industry. I think it's going to be interesting to see how that industry as a whole, particularly in Western Australia, responds to new requirements. It's going to take some change in approach from a lot of those companies. So certainly, I think we're well placed to respond. But you might want to think about how the rest of industry responds to this.

I apologize for my naivete.

No apology necessary. That's fine.

Your next question comes from Paul McTaggart with Citigroup.

So I just wanted to follow up on the capacity of Traditional Owners to undertake some of the survey work that is required. Do you see this as a constraint going forward? Or is it just a case of, to your earlier point, just getting in earlier with mine plans and planning work? I mean, will this be an industry constraint? Can we manage this?

Yes. Paul, it's Warren here. Yes, look, it's a significant issue for us. it's both a short-term problem and one that may be with us for a little while. So in order to undertake the work that we require, we ask for, and in most cases, get senior people on country who are knowledge holders. These are some of the older Elders who either are getting more and more infirmed and are less in number than what they perhaps once were. So we need to make sure that there's a transfer of knowledge through community to make sure that we get appropriate levels of knowledge holders on-site with us, and this is not a short-term fix. So that's the first problem, we need to get the right appropriate Traditional Custodians on country with us to provide us advice on our operations. The second is the capacity -- or the second issue is the capacity of the prescribed body corporates themselves. There is a tremendous amount of information coming their way now with regard to matters as wide as subterranean water extraction plans, cultural heritage management plans, potential employment on our sites. So there's a flood of information going into these organizations. We need to make sure that they have the appropriate skills in the organizations themselves to provide the administrative support to allow Traditional Custodians to make appropriate decisions both on how we work on country; and b, secondly, how they respond to us as an industry.

And so the kind of corollary to that is how do we ensure that we have the right knowledge transfer in these communities? Is there a -- how do we encourage that? And how do we address those concerns?

So the way that we're trying to do this, Paul, is make sure that we see our relationships with Traditional Custodian communities as relation -- as -- not as transactional, but as strategic. So we are spending quite a bit of time on language and culture and on taking people back to country to make sure that there is a sort of a transfer as early as we can in the piece. It's, again, a long-term issue for us. But for us, it's based around holding strong relationships and holding partnerships where we each understand what our roles are and we each understand what our commitments are to each other.

Your next question comes from Glyn Lawcock with Barrenjoey.

I just wanted to maybe just take Paul's question a step further because it's sort of where I wanted to go as well. But can you give some examples of what perhaps Fortescue and maybe the industry and also the government because, I mean, the government had imposed this act on everybody, to assist the Traditional Owners in coping with knowledge transferring. Like is there anything you can point to as examples for what you're doing? And then following up to that, just is there anything you can sort of make as a sweeping comment maybe with everything from the act, and I appreciate there were 3 major changes you talked to and you say you're already complying anyway. But any thoughts on quantifying the time and the dollar impact that could have on permitting and the process in general? And then just, finally, sorry, just the Eliwana resource exclusion. Is that a permanent exclusion? Or is it just simply subject to review under the act and potentially could come back?

All right. Glyn, I'll probably take the first bit of your question. So practical initiatives, we provide additional funding into prescribed body corporates that we have agreements with to ensure that there is sufficient capacity from a personnel perspective and an expert sort of capacity on their side of the fence. So that's kind of a start for us. We also have a number of programs with some of our First Nations partners on building culture, building appreciation for country, range of programs getting people back on to country. And this is all done under the aegis of their Elders. So what we're hoping and trusting is that there is a knowledge transfer process occurring in that regard. Time and cost, Rosli, I'd probably pass on to you for that.

Yes. Do you want to just -- just go back -- cover that question again just so I answer it appropriately, sorry. Glyn?

Yes. Sorry, I was just curious, obviously there were 3 changes you spoke about: the focus on agreement-making, devolved decision-making to the Aboriginal people and there's now a tiered system, et cetera. Just wondering, can you quantify what that could mean for the industry and maybe for Fortescue? Because even while you're compliant, I assume there's a time and dollars quantity you could have put to it like -- or even just in time, is permitting pushed out another 1 or 2 years? Is that sort of how we -- just sort of your rough feel for what it could mean for the industry.

Yes. I mean, look, for us, I mean, obviously, the act has only just come out and we've been busily preparing for the act with what we knew about it before it got released. So there's an element of understanding the act and how it relates to all of our operations and approvals. So to be able to give a number on that, I think, is probably a little bit premature. And then from a dollar impact on approvals, again, we haven't significantly boosted our workforce to be able to tackle this. And like we've mentioned earlier on in the presentation, a lot of what we've been doing is the way we've been working even prior to the new act. So time, I think it's probably premature to answer that just now. And again, it's not dodging the question, but it will be case by case. In fact, from an approvals perspective, there may be examples where some approvals could possibly be quicker than the new regime if we come to an agreement with our Native Title partners on a specific area as part of our current management process. So again, we're still working through that.

Your next question comes from Ian McIIwraith with ACSI.

Just go back to the Yindjibarndi question. My understanding is that your executive chair has actually been talking with representatives of the Yindjibarndi to try to reach some form of agreement, but you're still a long way apart on money, which I assume is part of the kind of mediation process the court is heading towards. Can you talk a bit more about how close you might be to an agreement?

Yes. It's -- thanks, Ian. Look, it's -- again, the matter is before the courts, I can't comment in any detail. Andrew and Michael Woodley have a respectful and constructive engagement. We think that -- our view is that progress has been made. But as I said, the matter is before the courts so certainly I unfortunately can't comment any more at this stage.

I think given that it's a civil compensation case and they're putting you through the mediation route rather than having a trialing court, I would have thought you had some freedom to talk about it.

No. I'm afraid not.

Your next question comes from Michaela Jamison with Jarden.

Great. My first question relates back to providing the additional capacity to First Nations partners. So the first part of the question is, do you think royalties should pay for this or should companies help with funding this? And then, secondly, even if companies do have the funding, we've heard that the mining industry is hiring the vast bulk of heritage consultants. So keen to hear your view on that, please.

Sorry, I didn't quite catch the second part of the question, Michaela.

So the second part is we've heard that the mining industry is hiring a lot of the heritage consultants. So there's actually not a lot of resources available for First Nations groups. So I was just interested in your comment on that.

Yes. So royalties, really what royalties are is a mechanism to compensate First Nations people for the loss of Native Title rights. The philosophical question on whether or not that should pay for capacity building is one that is certainly outside of my bailiwick to answer. It's probably a matter for them. What I do know is that if we have joint interests, we should probably find joint solutions to this problem. And what we're looking at doing more and more is working closer and closer with our Aboriginal and First Nations partners to ensure that the outcomes are reached regardless of the route that we take to get there. With regard to heritage consultants, I think, yes, you would have seen that there's been a tremendous increase in the hiring of heritage consultants. And that has had an impact of sorts, I imagine. But I think that the skill sets that we're looking for now are probably a lot broader than just heritage consultants. So we need environmental consultants, we need more water quality specialists, et cetera, et cetera. So it's not just based around the discipline of heritage.

Question comes from Maddy Dwyer with Paradice.

My question was around -- basically, could you please talk us through in a bit more detail the extent to which Free, Prior and Informed Consent principles fit into your co-management approach? I haven't really heard it mentioned too much today, but I guess interested from a kind of practical point of view as you're working on designing this with the PKKP.

Thanks, Maddy. So we support the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and Human Rights Principles that embodies -- which clearly include Free, Prior and Informed Consent or FPIC. It's a concept that we spend a lot of time sort of thinking about and we certainly believe that we continue to hold Free, Prior and Informed Consent. It's been one of the cornerstones of the work that we've done with PKKP and it's, in fact, inculcated in the agreements that we have negotiated and executed with them. So it's a central part of how we work.

Your next question comes from Lyndon Fagan with JPMorgan.

I realize the scope of this call is mainly on the Pilbara, but I was really interested to find out what sort of cultural heritage measures have been taken with the Gabon project. So it just seems like a very quick journey to go from initial agreement to first production. And I'm just wondering whether there was any First Nations consideration or royalties agreed in Gabon. And I've got a follow-up after that.

Okay. So I can't comment on the direct agreement at this stage, Lyndon. But what I can say is that there was a significant body of work done with the Gabonese government and with local communities in the area around our area of interest. That work is continuing. And we've had a really good response from local communities on the work that we've done there. Clearly, there are both environmental and heritage factors that need to be taken into account. And the approval for the initial phase of mining was done on a very, very small parcel of land. Studies are ongoing into the effects that the project might have on a more broader basis, and we'd certainly be happy to talk to you folks about that once we have that in hand.

Okay. So yes, there's not a lot to really talk about there at this stage by the sound of it. The other follow-up is just, I guess, bringing it all together, I realize there's a whole lot of different agreements out there, but is it possible to summarize what percentage of revenue is going to First Nations in the form of royalty agreements? Out in Gabon that is?

It's -- I don't have the answer to that question, frankly.

Thank you. There are no further questions at this time. I'll now hand back to Fiona Hick for closing remarks.

Thank you, and thanks very much for joining us today. And thanks, Warren and Rosli as well. As you've heard, preserving and promoting First Nations history and culture is really embedded in the way that Fortescue operates and has done for many years. And we're very much focused on practical initiatives that continue over years to drive economic and employment opportunities for First Nations people. This is a really important topic. If you have any other questions that you may want answered, then please, as always, feel free to reach out to Andy and the Investor Relations team if you have any follow-up questions. Thanks for your time.