Socio Economic Impact Assessment - SAHRIS | SAHRA · Author/Reviewer: Anton Grobler / Anne-marie le...
Transcript of Socio Economic Impact Assessment - SAHRIS | SAHRA · Author/Reviewer: Anton Grobler / Anne-marie le...
![Page 1: Socio Economic Impact Assessment - SAHRIS | SAHRA · Author/Reviewer: Anton Grobler / Anne-marie le Roux Report date: 20 May 2016 v.2 To be cited as: SEIA – CDR General declaration](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffbdcf43e93e71b55070530/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
© Zone Land Solutions 1 | P a g e
Centaur De Roodepoort 435 IS
DEA Ref No
Zone Land Solutions Ref SEIA – CDR
CDR SEIA Reports 31 May 2016 v4
2013
On behalf of:
Centaur De Roodepoort (Pty) Ltd
Produced for:
Cabanga Concepts CC
Produced by:
Zone Land Solutions
(Pty) Ltd
Socio Economic Impact Assessment
![Page 2: Socio Economic Impact Assessment - SAHRIS | SAHRA · Author/Reviewer: Anton Grobler / Anne-marie le Roux Report date: 20 May 2016 v.2 To be cited as: SEIA – CDR General declaration](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffbdcf43e93e71b55070530/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
© Zone Land Solutions 1 | P a g e
Report background
Commissioned by: Centaur De Roodepoort(Pty) Ltd (previously known as Tokicap (Pty) Ltd)
Prepared for: Cabanga Concepts CC
Published by: Zone Land Solutions (Pty) Ltd
Author/Reviewer: Anton Grobler / Anne-marie le Roux
Report date: 20 May 2016 v.2
To be cited as: SEIA – CDR
General declaration
I, Anton Grobler declare that:
I act as the independent specialist in this application;
I will perform the work relating to the application in an objective manner, even if this
results in views and findings that are not favourable to the applicant;
I declare that there are no circumstances that may compromise my objectivity in
performing such work;
I have expertise in conducting the specialist report relevant to this application,
including knowledge of the Act, regulations and any guidelines that have relevance
to the proposed activity;
I will comply with the Act, regulations and all other applicable legislation;
I have no, and will not engage in, conflicting interests in the undertaking of the activity;
I undertake to disclose to the applicant and the competent authority all material
information in my possession that reasonably has or may have the potential of
influencing - any decision to be taken with respect to the application by the
competent authority; and - the objectivity of any report, plan or document to be
prepared by myself for submission to the competent authority;
All the particulars furnished by me in this form are true and correct; and
I realise that a false declaration is an offence in terms of Regulation 71 and is punishable
in terms of section 24F of the Act.
Anton Grobler1
1 Abbreviated Curriculum Vitae attached
![Page 3: Socio Economic Impact Assessment - SAHRIS | SAHRA · Author/Reviewer: Anton Grobler / Anne-marie le Roux Report date: 20 May 2016 v.2 To be cited as: SEIA – CDR General declaration](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffbdcf43e93e71b55070530/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
© Zone Land Solutions 2 | P a g e
As reviewer, I, Anne-marie le Roux, declare that:
I act as the objective reviewer of this application;
I will perform the work relating to this report and findings in an objective manner;
I declare that there are no circumstances that may compromise my objectivity in
performing such work;
I have expertise in reviewing specialist reports relevant to this application, including
knowledge of the Act, regulations and any guidelines that have relevance to the
proposed activity;
I will comply with the Act, regulations and all other applicable legislation;
I have no, and will not engage in, conflicting interests in the undertaking of the activity;
I undertake to disclose to the applicant and the competent authority all material
information in my possession that reasonably has or may have the potential of
influencing - any decision to be taken with respect to the application by the
competent authority; and - the objectivity of any report, plan or document to be
prepared by myself for submission to the competent authority;
All the particulars furnished by me in this form are true and correct; and
I realise that a false declaration is an offence in terms of Regulation 71 and is punishable
in terms of section 24F of the Act.
Anne-marie le Roux2
2 Abbreviated Curriculum Vitae attached
![Page 4: Socio Economic Impact Assessment - SAHRIS | SAHRA · Author/Reviewer: Anton Grobler / Anne-marie le Roux Report date: 20 May 2016 v.2 To be cited as: SEIA – CDR General declaration](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffbdcf43e93e71b55070530/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
© Zone Land Solutions 3 | P a g e
ACRONYMS
BEE Black Economic Empowerment
CBA Cost Benefit Analysis
CDAP Community Development Action Plan
CDR Centaur De Roodepoort
CRR Comments and Response Register
dBA A-weighted decibels
DEAT Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism
DEA&DP Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning
DM District Municipality
DMR Department of Mineral Resources
DPSIR Drivers-Pressure-State-Impact-Response Model
EE Employment Equity
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
EMPr Environmental Management Programme (report)
GDPR Gross Domestic Product of the Region
GGP Gross Geographical Product
GSDM Gert Sibande District Municipality
GVA Gross Value Added
HDI Human Development Index
I&AP Interested & Affected Parties
IDP Integrated Development Plan
IRP Integrated Resource Plan
LED/P Local Economic Development/Plan
LUPO Land Use Planning Ordinance 15 of 1985
MLM Msukaligwa Local Municipality
MF Management Forum
MPRDA Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act 28 of 2002 as amended
NEMA National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998 as amended
NSDP National Spatial Development Programme
PDA Potential development Area
PSDF Provincial Sustainable Development Forum
PGDS Provincial Growth and Development Strategy
PPP Public Participation Process
RBS Revised Balanced Scenario
SA South Africa
SDF Spatial Development Framework
SEIA Socio-economic Impact Assessment
SLP Social Labour Plan
VIA Visual Impact Assessment
![Page 5: Socio Economic Impact Assessment - SAHRIS | SAHRA · Author/Reviewer: Anton Grobler / Anne-marie le Roux Report date: 20 May 2016 v.2 To be cited as: SEIA – CDR General declaration](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffbdcf43e93e71b55070530/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
© Zone Land Solutions 4 | P a g e
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The proposed mining right area is located approximately 5km West of Ermelo / Wesselton within
the Gert Sibande District Municipality (GSDM), specifically the Msukaligwa Local Municipality
(MLM) in the Mpumalanga Province. The total extent of the proposed mineral area is
3,258.9957 hectares.
The intended mine infrastructure will be located on portion RE 0 of the Farm De Roodepoort
435 IS. No surface disturbance is expected to occur on the remaining farm portions (these
include RE1, RE2, 3, RE4, 5, RE6, RE7, 8, RE9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 of De Roodepoort 435 IS).
Centaur De Roodepoort (CDR) appointed Cabanga Concepts CC as the independent
environmental consultant to undertake the EIA in terms of sections 24 and 24D of the National
Environmental Management Act (NEMA, Act No. 107 of 1998), in conjunction with the EIA
Regulations (GN R543, Regulations 26-35 and R545) – since amended.
Zone Land Solutions (Pty) Ltd in turn has been contracted to complete the Socio-Economic
Impact Assessment (SEIA) for the CDR development.
Study Scope and Objectives
A Socio-economic Impact Assessment (SEIA) evaluates a proposed
development’s impacts on a community’s social and economic well-being in
advance of the impacts, by assessing the quality of life of persons and
communities whose environment may be affected by a proposed project.
(Burdge et al., 1995)
The key aims and objectives of the socio-economic study include:
To provide an accurate representation of the social and economic impacts for the
stakeholders surrounding the proposed mining development;
To assess the identified potential positive and negative socio-economic impacts of the
construction and operations phase (a separate application will be submitted for
closure and decommissioning phases of the proposed project);
To develop social management and monitoring measures to be implemented
throughout the construction and operational phases of the project.
Study Outline
The socio-economic impact drivers and pressures were determined based on the different
sources of research conducted for the CDR development. The outline includes the structure
of this report with the different sections for easy reference. The outline also creates context for
the most important part of the paper: a summary of the SEIA drivers and pressures, concluded
![Page 6: Socio Economic Impact Assessment - SAHRIS | SAHRA · Author/Reviewer: Anton Grobler / Anne-marie le Roux Report date: 20 May 2016 v.2 To be cited as: SEIA – CDR General declaration](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffbdcf43e93e71b55070530/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
© Zone Land Solutions 5 | P a g e
from the primary and secondary research conducted, which is presented in SECTION 3 of this
report.
Structure of the Study
Apart from the Executive Summary, the report is structured as follows, using the DPSIR Model
(see Figure 5 below) for socio-economic assessments.
Section 1 SEIA Methodology Defining the methodology and models used to assess the socio-
economic impacts.
Section 2 SEIA Drivers &
Pressures
To confirm the Socio-economic issues relevant to the proposed CDR
development in reference to the receiving environment, the
Scoping Report, the PPP and the site visits.
Section 3 Socio-Economic
Impact Assessment
This section assesses the nature and significance of social and
economic impacts throughout the construction and operational
phases of the development.
Section 4 Social Response &
Mitigation
This section documents mitigation measures and recommendations
for inclusion in the EMP.
Socio-Economic Impact Assessment Frameworks
The SEIA aims to documents social and economic concerns associated with the development
through the application of listed frameworks and models.
a. Social impact model
This report uses the Driver-Pressure-State-Impacts-Response (DPSIR) model to explore socio-
economic issues in the National Environmental Management Act (No 107 of 1998) – which has
since been amended (henceforth referred to as NEMA). Each section in the report is made up
of a number of indicators, covering key issues related to each of the model variables. Where
appropriate, the report shows the interconnections between the variables and issues.
b. Cost benefit valuation
By completing the assessment tables and documenting the findings (see SECTION 3), the aim
is to give an environmental cost-benefit valuation context, which will not only weigh up the
immediate tangible economic returns derived from projects, but also make an assessment of
the longer-term socio-economic impact. Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) attributes value to social
variables and the environment through looking at the overall significance of impacts and the
cost of reversibility.
![Page 7: Socio Economic Impact Assessment - SAHRIS | SAHRA · Author/Reviewer: Anton Grobler / Anne-marie le Roux Report date: 20 May 2016 v.2 To be cited as: SEIA – CDR General declaration](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffbdcf43e93e71b55070530/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
© Zone Land Solutions 6 | P a g e
c. Ethical considerations
In assessing the overall confidence level in the impact assessment, the Velasquez’s (1985)
ethical framework questions ensure that the focus is on “doing the right thing” and the answers
thus guide the confidence level. This model uses a holistic perspective to assess:
The social and environmental costs and benefits
The rewards and burdens for stakeholders
The effect on the rights of stakeholders
The degree of care shown towards the environment and stakeholders
Baseline Socio-Economic Environment
The impacted area has specific salient socio-economic characteristics which are dealt with in
more detail in the impact assessment tables. For introduction purposes, the baseline
descriptions serve as a reverence point for the CDR proposed development.
Description of the proposed CDR development
Project Centaur De Roodepoort 435 IS
Residential areas/Townships adjacent to
proposed development
Ermelo / Wesselton
Closest town Ermelo, Mpumalanga Province
Local Municipality Msukaligwa Local Municipality
District Municipality Gert Sibande District Municipality
Developer Centaur De Roodepoort (Pty) Ltd
Properties included in mineral rights Portions RE0, RE1, RE2, RE4, 5, RE6, RE7, 8, RE9, 10, 11,
12, 13, 14 of De Roodepoort 435 IS
Proposed mining area 3,258.9957 ha
Proposed activity area +130ha
![Page 8: Socio Economic Impact Assessment - SAHRIS | SAHRA · Author/Reviewer: Anton Grobler / Anne-marie le Roux Report date: 20 May 2016 v.2 To be cited as: SEIA – CDR General declaration](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffbdcf43e93e71b55070530/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
© Zone Land Solutions 7 | P a g e
Picture by Zone Land Solutions: Signage indicating Farm De Roodepoort opposite proposed development site.
Overview of the Area
Locally the coal seams occur within the Vryheid Formation of the Ecca Group of which the
Pietermaritzburg and Vryheid Formations are found in the Ermelo Coalfield. The Ermelo
Coalfield stretches from Carolina to Standerton and Wakkerstroom in the Mpumalanga
Province. Coal qualities in mineable seams are generally good. The De Roodepoort Mining
Right Area falls on the boundary of the Ermelo Coalfields.
The information below is taken from Statistics South Africa (Census, 2011) as well as the Socio-
economic profile of Msukaligwa (MP302) (March 2015) and summarises the relevant
demographics of the Local Municipality:
i. Household Structures, Services and Health
The MLM covers an area of 6 016km² and includes the Breyten, Chrissiesmeer, Davel,
Ermelo, and Lothair towns.
The Municipality has a population of 149 378 people, of which 89% are black African,
9% are white, 1% are Indian/Asian, and 0.5% are coloured. The other population groups
make up the remaining 0.4%.
Youth of up to 34 years - 69.1% of MLM’s population.
There is a steady current (since 2001) and a forecasted population growth in the MLM.
Number of households 40 932 (3.8 people per household) – 15.0% of GS’s number of
households.
Female headed households 37.8% and child headed (10-17 years) households 0.6 % in
2011.
![Page 9: Socio Economic Impact Assessment - SAHRIS | SAHRA · Author/Reviewer: Anton Grobler / Anne-marie le Roux Report date: 20 May 2016 v.2 To be cited as: SEIA – CDR General declaration](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffbdcf43e93e71b55070530/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
© Zone Land Solutions 8 | P a g e
HIV prevalence rate of pregnant women 34.4% in 2012 - improving since 2010 (47%)
and 2011 (47.4%).
Reported TB cases also down from 707 in 2010 to 526 in 2011.
ii. Employment and Economic Activities
36 971 are employed whereas 5 311 are discouraged work-seekers.
Unemployment rate of 26.8% (strict definition) in 2011 – 15 267 unemployed as a
percentage of the EAP of 56 965 – decreasing trend (estimated 2013 unemployment
rate by IHS Global Insight 24.0%).
Unemployment rate for females 36.2% and males 19.4% - youth unemployment rate of
34.5%.
A sharp decline in employment has been reported in agriculture in the MLM, and a
slight decrease in the mining sector. In 2011, 11% of all individuals employed in the MLM
were in the mining sector, compared to the 4% in mining.
The MLM has seen a large decrease in overall primary sector employment. All of the
other employment sectors have however indicated an overall growth.
Community services, finance, mining and trade should contribute the most to
economic growth in the period 2013-2018, according to the GSDM Socio-economic
profile of the MLM.
iii. Assessment of Potential Socio-Economic Impacts & Management Measures
The following depiction and table is a summary of the socio-economic impacts identified and
assessed in this document. This list aims to capture the salient concerns and opportunities the
CDR development may afford its stakeholders, as at the time of the publication of the
research.
a. Summary of SEIA outcomes
Social Issue Impact Type Assessment Possible Mitigation
Air quality (including dust & pollution) Health Impact Moderate to
Low (Negative)
Yes
Noise pollution (including blasting &
vibration) Health Impact
Moderate to
Low (Negative)
Yes
HIV/Aids, Cholera, Flu mutations,
Tuberculosis, Sexually transmitted
infections
Health Impact Moderate to
Low (Negative)
Yes
Close proximity to adjacent agricultural
property
Health & Safety
Impact
Moderate to low
(Negative)
Yes
Impact on land use and resulting land
value
Economic
Impact
Moderate
(Negative)
No
Employment opportunities Economic
Impact
Moderate
(Positive)
Yes
Local/ regional business industry Economic
Impact
Moderate
(Positive)
Yes
Aesthetic and ‘sense of place’ i.e. tourism
and lifestyle
Socio-cultural
Impact
Moderate to
Low (Negative)
Yes
![Page 10: Socio Economic Impact Assessment - SAHRIS | SAHRA · Author/Reviewer: Anton Grobler / Anne-marie le Roux Report date: 20 May 2016 v.2 To be cited as: SEIA – CDR General declaration](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffbdcf43e93e71b55070530/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
© Zone Land Solutions 9 | P a g e
Perceptions & attitudes towards the CDR Social Impact Moderate to low
(Negative)
Yes
Impact on roads infrastructure Traffic impact Moderate to
Low (Negative)
Yes
Impact on MLM planning & development
(SDF)
Socio-economic
Impact
Moderate to low
(Positive)
Yes
b. Cumulative Impacts
The EIA Regulation 35 (l)(i) provide the context to cumulative impacts.
“Cumulative impact, in relation to an activity, means the impact of an activity
that in itself may not be significant but may become significant when added to
the existing and potential impacts eventuating from similar or diverse activities
or undertakings in the area.”
The cumulative impact on this development was measured within the regional context of the
MLM.
c. No-Development Option
The no-development option does not change the status quo and thus will have no impact on
the social impact variables e.g. local economy or the geographical landscape. The projected
positive economic impacts which the project would have brought about will also then be lost.
The no-development option will result in the sterilisation of the coal resource. This would reduce
coal resources for power generation which is currently a major issue in South Africa, with limited
viable base load power generation alternatives. The no-go option would also prevent the
socio-economic benefits, including the need for job creation, increased socio-economic
activity and social upliftment. A no-development option would also suggest a loss in local
business revenue through the multiplier effects.
d. Environmental Management Plan
The response to the socio-economic impact assessment is the EMP which will aim to manage
and mitigate the socio-economic impacts the CDR development may have on the various
stakeholders. The detail on this is captured in this report in SECTION 4.
e. Assumptions and Limitations
This assessment was carried out with the information available to the specialist at the time of
executing the study, within the available timeframe and budget. The content of the research
was derived from the following sources:
A review of key planning and policy documents pertaining to the area;
Semi-structured interviews with a sample of interested and affected parties (see
Appendix B & C);
A review of social and economic issues associated with similar developments;
![Page 11: Socio Economic Impact Assessment - SAHRIS | SAHRA · Author/Reviewer: Anton Grobler / Anne-marie le Roux Report date: 20 May 2016 v.2 To be cited as: SEIA – CDR General declaration](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffbdcf43e93e71b55070530/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
© Zone Land Solutions 10 | P a g e
Legislative frameworks;
A review of relevant literature on social and economic impacts;
The experience of the specialist with similar projects in Africa.
All effort has been made to ensure the information is correct at the time of compiling this
report:
The sources consulted are not exhaustive and additional information which might
strengthen arguments, or contradict information in this report, may exist.
As the PPP is not finalised, this study can only include current stakeholders and
concerns, and excludes those that have not yet been identified and listed as I&AP’s.
The specialist did endeavour to take an evidence-based approach in the compilation
of this report and did not intentionally exclude information relevant to the assessment.
![Page 12: Socio Economic Impact Assessment - SAHRIS | SAHRA · Author/Reviewer: Anton Grobler / Anne-marie le Roux Report date: 20 May 2016 v.2 To be cited as: SEIA – CDR General declaration](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffbdcf43e93e71b55070530/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
© Zone Land Solutions 11 | P a g e
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1: SEIA METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................... 14
1. Technical Project Overview ............................................................................................................... 14
2. Site Location and Description ............................................................................................................ 16
3. Fit with Policy and Planning ................................................................................................................ 17
Constitution of South Africa, 1996 and common law ........................................................................... 17
National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No 107 of 1998) – since amended .............. 17
Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Amendment Act (Act 49of 2008) ........................ 17
Mine Health and Safety Act, 1996 (Act 29 of 1996) .............................................................................. 17
National Water Act, 1998 (Act 36 of 1998) ............................................................................................ 17
NEMA: Air Quality Act (Act 39 of 2004) .................................................................................................. 18
MLM 2015-2018 ......................................................................................................................................... 18
4. Framework for SEIA .............................................................................................................................. 19
5. DPSIR Model .......................................................................................................................................... 19
5.1 Determination of significance of impacts.................................................................................. 20
5.2 Impact rating system .................................................................................................................... 21
5.3 Status Quo on the CDR development location ........................................................................ 21
5.4 Socio-demographic profile ......................................................................................................... 22
5.5 Institutional and governance framework .................................................................................. 31
5.6 Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 32
SECTION 2: SEIA DRIVERS & PRESSURES ................................................................................................... 33
1. Defining the Scope of the Study ....................................................................................................... 33
2. Salient Findings ..................................................................................................................................... 34
2.1 Cumulative Impact ...................................................................................................................... 35
2.2 No-Development Option ............................................................................................................. 35
2.3 Summary of Issues and Concerns from the PPP ........................................................................ 35
SECTION 3: SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT ............................................................................. 38
1. Background Context ........................................................................................................................... 38
2. Potential impacts during the Construction and Operations phase ........................................... 38
3. Indicators for a Cost-Benefit Analysis ............................................................................................... 40
4. Impact Model ....................................................................................................................................... 41
5. Summary ................................................................................................................................................ 41
6. SEIA Impact Tables ............................................................................................................................... 42
7. Confidence Level ................................................................................................................................ 52
7.1 Probability rating ........................................................................................................................... 52
![Page 13: Socio Economic Impact Assessment - SAHRIS | SAHRA · Author/Reviewer: Anton Grobler / Anne-marie le Roux Report date: 20 May 2016 v.2 To be cited as: SEIA – CDR General declaration](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffbdcf43e93e71b55070530/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
© Zone Land Solutions 12 | P a g e
7.2 Ethical consideration .................................................................................................................... 52
7.3 Cumulative Impacts ..................................................................................................................... 53
7.4 SEIA Summary ................................................................................................................................ 53
SECTION 4: SOCIAL RESPONSE & MITIGATION ............................................................................................. 54
1. Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................................................ 54
2. Environmental Management Plan .................................................................................................... 56
2.1 2014 EIA Regulations .................................................................................................................... 56
2.2 The Social EMP .............................................................................................................................. 56
2.3 Out of Scope for the CDR SEIA .................................................................................................... 58
3. Recommendations and Conclusion ................................................................................................ 59
Appendix A: MEASUREMENT CRITERIA 60
Appendix B: INFORMATION SOURCES 63
Bibliography ........................................................................................................................................................ 63
Internet sources .................................................................................................................................................. 64
Primary research sources consulted for SEIA (not exhaustive) .................................................................. 64
Appendix C: CRR SUMMARY OF ISSUES ARISING FROM THE PPP 65
APPENDIX D: CV’s 66
ABBREVIATED CV – Anton Grobler .................................................................................................................. 66
ABBREVIATED CV – Anne-marie le Roux ........................................................................................................ 67
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Municipal wide SDF ................................................................................................................................... 15
Figure 2: Local setting of CDR .................................................................................................................................. 15
Figure 3: Proposed Access to the CDR site ........................................................................................................... 16
Figure 4: Opposite Proposed Access looking towards EAST .............................................................................. 16
Figure 5: UNEP D-P-S-I-R Model (2006) .................................................................................................................... 19
Figure 6: Informal sector in Msukaligwa ................................................................................................................. 22
Figure 7: Population Group No. of People % - MLM (MP302) ............................................................................. 22
Figure 8: Population Group No. of Households % - MLM (MP302) ..................................................................... 23
Figure 9: Annualised growth rates per LM (%) ...................................................................................................... 24
Figure 10: Projected growth for the MLM up to 2025 .......................................................................................... 25
Figure 11: Population per Enumerator Area type ................................................................................................ 26
Figure 12: Examples of economic activity in MLM ............................................................................................... 27
Figure 13: Employment per economic activity from 1995 – 2011 ..................................................................... 29
Figure 14: Proportionality in employment per economic activity in 2011 ....................................................... 30
Figure 15: Percentage growth per sector per annum, from 1995 – 2011 ........................................................ 31
Figure 16: The Gert Sibande District Municipality forms part infrastructure in MLM ....................................... 32
Figure 17: Methodological approach to SEIA ...................................................................................................... 33
Figure 18: Phases of the EMP ................................................................................................................................... 34
Figure 19: Stakeholder Influence Analysis .............................................................................................................. 37
Figure 20: Summary of SEI outcomes ...................................................................................................................... 55
![Page 14: Socio Economic Impact Assessment - SAHRIS | SAHRA · Author/Reviewer: Anton Grobler / Anne-marie le Roux Report date: 20 May 2016 v.2 To be cited as: SEIA – CDR General declaration](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffbdcf43e93e71b55070530/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
© Zone Land Solutions 13 | P a g e
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Labour force analysis of MLM .................................................................................................................. 28
Table 2: Proposed employment summary CDR ................................................................................................... 39
Table 3: Summary of impact significance ............................................................................................................. 42
Table 4: Socio-economic impacts related to air quality .................................................................................... 42
Table 5: Socio-economic impacts related to noise............................................................................................. 43
Table 6: Socio-economic impacts related to disease ........................................................................................ 44
Table 7: Socio-economic impacts related to neighbouring residential development ................................ 45
Table 8: Socio-economic impacts related to propery ........................................................................................ 46
Table 9: Socio-economic impacts related to employment ............................................................................... 47
Table 10: Socio-economic impacts related to local industry and business .................................................... 48
Table 11: Socio-economic impacts related to lifestyle ....................................................................................... 49
Table 12: Socio-economic impacts related to perceptions towards the development .............................. 49
Table 13:Socio-economic impacts related to roads ........................................................................................... 50
Table 14: Socio-economic impacts related to future local development ..................................................... 51
Table 15: Summary of SEIA Pressures & Drivers...................................................................................................... 54
Table 16: Mitigation measures ................................................................................................................................. 57
![Page 15: Socio Economic Impact Assessment - SAHRIS | SAHRA · Author/Reviewer: Anton Grobler / Anne-marie le Roux Report date: 20 May 2016 v.2 To be cited as: SEIA – CDR General declaration](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffbdcf43e93e71b55070530/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
© Zone Land Solutions 14 | P a g e
SECTION 1: SEIA METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this section is to provide a description of the technical aspects, the
methodology and models used to assess the socio-economic impacts.
The technical project overview, site location and description, fit with policy and planning,
framework for SEIA as well as status quo on the CDR development are some of the aspects
presented in this section. The following information is inter alia presented as part of this section.
1. Technical Project Overview
South Africa produces in excess of 255 million tonnes of coal (2011 estimate) and consumes
almost three quarters of that domestically. Around 77% of South Africa's energy needs are
directly derived from coal and 92% of coal consumed on the African continent is produced in
South Africa. South Africa’s coal reserves lie in 18 coal fields. Historically the Vaal coalfields
were the first to be intensively exploited, hosting a number of coal fired power stations as well
as steel and heavy industry. (http://www.africoal.co.za/coal-mining-in-south-africa-2/)
The largest coalfields are found in a continuous expanse from Mpumalanga into Kwazulu
Natal. More recently, coalfields to the North (Waterberg and Soutpansberg) have been
opened up. South Africa has approximately 65 collieries, ranging from among the largest in
the world to small scale producers. A handful of large-scale producers supply coal primarily to
electricity and synthetic fuel producers. About 51% of South African coal mining is done
underground and about 49% is produced by open-cast methods. (www.bothends.org)
The concerned coal seams occur within the Vryheid Formation of the Ecca Group, of which
the Pietermaritzburg and Vryheid Formations are found in the Ermelo Coalfield. The Ermelo
Coalfield stretches from Carolina to Standerton and Wakkerstroom in Mpumalanga Province.
It is proposed that the footprint of mining infrastructure, development and associated activities
will be contained on the RE0 of the farm De Roodepoort. No surface disturbance is expected
on the remaining farm portions (these include RE1, RE2, 3, RE4, 5, RE6, RE7, 8, RE9, 10, 11, 12, 13,
14 of De Roodepoort 435 IS); with the exception of ventilation shafts - local setting indicated in
Figure 2.
![Page 16: Socio Economic Impact Assessment - SAHRIS | SAHRA · Author/Reviewer: Anton Grobler / Anne-marie le Roux Report date: 20 May 2016 v.2 To be cited as: SEIA – CDR General declaration](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffbdcf43e93e71b55070530/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
© Zone Land Solutions 15 | P a g e
Figure 1: Municipal wide SDF
(Source: http://www.msukaligwa.gov.za/SDF.htm)
Figure 2: Local setting of CDR
![Page 17: Socio Economic Impact Assessment - SAHRIS | SAHRA · Author/Reviewer: Anton Grobler / Anne-marie le Roux Report date: 20 May 2016 v.2 To be cited as: SEIA – CDR General declaration](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffbdcf43e93e71b55070530/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
© Zone Land Solutions 16 | P a g e
2. Site Location and Description
According to the Municipality’s SDF and confirmed by means of a site visit and telephonic
consultations, the majority of the area is used for agricultural purposes, largely grazing with
some cultivation.
The Richards Bay Coal Terminal rail line bisects the property, and a number of sidings are
located within the area. The N17 connecting Bethal and Ermelo traverses the northern portions,
whilst the Eskom power lines traverse the north eastern portion of the mining right area. (CDR
Scoping Report, 2015)
Figure 3: Proposed Access to the CDR site
Figure 4: Opposite Proposed Access looking towards EAST
![Page 18: Socio Economic Impact Assessment - SAHRIS | SAHRA · Author/Reviewer: Anton Grobler / Anne-marie le Roux Report date: 20 May 2016 v.2 To be cited as: SEIA – CDR General declaration](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffbdcf43e93e71b55070530/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
© Zone Land Solutions 17 | P a g e
3. Fit with Policy and Planning
The legislative environment holds many governance frameworks, which at their core aim to
‘do the right thing.’ Although most of the social impacts are hard to quantify, the capacity
and willingness to regulate environmental and social impacts, is possible with a cross-section
of policies chosen as most appropriate to the socio-economic environment of the CDR
development.
Constitution of South Africa, 1996 and common law
Mines have to comply with the South African constitutional and common law by conducting
their operational and closure activities with due diligence and care for the rights of others.
Section 24(a) of the Constitution states that everyone has the right to an environment, which
is not harmful to his or her health and well-being. This supersedes all other legislation.
National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No 107 of 1998) – since amended
This Act provides the framework and principles for sustainable development and sets national
norms and standards for Integrated Environmental Management (section 24) where all spheres
of Government and all organs of state must co-operate, consult and support one another.
Section 28 of the Act also imposes a Duty of Care and remediation of environmental damage
on any person who causes, has caused or may cause significant pollution or degradation of
the environment. Furthermore, sections 32 and 33 of the Act provides for legal standing to
enforce environmental laws and private prosecution respectively.
Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Amendment Act (Act 28 of 2002)
This Act provides statutory requirements enforcing environmental protection, the
management of the environmental impacts and the rehabilitation of the affected
environment of prospecting and mining in South Africa. Other legislation such as the NEMA,
the National Water Act, 1998, and the National Nuclear Regulatory Act, 1999 and other
applicable legislation provide, inter alia, further controlling measures.
Mine Health and Safety Act, 1996 (Act 29 of 1996)
The Mine Health and Safety Act, 1996 is administered by the Mine Health and Safety
Inspectorate of the Department. The Act provides for protection of the health and safety of
employees and other persons at mines and, therefore promotes a culture of health and safety,
as well as the enforcement of health and safety measures for mines specifically.
National Water Act, 1998 (Act 36 of 1998)
The purpose of the National Water Act, 1998 is to ensure that the nation's water resources are
protected, used, developed, conserved, managed and controlled in ways that take into
account, amongst other factors: Meeting the basic human needs of present and future
generations.
![Page 19: Socio Economic Impact Assessment - SAHRIS | SAHRA · Author/Reviewer: Anton Grobler / Anne-marie le Roux Report date: 20 May 2016 v.2 To be cited as: SEIA – CDR General declaration](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffbdcf43e93e71b55070530/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
© Zone Land Solutions 18 | P a g e
NEMA: Air Quality Act (Act 39 of 2004)
The obligations contained in terms of this Act with respect to the prevention and control of
dust pollution.
MLM 2015-2018
The MLM is an important stakeholder for the proposed development. Based on the Town
Planning and Townships Ordinance Act (Act 15/1986); and the Spatial Planning and Land Use
Management (Act 16/2013), the alignment of the development will be assessed in line with
the MLM’s future plans in Table 14 (p.54).
Community services, finance, mining and trade should contribute the most to economic
growth in the period 2013-2018 in accordance with Socio-economic profile of Msukaligwa
(MP302) (March 2015). Leading industries in terms of percentage contribution to the MLM’s
economy are community services (22.2%), trade (20.5%) and mining (18.2%).
According to the re-based and revised GDP figures of StatsSa, mining is the largest industry of
Mpumalanga with a contribution of 25% to the cumulative provincial economy other large
industries with contributions of more than 12% include finance, manufacturing, trade &
community services (2010 constant prices).
Government departments – mineral and energy, water affairs and local government –
operate with progressive legislation, but it is the specialist’s opinion that capacity for
monitoring, servicing, and partnering with mining and other big industries is constrained.
Pressure is mounting to act because the future wellbeing of the nation depends crucially on
managing natural resources. While legislation is in place for a stakeholder driven catchment
management system, this has been slow to take effect.
Other Important Guidelines
The Western Cape Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (DEA&DP)
is one Environmental Departments that has developed a set of best practice guidelines, which
was taken into account in the undertaking of the EIA, in line with NEMA. The Environmental
Impact Assessment Guideline and Information Document Series (August 2010) have been
referred to where relevant.
There are also a number of guidelines published by the Department of Environmental Affairs
(DEA) which particularly relate to specialists involved in environmental assessments. The
relevant guidelines adhered to here include the following:
Department of Environmental Affairs & Tourism (DEAT) Socio-economic Impact
Assessments (2006)
Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (DEA&DP) Guideline
for Involving Economists in EIA Processes (2005)
DEAT Cost Benefit Analysis (2004)
Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) for South Africa (2010-2030)
![Page 20: Socio Economic Impact Assessment - SAHRIS | SAHRA · Author/Reviewer: Anton Grobler / Anne-marie le Roux Report date: 20 May 2016 v.2 To be cited as: SEIA – CDR General declaration](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffbdcf43e93e71b55070530/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
© Zone Land Solutions 19 | P a g e
4. Framework for SEIA
The EIA methodology assists in evaluating the overall effect of a proposed activity on the
environment. This is undertaken using information that is available to the environmental
practitioner through the process of the evaluation of predicted impacts by assessment of the
significance of the impacts. The D-P-S-I-R model is used globally as a best practice in
environmental analytics and impact assessments.
5. DPSIR Model
Figure 5: UNEP D-P-S-I-R Model (2006)
The D-P-S-I-R model was developed by the European Environmental Agency to improve the
socio-economic and socio-cultural aspects of environmental reporting. This is a systems
thinking approach to complex and often paradoxical socio-economic concerns which
enables the study of environmental indicators in order to explore causality (drivers, pressure)
and consequences (state, impact):
![Page 21: Socio Economic Impact Assessment - SAHRIS | SAHRA · Author/Reviewer: Anton Grobler / Anne-marie le Roux Report date: 20 May 2016 v.2 To be cited as: SEIA – CDR General declaration](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffbdcf43e93e71b55070530/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
© Zone Land Solutions 20 | P a g e
Drivers and Pressures - The social, demographic and economic developments in societies and
the corresponding changes in lifestyles, overall levels of consumption and production patterns.
In particular drivers are often defined as socio-economic sectors that fulfil basic human needs
such as clean air, water and food. The socio-economic issues identified in the SEIA Impact
Summary in the EXEUTIVE SUMMARY section 5.a. refers.
State - The pressures exerted by society may lead to unintentional or intentional changes in the
state of the ecosystem. Usually these changes are unwanted and are seen as negative
damage for example drainage, degradation, etc. The pressures exerted by society may
directly impact the ecosystem, such as pollution.
Impact - Changes in the quality and functioning of the ecosystem have an impact on the
welfare or well-being of humans through the provision of ecosystem services. Ecosystem goods
and services are ecosystem functions or processes that directly or indirectly benefit human
social or economic drivers, or have the potential to do so in the future. Environmental change
may positively or negatively influence human wellbeing for example measuring the
significance of a change in agricultural production on a local community. SECTION 3: SOCIO-
ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT refers.
Response - Humans make decisions in response to the impacts on ecosystem services or their
perceived value. Responses are actions taken by groups or individuals in society and
government to prevent, compensate or adapt to changes in the state of the environment by
seeking to mitigate or even to ‘do nothing’. The social response and recommendations in
SECTION 4: SOCIAL RESPONSE & MITIGATION refers.
5.1 Determination of significance of impacts
Significance is determined through a synthesis of impact characteristics which include context
and intensity of an impact. Context refers to the geographical scale i.e. site, local, national or
global whereas Intensity is defined by the severity of the impact e.g. the magnitude of
deviation from background conditions, the size of the area affected, the duration of the
impact and the overall probability of occurrence. Significance is calculated in line with the
DEA&DP Regulations. See APPENDIX A: MEASUREMENT CRITERIA.
Describing the nature of the impact, this may be positive, negative or neutral. The rest of the
calculation refers to the following variables:
Extent of the impact
Probability of the impact occurring
Duration of the impact
Intensity or magnitude of the impact
The reversibility of the impact
Cumulative effect
The significance is calculated by combining the criteria in the following formula:
![Page 22: Socio Economic Impact Assessment - SAHRIS | SAHRA · Author/Reviewer: Anton Grobler / Anne-marie le Roux Report date: 20 May 2016 v.2 To be cited as: SEIA – CDR General declaration](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffbdcf43e93e71b55070530/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
© Zone Land Solutions 21 | P a g e
E = Extent
D = Duration
M = Magnitude
R = Reversibility
P = Probability
Significance = (Extent + Duration + Magnitude + Reversibility) x Probability
Significance is an indication of the importance of the impact in terms of both physical extent
and time scale, and therefore indicates the level of mitigation required. The total number of
points scored for each impact indicates the level of significance of the impact.
5.2 Impact rating system
Impact assessment must take account of the nature, scale and duration of effects on the
environment whether such effects are positive (beneficial) or negative (detrimental). Each
issue / impact is also assessed according to the project stages:
Construction (which includes the planning phase)
Operational (which includes the decommissioning phase)
Overall cumulative impact
The rating system is applied to the potential impact on the receiving environment and includes
an objective evaluation of the mitigation of the impact. Impacts have been consolidated into
one rating. In assessing the significance of each issue the criteria (including an allocated point
system) was used and is outlined in more detail in APPENDIX A.
5.3 Status Quo on the CDR Development Location
In order to evaluate the potential impact of the CDR development on the current locality, it is
important to give a detailed description of the study area. The Scoping Report and PPP findings
were complemented by a site visit. Further to that, Census 2001 and 2011 datasets were used
in order to maintain compatibility and consistency in assessment of the historical, current data
and future projections. Projections made by the GS Municipal District Council (SOCIO-
ECONOMIC PROFILES, MARCH 2015) were also included in the analysis.
The approach followed in the analysis of the indicators was to describe and analyse the data
on local municipal level (Msukaligwa [MP302]). It is however important to mention that local
economies and demographic areas in general are open and it is practically impossible to
isolate as a unit of analysis. The approach therefore was, where appropriate, to do the analysis
on a comparative basis by comparing the municipality with the profile of the DM, the
economy or demographics of Mpumalanga and also with the broader context of the national
economy.
The ultimate objective of this report is to analyse the population (people) of a municipal area
since the people provide labour and entrepreneurship for production and also consume the
output of production. Demography does not necessarily form part of economic analysis but
![Page 23: Socio Economic Impact Assessment - SAHRIS | SAHRA · Author/Reviewer: Anton Grobler / Anne-marie le Roux Report date: 20 May 2016 v.2 To be cited as: SEIA – CDR General declaration](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffbdcf43e93e71b55070530/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
© Zone Land Solutions 22 | P a g e
needs to be taken into account as the population forms the basis of all economic activity in
the area.
5.4 Socio-demographic profile
I
Figure 6: Informal sector in Msukaligwa
5.4.1 Population size
The size of the population and in particular the number of households are some of the most
important determinants of the needs of the inhabitants. These needs are expressed in the
demand for infrastructural and social services and the potential on the extent of involvement
in economic activities. It also forms the basis from which all other calculations are made.
Figure 7: Population Group No. of People % - MLM (MP302)
Black population , 88.12%
Coloured population , 0.6%
Asian population, 1.12%
White population , 9.85%
![Page 24: Socio Economic Impact Assessment - SAHRIS | SAHRA · Author/Reviewer: Anton Grobler / Anne-marie le Roux Report date: 20 May 2016 v.2 To be cited as: SEIA – CDR General declaration](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffbdcf43e93e71b55070530/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
© Zone Land Solutions 23 | P a g e
The largest population group is Black, comprising of over 88% (n=131 625) of the municipality’s
total population as estimated in 2011. The second largest group is the White population which
accounts for close to 10% (n=14 707), while the Coloured population makes up less than 1%
(n=892) of the total population; and the Asian and other population 1% (1 678) of the total
population of this municipality (N=149 378).
Figure 8: Population Group No. of Households % - MLM (MP302)
The majority of the households in the municipality are from the Black population (89%, n=36
473), followed by the White population which accounts for close to 9% (n=3 474). The Coloured
population as well as the Asian population in terms of households in the municipality (including
“others”) are significant smaller in representation.
5.4.2 Population growth rate
The growth in population as well as population growth rate projections are of the utmost
importance for planning purposes. A negative or below-average growth rate is indicative of
an out-migration of people – normally due to a lack of economic growth and the concomitant
loss of job opportunities in the municipal area. The reverse is true for an above-average growth
rate. In order to analyse the migration of people between municipal areas (within the GS
district), the population growth of the three local municipalities over time is depicted in Figure
9. The annual growth rate is calculated by looking at the incremental increase/decrease from
the 2001 to 2011 census years expressed as a percentage, over the number of observation
years in order to get an annual average.
89.11%
0.46%
0.93%
9.14%
0.36%
Black population
Coloured population
Asian population
White population
Other
![Page 25: Socio Economic Impact Assessment - SAHRIS | SAHRA · Author/Reviewer: Anton Grobler / Anne-marie le Roux Report date: 20 May 2016 v.2 To be cited as: SEIA – CDR General declaration](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffbdcf43e93e71b55070530/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
© Zone Land Solutions 24 | P a g e
Figure 9: Annualised growth rates per LM (%)
Figure 9 compares the total growth in population of the three Municipalities within the GSMD,
Mpumalanga. Albert Luthuli shows a slowly declining growth rate which is currently around 1%.
According to the GSDM Socio-Economic Profiles (March 2015) this pattern is mostly the same
for both the province and the district. The three local municipalities show some very interesting
growth patterns. From 2001 to 2008 the municipality’s growth rate has declined rapidly from
about 4% to -2%. This decline is a characteristic of modern rural municipalities in South Africa.
This can show to large majorities of people migrating to other areas in search of employment
opportunities. However, since 2009 the growth rate has improved and in 2011 was calculated
at about 1.5%.
5.4.3 Future expected growth
Population and household growth is one element that determines the long-term demand for
goods and services. Based on historical population figures from 2000 to 2011, a trend analysis
was done for the municipality. The trend analysis is based on historical data. This data was used
to determine the municipal growth rate and extrapolate the figures to give a projected growth
for the municipality up to 2025.
-0.50
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
Msukaligwa
Municipality Albert Luthuli
Municipality Mkhondo
Municipality
![Page 26: Socio Economic Impact Assessment - SAHRIS | SAHRA · Author/Reviewer: Anton Grobler / Anne-marie le Roux Report date: 20 May 2016 v.2 To be cited as: SEIA – CDR General declaration](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffbdcf43e93e71b55070530/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
© Zone Land Solutions 25 | P a g e
Figure 10: Projected growth for the MLM up to 2025
In terms of the projected population growth the following should be noted:
The growth rate was calculated at 1.5%. This is similar to other rural municipalities in the country.
The general trend indicates that the municipality’s population will increase at a steady but
slow pace. The priorities, policies and decisions of the local and DM can alter the situation. This
cannot necessarily be predicted.
5.4.4 Spatial aspects of the population
This section investigates how the population of the municipality is distributed and in what type
of areas people live. This helps to visualise the data presented previously in this section. The
figure below shows the population per enumerator Area type in the municipality.
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
2001 2011 2015 2020 2025
![Page 27: Socio Economic Impact Assessment - SAHRIS | SAHRA · Author/Reviewer: Anton Grobler / Anne-marie le Roux Report date: 20 May 2016 v.2 To be cited as: SEIA – CDR General declaration](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffbdcf43e93e71b55070530/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
© Zone Land Solutions 26 | P a g e
Figure 11: Population per Enumerator Area type
The data shows that the municipality’s population is largely formal in nature with little informal
and traditional population.
5.4.5 Economic profile
Economic drivers relate to the way in which people make a living and the economic activities
within that society. The employment rate and general living standard are good indicators of
the community’s economic wellbeing.
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
99565
17386
29470
207 1813 582 144 210
No Traditional residence and Small holdings reported
![Page 28: Socio Economic Impact Assessment - SAHRIS | SAHRA · Author/Reviewer: Anton Grobler / Anne-marie le Roux Report date: 20 May 2016 v.2 To be cited as: SEIA – CDR General declaration](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffbdcf43e93e71b55070530/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
© Zone Land Solutions 27 | P a g e
Figure 12: Examples of economic activity in MLM
In the analysis of the labour and employment situation in municipal areas, it is necessary to
focus attention on the size and spatial distribution of the labour force. Secondly, the
characteristics of the labour market should be analysed. To this end, it is necessary to examine
the supply of labour, which is derived from figures on the economically active population in a
municipal area. The demand for labour, on the other hand, is an indication of employment
opportunities, which are determined by the economic structure of an area along with the level
and growth in economic activities. Unemployment, and in a sense transfrontier commuting,
provides an indication of the difference between supply and demand and implies that
equilibrium in the labour market necessitates both expansion of economic activity and the
curtailment of population growth.
![Page 29: Socio Economic Impact Assessment - SAHRIS | SAHRA · Author/Reviewer: Anton Grobler / Anne-marie le Roux Report date: 20 May 2016 v.2 To be cited as: SEIA – CDR General declaration](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffbdcf43e93e71b55070530/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
© Zone Land Solutions 28 | P a g e
Table 1: Labour force analysis of MLM
Table 1 describes the labour force of the MLM that will be directly affected by the proposed
development. According to the 2011 the MLM has 64 560. From the data is can be seen that
the majority of the population are employed, with the majority of the employment in the formal
sector. It should however be noted that the values can be slightly skew since the size of the
informal sector, which includes subsistence agriculture that is highly applicable in the
concerned municipal areas, is difficult to establish with a reasonable degree of accuracy and
can easily be under-estimated. One reason for this is that people involved in informal activity
often classify themselves as unemployed. Obtaining the participation rates, involves
calculating the labour force or the economically active population relative to the potential
labour force, (i.e. the population in the age group 15 to 64 years). These rates reflect the
percentages of the said population that are actually economically active. Unemployment
rate of MLM significantly lower than other local municipalities in GS district, with 20.80%
compared to 39.24%, and 47.57% of the Albert Luthuli and Mkhondo local municipalities
respectively.
5.4.6 Employment per sector
Figure 13 below shows the employment/workforce per economic activity for the MLM over a
16-year interval. The structure of employment and the extent of the link between employment
and the level of economic activity are important, especially in terms of a socio-economic
impact analysis for a major new development.
LABOUR FORCE
Includes the employed, the unemployed, and the people active in the informal sector
Msukaligwa local municipality (2011)
Economically active: 64 560
FORMAL EMPLOYED
Includes the persons in paid employment in the formal sector of the economy .
Total formal: 26 104
Formal - highly skilled: 4 402
Formal - skilled: 10 739
Formal - semi and unskilled: 10 963
FORMAL EMPLOYED
Includes the persons in paid employment in the formal sector of the economy .
Total formal: 26 104
Formal - highly skilled: 4 402
Formal - skilled: 10 739
Formal - semi and unskilled: 10 963
INFORMAL EMPLOYMENT
Includes all persons active in the informal sector of the
economy.
Informal: 10 867
INFORMAL EMPLOYMENT
Includes all persons active in the informal sector of the
economy.
Informal: 10 867
UNEMPLOYMENT
Includes persons actively looking for a job but who are
not in any type of paid employment.
Unemployed: 9 707
Unemployment rate: 20.8%
UNEMPLOYMENT
Includes persons actively looking for a job but who are
not in any type of paid employment.
Unemployed: 9 707
Unemployment rate: 20.8%
![Page 30: Socio Economic Impact Assessment - SAHRIS | SAHRA · Author/Reviewer: Anton Grobler / Anne-marie le Roux Report date: 20 May 2016 v.2 To be cited as: SEIA – CDR General declaration](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffbdcf43e93e71b55070530/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
© Zone Land Solutions 29 | P a g e
Figure 13: Employment per economic activity from 1995 – 2011
The most noticeable is the differential growth rates in employment creation between the
economic activities. In MLM there has been a decrease in employment in the agriculture
economic activity. The implication is important since these workers are jobless and have to
leave farms. They usually end up in informal settlements on the urban periphery.
From Figure 13 it can be seen that the overall employment figures for the MLM remained
relatively constant over the past 16 years. There are however a few aspects that need to be
discussed.
The MLM has seen a large decrease in overall primary sector employment. All of the other
employment sectors have however indicated an overall growth and it is assumed that most of
the people who lost their jobs in the primary sector got employed in the secondary and tertiary
sector, which showed strong increases, with the exception of the construction industry. There
is however a slight decrease in overall employment.
Employment is not a static issue and changes in employment are very important, and can
shed light on the development of the municipalities over the past few years. The tables below
give a comparison between the employment situation in 1995 and in 2011 for each of the local
municipalities under consideration.
Figure 14 shows the proportional employment distribution per economic activity in 2011. These
figures are expressed in terms of the distribution of employment across the economic activities.
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
1995 2001 2005 2011
Agriculture
Mining
Manufacturing
Utilities
Construction
Trade
Transport
Business
Community
servicesGeneral
Linear
(Agriculture)
![Page 31: Socio Economic Impact Assessment - SAHRIS | SAHRA · Author/Reviewer: Anton Grobler / Anne-marie le Roux Report date: 20 May 2016 v.2 To be cited as: SEIA – CDR General declaration](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffbdcf43e93e71b55070530/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
© Zone Land Solutions 30 | P a g e
Figure 14: Proportionality in employment per economic activity in 2011
The most noticeable aspect is that the largest economic activities are not necessarily the
biggest contributors to employment creation. Trade reported the highest employment
proportion with 32%, followed the general category (15%), agriculture (11%), business (7%) and
Transport with 7%. Mining as economic activity employs only 4% of the employed people in the
MLM area.
5.4.7 Changes in employment
The primary sector of the economy involves changing natural resources into primary products.
Most products from this sector are considered raw materials for other industries. Major
businesses in this sector normally include agriculture, agribusiness, fishing, forestry and all mining
and quarrying industries.
The secondary sector generally takes the output of the primary sector and manufactures
finished goods or where they are suitable for use by other businesses, for export, or sale to
domestic consumers. This sector is often divided into light industry and heavy industry. The
sector is made up of manufacturing, electricity, gas, water, and construction.
The tertiary or services sector consists of the "soft" parts of the economy, i.e. activities where
people offer their knowledge and time to improve productivity, performance, potential, and
sustainability. The basic characteristic of this sector is the production of services instead of end
products. Businesses in this sector include wholesale and retail trade, catering and
accommodation, transport, storage, communication, finance, insurance, real estate, business
services, community, social and personal services, and general government.
Agriculture, 11%
Mining, 4%
Manufacturing,
4%
Utilities, 2%
Construction,
5%
Trade, 32%
Transport, 6%
Business,
7%
Community
services
4%
General, 15%
![Page 32: Socio Economic Impact Assessment - SAHRIS | SAHRA · Author/Reviewer: Anton Grobler / Anne-marie le Roux Report date: 20 May 2016 v.2 To be cited as: SEIA – CDR General declaration](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffbdcf43e93e71b55070530/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
© Zone Land Solutions 31 | P a g e
Figure 15: Percentage growth per sector per annum, from 1995 – 2011
It is this clear from the figure above that the growth in primary sector declined significantly
compared to the secondary and tertiary sectors. This might also be a contributing factor in the
decline in employment in the mining and agriculture economic activities from 1995 to 2011.
5.5 Institutional and governance framework
Institutional and legal governance refer to the role and efficiency of the local authority and
other service providers in terms of their capacity to deliver a quality and uninterrupted service
to local communities. Job creation and social development are priorities according to GSDM
Socio-Economic Profiles (March 2015), and the GSDM Intergated Developmen Plan (IDP) 2012-
2013 to 2016-2017. Specific challenges stipulated are (i) high proportion of population aged 0-
34 years (youth); (ii) basic service delivery challenges – concern about electricity, water
(access, quality & waste water services) and housing; (iii) relatively high poverty rate and
inequality; (iv) relatively low economic growth, and (v) reduce unemployment, poverty and
inequality (MEGDP & NDP).
Recommendations to alleviate these concerns that are related and could be stimulated by
the CDR development are for instance:
Resources channelled to youth development – importance of skills development and
creation of jobs.
Implementation of a job creation strategy targeting youth, women and people with
disabilities.
Faster roll-out of basic services and municipal infrastructure.
Importance of poverty strategy – emphasis on job creation - impact positively on
reduction of poverty.
-4.00
-2.00
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
Primary sectorSecondary sector
Tertiary sector
Pe
rce
nta
ge
Primary sector Secondary sector Tertiary sector
Percentage growth -2.48 6.78 4.04
![Page 33: Socio Economic Impact Assessment - SAHRIS | SAHRA · Author/Reviewer: Anton Grobler / Anne-marie le Roux Report date: 20 May 2016 v.2 To be cited as: SEIA – CDR General declaration](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffbdcf43e93e71b55070530/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
© Zone Land Solutions 32 | P a g e
Importance of attracting new businesses through an investment strategy & active
Business/LED forum.
Identification of key industries/sectors to drive the economy sustainably into the future.
The MLM has however no jurisdiction over the administration and granting of mineral rights to
stimulate economic development, job creation and the development of people. The MLM
does have nevertheless the right to be consulted on each application that will affect it (Spatial
Planning And Land Use Management Act, 16 of 2013). The municipality is however also obliged
to facilitate economic and mining development processes by building networks and
promoting good working relationships in the sector. The GSDM IDP 2012-2013 to 2016-2017
stipulates that 140 000 additional jobs in mining should be created by 2020, and 200 000 jobs
by 2030, not counting the downstream and side stream effects.
5.6 Summary
The key socio-economic findings as a result of the study conducted on MLM, as well as the
greater GSDM indicate that it is, compared to other local municipalities functioning well in
terms of growth, comparatively lower unemployment, reducing cases of HIV and TB. The shift
in the employment of people from the primary to the secondary sectors is significant, with a
clear decrease in employment in the mining and specifically the agriculture sectors. Job
creation as well as economic growth of the District as well as the Municipality has been
identified as priorities by the Local Government. The recommendations made by the Local
authority could be complemented by the CDR development.
The above trends form a brief overview of the receiving socio-economic environment, and
are by no means exhaustive. This documented status quo, as well as previous CDR research
published, serves as baseline data against which the projected impact will be measured.
These changes to the receiving environment will either be deemed positive or neutral, or will
have to be managed and/or mitigated as a result of any negative impact.
Figure 16: The Gert Sibande District Municipality forms part infrastructure in MLM
![Page 34: Socio Economic Impact Assessment - SAHRIS | SAHRA · Author/Reviewer: Anton Grobler / Anne-marie le Roux Report date: 20 May 2016 v.2 To be cited as: SEIA – CDR General declaration](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffbdcf43e93e71b55070530/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
© Zone Land Solutions 33 | P a g e
SECTION 2: SEIA DRIVERS & PRESSURES
The purpose of this section is to confirm the socio-economic issues relevant to the proposed
CDR, in reference to the Scoping Report (2015); the PPP; the site visit and interviews.
1. Defining the Scope of the Study
As per the terms of reference, the study includes the following key sections:
Methodology used in determining the significance of potential impacts (Figure 4 and
5);
An assessment of the nature and significance of direct, indirect and cumulative
impacts (SECTION 3);
Recommendations regarding mitigation measures and practical actions for inclusion
in the Environmental Management Programme (EMP) (SECTION 4).
In the approach to the SEIA study, the Western Cape Department of Environmental Affairs and
Development Planning Guidelines for Social Impact Assessment (February 2007) is referenced
and applied as a best practice. These guidelines are based on international best practice and
capture the broad definition and purpose of the SEIA:
“The process of analysing and communicating the intended and unintended
consequences on the human environment of planned interventions and any
social change processes invoked by those interventions so as to bring about a
more sustainable and equitable biophysical and human environment.”
(Vanclay, 2002, p.183).
Figure 17: Methodological approach to SEIA
1. Obtaining an understanding of the proposed intervention (type, scale, location), the stakeholders likely to be affected, in order to
determine the SEIA SCOPE
2. Collecting data on the current social environment and historical social trends, using scientific, primary and secondary research through
a DESKTOP STUDY
3. Collecting primary data on the social variables and change processes related to the proposed intervention through SITE VISITS &
INTERVIEWS
5. Assessing and documenting the significance of SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS associated with the proposed project
6. Identifying alternatives and MITIGATION and management measures as part of an integrated EMP
![Page 35: Socio Economic Impact Assessment - SAHRIS | SAHRA · Author/Reviewer: Anton Grobler / Anne-marie le Roux Report date: 20 May 2016 v.2 To be cited as: SEIA – CDR General declaration](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffbdcf43e93e71b55070530/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
© Zone Land Solutions 34 | P a g e
Figure 18: Phases of the EMP
In this regard, primary research was conducted, but not limited to, a site visit during April 2016,
as well as interviews with various stakeholders. Secondary sources included, but were not
limited to:
Data from the 2011 Census Survey
IDP 2012-2013 to 2016-2017 of GSMD
GS Municipal District Council (SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILES, MARCH 2015)
Review of relevant planning and policy frameworks for the area;
Research from similar projects.
2. Salient Findings
The following is a summary of the key findings as a result of the assessment done on the CDR
development:
1. The most important economic sectors of the surrounding area are trade, employing
32% of employed people in MLM, followed by 14% in community services and 11% in
agriculture. It seems however these sectors have not reached their full potential in the
area.
2. The demographic profile presents a hurdle for economic growth of the municipality, as
growth is stimulated through a growing industrial expansion, yet skills and education
levels are not aligned to the employment opportunities presented.
ConstructionConstruction
•Provides management principles for the construction phase
•Includes environmental actions, procedures and responsibilities
•Specifications to form part of the contract documentation which governs contractors and sub-contractors to comply, with sign-off from the Project Manager and the Environmental Control Officer
OperationsOperations
•Provides management principles for the operations phase
•Includes environmental actions, procedures and responsibilities within the operations phase
DecommissioningDecommissioning
•Provides a brief framework of management principles for the decommissioning phase
•This section of the EMPr will require an update at the time of decommissioning to take prevailing situation into context
•For the CDR development, this is out of scope of workOUT OF
SCOPE
![Page 36: Socio Economic Impact Assessment - SAHRIS | SAHRA · Author/Reviewer: Anton Grobler / Anne-marie le Roux Report date: 20 May 2016 v.2 To be cited as: SEIA – CDR General declaration](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffbdcf43e93e71b55070530/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
© Zone Land Solutions 35 | P a g e
3. The low levels of education and skills are reflected in low levels of income, which is
reflected in a high dependency on social grants.
4. HIV/AIDS and alcohol abuse are key health concerns, as are petty crimes
5. The economic growth, reduction in unemployment as well as the development skilling
of people in MLM and the development of mining in the municipality, district and
province has been identified as a priority.
6. The CDR development is not directly opposed by the stakeholders consulted in the
initial PPP process (See CRR from PPP).
2.1 Cumulative Impact
Locally the coal seams occur within the Vryheid Formation of the Ecca Group of which the
Pietermaritzburg and Vryheid Formations are found in the Ermelo Coalfield. The Ermelo
Coalfield stretches from Carolina to Standerton and Wakkerstroom in the Mpumalanga
Province. Coal qualities in mineable seams are generally good.
The De Roodepoort Mining Right Area falls on the boundary of the Ermelo Coalfields. The
western part of MLM area has abundant coal reserves and coal mining has been an important
sector in the local economy for many years. Increased international and local (Eskom)
demand for coal has provided a huge impetus to the South African coal mining industry and
Msukaligwa is no exception. Plans are, since 2010 and even earlier, in the pipeline for a number
of new coal mines in the vicinity of Ermelo, according to the Msukaligwa SDF (2010). These
developments will have a significant positive impact on the local economy, not only directly
through the creation of more jobs, but also indirectly through the stimulation of other economic
sectors such as transport, construction, etc. The Camden power station falls within the
Msukaligwa Municipality less than 20km from the proposed site, and thus the mining right is
ideally situated to supply coal to the power station.
It should however be mentioned that coal mining may have a number of negative
environmental impacts which may affect other sectors of the economy (e.g. tourism) and
which will need to be managed carefully into the future.
2.2 No-Development Option
The no-go option will result in the protection of the environment as is and the continued use of
the land for agricultural purposes. However, maintaining the status quo in terms of land
utilisation (agriculture) in the area will result in the sterilisation of the coal resource. This would
reduce coal resources for power generation which is currently a major issue in South Africa,
and which at present has no viable base load power generation alternatives. The no-go option
would also prevent the socio-economic benefits, including the need for job creation,
increased socio-economic activity and social development.
2.3 Summary of Issues and Concerns from the PPP
The EIA process affords the public various opportunities to participate throughout the
environmental authorisation process. The SEIA study and the PPP are often confused by the
public, as both processes include connecting with the affected stakeholders. The following
sections intend to clear up some of the issues.
![Page 37: Socio Economic Impact Assessment - SAHRIS | SAHRA · Author/Reviewer: Anton Grobler / Anne-marie le Roux Report date: 20 May 2016 v.2 To be cited as: SEIA – CDR General declaration](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffbdcf43e93e71b55070530/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
© Zone Land Solutions 36 | P a g e
2.3.1 Public participation process (PPP)
The publication of the SEIA study is running concurrently with the PPP. A summary of the issues
raised by I&AP as received from the Comments and Response Register (CRR) is included in the
SEIA Summary of this report. As part of the SEIA scope, relevant comments are addressed in
this study. Also, as part of this assessment, the raised issues from the PPP will act as a filter to the
SEIA tables, and where appropriate, mitigation action will be raised for inclusion in the EMP.
2.3.2 Stakeholder analysis
From an ethical perspective it is critical to identify the stakeholders, in order to focus the study
on those who may be most affected during and after the development.
This study aimed to include multiple perspectives (Figure 6), of which three main constituent
parties involved in mining have their own, often competing, opinions:
National Government seek tangible economic benefits from mineral development.
These benefits start with direct taxation and royalties and extend to injections of capital
into infrastructure development. Local beneficiation is a focus through value-chain
development and the multiplier effect this has for job creation, as are demands for
direct social spend. The primary metric for governments tends to be GDP per capita,
although tax revenues, job creation, and human development indicators are also
important.
Local communities seek to limit the disruption that mineral development will cause to
their economic, social, and cultural context, and want access to the opportunities
presented by mining developments. Community expectations relate to employment
creation and improvements to community infrastructure, as well as education and skills
training. The primary metric for this group tends to be quality of life, broadly measured
by income and access to (or quality of) services.
Mining companies want to optimise levels of production, maximize revenues, and
manage costs. Crucial to their continued operation is that they be granted a license
to operate for the duration of the life of mine. The primary metrics for this tend to be
output and profitability.
The nature of the development, combined with the PPP highlighted some important
stakeholders to the CDR development. It does however not exclude any person/s that did not
have the opportunity to respond, as the PPP is still in progress.
![Page 38: Socio Economic Impact Assessment - SAHRIS | SAHRA · Author/Reviewer: Anton Grobler / Anne-marie le Roux Report date: 20 May 2016 v.2 To be cited as: SEIA – CDR General declaration](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffbdcf43e93e71b55070530/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
© Zone Land Solutions 37 | P a g e
Figure 19: Stakeholder Influence Analysis
![Page 39: Socio Economic Impact Assessment - SAHRIS | SAHRA · Author/Reviewer: Anton Grobler / Anne-marie le Roux Report date: 20 May 2016 v.2 To be cited as: SEIA – CDR General declaration](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffbdcf43e93e71b55070530/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
© Zone Land Solutions 38 | P a g e
SECTION 3: SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT
The purpose of this section is to assess the nature and significance of the social and economic
environment as a result of the CDR development.
