PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON MINERAL RESOURCES DISCUSSION ON THE ONE ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEM

1. PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON MINERAL RESOURCES DISCUSSION ON THE ONE ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEM 12 NOVEMBER 2014

2. PRESENTATION LAYOUT • RATIONALE FOR THE NEW SYSTEM FOR MINING, ENVIRONMENTAL AND WATER AUTHORISATONS • REFLECTION ON CHALLENGES BEFORE THE INITIATIVE • PROCESS FOLLOWED TO STREAMLINE LICENCING PROCESSES • GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES INVOLVED IN EFFECTING ALIGNMENT • THE BRIEF • OUTLINE OF THE APPLICATION SYSTEM • ALIGNMENT OF PROSPECTING RIGHT PROCESS • ALIGNMENT OF MINING RIGHT PROCESS • RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS OF THE ALIGNMENT PROCESS • ELEMENTS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN • CURRENT STATUS AND IMPLEMENTATION PROGRESS. • CONCLUSION

3. RATIONALE FOR THE NEW SYSTEM FOR MINERAL , ENVIRONMENTAL AND WATER AUTHORISATONSThe Strategy for sustainable growth and competitiveness of the mining industry, identified fragmented likening system as a constraint to attracting investment. • Investments could not be unlocked, and some mines ended up operating illegally. • Consequence – Uncertainty in the investment climate • Excessive lead times for investment decisions. • Perceptions of SA being a high risk investment destination. • Investment into mines involves tens or even hundreds of Billions • Negative press portraying mining projects as being illegal • Investments in mining industry not seen as safe.

4. CHALLENGES BEFORE THE INITIATIVE3 Departments regulating Environment of one industry • Environmental Plan or Programme (DMR) • Environmental Authorisation (DEA & Provincial Environmental Departments) • Water Use License (Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS) The respective rights and authorisations were often processed consecutively rather than concurrently • Consequence – Uncertainty in the investment climate • Excessive lead times for investment decisions. • Perceptions of SA being a high risk investment destination, leading to. • Potential loss of investments • Negative press portraying mining projects as being illegal • Investments in mining industry not seen as safe.

5. PROCESS FOLLOWED TO STREAMLINE • February 2008 DEA and DMR agreed on the principle of one system to regulate all environmental matters pertaining to mining. • Agreement not implemented due to challenges • NEMA amended in 2008 to effect agreement • MPRDA amended in 2008, promulgated 7 June 2013 • March 2012, DG’s of DMR, and DEA met to recommend options to Ministers

6. PROCESS FOLLOWED TO STREAMLINE • Matrix of three policy options on how to handle the Mine Environment Function was developed • Option 1 – Move environment function to DEA • Would require legislative amendments of NWA, MPRDA, NEMA • Posed constitutional challenges • Option 2 – Keep the environment function at DMR, include listed activities, and move appeals to DEA • Would require legislative amendments of NWA, MPRDA, NEMA • Time frame alignment with DWS • Option 3 – Leave functions where they are in the three departments • Integrated licensing system across three departments • Legislative amendments • Joint decision making

7. PROCESS FOLLOWED TO STREAMLINE In principle Agreement by the Ministers: • Environmental Authorisations in respect of mining, prospecting will be regulated under one system prescribed by NEMA • Minister of Mineral Resources will be the designated competent Authority in terms of NEMA to implement the environmental system relating to mining /prospecting • Minister of Environment will be the designated Authority to deal with appeals related to environmental authorisations in respect of mining/prospecting • MPRDA and NEMA legislation to be amended accordingly to effect the agreement

8. GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES INVOLVED MINISTER Mineral Resources MINISTER Environmental Affairs INTER DEPARTMENTAL PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE ROTATING CHAIR DG Mineral Resources DG Environmental Affairs DG Water Affair and Sanitation Task Team Communications Task Team Enforcement Task Team Joint Planning Task Team Legislative Amendments Task Team Capacity Task Team Co Ordinated Timeframes

9. THE BRIEF • The mining and prospecting processes will follow the MPRDA process • 300 days for MR’s and • 180 days for PR’s • The Environmental Authorisation in terms of NEMA and Water Use licenses application in terms of NWA will be initiated directly after the acceptances of the application in terms of the MPRDA • The Process will run parallel and the decisions will be taken simultaneously

10. OUTLINE OF AN APPLICATION PROCESSApplications lodged are processed in the following phases: • First phase - Acceptance or rejection of applications • (Section 16 & 22 of the Act- Rejections to take place within 14 days of receipt) • Second phase - Adjudication (internal) • 180 days for EMP to be submitted and 120 days to approve EMP. • Other adjudications aligned to EMP timeframes • In terms of NEMA, Environmental Authorisation timeframe is still aligned) • Third phase - Granting or refusal • Governed by granting criteria in sect 17 and 23 of the Act. • Timeframe aligned to Environmental Timeframes as per both MPRDA and NEMA • Fourth phase – Appeals ( no subsequent rights to be considered while there are appeals pending).

11. ALIGNMENT OF PROSPECTING RIGHT PROCESS

12. MPRDA Application Accepted BA Process: Where DMR is Competent Authority Pre-application (Optional) AEL WUL WML MPRDA 10 days Follows NEMA EIA Process DMR Continues to process MPRDA application BEE Proposal Mine Health and Safety Notice of intent acknowledged Application Consultation BAR & EMPR Closure Plan + + 90 days Public Participation including CA (30 days) Incorporate PP comments Site inspection & permission to proceed Notification of addition 50 days PP Submit BAR, EMPr & Closure Plan or 197 DAYS (Non- substantive) WULA submitted Non substantive 147 days BAR and EMPr review Public participation including CA (30 days) Incorporate PP comments 50 days 57 days MEM RECOMMENDATION AEL RECOMMENDATION FINAL recommendation: MWP BEE, SLP MH&S WML RECOMMENDATION WUL A RECOMMENDATION TO DMR EA Decision prerequisite for MPRDA Decision Submit BAR, EMPr & Closure Plan 157 days BAR and EMPr review 247 DAYS (Substantive) NON SUBSTANTIVE 10 days MLA 57 days 50 days 10 days RM & RLC – INCL DWS 50 days WML ISSUED 30 days MPRDA Decision Decision WUL ISSUED SUBSTANTIVE 60 days AEL Decision (other) 50 days Decision 90 days In event of substantive S&EIr process all time-frames extended by 50 days EA APPEAL DECISION PREREQUISITE FOR MPRDA DECISION BECOMING EFFECTIVE ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORISATION APPEAL FINALISED

13. ALIGNMENT OF PROSPECTING RIGHT PROCESS The timeframe kicks in when the application for an Environmental Authorization is received. The left hand column represents timeframes for all environmental Authorisations in the country regardless of the sector or who the Competent Authority is. DMR is the Competent Authority for Environmental Management related to the impacts of prospecting sites Waste Management Licences related to prospecting sites will also be issued by DMR

14. ALIGNMENT OF PROSPECTING RIGHT PROCESS Air Quality Licences related to Prospecting will be migrated to DMR once constitutional issues are resolved. The timeframe will in total be 180 days for Prospecting rights until the date of issuing an environmental Authorisation. DW&S will run their process in parallel. Depending on catchments they will not always achieve 180 days, but will achieve 300 days to a decision. i.e. there will be cases where a WUL will take 4 months longer than DMR

15. ALIGNMENT OF MINING RIGHT PROCESS

16. MPRDA Application Accepted S&EIr Process: Where DMR is Competent Authority Consultation EIR & EMPr Scoping Report Submitted Pre-application (Optional) AEL WUL WML MPRDA 10 days Application Follows NEMA EIA Process DMR Continues to process MPRDA application BEE Proposal SLP Mine Health and Safety Consultation Scoping report Notice of intent acknowledged (10 days) 44 days public participation including CA (30 days) incorporate PP comments 43 days Site inspection & permission to proceed (30 days) 43 days accept or Reject & Refuse application 300 DAYS (Non- substantive) develop EIR & EMPr WULA submitted (100 days) Non substantive 250 days 106 days Notification of addition 50 days PP Submit EIR & EMPr or EIR & EMPr review & Final recommendation Consultation EIR & EMPr 57 days AEL RECOMMENDATION FINAL recommendation: MWP BEE, SLP MH&S PP incl CA (30 days) & Include comments (20 days) 110 DAYS WUL A RECOMMENDATION TO DMR WML RECOMMENDATION EA Decision prerequisite for MPRDA Decision MEM RECOMMENDATION 50 days Submit EIR & EMPr EIR & EMPr review & Final recommendation 350 DAYS (Substantive) NON SUBSTANTIVE 10 days MLA 157 days 50 days 10 days RM & RLC – INCL DWS 57 days 50 days DMR / NEMA EA ISSUED WML ISSUED 30 days MPRDA Decision WUL ISSUED SUBSTANTIVE 60 days AEL Decision (other) 50 days DMR / NEMA EA ISSUED 90 days 90 days In event of substantive S&EIr process all time-frames extended by 50 days EA APPEAL DECISION PREREQUISITE FOR MPRDA DECISION BECOMING EFFECTIVE ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORISATION APPEAL FINALISED

