New regulations to protect African penguins as government tightens offshore fuel transfer rules
In a move hailed as a critical victory for South Africa's endangered African Penguin, the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment, Dr Dion George, has signed off on a new draft of environmental regulations that tighten control over offshore ship-to-ship fuel transfers.
'These draft regulations are a strong step towards protecting marine life,' the Department said in a statement. 'They strike a balance between safeguarding the environment and maintaining the economic value of the maritime industry,' the department said.
The new regulations apply to all offshore ship-to-ship transfers including bunkering and are issued under section 83(1) of the National Environmental Management: Integrated Coastal Management Act.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The South African
a day ago
- The South African
KZN Education Department targets ghost employees
The crisis-plagued KwaZulu-Natal Department of Education has launched a rigorous sweeping verification process aimed at exposing and eliminating ghost employees, individuals who have continued to draw full salaries despite no longer working for the department. This comes amid mounting financial strain, partly due to ghost workers and salary mismanagement, which contributed to KZN overspending its budget by R158.6 million in the 2024-2025 financial year. Ghost employees include teachers who have resigned, been dismissed, or even passed away, yet still appear on payroll systems and receive monthly payments. 'The KwaZulu-Natal Department of Education will be embarking on a rigorous employee verification process to ensure that the correct number of employees are legitimately receiving remuneration through the Department's persal systems,' the department said in a statement on Tuesday, 19 August 2025. 'This process has been necessitated by instances where delays in the administrative termination of employees—due to retirement, resignation, or death—have resulted in continued salary payments long after the individuals have exited the Department.' Amid these discrepancies, the department said it engaged the Provincial Treasury, led by MEC Francois Rodgers, to assist with the necessary IT infrastructure to facilitate 'this large-scale verification exercise and to ensure the quality and integrity of the process'. Education MEC Sipho Hlomuka said: 'We are confident that the verification process will enhance transparency, accountability, and good governance.' He also called for the full cooperation of all department employees to ensure the success of the initiative. Details on the verification process are sketchy. However, the department said they will be communicated in due course. Hlomuka has come under heavy scrutiny after allegations that he allegedly interfered in the R2.9 billion National School Nutrition programme bidding process. Hlomuka was accused of favouring a company he helped start in 2017 to benefit from the nutrition tender process. He summarily refuted all the allegations against him. These damning allegations prompted the KwaZulu-Natal Premier, Thamsanqa Ntuli, to demand written explanations from him and his counterpart, MEC for Health Nomagugu Simelane. Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 11. Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp, Facebook, X and Bluesky for the latest news
Mail & Guardian
6 days ago
- Mail & Guardian
High court victory for coastal communities against TotalEnergies, Shell over offshore drilling
The high court in the Western Cape has set aside the government's approval of the environmental authorisation for TotalEnergies EP South Africa to drill for oil and gas in offshore areas known as Block 5/6/7 along the country's south-west coast. The high court in the Western Cape has set aside the government's approval of the environmental authorisation for TotalEnergies EP South Africa The court has sent the matter back to the department of minerals and petroleum to make a fresh decision, following further studies, the addition of further information and public participation. While the authorisation was initially granted to TotalEnergies, the company intends to transfer the environmental authorisation to Shell to conduct the drilling. Wednesday's In addition to setting aside the environmental authorisation, the court ordered that a fresh decision be made. Before any approval can be reconsidered, Total — or Shell — must submit new or amended assessments. These must fully examine the socio-economic impacts of a well blowout on coastal communities; the project's full life-cycle climate impacts; all factors required under the The bulk of the applicants review grounds were premised on the final environmental impact assessment report failing to meet the standards imposed by the Specifically, they contended that the decisions to grant the environmental authorisation were unlawful and irrational in six respects. Among these were that the final environmental impact assessment report failed to properly assess — and the state respondents failed to consider — the socio-economic effects of the proposed project, 'which a well blowout and consequent oil spill will have on the fishing industry and small-scale fishers'. The applicants argued that the state respondents failed to consider the factors prescribed by the Integrated Coastal Management Act and failed to properly assess and consider the need and desirability of the proposed project in relation to the climate change impacts, 'which will be caused by burning any gas discovered by the proposed project'. The state respondents failed to assess and consider the transboundary effects of the proposed project both on Namibia and on international waters. Neither the final environmental impact assessment report, nor the environmental management programme report, included Total's oil spill or blowout contingency plans, they argued. The respondents were the ministers of environment and energy, the director-general of the department of mineral resources and energy, TotalEnergies EP South Africa Block 567 and Shell Exploration & Production South Africa. In its judgment, the court found that the environmental impact assessment failed to fully examine the consequences of a major oil spill on local and neighbouring coastal communities, ignored coastal protection laws and omitted critical climate and fairness considerations, said Shahil Singh, the legal adviser to the Green Connection. 'A critical omission, the oil spill and blowout contingency plans were withheld from the public until after approval, denying communities the chance to comment on emergency preparedness,' Singh said. 'Total and Shell will now need to undertake additional studies, make these plans publicly available and properly assess both coastal and cross-border risks before any decision is taken.' The court found that the lack of oil spill and blowout contingency plans meant that there had not been a full assessment and description of the manner in which Total intended to respond to pollution or environmental degradation, as required by the National Environment Management Act. The court found it even more problematic that there was no public participation in relation to the response plans. Singh termed the court victory a significant win for transparency, precaution and for the rights of coastal communities and small-scale fishers who refuse to be sidelined in decisions that affect their livelihoods and the future of our oceans. While the project's final environmental impact assessment report admitted that an oil spill or blowout could cause serious damage to the coastal environment, it did not assess the full economic and social impacts on the small-scale fishers and coastal communities who depend on these waters for food and income. To the extent that there were or are limitations in conducting such assessments, Total was compelled to adopt a cautious approach and take protective and preventive measures before the anticipated harm of an oil spill or blowout materialised. 'Once the final environmental impact assessment report identified the potential blow out and oil spill as potentially significant impact or risk, it was obliged to assess the consequences and the probability of the impact or risk, including those with a low degree of probability of a blowout or oil spill,' the judgment read. That is in light of the risk-averse and cautious approach espoused by the National Environment Management Act and the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act, in terms of which the limitation on present knowledge about the consequences of an environmental decision must be taken into account. 'The precautionary approach entails that where there is a threat of serious or irreversible damage to a resource, the lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation. 'It means that, where there exists evidence of possible environmental harm, such as a possible blow-out or oil spill as the final environmental impact assessment report accepts, a cautious approach should be adopted, and if necessary decision-makers may compel the party to take protective and preventive measures before the anticipated harm materialises.' Scientific spill modelling for the project showed that oil from a disaster could reach the waters and shores of Namibia. International law, and South Africa's own laws, require that the impacts on neighbouring countries should be considered, and that there was an obligation for the environmental impact assessment to consider the harms caused by transboundary impacts, and for this to be considered by the decision-makers. The court found they did not. According to the judgment, at the very least, it has been established that there is a risk of oil spill and a blowout occurring, and a risk of the oil reaching Namibian waters and the Namibian shoreline. The approach adopted by the respondents, to the effect that the National Environment Management Act and the environmental impact assessment regulations do not require environmental impact assessment to assess and predict transboundary harm is 'inconsistent with the customary international law and international law obligations. 'It is also contrary to the [ National Environment Management Act] principles and Integrated Coastal Management Act, which recognise the need to discharge global and international responsibilities,' the court found. The court confirmed that the assessment of climate change impacts should form part of this assessment. 'While it is correct that the specific activity for which the environmental authorisation in this case is granted is exploration and not production, and that the former process will not always result in the latter process, the two processes are intertwined,' the judgment noted. There would be no point in conducting an exploration activity unless an entity hoped to proceed to the next phase of production. 'And it is not speculation to conclude that by the time such an entity applies for authorisation to conduct the next phase, it is armed with information that places it at an advantage to proceed to the next phase.' Climate change is relevant to both exploration and production activities. 'It makes no sense to rely on the positive consequences of the production stage for purposes of considering an application at the exploration stage, only to resist considering the negative consequences of the production stage when it comes to consideration of climate change.' The judgment is 'a victory in the growing opposition to oil and gas exploration in our country', said Melissa Groenink-Groves, the defending rights programme manager at Natural Justice. 'Recently, a number of oil and gas projects have been given environmental authorisation but this judgment again confirms that companies must follow due process, undertake comprehensive assessments and provide communities with an opportunity to have their voices heard, in respect of all relevant information. 'It confirms that our fight for our environmental rights is strong and that we must continue for the future for our children,' she said. Lesai Seema, director at Cullinan & Associates, which represented the applicants, said the judgment makes it clear that the granting of environmental authorisation for offshore oil and gas exploitation will be unlawful if the decision-maker does not carefully consider a range of factors necessary to 'safeguard the long-term collective interests of people and other living organisms who depend on the coastal and marine environment'.
Daily Maverick
12-08-2025
- Daily Maverick
Activists raise concerns as nuclear site close to Cape Town given go-ahead
South Africa is one step closer to a second nuclear power station after Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment Minister Dion George last week upheld a contested, almost decade-old environmental authorisation. South Africa's long-running bid to expand its nuclear power capacity has cleared a key and contentious hurdle. Environment Minister Dion George has upheld an environmental authorisation allowing Eskom to develop a new 4,000MW nuclear power station at Duynefontein, about 35km north of Cape Town. The decision affirms a 2017 approval that had been under appeal for years. It paves the way for Eskom to pursue a nuclear build at the roughly 265-hectare site. That, however, does not mean shovels will hit the ground any time soon. 'In the end, my decision was made in respect of the principles of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998), and with full appreciation of the environmental, social and economic considerations involved,' said George. He said that the granting of an environmental authorisation 'does not exempt an applicant from complying with any other applicable legal requirements or obtaining permits from other competent authorities'. The news is one step forward after a previous step back on the contested journey towards new nuclear capacity. Daily Maverick previously reported that at the end of 2023, Minister of Energy and Electricity Kgosientsho Ramokgopa announced that all the 'suspensive conditions' to start procuring 2,500MW of new nuclear power immediately had been met. Months later, in August 2024, Ramokgopa announced that he would withdraw that gazette to procure new nuclear power capacity in response to the 'substantive' legal challenges posed by the Southern African Faith Communities' Environment Institute and Earthlife Africa Johannesburg — and that is where things have stood until George's announcement last week. Government and industry proponents have hailed the move as a milestone. The South African Nuclear Energy Corporation (Necsa), in a statement, said it reflected confidence in nuclear technology as a contributor to the country's energy mix. Necsa CEO Loyiso Tyabashe added that 'this approval marks an important milestone for the nuclear industry and South Africa's journey towards implementing a balanced energy mix that enables socioeconomic development and is climate friendly. The minister's decision shows rigour of the process that was followed to choose an appropriate site for nuclear new build and reflects confidence in nuclear technology as a safe, clean and reliable energy solution.' While the environmental approval is a prerequisite, Eskom still faces a gauntlet of steps before any concrete is poured. These include securing licences, obtaining design and construction approvals, sourcing financing for what is likely to be a multihundred-billion-rand project, and government sign-off on procurement. This drawn-out pathway is not just procedural. South Africa's last major nuclear procurement drive under former president Jacob Zuma collapsed amid allegations of secrecy and corruption risks and procedural failures. Environmental activists, however, are not as welcoming of the news, warning that the country's financial, operational and governance challenges make a major nuclear build risky and unnecessary. The 2018 Goldman Environmental Prize winners and anti-nuclear activists, Makoma Lekalakala and Liziwe McDaid, said in a statement that 'Earthlife Africa is considering the minister's decision and our next steps. Our concerns include the length of time taken to conduct the environmental impact assessment and to make the appeal decision. 'We are also deeply concerned about the affordability of nuclear power, particularly the high upfront capital costs, the risk of construction delays, and the cost overruns that have been experienced worldwide. 'In addition, there has been no assessment of the socioeconomic impacts of a major beyond-design-basis nuclear incident, nor of the generation of long-lived high-level radioactive waste for which no final disposal solution yet exists.' Peter Becker, a former board member of the National Nuclear Regulator and anti-nuclear activist, told Daily Maverick that above and beyond these concerns, South Africa had bled the requisite nuclear industry expertise to safely operate a nuclear power station. He also questioned the logic and application of timelines as they related to environmental authorisations. 'When an Environmental Assessment (EA) is issued, it has a time limit. This one had a 10-year limit. So the idea of having a 10-year expiry date on environmental authorisation is an acknowledgement that the environment might change. 'The surrounding population might change, the needs and desirability of the projects might change, and that is particularly true when it comes to such a fast-changing environment as the electricity sector where we are seeing disruptive changes. And those disruptive changes are in terms of dramatic learning curves and dropping of prices of alternative sources of energy, such as renewables, battery storage, etc, and also vast changes in demographics. 'So there's a bit of a gap in the legal system in this country in that once an EA is issued, you can appeal it, and that suspends the EA, but when does the expiry start?' Becker explained that depending on how this was interpreted legally, it could either mean Eskom would need to begin construction at the site within less than two years, or the 10-year period started only on Friday after the minister's approval. In the time since the original approval, the underlying expert information that informed that original authorisation may have significantly changed. The July 2023 Review of Environmental Impact Report and Specialist Studies commissioned for Eskom largely confirms as much. That review concluded that the 2017 Environmental Authorisation can still stand without re-assessing impacts, even though much of the underlying data and assumptions are more than 10 years old. This is significant because the review was not a technical re-evaluation. It assumed the original data and impact findings were correct, focusing instead on whether or not they were still relevant. Moreover, the review admits that the original statement that renewables 'could not provide adequate baseload' may 'no longer be correct' due to rapid renewable energy development since the Environmental Impact Assessment was finalised. This is important because it validates a key argument used by those opposed to new nuclear capacity: that the energy context has changed and might affect the rationale for new nuclear energy. DM
