Editor –

The article entitled ‘Legislation threatens ecological responsibility in mining’, written by Lindsey Berry and published in the March 27–April 2, 2009, edition of Mining Weekly refers.

The Department of Water and Environmental Affairs wishes to respond as follows:

Neither the requirements, as contained in the National Environmental Management Act (Nema), nor the proposed amendments to the environmental-impact assessment (EIA) regulations have the effect of reducing minimum requirements for environmental responsibility in mining. We wish to use this opportunity to clarify any ambiguity or confusion about the need for an EIA for proposed developments.

It is correct to state that developers will not be forced into the exclusive use of EIAs, as the Nema amendment also provides for the use of other mechanisms, such as risk assessments and strategic environmental assessments. This is a move away from the one-size-fits-all ‘EIA only’ approach that many stakeholders have been complaining about during the last ten years.

All the minimum requirements contained in section 24(4) of Nema, as amended, remain applicable when an EIA is the environmental management tool used. All these requirements are, however, not relevant if another mechanism is used, and this is where the misunderstanding occurs.

It is uncertain what Dr Koos Pretorius is alluding to when he states that the legislative security has been left “up in the air”. The regulations referred to, we assume, are the EIA regulations that were published for a third round of comment on February 13, 2009. Of course, if contradictions are contained in that publication, Pretorius had the opportunity to highlight these to the department during the comment period. We are currently scrutinising comments received from about 90 institutions/individuals on these proposed amendments. These include the Federation for a Sustainable Environment, headed by Pretorius.

It is unclear from Pretorius’s statements why it is problematic if a decision on a particular development is left in the hands of a single decision-maker. One must keep in mind that the EIA regulations often do not form the only legislative requirement to be met by developers. It should also be noted (and this is, perhaps, where the uncertainty can be removed) that the EIA process followed will be the process prescribed in terms of Nema. Any application for prospecting rights, mining rights, mining permits, and so on, will also require approval in terms of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA). Previously, the MPRDA combined the EIA and rights process into a single process dealt with by the then Department of Minerals and Energy (DME). The introduction of a single EIA system for all development activities must, surely, be seen as a positive step.

Pretorius alleges that the authorising power is placed in the hands of the developer. It is not that simple. A developer can never write his own record of decision, as Pretorius alleges. The proposed general authorisation, which will be triggered if a decision- making timeframe is not met (and certain other conditions are met) formed part of the proposed amendments that were published for comment. Reference is clearly made to the reports (either basic assessment or EIA reports) and the environmental-management programme, which will form the basis of the general authorisation. These reports are never drafted by the developer alone and are always subject to public participation by interested and affected parties. The specific provision is only for exceptional circumstances and it is not proposed as the norm. It should also be remembered that the right to appeal still applies.

The Department of Water and Environmental Affairs is equally concerned about mining developments in parts of Mpumalanga and other ecosensitive areas. With respect to the Wakkerstroom wetland area, the department is working with the Department of Mining and the WWF to develop an environmental management framework for the Pixley Ka Seme district municipality. The Mpumalanga provincial department has also embarked on a similar process for the Chrissiesmeer area. In addition, the department is in the process of compiling a sensitive areas database that will be shared with the Department of Mining at a meeting scheduled for July this year.
Joanne Yawitch

Deputy director-general: environmental quality and protection

Department of Water and Environmental Affairs