17. ALIGNMENT OF MINING RIGHT PROCESS The timeframe kicks in when the application for an Environmental Authorization is received. The left hand column represents timeframes for all Environmental Authorisations in the country regardless of the sector or who the Competent Authority is. DMR is the Competent Authority for Environmental Management related to the impacts of prospecting sites Waste Management Licences related to prospecting sites will also be issued by DMR Air Quality Licences related to Mining will be migrated to DMR once constitutional issues are resolved. The timeframe will in total be 300 days for mining rights until the date of issuing an Environmental Authorisation. DW&S will run their process in parallel and will achieve 300 days to a decision.

18. NEMA SCENARIO MPRDA Application Accepted MPRDA SCENARIO MPRDA Application Accepted Scoping Report Submitted Scoping Report Submitted Apply Immediately (2008 Acts NEMA & MPRDA) 180 days to submit EMP Environmental Application EMP Submitted Consult Competent Authorities 60 days Public Participation AND Public Participation 44 days Consult Competent Authorities 43 days 43 days to accept or reject 300 days 300 days Develop EIR & EMPr 43 days to accept or reject 10 days 250 days Develop EIR & EMPr 106 days Submit EIR & EMPr Submit EIR & EMPr EIR & EMPr review & Final recommendation EIR & EMPr review & Final recommendation 57 days MEM RECOMMENDATION MEM RECOMMENDATION 10 days MLA 10 days RM & Regional Licensing 50 days 50 days 30 days MPRDA DECISION

19. RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS OF THE ALIGNMENT PROCESS • Additional officials required at DMR, to effectively implement NEMA. These resources requirements were based on: • longer iterative process not previously required in terms of the MPRDA • Additional functions not previously required such as listed activities, waste management, • the review of documents not previously required in terms of the MPRDA process.

20. RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS OF THE ALIGNMENT PROCESS • National Treasury made funds available for goods and services which had to be reclassified for compensation of employees. • Funds used to create additional 35 Assistant Director positions and filled • Based on an implementation plan the DMR:- • Embarked on a recruitment process • Provided for IT equipment for the additional personnel • Provided for accommodation and furniture.

21. ELEMENTS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

22. ELEMENTS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

23. CURRENT STATUS AND IMPLEMENTATION PROGRESS • Work completed • Agreement and mapping on timeframes alignment • Amendment of legislation • Appointment and placement of additional 35 personnel in regions, • Provision of office space, IT equipment, furniture etc. • Adjustment to business processes • Change Management workshops have been conducted for all environmental personnel. • Training on Air Quality and Waste Management Licensing completed for all Environmental officials. • Guidelines Templates Checklists completed to process applications (Requires adjustments once DEA finalised revision of EIA Regulations)

24. CURRENT STATUS AND IMPLEMENTATION PROGRESS - Ongoing • Enforcement Task Team engaged in Joint Inspections with DEA and DWS and support from NPA. • DMR Regions actively participating in enforcement activities of DEA and DWS. • All Regional Environmental Managers engaged in Experiential Training (Currently engaged in process prosecuting illegal mining cases on a case study basis in conjunction with DEA. • Pretoria University has been appointed to train Environmental Mineral Resource Inspectors. (EMRI training). 31 people attending this course, and will it be held at the University of Pretoria. • Course commences 24 November 2014. • Final Exam End January 2015. • One of the Existing Chief Directorates in Mineral Regulation being dedicated to Environmental Enforcement.

25. CONCLUSIONS • This project represent a best model on coordinated government effort in improving the investment climate. • The one system of mining, environment and water use authorisation aims at implementation of the mining sector strategy

26. Thank You