In this context, the study is structured as follows:
Potential impacts in Construction & Operations phases
Tables impact matrix
Confidence in impact assessment
Cumulative impacts
1. Background Context
As the CDR development involves obvious economic benefits i.e. jobs, tax etc., the social and
environmental costs need to be weighed against the related benefits, as well as finding
synergy with the local and national development frameworks.
At a local level, the MLM social- and economic development focus is conducive to economic-
and social development as stipulated in the GSDM IDP 2012-2013 to 2016-2017, as well as GS
Municipal District Council (SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILES, MARCH 2015).
The nature of the CDR activities results in certain predetermined social- and environmental
impacts, which are inherent to mining. The development of a new mine means that
communities / individuals located in the vicinity may be exposed to health and environmental
risks previously geographically removed from them. There are other coal mines in the area, but
none of them as close to where the local community live.
Coal extraction involves environmental degradation as the landscape is stripped (although
the CDR will utilise a box-cut to access the underground, and the approximate area of surface
disturbance is only 130ha) and blasted to create the box-cut. Health hazards are posed by
the use of toxic substances that are necessary to process the coal, and social problems, (such
as: HIV/AIDS, prostitution, economic inequality etc.) can arise with the large-scale in‐migration
of miners into local communities.
All of these upheavals in the local community will lead to exposure to social risks for the CDR.
How well the company meets these challenges, addresses stakeholder concerns and is able
to ensure stakeholder awareness regarding the benefits as well as the potential risks of the
project, is a measure of the effectiveness of its approach to the management of social risk.
(Aucamp, 2012)
2. Potential impacts during the construction and operations phase
Mining imposes many external costs on its surroundings and the people who live in proximity to
the project. Some of these can be quantified by estimates, others are difficult to estimate. It is
by nature disturbing and destructive to the environment as it removes large volumes of soil
![Page 40: Socio Economic Impact Assessment - SAHRIS | SAHRA · Author/Reviewer: Anton Grobler / Anne-marie le Roux Report date: 20 May 2016 v.2 To be cited as: SEIA – CDR General declaration](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffbdcf43e93e71b55070530/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
© Zone Land Solutions 39 | P a g e
and rock overburden to get to the workable seams, and destroys regional aquifers. Mining
produces large mountains of solid waste. Mining also has serious social consequences: on the
movement of people, on people’s health and the environments they live in.
The following information was obtained from the Centaur De Roodepoort (Pty) Ltd: De
Roodepoort Colliery Scoping Report (dated February 2016) and is approximations at the time
of compiling the study, taking into consideration current information at hand, and the fact that
some information may change based on further specialists inputs as part of the EIA process:
It is anticipated that construction activities will take approximately 1 year, the life of mine
during operations is expected to be 20 years, followed by 3 years for decommissioning and
closure activities.
Thus the EA and waste management license are being sought for a period of 24 years. The
estimated capital expenditure (CAPEX) required to establish the proposed CDR development,
including the supporting infrastructure, was not available when this report was drafted. It is
however anticipated that a total of approximately 325 permanent staff and approximately 12
contracted employees (Table 2) will be employed.
Table 2: Proposed employment summary CDR
CDR Classification Number / Costs No. Jobs
%
Construction & Operations phase
Number of people employed All
Not available 325 permanent
Not available 12 contract
Breakdown of number of people
employed in terms or low skilled,
semi-skilled and skilled
Higher (Band NQF)
Not available
23
Middle (Band NQF) 150
General (Band NQF) 164
Total annual wage bill estimate for
operations phase All Not available Not available
The baseline socio-economic status compiled in this study was done in conjunction with the
De Roodepoort SLP (1 March 2016) which should provide input for a Community Development
Action Plan (CDAP), as required by the MPRDA.
![Page 41: Socio Economic Impact Assessment - SAHRIS | SAHRA · Author/Reviewer: Anton Grobler / Anne-marie le Roux Report date: 20 May 2016 v.2 To be cited as: SEIA – CDR General declaration](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffbdcf43e93e71b55070530/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
© Zone Land Solutions 40 | P a g e
3. Indicators for a cost-benefit analysis
An environmental cost-benefit analysis overcomes market shortfalls by attributing
monetary values to naturally occurring goods which are related to the value
society bestow upon them. The relevant criteria when looking at a decision-
making process become the cost of a project, the benefits of a project, and the
total economic value that is created or destroyed by the development.
(http://enviroliteracy.org/environment-society/economics/cost-benefit-
analysis/)
For the proposed CDR, this study included the assumptions on the capital expenditure. The
environmental cost and benefit was derived from the De Roodepoort SLP (1 March 2016);
Scoping Report (February 2016) which included various specialist inputs, the PPP and site visit
concluded in April 2016.
The DEA&DP guidelines on economic specialist input to EIA processes which are broadly based
on a cost-benefit approach to assessment (van Zyl et al., 2005) will inform the EIA process.
These guidelines stipulate the appropriate level of detail required for the assessment, in order
to be adequate for informing decision-making. While these guidelines were developed as part
of a Western Cape government initiative, they are equally applicable to other parts of South
Africa and were endorsed at a national level by the then Department of Environment Affairs.
Without having the final quantifiable numbers at time of publication (cost of managing
pollution; roads infrastructure etc.), or access to the other specialists’ final reports, the following
costs and benefits were observed and/or documented.
Costs:
- The environmental impact (pollution etc.)
- Impact on agriculture & tourism sectors through affecting the land use and
sense of place
- Health and safety risks associated with open cast coal mining and major
developments in general
- Impact on current agricultural activity, neighbouring and on site, as well as the
affected farm related jobs (4 in total according to the farm owner)
- Increase in traffic and the impact on the roads infrastructure
Benefits:
- Support to national and regional IDP, by supporting SA economic development
- Supply of coal for local power generation and international distribution
- Direct benefit of employment through the implementation of the SLP
- Multiplier effect and benefit to local business
Bt - Ct - Et (1 + r) - t ≥ 0 or < 0,
When ≥ 0 (greater or equal to zero) positive impact; and when <0 (smaller than zero) then
negative impact
![Page 42: Socio Economic Impact Assessment - SAHRIS | SAHRA · Author/Reviewer: Anton Grobler / Anne-marie le Roux Report date: 20 May 2016 v.2 To be cited as: SEIA – CDR General declaration](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffbdcf43e93e71b55070530/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
© Zone Land Solutions 41 | P a g e
Bt is the benefit in time t
Ct is the cost in time t
Et is the environmental damage done by the project (if there is an environmental
improvement, the -E is replaced by +E)
t is the referred timeframe
r is the discount rate (suggested at 8%)
In order to show a positive cost-benefit impact, the equation should result in a greater than 0
value, and with the indicators currently at hand, the result favours the negative. The cost-
benefit analysis is however inconclusive as the benefits value cannot offset the perceived
costs, which have not been finalised at the time of publication of this study.
4. Impact Model
The summary of all the impacts during the different phases are listed below. The detail on the
rating system is attached in Appendix A: MEASUREMENT CRITERIA. For some context, the
following formula was used throughout to calculate the significance of the impact:
S = (E+D+M+R) x P
The significance weightings for each potential impact are as follows:
1-20 points: Low (i.e. where this impact would not have a direct influence on the
decision to develop in the area);
21-40 points: Moderate to Low;
41-60 points: Moderate (i.e. where the impact could influence the decision to develop
in the area unless it is effectively mitigated);
61-80 points: Moderate to High;
81-100 points: High (i.e. where the impact must have an influence on the decision
process to develop in the area).
NOTE: The impact tables represent the CDR development as the total receiving
environment from a socio-economic perspective, and takes into consideration a
cumulative effect, where applicable.
5. Summary
Table 3 contains a summary of the assessment significance of the socio-economic impacts for
this project. The assessment shows the impact rating after it has been mitigated.
![Page 43: Socio Economic Impact Assessment - SAHRIS | SAHRA · Author/Reviewer: Anton Grobler / Anne-marie le Roux Report date: 20 May 2016 v.2 To be cited as: SEIA – CDR General declaration](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffbdcf43e93e71b55070530/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
© Zone Land Solutions 42 | P a g e
Table 3: Summary of impact significance
Social Issue Impact Type Assessment
1 Air quality (including dust & pollution) Health Impact Moderate to Low (Negative)
2 Noise pollution (including blasting &
vibration) Health Impact
Moderate to Low (Negative)
3 HIV/Aids, Cholera, Flu mutations,
Tuberculosis, Sexually transmitted infections Health Impact Moderate to Low (Negative)
4 Close proximity to adjacent agricultural
property Health & Safety Impact
Moderate to low (Negative)
5 Impact on land use and resulting land value Economic Impact Moderate (Negative)
6 Employment opportunities Economic Impact Moderate (Positive)
7 Local/ regional business industry Economic Impact Moderate (Positive)
8 Aesthetic and ‘sense of place’ i.e. tourism
and lifestyle Socio-cultural Impact
Moderate to Low (Negative)
9 Perceptions & attitudes towards the CDR Social Impact Moderate to low (Negative)
10 Impact on roads infrastructure Traffic impact Moderate to Low (Negative)
11 Impact on MLM planning & development
(SDF)
Socio-economic
Impact
Moderate to low (Positive)
6. SEIA Impact Tables
Impact tables 4-5 have a bearing on the general health and safety status of the impacted
communities and stakeholders from a social perspective. 3 Occupational injuries and ill-health
have huge social- and economic implications for individuals, their families and their
communities. They also have economic impacts in the form of direct and indirect costs for
society as a whole.
As from 19 May 2014, i.e. the date of commencement of the National Environmental
Management: (Air Quality Amendment Act 20 of 2014 – to date), the following table refers:
Table 4: Socio-economic impacts related to air quality
AIR QUALITY (DUST & POLLUTION)
Nature of the impact:
The impact on the health status of the adjacent farmers as well citizens within the MLM area, due to
air pollution as a result of coal mining’s fugitive emission of particulate matter and gases. The mining
operations like drilling, blasting, movement of the heavy earth moving machinery on haul roads,
collection, transportation and handling of coal, screening, sizing and segregation units are the major
sources of such emissions. The fact that the operations will be mined via underground methods is
considered in this assessment.
3 Impact Table aimed to be complementary to other specialist studies, which often investigate
the technical impact, whilst this social perspective looks at the resulting effect on humans.
![Page 44: Socio Economic Impact Assessment - SAHRIS | SAHRA · Author/Reviewer: Anton Grobler / Anne-marie le Roux Report date: 20 May 2016 v.2 To be cited as: SEIA – CDR General declaration](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffbdcf43e93e71b55070530/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
© Zone Land Solutions 43 | P a g e
Without Mitigation With Mitigation
Extent Local (2) Local (2)
Duration Medium term (3) Medium term (3)
Magnitude Moderate (3) Slight to Moderate (2)
Reversibility Reversible (3) Completely Reversible (1)
Probability Highly Probable (4) Probable (3)
Significance Moderate (44) Moderate to Low (24)
Status (+/-) Negative
Can impacts be mitigated? Yes
Mitigation:
Refer to Air Quality Specialist assessment report re mitigation
Use dust abatement techniques on unpaved surfaces to minimise airborne dust and during
earthmoving activities, prior to clearing, before excavating, backfilling, compacting, or
grading, and during blasting
Post and enforce speed limits to reduce airborne fugitive dust from vehicular traffic
Re-vegetate disturbed areas as soon as possible after disturbance. This should include
interim re-vegetation along road beds once heavy construction is completed and heavy
mining equipment has been moved in.
Keep soil and coal refuse moist while loading into dump trucks
Minimise drop heights when loaders dump soil and coal refuse into trucks
Cover dump trucks before traveling on public roads
Cover construction materials, stockpiled soils, and stockpiled coal refuse if they are a source
of fugitive dust
Train workers to handle construction materials and debris to reduce fugitive emissions
Cumulative Impacts:
According to the MLM reports, pollution is already a concern in the area, which will be further
compounded by the proposed development.
Residual Impacts:
The residual impact of health related risks cannot be reversed to the status quo after the construction
or decommissioning of the mine has taken place.
It should be noted that, due to the standard format of the impact rating system, it is not possible to
accurately reflect the irreversibility or residual impact on the health status of affected individuals.
With Mitigation the significance rating is: Moderate to Low
Noise exposure is a widespread problem in mining because of the use of heavy equipment;
drilling and rock breaking; transferring, sorting and milling of rock. Available data for noise
exposure for South African miners suggest that nearly half the workforce is exposed to
deafening noise, and approximately R75 million was paid out in compensation annually since
2004. These medical costs are often shifted from the mines onto the state as miners and
affected stakeholders are not properly informed of what their rights and remedies are.
(http://www.saimm.co.za/journal/v107/)
Table 5: Socio-economic impacts related to noise
NOISE POLLUTION (INCLUDING BLASTING & VIBRATION)
Nature of the impact:
The impact on the health status of neighbouring farmers, workers, farmsteads and other infrastructure
as well as miners due to the proximity of the mine’s activities, which include blasting, movement of
![Page 45: Socio Economic Impact Assessment - SAHRIS | SAHRA · Author/Reviewer: Anton Grobler / Anne-marie le Roux Report date: 20 May 2016 v.2 To be cited as: SEIA – CDR General declaration](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffbdcf43e93e71b55070530/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
© Zone Land Solutions 44 | P a g e
heavy earth moving machines, drilling and coal handling plants.
Without Mitigation With Mitigation
Extent Local (2) Local (2)
Duration Medium term (4) Medium term (4)
Magnitude Moderate (3) Slight to Moderate (2)
Reversibility Reversible (3) Completely Reversible (1)
Probability Highly Probable (4) Probable (3)
Significance Moderate (48) Moderate to Low (27)
Status (+/-) Negative
Can impacts be mitigated? Yes
Mitigation:
Refer to Noise & Blasting Specialist Assessment reports re mitigation
Continuously measure and monitor noise levels
Creating artificial noise barriers through earth mounds or walls or a greenbelt which includes
the plantation of trees could assist to manage noise levels
Engineering noise controls which include the removal of hazardous noise from the workplace
by means of education; surveillance; the enclosure of equipment, dampening of noise
vibrations, the redesign of equipment, and remotely controlled operations
Limit noisy activities (including blasting applicable to the construction phase) to the least
noise-sensitive times of day (weekdays only between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m.)
All equipment should have sound-control devices which are more effective than original
equipment. Muffle and maintain all construction equipment used
Notify nearby residents in advance when blasting or other noisy activities are required
To the extent feasible, route heavy truck and rail traffic supporting mining activities away
from residences and other sensitive receptors
Cumulative Impacts:
No cumulative impact could be identified.
Residual Impacts:
The residual impact of health related risks cannot be reversed to the status quo after the construction
or decommissioning of the mine has taken place.
It should be noted that, due to the standard format of the impact rating system, it is not possible to
accurately reflect the irreversibility or residual impact on the health status of affected individuals.
With Mitigation the significance rating is: Moderate to Low
Tuberculosis (TB) and HIV/AIDS are significant health risks in SA mining because these diseases
have been found to be related to the living and working conditions of miners; such as
migrant labour, single sex hostels, undiagnosed active TB and dense living arrangements.
Integrated health statistics are not readily available as HIV/Aids and TB also often mask the
fact that lung diseases are the result of working in the mining sector. This is already relevant in
MLM and will continue to be so, in line with future development plans.
http://www.saimm.co.za/journal/v107/)
Table 6: Socio-economic impacts related to disease
HIV/AIDS, CHOLERA, FLU MUTATIONS, TUBERCULOSIS, SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED INFECTIONS
Nature of the impact:
The impact on the health status of the local community due to an increase in male migrant workers.
As HIV/AIDS, Cholera, Flu mutations, Tuberculosis, sexually transmitted infections and alcohol related
![Page 46: Socio Economic Impact Assessment - SAHRIS | SAHRA · Author/Reviewer: Anton Grobler / Anne-marie le Roux Report date: 20 May 2016 v.2 To be cited as: SEIA – CDR General declaration](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffbdcf43e93e71b55070530/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
© Zone Land Solutions 45 | P a g e
diseases are already on the district’s radar due to its high occurrence; migrant workers without family
structures may increase this health risk.
Without Mitigation With Mitigation
Extent Provincial (4) Local (2)
Duration Permanent (5) Long term (4)
Magnitude Moderate to High (4) Moderate (3)
Reversibility Irreversible (5) Reversible (3)
Probability Probable (3) Possible (2)
Significance Moderate (54) Moderate to Low (24)
Status (+/-) Negative
Can impacts be mitigated? Yes
Mitigation:
The CDR should appoint a service provider or local NGO to develop, implement and
manage a “Health & Safety Orientation Programme” which include information on HIV/AIDS,
TB, and alcohol abuse prevention, with all temporary and permanent workers on the site
This includes encouragement to connect with local community programmes and NGO’s,
health training and information which can be provided on-site to workers at the start of the
project
Ensure workers have information available and sign a “code of conduct” at the start of
employment which gives an overview of acceptable behaviour and information regarding
health & safety on the site
Cumulative Impacts:
As alcohol abuse and related risky behaviour which may impact HIV infections is already prevalent in
the area, the cumulative impact during the construction phase may be increased.
Residual Impacts:
The residual impact of health related risks cannot be reversed to the status quo after the construction
or decommissioning of the mine has taken place.
It should be noted that, due to the standard format of the impact rating system, it is not possible to
accurately reflect the irreversibility or residual impact of infection (negative impact) once it has
occurred alongside the implementation of an effective HIV/AIDS prevention plan.
With Mitigation the significance rating is: Moderate to Low
The next table refers to concerns raised in the CCR regarding the health and safety impact of
mining activities on persons and animals within close proximity to the CDR development.
Table 7: Socio-economic impacts related to adjacent agriculture property
CLOSE PROXIMITY TO ADJACENT AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY
Nature of the impact:
The impact on the health and safety status of the neighbouring farmers and their workers (residential
area ±5km away from proposed development), due to close proximity to mining activities (also see
table 1 & 2 above).
Without Mitigation With Mitigation
Extent Local (2) Local (2)
Duration Long term (4) Long term (4)
Magnitude Moderate (3) Moderate (3)
Reversibility Irreversible (5) Irreversible (5)
Probability Highly Probable (4) Probable (3)
![Page 47: Socio Economic Impact Assessment - SAHRIS | SAHRA · Author/Reviewer: Anton Grobler / Anne-marie le Roux Report date: 20 May 2016 v.2 To be cited as: SEIA – CDR General declaration](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffbdcf43e93e71b55070530/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
© Zone Land Solutions 46 | P a g e
Significance Moderate to High (56) Moderate (42)
Status (+/-) Negative
Can impacts be mitigated? Yes
Mitigation:
Refer to Blasting Specialist assessment report re mitigation activities
The buffer zone of 100m to be adhered to for all mining related activities, and 500m for
blasting (applicable to the construction phase only)
All mitigation practices as outlined in previous tables are relevant
CDR to continuously engage with affected communities regarding mitigation practices
Should any of these activities prove ineffective, and in the case of scientifically proven
health and safety risks, an option would be to negotiate a settlement with affected residents
Cumulative Impacts:
No current cumulative impact identified.
Residual Impacts:
The residual impact of health related risks cannot be reversed to the status quo after the construction
or decommissioning of the mine has taken place.
It should be noted that, due to the standard format of the impact rating system, it is not possible to
accurately reflect the irreversibility or residual impact on the health status of affected individuals.
With Mitigation the significance rating is: Moderate
Table 8: Socio-economic impacts related to property
IMPACT ON LAND USE AND RESULTING LAND VALUE
Nature of the impact:
The impact on the way the land is used and the value it creates, specifically agricultural property, due
to the proposed mining activities.
Without Mitigation With Mitigation
Extent Local (2) Local (2)
Duration Long term (4) Long term (4)
Magnitude Moderate to High(4) Moderate to High (4)
Reversibility Irreversible (5) Irreversible (5)
Probability Highly Probable (4) Highly Probable (4)
Significance Moderate (60) Moderate (60)
Status (+/-) Negative
Can impacts be mitigated? No
Mitigation:
Should CDR decide to negotiate a buyout of affected properties as part of a mining housing scheme,
this concern would effectively be managed. This option has however not been raised by any of the
parties involved and as such, no mitigation measures are presented.
Cumulative Impacts:
The current positive market forces impacting property owners may be altered by the proposed mine’s
proximity to specifically impacted agricultural areas. The current average property value of
neighbouring agricultural property will most likely be negatively affected.
Residual Impacts:
The residual impact on specific neighbourhoods bordering the proposed development will be in a
permanently altered state. The economic impact cannot be reversed to the status quo after
decommissioning of the mine has taken place.
![Page 48: Socio Economic Impact Assessment - SAHRIS | SAHRA · Author/Reviewer: Anton Grobler / Anne-marie le Roux Report date: 20 May 2016 v.2 To be cited as: SEIA – CDR General declaration](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffbdcf43e93e71b55070530/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
© Zone Land Solutions 47 | P a g e
With Mitigation the significance rating is: Moderate
This employment creation opportunity must be seen against the backdrop of the CDR
capital intensive method (underground bord and pillar method) vs. other labour intensive
mining practice.
At a local level, the farming activities on the local site currently employs 4 farm workers and
their families, which will be impacted and will have to be reduced as the farming activities
are decreased.
Most significantly, the CDR development should enable the SLP, resulting in social
improvement in the area in general. The implementation of the SLP will also benefit
employees through training and bursary programmes, as well as providing funds to various
social development projects.
Table 9: Socio-economic impacts related to employment
EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES
Nature of the impact:
The contribution to the employment status and income levels of the local Msukaligwa population due
to the creation of 325 permanent and 12 contract jobs during the construction and operation phases
of the project.
Without Mitigation With Mitigation
Extent Regional (3) Provincial (4)
Duration Long term (4) Long term (4)
Magnitude Moderate (3) Moderate to High (4)
Reversibility Reversible (3) Reversible (3)
Probability Probable (3) Highly Probable (4)
Significance Moderate to Low (39) Moderate (60)
Status (+/-) Positive
Can impacts be mitigated? Yes
Mitigation:
Implementing a ‘local first’ recruitment policy will ensure that the positive impact is mostly
ring-fenced for locals and SA residents. This will need integration from a provincial
perspective to ensure that the right skills are being developed to supply the right people
who are ready to take up this opportunity
Ensure that the benefit is equitable and that the principles underpinned by Black Economic
Empowerment Act of 2003 is honoured
Also that the local jobs created are linked to a skills development programme for
permanent employment as per the SLP
Cumulative Impacts:
The impact is measured as a result of direct employment creation for the construction and operations
phases of the project. The indirect effects on employment creation, the multiplier effect on local
business, as well as the subsequent phases will increase the cumulative positive impact on the
employment status, contributing to the provincial and national employment creation initiatives.
Residual Impacts:
From a socio-economic perspective, the residual impact will be the end of the job opportunities on
which locals may have become dependent, unless skills development and training enable permanent
employment. The establishment of a community trust by CDR for alternative skills development will
![Page 49: Socio Economic Impact Assessment - SAHRIS | SAHRA · Author/Reviewer: Anton Grobler / Anne-marie le Roux Report date: 20 May 2016 v.2 To be cited as: SEIA – CDR General declaration](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffbdcf43e93e71b55070530/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
© Zone Land Solutions 48 | P a g e
have to take this into account.
With Mitigation the significance rating is: Moderate
At a national level, the multiplier effect has proved its potential to double the direct economic
benefit. This holds true by adding the indirect and induced impacts, should the supply of
material be sourced mostly locally.
Table 10: Socio-economic impacts related to local industry and business
LOCAL/ REGIONAL BUSINESS INDUSTRY
Nature of the impact:
The impact on local and regional industry due to the multiplier effects. The investment in the area will have
a multiplier effect on local industry and businesses, resulting in a wider indirect positive economic impact
than the jobs directly anticipated for the mine. Areas most positively affected may be transport,
consumables and construction materials.
Without Mitigation With Mitigation
Extent Regional (3) Provincial (4)
Duration Long term (4) Long term (4)
Magnitude Slight to Moderate (2) Moderate(3)
Reversibility Completely reversible (1) Reversible (3)
Probability Possible (2) Probable (3)
Significance Low (20) Moderate (42)
Status (+/-) Positive
Reversible Yes
Can impacts be mitigated? Yes
Mitigation:
CDR to adopt a preferential procurement policy towards local suppliers and distributors
Ensuring that principle of ‘local first’ when procuring consumables, construction materials etc.
Cumulative Impacts:
The scale, extent and proximity of similar developments in the District and Province will result in a positive
increase in the cumulative linkage effect.
Residual Impacts:
The proposed development is of such a nature that the status quo could be the result after
decommissioning the mine.
With Mitigation the significance rating is: Moderate
Although the character or Msukaligwa has already been inherently altered with the growing
mining and energy sectors, the importance of the agricultural sector to the economy of the
area is projected to continue to grow into the future. This is likely to be related to the expansion
of the industrial operations and the related business. Agriculture is one potential economic
activity which has the potential to regain its place in the local economy. MLM has been
blessed with natural resources that give it a competitive and comparative advantage in
Mining, Energy, and Agriculture. Both social and economic infrastructure indicators show that
much must still be done to improve the quality of life of the people of Msukaligwa. GSDM Socio-
Economic Profiles (March 2015).
![Page 50: Socio Economic Impact Assessment - SAHRIS | SAHRA · Author/Reviewer: Anton Grobler / Anne-marie le Roux Report date: 20 May 2016 v.2 To be cited as: SEIA – CDR General declaration](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffbdcf43e93e71b55070530/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
© Zone Land Solutions 49 | P a g e
Table 11: Socio-economic impacts related to lifestyle
AESTHETIC AND ‘SENSE OF PLACE’ I.E. TOURISM AND LIFESTYLE
Nature of the impact:
Impact on the aesthetic and ‘sense of place’. The proposed site is surrounded by agricultural land, which
creates a specific landscape and culture. The impact should be considered in the context of the study
area as a whole, as the impact will also depend on a number of variables, such as the visual impact, the
biodiversity impact, the related activities on the surrounding land, etc.
Without Mitigation With Mitigation
Extent Regional (3) Local (2)
Duration Long term (4) Long term (4)
Magnitude Moderate (3) Moderate (3)
Reversibility Reversible (3) Reversible (3)
Probability Probable (3) Probable (3)
Significance Moderate to Low (39) Moderate to Low (36)
Status (+/-) Negative
Can impacts be mitigated? Yes
Mitigation:
Implement mitigation measures detailed in the Visual Impact Assessment
The impact on quality of life in the area should be monitored and evaluated before and during
the mining operations
Cumulative Impacts:
The presence of other such infrastructure has already altered the sense of place. The CDR development
will further alter the people who stay and work in the close proximity’s way of life and their sense of place.
Residual Impacts:
The impact on sense of place can be reversed to a certain extend (discard dump to be cladded and
rehabbed) after decommissioning, provided that rehabilitation is done to a satisfactory level.
With Mitigation the significance rating is: Moderate to Low
The CDR PPP information and resulting CRR, as well as site visit and interviews with various
stakeholders refer:
Table 12: Socio-economic impacts related to perceptions towards the development
PERCEPTIONS & ATTITUDES TOWARDS THE DEVELOPMENT
Nature of the impact:
Perceptions and attitudes towards the CDR development, vary between positive (economic opportunity)
and negative (health & safety concerns, risk to property and way of life). The PPP is still on-going, but
comments and feedback received thus far from stakeholders are overall neutral.
Without Mitigation With Mitigation
Extent Regional (3) Regional (3)
Duration Long term (4) Long term (4)
Magnitude Moderate to High (4) Moderate (3)
Reversibility Irreversible (5) Reversible (3)
Probability Highly Probable (4) Probable (3)
Significance Moderate to High (64) Moderate to Low (39)
Status (+/-) Positive or Negative
![Page 51: Socio Economic Impact Assessment - SAHRIS | SAHRA · Author/Reviewer: Anton Grobler / Anne-marie le Roux Report date: 20 May 2016 v.2 To be cited as: SEIA – CDR General declaration](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffbdcf43e93e71b55070530/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
© Zone Land Solutions 50 | P a g e
Reversible Yes
Irreplaceable N/A
Can impacts be mitigated? Yes
Mitigation:
Ensure that the PPP includes stakeholders directly affected as listed in the CRR (close neighbours
and the local community, MLM, SANRAL etc.)
Following due process as stipulated during the PPP (NEMA Chapter 5), but also the nuanced
intention of the law, which is to continuously engage, aim to strike consensus, invite participation
and create shared understanding
Address impacts which have been determined to adversely affect, or cause a disproportionate
effect on stakeholders, through appropriate measures, specific to the impact
Develop and implement focused public information campaigns to provide technical and
environmental health information directly to most affected stakeholder groups or to local
agencies and representative groups
Ensure that health & safety procedures are followed, monitored and communicated
Cumulative Impacts:
The significance of this impact is rated moderate, but due to the number and proximity of other related
industries in the area, the cumulative impact affecting the general sentiment around mining developments,
and specifically this development, may change.
With Mitigation the significance rating is: Moderate to Low
This table should be seen as complementary to the Traffic Impact Specialist Assessment report.
Table 13:Socio-economic impacts related to roads
IMPACT ON ROADS INFRASTRUCTURE
Nature of the impact:
The local roads and associated infrastructure will be affected by the increase in heavy vehicles and traffic
to the site. As SANRAL is also planning road infrastructure improvements in the area through their engineers
at AECOM, the impact will be compounded.
Without Mitigation With Mitigation
Extent Regional (3) Local (2)
Duration Long term (4) Long term (4)
Magnitude Moderate to High (4) Moderate (3)
Reversibility Reversible (3) Reversible (3)
Probability Highly Probable (4) Probable (3)
Significance Moderate (56) Moderate to Low (36)
Status (+/-) Negative
Can impacts be mitigated? Yes
Mitigation:
Refer to Traffic Impact Assessment report for mitigation measures
Preference should be given to rail transport where ever possible
Part of the construction phase needs to include the continuous maintenance of the road to be
able to handle the increase in traffic and excessive dust and noise as a result of the gravel roads
Limit traffic to roads indicated specifically for the project
Instruct and require all personnel and contractors to adhere to speed limits to ensure safe and
efficient traffic flow
Limit mine-related vehicle traffic on public roadways to off-peak commuting times to minimize
impacts on local commuters
![Page 52: Socio Economic Impact Assessment - SAHRIS | SAHRA · Author/Reviewer: Anton Grobler / Anne-marie le Roux Report date: 20 May 2016 v.2 To be cited as: SEIA – CDR General declaration](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffbdcf43e93e71b55070530/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
© Zone Land Solutions 51 | P a g e
Cumulative Impacts:
National road, especially in the Mpumalanga’s Highveld are already carrying heavy traffic in terms the
transportation of coal and other raw materials. Cumulative effect could be mitigated through the use of rail
transportation of coal.
With Mitigation the significance rating is: Moderate to Low
According to the Constitution (sections 152 and 153), Local Government is in charge of the
development and planning processes in municipalities. The constitutional mandate to relate
its management, budgeting and planning functions to its objectives, give a clear indication of
the intended purposes (below) of municipal integrated development planning:
To ensure sustainable provision of services;
To promote social and economic development;
To promote a safe and healthy environment;
To give priority to the basic needs of communities;
To encourage involvement of communities.
The Development Facilitation Act and Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act, also
refers, with specific spatial development principles such as:
Integrated and liveable settlements;
Compact towns and cities (instead of urban sprawl);
Maximum use of existing infrastructure and services (rather than duplication);
Equal consideration of formal and informal settlements.
As important stakeholders in the proposed CDR development, the support of both the MLM
and GSDM will contribute to enabling a positive social impact. The table below captures the
Msukaligwa SDF Final Report (2010) and MLM interviews as input.
Table 14: Socio-economic impacts related to future local development
MLM FUTURE PLANNING
Nature of the impact:
Impact on MLM’s future planning & development framework refer. The proposed CDR development aligns
with the SDF of MLM, taking cognisance of the focus on supporting the mining sector but also protecting
the agricultural- and tourism corridors. Comments raised during the interview with the MLM included a
positive expectation regarding the proposed CDR support of the social development agenda. Concerns
refer to the alignment to MLM local development needs (LEDP) with CDR’s SLP.
