APPEAL RESPONSE REPORT

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) filed an appeal on 9 July 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) on the Farm Geelwal Karoo 262 in the Western Cape, specifically regarding the Tormin Mine.

• The CER alleges that SRK Consulting, the environmental assessment practitioners for the application, lacked independence as required by regulation 13(1) of the EIA regulations. The CER claims SRK failed to disclose that MSR had unlawfully commenced listed activities without authorisation, a point the DMR previously noted when refusing a separate integrated environmental authorisation for the Tormin expansion.
• The project area, the Remaining Extent of the Farm Geelwal Karoo 262, is located within a Critical Biodiversity Area (CBA) Type 1 and near an aquatic Ecological Support Area (ESA) Type 1. The CER argues that the desired management objective for CBA Type 1 is to maintain it in a natural or near-natural state with no further habitat loss.
• The site is situated within the Succulent Karoo, which is one of 34 globally recognised biodiversity hotspots. Additionally, the dominant vegetation is Namaqualand Strandveld, which the CER describes as an important ecological corridor that has decreased by more than 20% since 2011 according to a 2016 CapeNature analysis.
• The CER contends that the impact assessment provided by SRK is misleading because it fails to account for cumulative impacts. While SRK rated the impact as 'of low significance' and local in nature, the CER argues this ignores the combined effect of existing mining, the proposed Tormin mine expansion, and a recently approved prospecting application near the Olifants river.
• SRK Consulting responded to the allegations of non-disclosure by stating they provided all information at their disposal in good faith and that monitoring existing activities falls under auditing and oversight processes rather than the scope of the expansion EIA process.

APA

Centre for Environmental Rights (2019). APPEAL RESPONSE REPORT. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/S24G-Appeal-CER-Appeal-of-EA-Final-1.pdf?x21779

Chicago

Centre for Environmental Rights. APPEAL RESPONSE REPORT. 2019. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/S24G-Appeal-CER-Appeal-of-EA-Final-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/S24G-Appeal-CER-Appeal-of-EA-Final-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/S24G-Appeal-CER-Appeal-of-EA-Final-1.pdf?x21779}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }