Connect with us

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

The South African High Court concludes hearing a landmark case challenging TotalEnergies’ Deep-Water Drilling project and offers to deliver its ruling on notice.

Published

on

The South Durban Community Environmental Alliance (SDCEA) stand in solidarity with small‑scale coastal fishing communities on the West Coast as they challenge TotalEnergies SA’s Deep‑Water Orange Basin drilling approval in the Cape Town High Court.

By the Witness Radio team.

Cape Town, South Africa- The Western Cape High Court has concluded a two-day hearing in a landmark environmental justice case challenging the approval of ultra-deep-water oil and gas exploration by TotalEnergies in the Deep Western Orange Basin (DWOB), off South Africa’s West Coast.

The case, brought by environmental organizations including The Green Connection and Natural Justice, alongside the Aukotowa Primary Fishing Co-operative, challenges the legality of the environmental authorization granted by the Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources.

The applicants argue that the decision was unlawful, irrational, and inconsistent with South Africa’s constitution and environmental laws, particularly in its evaluation of the environmental, climate, and socio-economic risks of the proposed exploration.

The Director General, Department of Mineral & Petroleum Resources, the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries & the Environment, and Total Energies EP South Africa S.A.S are the respondents in the case, which has sparked debate on environmental concerns likely to be caused by the project.

Neville van Rooy, the outreach ambassador for The Green Connection, told the Court that the project introduces unprecedented risks.

“The DWOB presents conditions unlike anything South Africa has ever faced – both in water depth and technical complexity. Neville van Rooy emphasized that the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) did not adequately address these unprecedented risks, which could have serious environmental consequences.”

The case dates back to 23 October 2023, when the Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources granted environmental authorization, and appeals were dismissed on 24 April 2024, highlighting the ongoing legal process.

In October 2024, the applicants filed a case in the Western Cape High Court challenging the environmental authorization. They are also seeking to have both the Director-General’s decision and the Minister’s dismissal of their appeal reviewed and set aside.

The nearly 100 small-scale fishers and community members protested outside the Western Cape High Court, voicing concerns about marine ecosystems and the threat to local livelihoods posed by the project.

The demonstrators highlighted threats to marine ecosystems, declining fish stocks, and the livelihoods of coastal communities already facing the growing impacts of climate change.

“The State failed to meaningfully assess how this project will affect our livelihoods, food security, cultural heritage, and constitutional rights – effectively prioritising corporate interests over vulnerable fishing communities. We have the right to be heard and the right to a healthy environment. But the approval process ignored our lived realities and the warnings we have repeatedly raised.”  Walter Steenkamp, the chairperson of Aukotowa Fisheries, a small-scale fishing cooperative in Port Nolloth, revealed.

The applicants argued that the government failed to assess the project’s need and desirability properly, downplayed the risks of ultra-deep drilling, ignored the socio-economic impacts on coastal communities, and overlooked obligations under the Integrated Coastal Management Act. They also maintain that the project conflicts with South Africa’s net-zero commitments and that the narrative of gas as a ‘bridge fuel’ is unsupported by science.

“Decision-makers disregarded key environmental laws, particularly the Integrated Coastal Management Act (ICMA). The public trustee duty requires the State to safeguard coastal public property for current and future generations. Both the Director-General and the Minister failed to apply mandatory criteria on coastal public property, public interest, and intergenerational justice, rendering their decisions unlawful.” Melissa Groenink-Groves, Programme Manager of the Defending Rights Programme at Natural Justice, emphasized.

Further, Steenkamp criticized the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for downplaying the risks associated with drilling at depths greater than 2,000 metres below sea level.

“Without robust, site-specific scientific evidence and a Blow-out Contingency Plan tested in South African waters, approving this project violates the precautionary principle, which requires decision-makers to act with heightened caution where activities pose the risk of serious or irreversible harm.”

In response, the government of South Africa and TotalEnergies defended the approval, arguing that the process complied with national laws, including the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA).

