South Africans celebrated as their Constitutional Court ruled against Shell and Impact Africa’s oil exploration plans off the country’s Wild Coast. The legal victory demonstrated the importance of people-powered action against destructive neocolonial extractive industries across Africa. The judgement also strengthens the case for African governments to move away from an economic dependence on fossil fuels and towards reliable renewable energy and green employment.

What exactly did the Constitutional Court rule?

On 14 August 2026, South Africa’s Constitutional Court permanently halted Shell and Impact Africa’s oil and gas exploration off the country’s Wild Coast. This brought a years-long legal battle to a decisive end. South Africa’s apex court, upheld the 2022 Makhanda High Court finding that the exploration right had been unlawfully granted to Shell. It found that the South African government had not meaningfully consulted affected communities, as per the country’s laws. The South African Minister of the Mineral Resources and Energy, who was cited as the Main Respondent,  did not provide the requisite stewardship over the process.

View this post on Instagram

The court also set aside the original exploration right and its two renewals, rejecting the Supreme Court of Appeal’s 2024 decision to give Shell an opportunity to remedy the original failure through a later consultation process. The court warned that allowing this would mean “financial investment” could outweigh “grave constitutional violations”. 

For Wild Coast communities, the judgement confirmed that decisions affecting their ocean, livelihoods, culture and environment cannot be separated from their constitutional rights.

How did South Africans react to the judgement?

Wild Coast communities and environmental organisations welcomed the judgment as a historic victory for people whose livelihoods and cultural identities are closely connected to the ocean. Sustaining the Wild Coast’s Sinegugu Zukulu said the communities had gone to court “for the future and for future generations”, rather than for profit. “For centuries, colonialism and capitalism have enabled a system that ignores the rights of Indigenous People in their own land. At last we have been able to assert the rights of Indigenous People over the profits of global corporations.”

At last we have been able to assert the rights of Indigenous People over the profits of global corporations.

Activists and Wild Coast community members also stressed the importance of collaborating across all factions of society in achieving people-powered impact. Local fisher Sazise Maxwell Pekayo said the communities challenging the government were greatly supported by lawyers and civil society groups, adding: “Amandla! Power to the rights of communities!” Amadiba Crisis Committee activist Nonhle Mbutuma said that true development must come from people deciding their own future. Natural Justice’s Delme Cupido said the case demonstrated that public participation is not simply about “ticking boxes”, but about putting people’s dignity at the centre of decisions that affect their lives, rights and cultural practices.

Why did South Africa’s court rule against Shell?

The South African Constitutional Court found the original process granting Shell its exploration license failed to give communities meaningful participation in a decision that could affect their livelihoods, environment, culture and spiritual relationship with the sea. Regarding the failure to consider the relevant communities’ spiritual and cultural rights, the High Court found that there was no evidence that the possibility of harm to ancestral beliefs and practices, or any remedial measures to guard against possible harm, were considered by the Minister.

The court rejected an approach that treated these concerns as merely competing against economic development. It emphasised South Africa’s history of apartheid, dispossession and marginalisation, explaining that commercial interests cannot automatically be placed on the same footing as constitutionally protected community rights. 

The court warned that speculative economic benefits cannot outweigh procedural justice where communities face direct environmental and cultural consequences. As the court put it, “Protection of ecological systems is inseparable from the protection of rights to dignity, culture and livelihood.” It also rejected the argument that consultation during a later renewal could cure the original illegality.

What does the Shell Wild Coast court judgement mean for local South African communities?

Beyond stopping Shell’s exploration, the judgment establishes a significant precedent for communities facing extractive projects along South Africa’s coastline. The court made clear that corporations cannot rely on financial investment to overcome failures to respect constitutional rights. 

Legal Resources Centre’s Kimal Harvey said the judgment confirmed that “no decisions about our land or resources can be made without us”, while Natural Justice’s Melissa Groenink-Groves described it as a victory for coastal communities, constitutional democracy and judicial accountability. 

“People and their constitutional rights come before corporate profits.

The court also referred to the 2025 International Court of Justice advisory opinion on climate change, emphasising that decisions must account for scientific evidence, international commitments and foreseeable impacts on present and future generations. Greenpeace Africa’s Eugene Perumal said the message was clear: “People and their constitutional rights come before corporate profits.” 

For coastal communities, that principle strengthens their ability to defend livelihoods, heritage and environmental rights when development threatens their way of life.

What is the background of Shell’s seismic blasting plans off South Africa’s Wild Coast?

Shell’s planned seismic exploration off South Africa’s Wild Coast involved a five-month survey using powerful airguns to send shockwaves into the seabed approximately every ten seconds. The technology was intended to locate potential oil and gas deposits, but raised serious concerns about its impact on marine ecosystems. 

Experts warned that seismic waves can disturb, injure or kill marine life, while successful exploration could lead to further risks from drilling, extraction, transportation and oil spills. For coastal communities that depend heavily on fishing and ecotourism, the potential consequences were particularly serious. 

The project also threatened endangered and scientifically important species, including southern right whales and the critically endangered coelacanth fish. Community activists and civil society organisations, including Greenpeace Africa, challenged Shell’s plans through the courts, while affected communities pursued further legal action after an initial interdict was unsuccessful. Thus began the years-long court battle.

The legal case became part of a wider debate about fossil fuel development, environmental protection and community rights.

How did South Africans react to news about Shell’s plans to conduct seismic blasting off the Wild Coast? 

Opposition to Shell’s plans quickly became a grassroots movement in South Africa. When the Amazon Warrior, the vessel carrying out the seismic surveys, arrived in Cape Town, hundreds of activists protested against its presence. Demonstrations subsequently spread to almost 100 towns, particularly along South Africa’s coastline. 

View this post on Instagram

For Indigenous coastal communities, the issue was about far more than environmental protection: the ocean is central to their livelihoods, culture and spirituality. Communities were already under pressure from industrial fishing and other threats to their economic security. Amadiba Crisis Committee activist Nonhle Mbuthuma described the situation as another struggle for a community that had spent decades opposing mining on its land. “Now we also must fight against the mining of the ocean,” she said.

In December 2021, communities and activists joined forces to launch a matter in the Makhanda High Court where an interdict was granted. Shell opposed this and requested a review in the self-same High Court which upheld the original decision. Shell took the matter to the Supreme Court of Appeal, which, whilst not overturning the illegality of the granting of the right, simultaneously opened a backdoor for Shell to retrospectively meet the requirement for meaning consultation. The communities took the matter to the country’s apex court to overturn the Supreme Court of Appeal ruling.

Why did South Africans stand up against Shell’s planned oil exploration? 

Activists and local communities against the corporation’s Wild Coast project also pointed to Shell’s destructive history in Nigeria’s Niger Delta as a warning of what can happen when oil extraction causes environmental damage. Shell began producing oil there in 1958, while communities and environmental organisations have spent decades challenging the consequences of pollution and demanding accountability. 

Niger Delta communities experienced widespread destruction of ecosystems and livelihoods because of oil spills, and suffered the violent suppression of protests during the struggle against oil extraction. Shell’s Niger Delta track record demonstrated the devastating long-term consequences when corporate interests take precedence over local communities and environmental protection. 

Concerns about the Wild Coast therefore extend beyond the immediate effects of seismic testing: successful exploration could open the door to a much larger fossil fuel industry and the environmental risks that accompany it.

What risks did Shell’s oil exploration plans pose to Wild Coast communities?

The risk of Shell’s oil exploration plans to South African Wild Coast communities extended beyond individual species to the wider health of South Africa’s oceans. Seismic blasts not only affect marine life on which coastal communities depend, but also disturb marine ecosystems that serve as a major defence against the climate crisis. 

Oceans absorb carbon dioxide and heat, while kelp forests (abundant along South Africa’s coastline) provide valuable ecological benefits such as sequestering carbon, sheltering marine species and protecting shorelines from erosion. With marine ecosystems already under severe pressure from global heating and rising ocean temperatures, expanding fossil fuel exploration only stands to compound existing threats. The potential profits from oil and gas cannot justify risking communities, biodiversity and ecosystems that provide vital protection against climate change. 

Yet, oil and gas corporations continue promoting oil exploration across Africa because the continent’s resources offer lucrative opportunities for multinational corporations. While they frame extractivism as an economic and development opportunity for African countries, it ultimately serves neocolonial interests.

Despite fossil fuel companies’ already long history in South Africa, the country continues to face shockingly high unemployment, remaining the most unequal society in the world. South Africa’s own experience with oil and gas corporations demonstrates the opposite of the prosperity that fossil fuel companies promise. Despite the billions these multinational oil companies rake in every quarter, communities who live near oil infrastructure (like Wentworth, South Africa) tend to find themselves in downward poverty spirals.

Furthermore, weak global tax rules currently allow multinationals in the extractive sector to shift at least 12% of their global profits to tax havens, a figure that rises to 20% of windfall profits in commodity booms. This allows them to dodge billions of US dollars in taxes in countries across Africa, undermining governments’ resources to invest in essentials like schools, hospitals and climate protection.  

