00206BF55FFC220803103732

This document is an appeal decision by the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment of South Africa regarding the refusal of an Environmental Authorisation (EA) for Karpowership SA (Pty) Ltd's proposed Gas-to-Power via Powership Project at the Port of Richards Bay. The Minister remits the matter back to the Competent Authority (CA) to address material gaps in information and procedural defects in the public participation process.

• The proposed project involves generating electricity from two floating mobile powerships with a combined design capacity of 540MW, supported by a Floating Storage Regasification Unit (FSRU) and a subsea gas pipeline of approximately 1700 meters, all located within the Port of Richards Bay.
• The Competent Authority (CA) originally refused the EA application on 23 June 2021, citing that minimum public participation requirements were not met and that environmental and socio-economic impacts, particularly regarding small-scale fisheries and underwater noise, could not be properly evaluated.
• The Minister dismissed the appeal ground regarding the project's Strategic Integrated Project (SIP) status, ruling that being a SIP does not override the requirement to comply with environmental legislation or the need for a comprehensive EIA.
• The decision identifies significant deficiencies in the underwater noise assessments, noting that the use of data from a project in Ghana was insufficient for the specific conditions of the Port of Richards Bay.
• The Minister found that the project's Climate Change Impact Assessment (CCIA) was inadequate, as it focused primarily on GHG emissions and failed to assess the impacts of climate change on the project itself or the loss of carbon-sequestering natural resources like mangroves.
• The project is estimated to release approximately 17 million tCO2e of greenhouse gas emissions over its 20-year operational lifetime, which represents about 0.82% of South Africa's carbon budget.
• The Minister concluded that the Environmental Assessment Practitioner (EAP) failed to follow regulation 23(1)(b) of the 2014 EIA Regulations by introducing significant new information into the Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report (FEIAr) without subjecting it to a further 30-day public participation process.
• The decision highlights risks to sensitive ecological areas, including the Kabeljou Flats and the sandspit, noting that the FSRU would be moored only 200 meters from the sensitive sandspit.

APA

Centre for Environmental Rights (n.d.). 00206BF55FFC220803103732. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/LSA-207022-Appeal-Decision.pdf?x21779

Chicago

Centre for Environmental Rights. 00206BF55FFC220803103732. n.d. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/LSA-207022-Appeal-Decision.pdf?x21779.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Centre for Environmental Rights |title=00206BF55FFC220803103732 |url=https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/LSA-207022-Appeal-Decision.pdf?x21779 |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{centreforenvironmentalrightsnd00206bf55ffc220803103732, author = {{Centre for Environmental Rights}}, title = {{00206BF55FFC220803103732}}, institution = {Centre for Environmental Rights}, url = {https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/LSA-207022-Appeal-Decision.pdf?x21779}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }