Submission to Portfolio Committee on Mineral Resources on the MPRDA Amendment Bill: Environment authorities are more appropriately placed to consider, issue and ensure compliance with environmental authorisations for mining activities

A joint submission by several environmental organisations to the Portfolio Committee on Mineral Resources arguing against the MPRDA Amendment Bill's proposal to transfer environmental authorisation and enforcement powers for mining activities to the Department of Mineral Resources (DMR). The authors contend that the DMR lacks the human resource capacity, budget, and track record to implement the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) and that such a transfer creates an inherent conflict of interest between promoting mining and protecting the environment.

• The Department of Mineral Resources (DMR) is argued to lack the necessary human resource and financial capacity to implement NEMA and EIA regulations. In 2009, only 78 officials were dedicated to environmental protection and monitoring, with 16% of those positions vacant and no dedicated budget. The authors claim a 2014 Budget allocation of R59 million is wholly insufficient compared to the over R70 million spent by the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) on similar sub-programmes in 2011-12, despite the DEA processing only about 10% of all EIA applications.
• The DMR is described as having a poor track record regarding environmental impact assessments and decision-making, specifically in biologically and hydrologically sensitive areas. The submission cites the Luneburg/Wakkerstroom case in southern Mpumalanga as an example where prospecting rights were awarded over two provincial nature reserves, which the authors state is illegal.
• There is a significant disparity between the DMR's focus on health and safety versus environmental compliance. In 2011-12, the DMR conducted 8,161 health and safety inspections compared to only 1,898 environmental inspections, suggesting that environmental compliance is viewed as fractionally as important as health and safety.
• The authors claim the DMR has a negligible track record in enforcement and often neglects or resists enforcement action against mining companies. They note that in four recent criminal prosecution cases for environmental violations, complaints were initiated by communities or civil society rather than the DMR, and the DMR allegedly made no voluntary attempts to assist the National Prosecuting Authority.
• The submission argues that the DMR faces an inherent conflict of interest because it is mandated both to promote the exploitation of mineral resources and to ensure that such activities do not cause unacceptable environmental degradation.
• The proposal to give the DMR sole mandate over environmental functions may be unconstitutional because environmental management is a functional competency shared between national and provincial governments under the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996.

APA

Centre for Environmental Rights (2013). Submission to Portfolio Committee on Mineral Resources on the MPRDA Amendment Bill: Environment authorities are more appropriately placed to consider, issue and ensure compliance with environmental authorisations for mining activities. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Joint-Submission-on-MPRDA-Amendment-Bill-6-Sept-2013-Appropriate-authority-for-environmental-regulation.pdf?x21779

Chicago

Centre for Environmental Rights. Submission to Portfolio Committee on Mineral Resources on the MPRDA Amendment Bill: Environment authorities are more appropriately placed to consider, issue and ensure compliance with environmental authorisations for mining activities. 2013. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Joint-Submission-on-MPRDA-Amendment-Bill-6-Sept-2013-Appropriate-authority-for-environmental-regulation.pdf?x21779.

Wikipedia

{{cite press release |author=Centre for Environmental Rights |title=Submission to Portfolio Committee on Mineral Resources on the MPRDA Amendment Bill: Environment authorities are more appropriately placed to consider, issue and ensure compliance with environmental authorisations for mining activities |date=6 September 2013 |url=https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Joint-Submission-on-MPRDA-Amendment-Bill-6-Sept-2013-Appropriate-authority-for-environmental-regulation.pdf?x21779 |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@misc{centreforenvironmentalrights2013submission, author = {{Centre for Environmental Rights}}, title = {{Submission to Portfolio Committee on Mineral Resources on the MPRDA Amendment Bill: Environment authorities are more appropriately placed to consider, issue and ensure compliance with environmental authorisations for mining activities}}, publisher = {Centre for Environmental Rights}, year = {2013}, month = sep, url = {https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Joint-Submission-on-MPRDA-Amendment-Bill-6-Sept-2013-Appropriate-authority-for-environmental-regulation.pdf?x21779}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }