The latest on our work on transparency in environmental governance in South Africa

This report by the Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) analyzes trends in the disclosure of environmental information in South Africa for 2012, comparing them to 2010-11. It finds that while public bodies are more actively responding to requests under the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA), actual disclosure has decreased and active refusals have increased. Private companies have shifted from ignoring requests to actively opposing disclosure, often through legal proceedings.

• Public bodies showed a trend of more active engagement with PAIA requests but a decrease in actual record disclosure. Deemed refusals due to lack of response dropped from 36% in 2010-11 to 7% in 2012, while active refusals rose from 11% to 29%. Full grants of requests decreased from 23% to 11%, and the percentage of records released after a grant fell from 30% to 24%.
• The Department of Mineral Resources (DMR) shifted its behavior from ignoring requests to refusing them outright. Deemed refusals by the DMR fell from 44.4% in 2010-11 to 12.5% in 2012, while active refusals increased from 8.3% to 12.5%. The success rate for actual delivery of records in cases of access granted remained stagnant at 19%.
• Compliance with PAIA Manual requirements under section 14 is generally poor across South African authorities. Only the Department of Environmental Affairs' manual was both compliant and easily accessible. The Department of Mineral Resources' manual does not comply with section 14 and has not been updated since 2003. Additionally, only 12% of municipalities have compliant PAIA Manuals.
• Several government departments failed to file required statutory reports with the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) as per section 32 of PAIA. Non-compliant entities include the Departments of Mineral Resources and Water Affairs, as well as provincial environment departments in the Eastern Cape, Mpumalanga, Northwest, and Northern Cape.
• Private companies have moved from ignoring information requests to actively refusing them. In 2010/11, 60% of requests to private companies resulted in deemed refusals, but in 2012 there were no deemed refusals. However, more than 50% of requests in 2012 were actively refused.
• JSE-listed companies have used legal arguments to deny environmental data to non-governmental organizations. Anglo Operations Limited redacted all figures in water quality reports for the New Vaal Colliery before eventually refusing a request from VEJA. ArcelorMittal South Africa and Omnia Holdings Limited also refused requests from VEJA, arguing that the organization had no legal right under PAIA to monitor corporate compliance with environmental legislation.

APA

Centre for Environmental Rights (2013). The latest on our work on transparency in environmental governance in South Africa. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Barricading-The-Doors-Feb-2013.pdf?x21779

Chicago

Centre for Environmental Rights. The latest on our work on transparency in environmental governance in South Africa. 2013. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Barricading-The-Doors-Feb-2013.pdf?x21779.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Centre for Environmental Rights |title=The latest on our work on transparency in environmental governance in South Africa |date=February 2013 |url=https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Barricading-The-Doors-Feb-2013.pdf?x21779 |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{centreforenvironmentalrights2013latest, author = {{Centre for Environmental Rights}}, title = {{The latest on our work on transparency in environmental governance in South Africa}}, institution = {Centre for Environmental Rights}, year = {2013}, month = feb, url = {https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Barricading-The-Doors-Feb-2013.pdf?x21779}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }