APPEAL RESPONSE REPORT

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) filed an appeal on July 9, 2019, against an environmental authorisation granted by the Department of Mineral Resources (DMR) to Mineral Sands Resources (Pty) Ltd (MSR). The authorisation concerned the unlawful commencement of activities (Section 24G) at Tormin Mine on the Farm Geelwal Karoo 262 in the Western Cape. The CER argues that the authorisation is flawed due to a lack of practitioner independence and a failure to account for the site's location within critical biodiversity areas and a global biodiversity hotspot.

• The CER alleges that SRK Consulting, the environmental assessment practitioners for the application, lacked the independence required by regulation 13(1) of the EIA regulations. This claim is based on the DMR's previous refusal of an integrated authorisation for Tormin's expansion, where the DMR noted that the practitioner and applicant "failed to notify the Department, state organs and the general public of the NEMA contraventions within the application area in relation to the clearance of vegetation, construction of the reservoir, and pipeline."
• The project site, the Remaining Extent of the Farm Geelwaal Karoo 262, is located within a Critical Biodiversity Area (CBA) Type 1 and near an aquatic Ecological Support Area (ESA) Type 1. According to the Western Cape Biodiversity Spatial Plan (WCBSP) Handbook, CBA Type 1 areas should be maintained in a "natural or near natural state, with no further loss of habitat," and only "low-impact, biodiversity-sensitive land uses are appropriate."
• The site is situated within the Succulent Karoo, which is one of 34 globally recognised biodiversity hotspots. Additionally, the dominant vegetation on site is Namaqualand Strandveld, an important ecological corridor that has seen its remaining extent decrease by more than 20% since 2011, according to a 2016 CapeNature analysis.
• The CER contends that the DMR failed to consider the role of CBAs in meeting South Africa's international obligations under the Convention on Biological Diversity. The CER asserts that any negative impact on these areas is "unacceptable" and that the loss of material critical biodiversity constitutes "irreplaceable loss" with "very high" or "high" significance.
• The CER argues that SRK Consulting's assessment of the impact as being "of low significance" is misleading. While SRK acknowledged that clearing for a new process water dam and expanded process area caused "physical disturbance to and the removal of intact vegetation habitat" and the probable destruction of species of conservation concern (SCC), the CER claims this failed to account for cumulative impacts from existing mining, proposed expansions, and a recently approved prospecting application near the Olifants river.

APA

Centre for Environmental Rights (2019). APPEAL RESPONSE REPORT. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Appeal-of-Environmental-Authorisation-Section-24G-Tormin-Mine-1.pdf?x21779

Chicago

Centre for Environmental Rights. APPEAL RESPONSE REPORT. 2019. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Appeal-of-Environmental-Authorisation-Section-24G-Tormin-Mine-1.pdf?x21779.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Centre for Environmental Rights |title=APPEAL RESPONSE REPORT |date=9 July 2019 |url=https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Appeal-of-Environmental-Authorisation-Section-24G-Tormin-Mine-1.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 = jul, url = {https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Appeal-of-Environmental-Authorisation-Section-24G-Tormin-Mine-1.pdf?x21779}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }