Fast-track solar plan crumbles as risks to endangered vultures come to light

Attempts to “streamline” the approval process for a new 100MW solar power farm near Polokwane have been derailed due to the potentially high risks for threatened birds, including three vulture species.

The case has also brought to light concerns that the Stellar Energy Solutions company terminated the services of its original environmental consultants (who had flagged “high” environmental risks to four threatened bird species) and then appointed new consultants who downgraded the potential risks to “low” or “medium”, allegedly to take advantage of a fast-track approval process.

In a 68-page legal appeal ruling, Forestry, Fisheries and Environment Minister Willie Aucamp found that Stellar’s plan to build a 100MW solar farm did not qualify for the streamlined approval procedure, which specifically excludes any projects considered to have “high” risk ratings.

This came after the avian conservation group Birdlife South Africa raised a legal challenge, reiterating its long-standing concerns about the adequacy of the fast-track process and the potential for companies to circumvent standard environmental approval processes.

“It would appear in this instance that these concerns were warranted. In addition to increased environmental risks, this matter sets a precedent for allowing applicants to change their choice of consultant because they are displeased with the findings. Cherry-picking of environmental assessment practitioners (EAPs) and specialists by applicants based on considerations of time and cost must be discouraged,” Birdlife argued on appeal.

Birdlife further argued that terminating the services of the original EAP (Blue Crane Environmental) and replacing them with another EAP consultant (AB Enviro Consult) amounted to “flouting” important codes of conduct that regulated the professional conduct of EAPs and specialist natural scientists.

In a decision signed on December 9, 2025, Aucamp declined to make any findings about the professional or ethical conduct of the new EAP and specialist scientist who downgraded the risks of the project, arguing that this issue fell outside the scope of the current appeal, which was to ascertain whether or not Stellar qualified for the fast-track process.

“That said, I am mindful that any legitimate concerns raised about the professional and ethical standards applicable to EAPs and specialists (independence, avoidance of conflicts of interest, full and honest disclosure) may, if true, undermine the objectives of integrated environmental management (IEM) under the National Environmental Management Act (Nema),” said Aucamp.

“I therefore advise that the aggrieved parties may refer their concerns to the relevant regulatory bodies (the Environmental Assessment Practitioners Association of South Africa (EAPASA) and/or the South African Council for Natural Scientific Professions (SACNASP) for investigation and findings. Such an investigation is beyond the scope of this appeal.”

The fast-track plan, designed to speed up the roll-out of renewable energy projects, was first proposed by former Environment Minister Barbara Creecy in 2022 — but only came into legal effect in March 2024.

Stellar applied for authorisation in 2023, before the new “Solar Exclusion Norms” came into effect, and was therefore obliged to conduct a full environmental impact assessment (EIA).

During its assessment, the first EAP (Blue Crane Environmental) and specialist scientists (The Biodiversity Company) confirmed the presence of Cape vultures (endangered), white-backed vultures (critically endangered), lappet-faced vultures (endangered) and marabou storks (near threatened).

Birdlife argued that the presence of these birds, as confirmed by specialist Dr Lindi Steyn, made it clear that Stellar would have to follow the standard impact assessment route, not the fast-track process.

But before the EIA was completed, Stellar was said to have terminated the services of Blue Crane and appointed Jean Pierre de Villiers (AB Enviro Consult) as the new EAP, while Reinier Terblanche (Anthene Ecological) was appointed as an ecological specialist to review the previous specialist reports done by The Biodiversity Company.

According to the appeal ruling, Terblanche did his own site inspections and found that some of the “high” sensitivity areas should be classified instead as “medium”. Terblanche did retain some “high” classification areas (including steep rocky cliffs), but these were then excluded from the solar development footprint.

According to Birdlife, Blue Crane was replaced to “circumvent“ the normal EIA process, allegedly in breach of requirements that EAPs act independently and in the wider interests of the environment, even if this led to findings unfavourable to the clients who appointed them.

