Today, hearings in the Western Cape High Court came to a head in another significant eco-justice case challenging the environmental authorisation granted to TotalEnergies for ultra-deep-water oil and gas exploration in the Deep Western Orange Basin (DWOB), off South Africa’s West Coast. The applicants – The Green Connection, Natural Justice, and Aukotowa Primary FishingCo-operative – argue that the approval process was unlawful, irrational, and inconsistent with constitutional, environmental, and climate obligations. They asked the Court to review and set aside both the Director-General’s original decision and the Minister’s dismissal of their appeals. Judgment will be delivered in due course.
The Green Connection’s Outreach Ambassador, Neville van Rooy says, “One of the main reasons that we approached the High Court, is that the Deep-Water Orange Basin (DWOB) presents conditions unlike anything South Africa has ever faced – both in water depth and technical complexity. However, 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, especially since this project introduces new threats that, in our view, were never properly assessed.”
The matter, heard by a full bench over two days, traces back to a contentious sequence of decisions that unfolded over the past two years. On 23 October 2023, the Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources granted TotalEnergies environmental authorisation for ultra-deep-water exploration drilling in the DWOB. Together with five other appellants, the applicants appealed that decision, the appeals were ultimately dismissed by the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries, and Environment.
Public Mobilisation Shows Strong Community Opposition
Ahead of the hearing, nearly 100 small-scale fishers and coastal community members held a peaceful but spirited demonstration outside the Western Cape High Court, supporting the call to the judiciary to overturn the environmental authorisation. They were joined by eco-justice organisations and other civil society groups who emphasized the risks the project poses to marine ecosystems, food security, and local livelihoods. Moreover, small-scale fishers and coastal communities organised separate solidarity actions across parts of Eastern Cape and KwaZulu-Natal.
Walter Steenkamp from the Aukotowa Fisheries Co-operative in Port Nolloth says, “Communities along the West Coast are already dealing with declining fish stocks and the growing impacts of climate change. 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.”
Steenkamp emphasizes that the Environmental Impact Report appears to significantly downplay the risks associated with drilling at depths greater than 2,000 metres below sea level – conditions that are entirely unprecedented in this 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 says.
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 argue that the State adopted an irrational and narrow approach by assessing the exploration phase in isolation. They maintain 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 argue 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.
Failure to Apply the Integrated Coastal Management Act (ICMA)
Melissa Groenink-Groves, Programme Manager of the Defending Rights Programme at Natural Justice says, “This 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.”
This 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.
Ernest Titus from Lambert’s Bay West Coast says, “Decisions made in Cape Town, about TotalEnergies and Shell, will have a major impact on the future of our 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. We hope the final outcomes will protect our oceans and preserve these resources for future generations.”
Environmental activist from Port Nolloth, Justin Montzinger says, “I am a social and environmental activist from Port Nolloth. Our community, made up mostly of fishers, is 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 says, “As traditional fishers, our livelihoods depend on the sea. The 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. We urge the department to stop oil and gas exploration in our oceans.”
Environmental activist and founder member of Spirit of Endeavor in Doringbaai West Coast, Deborah De Wee says, “We oppose TotalEnergies and Shell and all oil and gas drilling in our oceans. 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. We must protect our oceans for future generations.”
To download a factsheet regarding this case, CLICK HERE.