Without Mitigation With Mitigation
Extent Regional (3) Regional (3)
Duration Medium term (3) Medium term (3)
Magnitude Low to Moderate (2) Low to Moderate (2)
Reversibility Reversible (3) Reversible (3)
Probability Possible (2) Probable (3)
Significance Moderate to Low (22) Moderate to Low (33)
Status (+/-) Positive
Can impacts be mitigated? Yes
![Page 53: Socio Economic Impact Assessment - SAHRIS | SAHRA · Author/Reviewer: Anton Grobler / Anne-marie le Roux Report date: 20 May 2016 v.2 To be cited as: SEIA – CDR General declaration](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffbdcf43e93e71b55070530/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
© Zone Land Solutions 52 | P a g e
Mitigation: Ensure continuous alignment between MLM and the proposed development through
collaboration and ongoing integration of various development plans (SLP and LEDP).
Cumulative Impacts:
Although there are 3 other mines within the MLM, no cumulative impact could be identified for this locale.
Residual Impacts:
The proposed development is of such a nature that the mine will leave an indelible impact on the social
structure of the area and as such, the status quo would probably never be completely regained after
decommissioning.
With Mitigation the significance rating is: Moderate to Low
7. Confidence Level
7.1 Probability rating
Most of the impacts identified and assessed in this report have been rated as highly probable
(60% to 85% chance of occurrence). Within the socio-economic arena very few results can be
regarded as definite (greater than 85% of occurrence) as this would underestimate a systems
ability to transform and adapt to a new environment. In most (if not all) of the scenarios, people
are able to continue with their lives even if it will be in an altered way.
Most social impacts are based on a ‘worst case scenario’ as it is deemed more important to
overestimate an impact rather than underestimate it. Furthermore, the interviews, site visit and
comments from the PPP confirmed that an individual cannot represent the views of an entire
community, and to consult with-, and consider the views of every individual in a community
would not be possible.
7.2 Ethical consideration
In assessing the overall confidence level in the impact assessment, the purpose of the ethical
consideration is to consider the proposed development from a perspective of “doing the right
thing”. The Velasquez’s (1985) ethical framework uses a values driven, holistic approach to
assess the development, to ensure that the qualitative and quantitative measurements are
weighted. The four questions posed, require a positive answer to ensure confidence in
motivating for the development to go ahead. Negative outcomes either require serious
mitigation or a no-go option to be considered.
Do the social and environmental benefits outweigh the
costs?
Yes Current information does show that
benefits outweigh the costs from a
socio-economic perspective.
Does the development respect the rights of
stakeholders?
Yes This PPP and SEIA form part of the
process of acknowledgement of
rights of identified stakeholders.
Do the rewards from the development extend to
marginalized stakeholders?
Yes The intention of CDR is to create
employment opportunities which will
extend to vulnerable and
marginalised communities.
Is a measurable degree of care shown towards the
environment and identified stakeholders?
TBC This will only be determined once
development is approved and CDR
commences with operations.
![Page 54: Socio Economic Impact Assessment - SAHRIS | SAHRA · Author/Reviewer: Anton Grobler / Anne-marie le Roux Report date: 20 May 2016 v.2 To be cited as: SEIA – CDR General declaration](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffbdcf43e93e71b55070530/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
© Zone Land Solutions 53 | P a g e
The above questions are indicative of the complexity of understanding the benefit and need
for economic growth, whilst showing due care to humans and the environment.
7.3 Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative impact on a development can enhance- and/or even override the initial
assessments. In this case, due to the environment already being exposed to most of the social
risks associated with mining activities (an already buoyant mining and energy sector), this is
very relevant. No impact identified in this study proved to change the significance rating as a
result of the cumulative effect.
7.4 SEIA Summary
Based on due care taken with available stakeholder feedback and based on the above
impact tables, which on average shows a Moderate/Moderate to Low impact rating, as well
as the concern regarding the balance between social and environmental costs and benefits
(some detail not available at time of publication), the SEIA is deemed to be a fair
representation of the CDR development’s projected impacts.
![Page 55: Socio Economic Impact Assessment - SAHRIS | SAHRA · Author/Reviewer: Anton Grobler / Anne-marie le Roux Report date: 20 May 2016 v.2 To be cited as: SEIA – CDR General declaration](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffbdcf43e93e71b55070530/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
© Zone Land Solutions 54 | P a g e
SECTION 4: SOCIAL RESPONSE & MITIGATION
The social response is the last section of the Driver-Pressure-State-Impacts-Response (DPSIR)
model.
1. Mitigation Measures
Regarding environmental sustainability, NEMA requires mines to develop an EMP, containing
adequate provision for financial guarantees for rehabilitation, and arrangements for monitoring
and auditing. It should also contain a closure plan which is out of scope for this study, including a
financial provision which should be available at the onset, during the life of the mine and at
closure.
An extensive literature review showed that there are not many publications that quantify social
impacts, partly because of the constraints in methodologies and partly because the costs
associated with mitigation are also strongly determined by the location and type of mining. In
addition, there is a stronger trend towards costing environmental- rather than social impacts.
Environmental concerns can often be ‘solved’ with technical interventions such as soil
rehabilitation, pollution control works, etc. whilst the resulting social implications requires
continuous engagement without any hard measures of success.
This section outlines the social mitigation measures for managing the anticipated social impacts
as outlined in this report (summarised in Table 16). The social mitigation measures are applicable
to the construction, and operations phases for the total CDR development.
Table 15: Summary of SEIA Pressures & Drivers
Social Variable Mitigated Assessment Rating Mitigated
Rating
1 Air quality (including dust & pollution) Moderate to Low
(Negative)
-44 -24
2 Noise pollution (including blasting & vibration) Moderate to Low
(Negative)
-48 -27
3 HIV/Aids, Cholera, Flu mutations, Tuberculosis,
Sexually transmitted infections
Moderate to Low
(Negative)
-54 -24
4 Close proximity to adjacent agricultural property Moderate to Low
(Negative)
-56 -42
5 Impact on land use and resulting land value Moderate (Negative) -60 -60
6 Employment opportunities Moderate (Positive) +39 +60
7 Local/ regional business industry Moderate (Positive) +20 +42
8 Aesthetic and ‘sense of place’ i.e. tourism and
lifestyle
Moderate to Low
(Negative)
-39 -36
9 Perceptions & attitudes towards the CDR Moderate to Low
(Negative)
+/-64 +/-39
10 Impact on roads infrastructure Moderate to Low
(Negative)
-56 -36
11 Impact on MLM planning & development Moderate to Low
(Negative)
+22 +33
![Page 56: Socio Economic Impact Assessment - SAHRIS | SAHRA · Author/Reviewer: Anton Grobler / Anne-marie le Roux Report date: 20 May 2016 v.2 To be cited as: SEIA – CDR General declaration](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffbdcf43e93e71b55070530/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
© Zone Land Solutions 55 | P a g e
-20 points Low
21-40 points Moderate to Low
41-60 points Moderate
61-80 points Moderate to High
81-100 points High
Figure 20: Summary of SEI outcomes
33
56
64
39
20
39
60
56
54
48
44
22
36
39
36
42
60
60
42
24
27
24
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Impact on MLM planning & development(SDF)
Impact on roads infrastructure
Perceptions & attitudes towards the CDR
Aesthetic and ‘sense of place’ i.e. tourism and lifestyle
Local/ regional business industry
Employment opportunities
Neighbouring agricultural property value
Close proximity to adjacent agriculturalproperty
HIV/Aids, Cholera, Flu mutations,Tuberculosis, Sexually transmitted infections
Noise pollution (including blasting & vibration)
Air quality (including dust & pollution)
Summary of SEI
After mitigation Before mitigation
![Page 57: Socio Economic Impact Assessment - SAHRIS | SAHRA · Author/Reviewer: Anton Grobler / Anne-marie le Roux Report date: 20 May 2016 v.2 To be cited as: SEIA – CDR General declaration](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffbdcf43e93e71b55070530/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
© Zone Land Solutions 56 | P a g e
Apart from Neighbouring agricultural property value (-); Employment opportunities and Local/
regional business industry (+) - moderate impact, the assessment is characterised by moderate to
low ratings post-mitigation.
All mitigation measures and recommendations contained in this section of the SEIA are for
inclusion as part of the EMP, and should be implemented and monitored accordingly. Remedial
action should be taken where CDR fails to comply with the EMP.
2. Environmental Management Plan
NEMA sets out a number of principles, to guide environmental management in South Africa. These
variables relate to the social dimension of sustainable development and public process
requirements, such as transparency, accountability, democracy and environmental justice.
“Environmental management must place people and their needs at the forefront of
its concern, and serve their physical, psychological, developmental, cultural and
social interests equitably.” http://www.eia.org.za/
2.1 2014 EIA Regulations
Under the much anticipated ‘One Environmental System’ released on 2 September 2014, the
requirements for financial provision for the environmental impacts of mining operations will be
regulated by NEMA and no longer the MPRDA. These Regulations include a number of provisions
to provide for the transition of the environmental regulation of mining from the MPRDA to NEMA
and the introduction of the One Environmental System Environmental risks assessments and
annual rehabilitation plans will now be required, with prescribed contents, and must be audited
annually.
According to the new regulations the Minister of Mineral Resources will be authorised to appoint
Environmental Mineral Resource Inspectors, who will have the same power as Environmental
Management Inspectors under NEMA to enforce environmental legislation at mines.
2.2 The Social EMP
Table 16 provides mitigation measures that must be considered for social impact management.
This must also be read in line with the De Roodepoort SLP (March 2016), which aims to integrate
the SLP into the MLM LEDP.
![Page 58: Socio Economic Impact Assessment - SAHRIS | SAHRA · Author/Reviewer: Anton Grobler / Anne-marie le Roux Report date: 20 May 2016 v.2 To be cited as: SEIA – CDR General declaration](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffbdcf43e93e71b55070530/html5/thumbnails/58.jpg)
© Zone Land Solutions 57 | P a g e
Table 16: Mitigation measures
OBJECTIVE: Mitigate the possible Socio-economic impacts associated with the CDR development
Project component/s Development site and surrounding area
Potential Impact Socio-economic impact from CDR and related activities
Activity/risk source Potential impact on stakeholders – refer to Impact Tables ≥ -60 rating
Mitigation: Target/Objective Manage the (negative) impact on health and safety; quality of life and
socio-economic sustainability of stakeholders, thus promoting a general
acceptance to, and compliance with EIA outcomes
Activity 1:
Manage health status of employees on site (HIV/Aids, Cholera, Flu mutations, Tuberculosis, Sexually
transmitted infections)
Mitigation: Action/Control Responsibility Timeframe
Appoint a health service provider
or local NGO to develop,
implement and manage a
”Health & Safety” programme,
focussing on HIV/AIDS, TB and
alcohol abuse prevention, in
partnership with local
government programmes and
initiatives.
CDR Throughout construction and
operational phases.
Monitoring To be undertaken by the Management Forum of the CDR and the
appointed Environmental Control Officer (ECO) who will ensure
compliance to health and safety specifications.
Performance Indicator - Health & Safety orientation and educational programmes
- Reports on above indicators
- A well-managed development which respects the socio-
environmental context of the immediate stakeholders will ensure all
stakeholders working together to the benefit of all
Activity 2:
Close proximity to adjacent agricultural property
Mitigation: Action/Control Responsibility Timeframe
Establishment of a Community
Management Forum with
representative stakeholders from
tribal, state, and local agencies
and local government
departments.
The purpose of which will be to
develop community monitoring
programs that will be sufficient
to:
- Identify and evaluate socio-
economic impacts resulting from
coal mining
- Monitor programs which collect
data reflecting economic, fiscal,
and social impacts of the
development at the tribal, state,
and local level.
- Evaluate parameters, which
could include impacts on local
employment and housing
CDR & stakeholders Commence pre-construction and
manage throughout development
lifetime (Suggest quarterly
meetings).
![Page 59: Socio Economic Impact Assessment - SAHRIS | SAHRA · Author/Reviewer: Anton Grobler / Anne-marie le Roux Report date: 20 May 2016 v.2 To be cited as: SEIA – CDR General declaration](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffbdcf43e93e71b55070530/html5/thumbnails/59.jpg)
© Zone Land Solutions 58 | P a g e
markets, local consumer product
prices and availability, local
public services (e.g., police, fire,
and public health), and
educational services.
- Programs could also monitor
indicators of social disruption
(e.g. crime, alcoholism, drug use,
and mental health) and the
effectiveness of community
welfare programs in addressing
these problems.
Performance Indicator - Quarterly engagements
- Reports availability on above indicators
- A well-managed development which respects and enhances the
socio-economic context of the immediate stakeholders will ensure all
stakeholders working together to the benefit of all
Activity 3:
Impact on MLM planning & development (SDF)
Engagement between CDR and
MLM in order to establish a
conclusion to:
Ensure that the SLP is approved
and shared to enable
implementation and regular
reporting. The results are to be
presented to local government
to create linkages to skills
development and social
programmes.
MLM & CDR Throughout construction and
operational phases.
Monitoring Continuous engagement on services, opportunities for collaboration
and general good governance through the Community Management
Forum, as well as meetings between MLM and CDR.
Performance Indicator Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act 16 of 2013 establishes
the MLM as the final authority of land use planning. Each province will
have a provincial land use tribunal and appeal tribunal that will be land
use regulators in specified situations. Nationally the Minister will be a land
use regulator of last resort, only acting in cases where there has been
neglect or flouting of the national principles and norms.
2.3 Out of Scope for the CDR SEIA
Elements which are critical even in the planning phase for mining development and which were
either not yet available or out of scope for this study include:
Projected Financial indicators required for the CBA
Decommissioning
Financial Provision & Closure Regulations
![Page 60: Socio Economic Impact Assessment - SAHRIS | SAHRA · Author/Reviewer: Anton Grobler / Anne-marie le Roux Report date: 20 May 2016 v.2 To be cited as: SEIA – CDR General declaration](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffbdcf43e93e71b55070530/html5/thumbnails/60.jpg)
© Zone Land Solutions 59 | P a g e
3. Recommendations and Conclusion
The socio-economic risks of mining in South Africa have been emerging for some time now, and
have been brought into sharp relief by recent events in the platinum sector. The slow pace of
social upliftment in the country has led to widespread social unrest with consequent calls for
different forms of mitigation and social response. Fundamentally, the key stakeholders are not
fully aligned, and although they are engaging in some instances, the bridge in perspectives
prohibits productive outcomes.
Measuring social impact, deploying inclusive solutions and engaging effectively with
stakeholders are three ways in which mining companies can mitigate this risk (see EMP).
It is therefore recommended that should CDR receive environmental approval, it be subject to
the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures and environmental
management actions contained in this, and other specialist reports.
Based on the salient SEIA findings, which can be summarised as, -
1. Projected benefits are mainly of an economic nature (job creation and stimulant to local
economy) and as such stand in stark contrast to the social-and environmental costs,
which are proved to be moderate or moderate to low.
2. This is supported by the Cost Benefit Analysis and the Ethical Framework.
3. As no alternative site options are available due to the extent of the mining rights being
applied for by CDR, the close proximity to adjacent agricultural property, are critical
issues which will create ongoing social response, requiring constant engagement (as
supported by the CRR from the PPP).
4. The scale of the CDR development is still to be finalised and will impact the number of
employment opportunities actually realised.
![Page 61: Socio Economic Impact Assessment - SAHRIS | SAHRA · Author/Reviewer: Anton Grobler / Anne-marie le Roux Report date: 20 May 2016 v.2 To be cited as: SEIA – CDR General declaration](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffbdcf43e93e71b55070530/html5/thumbnails/61.jpg)
© Zone Land Solutions 60 | P a g e
Appendix A: MEASUREMENT CRITERIA
Assessment of Impacts
Direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of the issues identified through the scoping study, as well
as all other issues identified in the EIA phase must be assessed in terms of the following criteria:
The nature, which shall include a description of what causes the effect, what will be
affected and how it will be affected.
