Comments on: ‘We’re not usurping powers’ http://www.swc.org.za/were-not-usurping-powers.htm Sustaining and Saving the Wild Coast Thu, 05 May 2011 10:49:24 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Louise http://www.swc.org.za/were-not-usurping-powers.htm/comment-page-1#comment-45 Louise Thu, 30 Aug 2007 06:45:48 +0000 http://www.swc.org.za/were-not-usurping-powers.htm#comment-45 My biggest fear for the planned mining to take place in the Transkei is that it does not matter who's hands you place the matter in, all are subject to corruption. As a suggestion I would recommend that the effects on the ecology after the mining has been done be closely studied and observed, that these people who ever they are that are in charge go and look at open mining sites - and then take a walk a few kilometres away and see the difference. I understand that mining at this point in time is a necessity, but will we only realize when there is nothing left that we could have found other ways. My biggest fear for the planned mining to take place
in the Transkei is that it does not matter who’s hands
you place the matter in, all are subject to corruption.

As a suggestion I would recommend that the effects
on the ecology after the mining has been done be
closely studied and observed, that these people who
ever they are that are in charge go and look at open
mining sites – and then take a walk a few kilometres
away and see the difference.

I understand that mining at this point in time is a
necessity, but will we only realize when there is
nothing left that we could have found other ways.

]]> By: admin http://www.swc.org.za/were-not-usurping-powers.htm/comment-page-1#comment-44 admin Tue, 28 Aug 2007 21:27:30 +0000 http://www.swc.org.za/were-not-usurping-powers.htm#comment-44 Prof. Jeremy Ridl: The comments from the Minister’s spokesperson (Rian Aucamp) are confusing. “Historically” it was a persistent gripe of environmental groups that mining was not a listed activity attracting the need for an EIA and that DME was a law unto itself. When mining was listed under Nema, it was to the approval of all. A little sting in the tail came when the Minister declared that the regulations would only come into effect on 1 April 2007 and not 1 July 2006 with the rest of the listed activities. The Minister did not keep his promise, simple as that. In the notice that lists mining as an activity requiring an EIA, the competent authority for mining environmental authorisations is the (environment) Minister or “an organ of state with delegated powers in terms of section 42(1) of the Act”. Section 42(1) states: The Minister may delegate a power or duty vested in him or her in terms of this Act or a specific environmental management Act to— (a) the Director-General; (b) an MEC, by agreement with the MEC; (c) the management authority of a protected area; or (d) any organ of state, by agreement with that organ of state. The appointment of the Minister of Minerals and Energy (or her officials) under the power that “any organ of state” may be appointed is not what we were led to believe was promised. We thought that the call that the illogical exclusion of mining from the EIA regulations had been answered. It is disingenuous to bring mining within the ambit of the environmental regulations only to have the EIAs adjudicated by mining officials. That is not what we were promised. The Minister might as well have left mining off the list of activities altogether rather than create the obvious conflicts and difficulties with cooperative governance that must arise. Not only will there be a duality of functions within DME there will be duplication of competencies as other aspects of Nema that govern EIAs but are not covered by the regulations will be administered by DEAT. This is frowned upon by the Constitution (section 41(1)(g). Prof. Jeremy Ridl Prof. Jeremy Ridl:

The comments from the Minister’s spokesperson (Rian Aucamp) are confusing. “Historically” it was a persistent gripe of environmental groups that mining was not a listed activity attracting the need for an EIA and that DME was a law unto itself. When mining was listed under Nema, it was to the approval of all. A little sting in the tail came when the Minister declared that the regulations would only come into effect on 1 April 2007 and not 1 July 2006 with the rest of the listed activities. The Minister did not keep his promise, simple as that.

In the notice that lists mining as an activity requiring an EIA, the competent authority for mining environmental authorisations is the (environment) Minister or “an organ of state with delegated powers in terms of section 42(1) of the Act”. Section 42(1) states:

The Minister may delegate a power or duty vested in him or her in terms of this Act or a specific environmental management Act to—

(a) the Director-General;

(b) an MEC, by agreement with the MEC;

(c) the management authority of a protected area; or

(d) any organ of state, by agreement with that organ of state.

The appointment of the Minister of Minerals and Energy (or her officials) under the power that “any organ of state” may be appointed is not what we were led to believe was promised. We thought that the call that the illogical exclusion of mining from the EIA regulations had been answered. It is disingenuous to bring mining within the ambit of the environmental regulations only to have the EIAs adjudicated by mining officials. That is not what we were promised. The Minister might as well have left mining off the list of activities altogether rather than create the obvious conflicts and difficulties with cooperative governance that must arise.

Not only will there be a duality of functions within DME there will be duplication of competencies as other aspects of Nema that govern EIAs but are not covered by the regulations will be administered by DEAT. This is frowned upon by the Constitution (section 41(1)(g).

Prof. Jeremy Ridl

]]>