A recent article by Tony Carnie in the Daily Maverick corroborates the work of PTWC since its inception in 2020 that shows dismal environmental oversight of mining, with five legal appeals by PTWC in July alone against Environmental Authorisations (EAs) for mining operators in the Northern and Western Cape and the North West.
Besides the concerning volume, and dubious merit of individual EAs, the five appeals exacerbate the worrisome trend of approvals recklessly and hastily approved with woeful regulatory oversight, underlining problematic stats reported in the Daily Maverick.
The article revealed that in South Africa over two years, an aggregate of only 3.5% of environmental authorisations were refused following mandatory Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs). In the 24/25 financial year, refusals comprised 3.6% of 2,129 EA applications, while 2.8% of 1,762 applications were refused in 25/26.
In several provinces, not one single application was refused. The core problem, repeatedly underscored by PTWC over the last five years, is that the Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources (DMPR), which is mandated to promote mining, decides who gets environmental authorisation: a classic example of “the fox guarding the hen house”.
Of approximately 100 mining applications lodged for mining or prospecting in the wider West Coast region since PTWC’s inception in 2020, we know of only two applications – for prospecting – that the DMPR has outright refused: Nekwana Trading near the Olifants River Mouth (September 2023) and Zucolox in St Helena Bay (June 2026).
Both were deeply flawed. They took a chance in areas totally unsuitable for mining, the former in a highly ecologically sensitive environment, and the latter – the application furthest south of its kind, which PTWC has also warned about – situated in a heavily populated and pristine environment. The DMPR had little choice but to refuse them, but they approved all the others.
Homework not being done
During our appeals in July, key information required to grant EAs was missing. They were instead unlawfully pushed to a date after the decision. We have reported on this tactic before, but the pattern continues, which is why they inevitably end up before the appeal authority.
Take Tronox Mineral Sands. They applied for a new residue storage facility – a site to hold leftover material from mining – on land they operate at Namakwa Sands on the West Coast. At 285 hectares, this would be their largest facility of its kind so far.
The problem lies in the lack of information available to the DMPR when it made that decision. The most recent data on the company’s storage facility rehabilitation was six years old, and it showed species diversity still below target at more than half the sites checked. A fresh study was scheduled for later this year. However, authorisation for the new facility was granted before that study was completed. We argued the DMPR should have waited before sign-off.
Then there is the Trans Atlantic Diamonds application to prospect in offshore Sea Concession 11C (about 164 000 hectares, 40km north of Strandfontein and 5 km out to sea). The applicant’s own assessment report claimed that a full picture of cumulative impact wasn’t possible within the process being used. But three times in the same report, they recommended a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) first. The application was approved anyway.
Another example is at Ntswatswa Investments’ prospecting application near Steinkopf, in which not one legally compliant rehabilitation planning document appeared in the application. Moreover, six of nine specialist studies that the National Environmental Screening tool flagged as necessary were not done.
This is clearly not a case of one careless applicant slipping through. It is a pattern of authorisations issued on the promise that the real work will happen later, once mining or prospecting is underway, and in our view, runs against the precautionary principle at the heart of the National Environmental Management Act of 1998 (NEMA).
Questionable EAP standards
Every application relies on an Environmental Assessment Practitioner (EAP), appointed and paid by the applicant to compile an environmental assessment and steer it through to a decision. By law, they’re required to work independently of whoever is paying them and facilitate the public’s participation in the process. In practice, that’s not what we’re seeing. Document requests go unanswered for weeks. Meetings are missed. In more than one case, the person doing the work doesn’t appear to hold the professional registration the job requires.
We’re not the only ones who notice a gap. A second Daily Maverick investigation last month, also by Tony Carnie, found that the EAP Association of South Africa (EAPASA), the industry regulatory body, has gone five years without disclosing one outcome of a disciplinary hearing, despite repeated requests. One has to wonder, with the industry watchdog silent, is there reason this conduct will change?
Paper trail dead ends
Small inconsistencies keep surfacing, but they are not small in effect. In our appeal against Mangan Ore’s application to prospect for an unjustified shopping list of minerals, including diamonds, copper, phosphate and uranium, the site notice placed in Springbok carried the reference NC 14332 PR. The newspaper advert, and the final authorisation itself, both carried a different number, NC 14032 PR. Two numbers conflated in what appeared to be the same process made it difficult to track the application, or take part in the Public Participation Process (PPP).
The EAP’s actions didn’t help. Five days after the notice that the EA was granted, the EAP, in an admitted error, wrote to PTWC with a new public participation deadline, as if the process were still open. That kind of confusion, with the reference mismatch, left the public with little real chance to engage. We raised this with the DFFE Appeals Directorate, and recommended the EAP’s conduct be formally reviewed.
Obtaining the relevant documents from the EAP was another massive challenge. The full set of relevant documents, including the Consultation Report, arrived two days before the appeal deadline. An appellant only has 20 calendar days to review an application and formulate an appeal. When the paperwork itself eats into most of that clock, what time is left for assessment? These aren’t just filing errors – they erode the basic right to know, and to comment in time.
Yes machine with blind spots
Of the five recent appeals, an application by Samxon Mining and Engineering in the North West stood out, albeit outside our normal jurisdiction of the Western Cape and Northern Cape. In early July and in good faith, we met with Samxon to discuss the Northern Cape applications we’d flagged as riddled with problems. In that meeting, their geologist admitted the flaws in their applications needed fixing and they said they’d go back to the drawing board.
We later discovered that Samxon was granted an EA for an application in the North West that was built on the same unsubstantiated template. We appealed that too, to ensure the scrutiny it should have had the first time.
It’s a small window into a bigger problem. The Daily Maverick article found several provinces with zero refusals – Limpopo for both financial years, with KwaZulu-Natal, Northern Cape and North West with zero in 2025/26. Daily Maverick asked the DMPR for numbers but they did not answer. We suspect we’re only dealing with the tip of the iceberg – that silence may hide a lot more.
Why this matters
None of this means every application is faulty or all EAPs cut corners. But five appeals in sixteen days, on top of the many PTWC has lodged this year, point to a system where the checks that catch problems before authorisation aren’t catching them.
“In many cases, our appeal is the only real check left. Without it, the decision stands and prospecting or mining commences on a flawed assessment in an environment already carrying a heavy toll. The same environment that we, and future generations, depend on,” said PTWC in-house attorney, Michael Yaman.
We’ll keep watching, keep appealing where it’s warranted, and keep asking the questions the DMPR doesn’t seem to want to answer. Watch this space.
