Social Audit Reports; Derelict & Ownerless mines; Upstream Petroleum Resources Development Bill; Jagersfontein oversight visit report

Meeting report

Response to SAHRC briefing on unregulated mining activities

Mr Tseliso Maqubela, Deputy Director-General (DDG): Department of Mineral Resources and Energy (DMRE),   provided a presentation in response to the briefing to the Portfolio Committee by the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) on the challenges arising from unregulated artisanal underground and surface mining activities in South Africa.

The presentation included findings from the Department, which included a lack of research and literature on the issue in South Africa. There was also a poor understanding of the profile of the zama- zamas. These findings were discussed, and the presentation then provided recommendations and the progress with their implementation. The Department was committed to finding sustainable solutions to illicit mining and other law enforcement agencies.

(Further details of the presentation can be found in the attached file.)

Response to AGSA report on derelict and ownerless mines

Mr Andries Moatshe, Chief Financial Officer, DMRE, presented the Department's response to the Auditor-General of South Africa's (AGSA's) report on its audit of derelict and ownerless mines and the   Department’s plan of action to respond to the audit findings. The focus areas of the performance audit were discussed, which included a discussion on strategic and operational planning. Management of the mine database and project implementation were also discussed. The monitoring and maintenance of rehabilitation projects were included in the presentation, and matters of communication and coordination were also raised.

(Further details of the presentation can be found in the attached file.)

Discussion

Ms V Malinga (ANC) wanted to know what system in the DMRE was working. When the licences were being dealt with, it had been said that their database was not working for some reason. The system was not equipped to deal with the mines database. The DDG had said that most companies employed 50% of women in top positions, but nothing was said about local beneficiaries. Local beneficiation was about operating mines, employing people living in the surrounding areas, and giving them a skill.

Clarity was needed from Mr Maqubela, because he had said that the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA) had failed to deal with illegal mining. Given the state of the illegal mining, how was it being dealt with, and was the MPRDA equipped to deal with the problems?

Ms P Madokwe (EFF) complained that the presentations had not been sent well in advance for Members to prepare. The excuses from the Department citing COVID-19 were a problem. There seemed to be no accountability coming from the Department. It was always giving excuses of a lack of resources, or systems that were not working. It was concerning that the same thing was going to be said repeatedly. There were no consequences, so the Department would do the same thing every time. There had to be more action coming from the Department.

Ms Madokwe said the report of the Human Rights Commission had been very interesting. It was available in 2014, so when did the Department start to process the report? Was there any meeting or conversation between the Department and the SAHRC to find an agreement, because it sounded as if they were speaking past each other? The report spoke about unregulated artisanal mining, which was mining that had not been licensed and had not been monitored and regulated. What efforts were involved in illegal and unregulated mining, as referred to in the report? What was the difference between a zama-zama and an illegal miner?

Who was in the national coordinating strategic management team on illegal mining? To whom did they account? What was their role in the conversation? If such a coordinating structure was in place, why were all the issues about illegal mining still an issue? Who was engaging with this team? When could the Committee engage with this team? As much as the reports referred to the issue of building profiles of the zama-zamas and the people who were the value chains, it was the responsibility of law enforcement. Had the South African Police Service (SAPS) confirmed their responsibility, or was it assumed?

Mintek had said they would assist the police in training, as they knew a lot about mining and how it worked because they had done a lot of research and previous work on where illegal mining took place. Had the assistance from Mintek resulted in law enforcement not getting considered by the Department? The tools of the organisations of Mining Affected Communities United in Action (MACUA) and Women Affected by Mining United in Action (WAMUA) were understood, as both of them had been problematic and questionable. The questions they were raising could not be ignored, as they were real issues faced by other communities as well. Other organisations and people doing oversight were all getting the same responses. It was expected that the DMRE would sit with these organisations and work on the questions being asked.

