Executive Summary

A legal and environmental conflict is ongoing over a proposed land exchange that would transfer a culturally sacred and ecologically significant site, Oak Flat (Chi’chil Biłdagoteel), from the U.S. Forest Service to Resolution Copper for the development of a large-scale copper mine. This report analyzes the dispute through the lens of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), highlighting the profound tensions between economic development objectives (SDG 8) and the fundamental goals of environmental protection (SDG 6, SDG 15), cultural preservation (SDG 11), justice for Indigenous peoples (SDG 16), and reducing inequalities (SDG 10).

Background of the Dispute

Site Significance: Cultural Heritage and Natural Resources

Oak Flat, located in Arizona’s Tonto National Forest, is a site of immense importance, presenting a direct conflict between competing development values.

• Cultural and Spiritual Heritage (SDG 11): The site is held sacred by the Apache people and is central to their religious practices, including the Sunrise Dance ceremony for young women. It serves as a place for gathering traditional medicines and acorns, and is considered a direct connection to the Creator. The preservation of such sites is critical for safeguarding the world’s cultural heritage as outlined in SDG 11.4.
• Ecological Value (SDG 6 & SDG 15): The area contains a functioning wetland and riparian zone, a scarce resource in Arizona. The proposed block cave mining method would obliterate this ecosystem, creating a crater nearly two miles wide and 1,000 feet deep. This directly contravenes the aims of SDG 15 (Life on Land) to halt biodiversity loss and SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation) to protect water-related ecosystems.
• Economic Potential (SDG 8): Resolution Copper, owned by Rio Tinto and BHP, argues the mine would become one of America’s largest copper producers, contributing an estimated $1 billion annually to the state’s economy and creating thousands of jobs, aligning with targets for SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth).

Legal Challenges and the Pursuit of Justice (SDG 16)

The conflict has resulted in multiple lawsuits, testing the capacity of institutions to provide access to justice for all and protect fundamental freedoms, a core tenet of SDG 16.

Primary Legal Arguments

Opponents of the land exchange base their legal challenges on several key principles:

• Religious Freedom: Lawsuits filed by Apache Stronghold and a group of four Apache women assert that the destruction of Oak Flat violates their rights under the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
• Reduced Inequalities (SDG 10): The case highlights the systemic inequalities faced by Indigenous communities in protecting their sacred lands and cultural practices against federally mandated industrial projects.
• Environmental Protection: Legal actions by environmental groups and a consortium of tribes cite violations of environmental laws, seeking to uphold protections for land and water resources (SDG 15, SDG 6).

Chronology of Legal Actions

1. 2014: A last-minute rider attached to a defense bill mandates the land exchange, bypassing standard public processes.
2. 2021: Apache Stronghold, the San Carlos Apache Tribe, and an environmental consortium file separate lawsuits to halt the transfer. The Biden administration temporarily rescinds the project’s Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for further consultation.
3. 2024: The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rules against Apache Stronghold. The U.S. Supreme Court subsequently declines to hear the case.
4. April 2024: The Forest Service announces its intent to publish a new FEIS, starting a 60-day clock for the land exchange to be finalized.
5. July 2024: Four Apache women file a new lawsuit in Washington, D.C., arguing the exchange violates their religious rights and their ability to pass on cultural traditions, a key component of preserving cultural heritage (SDG 11).
6. August 2024: A federal judge issues a temporary halt on the land exchange until August 19, allowing time for legal arguments in related cases to be heard.

Analysis of Conflicting Sustainable Development Goals

Economic Growth vs. Holistic Well-being

The Oak Flat case is a stark example of how a narrow focus on SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) can directly undermine progress on other critical SDGs.

• Health and Well-being (SDG 3): Plaintiffs describe Oak Flat as a place of healing, with its waters and spiritual power contributing to their physical and mental well-being. Its destruction would cause profound spiritual and emotional harm, undermining community health.
• Responsible Production (SDG 12): The reliance on a highly destructive mining method to extract copper raises questions about commitments to sustainable production patterns and the responsible management of natural resources.
• Justice and Strong Institutions (SDG 16): The legislative maneuver to mandate the land swap and the subsequent legal battles suggest a failure of institutions to ensure inclusive and responsive decision-making. The dissent from Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch, who called the refusal to hear the case a “grievous mistake,” underscores the contentious nature of the issue within the judicial system itself.

Conclusion and Outlook

The dispute over Oak Flat encapsulates a critical challenge of the 21st century: balancing economic interests with the imperative to protect environmental resources, cultural heritage, and human rights. The ongoing legal proceedings represent a crucial test for the U.S. government’s commitment to the principles embedded in the SDGs, particularly those concerning Indigenous rights (SDG 10), the protection of cultural and natural heritage (SDG 11, SDG 15), and the provision of justice for all citizens (SDG 16). The final outcome will set a significant precedent for how such conflicts between resource extraction and fundamental rights are resolved in the future.

SDGs Addressed in the Article

• SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation
• SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
• SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production
• SDG 15: Life on Land
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

Identified SDG Targets

1. SDG 15: Life on Land

   • Target 15.1: “By 2020, ensure the conservation, restoration and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems and their services, in particular forests, wetlands, mountains and drylands, in line with obligations under international agreements.”
     
     Explanation: The article highlights that Oak Flat is a “2,200-acre campground” within the “Tonto National Forest” and is also described as a “working wetland” and “riparian zone.” The plan to create a copper mine would destroy this ecosystem, which is in direct opposition to the goal of conserving forests and wetlands.
   • Target 15.5: “Take urgent and significant action to reduce the degradation of natural habitats, halt the loss of biodiversity and, by 2020, protect and prevent the extinction of threatened species.”
     
     Explanation: The proposed “block cave mining” method will result in “a crater about 1,000 feet deep and nearly 2 miles across.” This represents a complete and irreversible degradation of a natural habitat, directly contradicting the aim of this target.

2. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   • Target 16.3: “Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.”
     
     Explanation: The article details the multiple legal challenges brought by Indigenous groups. It mentions “four lawsuits” filed by groups like Apache Stronghold and the San Carlos Apache Tribe, who are using the court system to seek justice and protect their rights under laws like the “Religious Freedom Restoration Act.” This demonstrates a struggle to achieve equal access to justice.
   • Target 16.7: “Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.”
     
     Explanation: The conflict stems from a land swap “attached to a defense bill in December 2014.” The subsequent legal battles and the fact that the Biden administration “rescinded the environmental impact statement in March 2021 for further consultation with tribes” show an ongoing struggle for inclusive and responsive decision-making where the voices of the Apache people are adequately considered.
   • Target 16.b: “Promote and enforce non-discriminatory laws and policies for sustainable development.”
     
     Explanation: The lawsuits claim the land exchange “violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act” and the plaintiffs’ “First Amendment-guaranteed religious rights.” This is a direct attempt to enforce existing non-discriminatory laws to protect a sacred site and a minority group’s cultural practices from being overridden by economic interests.

3. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

   • Target 10.2: “By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status.”
     
     Explanation: The article centers on the Apache people’s fight to have their religious and cultural connections to Oak Flat recognized and respected in a major federal decision. The statement, “So much has been taken from our people,” reflects a feeling of marginalization and a struggle for inclusion in decisions affecting their heritage.
   • Target 10.3: “Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices and promoting appropriate legislation, policies and action in this regard.”
     
     Explanation: The legal challenges argue that the government’s plan to allow the destruction of Oak Flat represents an unequal outcome, where the religious freedom of a Native American tribe is valued less than the economic potential of a copper mine. The fight is to ensure their rights are given equal consideration.

4. SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation

   • Target 6.6: “By 2020, protect and restore water-related ecosystems, including mountains, forests, wetlands, rivers, aquifers and lakes.”
     
     Explanation: The article explicitly states the conflict is a battle to “preserve one of Arizona’s most scarce commodities, a working wetland.” It also notes that one plaintiff’s daughter “was healed by the waters at Oak Flat.” The destruction of the site would eliminate this water-related ecosystem, which this target aims to protect.

5. SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production

   • Target 12.2: “By 2030, achieve the sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources.”
     
     Explanation: The article describes the “block cave mining” method, which involves collapsing the ground to extract copper, leaving a massive crater. This method is an example of unsustainable natural resource management, as it completely destroys the land and ecosystem for resource extraction.

6. SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

   • Target 8.2: “Achieve higher levels of economic productivity through diversification, technological upgrading and innovation…”
     
     Explanation: This SDG is relevant because it represents the argument from the mining company’s perspective. Resolution Copper claims the mine would “contribute $1 billion annually to the state economy and provide thousands of jobs.” This highlights the conflict between purely economic growth objectives and the social and environmental pillars of sustainable development.

Implied and Mentioned Indicators

1. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   • Indicator for Target 16.3: The number and status of legal challenges filed by Indigenous groups.
     
     Explanation: The article explicitly mentions there are “four lawsuits” and details their progression through the courts, including rulings from the “9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals” and the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear a case. This serves as a direct measure of the attempt to access justice.
   • Indicator for Target 16.7: The existence and outcome of government-tribal consultation processes.
     
     Explanation: The article notes that the government “rescinded the environmental impact statement (EIS) in March 2021 for further consultation with tribes” and that a “consultation concluded in 2023.” The effectiveness of this process is implicitly questioned by the continuation of lawsuits, indicating that the plaintiffs do not feel the process was sufficiently responsive.

2. SDG 15: Life on Land

   • Indicator for Target 15.1: The area of protected land threatened by industrial development.
     
     Explanation: The article specifies the size of the area in question as the “2,200-acre campground.” The outcome of the legal battle (preservation or destruction) will determine the status of this land area, serving as a clear indicator of conservation success or failure.

3. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

   • Indicator for Target 10.3: Qualitative reports of perceived discrimination from minority groups.
     
     Explanation: The personal statements from the Apache women serve as qualitative indicators. For example, Nomie Brown states, “If the government’s plan to destroy Oak Flat goes through, it would be devastating to my people and to me specifically.” This reflects a perceived inequality in how their cultural and religious values are treated.

4. SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

   • Indicator for Target 8.2: Projected economic contribution and job creation from an industrial project.
     
     Explanation: The article provides quantitative data from Resolution Copper’s perspective, stating the mine would “contribute $1 billion annually to the state economy and provide thousands of jobs.” These figures are used as indicators to measure the project’s economic benefits.

SDGs, Targets, and Indicators Analysis

Source: azcentral.com