However, small-scale tenant farmers, fishers, small local business owners, and residents of the nearby Wema, Jacons, Dalton, and Glebelelands hostels as well as informal settlements in the surrounding area would be displaced by the project and lose their livelihoods [1, 3]. 187 hectares farmed by 16 small-scale farms could be lost [5, 13]. “We have been farming here since 1988. Transnet wants us off the land by 2015, but they have offered us no alternative land for farming,” said Siga Govender, chairperson of the Airport Farmers’ Association. The farmers employ 100 workers and grow a range of crops, including cabbage, spinach, coriander, marigolds and maize, which are sold to local street markets and larger supermarkets. “This land is my livelihood. Over the years we’ve lost subsidies for diesel, fertiliser and seeds, as well as flood and drought relief. We used to have fully-qualified extension officers and we lost them too. Now we are going to lose our land” [6].

The neighborhoods surrounding the petrochemical industrial complex have also been long plagued by environmental racism. The area, including the “Indian” Merebank and Clairwood and “colored” Wentworth and Umlazi township, have been historically segregated since Apartheid, and today are where many environmental consequences are concentrated owing to port and petrochemical activities, earning the nickname “Africa’s armpit” for the noxious smell. Concerning accidents, freight drivers shipping to and from the port killed 70 people in 2012 alone and cause 7,000 crashes annually. The worst single case occurred in September 2013, when 23 people were killed by a runaway freight truck [5]. Social issues also already make the population vulnerable to what is called port creep; or the arrival of crime, smuggling, prostitution, trucks, pollution and logistics companies in the neighbourhood, because of the suburb's proximity to the back of a port [13].

Transnet released a controversial environmental impact assessment (EIA) in 2013, claiming that larger ships in the new port would allegedly lower emissions per container [5]. Many environmental groups countered, however. BirdLife SA argued that Durban Bay is one of only three estuarine bays in South Africa, providing critical ecosystem services such as being aheat and carbon sink, biodiversity, marine life, filtering, and storm protection. The project would also violate bird migration and repitale/amphibian protection protocol from the Bonn Convention [5]. The South Durban Community Environmental Alliance (SDCEA) performed its own EIA indicating, among other consequences, serious damage to flood plains that would contribute to significant sea level rise, which officials ignored. The Department of Environmental Affairs rejected the Transnet EIA in October 2013

Socioenvironmental concerns about the project are related to its nature as a petro-chemical industrial hub contributing to global climate change. Durban Bay, the contested port site, has already been heavily polluted from ongoing harbor and associated activities, contaminated riverine and storm-water inflows. The expansion would further destroy the Bay’s ecosystem, which would reduce the estuary’s capacity to recover [5]. Aside from other major ecological consequences for the estuarine bay, health-related climate change consequences would increase owing to added pollution from increased trucking, converting the Clairwood racecourse into a logistics park and container depot, and building massive roads and railroad lines [1, 5].  Logistically, digging the port is also dangerous because it would release toxic chemicals from the petrochemical complex that have accumulated in the ground over decades, such chemicals having already coated nearby neighborhoods with oil-related sulfur and soot showers and causing world-leading asthma rates [5].

In response to the potential consequences of the port proposal, Desmond D’Sa, coordinator of the SDCEA, among many others, began planning mass protest actions. As SDCEA member Priya Pillay explained, "We're looking at ways we can move this campaign forward and be part of the development on the planning process more than just to sit back and allow industry and government to bully us out of our own homes” [2]. Activists also attended public hearings on the matter since 2012, where they used the meetings as rallying points [5]. On April 27, 2012, 300 fishermen from the KwaZulu-Natal Subsistence Fishermen Association occupied one of the piers in protest as well as organized to pursue legal action [13].

On November 14, 2013, activists from groundWork and SDCEA  marched from the local Reunion beach to the contested site against the project, which would “be owned by the conglomerate and would do nothing to improve the lives of our people,” according to groundWork head Bobby Peek [3]. Afterward, the organizing groups also held the People’s Climate Camp (PCC) in Durban resisting projects contributing to climate change, environmental damage, and social injustice [6]. The PCC was held in solidarity with the local farmers on their farmland, joined by local groups such as the South African Waste Pickers’ Association (SAWPA) and international groups such as Friends of the Earth. Two workshops were held to understand the politics of the port struggle and on how to encourage sustainable living at the camp and at home, as well as a press conference. The camp culminated in a petition signed by 30 civil society groups, faith-based organizations, NGOs, and other types of collectives [7]. 

On March 29, 2014, over 800 of community and NGO members, led by D’Sa and the SDCEA, marched to Durban City Hall to submit a memorandum of concerns against the port expansion, demanding an answer within 14 days [11]. As D’Sa stated, “. Last year the municipality promised to consult broadly with the community, and this has not happened until today … This project has ignored significant social and environmental considerations in favour of the kind of neo-liberal economic policy that will not benefit these communities but rather governments and corporations invested in this project” [1]. Transnet’s response, however, was to assert that the project would provide “much needed financial support to the region, as well as provide jobs for the local market,” and that another EIA is expected to have “very positive impacts for the South Durban Basin and eThekwini as a whole” [12].

On April 27, 2016, Freedom Day, Earthlife Africa and the SDCEA held a public meeting informing residents about developments as well as a protest blockade at the Durban Port entrance to the container terminals. “Freedom day marks the day we gained democracy and the right to express our views and opinions with considerations. However, as the years progressed, democracy seems more far-fetched than tangible in all aspects of this country … Instead of being people centred, Transnet’s programmes and projects have disregarded people and their rights and insulted the definition of democracy in this country,” said D’Sa [9]. Over 2,500 attendees joined the demonstration [10].

On February 14, 2017, stakeholder meetings resulted in Transnet announcing that the dig-out port plans would be suspended at least until 2030 [4]. The forced delay was because of flat shipping demands and sky-high costs owing to project mismanagement, corruption and fund embezzlement, and other controversies [8]. Regarldless, the project did not completely stop. In July 2018, the Brics New Development Bank loaned $200 million to Transnet to expand the port without adequate consultation or analysis.