What’s Happening?
A legal battle over offshore seismic surveys along South Africa’s west coast and Northern Cape coast is underway in the Western Cape High Court. The case questions whether the government properly approved the surveys before letting a company go ahead with the work.
Who’s Involved?
- Plaintiffs (the ones suing): Aukotowa Fisheries Primary Co‑operative, The Green Connection, and Natural Justice.
- Defendants (the ones being sued): The South African government (represented by the Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources and the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and Environment) and TGS Geophysical Company (UK) Ltd, the firm that wants to run the surveys.
What Is a 3D Seismic Survey?
A 3D seismic survey uses sound waves—think of loud underwater “pings”—to bounce off layers beneath the seabed. The returning echoes create a detailed picture of what’s underground, helping companies spot possible oil and gas reserves.
Why the Lawsuit?
The plaintiffs argue that the government failed its duty to protect the coast, which is a shared public resource for all South Africans. They claim the approval process didn’t consider all the necessary information, especially the possible harm to small‑scale fishers and coastal communities.
Arguments from the Applicants
- Missing paperwork: The applicants’ lawyer said the Director General issued the environmental permit without having all required assessments and documents.
- Risk to marine life: Courts have already recognized that the high‑intensity acoustic pulses used in seismic surveys pose a “real risk” to fish and other sea creatures, which can hurt the livelihoods of people who depend on fishing.
- Cumulative effects: The noise from repeated blasts can travel farther and last longer than the environmental reports suggested, potentially damaging ecosystems over months.
- Government accountability: The case aims to push officials to make decisions based on full, transparent evidence and to treat the ocean as a public trust, not just a private profit opportunity.
Government’s Response
- The defendants say the Environmental Management Program (EMPro) is flexible but must still be followed to avoid serious harm.
- They stress that seismic surveying is non‑invasive: sound waves are sent into the water, but nothing is drilled or removed from the seabed.
- Exploratory drilling, which actually penetrates the seabed, is a different activity with a larger ecological footprint.
- The respondents also pointed out that an Environmental Control Officer must regularly assess any changes to the EMPro and include those findings in monthly audit reports, backed by public consultation evidence.
What the Court Said
Justice Judith Cloete highlighted that the Environmental Control Officer’s risk assessment must be part of the monthly audit reports and supported by evidence of public consultation. This underscores the court’s focus on whether proper procedures were followed before granting permission.
Why It Matters
- Livelihoods: Many coastal communities rely on fishing for income and cultural practices; disturbances could threaten their way of life.
- Environmental protection: The ocean is a shared resource; safeguarding it helps preserve biodiversity for future generations.
- Good governance: The case tests whether government decisions are based on complete, accurate information and whether they respect legal requirements for public participation and environmental review.
Conclusion
The Western Cape High Court is weighing whether the government did its homework before allowing offshore seismic surveys. If the court finds that key information was ignored or that proper procedures weren’t followed, it could halt or cancel the surveys, reinforcing the idea that natural resources belong to everyone and must be managed responsibly. The outcome will not only affect the companies involved but also set a precedent for how South Africa balances development with the protection of its oceans and the people who depend on them.