Does the Shell Wild Coast court judgement protect South Africa from neocolonial extractivism?

South Africa’s Constitutional Court judgement against Shell provides an important legal safeguard against extractive industries pursuing commercial interests at the expense of local communities. By affirming that meaningful public participation, cultural rights, livelihoods and environmental protection cannot be overridden by corporate investment, the judgment strengthens communities’ ability to challenge projects imposed without their consent. 

This may have wider significance for the Southern African Development Community (SADC) region, in particular, and the African continent more broadly where oil, gas and mineral extraction has reproduced unequal relationships in which multinational companies benefit from resources while local people carry environmental and social costs. The judgement establishes that economic development cannot simply be defined by corporate investment or promised jobs. African governments must follow suit and ensure that resource decisions respect communities’ constitutional and human rights.

View this post on Instagram

How else is Africa meant to generate energy and create more jobs?

This South African court judgment also strengthens the case for governments to move away from an economic model dependent solely or disproportionately on fossil fuel extraction and towards renewable energy and green employment. By steering focus on new fossil fuel projects, the decision forces decision makers to diversify energy production and invest in newer, greener and cleaner technologies. Renewable energy and modern electricity grids can create jobs without exposing communities to the pollution and environmental risks associated with oil and gas. 

Renewable energy is already becoming the dominant source of new electricity generation: around 85% of new global power capacity added in 2025 was renewable, principally solar and wind. For African countries, investing in these technologies can mean developing domestic industries, training skilled workers and creating employment closer to where people live. The transition therefore offers an opportunity to redefine development around locally-owned “decentralised” energy, decent work and long-term economic resilience.

How reliable is renewable energy?

Renewable energy offers benefits that extend beyond cutting carbon emissions. Solar and wind use energy sources that are freely available locally, reducing dependence on imported coal, oil and gas whose prices rise dramatically during wars, geopolitical disputes or supply disruptions. Renewable electricity can therefore strengthen political independence in Africa by reducing the influence of foreign fuel suppliers and unequal relationships with fossil fuel corporations over national energy policies. 

Batteries, smart grids and diversified renewable systems can further improve resilience by allowing countries to store electricity and rely on multiple local sources rather than vulnerable international supply chains. Although renewable infrastructure requires minerals and responsible mining, it can generate electricity for decades without continually consuming fuel, while producing substantially lower lifecycle emissions than fossil fuel systems.

Is renewable energy viable for South Africa?

South Africa has considerable potential to build a diverse renewable energy system. Its abundant sunshine makes utility-scale and rooftop solar particularly attractive, while strong coastal and inland wind resources provide opportunities for large-scale wind generation. Batteries can store solar and wind electricity for periods when the sun is not shining or wind production falls, while improved transmission networks and smart-grid technology can connect renewable resources with areas of high demand. Its current dependence on fossil fuels has had dire impacts on the country’s economy. After years of widespread blackouts (loadshedding), it is clear that South Africa’s  current energy production cannot match the demand. 

How will South Africa pay for a just transition to renewable energy?

Governments around the world, including in South Africa, could raise trillions of US dollars through more ambitious national and global taxes on polluting multinational corporations and super-rich individuals. For example, a new global polluter tax of 20% on the profits of the biggest oil and gas corporations, with tax rates progressively increasing over time, could raise more than US $100 billion every year in its first few years. These funds should not only be used to pay for the loss and damage caused by the extreme weather that these polluters drive, but also for climate adaptation and investment into cleaner newer energy technologies like renewables. 

South Africa, alongside all other governments, should seize this opportunity through supporting bold new global tax rules under the Global Tax Treaty currently being negotiated, while rolling out higher taxes on the wealthiest polluters at the national level immediately. It is time to end this cycle of suffering inflicted by the polluting extractives industry and to hold them to account by making them pay for a just transition that benefits all. 

Polluters Pay Pact

Sign the pact, record your story. Join the global movement to make polluters pay.

Join the movement

Taiwan — Today, Taiwan’s Kaohsiung District Court found the captain and chief officer not guilty in a case involving allegations of human trafficking and labor exploitation aboard Da Wang, a Taiwanese-owned, Vanuatu-flagged tuna fishing vessel that exported its fish globally.

The case dates back to June 2019, when a 19-year-old Indonesian fisher, Sunoto, was reportedly struck in the back of the head while working aboard the Da Wang and was found dead in the cabin the following morning. Prosecutors in the case said the vessel’s captain and first officer used violence and coercion to exploit migrant fishers aboard.