The extent, wherein it will be indicated whether the impact will be local (limited to the
immediate area or site of development) or regional, and a value between 1 and 5 will be
assigned as appropriate (with 1 being low and 5 being high):
The duration, wherein it will be indicated whether the lifetime of the impact will be of a
very short duration (1–2 years) to permanent which will be assigned a score of 5;
The magnitude, quantified on a scale from 1-5, where 1 is small and will have no effect on
the environment, and 5 is high and results in complete destruction of patterns and
permanent cessation of processes.
The reversibility refers to the ability to rehabilitate the effect on the environment.
The probability of occurrence, which shall describe the likelihood of the impact actually
occurring. Probability will be estimated on a scale of 1–5, where 1 is very improbable
(probably will not happen), 2 is improbable (some possibility, but low likelihood), 3 is
probable (distinct possibility), 4 is Highly Probable (most likely) and 5 is definite (impact will
occur regardless of any prevention measures).
The significance, which shall be determined through a synthesis of the characteristics
described above and can be assessed as low, medium or high; and
The status, which will be described as either positive, negative or neutral.
The significance is calculated by combining the criteria in the following formula:
S = (E+D+M+R) x P
S = Significance
E = Extent
D = Duration
M = Magnitude
R = Reversibility
P = Probability
The significance weightings for each potential impact are as follows:
1-20 points: Low (i.e. where this impact would not have a direct influence on the decision
to develop in the area),
21-40 points: Moderate to Low
41-60 points: Moderate (i.e. where the impact could influence the decision to develop in
the area unless it is effectively mitigated),
61-80 points: Moderate to High
81-100 points: High (i.e. where the impact must have an influence on the decision process
to develop in the area).
![Page 62: Socio Economic Impact Assessment - SAHRIS | SAHRA · Author/Reviewer: Anton Grobler / Anne-marie le Roux Report date: 20 May 2016 v.2 To be cited as: SEIA – CDR General declaration](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffbdcf43e93e71b55070530/html5/thumbnails/62.jpg)
© Zone Land Solutions 61 | P a g e
Nature and Status
Include a brief description of the impact of environmental parameter being assessed in the context of
the project. This criterion includes a brief written statement of the environmental aspect being
impacted upon by a particular action or activity. Current status can be positive, negative or neutral.
Extent
This is defined as the area over which the impact will be expressed. Typically, the severity and
significance of an impact have different scales and as such bracketing ranges are often required. This
is often useful during the detailed assessment of a project in terms of further defining the reach.
1 Site The impact will only affect the area within the site
boundary
2 Local Will affect the local area immediately beyond the site
3 Regional Will affect the region
4 Provincial Will affect the entire province or larger
5 National Will affect the entire country
Reversibility
This describes the chance of occurrence being completely reversible to the current status quo.
1 Completely reversible Reverses with minimal rehabilitation & negligible residual
affects
3 Reversible Requires mitigation and rehabilitation to ensure
reversibility
5 Irreversible Cannot be rehabilitated completely/rehabilitation not
viable
Probability
This describes the chance of occurrence of an impact.
1 Unlikely The chance of the impact occurring is extremely low
(Less than 15% chance of occurrence).
2 Possible The impact may occur (Between 15% to 40% chance of
occurrence).
3 Probable The impact will likely occur (Between 40% to 60% chance
of occurrence)
4 Highly Probable Impact will certainly occur (Greater than 60% to 85%
chance of occurrence).
5 Definite Impact will definitely occur (Greater than 80% chance of
occurrence).
Duration
This describes the duration of the impacts on the environmental parameter. Duration indicates the
lifetime of the impact as a result of the proposed activity
1 Short term The impact and its effects will either disappear with
mitigation or will be mitigated through natural process in
a span shorter than the construction phase (0 – 2 years),
or the impact and its effects will last for the period of a
relatively short construction period and a limited
recovery time after construction, thereafter it will be
entirely negated.
2 Short to Medium term The impact and its effects will continue or last for some
time after the construction phase but will be mitigated
by direct human action or by natural processes
![Page 63: Socio Economic Impact Assessment - SAHRIS | SAHRA · Author/Reviewer: Anton Grobler / Anne-marie le Roux Report date: 20 May 2016 v.2 To be cited as: SEIA – CDR General declaration](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffbdcf43e93e71b55070530/html5/thumbnails/63.jpg)
© Zone Land Solutions 62 | P a g e
thereafter (2 – 5 years).
3 Medium term The impact and its effects will continue or last for the
entire operational life of the development, but will be
mitigated by direct human action or by natural
processes thereafter (6 – 25years).
4 Long term The impact and its effects will continue or last for the
entire operational life of the development, but will be
mitigated by direct human action or by natural
processes thereafter (26 - 45years).
5 Permanent The only class of impact that will be non-transitory.
Mitigation either by man or natural process will not occur
in such a way or such a time span that the impact can
be considered transient (Longer than 46 years).
Magnitude
Describes the severity of an impact
1 Low Little effect – negligible disturbance/benefit.
2 Low to Moderate Impact alters the quality, use and integrity of the system/
component but system/ component still continues to
function in a moderately modified way and maintains
general function.
3 Moderate Effect is observable – impact reversible with
rehabilitation.
4 Moderate to High Extensive effects – irreversible alteration to the
environment.
5 High Extensive permanent effect with irreversible alterations
Significance
Significance is determined through a synthesis of impact characteristics. Significance is an indication
of the importance of the impact in terms of both physical extent and time scale, and therefore
indicates the level of mitigation required. This describes the significance of the impact on the
environmental parameter. The calculation of the significance of an impact uses the following formula:
(Extent + Duration + Magnitude + Reversibility) x Probability = Significance
The summation of the different criteria will produce a non-weighted value. By multiplying this value with
the probability, the resultant value acquires a weighted characteristic which can be measured and
assigned a significance rating.
1-20 points Low
21-40 points Moderate to Low
41-60 points Moderate
61-80 points Moderate to High
81-100 points High
![Page 64: Socio Economic Impact Assessment - SAHRIS | SAHRA · Author/Reviewer: Anton Grobler / Anne-marie le Roux Report date: 20 May 2016 v.2 To be cited as: SEIA – CDR General declaration](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffbdcf43e93e71b55070530/html5/thumbnails/64.jpg)
© Zone Land Solutions 63 | P a g e
Appendix B: INFORMATION SOURCES
Bibliography
1. Burdge, Rabel J. and Vanclay, F (1995). Social Impact Assessment: State of the Art.
2. Christian Arnault Emini: A Financial Social Accounting Matrix for the Integrated
Macroeconomic Model.
3. DEA&DP Guideline for involving Economic Specialists in the EIA processes (2005).
4. De Roodepoort SLP: March 2016.
5. Eberhart, Anton: The Future of South African Coal (2011). Programme on Energy and
Sustainable Development, Stanford.
6. Centaur De Roodepoort Scoping Report dated February 2016.
7. Gert Sibande Municipal District Council (SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILES, MARCH 2015)
8. Guidelines for Social Assessment Specialists in EIA Processes. Department of
Environmental Affairs and Development Planning, Western Cape Province (2006).
9. Hamann, Ralph: Mining companies' role in sustainable development: The 'why' and 'how'
of corporate social responsibility from a business perspective. Pages 237-254, Published
online: 01 Jul 2010.
10. IDP 2012-2013 to 2016-2017 of Gert Sibande Municipal District
11. Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) for South Africa (2010-2030).
12. Jose I. Huertas, Dumar A. Camacho, Maria E. Huerta, 20 January 2012 Roberts, J, 2009:
The Hidden Epidemic Amongst Former Miners. Silicosis, tuberculosis and the occupational
diseases in mines and works Act in the Eastern Cape, South Africa. Health Systems Trust.
13. Journal of the Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Lane; R. Kamp: On-
line version ISSN 2411-9717: J. S. Afr. Inst. Min. Metall. vol. 113 n.3 Johannesburg March
2013, CONFERENCE PAPERS.
14. Msukaligwa SDF Final Report 2010.
15. Navigating above-the-ground risk in the platinum sector, The Monitor Group,
Johannesburg, South Africa.
16. Pierce, D et al. (1989). Blueprint for a Green Economy. Earthscan Publications Limited.
17. Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act, 16 of 2013.
18. StatsSA 2011.
19. Swart, E: The South African Legislative Framework for Mine Closure (Department: Minerals
and Energy, Pretoria).
20. The Employment Equity Act no. 55 of 1998.
21. The National Energy Act, 2008.
22. The National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998 (NEMA) – since amended.
23. The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 2013.
ISSN 2225-6253. Paper presented at the 5th International Platinum Conference 2012, 18-
20 September 2012, Sun City, South Africa.
24. Town Planning and Townships Ordinance Act 15 of1986.
25. Velasquez, M. G. (1985). Ethics: Theory and Practice.
26. Vanclay, F. (2002). Conceptualising Social Impacts. Environmental Impact Assessment
Review.
27. Van Zyl, H.W., de Wit, M.P. & Leiman, A. 2005. Guidelines for DEA&DP for involving
Economic Specialists in EIA processes.
![Page 65: Socio Economic Impact Assessment - SAHRIS | SAHRA · Author/Reviewer: Anton Grobler / Anne-marie le Roux Report date: 20 May 2016 v.2 To be cited as: SEIA – CDR General declaration](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffbdcf43e93e71b55070530/html5/thumbnails/65.jpg)
© Zone Land Solutions 64 | P a g e
Internet sources
1. www.unep.org/pdf/NA_Indicators_FullVersion.pdf
2. http://www.nwu.ac.za
3. http://www.bothends.org
4. http://ia2dec.pbe.eea.europa.eu/knowledge_base/Frameworks/doc101182
5. http://www.saimm.co.za
6. https://collegegrad.com/industries/farmi03
7. http://enviroliteracy.org/environment-society/economics/cost-benefit-analysis
8. http://soer.deat.gov.za/dm_documents/Human_Settlement_-
_Background_Paper_iwTDC.pdf
9. http://www.eia.org.za/
10. http://www.coaltech.co.za/chamber%20databases%5Ccoaltech%5CCom_DocMan.nsf
/0/9F95002E17957FCC422574030033355F/$File/Task%207.14.1%20-
%20Capital%20&%20Labour%20Intensive%20Methods.pdf
Primary research sources consulted for SEIA (not exhaustive)
Telephonic and/or on site interviews:
1. Arnold Oosthuizen (Land owner - RE)
2. Mr. Daniel Maluleki (MLM - Municipal Manager)
![Page 66: Socio Economic Impact Assessment - SAHRIS | SAHRA · Author/Reviewer: Anton Grobler / Anne-marie le Roux Report date: 20 May 2016 v.2 To be cited as: SEIA – CDR General declaration](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffbdcf43e93e71b55070530/html5/thumbnails/66.jpg)
© Zone Land Solutions 65 | P a g e
Appendix C: CRR SUMMARY OF ISSUES ARISING FROM THE PPP
SOURCE RAISED BY DRIVERS & PRESSURES IMPACT
1 PPP & Interviews
Community residents
(See Issues & Response Table)
Air quality (dust & pollution)
Health Impact
2 PPP & Interviews
Community residents
(See Issues & Response Table) Noise pollution Health Impact
3 PPP & Interviews
Community residents
(See Issues & Response Table)
Blasting & vibration assessment
Safety Impact
4
PPP & Interviews Community residents
(See Issues & Response Table)
HIV/Aids, Cholera, Flu mutations,
Tuberculosis, Sexually transmitted
infections
Health Impact
5
PPP & Interviews
Farming community &
neighbours (See Issues &
Response Table)
Close proximity to adjacent farms Health & Safety
Impact
6 PPP & Interviews
Farming community (See Issues
& Response Table) Land use and land value
Economic
Impact
7 PPP & Interviews
Local community & neighbours
(See Issues & Response Table) Employment opportunity
Economic
Impact
9
PPP & Interviews
Farming community &
neighbours (See issues &
Response Table)
Sense of place Socio-cultural
Impact
10
PPP & Interviews
Farming community &
neighbours (See Issues &
Response Table)
Aesthetics environment Visual Impact
11
PPP & Interviews
Farming community &
neighbours (See Issues &
Response Table)
Change in land use and value
Soil, land use
and capability
Impact
13 PPP & Interviews
Community residents
(See Issues & Response table)
Perceptions & attitudes towards
the development Social Impact
14
PPP & Interviews
Community residents
AECOM & SANRAL
(Emails refer)
Impact on roads infrastructure Traffic impact
![Page 67: Socio Economic Impact Assessment - SAHRIS | SAHRA · Author/Reviewer: Anton Grobler / Anne-marie le Roux Report date: 20 May 2016 v.2 To be cited as: SEIA – CDR General declaration](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffbdcf43e93e71b55070530/html5/thumbnails/67.jpg)
© Zone Land Solutions 66 | P a g e
APPENDIX D: CV’s
ABBREVIATED CV – Anton Grobler
TELEPHONE NUMBER: +27 (0)82 725 4568
E-MAIL [email protected]
SKYPE antongrobler66
Career Profile
Professor Anton Grobler holds a Ph.D in Industrial Psychology from the North West University
(previously - PU for CHE). He is a qualified Industrial Psychologist, Master People Practitioner
and an International Affiliate to the Society of Industrial and Organisational Psychology. He
hold the position of Professor, and academic area head for Leadership and Organisational
Behaviour Before at the Unisa School of Business Leadership. Before that he was employed at
the University of South Africa as the Director: Organisation Development and Human Resource
Information Systems. Prior to his appointment in Unisa, he was the National Head of
Psychological Services (at the rank of Director / Brigadier) in the South African Police Services.
He also has vast consulting experience, also in his private capacity within large organisations.
He has an extensive academic and institutional research record with numerous publications
in accredited peer reviewed academic journals and has delivered papers at various national
and international conferences. His current research focuses primarily on the leadership,
organisational behaviour, ethical work behaviour, sustainability and corporate governance
and citizenship. His passion is to influence sustainable environmental development through
ethical practices. She joined the Zone Land Solution team in 2015, as one of the specialists
responsible for environmental Socio-Economic Impact Assessments (SEIA).
Educational Qualifications
B Comm (1987)
B Comm (Honours) - (1988)
M Comm (1991)
PhD (Industrial Psychology) – (2003)
Project Portfolio (See - www.zonelandsolutions.co.za)
![Page 68: Socio Economic Impact Assessment - SAHRIS | SAHRA · Author/Reviewer: Anton Grobler / Anne-marie le Roux Report date: 20 May 2016 v.2 To be cited as: SEIA – CDR General declaration](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffbdcf43e93e71b55070530/html5/thumbnails/68.jpg)
© Zone Land Solutions 67 | P a g e
ABBREVIATED CV – Anne-marie le Roux
TELEPHONE NUMBER: +27 (0)83 293 6615
E-MAIL [email protected]
SKYPE anne-marieleroux
LINKEDIN https://za.linkedin.com/pub/anne-marie-le-roux/19/919/69b
Career Profile
Anne-marie started her career in the Department of Agriculture in 1994, after achieving a BSc
(Hons) from the University of Pretoria. As the Assistant-Director responsible for Food Security, she
worked closely with communities in marginal social- and economic conditions. She completed
a MBA at the University of Stellenbosch Business School (USB), whist holding national executive
positions in the Financial Service sector in Sub-Saharan Africa. She became an independent
consultant in 2010, and as an experienced Change- and Project manager, has seen a number
of large, complex projects successfully implemented.
Highlights include leading the implementation of the National Credit Act (NCA) for Woolworths
in 2007 and an executive member of the joint venture team, designing the ABSA/Woolworths
merger in 2008.
She is currently lecturing as part time Faculty at USB (University of Stellenbosch Business School)
and GSB (Graduate School of Business Cape Town University), as well as an ICF registered
coach.
Her passion is to influence sustainable environmental development through ethical practices.
She joined the Zone Land Solution team in 2011, as the specialist responsible for environmental
Socio-Economic Impact Assessments (SEIA).
Educational Qualifications
BSc (Hons) University of Pretoria - (1994)
Diploma Institute of Bankers CAIB - (2001)
MBA Stellenbosch Business School - (2007)
Corporate Governance Wits Business School – (2008)
Project Portfolio (See - www.zonelandsolutions.co.za)