The Portfolio Committee on Mineral Resources, having considered the performance and submission to National Treasury for the medium-term period of the Department of Mineral Resources reports as follows:

  1. Introduction


  1. Mandate of Committee                                                                                              

In terms of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (the Constitution), Portfolio Committees have a mandate to legislate, conduct oversight over the Executive and facilitate public participation. The Portfolio Committee on Mineral Resources mandate is governed by Parliament’s mission and vision statements, the rules of Parliament and its Constitutional obligations.

The mission of the Portfolio Committee is to contribute to the realisation of a developmental state and ensure effective service delivery through discharging its responsibility as a Portfolio Committee of Parliament. Its vision includes enhancing and developing the capacity of Committee Members in the exercise of effective oversight over the Executive Authority. One of the Committee’s core objectives is to oversee, scrutinise and influence the actions of the Executive and its agencies. This implies holding the Executive and related entities accountable through oversight of objectives of its programmes, scrutinising its budget and expenditure (annually), and recommending through Parliament actions it should take in order to attain its strategic goals and contribute to service delivery.

The stakeholders in the mining sector confront a highly challenged industry. The necessity for transformation away from the discriminatory past is made much more difficult by the volatility commodity prices, weaker export markets, expensive electrical energy and deep mines where the ‘zero harm’ principle is costly and elusive.

The labour market is unsettled by job insecurity arising from the reactions to the threats of mine closures from the mining companies. The relationship between the mining sector and the DMR is at a low point that has never been seen before. The future life of the industry will be bleak unless all the parties can face up to the economic, social and environmental realities and negotiate a sustainable way forward. Government needs to support the industry through this demanding adjustment process.

  1. The Mandate of the Department, and its five entities


The Department

The aim of the Department of Mineral Resources (DMR) is to “Promote and regulate the minerals and mining sector for transformation, growth, development” and to “Ensure that all South Africans derive sustainable benefits from the country’s mineral wealth.”

The mining industry employed 462,870 people in 2017, a small increase compared with 457,292 in 2016. In March 2018, monthly average employment on mines was 450,429. Mining jobs have fallen by some 74,000 since 2012, when employment reached its highest point since the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act, No. 28 of 2002 (MPRDA) came into effect in 2004.

Further severe job losses are an ongoing threat, as the industry faces volatile commodity prices, mounting costs and logistics issues.  The minerals sector is a key contributor to the South African economy because of the half million men and women it employs directly and because of the minerals used in value chains from energy to manufacturing. It is also responsible for more than a quarter of South Africa’s earnings from exports and is critical to the ability of the economy to earn foreign exchange. The good stewardship of the DMR over the minerals sector is of exceptional importance.

The strategic outcome-oriented goals of the Department were revised in 2014 as follows:

STRATEGIC GOAL I    Increased investment in the minerals, mining and petroleum sectors.

                                        Promote and facilitate an increase in minerals, mining and petroleum activity including value addition to mineral resources extracted in the Republic of South Africa.    

STRATEGIC GOAL 2   Transformed minerals sector.

                                        Implement transformation policies to redress past imbalances through broader participation in the mineral sector.

                                        Provide a framework to manage health and safety risks, enforce compliance and promote best practice in the mineral sector.

STRATEGIC GOAL 3   Equitable and sustainable benefit from mineral resources.

                                        Promote sustainable resource management; contribute to skills development and the creation of sustainable jobs.

                                        Contribute to the reduction of adverse impacts of mining on the environment.

STRATEGIC GOAL 4   Efficient, effective and development-oriented department.

                                        Optimize internal processes.

                                        Attract, develop and retain appropriate skills and ensure optimal utilization of resources

                                        Implement risk management strategies and promoting corporate governance.

In framing the revised set of goals in 2014, the DMR took account of the National Development Plan (NDP) and the priorities outlined in the Medium-Term Strategic Framework (MTSF). The 2017/18 Annual Report includes a page that relates the initiatives of the DMR to the MTSF, citing particularly outcome 4 (decent employment through inclusive growth), outcome 6 (an efficient, competitive and responsive economic infrastructure network) and outcome 10 (protect and enhance our environmental assets and natural resources).

The DMR states that: “the Department is ensuring that the state does not inherit any environmental liability caused by the holders of rights and permits, thereby also preventing any possibility of creating future derelict and ownerless mines”.

This statement is questionable in the light of evidence that there are many mines that have shortfalls in the financial provisions they have made to rehabilitate their mining areas if they should close suddenly.

The goals of the Department are supported by five entities:


The Council for Mineral Technology Research (MINTEK), also a science council, is mandated to provide research, development and technology that foster the development of businesses in the mineral and mineral products industries.

Mine Health and Safety Council

The Mine Health and Safety Council (MHSC) provides a research and advisory function to the Minister in terms of mine health and safety, as well as promoting a culture of health and safety in the mining industry.

State Diamond Trader

The State Diamond Trader (SDT) promotes equitable access to, and beneficiation of, diamond resources, addresses distortions in the diamond industry and corrects historical market failures to develop and grow South Africa’s diamond cutting and polishing industry.

South African Diamond and Precious Metals Regulator

The South African Diamond and Precious Metals Regulator (SADPMR) regulate business development and trade in diamonds, platinum and gold.

In addition, Vote 29 Mineral Resources also provides budget support for:

South African Agency for Promotion of Petroleum Exploration and Exploitation SOC Limited (PASA)

The Petroleum Agency South Africa (PASA) is the agency designated in the MPRDA to regulate the oil and gas sector. PASA is not an entity of the DMR, as a subsidiary of CEF (SOC) Ltd, it is an entity of the Department of Energy.

  1. Purpose of the BRR Report

Section 77(3) of the Constitution stipulates that an Act of Parliament must provide for a procedure to amend money bills before Parliament. This constitutional provision gave birth to the Money Bills Amendment Procedure and Related Matters Act, No. 9 of 2009 (the Act), which sets out the process that allows Parliament to make recommendations to the Minister of Finance to amend the budget of a national department.

Section 5 of the Act, states that the National Assembly, through its Committees, must annually assess the performance of each national department with reference to the following:

  • The medium-term estimates of expenditure of each national department, its strategic priorities and measurable objectives, as tabled in the National Assembly with the national budget;
  • Prevailing strategic plans;
  • The expenditure report relating to such department published by the National Treasury in terms of section 32 reports of the Public Finance Management Act, No 1 of 1999 (PFMA), as amended in 2009;
  • The financial statements and annual report of such department;
  • The report of the Committee on Public Accounts relating to the department; and
  • Any other information requested by or presented to a House or Parliament.

Committees must submit the Budgetary Review and Recommendation Report (BRRR) annually to the National Assembly. The BRRR assesses the effectiveness and efficiency of a department’s use and forward allocation of available resources and may include recommendation on the use of resources in the medium term.

Committees must submit the BRRR after the adoption of the budget and before the adoption of the reports on the Medium-Term Budget Policy Statement (MTBPS) by the respective Houses in November of each year.

The Act therefore makes it obligatory for Parliament to assess the Department’s budgetary needs and shortfalls vis-à-vis the Department’s operational efficiency and performance. This is done taking into consideration the fact that the Department has oversight responsibilities over five entities.

  1. Method followed by the Committee in writing the BRR Report

The Committee has scrutinised and interrogated all available documents as outlined in Section 5 of the Act. The Committee has assessed the performance of the Department in the 2017/18 financial year, as well as performance in the first quarter and second quarter of the 2018/19 financial year where information was available.

The Portfolio Committee on Mineral Resources held a meeting on the 2017/2018 Annual Report of the Department of Mineral Resources and its entities on 09 and 10 October 2018, which was addressed by the senior leadership of the DMR.

The office of the Auditor General gave input during the budget review and recommendation report process. Moreover, the Committee undertook visits to the Mpumalanga, North West and Gauteng Provinces, to look at issues pertaining to the role played by the Department of Mineral Resources in regulating the mining industry in areas such as community consultation, the environment, illegal mining and mine health and safety.

The Committee, in undertaking this process, used a number of source documents, including the 2014-2019 Strategic Plan of the DMR, Annual Performance Plans, Annual Reports, Financial Statements, 2017/18 and the 2017 Estimates of the National Expenditure (ENE). It also reviewed briefings by the Department and its entities during the course of the year, as well as the State of the Nation Address. The Committee also used the Constitution as a reference point.

  1. Outline of the contents of the Report.


  • An overview and analysis of the Department’s strategic priorities and measurable objectives;
  • An assessment of the overall financial performance for 2017/18 and the first half of 2018/19;
  • An assessment of the overall service delivery performance for 2017/18 and the first half of 2018/19;
  • Consideration of the Auditor-General’s findings in relation to the Department;
  • Consideration of oversight reports and other engagements held with the Department;
  • Committee observations on overall performance of the Department; and
  • Recommendations.
  1. Overview of the key relevant policy focus areas

Key priorities identified for the 2017/18 Financial Year

The DMR’s priorities for 2017/18 were set out in the 2014/19 Strategic Plan and Annual Performance Plan 2017/18.

At the highest level, the priority is to align the activities of the Department with the vision of the NDP through the implementation of the New Growth Path (NGP), the Industrial Policy Action Plan (IPAP) and the National Infrastructure Plan.

The aim, in the light of the NDP, is “to create a globally competitive mining industry that reflects a non-racial South Africa and draws on the human and financial resources of, and offers real benefit to, all South Africans by stimulating local economic development”.

In five-year period to 2019, the Department’s planned policy initiatives were to:

  • Review the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act, No. 28 of 2002 (MPRDA), as amended, including its regulations. *
  • Review and amend the Precious Metals Act, No. 37 of 2005
  • Review and amend the Diamond Act, No. 56 of 1986, as amended.
  • Review the Mine Health and Safety Act, No. 29 of 1996 (MHSA), including its regulations. *
  • Develop the Geoscience Amendment Act Regulations.
  • Ensure compliance with the Broad-based Socio-economic Empowerment Charter, 2005, as amended.
  • Conduct the regulatory impact assessment of identified legislation.
  • Review and implement the Broad-based Socio-economic Empowerment Charter and update the scorecard with a detailed explanatory memorandum. *
  • Review the Mineral Technology Act (Act No. 30 of 1989).

Only the three items marked with an asterisk (“ * ”) above were specified in the Annual Performance Plan for 2017/18. This implied that the intended revisions to the Precious Metals Act, the Diamond Act, the Mintek Act and the regulations to the Geoscience Amendment Act were not intended to be addressed until later in the term of the Fifth Parliament. There is now, in October 2018, not enough time remaining to tackle any of these issues.

Two additional policy priorities were added to the list presented in the strategic plan 2014-2019. These are the “legislative establishment of the Mining Company of South Africa (MinCo) as the state-owned mining company” and the development of “the PASA Bill”. AEFMC, the African Exploration Mining and Finance Corporation is also known as the State Owned Mining Company (SOMCO) and, currently, as the Mining Company of South Africa (MinCoSA). Cabinet decided in 2012 that the state-owned mining company should become an entity of the DMR. It is presently a subsidiary of CEF Group SOC Ltd. Both the AEFMC and PASA report to Parliament through the Portfolio Committee on Energy.


A MinCo Bill was published for public comment in January 2016. DMR intended to present an adjusted Bill “to Cabinet for approval to table the Bill in Parliament during the 2017/2018 financial year.”[1]


Other policy priorities explicitly noted by the then Minister and Deputy Minister in the APP were the need to address accidents and fatalities, to accelerate and transform the sector and to ensure that there is meaningful participation of black people, youth, women and host communities. In addition, DMR intended to create a conducive environment for investment and for small scale and junior miners. The Beneficiation Strategy was linked to legislative amendments. Policy initiatives were outlined for strengthening the sector’s supply chain, for finalisation of the Operation Phakisa: Mining Lab recommendations and for accelerating shale gas exploration and exploitation in a sustainable fashion. Also mentioned were the need to address the disparities and unequal benefits for mineworkers affected by lung diseases, to promote skills development and to launch more One Stop Service Centres for ex-mineworkers.




The achievements of the DMR for the 2017/18 financial year include:

  • The achievement of a unqualified audit opinion (with findings) from the Auditor General of South Africa (AGSA).
  • The annual report indicates that the Department met 81 per cent of its performance targets, i.e. 91 out of 113 set targets. This continues a trend of commendable management performance overall, far better than most government departments.
  • Consultation with social partners and stakeholders on the Mining Charter was re-opened.
  • DMR has put systems in place to monitor and assess the delivery of activities to combat tuberculosis (TB) and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).
  • In 2017, 687 (mines with 473 972) employees complied with the reporting requirements on TB and HIV. This represents an increase, compared to the 663 mines which submitted reports in 2016.
  • Four special clinics (“one stop service centres”) are now operating in four provinces (Eastern Cape, Gauteng, Limpopo and Northern Cape) to provide free medical benefit examinations for mineworkers with lung diseases. In addition, the Global Fund supported seven special clinics in labour sending areas across the Southern African Development Community (SADC): one in Botswana and two each in Lesotho, Mozambique and Swaziland
  • The number of injuries reported fell by 6 per cent and there was also a continued reduction in the number of occupational diseases reported from mines. Fatalities, unfortunately, rose to 88 compared to 73 in 2016, which was the safest year ever for the mining industry in terms of fatalities. (There were 77 deaths in 2015). The increase in fatalities shows up weaknesses in performance that need to be addressed. But the achievement of DMR and industry stakeholders in reducing fatalities from their previous levels needs to be fully recognised. There were 39 deaths in gold mines in 2017, compared with employment of 113,000. Gold employment was last as low as this in 1904 – when 383 workers died.  Progress towards the goal of zero harm was interrupted in 2017/18, but the goal stands, as an objective for the entire industry.


3.1 DMR performance measures hide a crisis in administration

Note on overall performance of the DMR

Improved standards in the presentation of the detailed performance measures for DMR are maintained in the 2017/18 Annual Report. The Research Unit’s annual report analyses on the DMR Annual Reports and APPs before 2014/15 highlighted numerous problems in this regard. There are now fewer complex indicators and, in most cases, measures are within the control of the DMR. While it is now easier to compare performance across years, the appropriateness and scope of the indicators themselves is a matter for interrogation. There is no indicator for the performance of the SA Mineral Resource Administration Database (SAMRAD), for instance, and the monitoring of environment inspection performance does not compare with the comprehensive details provided on mine health and safety.


Even the DMR’s own internal auditors express the view that: “The process for reporting standard, accurate, complete and valid performance information” is an “area of concern.”


In his foreword to the Annual Report, the Minister highlights the considerable backlogs that exist in processing licenses and complaints that have been received on the administrative processes that are so serious that he has initiated an investigation.


For the first time in an Annual Report, major failings and lapses in significant parts of the DMR administrative system are evident from a close reading of the performance indicators – specifically those for Mineral Regulation, the division that lies at the heart of the administrative processes that mining investors and stakeholders rely upon.


It is appropriate to recall that the judiciary and mining academics as well as the mining media have highlighted many specific examples of “administrative bungling” in the DMR in recent times


The phrase “administrative bungling” is that of a judge of the Supreme Court of Appeal, Ponnan JA, dealing with a case where the DMR was a successful appellant.


Example 1: Double-granting of rights to minerals.

  • Due to weak administrative systems, DMR mistakenly granted rights over the same land to different companies.


Example 2: Disruptive effects of unreasonably long delays in DMR decisions.       

  • De Beers had to wait over 2 years to be granted prospecting rights (some of which were awarded in January 2018). The company suspended its prospecting programme because of DMR delays.
  • South32 delayed its expansion plans for over 2 years because DMR did not process its application for a mining right renewal. The company had to go to court in 2017 to force DMR to do its administrative work.
  • The state mining company (AEMFC) had to put off its development plans in 2016/17 because of administrative delays by DMR.
  • CS Hentiq 1009: High Court Judge Mothle J ordered that the DMR “should be mulcted with costs for the inordinate and unreasonable delay in dealing with the applications for prospecting rights”.
  • Gelletich Mining:      DMR’s delay in a purely administrative matter led to an unnecessary and expensive court case.


Example 3: DMR errors due to weak information systems. 

  • Due to a lack of integration between administrative systems, a Regional Manager made an incorrect decision to cancel a right, which resulted in an unnecessary court case.


Example 4: DMR failed to convert old order rights to mining rights as intended by the MPRDA.

  • DMR failed to do what was required by the law in converting a right.


A key lesson from the examples is that an administrative error by DMR can have disruptive consequences that can delay mineral development for years, or even stop it entirely, because the moment of opportunity has been missed.


Administrative integrity is of the utmost importance for SAMRAD – managing rights – and for the nation, which is saddled with paying rehabilitation costs when DMR does not enforce the environmental legislation. These two task areas fall under Programme 3: Mineral Regulation.


In the 2017/18 APP, DMR introduced a range of new and revised performance indicators for the work of Mineral Regulation. These largely cover questions of compliance with the law. The Annual Report shows that many of these indicators could not be calculated, because they were badly designed, with unclear calculations. But they also show that DMR lacks the administrative mechanisms to apply the indicators to regulate the industry effectively.




The DMR APP specified 113 measures by which to assess the performance of the Department in the 2017/18 period.


81 per cent of the measures were achieved i.e. 91 out of 113 set targets. This below the scores of 85 and 82 per cent achieved in the previous two years. If not as high as the 90 per cent achieved in 2014/15, the result compares favourably with the 77 per cent of targets that were met in 2013/14, and 79 per cent in 2012/13.  The DMR is consistent in meeting an acceptable proportion of performance targets every year.


Comparability with past results is limited by the fact that the DMR reduced the number of targets by over 50 in 2014/15 – from 160 targets or more in the past reporting periods. The content of some indicators has been altered, and in several instances completely new indicators have been added or substituted.


The 81 per cent level of achievement for performance targets is commendable. The DMR consistently achieves its targets at rates far above the reports of most government departments.


The good average result in 2017/18 was, however, influenced by the improvements in the Mine Safety and Health programme. these balanced out a continued deterioration in the performance of Mineral Regulation, compared to the previous year.


Table 1: Summary of 2017/18 Performance Measures



Total count of measures per programme


Not achieved 


Achievement comparison with 2016/17



43 (100%)

37 (86%)

6 (14%)




Promotion of Mine Safety and Health

20 (100%)

18 (90%)

2 (10%)




Mineral Regulation

27 (100%)

16 (59%)

11 (41%)




Mineral Policy and Promotion

23 (100%)

20 (87%)

3 (13%)




Total all Programmes 2017/18

113 (100%)

91 (81%)

22 (19%)











Number of indicators used






Source: analysis of pages 29 to 55 of the DMR Annual Report 2017/18 and previous Annual Reports


4.1 Programme 1: Administration (Corporate Services and Financial Administration)


The purpose of Programme 1 is to enable the Department to deliver on its mandate by providing strategic support, management services and administrative support to the Ministry and the DMR.


The DMR achieved 86 per cent of the performance measures set for Programme 1 (37 measures achieved out of 43). This is a lower score compared to 2016/17, when 37 measures were achieved out of 39 - 95 per cent.


One measure (out of 28) was partially achieved by the Corporate Services Branch. This was a 10.29 per cent vacancy rate, just 0.29 percentage points above the allowed maximum. The DMR struggled for many years to deal with its high vacancy rate, which was consistently above the ten per cent target which is set for government as a whole by the Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA). Last year the vacancy rate fell to an acceptable 6.4 per cent, although this was achieved by abolishing many posts. This administrative sleight of hand briefly removed an area of long-term under-performance, frequently noted by the PCMR. Financial constraints were the reason that previous posts were vacant. Now the reason seems to be delays in the appointment process, which were due to be resolved by August 2018.


Delays in filling critical posts led to the Branch missing its target under the risk management plan by 50 per cent. Risk management plans were not all implemented due to a delay in the approval of the Manual for Inspectors of Mine Health and Safety.


A “Women in Mining Strategy” was a performance target set in the DMR Strategic Plan for 2011/14. In May 2015, the PCMR recommended, “The DMR should include the Women in Mining Strategy in the APP until it has actually been completed. This suggestion was not attended to. The completion (or status) of the Women in Mining (WIM) Strategy has not been reported on in the last three Annual Reports. The formal completion of the WIM Strategy has never been achieved, but this does not have to be recorded because it was not in the APP.


The PCMR explicitly recommended that the DMR should include the finalization and implementation of the Women in Mining Strategy in its 2017/18 Annual Performance Plan, “with the necessary budgetary provisions after consultation with National Treasury”.  In this context, the PCMR noted in 2016 that the Women in Mining Strategy needs to be finalized and implemented urgently and gave 30 September 2017 as a target date. (The strategy was not completed and it was not included in the 2017/18 APP).


Three performance measures out of 14 were not achieved by the Financial Administration branch (two more than in the previous year):


The 95 per cent target for “percentage achievement of SLA” was missed by 2 percentage points due to “calls not being attended to within the agreed standard turnaround time”.


The target for zero incidents of irregular expenditure was not met because of a single (minor) error in applying the preferential procurement policy.


99.12 per cent of suppliers were paid within 30 days, and all since June 2017. The annual target is 100 per cent.


The one notably unachieved target was that the branch scored below the target level required in a Customer Satisfaction Index. The level of 2.4 out of 5 is better than the 2.1 score last year, but it still shows a deterioration from 3.2 in 2015/16 and 3.4 in 2014/15 when the target of 4 was missed in both years. For 2016/17, the target was reduced to 3.5 (which was missed). The DMR further adjusted the consumer satisfaction survey measure down to 3 “for future reporting” in the 2017/18 APP.


The measure is defined as “customer perceptions on the level of services provided”. The purpose is “To ensure continuous improvement through feedback that is obtained from customers regarding current services.” Problems occurred in 2017/18 with the late delivery of cell phones to staff, network down-time and printing.


4.2       Programme 2: Mine Health and Safety Promotion

The purpose of the Promotion of Mine Safety and Health programme is “to ensure the safe mining of minerals under healthy working conditions”.


The DMR achieved 90 per cent of the performance measures set for Programme 2 (18 out of 20). This marks a major improvement compared with 2016/17 where only 70 per cent (14/20) targets were met. The 2017/18 result is also better than in the two years prior to that when was 80 per cent and 86 per cent of targets were met.


The two targets that were not met are not within the direct control of the inspectorate and are thus questionable as performance indicators for the Mine Health and Safety Inspectorate (MHSI). These indicators measure fatality and injury rates. In both cases, rates came down (by 1 per cent and 13 per cent respectively) but this was below the ambitious 20 per cent target, which is better as an industry target rather than an inspectorate target. The performance target of a 20 per cent reduction in occupational injuries occurrences every year has not been met in any of the past seven financial years – i.e. since 2011/2.


The inspectors over-achieved on their targets for inspections and audits by an impressive 19 per cent. This is the same degree of over achievement reported in the previous year. The extra inspections were carried out in an attempt to reduce accidents. This is a robust indicator of inspectorate activity. The outcomes are, however, not within the direct control of the inspectorate as they depend upon buy-in from the management and workers on the mines

4.3       Programme 3: Mineral Regulation

The purpose of the Mineral Regulation Programme is to “regulate the minerals and mining sector to promote economic growth, employment, transformation and sustainable development. It is also responsible for the administration of prospecting and mining rights licensing and compliance with the MPRDA, including environmental management compliance by mines”.


The DMR achieved 59 per cent (16 out of 27) of the performance measures set for Programme 3. This is a marked deterioration from 2016/17 when 77 per cent (17 out of 22) measures were achieved and also from 2014/15 when 90 per cent (19 out of 21) measures were achieved.


Eleven indicators were not achieved, compared with five in the previous year. The bulk of the non-achieved indicators were revised or introduced in 2017/18 APP to monitor compliance issues – relating to Social and Labour Plans (SLPs) and the Mining Charter and to the environmental responsibilities of mines.


4.3.1 SLPs and the Mining Charter


The DMR 2017/18 APP stated that DMR would ensure that “100 per cent of approved Social and Labour Plans” were accessible to the public by 1 July 2017. The new indicator reporting on the year reflects that not even one SLP was published in the entire financial year. This is a strange situation, because several major mining companies have been publishing SLPs for their operations on their web sites for some time. This suggests that DMR is not monitoring SLP availability at all. SLPs are a critical tool for transparency and accountability of the mining sector with regard to both workers and mine-affected communities.


A new measure was added in the 2017/18 APP to “Enforce implementation of the Mining Charter” This was to be measured as “% compliance by mining industry”, measured by the formula: (Number of compliant companies / Total number of companies) x 100. The DMR reports that zero percent of mining companies were compliant, while noting that “The Branch is in the process of procuring a measuring tool”. How can DMR maintain it has no procedure to measure compliance? Since 2013, Section 28(2)(c) of the MPRDA has required that every right holder report the extent of their compliance with the Mining Charter annually. In 2015, DMR told the Committee that the Department had developed a reporting template through a consultative process with the Mining Industry Growth, Development and Employment Task Team (MIGDETT) which was aligned with the Mining Charter score card. Furthermore, the Department had developed a Web-based system to collect the data from mining right holders. The 2017/18 Annual Report therefore suggests that DMR has neglected to use the information provided to it by law on the extent of compliance of right holders with the Charter.


4.3.2 Reduction of state environmental liability and financial risk


DMR reported that it did not achieve four of the eight indicators in this performance area. All were new indicators applied for the first time in 2017/18, related to the APP outcome “Efficient, effective and development-oriented Department (Internal processes)”. The weak performance reflects on the role of the DMR in the One Environmental System for Mining, where it is solely responsible for the enforcement of environmental laws for mining.


The indicator “percentage complaints received vs inspected” which measures responsiveness to complaints by the public on the financial provisions for rehabilitation was said to be “Not achieved due to attending to the backlog of complaints received”. The target is 50 per cent. [No actual numbers are provided].


Only a quarter of the complaints received were closed during the year. The standard is for all received complaints to be closed. The measure for the indicator is said to be technically flawed, yet it is set out simply on pages 175-6 of the APP: – (Number of complaints closed / Number of complaints received) x 100.


Only a third of the statutory notices or directives that were issued as a result of complaints from the public (on financial provision and environmental liability) were taken forward. The performance standard is 100 per cent. The measure for the indicator is said to be technically flawed, yet it its components are outlined in sufficient detail on page 58 of the APP.


Not a single administrative fine was issued by DMR in 2017/18 in respect of all the inspections and complaints followed up on the non-compliance of mines with environmental liability and financial risk. Since December 2014, Section 24G of the National Environmental Management Act, No. 107 of 1998 (NEMA) requires that the Minister of Mineral Resources must impose an administrative fine when a right holder undertakes any activity without an environmental authorisation. As some directives were issued during the year, and DMR opened some cases for the criminal prosecution of mines (as reported in the performance report), the fact that no fines were issued shows that DMR did not enforce the environmental legislation for mines as it is required to do.


Note that 100 percent of the complaints subject to criminal enforcement were in fact opened by DMR as cases with the SA Police Services (SAPS). This performance measure was reported to be successfully achieved. If a complaint is subject to criminal enforcement, it automatically also carries an administrative fine levied by the Minister of Mineral Resources under Section 24G of NEMA. No such fines were imposed by DMR according to the performance report. The implication is that DMR failed to apply the law.


One of the DMR environmental performance indicators is “Percentage of statutory notices issued to remedy inadequate financial provision”. It is reassuring that this number is 100 per cent. It is always 100 per cent, because it is calculated as (the number of notices issued) / (the number of mines found to be operating without adequate financial provision) x 100.

  • For example, in 2013/14 DMR issued 480 orders to 480 mines where financial provision was inadequate. 480/480=100%
  • No number is given in 2017/18 of how many orders were issued – or what the total number may be of mines operating without adequate financial provision.

In the past, the percentage in this indicator related not to the 100 per cent of certificates given, but to the percentage of mines that were, or were not, operating with adequate financial provision in place. This is, surely, a real performance indicator because it is the responsibility of DMR to ensure that not a single mine operating without having saved enough money to rehabilitate its mine area, should it suddenly have to close.

So, in 2012/13, the indicators showed that only 60 per cent of mines in South Africa were operating with adequate financial provision.

Under the current indicator, they would all be issued with notices and the indicator would be 100 per cent. The “performance measure” does not measure enforcement – which is the actual performance issue.


4.3.3 Severe under-performance in the systems for timely processing of applications


DMR committed to the Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation that it would process applications within specified timeframes. The target in 2017/18 was 70 per cent. Achievement was 23 per cent (a significant deterioration from 49 per cent in the previous year and 72 per cent in 2015/16.) The comment on the deviation was that “The Branch is addressing a backlog of applications”.


This explanation does not do justice to the scale of the deviation – and the importance of the timely processing of applications. The indicator points to a serious and worsening problem with the DMR internal administration. In 2016/17, when the backlog problem was acknowledged, DMR noted that some applications had to be referred back to the regional offices to include “the itemisation of SLP projects and rehabilitation”. If the problem is in the regions, it is now clear that the remedial action proposed in 2017 - of monthly meetings of the Licensing Committee – has not been successful. The problem has become worse. In 2018, the strategy developed to improve turnaround times is a “project plan”. No details are given.


For two years in a row the Mineral Regulation Branch has failed to implement more than half of the of management action plans (internal audit) that were specified in the APP. The target is 100 per cent. There was a 98 per cent partial achievement in 2015. As in 2017, the DMR does not outline a specific strategy for improving performance in future.


4.3.4 Under-achievement and over-achievement


The Mineral Regulation Branch reported over-achievement in two areas of ongoing public concern:


Enforcement may be weak, but the number of environmental inspections increased


Over-achievement is again reported by Mineral Regulation in the number of environmental compliance inspections. There were 1,583 inspections against the target of 1,275. (1,465 inspections in 2016/17). But this is remains below the 1,889 inspections that were conducted in 2015/16 (and in the two years before that) compared with a previous, higher target of 1,700. Site inspections depend on complaints from members of the public.


Mineral Regulation Branch responds to increased complaints from communities


The number of engagements with communities and the mining industry was reported at 306  (compared with a number of 342 and 341 for the previous two years). For three years, the branch has achieved double the planned target of 150. 263 engagements were recorded in 2014/15 and 260 in 2013/14. The reason for the deviation is “increased complaints from communities and due to continued engagements with stakeholders.


The Mineral Regulation Branch does not give the numbers in many cases. These would be useful statistics to monitor as indicators of the health of the mining sector and trends


For example, with regard to licences, the target is for 70 per cent to be processed within the prescribed time-frames. In 2017/18, as in the previous three years, the percentage target achievement is given but the numbers of licenses are not indicated. This useful indicator for the mining sector was given in previous years – for example, 687 out of 921 licence applications (75 per cent) were processed in line with the prescribed timeframes in 2013/14.  571 out of 800 rights to minerals (71 per cent) were registered within the prescribed timeframes. This detailed performance picture is provided by the department dealing with mines in Western Australia, so that the efficiency of the officials can be monitored by the industry.


The performance of the SA Mineral Resources Administration Database (SAMRAD) is not reflected upon in the Annual Report.


The ability of Parliament (and the mining industry) to monitor the performance of the branch – which is critical for growth and sustainability – is limited by the lack of consistent information.

  • DMR performance measures are needed for SAMRAD and should be included in the 2019/20 Annual Performance Plan.
  • Reporting on the Environmental Mineral Resource Inspectorate needs to be substantially improved and formalised. This should be included in the 2019/20 Annual Performance Plan. The high quality of the MHSI reports is a significant aid for performing oversight of the work of the DMR for mine health and safety. The same sort of report is needed for mine environmental issues.

4.4       Programme 4: Mineral Policy and Promotion

The purpose of the Mineral Policy and Promotion programme is to “formulate mineral related policies and promote the mining and minerals industry of South Africa to make it attractive to investors.”


The DMR achieved 87 per cent of the performance measures reported on for Programme 4 (20 out of 23) in 2017/18. This high rate was achieved in all the last four years: 2016/17 (89 per cent 16/18); 2015/16 (88 per cent 22/25) and 2014/15 (90 per cent).


The only significant area of non-achievement recognised by the Branch relates to legislation. The target was for 5 legislative instruments to be developed, reviewed and amended. In the event, only the revised Mining Charter, 2017 was completed as planned during the financial year. (And this was never implemented due to court challenges).


The Mineral Policy and Promotion programme is the key lever within the DMR for plotting policy and reform to shape the mining industry in the future. Three issues (at least) remain outstanding from past commitments that the Branch has made in the APPs:


  • The “Revised Mining Strategy for sustainable growth and meaningful transformation” was scheduled for completion in 2014/15. This was not done, and no explanation was given in the 2014/15 Annual Report. The Strategy was also not completed in 2015/16 and was deferred to 2016/17. The DMR stated previously that the revision of the strategy was dependent upon the outcome of Mining Phakisa. The laboratory phase of Mining Phakisa was completed in the third quarter of 2015/16, but the process has stalled and seems to have lost all momentum after its hopeful beginning. Mining Phakisa was a performance area in the 2016/17 APP, but it was omitted in 2017/18 and hence is not reported upon.


  • The planned report on strategic minerals has not been made public. This was said to be dependent on the approval of the MPRDA Bill (B15D-2013) by Parliament. The Bill is now to be withdrawn, leaving a lack of policy clarity around strategic minerals and around beneficiation (although the latter concept is part of the mining Charter, 2018).


  • The Coal Policy was due for completion in 2015/16. It was deferred, first to 2016/17 and then to 2017/18 (although it was not included in the 2017/18 APP). The delay was said to be because of the prioritisation of the resources required to finalise the MPRDA and the Mining Charter. Mr R A Moatshe Acting DDG: Mineral Policy and Promotion, DMR told the PCMR on 11 October 2016 that “the plan to finalise additional stakeholder consultations was underway to allow finalization of the Coal Policy in the 2016/17 financial year”. The development of the coal policy was due to be completed by DMR as part of the department’s contribution to the Medium-Term Strategic Framework 2014-2019 (MTSF).


Three internal DMR reports that may cover some of the issues in the promised documents above were completed against the APP:

  • Development of a minerals and petroleum investment promotion strategy
  • A report identifying minerals as critical for national developmental imperatives
  • A report detailing mineral input quantities and qualities that are required for prioritised value chains

These have not been published as the intended recipients are other government departments, not the public.


Mineral Policy and Promotion is the largest programme of the 2018 MTEF allocation. It absorbs over half of the budget of the DMR and includes transfers to Mintek and the Council for Geoscience. The Programme encompasses the DMR’s strategies to address the huge problems caused by ownerless and derelict mines and mine dumps. The estimated cost to government of rehabilitation is a staggering R47.1 billion.




The Auditor General of South African appeared before the Committee on 09 October 2018.

The DMR 2017/18 financial statements received a unqualified audit opinion (with findings), following the clean audit achieved in 2016/17. The Department received unqualified audit opinions (with findings) in both 2015/16 and in 2014/15. It has dealt effectively with the concerns and criticisms raised in the qualified audit opinion five years ago, in the 2012/13 financial year.


The Auditor General drew attention to two incidents of irregular expenditure and fruitless and wasteful expenditure. These mark a deterioration from previous performance achievements and reflect on administrative weaknesses in the DMR which need to be addressed. The amounts involved were irregular expenditure of R11.6-million (where proper procurement processes were not followed) and R6-million of fruitless and wasteful expenditure (where buildings were refurbished but never occupied).


The Auditor General found material misstatements in the submitted annual performance report, but these were corrected by management.




The following can be observed from the financial statements:

The DMR customarily spends all of its budget each year. This full spending of budgets, across all programmes is an indicator of fiscal discipline.


The Department’s entities and agencies have all obtained unqualified audits since 2011/12. These are the Council for Minerals Technology (Mintek), the Council for Geoscience, the Mine Health and Safety Council, the South African Diamond and Precious Metals Regulator and the State Diamond Trader. The entities spend their budgets efficiently and effectively and meet most goals and objectives every year. The DMR plays an effective monitoring role over the entities and agencies.


Table 2: Summary of results for Public Entities related to DMR


Transferred by DMR 2017/18

Audit Outcome

Sales 2017/18

Profit / (loss) - or surplus (deficit)

























































*              "2017/18 Budget" figures are those tabled in Budget 2017.

**             The MHSC has planned deficits to use its accumulated surplus

#               Petroleum Agency South Africa (PASA) is not an entity of the DMR – as a subsidiary of CEF (SOC) Ltd, it is an entity of the Department of Energy. PASA is the designated agency for petroleum under the MPRDA.


5.1 South African Diamond and Precious Metals Regulator (SADPMR)


A loss of R207,000 was incurred as a result of criminal conduct by two employees. One employee was dismissed and may face prosecution. One employee was disciplined.


5.2 Mine Health and Safety Council – major underspending


The MHSC reported a deficit of R11-million. The MHSC is, correctly, drawing on its considerable surplus funds for the purposes for which they are intended. Research expenditure, which has declined and languished in recent years, increased to R40-m in 2016/17 from R32-m in 2015/16. It is therefore disconcerting that research expenditure fell to R22.8-m in the current year – R 8-m below budget. The MHSC, reported a continued decline in its accumulated surplus, which fell to R165-m from its record 2014/15 level of R207-m.


It is concerning that the expenditure of the MHSC was considerably less than the R166-m planned, as indicated in the budget information tabled in 2017. The Council only spent R112.6‑m.  The deficit was R11-m compared with a budgeted deficit of R 80-m. The under-expenditure on planned research is said to be due to delays in approvals for seed funding for the primary research providers to the Centre of Excellence as well as to delays in certain project milestones. The need for research on mine health and safety cannot be questioned. The mines pay annual levies to support MHSC research. Yet the governors of the MHSC are not applying the research resources they have available.


5.3 Council for Geoscience – unbudgeted R27-m deficit


The budget approved by Parliament for CGS was for the Council to break even in 2017/18. In the event, CGS posted a deficit of R27-m. About half of this amount was from a higher than budgeted expenditure on salaries. The CGS told the Committee that this was an “accounting deficit” and did not indicate that the CGS had lost any money during the year.


5.4 State Diamond Trader: improved performance with a still broken business model.


The State Diamond Trader marked its tenth anniversary in 2017. SDT generates its own revenue from selling diamonds and does not receive transfers from the DMR. Trading conditions improved in 2017/18 compared to the previous seven financial years. The SDT purchased R742 millions of diamonds (below only the 2010/11 record figure) and made a modest profit of R8.5-m.


The information presented in the SDT annual report highlights the urgency of long-promised measures by the DMR to review and adjust the business model of the SDT. The SDT began operation in 2007 with a mandate to support local beneficiation. It is permitted to purchase up to 10 per cent of South African diamond production for this purpose. But the SDT was able to purchase only 1.16 per cent of production by volume (carats) and 4 per cent by value, of the rough diamonds it inspected under the terms of the Diamond Act.


In 2017/18, 21 per cent of SDT sales were made to Historically Disadvantaged South African buyers, who are grouped in “Growth & Transformation” and “Equitable Access” categories. This is a major improvement. The figures were 7 per cent in the previous year and 10 per cent in 2015/16. Nevertheless, the record R150-millions of diamond sales to HDSA’s hardly compares with the R18,000-million worth of diamonds produced in South Africa in 2017/18 and inspected by the regulator.


The example of the SDT highlights the limitations of using the reports of the Auditor General and the approved APP indicators as the only benchmarks against which performance is measured. From a policy perspective, the SDT has been an unmitigated failure. It has failed to grow the local diamond beneficiation sector – which has declined during the last decade. The SDT sold to 60 clients in total (large and small) in its peak year of 2010/11 and 42 in 2017/18 – a mere 21 of which were HDSA’s. This is fewer than the 24 HDSA clients numbered in the previous two years.


5.5 Mintek: clean audit and exemplary performance


Mintek is the only DMR entity that has achieved clean audit every year since 2014/15. Mintek is an outstanding example of a well-managed, effective state-owned-enterprise that performs consistently.








  1.  2016/17 BRRR recommendations and responses


The Committee made the following recommendations to the Department in the 2017 Budgetary Review and Recommendation Report:


2017 BRRR Recommendations


The DMR should fully respond to previous BRR Reports recommendations and provide explanation where a response is not available

DMR is facing severe funding challenges in implementing the planned integrated information system.

The DMR should devise a strategy to deal with the reopening of closed parts of operations, in order to address safety issues associated with unused old shafts becoming operational

Still work in progress, due to the complex, and multi stakeholder nature of the issue

The DMR should provide the Committee with a full legislative agenda between now and the end of the 5th parliament as to enable the committee to finalize its programme for the remainder of the term.


The South African Diamond and Precious Metal Regulator (SADPMR) should brief the Committee on the decline in local beneficiation of diamonds and precious metals as well as on access to funding challenges for the Historically Disadvantaged South Africans (HDSA)

Dealt with as part of the APP, Annual Report and other engagements with the PCMR in 2017/18.

The SADPMR should provide the Committee with the interpretation of section 74, as well as the frequency of its application and the identity of the companies that have been given exemptions by the Minister


The State Diamond Trader should identify legislative constraints to fully realize transformation objectives as stated in the Diamond Act of 1986 and present the above to the Committee


The Council for Geoscience (CGS) should consult with other professional organisations on the baseline definition of a scientist, and devise a clear retention strategy

Explained in the APP, Annual Report and other engagements with the PCMR in 2017/18

The CGS should have processes in place that ensure protection of intellectual property gained by the institution in the execution of its duties.


MHSC to produce an expenditure plan detailing how it is going to utilize the surplus



  1. 2018/19 Budget Vote Recommendations



The Committee made the following recommendations for the 2018/19  financial year, after considering the Annual Performance Plan and the Budget of the DMR:

  • DMR should present to the Committee strategies which are outstanding from previous financial year’s commitments namely; Women in Mining and Coal Strategy etc.
  • The DMR should present a plan to the Committee clearly demonstrating how it is going to address the backlog on the MTSF goal of rehabilitation of ownerless and derelict mines.
  • The DMR should report to the Committee on their mineral beneficiation strategy and its coordination with other relevant departments, entities and agencies.
  • The DMR should present to the Committee the list of all Bills in the pipeline with corresponding timelines to table such Bills in Parliament
  • The Minister should revise the APP to formally incorporate key initiatives that are presently excluded, such as Mining Phakisa, Artisanal Mining and Small-Scale Mining Bill and the Vision 2030 mining growth strategy.
  • The DMR should provide full information on the training undertaken for its staff with relevant positions as well as respective gender profiles.
  • The SDT should conclude a comprehensive (fully costed) financial and operational model review, to come up with a sustainable model that will eliminate reliance on debt financing and applicable proposals to address legislative defects.
  • The DMR to communicate and commit to a timeline to substantially reduce acting positions within the department and entities, in order to enhance stability in the organization
  • SADPMR to submit concrete proposals to the Committee on the required corrective legislative measures pertaining to Section 74 of the Diamond Act
  • SADPMR to take measures that ensure its mandate continue to deal with the regulation of all precious metals and position itself in a manner that distinguishes it from the SDT.
  • The CGS to craft a long-term human resource retention strategy, which will ensure that the institution does not lose valuable intellectual capital, necessary for the fulfilment of its mandate.



The Portfolio Committee of Mineral Resources having assessed the performance of the Department of Minerals Resources and its five entities made the following findings and observations:


  • Health and safety performance in the mining industry continues to improve, however more needs to be done to address the recent rise in fatalities and deaths and injuries from seismic events, in order to attain the goal of zero harm.
  • It is necessary for MHSC representatives to attend the presentation and discussion with Members on the work of the CGS and ensure that they are involved together in efforts to co-ordinate effective research on seismicity.
  • The financial performance of the DMR has regressed. This is a major disappointment to the Committee. There is no fraud in the department, but fruitless and wasteful expenditure has gone up. The Auditor General should assist the Committee on what it can do to avoid a repetition.
  • The Committee will find it difficult to motivate for an increased budget for the DMR when there is evidence that leadership is not ensuring that procedures are followed consistently in managing every cent of public money.
  • There is presently a lack of clarity on where authority lies when money is spent at Regional Offices (for example on offices or office refurbishment). There has to be clear accountability when public money is spent and certainty on how delegations must work in practice.
  • Two out of five DMR entities received a clean audit (both Mintek and MHSC maintained this from the previous year). SDT regressed, but all attained an unqualified audit with findings.
  • The working relationship between major stakeholders in the mining industry has improved compared the previous financial year which has shown positive impacts on investment attractiveness.
  • The CGS is the only DMR entity that has never had a clean audit opinion from the Auditor General during the term of the Fifth Parliament. (Although the audits have all been unqualified but with findings, and the areas of weakness have differed).
  • Mintek is very consistent in achieving a clean audit. Mintek should be used as an example to other state-owned entities by using lessons from what they are doing differently.
  • The baseline income available to both Mintek and CGS has not been increased in line with inflation and their mandates. This makes planning difficult and prevents both from offering employment security to current and potential staff. Talent attraction and talent retention are great challenges.
  • There is a danger that entities can lose focus on their mandate because they need to chase money from commercial clients to make up for the lack of base funding.
  • The state bourse was promoted since 2014 by the Regulator as a key component of a widely researched strategy to improve beneficiation and marketing of precious metals and diamonds. It is disconcerting that after all the effort invested, the strategy is dropped without a full explanation.
  • In its performance measures, the DMR often reports only on percentages and does not disclose the figures underlying the calculations. This limits the ability of the Committee to understand the scope of measures and whether a high achievement is a real accomplishment or just an appearance of success.
  • The criticisms of the Committee are harsh because it knows that the Department and the entities can improve. Overall, the DMR performs very much better than most departments, including those that attract huge budget support and even bail outs from the state.
  • Treasury should provide additional funding to the DMR to be used in the upgrading of the cadastral system, which is critical to the efficiency and transparency of the application process, this has been identified by investors as a serious hindrance to investments.
  • Treasury should note the designation of the CGS building as a national key point and fund the necessary infrastructural upgrade accordingly, to ensure that the building meets the legally prescribed standard.
  • CGS and DMR need to have a strategy to deal with challenges that arise when areas suitable for prospecting and exploration are identified by the DEA and other departments as protected areas for the environment or agriculture.
  • The DMR still has no comprehensive strategy or plan in place to empower women in the mining sector, despite the Committee making such a recommendation over several years.



The Committee recommends that the Department of Mineral Resources


2018 BRRR Recommendations

Motivation for Inclusion

Time Frames 

The DMR should fully respond to previous BRR Reports recommendations and provide explanation where a response is not available

Ensure compliance

3 Months

The DMR should devise a strategy to deal with the reopening of closed parts of operations, in order to address safety issues associated with unused old shafts becoming operational

Improve safety

11 Months (previous request)

The DMR should provide the Committee with its legislative agenda between now and the end of the 5th parliament as to enable the committee to finalize its programme for the remainder of the term.

Enable planning

3 Months (previous request)

The DMR should make accident enquiry/investigation reports available to the PCMR

Monitor safety

Immediate (previous request)

The monitoring of the One Environmental System for mining requires a comprehensive annual report that includes a formalised report on the work and challenges of the Environmental Mineral Resource Inspectorate

Oversight gap

2019/20 APP

SADPMR urgently needs a full time, permanent CEO and CFO.

Rectify problems identified by AG

6 months

DMR should give the numbers that underlie the calculation of indicators that are expressed as percentages. (This should include the size of the backlogs in processing applications).

Improve oversight

Future quarterly and annual reports

DMR should present a progress report in February 2019 specifically on the progress with correcting the poor performance of mineral regulation (which was still strongly visible after the 2017/18 year end, in the report of the first quarter of 2018/19).

Correct the backlogs


MHSC to produce an expenditure plan detailing how it is going to utilize the surplus

MHSC spent less than budgeted in 2017/18

4 months (previous request)

The DMR should provide the Committee with a full legislative agenda and timetable for the MTEF.

Legislative goals for the 5th Parliament were not met.

4 months

Treasury should fund the necessary infrastructural upgrade accordingly of the CGS to ensure compliance with its designation as a National key point.

Compliance with National Keypoint Act

4 Months

Treasury provide additional funding to the DMR to be used in the upgrading of the cadastral system

Facilitate investments

4 Months

The DMR should report to the PCMR specifically on what irregular expenditure is condoned during the year and what the reasons are.


During the year

DMR should involve other departments to perform their respective roles when, for example, CGS assists by providing water as a by-product from their drilling research. This is to ensure the CGS does not get diverted into undertaking the responsibilities that properly belong elsewhere.  It also makes the CGS intervention more effective.

Increase effectiveness


The President should not delay further in signing into law the Public Audit Amendment Bill B13-2018 which was passed by Parliament on 23 May 2018

Enhance accountability and consequence management


The Minister should review the recommendations of this BRRR and give a specific response to the  Committee and make commitments on which recommendations will be addressed and on what time frames.




Summary of recommendations with financial implications


The Administrative Systems of the DMR are showing signs of severe stress, leading to errors and delays in processing applications and a lack of enforcement of financial provisions for mines. An above inflation budget allocation is required – along with a specific intervention programme - to ensure that DMR administration, enforcement and monitoring systems are integrated and are world class so that investment in this critical sector can be facilitated and encouraged. DMR has wide and essential responsibilities, with long-term implications, as the custodian of the nation’s mineral resources for present and future generations


As part of this new system:

  • DMR performance measures for SAMRAD should be included in the 2019/20 Annual Performance Plan. These should allow monitoring of the performance of the Regional Offices as well as the administrative database for rights to minerals as a whole.
  • The 2019/20 Annual Performance Plan should include a formalised report on the work and challenges of the Environmental Mineral Resource Inspectorate. The high quality of the MHSI reports is a significant aid for performing oversight of the work of the DMR for occupational health and safety on the mines. The same standard of monitoring is required for mining and the environment.
  • Unfunded mandates, where the DMR is required to enforce national environmental legislation in the mining sector, need to be specifically addressed by Treasury

The Council for Geoscience needs to be capacitated. It does not have the data to give to investors who are interested in knowing where to look for new mineral deposits in South Africa. Exploration and prospecting activity is needed now to prepare for mines that will only be developed in twenty or thirty years’ time, to replace deposits that are mined out. The key state contribution here lies in the geological mapping of the country in greater detail. This is essential for mining – and such mapping has huge additional benefits for food security, water security and the safe location of human settlements.




The Committee would like to express its appreciation to the Department under the leadership of the Minister, the Auditor- General of South Africa and all the entities.The unreserved word of appreciation and gratitude goes to the support staff of the Committee who works diligently during the entire process including going beyond normal hours of work. This is what is expected from selfless public servants who are committed to see this country moving forward.


Report to be considered.


[1] DMR (2017c:10; 77; 85) – only the Mining Charter