Manny (pseudonym), a Filipino fisher who is also a victim and witness in the Da Wang forced labour case, said the verdict was deeply heartbreaking and disappointing to him. He said, “The captain assaulted and beat people on board every day. He was responsible for Sunoto’s wrongful death and should be held accountable under the law. If there is an opportunity to appeal, I will appeal the case all the way.”

Shay Kuo, Oceans Campaigner at Greenpeace East Asia’s Taipei Office, said: “Despite multiple testimonies and indications pointing to forced labour and violence aboard the vessel, the court’s decision highlights the difficulties of gathering evidence and establishing proof at sea, underscoring the challenges facing the maritime regulatory system. Seven years on, full justice remains out of reach. To prevent further victims and broken families, the Taiwanese government must strengthen oversight of fishing vessels and require seafood companies to take responsibility for human rights abuses throughout their supply chains.”

Greenpeace Southeast Asia and the Union of Indonesian Migrant Workers (SBMI) first documented allegations of severe labour abuses — such as violence, excessive working hours and wage-related abuses — aboard the Da Wang in its 2019 investigation. [1] 

Sari Heidenreich, senior human rights adviser for Greenpeace USA’s Global Fisheries campaign, said: “This heartbreaking verdict cannot be the end of the story. A migrant fisher lost his life, and other workers reported serious abuses, including forced labor, aboard the same vessel. This case exemplifies the uphill battle that fishers face to achieve justice and remedy. Responsibility does not end with vessel operators. All of Big Seafood, which includes companies buying and trading seafood, must be rigorous in their due diligence to ensure that forced labor and abuse are not happening anywhere in their supply chains and that, if they do, victims have access to swift and meaningful justice and remedy.”

The Da Wang case exposes the widespread problem of seafood supply chains remaining profitable while the migrant workers who catch the fish bear the greatest human cost. 

The Greenpeace global network’s Beyond Seafood Campaign has called for concerted action by all stakeholders and governments along the seafood supply chain to end isolation at sea. This includes:

• Free, accessible, and secure Wi-Fi on all fishing vessels to allow fishers to have contact with their families, unions, and governments.
• Capping time at sea to maximum three consecutive months to reduce the risk of human rights abuse, forced labor, and human trafficking.
• 100% human observers or electronic monitoring to ensure vital data on catch composition, bycatch, interactions with protected species, and overall fishing practices are reported by independent and impartial parties.

ENDS

Notes

[1] Greenpeace Southeast Asia and the SBMI first documented allegations of severe labour abuses aboard the Da Wang in its 2019 investigation, Seabound: The Journey to Modern Slavery on the High Seas.

Greenpeace East Asia passed the testimony of an onboard Indonesian fisher to Taiwan’s Fisheries Agency, who then took the evidence to the Kaohsiung District Prosecutors’ Office for investigation. In April 2022, the Kaohsiung District Prosecutors’ Office indicted nine people, including the vessel owner, captain, first officer and others, on charges including violations of Taiwan’s Human Trafficking Prevention Act.

Separately in the United States, the US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) issued a Withhold Release Order (WRO) against tuna caught by the Da Wang in August 2020 and a Finding against the Da Wang for forced labour in January 2022. In the same year, Greenpeace USA found tuna for sale by Bumble Bee in the U.S. that was sourced from the Da Wang during the alleged human trafficking and forced labor occured. Bumble Bee also faces a separate federal lawsuit brought by Indonesian fishers who allege that the company benefited from tuna harvested using their forced labor. 

Contacts

Vela Andapita, Global Communications Coordinator, Beyond Seafood campaign, Greenpeace Southeast Asia, +62 817 5759 449 (UTC+8), vela.andapita@greenpeace.org 

Greenpeace International Press Desk, +31 (0)20 718 2470 (available 24 hours), pressdesk.int@greenpeace.org

We all just witnessed one of the hottest summers ever around the globe. The trauma of watching massive forest fires, flash floods, and super typhoons is horrifying, to say the least. The horror of huge forest fires in Spain, France, Greece, Germany, Canada, and now Indonesia is an alarm bell we all need to wake up to. The frequency of super typhoons bringing destruction to  China, the Philippines, and Japan is another form of extreme weather patterns that scientists have warned us about for years. 

If this was not enough, we also witnessed flooding in India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Hawaii (USA), South Korea, China, Japan, and Peru. Parts of North Africa, including Morocco, have faced back‑to‑back heatwaves on top of drought, with temperatures reaching 44 to 46°C in provinces from Marrakech and Beni Mellal to Laayoune and Dakhla.

All of this happened even before El Niño was expected to intensify toward the year’s end. And all of this happened.  The full impact could potentially be much worse than what happened so far.

While so much of the destruction of nature and human life is happening every week, too many of our governments are acting without the urgency this crisis demands. There is still a huge emphasis on making more profits, including more oil exploration and continued wars, combined with insufficient action towards addressing the core issue of climate change. In fact, some countries, are still rusted on to a ‘drill, baby, drill’ approach, but there there are also many others that are ready to plan for and implement a transition away from fossil fuels.

So there is a tendency to get distracted and forget about the consequences of our mistakes. That is why we document these climate emergencies so we can do our best not to repeat them in the future. This blog is an attempt to record the results of the combined inaction of our governments and the race to preserve this beautiful planet.

France: The wildfires affected France, particularly in the north and south of the country, burning 115,000 hectares. The wildfire season was classified as the worst in the country since 1949. Beachgoers sit on the beach of Moutchic in Lacanau, southwestern France on July 24, 2026, as clouds of smoke rise into the sky from a wildfire. The fire raged in the northern part of the Arcachon Basin in Gironde, southwest France.

Spain: The forest fire burned 25,000 hectares across Madrid and neighbouring Avila province, forcing more than 60,000 people (a downwardly revised figure) to flee their homes, according to authorities, who labelled the fire the “worst in history” for the Madrid region.

Philippines: Tropical cyclones and monsoon rains sweeping across the Philippines triggered widespread floods. Residents were evacuated to higher ground with their belongings in Barangay Sta Ana, San Mateo, Rizal, Philippines, on 17 August 2026.

Japan: Unprecedented heavy rain in Japan claimed the lives of 8 people, leaving thousands at Narita airport and cutting power to more than 20,000 households in Chiba prefecture.

Tunisia: Ash and the remains of destroyed trees as fires ravage the forests of Sakiet Sidi Youssef in the Kef region, near the border with Algeria on 24 July 2026. At least 900 fires broke out in Tunisia over 72 hours, as the country grapples with an intense heatwave. Firefighters battled two major blazes, one of them in the northwestern region of Sakiet Sidi Youssef.

United States of America: All of New York State, including New York City, and parts of New Jersey are under an Air Quality Advisory due to the smoke from more than 100 wildfires burning in Canada. The Tri-State is seeing visible smoke and hazy skies across the state and spikes in smoke-related pollution. Fine particle pollution from wildfire smoke can cause shortness of breath, coughing, dizziness, or fatigue, and can aggravate heart and lung diseases and other chronic health issues.

India: The flood situation in Assam, India, turned critical as it claimed 80 lives, displacing about 2 million people across 200 villages.

Algeria: As firefighters work to put out a wildfire in Bordj Okhriss, located approximately 150 km southeast of Algiers. For several days, Algeria has been facing a wave of exceptionally intense wildfires.

From protests against oil and gas in the Black Sea, to documenting drought impacts in Germany. Here are a few of our favourite images from Greenpeace work around the world this week.

Bulgaria – Greenpeace activists from five countries painted “NO GAS + OIL” on the side of the abandoned tanker “Kairos”, part of Russia’s shadow fleet, anchored off the coast of Burgas, Bulgaria. The activity protested against the toxic dependence on oil and gas, which funds wars, fuels corruption, and endangers marine ecosystems and local communities.

Germany – During a forest tour in Reiersdorf, Brandenburg, Greenpeace highlights the extreme fire risk posed by pine monocultures, showing how structurally diverse mixed forests with deadwood cool the ground and naturally prevent wildfires.

Netherlands – Activists from Greenpeace Netherlands have modified the names of several train stations following yet another tropical day this summer. Stations were renamed to ‘Hotterdam Centraal’, ‘Amsterwarm Centraal’, ‘Grillversum Media Park’, and ‘Smelthogenbosch’. With temperatures soaring well above 30°C and a record number of tropical days, the campaign highlights the reality of the climate crisis caused by fossil fuels and emphasizes that these extreme weather events are no longer exceptions. The action calls on politicians to take decisive steps toward phasing out fossil energy ahead of the Climate March in Amsterdam on September 12.

Denmark – Danish fjords, lakes and coastal waters are plagued by oxygen depletion due to decades of pollution from industrial pig farming. Greenpeace Nordic is on an expedition to measure and document the extent of the problem, as well as nitrogen pollution, which originates mainly from pig manure spread onto the fields.

Germany – Drought impacts Rhine River’s water level in Germany. The river Rhine shown here with a very low water level in Cologne.

Greenpeace has been a pioneer of photo activism for more than 50 years, and remains committed to bearing witness and exposing environmental injustice through the images we capture.

To see more Greenpeace photos and videos, please visit our Media Library.