Seismic Surveys in South Africa: Balancing Energy Exploration and Environmental Justice

Seismic surveys for oil and gas exploration have been a contentious issue in South Africa, particularly in the Western Cape, where recent developments have sparked significant opposition from environmentalists, local fishing communities, and civil society organizations.

These surveys, which involve the use of high-intensity sound waves to map subsea geology, are crucial for identifying potential hydrocarbon reserves. However, they have raised concerns regarding their impact on marine biodiversity, fisheries, and coastal economies. This essay explores the recent seismic survey approvals, their potential ecological consequences, and the legal and community responses to these developments.

Recent Developments Regarding South African Seismic Survey

In 2022 the Western Cape High Courts blocked the Australian company Searcher Geodata from conducting seismic surveys as proper environmental authorizations and community consultations had not been conducted. In December 2023, Searcher Geodata announced new plans to undertake a seismic survey covering 30,000 km², approximately 220 km offshore between St Helena Bay and Hondeklip Bay.

Searcher commenced its seismic survey operations in January 2024 but was unable to complete the planned survey before winter. The current reconnaissance permit expired on 10 November 2024. Consequently, Searcher applied for and received a new permit (12/1/048) over the same area, with plans to resume surveys in early 2025, pending necessary environmental authorizations. As of early 2025, Searcher plans to continue its seismic survey operations, contingent upon obtaining the necessary environmental authorizations. The company aims to complete the survey in the previously designated area off South Africa's West Coast. 

In addition to these recent approvals, several other oil and gas exploration companies have expressed interest in expanding seismic survey operations within South African waters. The increasing frequency of seismic exploration has sparked heightened scrutiny from environmental organizations and legal entities.

Activists argue that ongoing approvals, without comprehensive assessments of cumulative environmental impacts, pose significant risks to marine biodiversity. There is growing concern over the absence of a standardized and enforceable environmental monitoring system to ensure compliance with mitigation measures and regulations. The potential for long-term ecological damage, coupled with a lack of transparent consultation processes with affected coastal communities, has intensified calls for stricter oversight and policy reforms.

The National Council of SPCAs (NSPCA), alongside civil society groups and small-scale fishing communities, has demanded a thorough review of how seismic surveys are approved and monitored, emphasizing the importance of independent environmental oversight and greater government accountability.

As public opposition continues to mount, legal challenges and advocacy efforts are expected to play a crucial role in shaping the future of offshore energy exploration in South Africa. Legal precedents, such as the court’s decision against Searcher Geodata in 2022, highlight the increasing legal scrutiny placed on companies conducting seismic surveys. Grassroots activism and civil society organizations, including The Green Connection and Natural Justice, have launched judicial reviews challenging seismic survey approvals. These legal battles underscore the growing demand for more rigorous environmental assessments, meaningful community engagement, and the prioritization of marine conservation over fossil fuel exploration.

Environmental Concerns Linked to Seismic Surveys

Seismic surveys conducted along the Western Cape coastline have raised significant environmental concerns, particularly regarding their impact on marine life. The surveys utilize high-decibel airgun blasts to map the seabed for hydrocarbon deposits, a practice that has been linked to severe disruptions in marine ecosystems. According to environmental justice advocates, these seismic blasts can cause physical harm to marine organisms, particularly those reliant on acoustic signals for navigation and survival.

The National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) underscores the state's responsibility to protect the environment, yet critics argue that the government's approval of these surveys contradicts its commitment to safeguarding marine biodiversity. The absence of comprehensive environmental assessments addressing these risks has fuelled opposition from small-scale fishers and conservationists.

Another major environmental concern relates to the potential impact of seismic surveys on fish populations, particularly snoek, and a critical species for both local ecosystems and the fishing economy. Searcher Geodata and its environmental consultants have been accused of downplaying the effects of seismic activity on fish stocks, despite studies indicating that such operations can disrupt breeding patterns and migration routes.

The exclusion of small-scale fishers from consultation processes further exacerbates these concerns, as their livelihoods depend heavily on marine resource stability. Critics argue that corporate interests have been prioritized over ecological sustainability, reinforcing historical patterns of environmental injustice.

Furthermore, the noise pollution generated by seismic surveys poses a significant threat to marine mammals, particularly whales and dolphins that rely on echolocation. Conservationists highlight the risk of hearing damage, disorientation, and even death caused by prolonged exposure to high-decibel sound waves.

