By: Esmarie Swanepoel
Published on 26th November 2008

SOMERSET-WEST (miningweekly.com) – Civil societys trust in the ability of South Africas Department of Minerals and Energy (DME) to deal with environmental matters is at “an all time low, says Johan Nel, from the North West University’s centre of environmental management.

Nel, who was speaking at the ten-year assessment of environmental impact assessments (EIAs) this week, said that civil society no longer trusted the DME to deal with environmental issues because the departments primary purpose was to be the protagonist of mining activities.

Their [the DMEs] first duty says they should issue a mining license subject to conditions. So fundamental to their existence is promoting mining, Nel told delegates.

The department was also previously responsible assessing EIAs from mining companies, and Nel said that there was a clear conflict of interest. We missed the conflict of interest that the DME must be the watchdog and the protagonists.

Nel added that announcement that South Africas State-owned mining company, the African Exploration & Mining Finance Corporation (AEMFC), would be exempted from certain criteria of the country mineral legislation further damaged civil societys trust in the DME to deal with environmental matters.

Minerals and Energy Minister Buyelwa Sonjica has, in a Government Gazette notice, exempted the AEMFC – the vehicle for the development of the State mining company – from provisions dealing with applications for prospecting rights, mining rights and mining permits.

This decision, along with the controversial Xolobeni mining project on South Africa’s Wild Coast, left a legacy which illustrated a breakdown in civil trust, Nel said.

However, he believed that trust would be restored with the inclusion of mining EIAs into the National Environmental Management Act (Nema), where all mining companies had to apply to the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (Deat) for environmental approval.

Deat officials said the Nema processes would replace the Minerals and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA) process within 18 months, after both departments had agreed to the decision.

However, Deat was now faced with setting up a transparent and public-participation-friendly process to aptly deal with EIAs, especially where it would severely affect the surrounding communities.

The controversial Xolobeni project would likely have faced more challenges in obtaining its EIA under Nema.

A Deat representative stated that the project had not been granted an EIA under Nema, adding that the MPRDA lacked the anatomy and safeguards of checks and balances for which Nema was known.

However, Nel added that despite the environmental management of proposed mining projects falling into the realm of Deat, the DME still had certain powers over environmental impact decisions.

We will have to wait for an appeal [from the DME] before the environmental issues come back to Deat.

Posted on December 3rd, 2008
Filed under: Newspaper and Media