APPELLANTS’ RESPONDING STATEMENT, IN TERMS OF REGULATION 74(8) OF THE MINERAL AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, 2004, TO THE REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE MPUMALANGA REGIONAL MANAGER

This responding statement, submitted by the Centre for Environmental Rights on behalf of eight appellants, challenges the approval of the Environmental Management Programme (EMPR) for Atha-Africa Ventures (Pty) Ltd’s proposed Yzermyn Mine. The appellants argue that the Mpumalanga Regional Manager approved an EMPR that had previously been found to fail statutory requirements regarding environmental protection, specifically concerning wetlands and water resources.

• The Mine Environmental Management record of decision (MEM ROD), signed by the Regional Manager on 16 May 2014, concluded that Atha-Africa Ventures' revised ESIA/ESMP failed to provide sustainable measures to mitigate impacts on identified wetlands and did not meet the approval criteria of section 39(4)(a) of the MPRDA.
• The MEM ROD identified several critical environmental risks associated with the Yzermyn Mine, including its location within a national freshwater ecosystem priority area and the potential for underground water reduction and contamination plumes to extend into wetlands.
• The MEM ROD determined that the proposed offset mitigation for destroyed wetlands was unreliable because the area contains headwaters for three of South Africa's twenty-two primary catchments: the Vaal, Tugela, and Pongola.
• The MEM ROD rejected the proposed financial provision of R 5,757,031.00, stating it was unacceptable because the associated measures were not sustainable for remedying pollution or degradation in the sensitive area.
• Despite the 2014 MEM ROD findings of non-compliance, the Regional Manager approved the same Approved ESIA/ESMP on 28 June 2016 in terms of section 39(4) of the MPRDA.
• The Director-General initially granted a mining right on 19 September 2014 with conditions prohibiting mining on or under wetlands, but the Minerals Minister later withdrew this decision on 14 April 2015 and granted a new mining right without those environmental conditions.

APA

Centre for Environmental Rights (2019). APPELLANTS’ RESPONDING STATEMENT, IN TERMS OF REGULATION 74(8) OF THE MINERAL AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, 2004, TO THE REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE MPUMALANGA REGIONAL MANAGER. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Appellants-responding-statement-15-07-2019.pdf?x21779

Chicago

Centre for Environmental Rights. APPELLANTS’ RESPONDING STATEMENT, IN TERMS OF REGULATION 74(8) OF THE MINERAL AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, 2004, TO THE REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE MPUMALANGA REGIONAL MANAGER. 2019. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Appellants-responding-statement-15-07-2019.pdf?x21779.

Wikipedia

{{cite press release |author=Centre for Environmental Rights |title=APPELLANTS’ RESPONDING STATEMENT, IN TERMS OF REGULATION 74(8) OF THE MINERAL AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, 2004, TO THE REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE MPUMALANGA REGIONAL MANAGER |date=15 July 2019 |url=https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Appellants-responding-statement-15-07-2019.pdf?x21779 |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@misc{centreforenvironmentalrights2019appellants, author = {{Centre for Environmental Rights}}, title = {{APPELLANTS’ RESPONDING STATEMENT, IN TERMS OF REGULATION 74(8) OF THE MINERAL AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, 2004, TO THE REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE MPUMALANGA REGIONAL MANAGER}}, publisher = {Centre for Environmental Rights}, year = {2019}, month = jul, url = {https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Appellants-responding-statement-15-07-2019.pdf?x21779}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }