{"query_echo":{"q":"","filters":{"geography":["Mokolo Catchment"]},"warnings":[{"code":"facet_value_not_in_vocabulary","message":"Value 'Mokolo Catchment' for facet 'geography' is not in the controlled vocabulary."}]},"total":{"value":2,"relation":"eq"},"page":1,"page_size":20,"self":"https://climateinsightsdirectory.org/api/v1/search?geography=Mokolo+Catchment","stability":"beta","ai_marking":{"digital_source_type":{"uri":"http://cv.iptc.org/newscodes/digitalsourcetype/trainedAlgorithmicMedia","name":"Created using Generative AI"},"notice":"Summary and key insights are generated using artificial intelligence."},"results":[{"id":"cer-001410","url":"https://climateinsightsdirectory.org/document/cer-001410","title":"SUPPLEMENTARY OBJECTIONS TO THE WATER USE LICENCE APPLICATION AND INTEGRATED WATER AND WASTE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED THABAMETSI INDEPENDENT POWER PRODUCER COAL-FIRED POWER STATION","publisher":{"name":"Centre for Environmental Rights","organization":"centre-for-environmental-rights"},"document_type":"statement","language":"en","date_published":"2018-03-05","source_url":"https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Thabametsi-IWUL-IWWMP-Objections-5-3-18.pdf?x21779","generator":"Climate Insights Directory","generated_fields":["summary","key_insights","climate_tags","geography_discussed","analysis_type"],"summary":{"text":"The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER), on behalf of Earthlife Africa Johannesburg and groundWork, submitted supplementary objections on 5 March 2018 against the Water Use Licence Application (IWULA) and Integrated Water and Waste Water Management Plan (IWWMP) for the proposed Thabametsi coal-fired power station. The objections argue that the project is unnecessary due to excess electricity capacity, poses severe risks to the water-stressed Mokolo Catchment, and fails to account for climate change impacts and toxic coal ash disposal risks.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"cer-001410#summary","date_modified":"2026-08-17"},"key_insights":[{"text":"The Thabametsi power station is proposed for the Mokolo Catchment, which is described as one of the most water-stressed catchments in South Africa. The project's water supply for phase one (630 MW) relies on the transfer of water allocations from Exxaro Coal (Pty) Ltd from the Mokolo Dam, but water demand in the catchment is predicted to exceed supply by 2019 or 2020.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"cer-001410#insight-1","date_modified":"2026-08-17"},{"text":"The project's viability depends on the Mokolo-Crocodile Water Augmentation Project Phase 2 (MCWAP2), which was originally scheduled for commissioning in 2010. The CER notes that MCWAP2 has faced significant technical, financial, and environmental risks and delays, making its completion by 2020 unlikely.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"cer-001410#insight-2","date_modified":"2026-08-17"},{"text":"Climate change is expected to significantly reduce water availability in the Mokolo and Crocodile West rivers. Analysis by Brad Udall indicates that warming between 2°C and 5°C in the 21st century will likely lead to flow declines due to higher evaporation and evapotranspiration, increasing the risk that the power station becomes a stranded asset.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"cer-001410#insight-3","date_modified":"2026-08-17"},{"text":"The proposed coal ash dump presents substantial environmental and health risks. Expert Evan Hansen found that the dump is sited on top of faults, including the Daarby Fault, which could facilitate the rapid movement of toxic leachate into groundwater. Additionally, the CER claims Thabametsi may have underestimated its coal ash production rate by half.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"cer-001410#insight-4","date_modified":"2026-08-17"},{"text":"The CER argues that the power station is unnecessary because the 2010 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) is based on outdated assumptions. Current data suggests electricity demand is lower than projected, and Eskom has an excess supply of 5600MW at peak demand, meaning new coal capacity is not required to meet national needs.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"cer-001410#insight-5","date_modified":"2026-08-17"},{"text":"The Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS) has failed to make required reserve determinations for the Limpopo Water Management Area (LWMA) North. Implementing the ecological reserve—the minimum water needed to protect aquatic ecosystems—would reportedly reduce the yield of the Mokolo Dam by 57%.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"cer-001410#insight-6","date_modified":"2026-08-17"}],"climate_tags":["energy transition","coal-fired power","water scarcity","climate change adaptation","stranded assets"],"geography_discussed":["Limpopo Water Management Area North","Lephalale","Crocodile West River"],"frame_perspective":[],"analysis_type":["legal objection","environmental impact assessment review"]},{"id":"cer-000094","url":"https://climateinsightsdirectory.org/document/cer-000094","title":"THE DEVELOPMENT BANK OF SOUTHERN AFRICA’S ROLE IN THE FINANCING OF THE PROPOSED THABAMETSI COAL-FIRED POWER PLANT","publisher":{"name":"Centre for Environmental Rights","organization":"centre-for-environmental-rights"},"document_type":"statement","language":"en","date_published":"2017-09-06","source_url":"https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/170906-CER-to-DBSA-Thabametsi.pdf?x21779","generator":"Climate Insights Directory","generated_fields":["summary","key_insights","climate_tags","geography_discussed","analysis_type"],"summary":{"text":"The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) has challenged the Development Bank of Southern Africa's (DBSA) financing of the Thabametsi coal-fired power plant. The CER highlights a March 2017 North Gauteng High Court ruling that suspended the project's environmental authorisation because climate change impacts were not adequately considered. The CER notes that Thabametsi's own assessments indicate it would be one of South Africa's highest greenhouse gas emitters and faces high water availability risks. The document argues that financing new coal projects contradicts the DBSA's stated goals of supporting a low-carbon economy and its status as a UN Green Climate Fund entity, warning that the plant is likely to become a stranded asset given South Africa's commitments under the Paris Agreement.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"cer-000094#summary","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},"key_insights":[{"text":"The North Gauteng High Court ruled on 8 March 2017 that the environmental authorisation for the Thabametsi power station was granted without properly researching climate change impacts for the specific area and South Africa generally.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"cer-000094#insight-1","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"Thabametsi's own climate change impact assessment indicates the project would be among the highest greenhouse gas emitters in South Africa, with an emission intensity approximately 60% higher than the Medupi and Kusile plants, and faces high risks regarding water availability in the Mokolo catchment.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"cer-000094#insight-2","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"The CER argues that the Thabametsi plant faces a high risk of becoming a stranded asset because its proposed 40-year lifespan, starting in 2021, conflicts with South Africa's Nationally Determined Contribution to peak emissions between 2020-2025 and decline from 2035.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"cer-000094#insight-3","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"Financing the Thabametsi project is presented as a contradiction of the DBSA's legal mandate for sustainable development, its 2015/2016 commitments to a low-carbon economy, and its accreditation as a United Nations Green Climate Fund entity.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"cer-000094#insight-4","date_modified":"2026-10-23"}],"climate_tags":["coal-fired power station","greenhouse gas emissions","climate finance","stranded asset","Paris Agreement","Nationally Determined Contributions","environmental impact assessment","low-carbon economy","water scarcity","climate change litigation","Green Climate Fund"],"geography_discussed":["Mokolo catchment"],"frame_perspective":[],"analysis_type":["policy analysis","legal challenge"]}]}