I wrote two pieces for this column in which I stated that, in my experience, the Department of the Environment, Forestry and Fisheries (DEFF) does not answer phone calls or reply to emails and that the DEFF doing something useful is an exception rather than a rule.

Now I can take that back. Or at least some of it back. The mindless application by Karpowership to moor floating power stations at Saldanha Bay, Coega and Richards Bay has been turned down by the DEFF. According to News24, South Africa’s environmental authorities rejected an application by Karpowership to generate electricity at three of the nation’s ports. The environmental-impact assessment (EIA) practitioner is Triplo4’s Hantie Plomp. The DEFF blocked the request “after due consideration of all relevant information presented as part of the EIA process”, it said.

The Turkish company applied for projects at the Richards Bay, Ngqura and Saldanha harbours.

Karpowership has maintained that it will appeal the department’s decision. The department “allowed a misinformation campaign, funded by special interests, to derail the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy’s strategic plan”, the company said in a statement.

It is a fact that one of the primary objections was from The Green Connection, an organisation which has Liziwe McDaid (aka Liz) leading the charge. Makoma Lekalakala and McDaid, representing Earthlife Africa and the Southern African Faith Communities’ Environment Institute, were winners of the Goldman Environmental Foundation Prize in San Francisco, in the US, and joined winners from five other continents for their efforts to successfully mobilise South Africans against government’s secret R1-trillion nuclear deal.

Thus, any objection which has Liz on the cover sheet must be taken seriously, if history teaches us anything. There were many other objectors to the powerships: the Centre for Environmental Rights and Groundwork, Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife (Dominic Wieners), the Mhlathuze municipality (Nontsundu Ndonga), Professor Digby Cyrus (head of zoology at the University of KwaZulu-Natal), Vuyo Keswa, environmental manager for Transnet, and Athol Marchant, an ecologist. And others. One of the most amazing parts of the pro-Karpowership EIA was the almost complete disregard that some specialists had for the noise impact of the ships, both airborne and underwater noise. Triplo4’s noise specialist had predicted noise from the powership engines could reach up to 90 decibels (technically, A-weighted decibels) close to the affected areas but if silencers were installed (as has been done on one of the company’s powerships in Ghana) this would drop to roughly 74 decibels (A-weighted).

Triplo4’s avifauna specialist, Leigh-Ann de Wet, argued that, based on the data from Ghana, noise levels should be no more than 64 decibels (A-weighted).

This is some serious noise level for a wetland – in perspective, the legislated noise rating for industrial areas during the day is 70 dBA. But, according to De Wet, “there is currently no legislation for noise limits in environmentally sensitive areas”. Now. Stop. Get that. It is not true. There is legislation. Contained in Table 2 of the South African Bureau of Standards’ code of practice SANS 10103, Note 6. The limit is 50 dBA.

This is a narrow escape. Had these ships gone on forever, it would have been an ecological disaster.

There is a quote from Transnet’s Keswa, who wrote to Triplo4 in March, listing concerns about Triplo4’s report: “In many instances, the significance of environmental impacts … is said to be low. However, the mitigation measures read more like recommendations than implementable action. In other areas, the impact mitigation would say ‘where possible’.”

Keswa asked: “What will happen if it’s not possible? Does this mean that the impact will remain? If so, how does the impact rating become ‘low’?”

What’s to be done? I think: (a) All specialist studies must be done by persons who are professionally registered, as in PrNatSci, PrEng, PrPlan (this is not the case now). (b) All studies should be peer-reviewed by another registered professional. (c) The whole national environmental management impact process should be overhauled to get rid of those who try to push through what is not environmentally sound.

Well done, DEFF.