COMMENTS ON THE MINERAL AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT BILL, 2013 [B15-2013]

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) submitted comments to the Portfolio Committee on Mineral Resources regarding the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Amendment Bill, 2013. The CER criticizes the Department of Mineral Resources (DMR) for failing to meaningfully consult civil society and mining-affected communities, identifies numerous drafting errors in the Bill, and provides detailed legal objections to proposed changes concerning environmental authorizations, penalty regimes, and the granting of mining rights.

• The CER asserts that the Department of Mineral Resources (DMR) has neglected civil society and mining-affected communities during the development of the Bill. The CER claims that the DMR may be relying on consultations from 2011 with as few as four communities, which occurred before the draft Bill was published in December 2012.
• The CER identifies several drafting errors in the Bill, including references to non-existent subsections, the conflation of the departments of water affairs and environmental affairs, and the use of incorrect terminology (e.g., referring to a "mining" right instead of a "prospecting" right in the definition of "prospecting area").
• The CER opposes the proposed limitation of the definition of "historically disadvantaged person" to South African citizens and the removal of the phrase "including women and communities" from section 2(d), arguing that women and communities remain significantly excluded from the benefits of mineral exploitation.
• The CER argues that the Minister should have discretion over whether to grant prospecting and mining rights, rather than being obligated to do so if certain conditions are met. They propose replacing the word "must" with "may" in sections 17(1) and 23(1).
• The CER expresses concern that the Bill may limit the application of the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) and contradicts a 2008 legislative decision to transfer environmental authorization powers for mining to environmental authorities.
• The CER criticizes the proposed penalty regime, arguing that giving a single official (the Regional Manager) the power to impose significant administrative penalties is inappropriate and invites corruption. They suggest the creation of an administrative tribunal similar to the Competition Tribunal.
• The CER argues that the proposed criminal penalties are disproportionately low compared to the turnover of the mining industry, noting that maximum penalties of R20,000 or R800,000 are insufficient and that NEMA provides for maximum penalties of R10 million.

APA

Centre for Environmental Rights (2013). COMMENTS ON THE MINERAL AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT BILL, 2013 [B15-2013]. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/CER-Comments-to-PCMR-on-MPRDA-Amendment-Bill-6-Sept-2013.pdf?x21779

Chicago

Centre for Environmental Rights. COMMENTS ON THE MINERAL AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT BILL, 2013 [B15-2013]. 2013. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/CER-Comments-to-PCMR-on-MPRDA-Amendment-Bill-6-Sept-2013.pdf?x21779.

Wikipedia

{{cite press release |author=Centre for Environmental Rights |title=COMMENTS ON THE MINERAL AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT BILL, 2013 [B15-2013] |date=6 September 2013 |url=https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/CER-Comments-to-PCMR-on-MPRDA-Amendment-Bill-6-Sept-2013.pdf?x21779 |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@misc{centreforenvironmentalrights2013comments, author = {{Centre for Environmental Rights}}, title = {{COMMENTS ON THE MINERAL AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT BILL, 2013 [B15-2013]}}, publisher = {Centre for Environmental Rights}, year = {2013}, month = sep, url = {https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/CER-Comments-to-PCMR-on-MPRDA-Amendment-Bill-6-Sept-2013.pdf?x21779}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }