APPELLANTS’ STATEMENT OF GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN TERMS OF SECTION 43(2) OF NEMA AND REGULATION 61 OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REGULATIONS, 2010

A statement of grounds of appeal filed by eight environmental and community organisations against an environmental authorisation granted on 7 June 2016 to Atha Africa Ventures (Pty) Ltd for the Yzermyn underground coal mine near Wakkerstroom, Mpumalanga. The appellants argue that the authorisation is based on a fundamentally flawed Environmental Impact Assessment Report (EIAR) that ignores critical biodiversity risks, fails to address socio-economic impacts on vulnerable communities, and was granted by an incorrect competent authority.

• The appellants argue that the Environmental Authorisation (EA) failed to authorise critical activities triggered by the project, specifically the construction of electricity generation infrastructure with an output between 10 and 20 megawatts and the excavation or removal of material from a watercourse in relation to underground workings.
• The appellants contend that the Minister of Environmental Affairs, rather than the Chief Director of the Mpumalanga Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, Land and Environmental Affairs, is the lawful competent authority because the project has implications for international environmental commitments, including the UNFCCC and the Convention on Biological Diversity.
• A biodiversity specialist report by Natural Scientific Services (NSS) concluded that the project should be a 'NO GO' due to its high and potentially irreversible impact on water inputs and biodiversity in an area far exceeding the study area.
• The proposed mine is located in an area of extreme ecological sensitivity, including the Mabola Protected Environment, the Wakkerstroom/Luneberg Grasslands (classified as 'Endangered'), and within 1 km of a Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Area (FEPA).
• The project is expected to cause significant groundwater drawdown, with the shallow aquifer potentially lowering by up to 10m and the deeper aquifer by up to 55m, which would negatively impact wetlands and springs used by local farmers.
• The EIAR is accused of misrepresenting specialist findings, such as claiming no sensitive species were found despite the NSS report identifying six floral species at high risk of extinction and numerous Conservation Important mammals and birds.
• The appellants claim the EIAR fails to objectively assess socio-economic impacts, particularly for vulnerable subsistence farmers and poor rural communities who depend on natural resources for their livelihoods.
• The Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) rejected the original EIAR on 16 May 2014, requesting updates on biodiversity, acid mine drainage, and the impact on the Rudd’s Lark; the appellants assert these requirements were not met in the final version.
• The project is identified as a risk for Acid Mine Drainage (AMD) post-closure, which could contaminate groundwater and surface water in the headwaters of the Assegaai River, threatening downstream users.
• The appellants challenge the objectivity and expertise of the Environmental Assessment Practitioner (EAP), EcoPartners, alleging material omissions in the EIAR and a lack of professional registration with the South African Council for Natural Scientific Professions.

APA

Centre for Environmental Rights (2016). APPELLANTS’ STATEMENT OF GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN TERMS OF SECTION 43(2) OF NEMA AND REGULATION 61 OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REGULATIONS, 2010. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Grounds-of-Appeal.pdf?x21779

Chicago

Centre for Environmental Rights. APPELLANTS’ STATEMENT OF GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN TERMS OF SECTION 43(2) OF NEMA AND REGULATION 61 OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REGULATIONS, 2010. 2016. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Grounds-of-Appeal.pdf?x21779.

Wikipedia

{{cite press release |author=Centre for Environmental Rights |title=APPELLANTS’ STATEMENT OF GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN TERMS OF SECTION 43(2) OF NEMA AND REGULATION 61 OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REGULATIONS, 2010 |date=19 August 2016 |url=https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Grounds-of-Appeal.pdf?x21779 |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@misc{centreforenvironmentalrights2016appellants, author = {{Centre for Environmental Rights}}, title = {{APPELLANTS’ STATEMENT OF GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN TERMS OF SECTION 43(2) OF NEMA AND REGULATION 61 OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REGULATIONS, 2010}}, publisher = {Centre for Environmental Rights}, year = {2016}, month = aug, url = {https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Grounds-of-Appeal.pdf?x21779}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }