CHAMBER OF MINES OF SOUTH AFRICA

 

 5 November 2007

 

 

Submission to the Portfolio Committee on Environmental Affairs and Tourism (National Assembly) [Public Hearings on the National Environmental Management Amendment Bill [B36-2007]]

 

 

 
 

 


.....................................................................................................................................................

 

The Chamber of Mines welcomes the opportunity to make a submission to the Portfolio Committee on issues of concern to the Chamber members and the South African Mining industry.   The Chamber further wants to emphasize that the need for legislation dealing with environmental impact assessments (EIA) is not in question, but that the mining industry is strongly against duplication of processes within legislation.  In our view, the Committee for Environmental Co-ordination (CEC) must promote alignment of processes and the prevention of duplication.

 

The Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Minerals and Energy, rejected most of the attempts to align the NEMA and MPRDA processes in terms of processes and terminology. In our view the portfolio committee has taken a hard line stand by simply making a provision that NEMA is not applicable to mining related activities.   

 

It is not in the interest of growth and investment within the mining industry to duplicate legislative processes

 

The Chamber of Mines supports the attempts by the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism to streamline the EIA requirements of the NEMA and MPRDA. The Chamber in particular supports the provision in Clause 1(c)(b) with regard to the empowerment of the Minister of Minerals and Energy as a competent authority.  The Chamber further supports Clause 8 (referring to Section 24L(4)), the deeming provision that decisions taken by a competent authority (i.e. Minister of Minerals and Energy) in terms of any other legislation (i.e. MPRDA) meets all the requirements of Chapter 5 of NEMA.   

 

However, the designation of the Minister of Minerals and Energy as a competent authority, equates the Minister of Minerals and Energy to a provincial MEC of Environment.  In order to protect the status and the authority of the office of the Minister of Minerals and Energy, it is recommended that the Minister of Minerals and Energy should be exempted from the appellate provisions of NEMA, and rather that the appeal provisions of the MPRDA should be applicable to the Minister of Minerals and Energy’s decisions. Furthermore, the Minister of Minerals and Energy should be able to delegate her powers to officials in her department.

 

The Chamber further recommends that the authorithy of the Minister of Minerals and Energy as described in Clause 1(c)(b), extends so far as including the associated activities concerned with mining, prospecting and petroleum exploration and production and that all these associated activities that are due to take place are clarified in the Regulations.

The Chamber also wants to bring it to attention that in terms of section 24M only the Minister or MEC may grant an exemption, while applications for exemption under the 2006 EIA regulations, and the 2007 amendments are made to the competent authority.  It is therefore recommended that section 24M should refer to the competent authority rather than the Minister or MEC.

 

In conclusion the Chamber of Mines would like to restate the commitment of the mining industry to co-operating with Government to work towards the implementation of the amendments of the Act and ultimately minimising adverse effects on the environment.

 

 

 

 

Maryna Möhr-Swart

 

Assistant Environmental Adviser

Chamber of Mines of South Africa