‘Misrepresenting the facts’

Stellar, however, has denied any impropriety in appointing new consultants, arguing that Birdlife was “misrepresenting the facts”. The company argued that it was legally permitted to register its site under the fast-track process, an option that had not been available until March 2024.

According to Stellar, the Birdlife appeal was based on “an emotive complaint” by one EAP against another EAP.

“It is untrue, and it is denied that the services of Blue Crane were terminated. On the contrary, the services were expressly not terminated, but Blue Crane refused to communicate further after they were instructed to defer the EIA in favour of the [fast-track] registration.

“The [new] EAP was actually appointed in or about August 2024 to oversee the entire process with Blue Crane, as the applicant felt that Blue Crane was purposefully dragging their feet on the authorisation process.”

Elsewhere in its responses, some contradiction emerges, when the company states, “There has been no misconduct whatsoever by [Stellar] and its EAP, and [Stellar] has acted entirely within its rights to terminate the services of Blue Crane, especially in view of the non-performance by Blue Crane ... [Birdlife], with the assistance of Blue Crane has launched an attack on the credibility of the applicant’s EAP and specialist, without any evidence and based only on speculation and the say so of Blue Crane.

“It is inappropriate for Birdlife to suggest that the EAP and specialist appointed by [Stellar] in place of Blue Crane were inferior or incompetent or unprofessional. There is no evidence of such unfounded allegations, except the unsubstantiated opinion of Blue Crane.

“It is strenuously denied, as alleged by [Birdlife], that the change of EAP was due to dissatisfaction with the findings. All the findings and mitigation are implemented — the registration process was not available when the initial EIA process began. [Stellar] formed a legitimate opinion that Blue Crane was delayed. It suspended Blue Crane for reasons unrelated to the environmental findings and pursued a legitimate registration process.”

Stellar further stated that De Villiers was a “highly qualified EAP” and Terblanche a “highly respected and very experienced natural scientist”, and alleged that Blue Crane had an “undisclosed conflict of interest on behalf of another client”.

Aucamp stated that issues of ethics and professional conduct fell outside the scope of the appeal, but noted the expert view of The Biodiversity Company that the solar plant plan fell within an area of “high or very high” sensitivity.

While there was a difference of opinion on this issue, he concluded the proposed solar plant did not qualify for the fast-track process.

Ecological reality

“The fact that [Stellar] changed consultants who arrived at a different conclusion on the site sensitivities and redrew the footprint does not eliminate the prior ecological reality: the area remains in an ecologically sensitive landscape.”

The very fact that the new consultants acknowledged the need for extensive environmental mitigation of their project underscored the ecological sensitivity and risk associated with the site — “precisely the kind of risk the norms were not intended to accommodate via the simplified registration route,” said Aucamp.

“I make no finding on the averments regarding the professional and ethical conduct of the EAP. While motive is disputed and need not be resolved, the legal issue is whether the revised specialist inputs cure a mandatory exclusion. They do not.”

Stellar was therefore instructed to initiate a fresh, comprehensive EIA process. DM

Additional comments from parties after the ruling

Jean Pierre de Villiers (AB Enviro Consult)

De Villiers said he acknowledged and accepted the recent appeal ruling and would apply the minister’s interpretation in all future applications with immediate effect.

“AB Enviro Consult is an environmental consultancy that has been operating for over 25 years and has completed more than 450 Environmental Impact Assessments across South Africa. Throughout this time, we have worked closely with competent authorities and have sought to apply environmental legislation diligently, transparently, and in good faith as it evolves.

“New legislation always poses a challenge. Neither the [DFFE] officials nor the EAPs are fully familiar with the intention of the lawmakers, nor the implications of the new legislation. The appeal ruling relates to the interpretation of newly implemented legislative provisions. As is often the case with new regulatory frameworks, both EAPS and authorities are required to navigate complex and technical provisions while shared understanding is still developing.

“In this matter, the registration approach adopted by AB Enviro Consult followed consultation with the DFFE, and reflected the department’s interpretation of its own administrative process at the time.

“Going forward, AB Enviro Consult will align fully with the minister’s interpretation in all future projects. We remain committed to continuous improvement, regulatory compliance, and constructive engagement with authorities as environmental legislation and practice continue to develop.

“Should any concerns be referred to relevant professional or regulatory bodies, including EAPASA or SACNASP, AB Enviro Consult will cooperate fully and respond through the appropriate formal processes. We believe that professional oversight mechanisms exist precisely to address complex technical and interpretive matters in a fair, evidence-based manner.

“It is also important to emphasise the environmental outcome at the centre of this matter. The vulture restaurant that formed part of the appeal was successfully relocated and is now operating sustainably under the ongoing supervision of Vulpro, a recognised vulture conservation organisation, with support from the project developer.

“The new [vulture restaurant], located approximately 2.5 kilometres from the proposed solar facility, is functioning effectively, with vultures regularly congregating to feed. This outcome reflects a positive and lasting conservation benefit, independent of the professional or procedural dispute.”

Reinier Terblanche (Anthene Ecological)

Terblanche said he would be “very disappointed” if his professional integrity were called into question.

Terblanche said his assessments were based on his professional experience and opinion that the proposed solar farm site had been degraded significantly by agriculture. In response to queries from Daily Maverick, he denied downgrading the sensitivity ratings to accommodate the client.

“No, not at all. Never. That would come back to you. It would be unprofessional.”

Terblanche said that while he felt no need to defend himself against such perceptions, he noted that during 2004 — following an application to build a major new road in Gauteng — he played a key role in protecting three red-listed butterfly species in a section of the Suikerbosrand Nature Reserve. Based on the findings of his specialist habitat survey, the alignment of the proposed road had been changed to avoid significant risks to the butterflies and their habitat.

Blue Crane Environmental

The organisation said it had noted the minister’s decision “in particular, the clarification that matters relating to professional conduct, independence, or ethical compliance of environmental assessment practitioners and specialists fall within the mandates of the relevant professional and regulatory bodies, and not within the scope of the appeal process itself”.

“As a matter of principle, Blue Crane Environmental does not comment publicly on the conduct, motives, or actions of other practitioners, nor do we engage in public debate around allegations between parties. We likewise consider it inappropriate to comment on internal regulatory processes, including whether any party may or may not approach a professional body.

“Our role in this and all projects is to operate strictly within the requirements of Nema and its associated regulations, to provide independent, evidence-based professional services, and to respect the integrity of the regulatory processes established under South African environmental law. We have no further comment beyond what is already contained in the public record and the Minister’s decision.”

Birdlife South Africa

The conservation group said the Stellar Mockford case was unlikely to be the last time that solar power companies and their environmental consultants “will attempt to reap the benefits (in terms of time and expenditure) offered by the Solar Exclusion Norm, at the cost of environmental impacts that may otherwise have been avoided or better mitigated, if an environmental assessment process rather than registration process, had been undertaken”.

“As indicated in our appeal, we share the concern about the behaviour of the EAP and specialists who are subject to the Rules of Conduct prescribed by the relevant professional associations to which they belong.

“We respect that the minister needs to consider his own role, and the mandate of other institutions in this regard, and the avenues open to aggrieved parties to follow due process in raising their concerns.

“Our decision not to lay a formal complaint is tied to our reasons for launching this appeal in the first instance. We have long been concerned that the Solar Norm is insufficiently robust to withstand questionable behaviour on the part of EAPs and their specialists, who are inevitably also vulnerable to pressure from their clients to secure approvals in the shortest time and at the least cost.

“Primarily, we wanted to use this case to highlight the deficiencies in the Norm. Certainly, there is also benefit in the warning this decision conveys to other EAPs and specialists: that the misuse of a tool that is intended to benefit the renewable energy sector as a whole is going to backfire and also tarnish the reputations of implicated EAPs and specialists.

“It is our hope that this matter will draw the attention of department officials and encourage them to consider ways to close exploitable loopholes in the system, thereby ensuring that the alternative instrument serves a useful purpose without increasing the risk of harm to the environment.” DM