World Scientific
  • Search
Skip main navigation

Cookies Notification

We use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience. By continuing to browse the site, you consent to the use of our cookies. Learn More

System Upgrade on Tue, May 28th, 2024 at 2am (EDT)

Existing users will be able to log into the site and access content. However, E-commerce and registration of new users may not be available for up to 12 hours.
For online purchase, please visit us again. Contact us at [email protected] for any enquiries.

Examining Environmental Impact Assessments and Participation: The Case of Mining Development in Dullstroom, Mpumalanga, South Africa by:7 (Source: Crossref)

    South African democracy witnessed considerable effort to redefine Environmental Impact Assessment regulations to improve participation of citizens towards sustainable development activities. Unfortunately, the effectiveness of participatory processes has generally been mixed and in many cases fallen below expectations, with lack of empirical evidence especially in South Africa to understand the underlying elements that may contribute to poor public participation in Environmental Impact Assessments. This paper attempts to investigate the participatory inefficiencies of Environmental Impact Assessments for mining development specifically in Dullstroom, Mpumalanga and presents viewpoints from key stakeholders. Results indicate that Environmental Impact Assessments especially for mining development are conducted as tokenistic tools to approve developments rather than to genuinely engage with the concerns of interested and affected groups. There is a need for environmental practitioners to be impartial during assessments, including the independence of government as regulator and enforcer of environmental assessment processes rather than spearheading mining development for economic development. The paper makes recommendations to improve participation of citizens during Environmental Impact Assessment processes.


    • Aguilar-Stoen, M and C Hirsch [2015] Environmental Impact Assessments, local power and self-determination: The case of mining and hydropower development in Guatemala. The Extractive Industries and Society, 2, 472–479. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Agyeman, J., R Bullard and B Evans [2003] Just Sustainabilities: Development in an Unequal World. UK: Earthscan Publications. Google Scholar
    • Alemagi, D, R Hajjar, Z Tchoundjeu and R Kozak [2013] Cameroon’s Environmental Impact Assessment Decree and public participation in concession-based forestry. Journal of Sustainable Development, 6 (10), 8–24. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Ballard, R, A Habib, I Valodia and E Zuern [2005] Globalization, marginalization, and contemporary social movements in South Africa. Journal of African Affairs, 104 (417), 615–634. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Baumann, T. [2004] South Africa as a developing country: Implications for Socio-Economic Policy in the Second Decade. In United Nations Development Programme: HSRC and DBSA Conference on Overcoming Underdevelopment in South Africa’s Second Economy, 29 October, South Africa. Google Scholar
    • Beall, J [2001] From social networks to public action in urban governance: Where does benefit accrue?, Journal of International Development, 13 (7), 1015–1021. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Birdlife South Africa (2014). SA016: Welcome to BirdLife South Africa — Steenkampsberg. Available at: [accessed August 2013]. Google Scholar
    • Blok A, M Jensen and P Kaltoft [2006] Regulating pesticide risks in Denmark: Expert and lay perspectives. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 8 (4), 309–330. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Bond, P (2004). South Africa’s resurgent urban social movements: The case of Johannesburg, 1984, 1994, 2004. Centre for Civil Society Research Report No. 22, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa. Google Scholar
    • Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) (2015). Media release: Civil society groups ask court to set aside mining right granted by Mining Minister in Mpumalanga protected area. Available at: [accessed January 2016]. Google Scholar
    • Cooper, L [2000] Public participation and social acceptability in the Philippine EIA process. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Planning, 2 (1), 339–367. LinkGoogle Scholar
    • Davies, T (2015). Mining — Coming to a protected area near you. Available at:[accessed May 2013]. Google Scholar
    • Davis, T (2013). Miners thumb noses at ecosystems. Article, Business Day, 22 November. Google Scholar
    • De Jager, A [2010] How dull is Dullstroom. Tourism Geographies, 12 (3), 349–370. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations (2014). NEMA, 1998: Environmetal Impact Assessment Regulations (2014). Available at: [accessed March 2016]. Google Scholar
    • Fig, D [2005] Manufacturing amnesia: Corporate social responsibility in South Africa. International Affairs, 81 (3), 599–617. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Friedman, S (2006). Participatory governance and citizen action in post-apartheid South Africa. Discussion Paper Series No. 164, International Institute for Labour Studies, Geneva. Google Scholar
    • Gerber, G (2009). Environmental Impact Assessment, integrated development planning and the pursuit of sustainable development in South Africa: A critical reflection on the consideration of alternatives. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Stellenbosch University. Google Scholar
    • Hallowes, D and M Butler (2005). Whose energy future? Big oil against people in Africa. Ground work Report 2005, Arrow Print, South Africa. Google Scholar
    • Howes, M [2005] Politics and the Environment: Risk and the Role of Government and Industry. UK: Earthscan. Google Scholar
    • Kai, W and L Chunhua (2014). China: Roadblocks to effective EIA, 9 June. Availabe at:[accessed May 2015]. Google Scholar
    • Kakonge, J (2013). Improving Environmental Impact Assessment Effectiveness: Some reflections. Global Policy, 5 March 2013. Availabe at: [accessed November 2015]. Google Scholar
    • Knight, B, H Ghigudu and R Tandon [2002] Reviving Democracy: Citizens at the Heart of Governance. UK: Earthscan. Google Scholar
    • Legalbrief Africa (2009). Mining company proposal creates havoc in Dullstroom, 26 May. Availabe at: [accessed September 2014]. Google Scholar
    • Leonard, L (2013). Environmental health practitioners and construction and contestation over industrial risk: The case of local groundwater contamination in Merebank, Durban, South Africa. Report, Pan Pacific Business Association. Google Scholar
    • Leonard, L and Langton A [2016] Challenges facing tourist attractions due to acid mine drainage in the West Rand, Gauteng. African Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure, 4 (1), 1–8. Google Scholar
    • Malherbe, S and N Segal [2001] Corporate governance in South Africa. In Policy Dialogue Meeting on Corporate Governance in Developing Countries and Emerging 373 Economies, OECD Development Centre and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, OECD. Google Scholar
    • Marzuki, A [2009] A review on public participation in Environmental Impact Assessment in Malaysia. Theoretical and Empirical Researches in Urban Management, 3 (12), 126–136. Google Scholar
    • Montmasson-Clair, G (2015). Mining value chains and green growth in South Africa: A conflictual but intertwined relationship, Trade and Industrial Policy Strategies Working Paper. Available at: [accessed December 2015]. Google Scholar
    • Murombo, T [2008] Beyond public participation: The disjuncture between South Africa’s Environmental Impact Assessment Law and sustainable development. Potchefstroomse Elektroniese Regsbald, 11 (3), 106–169. Google Scholar
    • Nadeem, O, R Hameed and S Haydar [2014] Public consultation and participation in the EIA in Pakistan and lessons learnt from international practices. Pakistan Journal of Engineering and Applied Science, 14, 73–84. Google Scholar
    • Naicker, K, E Cukrowska and T Mccarthy [2003] Acid mine drainage from gold mining activities in Johannesburg, South Africa and environs. Environmental Pollution, 122, 29–40. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Naidoo, B (2015). EIAs fail to consider impact of mining on children’s rights. Business Media Live, August 2015. Available at:[accessed February 2016]. Google Scholar
    • Okello, N, L Beevers, W Douven and J Leentvaar [2009] The doing and un-doing of public participation during environmental impact assessments in Kenya. Impact Assessment and Policy Appraisal, 27 (3), 217–226. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Petts, J [2003] Barriers to deliberative participation in EIA. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 5, 269–293. LinkGoogle Scholar
    • Ridl, J and E Couzens [2010] Misplacing NEMA? A consideration of some problematic aspects of South Africa’s new EIA regulations. Potchefstroomse Elektroniese Regsbald, 13 (5), 80–120. Google Scholar
    • Rogerson, C [2011] Mining enterprise, regulatory frameworks and local economic development in South Africa. African Journal of Business Management, 5 (35), 13373–13382. Google Scholar
    • Saidi, T (2010). Environmental Impact Assessment as a policy tool for integrating environmental concerns in development AISA Policy Brief No. 19, Africa Institute of South Africa. Google Scholar
    • Walter, M and J Martinez-Alier [2010] How to be heard when nobody wants to listen: The Esquel mining conflict. Canadian Journal of Development Studies, 30 (1), 281–301. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Wood, C. [2003] Environmental Impact Assessment: A Comparative Review, 2nd edn. Harlow: Prentice-Hall. Google Scholar
    • Zhang, Y, X Liu, Y Yu, G Bian, Y Li and Y Long [2012] Challenge of public participation in China’s EIA practice. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Meeting of the International Association for Impact Assessment, 27 May–1 June, Portugal. Google Scholar