On the issue of “need and desirability,” the respondents submitted that the project’s value lies in the knowledge to be gained through exploration, which is critical for informing future energy planning and resource management. They insisted that it would be premature and legally inappropriate to assess the impacts of production at this stage.

Addressing concerns about oil spill risks and socio-economic impacts, the respondents pointed to several technical studies—including the Oil Spill Modelling Report, Fisheries Impact Assessment, and Socio-Economic Impact Assessment respondents argued that the decision-makers relied on credible global datasets to assess the socio-economic impacts on small-scale fishers in the final ESIA, which presented a full evaluation of the potential consequences in a range of scenarios, including the socio-economic impact of an oil spill on small-scale fishers.

Regarding compliance with coastal protection laws, government lawyers argued that the principles outlined in the Integrated Coastal Management Act were substantively addressed within the broader ESIA process.

The respondents further argued that the applicants had failed to establish sufficient legal grounds to challenge the decisions, urging the Court to dismiss the case and order the applicants to cover legal costs.

This case is part of a broader wave of resistance by communities opposing projects they say threaten their survival and ecosystems. Large oil corporations have faced mounting criticism for financing projects associated with environmental destruction and, in some cases, for fueling conflict and social disruption.

In Uganda, for example, TotalEnergies has faced criticism over its involvement in major oil developments, including the East African Crude Oil Pipeline. These projects have been linked to widespread displacement, livelihood losses, and social disruption affecting more than 100,000 people.

For South African Communities and civil society groups, projects like DWOB threaten marine biodiversity, traditional livelihoods, and South Africa’s climate commitments.

“Decisions made in Cape Town about TotalEnergies and Shell will have a major impact on the future of our fishing industry. For generations, our families have relied on traditional fishing to put food on the table. Oil exploration threatens our ability to provide for our children and support our communities.” Ernest Titus from Lambert’s Bay added.

The Court is expected to announce the judgment soon, a decision that could have significant implications for South Africa’s fishing communities, marine ecosystems, and future offshore oil exploration.

Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Food systems in conflict areas: Architectures of armed conflict are turning food and hunger into weapons of war.

Published

on

By the Witness Radio team.

War now extends beyond guns and bombs, with food systems becoming strategic tools in modern conflict, a crucial factor for understanding global security and the deliberate targeting of food as a weapon.

Fields are burned before harvest. Irrigation systems are destroyed. Fishing zones are blocked. Grain silos are bombed. Seeds are contaminated or confiscated. Entire communities are cut off from their ability to grow or buy food for months or years, deliberately harming people’s access to food.

The result is not only displacement or destruction, but a slower, more deliberate outcome: hunger. In many cases, it functions not as a side effect of war but as a method of weakening populations and reshaping control over land, resources, and survival itself.

A new position paper by La Via Campesina, representing over 200 million peasants, Indigenous peoples, farmers, and rural workers, argues that controlling land and food is a deliberate political act, and that defending these resources is vital to life itself. This underscores the critical need for collective action to safeguard food security.

The report frames war and hunger as interconnected forces within a global political order, highlighting the widespread implications of targeting food systems.

The document states that “war and hunger are two faces of the same system,” and adds that defending land and food systems is inseparable from defending life itself.

La Via Campesina describes the current global moment as one defined by overlapping conflicts across Gaza, Sudan, Ukraine, Yemen, the Sahel, Myanmar, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and other regions. Rather than isolated crises, the report suggests these wars reflect a broader global system shaped by intensifying geopolitical competition, expanding military industries, weakening international governance, and growing pressure on land, water, and food systems.

“Rare earth elements, fossil fuels, water, and agricultural land are the true stakes of most contemporary conflicts. The targeting of Ukrainian grain exports, the scramble for Congolese cobalt, and the siege of Gaza’s fishing grounds all reflect this logic,” the paper reveals.

The rural poor, who produce most of the World’s food, are bearing the heaviest burden. They face poverty, hunger, displacement, and vulnerability.

Modern conflicts target food infrastructure-irrigation, grain reserves, and seed banks-highlighting how warfare deliberately undermines food security and calls for increased vigilance.

“The use of starvation as a weapon of war is strategic. Throughout history, empires understood that destroying a people’s capacity to feed themselves is among the most effective tools of subjugation.” La Via Campesina describes.

Across the cases examined in the report, La Via Campesina argues that controlling food has long been a way of controlling populations. What is different today, it suggests, is the scale, coordination, and technological sophistication through which food systems are disrupted in modern warfare.

In Gaza, the report cites widespread destruction of agricultural land and severe restrictions on fishing areas, alongside repeated disruptions of food supply corridors. Humanitarian assessments referenced in the paper indicate that more than 80% of farmland has been damaged or rendered unusable, deepening already severe food insecurity and famine risk warnings.

In Yemen, years of restrictions on key ports, particularly Hudaydah, through which most food imports enter, have significantly limited access to essential supplies. Combined with ongoing conflict, this has contributed to one of the most severe and prolonged hunger crises in the world.

In eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, cycles of armed violence have repeatedly destroyed crops and forced farming communities from their land. In many areas, agricultural production has collapsed entirely due to insecurity and the presence of armed groups controlling rural territory. The result has been persistent and widespread food insecurity affecting millions of people.

In Sudan, the conflict has similarly disrupted food systems through the looting of grain stores, destruction of farms, and mass displacement of rural populations. Entire agricultural regions have been emptied, turning once-productive farmland into zones of acute hunger.

The environmental degradation in war zones, including soil contamination and deforestation, is linked directly to global climate and resource crises, calling for a heightened awareness of these interconnected issues.

The report also links these local environmental impacts to global ecological pressures. It argues that as climate instability, water scarcity, soil degradation, and biodiversity loss intensify, competition over natural resources is increasing. In this context, land, water, and fertile agricultural regions become strategic assets in broader geopolitical struggles.

What emerges from both the data and case studies is a picture of hunger that is not only humanitarian but deeply political. It is shaped by conflict, resource control, and global systems that determine who can produce food, who can access it, and who is excluded from both.

In this sense, the report suggests, war is no longer confined to battlefields. It extends into wheat fields, fishing waters, seed banks, and supply routes. Hunger becomes not just a consequence of war, but one of its most powerful instruments.

Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Experts warn that without Africa’s control over resources and climate financing, the continent faces the risk of entering a new era of “green colonialism”.

Published

on

By Witness Radio Team

As the global push for clean energy accelerates, African governments are under mounting pressure to move away from fossil fuels and embrace renewable energy. But economists, political leaders, and climate justice advocates are warning that Africa’s transition could reproduce the same unequal economic structures established during colonialism unless the continent gains greater control over its resources, industries, and financing systems, inspiring a sense of agency and possibility.

Although Africa contributes less than 4 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, it is among the regions most vulnerable to climate change. The continent continues to suffer disproportionately from a crisis largely caused by industrialized nations, including prolonged droughts and devastating floods, which greatly affect its people.

Governments across Africa are increasingly adopting renewable energy policies promoted as pathways toward sustainable development. Despite being promoted, a growing number of experts argue that the transition risks becoming another extractive project in which African resources fuel foreign industries while local communities remain impoverished.

The global transition to clean energy has sharply increased demand for minerals such as cobalt, lithium, graphite, manganese, and copper, which are abundant across Africa and critical for batteries, electric vehicles, and renewable energy technologies.

At the same time, the continent possesses vast renewable energy potential. According to the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), Africa could generate significantly more renewable energy than it currently consumes.

In an interview with Witness Radio, Tunisian economist and President of the Global Institute for Sustainable Prosperity, Fadhel Kaboub, said Africa’s role in the global transition should go beyond merely supplying raw materials to industrialized countries.

“We cannot decarbonize a system that hasn’t been structurally economically decolonized yet. Africa has the potential to become an energy powerhouse globally, an industrial powerhouse, and as a result, an economic and geopolitical powerhouse.” Kaboub reveals.

Kaboub argued that the current global economic system continues to place African countries at the bottom of supply chains, echoing colonial patterns. This pattern is vital for economists and global citizens to understand.

“Africa was assigned the role of supplying cheap raw materials while importing finished products and technologies. The danger is that the green transition is reinforcing the same model instead of transforming it,” he added.

Across the continent, activists and researchers are increasingly raising concerns about what they describe as “green colonialism,” where climate and environmental projects dispossess communities while benefiting foreign governments and corporations.

In several African countries, including Uganda, large-scale carbon offset projects have been linked to land conflicts and forced displacement. Critics say some carbon markets allow polluting corporations in the Global North to continue emitting greenhouse gases while using African land and forests to offset their emissions.

Environmental advocates warn that unless African governments ensure local ownership and value addition in mining linked to renewable energy, the continent risks repeating the history of raw material extraction, which is key for informed policy decisions.

Africa’s green transition discussions also focused on climate financing as a key point of debate. African leaders have repeatedly criticized rich countries for not sufficiently financing adaptation and renewable energy projects, despite their historic role in spewing the bulk of the World’s carbon emissions.

At the COP29 climate Summit in November 2024 in Azerbaijan, His Excellency Bola Ahmed Tinubu, the president of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, warned that many African countries are trapped between debt repayment obligations and climate adaptation needs.

“Africa did little to cause the climate crisis, yet the debt climate trap has saddled many of its nations with a tragic choice: Eschew repayments to fund adaptation to climate shocks and risk default- a financial purgatory where development indicators plummet; or honor obligations and compromise on resilience, thus entrenching vulnerability to development-shuttering climate events,” he added.

Speaking during the Africa Climate Summit 2025, former Ethiopian Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn said debt restructuring must become part of global climate discussions.

“Unless we confront the debt crisis head-on, efforts to finance Africa’s climate ambitions will continue to fall short,” Desalegn said.

Kaboub believes the financing crisis reflects a broader historical injustice. “The industrialized world has consumed most of the global carbon budget that creates a climate debt owed to Africa and the Global South.” He revealed.

Some African economists and climate justice groups are calling for climate reparations, not more loans that deepen dependency, to address historical injustices and support equitable development.

“The future of Africa’s green transition depends on who controls it. If Africa controls its resources, industries, and development path, the transition could become a tool for liberation. If not, it risks becoming another phase of exploitation under a green banner.” Kaboub concluded.

Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Rising fertilizer dependence sparks debate over Africa’s agricultural future; experts call for urgent critical review process.

Published

on

By Witness Radio Team.

In March this year, the United Nations World Food Program (WFP) warned that the number of people facing acute hunger globally could rise sharply if escalating conflict in the Middle East continues to destabilize the global economy, projecting that nearly 45 million additional people could slide into acute food insecurity.

Since 28 February 2026, the United States and Israel have been engaged in a war with Iran and its regional allies. The conflict began when the US and Israel launched airstrikes on Iran, targeting military and government sites and assassinating several Iranian officials, including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Iran responded with missile and drone strikes on Israel, US bases, and US-allied Arab countries in West Asia, and the temporary closure of the Strait of Hormuz, disrupting global trade.

As global tensions continue, experts have revealed that they are disrupting fertilizer supply chains and driving up prices, an issue likely to threaten food security and make policymakers feel responsible for safeguarding Africa’s future.

A recent report by GRAIN, an international Non-Governmental Organization (NGO), argues that Africa’s increasing reliance on imported chemical fertilizers is exposing farmers and food systems to economic, political, and environmental risks.

