Aukotowa Fisheries and Partners Challenge Environmental Authorisation for Offshore 3D Seismic Survey

Aukotowa Fisheries Primary Cooperative, The Green Connection and Natural Justice are leading the legal challenge against the State and TGS Geophysical Company UK Ltd.

Serving the public interest

According to The Green Connection's outreach ambassador, Neville van Rooy, “A key issue was whether decision-makers had access to, and properly considered, all relevant information before approving the project.

“Given its potential consequences for marine ecosystems and coastal livelihoods, this case is not only about compliance – it is about transparent and lawful decisions that genuinely serve the public interest.”

The case concerns the environmental authorisation – granted by the Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources (DMPR) and, on appeal, confirmed by the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment – for a large-scale offshore 3D seismic survey off South Africa's West Coast to search for oil and gas deposits.

The small-scale fishers and civil society organisations approached the courts to seek a review of these decisions.

The applicants contend that several critical issues were not adequately assessed before environmental authorisation was granted, including the risks posed by seismic blasting – high-intensity sound pulses used to map the seabed for potential oil and gas deposits – to marine species and the ecosystems on which coastal communities depend.

“The need and desirability assessment for the project focuses largely on the projected economic benefits of the project.

“However, what is missing is a fair assessment of the potential costs, risks and consequences for coastal communities, marine ecosystems and future generations of the oil and gas value chain, which starts with seismic surveys.

“It is reckless not to consider the full picture. It's like deciding to buy a house because of the view or the size, without checking whether the roof leaks, whether the area floods in winter, or what the monthly costs will be.

“Responsible decision-making seeks to weigh the potential benefits against long-term risks and consequences,” adds Van Rooy.

“We therefore hope the court, just like in the Searcher Geodata case, recognises that important environmental and social impacts were not adequately considered before authorisation was granted,” he says.

Justified?

The case also focused on whether “need and desirability” were properly assessed.

This means thoroughly checking to ensure the project is needed, environmentally responsible and socio-economically justified.

The environmental organisations believe that the project's approval raises broader concerns about how energy decisions are being made.

“This case also highlights another question that lies at the heart of this case, and the other legal challenges we have brought: how can South Africa claim to be committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions under the Paris Agreement when approximately 90% of its ocean territory is under lease for offshore oil and gas exploration?

“Oil and gas exploration cannot be considered in isolation.

“Decision-makers should assess full lifecycle impacts – including environmental, social and climate consequences – rather than focusing narrowly on speculative economic benefits,” says Van Rooy.

The organisations previously challenged the government’s approval of TotalEnergies’ Block 5/6/7 offshore drilling plans.

The Western Cape High Court overturned the approval, ruling that the environmental impact assessment (EIA) failed to address key risks, legal requirements, and public participation.