The Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act, 2002 introduces a new mineral and petroleum law dispensation in South Africa. The introduction of the new dispensation follows the first democratic election in 1994 that required a reconsideration of the role of the state in the allocation and exploitation of mineral and petroleum resources. The state's right to sovereignty is realised by introducing the principle of state custodianship. Whilst the MPRDA does not define state custodianship, the courts have been hesitant in providing an interpretation. Historically, the majority of South Africans were excluded from the allocation and exploitation of mineral and petroleum resources caused by racial practices. The notion of state custodianship brings substantive changes to the regulation of mineral and petroleum resources. The state as custodian is responsible for regulating the nation's mineral and petroleum resources in accordance with the objectives determined by the MPRDA. As regulator, the state has been allocated increased control over prospecting and mining activities. This increased control must enhance the transformative goals of the new mineral and petroleum law dispensation whilst simultaneously considering the role of mineral and petroleum resources in the economic development of the country. In accordance with its responsibilities imposed in terms of the Constitution, the state must ensure that everyone benefits from mineral and petroleum exploitation. Such responsibilities must be exercised within the Constitutional imperative to avoid or minimize environmental harm The state as custodian owes a fiduciary duty towards the nation in respect of the minerals and petroleum resources. This fiduciary duty exists between the state and its citizens. The state must exercise its duty to the standard required of a fiduciary with regards to the property entrusted to it to regulate. Due to the nature of the concept of custodianship, the state is not the owner of mineral and petroleum resources. Whilst the landowner, and in certain instances the mineral rights holder, before the adoption of the MPRDA determined access to minerals, the state as custodian is now responsible for determining access to minerals. The joint interests of the South African nation as a whole is to be promoted by the state in its role as custodian. The public interest of access to and use of the mineral and petroleum resources determined by the MPRDA, and the Constitution must be safeguarded. The implementation of the object of equitable access to minerals is dependent on the state as custodian. The transformative role of the state is enhanced by the shifting of the basis of mineral law to public law. The administering of a state controlled mineral law system has led to the responsibilities of state custodianship having to be exercised within a public law environment. The interpretation of the state's duties as custodian is dependent on various considerations, some of them being the provisions of the MPRDA, the application of the principles of administrative law and the fiduciary nature of state custodianship.

A dynamic shift in the ownership, management and development of the country’s mineral heritage took place after the inauguration of the new political dispensation in South Africa in 1994. This resulted in the enactment of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (28/2002) (MPRDA) in 2002. In accordance with the MPRDA the country’s mineral and petroleum resources are the common heritage of the people of South Africa and the State acts as the custodian of these resources for the benefit of all people. In this capacity, the State may determine and levy a fee or consideration payable in respect of these resources. The Minerals and Petroleum Resources Royalty Act (28/2008) (MPRRA) was enacted on 24 November 2008 to impose a mineral royalty on the extraction of South Africa’s mineral resources to compensate the nation for the depletion of its mineral wealth. This legislation is likely to have a significant impact on the South African mining industry. The aim of this study was to review the development of this legislation to gain an understanding of the issues considered when it was developed and to identify certain aspects of the MPRRA that may require further research in order to be improved in future. The analysis consists of a qualitative comparison of the draft versions of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Royalty Bill (MPRRB) and related commentary. The study recommends that legislators reconsider the level of royalties to be levied as well as the mechanism contained in the MPRRA to promote downstream beneficiation to ensure optimal benefits from extracting the nation’s mineral resources. Further research of these aspects could improve the South African mineral royalty regime in future. Copyright / Dissertation (MCom)--University of Pretoria, 2010. / Taxation / unrestricted

Thesis (LLM. (Development and Management Law)) -- University of Limpopo, 2013 / In terms of the previous mining legislation in South Africa, mineral rights were held privately and in some instances by the state. The Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA) now vests all mineral rights in the state. Through the transitional provisions included in the MPRDA, mining companies can convert their existing ‘old order’ rights to prospect and/or mine (previously granted under the now repealed Minerals Act) to the ‘new order’ rights introduced by the MPRDA. The purpose of the MPRDA is to ensure the sustainable utilisation of South Africa’s mineral and petroleum resources within a national environmental framework policy which primarily protects sensitive environments and the interests of affected communities, organisations and individuals, while promoting socio-economic development.

Historically, irresponsible mining companies have escaped their duty to rehabilitate. The Mineral Petroleum Resources Development Act does not oblige mining companies to rehabilitate if their operations ceased before the Minerals Act came into force. In the court case De Beers Consolidated Mines v Ataqua Mining (Pty) Ltd and others 2006 1 SA 432 (T), the court held that the Mineral Petroleum Resources Development Act is not applicable to tailings dumps that were created through mining that had been conducted under the Minerals Act. This ruling leaves unanswered the question about who would be liable to rehabilitate old order tailings dumps once such tailings dumps are re-mined or not mined at all. The aim of this dissertation is to determine whether companies that ceased mining operations before the Mineral Petroleum Resources Development Act came into effect could be held liable for rehabilitation by introducing the scenario that applied in the De Beers court case. / Thesis (LL.M. (Environmental Law))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2010

Historically, irresponsible mining companies have escaped their duty to rehabilitate. The Mineral Petroleum Resources Development Act does not oblige mining companies to rehabilitate if their operations ceased before the Minerals Act came into force. In the court case De Beers Consolidated Mines v Ataqua Mining (Pty) Ltd and others 2006 1 SA 432 (T), the court held that the Mineral Petroleum Resources Development Act is not applicable to tailings dumps that were created through mining that had been conducted under the Minerals Act. This ruling leaves unanswered the question about who would be liable to rehabilitate old order tailings dumps once such tailings dumps are re-mined or not mined at all. The aim of this dissertation is to determine whether companies that ceased mining operations before the Mineral Petroleum Resources Development Act came into effect could be held liable for rehabilitation by introducing the scenario that applied in the De Beers court case. / Thesis (LL.M. (Environmental Law))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2010

South Africa entered a new era on 1 May 2004 with the commencement of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act 28 of 2002 (hereafter the MPRDA). Section 3 states that the mineral and petroleum resources are the common heritage of all South Africans. Due to the fact that a new era of mineral rights has been introduced, it is necessary to investigate the effect of the new Act on the process of estate planning. This study is focused to determine which of the rights found in the MPRDA can be classified as assets in an estate, and which of these rights should be discounted for in the process of estate planning that is focused on the inheritance of assets. The study firstly deals with the mineral rights as property in terms of section 25 of the Constitution. After a brief synopsis has been given of the old order mineral rights, the focus falls on the nature and transferability of the new order mineral rights and the implications that the said rights have on the process of estate planning. / Thesis (LL.M. (Estate Law))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2010.

South Africa entered a new era on 1 May 2004 with the commencement of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act 28 of 2002 (hereafter the MPRDA). Section 3 states that the mineral and petroleum resources are the common heritage of all South Africans. Due to the fact that a new era of mineral rights has been introduced, it is necessary to investigate the effect of the new Act on the process of estate planning. This study is focused to determine which of the rights found in the MPRDA can be classified as assets in an estate, and which of these rights should be discounted for in the process of estate planning that is focused on the inheritance of assets. The study firstly deals with the mineral rights as property in terms of section 25 of the Constitution. After a brief synopsis has been given of the old order mineral rights, the focus falls on the nature and transferability of the new order mineral rights and the implications that the said rights have on the process of estate planning. / Thesis (LL.M. (Estate Law))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2010.

M.Comm. (International Taxation) / Lyn Bourne (n.d.) once wrote "The concept of royalties evolved from a time when the government owned all of the land, including mines, to the situation where free miners won the right to claim minerals, but paid a portion of their production to the royal treasury. Today, a mineral royalty is a payment to the owner of the mineral rights for the privilege of producing the mineral commodity"...

The Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (“MPRDA”) and the Broad-Based Socio-Economic Empowerment Charter for the South African Mining and Minerals Industry (“Mining Charter”), created in terms of the MPRDA, aim to address the exploitative legacies of past discriminatory practices in the mining industry. Impoverished mining communities stand to benefit from empowerment under the Mining Charter in the form of mine community development – one of the elements that constitute a mining right holder's commitment under the Mining Charter. Despite this legislative intervention and the relative wealth generated by the extraction of mineral resources, poverty and conflict have become the stereotypical images associated with mining areas. This project aims to determine why the empowerment of mining communities through mine community development perpetuates poverty from the past and creates new inequalities. To answer this main question, it is considered how the historical context within which the relevant policy and legislation were created, affected legislative drafting. Second, the effects of promoting development and empowerment in legislative provisions are explored to determine which worldviews and underlying values are being promoted by the legislative instruments under discussion. Furthermore, it is considered how these worldviews and underlying values affect how mining communities, subjected to harsh socio-economic living conditions, are depicted in legislative provisions. Here, it is specifically considered what the notion of “community” signifies in a development context and how “community” is represented in legislation. The thesis is a theoretical exposition of the ideological assumptions underlying the concepts “development”, “empowerment”, “community” and “poverty”. It is shown that “mine community development” is an inherently contradictory notion in South African law. The development paradigm implies the universalisation of values, effectively creating “the poor”, and causing vagueness and paradoxes. It results not only in a perpetuation of poverty and inequality from the past but also in the creation of new inequalities, as is evident in the differentiation drawn by the Mining Charter between different types of communities in mining areas. Measures currently being enforced by the legislation under discussion, are in desperate need of reconsideration.

M.Tech. Business Administration. Business School. / The implementation of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA) of 2002, effective as from 1 April 2004, presented a huge challenge as its implementation gave rise to concerns expressed by various key stakeholders. It also fuelled perceptions that South Africa may have sacrificed its competitiveness. In an attempt to manage these challenges the Mining Industry Growth Development and Employment Task Team (MIGDETT) was instituted in December 2008 by the mining industry in South Africa. During the MIGDETT process stakeholders concluded unanimously that transformation and growth are mutually inclusive concepts. Against this background, the objective of this study was to assess the implementation of the MPRDA Act using well researched mineral investment and competitiveness guidelines including Michael Porter's framework.