Women are at the bottom of the pile when policies are designed without them.
With the threat of billions being poured into fossil fuel projects that risk becoming stranded assets, women safeguarding community livelihoods and cultural heritage are calling for inclusive governance and a people-first energy policy.
The Green Connection’s recent court victory against TotalEnergies EP South Africa 567, an offshore oil and gas exploration project proposed off the south-west coast of South Africa, is more than a legal triumph. It is proof that when women at community level raise their voices to protect their livelihoods and preserve their cultural heritage, they can halt potentially destructive projects. But as South Africa prepares for a new energy roadmap, still littered with fossil fuels, the question remains — will the government listen before it is too late?
A recent webinar, facilitated by The Green Connection, unpacked South Africa’s gas expansion plans. A leaked Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) shows the government is intent on adding 19 gigawatts of new gas-to-power to the grid, while restricting solar and wind energy. Gas projects are already earmarked for Richards Bay, Coega, Saldanha Bay and in other areas across South Africa.
The gas industry itself is facing an imminent supply cliff. Mozambique’s Pande and Temane reserves are declining and expected to be largely depleted by mid-2028, so industry is pushing for the government to advance liquified natural gas (LNG) port plans. Such capital-intensive infrastructure developments, however, cannot be justified by industry gas demands alone. We therefore see government documents (including the Gas Master Plan consultation documents) position gas-to-power as the “anchor” to develop “localised gas demand” so as to justify large-scale LNG infrastructure. This is reflected in the ~19GW of gas-to-power in the IRP.
However, gas plants might not deliver flexibility to enable renewables in the electricity mix, as is put forth by gas infrastructure developers and government departments. Instead, they could risk locking South Africa into expensive, polluting power generation sources, which could crowd out renewables. So, the question must be asked: “Who really benefits?” Because, instead of this being economic development for the many, it seems more like it’s about profits for the few, while South Africans are left to foot the (expensive electricity) bill.
Artificial gas demand — created through gas-to-power — is not designed with ordinary households in mind. If gas infrastructure comes into effect, it will be subsidised by the electricity consumer through higher tariffs, exacerbating energy poverty. This means that women, who already disproportionately shoulder the impacts of household energy poverty, will bear the heaviest burden.
The Department of Trade, Industry and Competition’s own Investment Project Book 2025 values the investment for the Port of Richards Bay LNG Import Terminal at R13 billion, encompassing regasification infrastructure, storage, pipelines and port upgrades. Why pour billions into building this infrastructure — which risks becoming stranded assets — for a fuel source already on its way out? Researchers have shown that South Africa requires far less gas (about 3GW) than the ~19GW suggested. Rather than locking into a declining fuel, South Africa should instead leverage its natural advantages in the very minerals the energy transition depends on.
Redirecting investment towards areas where South Africa holds a global advantage could position the country as a central player in the renewable energy revolution. The global energy transition is driving demand for critical minerals such as manganese, platinum and copper — which the country is strategically positioned to export to the world. These minerals play an important role in the renewable energy boom for electric vehicles and battery storage solutions.
While the global demand for manganese, platinum and copper rises in response to the energy
transition, local dynamics in mining communities involve the risk of repeating the same cycle of exploitation and abuse as the demand for extraction rises. For decades, women in mining areas have borne the brunt of toxic waste pollution, displacement and violence.
An analysis by Médecins Sans Frontières, in the Rustenburg mining belt, shows that elevated rates of HIV transmission, sexual exploitation of young women and girls, and even human trafficking, correlate with the arrival of transient workforces that alter the social fabric of communities. Gender-based and intimate-partner violence remain a prevalent issue in mining-affected communities — with one in five HIV infection incidents in women being attributed to rape. These shifts can destabilise communities, leaving women and children exposed to heightened risks. These
statistics reveal how the predominantly male workforce in mining fuels a dynamic that facilitates sexual exploitation.
The harm inflicted on women is not only physical but economic. Mining often competes with the
agricultural sector for resources like water and land, and in some instances, displaces agriculture — a sector where more than half the workforce are women, in addition to sustaining families. Without change, this new “green rush” could once again leave women sidelined while profits flow elsewhere. With only 12% of the mining workforce made up of women, they are excluded from the very profits their land is used to create.
This is the heart of the matter. Women are at the bottom of the pile when policies are designed without them. Too often, the government engages in after-the-fact mitigation rather than prevention.
South Africa’s forthcoming Integrated Resource Plan and the long-delayed Integrated Energy Plan — as well as the ongoing G20 discussions — present critical opportunities. But how many women, especially those from affected communities, will have the chance to meaningfully participate in shaping them? If inclusivity is not built in from the start, we will once again have to patch over the harms later, and by then, it might be too late for many.
The answer lies in gender transformation, shifting decision-making power and benefits in a way that centres the lived experience of women. Women and girls must know their rights, insist on self-determination and demand genuine participation in energy and mining policy.
The Green Connection’s win against TEEPSA 567 proves what’s possible when women are heard. But victories in court are not enough. The government must take responsibility, lifting artificial caps on renewables, ending fossil fuel subsidies and ensuring affected communities drive decision-making. This demands a bottom-up approach to the Just Energy Transition.
South Africa’s future lies in clean, affordable energy and policies that put people before profit. Women have already spoken. The real test is whether those in power are prepared to listen.
Gabi Knott is an environmental lawyer and advocate for energy justice, founder of Enertia; Lisa Makaula is the advocacy officer at The Green Connection and Thandile Zonke is a Canon Collins Scholar and founder of FutureMetrix, specialising in energy security, sustainability transitions and inclusive development.