In South Africa, the Green Connection NPC and Natural Justice (herein the applicants), initiated a review application against the decision of the Director General of the Department of Minerals and Energy (the DG) and the Minister of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries (the Minister) granting an environmental authorisation to conduct exploratory drillings off the South-West coast of South Africa. The application is based on the ground that the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) utilized by the DG and Minister to inform their decision did not adhere to the stipulated requirements outlined in the National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998 (NEMA) and the Integrated Coastal Management Act 24 of 2001 (ICMA).

The issue is whether the decision to grant environmental authorization to conduct exploratory drilling off the South-West coast should be set aside in that it was taken without proper assessment of the environmental impacts of the proposed project. In praying for the authorization to be set aside, it is the contention of the applicants that the decision to grant environmental authorization was made without a thorough assessment of the environmental ramifications of the proposed project, as the EIR fails to meet the standards set forth by NEMA and ICMA. The EIR failed to consider climate change impacts associated with the use of any oil or gas discovered by the Proposed Project and to evaluate potential trans-boundary impacts of an oil spill resulting from a well blowout, particularly concerning contamination in Namibian waters and international waters. It does not adequately assess the extent of socio-economic impacts, including potential revenue losses for fishing operations and coastal communities in the area. The authorisation itself flouts section 24 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa which guarantees the right to a healthy environment, protected for present and future generations. It infringes on the environmental impact assessment principles in National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) enacted to give effect to the constitutional rights related to environmental protection. Consequently, the decisions made regarding the environmental authorization for the proposed project are legally flawed and subject to review and potential reversal under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA).

In relation to jurisdiction, GREEN CONNECTION NPC and NATURAL JUSTICE   assert that the requirements for loca standi and jurisdiction have been satisfied, in that the application is brought in their own interest, in the public interest in terms of section 38(1)(c) of the Constitution and section 32(1)(d) of NEMA and in the interest of protecting the environment in terms of section 32(1)(e) of NEMA, and that the adverse effects of the decisions under review will be experienced in the Western Cape. Hence, the Court has jurisdiction in terms of section 1 of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 (PAJA).

The Western Cape High Court has heard the case, and TotalEnergies told the court that there is a 1 in 7,000 chance of an oil spill occurring from the block. The company still holds environmental permits for the block, but is looking to transfer the majority of its interests to Shell and PetraSA. 

The High Court reviewed the lawfulness of the environmental authorization (EA) granted to TotalEnergies (with Shell as co-holder) for offshore exploratory drilling in Block 5/6/7 off South Africa’s south-west coast. The applicants challenged the EA under PAJA on several grounds, including failures to properly assess socio-economic impacts of a potential oil spill, failures to consider climate change impacts (particularly downstream emissions), failures to consider the Integrated Coastal Management Act (ICMA), and omissions in spill contingency planning. The decisions under review were the Director-General’s grant of the EA and the Minister’s dismissal of the internal appeal.

The Court held that the environmental impact assessment process was legally deficient. It found that while a catastrophic well blowout and oil spill were identified as low-probability but high-impact risks, the Final Environmental Impact Report failed to properly quantify and assess the socio-economic consequences of such an event, especially for fishing communities and coastal livelihoods. This omission breached NEMA and the EIA Regulations, which require assessment of all potentially significant impacts and risks, including low-probability, high-harm scenarios. As a result, the decision-makers failed to consider relevant considerations, rendering the EA unlawful and reviewable.

On climate change, the Court accepted that the Final EIR failed to assess the climate impacts associated with the burning of any oil or gas discovered, i.e. downstream (Scope 3) emissions. It rejected the notion that climate impacts could be ignored at the exploration stage and affirmed that climate change consequences are a relevant consideration under NEMA’s sustainability and precautionary principles. The failure to assess climate change impacts meant the decision-makers could not properly evaluate the need and desirability of the project, undermining the constitutional obligation to protect the environment for present and future generations.

The Court set aside the environmental authorization and the Minister’s appeal decision, holding that they were taken in breach of mandatory statutory duties. It emphasized the precautionary principle, the need for rigorous assessment of climate and socio-economic harm, and the constitutional centrality of environmental protection. The judgment reinforces that offshore fossil-fuel projects must confront climate change impacts explicitly and transparently at the authorization stage, not defer them to later phases.

Green Connection NPC and Another v Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment and Others

<p>This entry was provided by the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. Please see the terms of use for citation and licensing of third party data.</p>

Green Connection NPC and Another v Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment and Others - application

Filed

South Africa

The Climate Litigation Database

Find climate change litigation data and indicators for {text}.

{text} litigation

Sabin Center for Climate Change Law provides Climate Litigation Database, a comprehensive database of US and Global climate change caselaw

Quickly and easily search through the complete text of thousands of climate change law and policy documents from every country.

Search the Climate Litigation Database

An aim to achieve a quantifiable outcome within a given time-frame, set by an institution such as a national government.

Policy instruments are techniques or tools used by governing authorities to promote certain policies in order to achieve predetermined goals. Put simply, instruments are how a government tries to achieve its goals, with this taxonomy being focused on national policy instruments.

Risk is the potential for adverse consequences resulting from the dynamic interplay between (climate-related) hazards, exposure, and vulnerability of affected human or ecological systems.

Groups  of people who are adversely affected by climate change or the response to it

A set of principles, processes, and practices that build economic and political power to shift from an extractive economy to a regenerative economy.

Justice is the ethical and political framework that addresses fairness, including issues of responsibility, rights, and structural inequity.

Renewable energy means all forms of energy produced from renewable sources in a sustainable manner.

Fossil fuel is a generic term for non-renewable energy sources such as coal, fossil gas, and oil (including crude oil, and petroleum products), that can be used for electricity and heat generation. Fossil fuels are hydrocarbons formed from pressurised and heated organic material buried over millions of years.

Molecules in the atmosphere that play a key role in the greenhouse effect by trapping heat radiating from Earth’s surface.

Area of the economy in which actors engage in identical or related activities.

In human systems, the process of adjustment to actual or expected climate change and its effects, in order to moderate harm, increase resilience or exploit beneficial opportunities. In natural systems, the process of adjustment to actual climate change and its effects; human intervention may facilitate adjustment to expected climate change and its effects.

The management and allocation of funds, assets and investments to meet various objectives

A target to reduce the prevalence of a greenhouse gas over a specific time frame

A commitment to balance GHG emissions with removal by a certain point in time, effectively reducing the net emissions to zero

Either money or something of monetary value is transferred between two or more organisations, people or countries.

Actions or measures to adapt freshwater systems to climate change.

Coastal zone and marine-related actions and measures to adapt and increase resilience to climate change

Actions or measures to adapt freshwater, coastal and marine systems to climate change.

Hot temperature extremes are daily maximum temperatures  that were exceeded on average once in a decade or once in 50 years, and includes heatwaves.

The release of heat-trapping gases, primarily from human activities such as burning fossil fuels, agriculture and industry.

A long-lived, colourless gas, chiefly emitted from fossil fuel combustion, deforestation and cement production.

A potent, short-lived greehouse gas, largely released from livestock, fossil fuel extraction and waste management.

Risks to the ecosystem health of the marine environment, including ocean warming, ocean acidification, and ocean deoxygenation, harming biodiversity, species health, ecosystem services, and coastal community livelihoods.

Extreme weather refers to events where a weather variable exceeds (or falls below) a threshold. Meaning it is significantly different from the average or usual weather pattern.

A drought is an extended period of unusually dry weather marked by a significant and sustained lack of precipitation, falling below a specific threshold over a large area for more than a month

Social inclusion is the process of improving the terms on which individuals and groups take part in society—improving the ability, opportunity, and dignity of those disadvantaged on the basis of their identity.

Oil is a combustible liquid fossil fuel composed mainly of hydrocarbons, occurring as crude oil and refined into petroleum products such as petrol, diesel and kerosene.

Fossil gas, commonly known as natural gas, is a fossil fuel consisting chiefly of methane with smaller amounts of other hydrocarbons and trace gases, found in underground deposits.

Coal is a combustible sedimentary rock formed from carbonised plant matter, rich in carbon and hydrocarbons, and occurring in several main types including hard coal and brown coal.

People with different national or cultural traditions from the dominant population

Social and cultural groups that share collective ancestral ties to the lands and natural resources where they live, occupy or from which they have been displaced

The activities of industries involved in the production, distribution, and sale of energy, including electricity, gas, and renewables.

Activities that involve planning, designing and building infrastructure, residential, and commercial structures.

Activities that provide lodging, food, and entertainment services to guests, including hotels, restaurants, and resorts.

Activities of government agencies and institutions that provide public services, enforce laws and manage public resources.

This sector includes firms and individuals offering specialised expertise in fields such as law, accounting, consulting, science and engineering.

Activities involving the management, development, and sale of property assets.

Activities involving the catching, processing, and selling of fish for food, recreation, and industry.

This sector involves the distribution, treatment, and conservation of water resources.

Climate change can have a range of impacts on technological system. Extreme weather events can cause infrastructure failures like power outages or damage to roads and bridges, as well as the impacts from waste following natural disasters. Human activities also cause technological impacts, such as the risks posed by oil spillage and leaks.

Any substance with chemical properties that can cause physical harm to people or damage the environment, including ammonia, carbon monoxide, phosphine, chlorine, arsenic, cadmium, mercury, pesticides, dioxins, microplastics, benzene, asbestos, aflatoxins, fluoride, methanol, and toxins from marine sources.

Climate change impacts our society by disrupting the natural, economic and social systems we depend on. Physical hazards and underlying vulnerabilities can lead to increased resource competition for food and water, which can heighten the risk of conflict.

Slow onset events evolve gradually from incremental changes over many years or from increased frequency or intensity of recurring events. As defined in the Cancun Adaptation Framework (2010), slow onset events include risks and impacts from rising temperatures, desertification, biodiversity loss, land and forest degradation, glacial retreat, ocean acidification, sea level rise, and salinization.

In South Africa, the Green Connection NPC and Natural Justice (herein the applicants), initiated a review application against the decision of the Director General of the Department of Minerals and Energy (the DG) and the Minister of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries (the Minister) granting an environmental authorisation to conduct exploratory drillings off the South-West coast of South Africa. The application is based on the ground that the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) utilized by the DG and Minister to inform their decision did not adhere to the stipulated requirements outlined in the National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998 (NEMA) and the Integrated Coastal Management Act 24 of 2001 (ICMA).

The issue is whether the decision to grant environmental authorization to conduct exploratory drilling off the South-West coast should be set aside in that it was taken without proper assessment of the environmental impacts of the proposed project. In praying for the authorization to be set aside, it is the contention of the applicants that the decision to grant environmental authorization was made without a thorough assessment of the environmental ramifications of the proposed project, as the EIR fails to meet the standards set forth by NEMA and ICMA. The EIR failed to consider climate change impacts associated with the use of any oil or gas discovered by the Proposed Project and to evaluate potential trans-boundary impacts of an oil spill resulting from a well blowout, particularly concerning contamination in Namibian waters and international waters. It does not adequately assess the extent of socio-economic impacts, including potential revenue losses for fishing operations and coastal communities in the area. The authorisation itself flouts section 24 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa which guarantees the right to a healthy environment, protected for present and future generations. It infringes on the environmental impact assessment principles in National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) enacted to give effect to the constitutional rights related to environmental protection. Consequently, the decisions made regarding the environmental authorization for the proposed project are legally flawed and subject to review and potential reversal under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA).
In relation to jurisdiction, GREEN CONNECTION NPC and NATURAL JUSTICE   assert that the requirements for loca standi and jurisdiction have been satisfied, in that the application is brought in their own interest, in the public interest in terms of section 38(1)(c) of the Constitution and section 32(1)(d) of NEMA and in the interest of protecting the environment in terms of section 32(1)(e) of NEMA, and that the adverse effects of the decisions under review will be experienced in the Western Cape. Hence, the Court has jurisdiction in terms of section 1 of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 (PAJA).

The Western Cape High Court has heard the case, and TotalEnergies told the court that there is a 1 in 7,000 chance of an oil spill occurring from the block. The company still holds environmental permits for the block, but is looking to transfer the majority of its interests to Shell and PetraSA. 

The High Court reviewed the lawfulness of the environmental authorization (EA) granted to TotalEnergies (with Shell as co-holder) for offshore exploratory drilling in Block 5/6/7 off South Africa’s south-west coast. The applicants challenged the EA under PAJA on several grounds, including failures to properly assess socio-economic impacts of a potential oil spill, failures to consider climate change impacts (particularly downstream emissions), failures to consider the Integrated Coastal Management Act (ICMA), and omissions in spill contingency planning. The decisions under review were the Director-General’s grant of the EA and the Minister’s dismissal of the internal appeal.

The Court held that the environmental impact assessment process was legally deficient. It found that while a catastrophic well blowout and oil spill were identified as low-probability but high-impact risks, the Final Environmental Impact Report failed to properly quantify and assess the socio-economic consequences of such an event, especially for fishing communities and coastal livelihoods. This omission breached NEMA and the EIA Regulations, which require assessment of all potentially significant impacts and risks, including low-probability, high-harm scenarios. As a result, the decision-makers failed to consider relevant considerations, rendering the EA unlawful and reviewable.

On climate change, the Court accepted that the Final EIR failed to assess the climate impacts associated with the burning of any oil or gas discovered, i.e. downstream (Scope 3) emissions. It rejected the notion that climate impacts could be ignored at the exploration stage and affirmed that climate change consequences are a relevant consideration under NEMA’s sustainability and precautionary principles. The failure to assess climate change impacts meant the decision-makers could not properly evaluate the need and desirability of the project, undermining the constitutional obligation to protect the environment for present and future generations.

The Court set aside the environmental authorization and the Minister’s appeal decision, holding that they were taken in breach of mandatory statutory duties. It emphasized the precautionary principle, the need for rigorous assessment of climate and socio-economic harm, and the constitutional centrality of environmental protection. The judgment reinforces that offshore fossil-fuel projects must confront climate change impacts explicitly and transparently at the authorization stage, not defer them to later phases.

Green Connection NPC and Another v Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment and Others - application

Target

Risk

Impacted group

Just transition

Renewable energy

Fossil fuel

Greenhouse gas

Economic sector

Adaptation/resilience

Finance