annexures-3bdbf4a4425f6eb6.pdf

This document consists of a series of annexures related to the proposed extension of the Tormin Mineral Sands Mine on the West Coast of South Africa. It includes a Background Information Document (BID) and an Executive Summary of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report prepared by SRK Consulting for Mineral Sand Resources (Pty) Ltd (MSR). The documents detail plans to expand mining of Valuable Heavy Minerals (VHM) across ten beaches and an inland strandline, alongside infrastructure upgrades. The annexures also contain extensive legal correspondence and an appeal from the Centre for Environmental Rights (CER), which challenges the lawfulness of the extension process, alleges previous environmental violations by MSR, and disputes the adequacy of the impact assessments regarding Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBAs).

• Mineral Sand Resources (Pty) Ltd (MSR) proposed to extend the Tormin Mine operations to include ten beaches totaling 28.7 ha (later cited as 43.7 ha mining and 6 ha for road widening) and an inland strandline mining area of 75 ha on farm Geelwal Karoo 262.
• The proposed extension includes several infrastructure components: a Mineral Separation Plant (MSP), a Tailings Disposal Plant (TSP), a 22 kV powerline from the Sere wind energy facility, and the upgrading of gravel roads, including public road OP09764.
• The project area is characterized by Namaqualand Strandveld and Namaqualand Seashore vegetation, with a significant portion falling within Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBAs) intended to maintain ecological processes and fauna movement along the coast.
• SRK Consulting's EIA rated several operational impacts as 'medium' to 'high' before mitigation, including shoreline erosion, changes in macrofaunal community structure, and loss of vegetation/ecological connectivity during inland mining.
• The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) filed an appeal against the Environmental Authorisation granted on 7 June 2019, arguing that MSR used Section 102 of the MPRDA to unlawfully circumvent the standard application process for new prospecting or mining rights.
• The CER alleges that MSR committed multiple environmental violations, including moving primary beach concentrators to a cliff top (causing cliff collapse), increasing the plant footprint without authorization, and dumping tailings into the sea without a permit.
• The CER disputes the EIA's reliance on rehabilitation to mitigate impacts in the CBA, stating that Namaqualand Strandveld is extremely difficult to rehabilitate and that the provided rehabilitation plan is only 'high-level'.
• The CER claims the financial provision for rehabilitation is insufficient, noting it only covers three years of maintenance after closure despite evidence that areas remain vulnerable for decades.

APA

Centre for Environmental Rights (n.d.). annexures-3bdbf4a4425f6eb6.pdf. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Annexures.pdf?x21779

Chicago

Centre for Environmental Rights. annexures-3bdbf4a4425f6eb6.pdf. n.d. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Annexures.pdf?x21779.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Centre for Environmental Rights |title=annexures-3bdbf4a4425f6eb6.pdf |url=https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Annexures.pdf?x21779 |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{centreforenvironmentalrightsndannexures3bdbf4a4425f6eb6pdf, author = {{Centre for Environmental Rights}}, title = {{annexures-3bdbf4a4425f6eb6.pdf}}, institution = {Centre for Environmental Rights}, url = {https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Annexures.pdf?x21779}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }