A comparative analysis of mining environmental management programme reports following a change to the one environmental system
| dc.contributor.author | Mathe, Lebogang | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2023-11-15T10:31:45Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2023-11-15T10:31:45Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2022 | |
| dc.description | A dissertation submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science to the Faculty of Science, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, 2022 | |
| dc.description.abstract | The mining fraternity has recently seen a shift in terms of environmental requirements under the ambit of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act 28 of 2002 (MPRDA) to the National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998 (NEMA). The objective was to ensure a streamlined environmental compliance and to put emphasis on integrated environmental management. The One Environmental System (OES) was introduced which denotes that all environmental related projects or activities, including mining, are regulated through an ambit of one system. NEMA is recognised as an overarching law which provides for co-operative environmental governance; therefore, all environmental related activities are regulated under its ambit and EIA regulations. In this research report, the Environmental Management Programme (EMP) reports and Environmental Authorisations that were issued under the MPRDA and the 2014 NEMA regulations respectively, were analysed using the respective regulations to compare the environmental management measures outlined in the reports to achieve better environmental results. The aim of the research was to assess whether the Environmental Authorisations granted in terms of NEMA reflect better environmental results as compared to those issued under the MPRDA. Better environmental results mean improved management plans with clearer assessment of impacts, more detailed mitigation measures with specific, achievable, relevant and time bound actions that do not pose harmful effects on the environment and communities. A mixed method of analysis was implemented which included a review and comparison of legislation, evaluation and scoring of 20 EMPs (10 submitted under MPRDA and 10 submitted under NEMA) and interviews with key informants, namely competent authorities and the Environmental Assessment Practitioners (EAPs) were conducted to support the findings of the reports. In conclusion, the reports analysed presented a significant improvement and better environmental results under NEMA. The interviews conducted with authorities and the EAPs have also substantiated the observations made in terms of Environmental Management Programme reports and Environmental Authorisations submitted. The findings indicated that there were similarities in the MPRDA and NEMA regulations as 4 | P a g e regards some environmental requirements. However, the MPRDA lacked to outline a detailed description of environmental requirements needed to manage environmental impacts. Thus, applicants provided limited information in terms of the management of impacts. NEMA has provided additional requirements, including baseline environmental information, specialist reports and public participation amongst others; these contributed to improved environmental results. The study revealed that the reports submitted under NEMA provided better environmental management measures as compared to the reports submitted under MPRDA. | |
| dc.description.librarian | PC(2023) | |
| dc.faculty | Faculty of Science | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/10539/36998 | |
| dc.language.iso | en | |
| dc.school | Animal, Plant and Environmental Sciences | |
| dc.subject | Mining Environmental Management | |
| dc.subject | Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act 28 of 2002 | |
| dc.subject | Environmental Management Programme (EMP) | |
| dc.title | A comparative analysis of mining environmental management programme reports following a change to the one environmental system | |
| dc.type | Dissertation |