In another landmark case that highlights the voices of communities facing the frontline impacts of climate change, Aukotowa Fisheries Primary Co-Operative, The Green Connection, and Natural Justice (the applicants) have taken their fight to the Western Cape High Court. Together, these organisations represent the interests of South Africa’s vulnerable coastal communities, and in particular small-scale fishers, who stand to potentially lose livelihoods, food security, and cultural heritage should oil exploration activities proceed unchecked in the Deep-Water Orange Basin (DWOB), located off the country’s West Coast.
The applicants are challenging the recent decision by the Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources (DMRE) and the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE) to grant and uphold environmental authorisation (EA) for exploratory drilling by TotalEnergies EP South Africa (TEEPSA).
They say that good governance is not only essential for sustainable development and for protecting local communities but is also critical for the protection of local biodiversity that communities depend on. By failing to fully consider this project’s environmental and social risks, we believe the DMRE and DFFE have violated their mandate to protect both people and nature.
The court action stems from concerns that the decision-making process has been flawed and biased. The applicants believe the DMRE and the Minister of DFFE ignored critical socioeconomic, environmental, and climate impacts while instead factoring in inappropriate considerations, such as potential revenue from oil and gas, despite there being no actual production at the exploration stage.
The Green Connection’s Advocacy Officer, Lisa Makaula says, “After exhausting the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process and seeing our appeals dismissed, we have no choice but to seek a judicial review. We believe that the court will ensure a more balanced, rational approach to decision-making, especially when community and environmental welfare is at stake. At the heart of this challenge is our assertion that the government failed to account for significant risks to marine ecosystems and biodiversity, vital to local fishing communities. Drilling and chemical pollutants from exploration could harm breeding grounds and disrupt marine food chains, threatening both ecosystems and livelihoods. This court challenge seeks to overturn the approval and should also be seen as another call to government to halt any new fossil fuel projects that could cause further ecological and economic harm.”
The project approval disregards the rights and welfare of small-scale fishers and coastal communities, and further ignores the potential catastrophic consequences for the ocean’s biodiversity, a critical asset for local economies and food security. Key factors were overlooked in granting approval for the exploration project, including the connection between exploration and climate change impacts, alignment with the Integrated Energy Plan, and the need and desirability of the project. The applicants argue that the approval process failed to fully assess ecological risks, such as potential oil spills, socio-economic impacts on coastal communities, and compliance with the Integrated Coastal Management Act, which mandates sustainable stewardship of coastal resources.
“For many indigenous South Africans, the ocean is the main source of life and livelihood,” says Neville van Rooy, Community Outreach Coordinator at The Green Connection. “Our communities rely on these waters for sustenance and income. Allowing oil drilling here jeopardises all of that, introducing harmful pollutants and intensifying climate risks in a region already feeling the brunt of climate change. We simply cannot accept that, in a time of severe environmental crisis, our government continues to open doors to oil and gas, placing corporate profits above community welfare.”
According to Melissa Groenink-Groves at Natural Justice, “This legal battle underscores a pressing question: Is South Africa’s energy policy meant to be working for the benefit of the people, or is it meant to serve only the interests of multinational corporations and political elites? We are particularly concerned because South Africa’s coastlines are under unprecedented pressure. With each passing year, communities along the West Coast face increasing disruptions resulting from climate change, including unpredictable weather, prolonged droughts, and devastating floods. Yet rather than transitioning to sustainable energy solutions, the government’s decision to allow oil exploration raises critical concerns around governance, transparency, and climate accountability.”
Groenink-Groves says, “There is a big problem when government overlooks the full spectrum of the socioeconomic consequences of offshore oil and gas exploration on small-scale fishing communities. Coastal communities and fishers, who are already marginalised because of the legacy of apartheid, risk losing their only source of income and food security.”
The applicants contend that the approval of new fossil fuel projects flies in the face of South Africa’s climate commitments. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued clear warnings against further fossil fuel development, and South Africa itself has spent nearly R900 million on drought relief over the last four years – a cost likely to escalate if climate mitigation actions are ignored.
This case also draws a stark contrast to what is happening at Africa Energy Week, where fossil fuel industry players and policymakers gathered to forge new deals behind closed doors. This exclusionary approach will likely fail to address the real needs of Africa’s people, and are likely to once again, advance projects that will reinforce Africa’s fossil fuel dependence, while primarily driving profits for foreign investors. Moreover, as South Africans fight to protect their natural resources and livelihoods, the Upstream Petroleum Development Bill continues to sway decision-making power toward policies that do not appear to move Africa toward a more sustainable future.
Walter Steenkamp, a small-scale fisher and Chairperson of Aukotowa Fisheries Primary Co-Operative Limited says, “As small-scale fishers who bear the brunt of these far-reaching decisions, we call on South Africans to stand in solidarity with us and affected coastal communities, because it is not only our lives and livelihoods that are at risk. These environmental decisions also affect your right to a healthy ocean because this is a common resource that should be protected for us all, and for the generations to come. We are in a race against time to protect our oceans, our climate, and our people’s rights. Therefore, for us, this is not just about an oil and gas project; it’s about the future of our planet and our way of life.”
The Green Connection’s petition to stop offshore oil and gas, as part of its Who Stole Our Oceans campaign – https://www.change.org/p/imagine-a-world-with-oiled-upbeaches-without-living-ocean-are-we-running-out-of-time/