There was a concern about whether the MRPDA had any shortcomings, or was working well, according to what they were told today. The Committee was everywhere, and they were working with the mining communities. They would hear the same thing -- that people were not benefiting from these mines. The issue at Jagersfontein should have raised alarm bells. Everyone had been spoken to about this for decades, and memorandums had been submitted, but there was no benefit from the mines. There had been no intervention from the Department to make sure that the mining people assisted the local community. The Department should at least tell the Committee what the way forward was. The report of the AGSA stated that the national mine closure strategy was 11 years overdue, which was very alarming and problematic. The closure and rehabilitation of mines was very important and urgent. What was the delay? Why had no strategy been implemented? What had the Department done in the meantime?

The data was currently being updated -- what was the expected date for this update to be completed? The number of mines that needed to be closed could have been underestimated, and it might affect the budgets. There were already talks of 2 043 needing to be closed. With the current database, was everything still in the projection indicating that the outstanding work on rehabilitation might be underestimated? The Department used the lack of human resources and skills as an excuse because there was no one to address or monitor the issue. Vacancies were also used as a reason, because the vacancies remained open for a very long time, and no one addressed it. Were the human resources also the vacancies that they had been talking about? If not, was there work on improving the human resources so that the DMRE could meet its targets? South Africa had a high unemployment rate, so the Department could not say they did not have the resources because many people were without jobs.

Some mines would close or disappear, but they would continue to operate new mines, as was seen in Krugersdorp. Some of the people in the management who had closed their mines were still in the industry and receiving profits. Had the Department considered doing a profile tracking of the current activity of the owners and management of the land? It would be easy to see who needed to be compelled to close their mines. Even though there was legislation in place, the Jagersfontein tragedy had proved that people were doing as they pleased, and the Department was not monitoring as it should. People who did not adhere to legislation after it had been passed, abandoned or closed the mines, but they were still active in the mining industry in South Africa. Was there anything in place to force these people to be compelled to take up some of the costs of rehabilitation and closure?

Mr M Wolmarans (ANC) said the presentation by the DDG had been more about the Human Rights Commission and the Department discussing artisanal mining, compared to illegal mining or the zama-zamas. There seemed to be a different understanding or lack of understanding between the Department and the HRC. In the engagements so far, had common ground been found? Future reports should come from the same basis of understanding.

The presentation referred to the profiling of the zama-zamas. The Department said it was not their job because it was the job of law enforcement. He believed that it should be different. The Department had to look at the times they had gone to different areas for site visits, including the recent disaster. There had always been a joint meeting. While law enforcement was good at profiling, there was a need for the Department to do the profiling too. The DMRE would know what was happening, as there were inspectors within the Department. There was a need for the Department to do this so that there could be a joint effort of profiling for both the zama-zamas and dealing with the territory questions.

The AG had raised several issues, and the Department had undertaken remedial or further work. It had just noted what the AG had said, and had not explained what they were going to do. Some issues needed further explanation, like the negative effects of illegal mining. The Department had not explained what they were going to do -- they had simply noted the AG's findings, which was concerning.

There was a report that the Department and Mintek had submitted about mine closures and rehabilitation, including the good work that Mintek had done. This informed the Committee of how long it would take with the current budget. It was in the reports and their understanding. What was the Department’s thinking on having asbestos mines included? Little to nothing had been heard about health issues. It was mostly the gold mines, and used gold mines, that reported health issues. For now, was there a possibility of redirecting the funds to deal with the crisis? Some, or all, of the funds, could be transferred from the asbestos mines to deal with the immediate problem on the West and East Rand. What was the Department ‘s position when it came to completing the programmes they have?

DMRE's response

Mr Jacob Mbele, Director-General (DG),   DMRE, agreed with the comment that COVID-19 had been used as an excuse, but it could not be used as an excuse all the time. COVID-19 had affected the work of the Department, but many of the actions discussed in the reports were supposed to have been done before the outbreak of COVID-19. The effects of the pandemic could be highlighted, but they should not be used as an excuse because the reports dated back well before it arrived. The point that had been made was its effect on the completion of the AG's work. The AG started the work in 2019 and was supposed to finish it in 2020, but the audit took longer because of the COVID-related work arrangements.

The Department had a very good information technology (IT) system, but the issue of presentations that could not be shown could also be because of load-shedding. It affected other systems, but the DMRE was currently working on the issue so that it did not negatively affect the work or service delivery of the Department.

The Department always had a strategy. The issues raised by the AG had to do with the implementation and shortcomings of the strategy. The strategy had always been there, and it guided the work of rehabilitation of the mines.

In the beginning, the allocation to ownerless mines was directed to rehabilitating prioritised sites, mainly asbestos sites. The issue of safety had become a problem for abandoned sites, and funds were directed to close holdings. The holdings programmes were closed at problematic mines as well. The problems Mintek identified about illegal mining activities were all prioritised in the budgets.

There were not enough warm bodies to employ as human resources, as there was a limit from the Treasury as well. The Department was currently reviewing the structure, and it was not the only department having problems. The issue of empowerment and assisting communities by communicating and engaging with them to resolve problems was not looking good because of the minimal resources, but the Department was looking at ways to make it work properly. The use of technology should be included, using satellite images to monitor everything happening on the ground and to see if there are problems that the Department should attend to. These were the plans to restrict coming from the Department.

Mr Maqubele responded to the issues raised about local beneficiation. It had been found that there was no dedicated focus on host communities. Part of this was because of historical matters. It was seen in engagements in the North West. As contracts expired, they could not be terminated without communication and agreement. As those contracts expired, the host communities should be looked at for replacements. Mining companies’ strategies of communication were ineffective, even though they were there. They should go back to the drawing board and consider the host communities. Gaps had been identified in the MPRDA regarding illegal mining, such as unlawful possession not being criminalised in the Act, and unlawful transportation. Those areas had been identified and were being worked on in the amendment.

The issue about the SAHRC was that the presentation went from unregulated mining to illegal mining very quickly, and then tried to make the two equivalent. There was a specific approach to artisanal mining, shown in legislation, but illegal mining should have a more intense focus as it sabotages the economy. The SAPS were profiling the different levels. Five categories had been identified in the profiles, which included those who did the training.

The national coordination strategic management team and its members include the SAPS and the Hawks, crime intelligence, the Department of Justice, and the Department themselves. This was the recommended structure that the DG of the DMRE and the National Commissioner would be signing off. The team had recommended a multidisciplinary team that should be focused on the issues. The operational model was finalised, and it would include the Department of Home Affairs and the South African Diamond and Precious Metals Regulator. A dedicated prosecutor and regional staff would also work with the Department. There was an effort to make the structure more formal.

Profiling was a specialised skill, and it categorised those who were involved. The SAPS had done it in all provinces where illegal mining was happening. The differences and issues should now be directly dealt with, so that these differences could be discussed. The Department had come far, but this was not known. One thing that was holding the Department back was that an announcement on the new operation and how it was going to work would be made by the Minister of Police. Before that was done, nothing could be discussed in detail -- it could only be discussed in general until the launch was done.

Mr Moatshe explained Mintek was part of the national coordinating management team and had a role in sharing some of its expertise in mining work. They had been part of the committee, and this was being done. Mintek had also offered to help develop systems, such as the satellite system.

The AG had identified gaps in the current financials for the year ending in March 2023, and there was a need to fill them. He had gone through every file of areas which had been rehabilitated, and had filled in all the necessary information.

In the development of the inventory of derelict mines, which resulted in the database being created, part of the brief to the Council of Geoscience had been to follow up with the mine right holder, who may be in or out of the country, but would be liable for the rehabilitation. Work had been done, and the information had been obtained. There was a mechanism to follow up on all the mine right holders.

The audit was supposed to be completed in March 2020, but the AG had extended it to flow into the following year. With the migration of the database, officials had been trained and had to interact physically with the system. Systems such as MS Teams were available, but physical contact was also needed.

During 2013/14 and part of 2015, there was an intention to develop one environmental system, and part of that work was to migrate a portion of the legislation within the MRPDA to the Department of Environmental Affairs. In developing the national mine closure strategy, economic succession planning was one of the reasons behind the strategy. To ensure that when a mine closes, the economic development in that area is sustained, mechanisms had to be put in place. One of the main mechanisms was to look at the environmental management plans of existing mine rights holders. The delay had given the Department time to look at the impact on the national mine closure strategy, but the many concerns were understood.

Mr Mbele said he was aware of the acknowledgement in writing of the SAHRC's report when the report was published. Based on the comments that had been made, the Department wanted to reach out to the Commission and share their observations to ensure there was an understanding of the issues of the DMRE from both sides. Some of the issues raised on the MACUA organisations would be worked on, as they were also questions asked by community members. The Department had also noted the specific recommendations that the AG was making, and the flow of the detailed report. The Department had to be clear on what their next actions would be, and that was what they would be doing.

The Chairperson said the Department was responsible for all the minerals beneath and on the surface. As custodians, the Department should be the first complainant when something wrong happened to those minerals. It would not be a good argument if the community had a problem with mineral-related issues, and the Department said it was not their problem but was the responsibility of the police. The Department should set up a community policing forum to monitor the situation, as it could not give its responsibility to protect and defend minerals to the police. This included those who were illegally conducting such activities. The police had to act as a law enforcement agency. The Department should include the protection of their responsibility for minerals on behalf of the people of South Africa. The Department must assist the police in their duties in an effective manner.

The Department had never closed during COVID-19, because he recalled them saying that it was one of the sectors of the economy, so they could not close. The Department was not affected by COVID-19, and if the argument that they were affected was believed, then the Department had lost an opportunity to deal effectively with the problem of illegal mining. The issue raised by the SA Human Rights Commission and the AG was not raised for the first time, but it was good to know that the DMRE was going to engage with them.

The Committee had initiated the two Chapter 9 institutions and raised their issues of concern. The DG, Minister and Deputy Minister did not have to be in the meeting. The Chairperson would ask exactly what was being said, ask them to take out a delegation, engage with the Human Rights Commission and AGSA, and then report back to the community. The Committee wanted to know when they could have the report back. It was worrying that the Department did not ask how they should respond to the MACUA problem. The Department tended to address the Committee, not the issues raised. When there was still a chance and an opportunity, no issues would be raised before this Committee without it listening to it and being patient.

When the Committee disagreed with people, it was because they went beyond what was expected of the Committee and the established rules of the Portfolio Committee. The Department should be patient. It could not write back and say that something was impossible to do. Everything must be put in writing and brought back to the Committee. If further discussion was needed, then the Committee should be invited for a sitting. The Department must know what they were agreeing and disagreeing on, and then they would have the choice of what to do next. Attitudes should not allow people to disagree. The Department must work with the Portfolio Committee to discuss the issues that have been brought up. Everyone had to come to an agreement or no agreement. The Department must do what they want, and then the Committee would do what they had to do to protect Parliament’s integrity. The Committee could not ignore what the Department had written to them, so the Department should always engage and explain its issues.

The presentations had been looked at together with the first, second and third quarter performance reports, in which issues were raised. If 37 mining rights were approved in a period of a quarter of a year, how many applications were received? Data collection and the performance of tasks remained a problem, and the Department had to work on its issues and improve its systems. Everyone in the team must contribute, and the DG must make sure that the administration does its work and performs its duties. They should not rely on executives. Improvements must be made to data collection, generating revenue, and the licensing regime. When mining increases, mining rights applications would increase as well. There would be more investment and performance, which would help the economy grow.

Mr Mbele confirmed that a progress report would be ready by the end of November.

Committee report

The Committee report was adopted with amendments

Meeting minutes

           The minutes of the meeting held on 13 September were adopted.

           The minutes of the meeting held on 20 September were adopted with amendments.

           The meeting was adjourned.