The Port Elizabeth Corals Marine Protected Area, situated near one of the survey zones, is home to sensitive marine species whose habitats are at risk from such disturbances. Despite environmental impact assessments, there is growing scepticism regarding the effectiveness of mitigation measures proposed by survey proponents. The failure to fully consider these impacts in decision-making processes has led to legal challenges from environmental groups seeking to halt the surveys.

Lastly, the broader environmental implications of offshore oil and gas exploration cannot be ignored. While proponents argue that seismic surveys are merely preliminary investigations, they serve as a gateway to fossil fuel extraction, a practice that contradicts global efforts to combat climate change. South Africa's continued investment in fossil fuel exploration raises concerns about long-term ecological damage, including the risk of oil spills, habitat destruction, and increased carbon emissions.

Environmental activists argue that these projects perpetuate economic inequalities by benefiting multinational corporations while exposing local communities to environmental degradation. As legal battles unfold, the debate over seismic surveys underscores the urgent need for more inclusive and environmentally responsible decision-making in South Africa’s energy sector.

Socio-Economic Concerns Linked to Seismic Surveys

The socio-economic concerns linked to seismic surveys in South Africa are multifaceted, impacting small-scale fishing (SSF) communities, local economies, and broader environmental justice issues. One major concern is the continued marginalization of SSF communities, who depend on marine resources for their livelihoods. Despite claims of community consultation, seismic proponents have engaged in exclusionary practices that limit the participation of SSF communities in decision-making processes.

This selective engagement disregards the provisions of NEMA, which mandates inclusive consultation with all Interested and Affected Parties (I&APs). As a result, SSF communities find themselves systematically sidelined, with seismic survey proponents prioritizing economic gains over local livelihoods.

The economic implications of seismic surveys extend beyond fishing communities, affecting broader employment and income security. Seismic blasting, which involves high-decibel underwater noise, has been shown to disrupt fish stocks and marine ecosystems, leading to declines in fish populations and catch rates. This impact is particularly severe for SSF communities, whose incomes are closely tied to marine resource availability.

Research indicates that the destruction of marine habitats exacerbates socio-economic inequalities, as corporate interests and government agencies like the DMRE prioritize fossil fuel development over sustainable local industries. In this way, seismic exploration deepens historical patterns of environmental discrimination, disproportionately affecting vulnerable coastal communities who have limited economic alternatives.

Another key concern is the imbalance of power between pro-seismic entities and local communities. The South African state, through agencies like PASA and the DMRE, has demonstrated a tendency to favor fossil fuel exploration, echoing past colonial and apartheid-era resource exploitation practices. The framing of seismic surveys as a means of economic empowerment for South Africans contradicts the reality that material benefits are concentrated within corporate elites, while local communities bear the environmental and economic burdens.

The erosion of traditional knowledge systems and cultural heritage in SSF communities further compounds these injustices. Extractive industries often impose an economic modernization agenda that dismisses indigenous ways of life, reducing entire communities to mere contributors to global capitalistic ventures.

In response to these socio-economic challenges, grassroots activism has emerged as a powerful force in resisting seismic surveys. Activists have engaged in protests, petitions, and legal actions to contest the exclusionary practices of pro-seismic stakeholders. Organizations like The Green Connection and the Coastal Justice Network have highlighted how seismic surveys threaten food security and sustainable livelihoods, advocating for a just transition towards renewable energy alternatives.

This activism underscores the broader struggle for environmental justice, where marginalized communities fight to reclaim agency in environmental governance. By leveraging digital platforms and community mobilization, anti-seismic movements have transformed local struggles into national and global advocacy efforts, challenging the dominance of corporate and state interests in South Africa's energy policies.

Government and Industry Perspectives

Despite the opposition, the South African government has defended its decision to approve seismic surveys, arguing that offshore oil and gas exploration is essential for national energy security and economic growth. The DMRE has emphasized that strict mitigation measures, including exclusion zones around sensitive marine areas and real-time monitoring of marine mammal activity, are in place to minimize environmental harm. Industry representatives have also pointed out that seismic surveys are a standard practice worldwide and are conducted under stringent regulatory frameworks to ensure minimal ecological disruption.

However, critics argue that these mitigation measures are insufficient given the vast uncertainty surrounding the long-term ecological impacts of seismic surveys. The precautionary principle, which advocates for erring on the side of environmental protection in cases of scientific uncertainty, has been widely cited in opposition to the surveys. Environmental activists like Green Connection argue that rather than investing in fossil fuel exploration, South Africa should prioritize the development of renewable energy sources to meet its long-term energy needs sustainably.

The South African government and industry stakeholders maintain that seismic surveys are vital for national energy security and economic development. According to the DMRE, South Africa’s reliance on energy imports makes domestic oil and gas exploration a priority. The government has also stressed that stringent regulatory frameworks are in place to ensure that seismic surveys adhere to environmental guidelines. However, critics argue that these regulations may not be sufficient to protect marine ecosystem.

Industry stakeholders argue that seismic surveys are a globally accepted method for identifying hydrocarbon reserves and that mitigation measures, such as exclusion zones and marine mammal observers, are effective in reducing potential environmental harm. They emphasize that South Africa’s economic development relies on diversified energy sources, including offshore reserves, which could reduce dependence on imported fuels. However, environmental groups contend that fossil fuel exploration contradicts the country's commitments to sustainability and climate change mitigation.

The legal framework governing seismic surveys in South Africa requires companies to conduct Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) and engage with affected communities. The industry asserts that these assessments ensure minimal ecological disruption and compliance with international best practices. However, legal challenges from environmental organizations argue that these assessments often lack transparency and fail to account for long-term ecological risks. The Western Cape High Court’s decision in 2022 to halt a seismic survey due to inadequate community consultation highlights the tensions between legal compliance and meaningful engagement with affected communities.

Despite industry assurances, environmental activists and local communities argue that the cumulative impact of seismic surveys on marine life remains poorly understood. They call for an independent, science-based review of seismic exploration practices and advocate for a transition to renewable energy sources. The ongoing debate underscores the need for a balanced approach that considers both economic and environmental concerns while ensuring transparent decision-making processes.

Suggestions and Lessons to be learnt

One of the primary suggestions for improving seismic survey practices is ensuring genuine public participation and consultation with all I&AP’. As highlighted in the 2022 seismic survey contestations, exclusionary consultation practices led to the marginalization of SSF communities, who were directly impacted by the proposed surveys. The court ruling in Adams and Others v Minister of Minerals, Resources and Energy and Others ZAWCHC 24 emphasized that Searcher and SLR failed to notify and consult key stakeholders, resulting in a flawed environmental management plan that did not account for the realities of SSF livelihoods.

To prevent such failures, it is essential to develop more inclusive and transparent public participation frameworks that actively engage marginalized communities through accessible communication methods, such as community meetings in local languages, rather than relying solely on written notices in government offices.

Another key lesson is the need for rigorous adherence to environmental justice principles, which advocate for integrating both indigenous and scientific knowledge in environmental decision-making. The research findings indicate that seismic survey proponents selectively adhered to environmental regulations to serve their own interests while neglecting the broader socio-ecological implications.

The privileging of fossil fuel exploration at the expense of local food security and environmental sustainability perpetuates historical injustices. A solution to this issue is the implementation of independent environmental oversight mechanisms that ensure compliance with South Africa’s environmental laws, including NEMA, which mandates the protection of vulnerable communities from environmentally harmful practices.

The protests against seismic surveys also underscore the importance of ensuring transparency in the approval and permitting processes for seismic surveys. The manipulation of governmental procedures and legal loopholes allowed Searcher and its partners to proceed with seismic blasting without adequately addressing the concerns of SSF communities. The litigation process revealed how certain government agencies prioritized economic gains over environmental and social concerns. Future improvements should include stricter regulatory enforcement and public disclosure of EIAs before permits are granted. This would allow I&APs to raise concerns early in the process and prevent conflicts from escalating into legal battles.

Finally, the contestations further illustrate the role of grassroots activism and civil society in holding corporations and governments accountable. The successful legal challenges against seismic survey proponents were made possible through collective action by local communities, environmental activists, and legal organizations.

This demonstrates the importance of strengthening legal support for marginalized communities and ensuring that civil society organizations have the necessary resources to challenge environmentally harmful projects. Encouraging community-led environmental monitoring initiatives and fostering collaboration between scientists, activists, and policymakers could create a more balanced approach to resource extraction and environmental conservation.

Conclusion

The ongoing controversy surrounding seismic surveys in South Africa underscores the complex trade-offs between economic development, energy security, and environmental sustainability. While the government and industry argue that oil and gas exploration is vital for economic growth, environmentalists and local communities highlight the risks to marine biodiversity and traditional livelihoods. The legal battles and protests against seismic surveys indicate a growing demand for more rigorous environmental assessments and genuine community engagement. Moving forward, a balanced approach that prioritizes both economic interests and ecological preservation will be essential to resolving these conflicts.

Written By: Tasneem Goga

Edited By: Nhlanhla Moshomo