Titled “Can African Food Systems Thrive Without Chemical Fertilizers?”, the report links recent fertilizer price spikes to conflicts such as the Russia-Ukraine war and the recent escalation involving Iran, Israel, and the United States. According to the report, these crises have disrupted the movement of fertilizers and raw materials, such as natural gas and sulfur, pushing prices beyond the reach of many African farmers.

According to the report, the African fertilizer market is currently worth around US$10–15 billion and is projected to grow to US$20 billion over the next four years. It adds that the largest fertilizer manufacturers — including Yara of Norway, OCP of Morocco, PhosAgro of Russia, Nutrien of Canada, and Mosaic of the United States — are seeking to expand their presence in this fast-growing, highly profitable market.

GRAIN researcher Ange David Baimey told the Witness Radio team that growing concerns about the ongoing impact of global conflicts on African agriculture drove the investigation.

“As you can see, the recent crisis involving Iran, the USA, and the Middle East created a lot of uncertainty concerning how fertilizers can continue reaching African countries. Before this, we also had the Ukraine crisis and COVID-19. If you look at the last six years, these crises have seriously affected agriculture in Africa.” Ange, who participated in the research, told Witness Radio.

For decades, many African governments, donors, and agribusinesses have promoted chemical fertilizers as essential for increasing food production. However, the report highlights that relying on organic and sustainable practices-such as indigenous knowledge, crop diversity, and soil fertility methods-can be safer and more resilient. Showcasing successful case studies can help policymakers see practical alternatives to dependency.

“The only solution to the best agricultural practices is not chemical fertilizers. Farmers have tested and agreed that organic fertilizers are the answer. Ange further mentioned.

According to the report, the push for chemical fertilizers accelerated during the Green Revolution period, driven largely by multinational agribusiness interests seeking profits from agricultural inputs.

“The Green Revolution is not the beginning of agriculture in Africa. Our systems existed before chemical fertilizers. What we see now is a system where companies are making profits while creating dependency.” He said.

The report notes that many African countries import significant quantities of fertilizers from Gulf countries, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Oman. Countries including Sudan, Tanzania, Kenya, and Mozambique remain highly dependent on these imports, making them vulnerable to supply disruptions and rising global prices.

Although African governments spend billions of dollars on fertilizer subsidy programs, many small-scale farmers still struggle to afford the products. In some countries, fertilizer prices are significantly higher than global averages due to import dependency, market concentration, and the dominance of multinational corporations in the supply chain.

“In our research, we also discovered that African farmers often pay more for the same fertilizers than farmers in Europe or the United States. The market is controlled by powerful companies whose goal is profit.” Ange explained.

The report identifies major corporations such as Yara International, OCP Group, and Dangote Group as key players shaping Africa’s fertilizer markets.

“These companies have huge influence and power in African agriculture. Governments must examine even discussions around continental trade agreements carefully because the same multinational companies may continue dominating the market.” Ange observed.

Beyond economic concerns, the report also highlights environmental and health impacts associated with chemical fertilizers, including soil degradation, water pollution, and increased pesticide use. The report advises African countries to adopt organic approaches to improve their yields, human and soil health, and to avoid environmental shocks.

“A change of course off the chemical fertilizer treadmill and towards agroecology is even more urgent in the face of the climate crisis. Climate scientists are calling today for a 42% global reduction in fertilizer use by 2050, to keep the planet livable.” The report noted.

Experts urge African leaders to use these global shocks as an opportunity to rethink Africa’s agricultural direction. “If you are dependent upon another person for your food, what happens when that person cuts off access? That is the situation Africa is in. The COVID crisis, the Ukraine war, and now the Gulf crisis all prove that reliance on imported fertilizers is dangerous. Africa can feed itself. The question is whether governments are willing to assist with that transition.” He concluded.

Continue Reading

Resource Center

Legal Framework

READ BY CATEGORY

Facebook

Newsletter

Subscribe to Witness Radio's newsletter



Trending

Subscribe to Witness Radio's newsletter