Appeal response report

This report is an appeal by the Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) against an integrated environmental authorisation (IEA) granted by the Department of Mineral Resources (DMR) to Mineral Sands Resources (Pty) Ltd (MSR). The appeal contests the expansion of mining operations at Tormin Mine, arguing that the authorisation was granted through an unlawful circumvention of the mining right application process and fails to adequately protect Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBAs).

• The CER argues that MSR unlawfully used section 102 of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act, 2002 (MPRDA) to expand its mining footprint without applying for a new prospecting or mining right. The CER contends this was an "unlawful circumvention of the application process" and that the DMR ignored the legislative intent of the 2008 Amendment Act, which sought to exclude area extensions from section 102. MSR and the DMR respond that section 102(2) of the Amendment Act was never brought into operation by the President, meaning section 102(1) remains applicable and allows for "extension of the area covered".
• The CER claims the impact assessment methodology is flawed because it conflates 'long term' impacts with 'irreversible' impacts and fails to treat the 'irreplaceable loss of resources' as a distinct variable. The CER asserts that the objective of the EIA process is "to determine the degree to which these impacts can be reversed, and may cause irreplaceable loss of resources". SRK Consulting and the specialists respond that their methodology is widely accepted and that they account for irreversibility within the impact descriptions.
• The appeal disputes the assessment of impacts on terrestrial biodiversity, specifically within Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBAs) containing Namaqualand Strandveld. The CER argues that the terrestrial ecology specialist incorrectly rated impacts as 'local' rather than 'regional' or 'national', thereby underestimating the significance of the impact. MSR and SRK maintain that because there are no "species of very high concern or rare or specialised habitats present in the affected area", the impacts do not have regional significance.
• The CER contends that the project relies inappropriately on rehabilitation and revegetation to mitigate impacts in a CBA, noting that Namaqualand Strandveld is "extremely difficult to rehabilitate". The CER points to a specialist's admission that the degree to which restoration is achieved "is unknown and can’t be assumed". MSR responds that successful rehabilitation has been achieved at other West Coast mines, such as Namakwa Sands, and that an adaptive management approach will be used.
• The CER asserts that the DMR failed to require a biodiversity offset, despite provincial and draft national guidelines stating that residual impacts of 'medium' to 'high' significance should trigger such a requirement. The CER argues that for CBAs, an offset ratio of "at minimum 20 times the impacted area" should be applied. SRK and the specialists argue that an offset is not warranted based on the significance of the identified impacts.
• The CER argues that the DMR did not apply a risk-averse and cautious approach, citing gaps in the flora baseline because the survey period did not include the spring season. The CER claims that assuming the translocation of Species of Conservation Concern (SCC) is an acceptable mitigation is contrary to SANBI guidelines, which advocate for "Strong avoidance of 'search and rescue' options". MSR responds that a habitat-based approach was used to address the sampling limitation and that a pre-construction walk-through will be conducted to identify SCC.
• The CER challenges the adequacy of the financial provision for rehabilitation, noting that the provision for "2 to 3 years of maintenance and aftercare" is insufficient given that the specialist noted monitoring would occur "for decades". The CER claims there is no provision for the specialist input required to prepare a detailed rehabilitation plan. MSR responds that the 2-3 year period follows DMR Financial provision guidelines and that the detailed plan will be an operational cost.
• The CER argues the project is not 'needed' or 'desirable' in the public interest and conflicts with NEMA principles. The CER highlights a statement in the EIA reports that "For the Mine to be commercially viable, there may be some impacts that are not environmentally (ecologically) sustainable". SRK responds that the project's socio-economic benefits are noteworthy and that the three pillars of sustainable development must be considered holistically.

APA

Centre for Environmental Rights (2019). Appeal response report. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/162163EM-Appeal-CER-Appeal-of-Environmental-Authorisation-Appeal-of-Environmental-Authorisation-Final-20190722.pdf?x21779

Chicago

Centre for Environmental Rights. Appeal response report. 2019. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/162163EM-Appeal-CER-Appeal-of-Environmental-Authorisation-Appeal-of-Environmental-Authorisation-Final-20190722.pdf?x21779.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Centre for Environmental Rights |title=Appeal response report |date=7 June 2019 |url=https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/162163EM-Appeal-CER-Appeal-of-Environmental-Authorisation-Appeal-of-Environmental-Authorisation-Final-20190722.pdf?x21779 |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{centreforenvironmentalrights2019appeal, author = {{Centre for Environmental Rights}}, title = {{Appeal response report}}, institution = {Centre for Environmental Rights}, year = {2019}, month = jun, url = {https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/162163EM-Appeal-CER-Appeal-of-Environmental-Authorisation-Appeal-of-Environmental-Authorisation-Final-20190722.pdf?x21779}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }