JOHANNESBURG – In a case of struggle between South African rural communities against energy giant Shell Global, a judicial panel ordered a halt this week to the company’s plans to explore a new road. pristine coastline for oil and gas, says residents have not been properly advised about the project.
In revoking the right to explore the seabed of South Africa’s Wild Coast, a panel of three judges sided with rural communities, fishermen, traditional healers and environmental activists. against the company and the South African government.
The ruling, delivered Thursday in a court in South Africa’s Eastern Cape province, removes exploration rights that the South African Department of Mineral Resources and Energy had granted to Shell and a local partner, Impact. Africa, in 2014, as well as the government’s decision. to extend those rights in the face of opposition from coastal people.
Although the court’s ruling can be appealed, it is uncertain whether Shell or the government will enthusiastically fight it. Shell said it was reviewing the court’s decision, but had previously backed out of projects as public outcry and regulatory hurdles raised financial and political costs.
However, even if Shell should give up, analysts say the court’s ruling does not prevent another company from gaining the right to find potential customers.
However, the ruling represents a rare victory for environmental interests in a country that imports most of its oil and has long advocated for environmental development.
South Africa’s wild coast is a string of unspoiled beaches, where forests roll down into the crystalline waters of the Indian Ocean. While fishing and farming villages dot the coast, the area is also a popular tourist destination, a place where cows are known to share beaches with sunbathers. and swimming.
Local residents were alarmed last year when Shell announced plans to conduct a seismic survey, which uses sound waves to search for oil and gas fields that geologists suspect lie hidden. the bottom of the Indian Ocean. They got together and, with the support of lawyers and environmental activists, filed a lawsuit, saying the government failed to take into account public concerns before granting exploration rights.
The Judiciary Committee concurred, saying the process also did not properly inform people living along the coast. Communities said they first heard of Shell’s plans 30 days before the seismic activity began. An announcement in English and Afrikaans did not reach the remote villages, where isiXhosa is the primary language in any case.
Johan Lorenzen, one of the attorneys representing the community, said: “The heart of the case is whether they have a right to advice. “It was not originally an anti-oil ruling.”
Mr. Lorenzen said that because the ruling only applies to a process carried out by Shell, another energy company could buy exploration rights and start surveying, if that company followed the correct procedures in community consultation.
However, by positioning the community as environmental custodians, the ruling could set a precedent for opposing nearly 150 oil and gas surveys around Africa’s coasts, said Thandile Chinyavanhu, an activist of Greenpeace Africa said.
Nontsindiso Nongcavu, a fisherman who joined the lawsuit as a plaintiff, agrees that the ruling gives the community a necessary weapon to fight for their land. “Our government leaves us nowhere,” said the 42-year-old, who supports a family of several generations of rock lobster traps.
In December, Greenpeace was among several groups that tried to stop seismic surveys on the grounds that it was a threat to marine and coastal life, but a judge ruled that its mitigations Shell will suffice to mitigate the harm.
South Africa is Africa’s largest consumer of oil and petroleum products, but has limited oil reserves and is heavily dependent on oil imports, especially from the Middle East. Nearly all of its proven reserves are offshore.
Amid the energy crisis, the South African government has embraced fossil fuel development as a solution, despite the country’s commitment to green energy. Energy and mineral resources minister, Gwede Mantashe, a strong voice in the running African National Congress, has defended South Africa’s exploration for fossil fuels. Last year, Mr. Mantashe described environmental groups as “racism and colonialism of a particular kind, masquerading as a great concern for environmental protection”.
South Africa’s Department of Forestry, Fisheries and Environment has previously played a much more muted role, including a slow response to the sanctioning of the national electricity supplier, Eskombecause of its polluting coal-fired power plants.
A spokeswoman for the Ministry of Mineral Resources and Energy, Natie Shabangu, said the government would study the ruling and explore the possibility of debt collection.
The court’s decision comes at a time when Shell is starting to withdraw from oil, as it efforts to pivot to cleaner energy. It has set a net zero emissions target by 2050 and aims to reduce oil production by 2% per year by 2030 through divestment and reduced investment in exploration and production. When Shell initially received exploration rights to begin seismic operations in 2014, it was a time when the company was looking to expand production.
Since then, the Dutch court’s ruling in May 2021 order the company to cut greenhouse gas emissions 45% increase in 2030 from 2019 levels, and the company has filed an appeal.
Even if Shell abandons its seismic plans, voluntarily or by force, that may not stop other oil companies from exploring offshore.
“Shell and other companies must optimize their portfolios for low-carbon and low-risk assets,” said David Goldwyn, a top energy official in the Obama-era State Department. “If South Africa is no longer low risk, Shell will be inclined to move elsewhere.”
Lynsey Chutel reported from Johannesburg, and Clifford Krauss from Houston.
