Environmentalists head to court to stop offshore exploration

Greenpeace Africa appealing DMR decision

SOUTH AFRICA: Greenpeace Africa has lodged an appeal against the decision granted by the Department of Mineral Resources to grant Environmental Authorisation (EA) for exploration activities to a joint venture consortium for the Block 3B/4B offshore area, approximately 120 km west of St Helena Bay and approximately 145 km south-west of Hondeklip Bay.

Working with attorneys, Cullinan and Associates, Greenpeace Africa believes that the decision raises serious concerns regarding the balance between environmental protection and the exploitation of mineral resources, a matter which demands careful scrutiny in light of both constitutional and statutory obligations.

In a blog post on their website Greenpeace Africa contends:

“More investment in offshore oil and gas drilling will result in severe environmental damage including the risks of spills that endanger marine ecosystems and destroy the livelihoods of the coastal communities, which will inevitably exacerbate the climate crisis. Such activities also undermine meaningful efforts and commitments to transition towards renewable energy.”

The group has listed six areas of concern in their appeal.

1. Failure to consider full scope of potential impacts.

According to Greenpeace, the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) fails to holistically assess the full scope of impacts, particularly those associated with commercial production, which is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of successful exploration. While the EIR focuses solely on exploration, the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA) clearly links exploration with future production, making it essential to consider production-related impacts from the outset. Moreover, the appeal stresses that cumulative and long-term impacts, such as environmental degradation and greenhouse gas emissions, should have been evaluated.

2. EA granted on the basis of flawed assessment and consideration of risks and impacts.

Further, Greenpeace Africa believes that the EA was granted based on a misrepresentation of risks and impacts in the EIR. They add that the EIR downplays the severity of potential environmental disasters, such as oil spills and relies on mitigation plans that have not yet been developed, preventing public participation. “It also misrepresents impacts on marine ecosystems, livelihoods and conservation efforts. These critical omissions undermine the decision-making process, rendering the EA unjustified,” they write.

Greenpeace also describes the framing of potential economic benefits from oil spill response efforts as “disingenuous”. The inadequate ability to address the impact of climate change is also of concern for the environmental activists.

3. Inadequate consideration of National Environment Management: Integrated Coastal Management Act

Quoting sections of the National Environmental Management: Integrated Coastal Management Act (NEM:ICMA), the blog post highlights that the EA failed to properly address a number of requirements including the need to evaluate whether the project might cause irreversible damage, conflict with conservation efforts, and serve the interests of the entire community.

4. Flawed assessment of the No-Go Alternative

This appeal challenges the flawed assessment of the “No-Go” alternative in the EA. Greenpeace contends that the benefits of economic opportunities and energy security are not weighted properly against the potential environmental risks.

5. EA granted on the basis of a flawed motivation for need and desirability.

It is, therefore, their contention that the EA for the exploration activities is based on a flawed assessment of the project’s need and desirability. “The justification relies on the premise that gas, as a “transition fuel,” would support energy security and facilitate a shift from fossil fuels. However, this is contradicted by scientific evidence showing that gas has a greater greenhouse gas footprint than coal or oil, primarily due to methane emissions. The potential for large-scale gas production from the exploration area is speculative, with no certainty that the gas would be usable within the necessary timeframes to support a transition to net-zero emissions by 2050.”

6. Decision to grant the EA irrational and unreasonable

Finally, the appeal asserts that the decision to grant the EA for oil and gas exploration is both irrational and unreasonable

“The conclusion that the proposed activities pose no detrimental risks to the environment and public is incorrect, given the significant environmental and climate change impacts. The flaws in the EIR and the failure to consider public concerns further highlight that the competent authority did not properly assess the risks. Therefore, the decision to grant the EA lacks reasonableness and rationality, and should be overturned on appeal.”