Challenges faced by SA Mineral Resources Administration Database (SAMRAD): Departmental briefing

Meeting report

Chairperson’s welcome
The Chairperson welcomed the Committee Members and delegates from the Department of Mineral Resources to the meeting. Apologies from Mr H Schmidt (DA) and Mr J Malema (EFF) were read.
The delegates from the Department were introduced.

Briefing by the Department of Mineral Resources (DMR)
Dr Thibedi Ramonja: Director General, DMR, briefed the Committee on the South African Mineral Resources Administration Database (SAMRAD) and the challenges it was experiencing.

He gave a brief background on SAMRAD, which had been developed to address one of the binding constraints in the mining sector strategy, around modernizing the regulatory framework to make it globally competitive. At the time it was developed, the Regulator was facing challenges pertaining to documents being misplaced, and contestations regarding the order of receipt and processing of applications, often leading to potential litigation. A project had been developed with clear milestones and due to limited financial resources; a phased approach had been adopted in the development of the system.

The SAMRAD system had been launched on 18 April 2011. It was primarily intended to be an online application platform, and was comprised of three interlinked components:

• Public viewer portal -- for the public to see the availability of land;
• Geographic Information System (GIS) -- for land selection; and
• Quality management system -- for processing and adjudication of applications

The first phase was the lodging of primary applications only (mining rights, prospecting rights and mining permits only). The DMR portal was accessible from the DMR website. Once the applicant was logged in, the following services were available: mining rights, mining permits, prospecting rights and land use management.

Phases in the development of SAMRAD:

Phase 1: Development of an online application platform, which had been done.

Phase 2: Development of a platform for ancillary applications, which had been done.

Phase 3: Changing the GIS platform and integrating with other departments and the Council for Geosciences. The GIS platform had been changed. Integration with Department of Environmental Affairs and the Council for Geosciences (CGS) was in progress.

Phase 4: SAMRAD involved with other ICT within the Department, which was in progress.

Following the implementation of SAMRAD, the DMR had deployed a new Esri GIS platform which had remedied and improved GIS efficiency challenges, with the result that applicants could now apply online from anywhere over the internet; applicants could now view land to see what was available and what was already granted or issued; SAMRAD could now automatically block applications where rights already existed, to prevent unnecessary processing and the risk of double granting; and SAMRAD would block applications in protected areas.

Numerous challenges had been experienced and addressed. Limited functionality, which prevented other types of applications from being lodged online, had been addressed by developing and using the modules for ancillary applications, such as renewals, amendments to applications, transfers and surface developments. Applicants could now lodge renewals, amendments, transfer, and surface development.
Limited infrastructure capacity, which made the lodgment process extremely slow, had been addressed by enhancing infrastructure, and applicants could now lodge applications far more quickly. People without access to internet and unable to lodge applications, were assisted by providing a stand-alone computer at all DMR regional offices so they could lodge their own applications. People without credit cards, and unable to make online payments when lodging their applications, were helped by making arrangements for electronic funds transfer (EFT) payments. The GIS platform was unable to handle a high volume of users at the same time, resulting in the system going down from time to time. This had been addressed by developing additional infrastructure -- servers were procured and bandwidth was increased.

Dr Ramonja said the initial objectives of SAMRAD had been achieved. The CSIR had been engaged to assist the Department in developing an integrated IT system that would incorporate SAMRAD and link it with other relevant systems. The DMR would forge ahead with the implementation of the system and enhance the management of mineral resources of South Africa. It would improve accessibility to the system by expanding the footprint of the Department through industry workshops and possible partnerships with other organs of State. Posters and flyers in local official languages would be produced.

Discussion
Mr J Lorimer (DA) commented that since this improvement had been in place for more or less a year, a better result should have been seen. He asked whether SAMRAD was the only way applications could be made, and when the Phase 3 integration with the Council of Geosciences would be completed. What were the challenges of the double granting of rights? How often had this happened and what had been done to address it? SAMRAD prevented applications in protected areas -- how was it prevented before this system was put in place? Who could register on the site? Could the various geographical sites that had been granted rights be viewed on the site?

Dr Ramonja replied that SAMRAD was the only way of making applications, as it had been put in place to streamline the application process. It also addressed issues like the double granting of rights. He added that mining in South Africa had been done manually for over 100 years, so the government had had to come up with an online solution to resolve all mining-related problems. This system was a new way of cleaning up backlogs and paper records. The system was very effective as there had not been any complaints since inception -- it had addressed all the legacy issues.

The Department was working with the Council of Geosciences on the third phase, which was linked to phase four. This was where the CSIR would come on board to guide the integration.

Dr Ramonja said that anybody could operate the system, as it was accessible to all, and added that it was extremely important that South Africans had access to the system. He emphasised the focus on expanding the footprint of the Department in order to ensure that people had access to the system. He said there were computers at DMR offices where people could be assisted to access the system, and the Department would also embark on workshops to train the people. There would be consideration of a partnership with other state organs, like the Council of Geosciences and the Department of Home Affairs. There would be pamphlets to inform people about the system in local languages.

Ms M Mafolo (ANC) said the implementation of SAMRAD was a good move and asked about the accessibility of the system to people in rural areas who could not use online applications, as this would be a disadvantage to them. She also asked how payments would be made with the integrated system.

Dr Ramonja replied that the payment of environmental authorization in terms of the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) was done on the SAMRAD system.

Mr Z Mandela (ANC) complimented the Director General on the SAMRAD presentation. He expressed concern about the security and safety of the system and asked whether there was a backup system in case the system collapsed or was frozen, as this was a digital age where the internet could be hacked into. He required an explanation on the accessibility of the system to rural South Africans, and added that traditional councils or community members may not see the need for mining activities ahead of farming activities on the lands. How could such disputes be monitored? What were the mediating points for accessing the protected areas in terms of giving priority to South Africans over foreign investors? He asked whether the Department had considered providing a system that would offer technological accessibility to the locals.

Ms Cathy Leso, Chief Information Officer, DMR, said there was a daily backup system in place that was tested every month, and there was an ongoing exercise with the CSIR to address possible system disaster.

Dr Ramonja said that hard copies of documents were also in place as backup. The Department did not engage in applications when affected parties had not been consulted, so consultation with local communities was part of the application process to be followed in terms of law. He added that the system was open to anyone who wanted to apply as local participation was ensured through the BEE requirements.

Mr I Pikinini (ANC) commented that he was impressed with the SAMRAD project, as it would help resolve some of the problems being faced. He suggested that a mass campaign strategy be considered and that it was important to link other sister departments. The three spheres of government needed to work together by empowering the field officers.

Dr Ramonja replied that a campaign with sister departments was very important as it was an opportunity to interact with the people. He added that the engagement with the CSIR would address the issue of the expansion of the Department’s footprint, and how to link with sister departments.

Mr Lorimer asked about the magnitude of the problem of the double granting of rights. He required an explanation on the problem of the historical granting of rights over protected areas, and how it would be handled.

Dr Ramonja replied that the problem of double granting of rights had been addressed through legal processes. There was an internal unit in the Department for appeals to the Minister. Issues of sensitive areas were addressed through the law, and the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA) allowed one to follow due process.

The Chairperson commented that the question raised by Mr Lorimer was to understand the magnitude of the problem of double granting, and how much work had been done to scale it down to zero.

Mr Lorimer asked if they were isolated cases of double granting of rights. What defined a sensitive area what were the criteria?

Dr Ramonja replied that the problem was not huge.

The Chairperson commented that some committees were coming up with legislation that priority must be given to agricultural activities as opposed to mining activities. Were there designated areas for mining activities, in order not to have legislative clash with other committees?

Mr Andre Cronje, Chief Director: Enforcement and Compliance, DMR, replied that sensitive areas could be considered from the category of proclaimed and non-proclaimed areas. The Department of Environmental Affairs verified whether some areas had been proclaimed or non-proclaimed before the information would reach the DMR. Details of the people who had the database could be provided. Another category of sensitivity was areas with biodiversity issues, so care had to be taken to ensure environmental management. It was important to link with the Department of Environmental Affairs in order to get information on specific sensitivities. He added that the GIS database would make it possible to link with everybody, as mining was competing with agriculture, conservation and other forms of development.

Dr Ramonja commented that the issue of mining versus agriculture could be addressed by linking with the Department of Agriculture in order to get information on areas of agricultural topography.

Ms H Nyambi (ANC) asked how many applications were received on a daily basis by SAMRAD.

Dr Ramonja replied that from 2011 to 2015, about 16 000 applications had been received and SAMRAD had assisted the Department in terms of processing information in recent years. The Department received about 100 applications daily.

The Chairperson asked how many of the applications had been successfully processed -- how many rights and permits were owned by those who applied, and how many South Africans had applied successfully. To what extent had an awareness campaign had been carried out to sensitise people on this process? Did the system apply to other activities of the Department, aside from mining activity? He added that North West Province had the highest population of mine workers, and asked to what extent the Department was going to assist provinces in terms of economic development.

Dr Ramonja replied that the application portal also applied to mining rights and agreed that provinces should be assisted on economic development. The number of applications received was huge, but some were rejected due to non-compliance with the law. The Committee would be provided with a breakdown of the data.

Ms Mafolo commented that constituency offices should be added to the awareness campaign.

The Chairperson asked that the information be provided in two weeks’ time. He thanked the Director General and other delegates from the Department of Mineral Resources.

Adoption of Minutes

The minutes of the meeting of 25 February 2015 were unanimously adopted, with an amendment to the name and initials of Ms Nyambi .

Mr M Matlala (ANC) moved the adoption of the minutes. Ms Nyambi seconded.

Oversight Visit to North West

The Chairperson read out the recommendations arising from the oversight visit.

Mr Lorimer commented that he expected something concrete from these recommendations. He asked if there was a way the Committee could ask the DMR to provide the protocol or standard template of how it would conduct discussions with the community on recommendation 5, which had to do with an effective and sensitive communication strategy. The Committee should ask the North West Province about the progress report and timeline on recommendation 6, which had to do with the North West investigation.

Mr Pikinini agreed with the recommendation that the Department be asked to provide a report on its communication plan.

The Chairperson suggested that the recommendations should be adopted, and then the Committee should follow up on the action plans. The issue of a communication strategy was related to the awareness campaign suggested to the DMR.

Mr Lorimer commented that he would like to see a best practice model from these recommendations.

The Chairperson said the application of the recommendation was the responsibility of the Committee.

Ms Mafolo moved the adoption of the report.

Mr Mandela seconded the move.

The Chairperson thanked the Committee members and informed the house that the KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) quarterly report would be dealt with next week.

The meeting was adjourned.