CAPE TOWN – The Western Cape High Court on Tuesday (24 March) concluded hearings in a significant environmental case challenging TotalEnergies’ authorisation for ultra-deep-water oil and gas exploration off South Africa’s West Coast, with judgment reserved.
The Green Connection, Natural Justice, and Aukotowa Primary Fishing Co-operative argued that the approval process for drilling in the Deep Western Orange Basin (DWOB) was unlawful and inconsistent with constitutional and environmental obligations.
They sought to overturn both the director-general’s original decision and the minister’s dismissal of their appeals.
The case, heard by a full bench over two days, stems from the Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources’ decision on 23 October 2023 to grant TotalEnergies environmental authorisation for the ultra-deep-water exploration.
Appeals by the applicants and five other parties were subsequently dismissed by the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries, and Environment.
Unprecedented conditions raise concerns
Neville van Rooy, The Green Connection’s outreach ambassador, highlighted the unique challenges posed by the project, saying the Deep-Water Orange Basin (DWOB) presents conditions unlike anything South Africa has ever faced – both in water depth and technical complexity.
“The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) simply did not deal with these heightened risks. We believe that the law supports the rights of small-scale fishers who are already on the frontline of climate impacts,” he said.
Community mobilisation shows opposition
Nearly 100 small-scale fishers and coastal community members held a peaceful but spirited demonstration outside the Western Cape High Court ahead of the hearing, supported by environmental justice organisations and civil society groups.
Separate solidarity actions were organised across parts of Eastern Cape and KwaZulu-Natal.
Walter Steenkamp from the Aukotowa Fisheries Co-operative in Port Nolloth said communities along the West Coast are already dealing with declining fish stocks and climate change impacts.
Our livelihoods depend on the ocean . . . the approval process ignored our lived realities and the warnings we have repeatedly raised.
“Yet the State failed to meaningfully assess how this project will affect our livelihoods, food security, cultural heritage, and constitutional rights – effectively prioritising corporate interests over vulnerable fishing communities. Our livelihoods depend on the ocean. We have the right to be heard and the right to a healthy environment. But the approval process ignored our lived realities and the warnings we have repeatedly raised. We are hopeful that the Court will recognise the seriousness of these failures,” he said.
Technical and legal challenges
Steenkamp highlighted concerns about drilling at depths greater than 2 000 metres below sea level – unprecedented conditions in the region.
“Without robust, site-specific scientific evidence and a Blow-out Contingency Plan that has been properly tested in South African waters, the approval of this project violates the precautionary principle, which requires decision-makers to act with heightened caution where activities pose the risk of serious or irreversible harm,” he said.
Much time was spent arguing the need and desirability of the project – particularly in the face of increasing climate impacts severely affecting several parts of the country.
The applicants argued that the state adopted an irrational and narrow approach by assessing the exploration phase in isolation, maintaining that the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) requires a lifecycle assessment, which includes the climate impacts of eventual extraction and combustion of the gas.
The applicants argued that the project is incompatible with South Africa’s net-zero commitments, and that the “bridge fuel” narrative, relied on by the State, is outdated and scientifically unsupported. At a time when the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has made clear that states must avoid significant harm to the climate system, approving new fossil fuel projects is irresponsible.
Coastal management law overlooked
Melissa Groenink-Groves, programme manager of the Defending Rights Programme at Natural Justice, said the case is “fundamentally about whether decision-makers can disregard key environmental laws designed to protect our coastline and the people who depend on it.”
“The Integrated Coastal Management Act (ICMA) – a central law governing activities in the coastal zone and imposing clear obligations – was overlooked in many respects, and important considerations were left out.
“The public trustee duty compels the State to safeguard coastal public property for current and future generations, not hand it over to corporations on the basis of incomplete or inadequate assessments. Both the Director-General and the Minister failed to apply the mandatory criteria relating to coastal public property, the public interest, and intergenerational justice, rendering their decisions unlawful,” she said.
Community voices
Ernest Titus from Lambert’s Bay West Coast said decisions made about TotalEnergies and Shell will have a major impact on the future of the local fishing industry.
“For generations, our families have relied on traditional fishing to put food on the table, and these decisions directly affect our ability to provide for our children and support our communities. The fishing industry plays an important role in South Africa’s economy, yet oil exploration threatens the livelihoods of small-scale fishers. The risks to marine life and long-term sustainability are simply too great.”
ALSO READ: Mantashe calls for domestic oil exploration amid Middle East fuel supply concerns
Environmental activist Justin Montzinger from Port Nolloth said his community, made up mostly of fishers, is deeply concerned about TEEPSA decisions.
“Our main focus is the ocean, as our lives depend on it. Oil exploration could harm marine life and affect the well-being of our people. We want to ensure a safe and sustainable future for our oceans.”
Andries Booysen from Elandsbaai, West Coast said government must consider the impact on small-scale fishers and local communities. “Our children’s futures and the sustainability of the fishing industry are at risk.”
Environmental activist and founder member of Spirit of Endeavor in Doringbaai West Coast, Deborah De Wee said oceans need to be protected for future generations. “The ocean is the livelihood of indigenous fishers and provides our income and healthy food. Pollution threatens our children, grandchildren, and the continuation of our culture. .”
ALSO READ: Hof stop TotalEnergies se Suid-Afrikaanse olie-eksplorasie
The case forms part of growing national pushback against offshore oil and gas expansion, which many argue is incompatible with South Africa’s climate commitments, in addition to being a threat to marine biodiversity and traditional livelihoods.
You must be logged in to post a comment.