Search Climate Insights Directory

In June 2024, a group of communities and environmental organizations filed petitions with the Constitutional Court of South Africa to appeal a Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) order that permits Shell to perform seismic testing on the Wild Coast.

The document provides a comprehensive framework for small-scale fishing communities in South Africa to exercise their environmental rights against industrial developments. It details the legal landscape, including the Constitution and the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA), and explains the processes for Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) and public participation. The guide highlights the risks associated with oil and gas exploration, mining, and power ships, while emphasizing the impacts of climate change on coastal livelihoods. It concludes with practical steps for legal challenges and accessing information via PAIA requests, illustrated by case studies involving Shell and Searcher.

The document provides a comprehensive guide for small-scale fishers in South Africa to exercise their environmental rights. It details the legal protections offered by the Constitution and acts like NEMA and MPRDA, explains the risks associated with oil and gas exploration, mining, and energy projects, and provides practical steps for engaging in Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) and legislative processes to ensure community voices are heard in ocean governance.

The document details the risks of offshore oil and gas exploration, focusing on the ecological damage caused by seismic surveys and exploratory drilling, the resulting threats to coastal livelihoods and Indigenous rights, and the broader implications for global climate regulation.

The Wild Coast community and civil society organisations, including Natural Justice and Greenpeace Africa, are challenging an SCA order in the Constitutional Court. They argue that the order allowing Shell to seek a decision on renewing its exploration rights is unfair and fails to protect human rights, cultural beliefs, and the environment. The challenge seeks to ensure that any exploration is subject to proper environmental permission and meaningful consultation with local residents.

The report examines oil exploration by Shell South Africa off the Wild Coast, highlighting a legal interdict against seismic blasting due to inadequate environmental authorisation under NEMA and poor community consultation. It identifies legislative discrepancies between the MPRDA and NEMA and calls for strengthened governance, transparency, and better alignment of regulatory frameworks to manage natural resources.

The report examines the legal and social conflicts surrounding Shell South Africa's attempt to conduct seismic surveys off the Wild Coast. It identifies critical gaps between the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA) and the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA), arguing that the 'One Environmental System' created regulatory obscurity. Fieldwork reveals that Shell's consultation process was inadequate, relying on a top-down approach via traditional leaders while excluding fishing communities and ignoring indigenous customs. The document also highlights potential conflicts of interest between the ruling ANC party, its investment arm Thebe Investment Corporation, and Shell, noting that the Makhanda High Court ultimately ruled the exploration right unlawful due to a lack of meaningful consultation.

The document details two court cases aimed at halting Shell's seismic surveys off South Africa's Wild Coast. While one urgent interdict was dismissed, another was granted on 28 December 2021, based on potential harm to the constitutional, spiritual, and cultural rights of local communities. The applicants argue that Shell lacked necessary environmental authorizations under the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA), failed to properly consult stakeholders, and ignored climate change impacts. They seek to set aside the exploration rights granted to Impact Africa and Shell, and to establish a legal precedent that an Environmental Management Programme (EMPr) under the MPRDA is not a substitute for a NEMA environmental authorization.

The document provides a legal primer on the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA) and details four community-led legal battles in South Africa to protect land rights and ensure transparency in mining operations.

This document is a compilation of legal summons, news articles, emails, and personal essays centered on a long-running conflict between the Amadiba community on South Africa's Wild Coast and the Australian mining company Mineral Commodities Limited (MRC). The materials detail allegations of human rights abuses, fraudulent attempts to secure mining rights for titanium deposits at Xolobeni, and the 2016 assassination of anti-mining activist Sikhosiphi 'Bazooka' Rhadebe.

The AmaDiba Crisis Committee (ACC) successfully appealed a mining right granted to Transworld Energy and Minerals Resources (TEM) for titanium-bearing minerals in the Xolobeni area. While the Minister of Mineral Resources withdrew the right on 6 June 2011 due to outstanding environmental issues, the decision is considered interim as TEM may still address these concerns. The ACC's appeal highlighted several critical failures, including the location of the project within a Marine Protected Area, the lack of a community resolution, and a flawed public consultation process. The three-year delay in the Minister's decision caused significant prejudice to the community, hindering an existing eco-tourism project and creating internal social conflict.

This factsheet details legal challenges brought against Shell Exploration and Production SA and the South African government to stop seismic surveys off the Wild Coast. It outlines two primary court cases: one unsuccessful urgent interdict by environmental and angling groups, and a successful interdict by local communities. The document summarizes the applicants' arguments regarding the lack of environmental authorization, inadequate consultation, and the failure to consider climate change and cultural rights, while explaining the potential legal precedents a victory would establish for future seismic testing in South Africa.

Coastal communities and environmental organisations are appealing to the Constitutional Court of South Africa to set aside a Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) order that allows the Minister to decide on Shell's latest renewal application for exploration rights. The appellants argue the SCA order is not "just and equitable" because it permits Shell to rectify a failed consultation process from over a decade ago and fails to protect community livelihoods, cultural rights, and the right to a healthy environment. The Constitutional Court hearing is scheduled for 16 and 17 September 2025.