- Oil survey violates climate law by overlooking greenhouse gas emissions, oil spill risks, and long-term production impacts.
- Critics say the oil survey violates climate law as it downplays threats to fisheries, tourism, and vulnerable communities.
Oil survey violates climate law, which is the warning from eco-justice organisations challenging South Africa’s offshore drilling plans. They argue the survey undermines national climate commitments and threatens the country’s ability to achieve a just energy transition.
The Green Connection and Natural Justice, two leading environmental groups, stressed that despite the recent court victory stopping TotalEnergies’ attempt to exploit Block 5/6/7, the wider struggle continues. Both organisations insist that South Africa must urgently align its development agenda with sustainable energy and economic justice.
Earlier this month, they submitted strong objections to Main Street 1549’s Draft Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Report (DESIAR) and Social and Labour Plan (SLP). The proposed offshore survey in Blocks 9 and 11B/12B has triggered widespread concern.
According to Shahil Singh, Legal Advisor at The Green Connection, the survey downplays critical risks. He noted that the report excludes greenhouse gas emissions, fisheries threats, and potential oil spills, while considering only immediate impacts. Singh argued that the law requires a full assessment, from survey through production, because climate change is already intensifying challenges for vulnerable communities.
Furthermore, South Africa’s commitments under the Paris Agreement conflict directly with advancing fossil fuel projects. Singh emphasised that treating the survey as a narrow technical step avoids addressing how oil exploration fits into the country’s long-term energy plan.
Neville van Rooy, Community Outreach Coordinator at The Green Connection, added that the consultation process excluded affected communities. He stressed that small-scale fishers, especially women in post-harvest roles, were ignored. The plan, he said, exaggerates benefits, offers vague promises, and shifts burdens onto those least able to bear them.
Both groups argue that government investment in oil undermines food security, ocean health, and constitutional rights. They urge prioritisation of an inclusive Integrated Energy Plan to secure a just transition towards clean energy.