KM_C654e-20210623174848

The Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE) of South Africa has refused an application for Environmental Authorisation submitted by Karpowership SA (Pty) Ltd for a 540MW Gas to Power Powership Project at the Port of Richards Bay. The refusal is based on significant failures in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process, including inadequate public participation, contradictory specialist reports, and critical gaps in assessing impacts on marine and avian biodiversity.

• The Competent Authority refused the application for Environmental Authorisation for the 540MW Gas to Power Powership Project at the Port of Richards Bay because the EIA process was compromised and the information provided was insufficient to make an informed decision.
• The public participation process was found to be inadequate, specifically failing to involve tribal authorities, communities, informal settlers, and small-scale fishing communities. Additionally, the draft Environmental Impact Assessment Report (EIAr) was available for public review for less than the legislated 30 days.
• The EIA process contained significant technical gaps, most notably the absence of an Underwater Noise Impact Assessment. This omission meant that impacts on an endangered population of Indian Ocean Humpback Dolphins (Sousa plumbea) and other marine species, such as sharks, turtles, and fish, were not considered.
• There were critical contradictions and omissions regarding avifauna impacts. A peer review of the original Avifaunal Assessment disagreed with the specialist's opinion that the project should proceed, noting that the original study failed to account for South Africa's obligations under the Bonn Convention and the African Eurasian Waterbird Agreement (AEWA).
• The project's noise assessment was deemed insufficient as it only quantified above-ground noise for human receptors and ignored the impact of noise between 50 and 70 dBA on non-human receptors within the Richards Bay Nature Reserve, potentially causing species displacement.
• The applicant failed to provide a clear and specific list of all applicable listed activities, leading to uncertainty in the final EIAr and amended application form regarding the requirement for environmental authorisation.

APA

Centre for Environmental Rights (n.d.). KM_C654e-20210623174848. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/DFFE-Karpowership-Richards-Bay-EA-refusal-23.06.2021.pdf?x21779

Chicago

Centre for Environmental Rights. KM_C654e-20210623174848. n.d. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/DFFE-Karpowership-Richards-Bay-EA-refusal-23.06.2021.pdf?x21779.

Wikipedia

{{cite press release |author=Centre for Environmental Rights |title=KM_C654e-20210623174848 |url=https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/DFFE-Karpowership-Richards-Bay-EA-refusal-23.06.2021.pdf?x21779 |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@misc{centreforenvironmentalrightsndkmc654e20210623174848, author = {{Centre for Environmental Rights}}, title = {{KM\_C654e-20210623174848}}, publisher = {Centre for Environmental Rights}, url = {https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/DFFE-Karpowership-Richards-Bay-EA-refusal-23.06.2021.pdf?x21779}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }