Eskom’s proposed transmission line in Limpopo illustrates the cruel paradox of South Africa’s energy dilemma: a coal-dependent grid already fuelling climate change is now being expanded in ways that further destroy biodiversity.
South Africa stands at a crossroads. On one side lies the urgent need to stabilise the country’s electricity supply; on the other is a critically pressing obligation to safeguard biodiversity as a vital prerequisite for continued life on Earth – a commitment enshrined in the 2023 White Paper on Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity, the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) and the Kruger to Canyons Biosphere Reserve, a Unesco-designated conservation area, to safeguard the future for the next generations of all species, including our own.
Now, these two imperatives are colliding head-on.
Eskom, South Africa’s state-owned power utility, is pursuing a 131km, 400kV transmission line through Limpopo’s Mopani and Sekhukhune districts – a plan first conceived in 2012 but repeatedly delayed. Despite missed deadlines and mounting criticism, the project remains on the table. Conservation groups and landowners warn that the proposed routes will slice through some of the country’s most ecologically significant and economically valuable wilderness.
A fragile corridor at risk
This is no ordinary tract of bushveld. It connects the Kruger National Park with other protected areas within the Greater Limpopo Transfrontier Conservation Area, forming part of a broader wildlife corridor that sustains critically rare species such as African wild dogs, pangolins, vultures and the fabled white lions of the Timbavati.
For local communities, this landscape is more than scenic beauty; it underpins a thriving ecotourism economy, providing jobs and stability in a region where alternatives are scarce. Overhead powerlines would not only scar the landscape that sustains livelihoods, but also fragment the habitats that sustain the regional ecological balance and web of life.
A process under fire
While environmental lawyers point to procedural violations in the environmental review, conservationists highlight the deeper issue: the devaluation of living ecosystems as expendable terrain for industrial progress.
The Global White Lion Protection Trust – a nonprofit that has consolidated nine title deeds of critical biodiversity land into a contiguous wildlife corridor registered under South Africa’s Protected Areas Act, which carries the highest level of legal protection – was recently informed that this nationally protected nature reserve is in the direct path of Eskom’s proposed line.
“Healthy ecosystems are not a luxury,” says Linda Tucker, CEO of the trust. “They are the key to our planet’s survival. Damaging nature-sensitive areas denies the next generation a healthy future.”
Despite these legal protections, the area now faces what Tucker calls “catastrophic disruption” – an act of environmental injustice serving “the short-term gain at the expense of the Earth”.
The myth of community benefit
Eskom maintains that the powerline will create an energy hub to supply nearby communities. Yet maps tell a different story: the route runs directly between two major mining operations, Merensky and Foskor. Far from rural electrification, the line appears designed to secure energy for industrial expansion.
In so doing it cuts through conservation-designated land within the Kruger to Canyons Biosphere, violating not just ecological imperatives but also the ethical and legal commitments South Africa has made under both national and international frameworks.
Flawed science, fewer choices
Multiple expert submissions to the environmental impact assessment (EIA) have exposed glaring procedural flaws:
- No proper site visits on affected properties;
- “High” risks to raptors and ecotourism, acknowledged in special reports, downplayed in summary documents;
- Viable alternatives – such as underground cabling, renewable integration or upgrading existing pylons – dismissed without thorough analysis; and
- Less-destructive routes, previously identified, ignored.
South Africa’s EIA regulations require the consideration of viable alternatives during the scoping phase. Yet this process appears to have been reduced to a rubber-stamp exercise. Only two near-identical routes are under consideration, both running through biodiversity hotspots.
The 2023 Biodiversity White Paper obliges all developments to avoid biodiversity loss and account for full socioeconomic costs. This project’s disregard of these obligations raises uncomfortable questions: why were less-damaging routes dismissed? Why not upgrade existing lines along the same corridor? Who truly stands to benefit from the tender?
A clash of commitments
The question is not whether South Africa needs energy – it does – but whether energy expansion must come at the expense of environmental integrity.
Critics argue that Eskom’s proposal lacks data and fails to consider modern technological alternatives. In essence, South Africa is risking its ecological heritage for an outdated model of industrial expansion – one that benefits a few while undermining the long-term sustainability of the many.
The timing could not be worse. As biodiversity loss accelerates and climate pressures mount, South Africa’s reputation as a conservation leader hangs in the balance. Approving this project would directly contradict the country’s commitments under the GBF, Unesco and its own Protected Areas Act – a triple blow to its global environmental credibility.
Under the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act, nature reserves must maintain their “ecological integrity”. Large-scale habitat destruction or infrastructure violating a reserve’s management plan is explicitly prohibited. The proposed powerline – traversing a legally declared reserve – is therefore in clear conflict with this legislation.
The process resets but the problems remain
On 1 September 2025, Eskom’s environmental consultants, Nsovo Environmental Consulting, resubmitted the environmental authorisation application after the original process lapsed. They claimed that “the environmental context has not changed”. Conservationists call this assertion “patently false”.
In the intervening years, ecological pressures have intensified, international commitments have been signed, and key parcels of land have been formally designated as protected nature reserves. To proceed as if nothing has changed is both misleading and unlawful.
A cruel paradox
At a global level, South Africa has committed to the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, which aims to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030. Among its key targets are sustainable land-use planning (Target 1), conserving 30% of the planet’s land and waters (Target 3), and integrating biodiversity into all economic decision-making (Target 14).
The Global Biodiversity Framework Fund (GBFF), established to finance these goals, supports developing nations like South Africa in achieving them. By pushing a destructive infrastructure project through a Unesco biosphere, the country risks breaching its obligations – risking future biodiversity funding and international support.
This is the cruel paradox of South Africa’s energy dilemma: a coal-dependent grid already fuelling climate change is now being expanded in ways that further destroy biodiversity. The country faces a double hit – burning fossil fuels that erode ecosystems through global warming, while running new powerlines through the very wilderness areas that mitigate those impacts.
The road ahead
If South Africa wishes to remain a global conservation leader and premier ecotourism destination, Eskom’s proposal must be reconsidered.
Sustainable energy should illuminate the future, not destroy the natural heritage on which that future depends.
This article was previously published by the Daily Maverick/Our Burning Planet/Eco-Hazards Op-Ed
Dr Adam Cruise is an investigative environmental journalist, travel writer and academic. He has contributed to a number of international publications, including National Geographic and The Guardian, covering diverse topics from the plight of elephants, rhinos and lions in Africa to coral reef rejuvenation in Indonesia. Cruise is a Doctor of Philosophy, specialising in animal and environmental ethics, and is the editor of the online Journal of African Elephants.
