JEFFREYS BAY – Kouga residents have united against Eskom’s proposed 5,200MW nuclear power station at Thyspunt in St Francis Bay, raising concerns about the project’s potential impact on the environment, livelihoods, heritage and the regional economy.

The concerns were raised during a Speak Out event hosted by non-profit organisation Earthlife Africa Johannesburg in Jeffreys Bay on 11 July, where fishers, environmental groups, heritage advocates and community leaders called for greater public participation in decisions affecting the area’s future.

According to Earthlife Africa Johannesburg, attendees warned that the development could threaten local livelihoods, biodiversity, cultural heritage, public safety and the regional economy, while adding a substantial financial burden for South Africans.

Makoma Lekalakala, director of Earthlife Africa Johannesburg, said many residents had opposed the development for around 20 years.

“The people who live here understand exactly what is at stake. Throughout the day we heard the same message from small-scale fishers who want to protect their livelihoods, First Nations representatives who want to protect their heritage, and conservationists and residents concerned about the environment and future generations. They all agree, Thyspunt is not a suitable place for a nuclear power station,” said Lekalakala.

As previously reported, Eskom’s Nuclear Draft Scoping Report states that the proposed Thyspunt Nuclear Power Plant in Kouga Local Municipality will have a capacity of up to 5,200MW, using large Pressurised Water Reactors and/or Small Modular Reactors.

The site was selected over Bantamsklip following a comparative assessment, with advantages including Eskom-owned land, existing studies, transmission access and reduced infrastructure needs.

The facility will occupy about 250 hectares and use a seawater cooling system.

Eskom stated that environmental impacts were manageable, with no fatal flaws identified.

According to Earthlife Africa Johannesburg, Thyspunt is home to significant biodiversity, Khoisan heritage and a coastal economy built on fishing, tourism and agriculture.

Speakers warned that harbour construction, dredging and spoil dumped into the ocean could damage chokka breeding grounds, alter ocean currents and threaten internationally recognised surf breaks that attract visitors.

Local fisher Phenius Nkatshuka said small-scale fishing communities had already experienced the consequences of coastal construction.

“We have seen what happens when marine environments are disturbed. Fish stocks disappear and livelihoods suffer. Families here depend on the ocean every day. We cannot risk losing the resources that have sustained our communities for generations,” said Nkatshuka.

According to the organisation, residents also questioned claims that the project would create jobs, arguing that construction employment would be temporary, while impacts on existing industries could be permanent.

The organisation said residents warned that thousands of outside workers could place pressure on housing, healthcare, water and municipal services.

Community member Zamu Williams said local people had spent decades building opportunities through tourism, fishing and cultural activities.

“We have created livelihoods that keep young people active and give them hope. We cannot sacrifice those opportunities for promises that disappear once construction is complete,” said Williams.

The organisation said safety and emergency planning were also major concerns, with residents questioning whether evacuation would be possible during a serious incident due to limited road access, the growing holiday population and ongoing N2 roadworks.

Lydia Peterson, a community organiser with the Southern African Faith Communities’ Environment Institute (SAFCEI), said communities were being asked to accept major risks without clear answers.

“People are often overwhelmed by technical language, but the questions are actually very simple. Is this safe? Can our country afford it? What happens to the waste? Who carries the risk if something goes wrong?” said Peterson.

She said that after examining available information, she believed Thyspunt was too risky, too expensive and an unsuitable location for a project of this scale.

According to Earthlife Africa Johannesburg, environmental organisations also challenged the need for a large nuclear facility at a time when energy systems were increasingly shifting towards renewable and decentralised generation.

Gary Koekemoer from the Wildlife and Environment Society of South Africa (WESSA) said the proposal failed the test of sustainable development.

“Thyspunt is one of South Africa’s most significant natural and cultural landscapes. It protects irreplaceable biodiversity, ancient Khoisan heritage and one of the country’s last intact dune systems. Once these resources are destroyed, they are gone forever,” said Koekemoer.

He said South Africa needed reliable energy but not at the expense of places that could not be replaced.

The organisation said speakers questioned the economic justification of the project, warning that costs would ultimately be carried by ordinary South Africans.

SAFCEI’s Ntombizodidi Mapapu said the scale of the proposed investment highlighted difficult choices facing government.

“Imagine what that money could achieve if it were invested in the things our communities desperately need – schools, clinics, housing and opportunities for young people. South Africans deserve an honest conversation about priorities,” said Mapapu.

Earthlife Africa Johannesburg said residents warned that construction would fundamentally change the region through heavy vehicle movements, years of activity and pressure on already strained infrastructure.

Trudi Malan from Thyspunt Alliance said residents could not accept promises without practical commitments.

“People are told there will be jobs and development, but communities have heard these promises before. If thousands of additional workers are expected to come here, where are the schools, hospitals, housing and roads to support them? Those services should exist before construction begins,” said Malan.

Residents also raised concerns about public participation, arguing that communities directly affected by the proposal must have a meaningful role in determining their future.

Community member Cynthia Wildscutt said families were thinking about future generations.

“We want our children and grandchildren to inherit clean oceans, healthy communities and opportunities to build their futures here. Once our environment is damaged, we cannot simply restore it,” said Wildscutt.

Earthlife Africa Johannesburg said the Speak Out event showed that opposition to the proposed nuclear development extended across sectors, with participants united by concerns over safety, affordability, environmental protection and public participation.

“Our message is straightforward. Communities have spoken with one voice. They are asking for an energy future that protects people, respects our constitutional rights and safeguards the natural and cultural heritage that makes Thyspunt unique. Nothing about us, without us,” said Lekalakala.

ALSO READ: New computerised learner’s licence testing system sees pass rates plummet to 17%