SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE IN UPINGTON, NORTHERN CAPE PROVINCE OF SOUTH AFRICA

SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND TOURISM IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Prepared for:

Prepared by:

EOH Coastal & Environmental Services EAST LONDON 25 Tecoma Street East London, 5201 043 726 7809 Also in Grahamstown, Cape Town, Johannesburg, Port Elizabeth and Maputo www.cesnet.co.za | www.eoh.co.za

January 2017

Socio-Economic & Tourism Impact Assessment –January 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Introduction ...... 1 1.2 Locality ...... 1 1.3 Project Background ...... 3 2 PURPOSE OF THE SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ...... 2 2.1 Purpose of the Social Impact Assessment Report ...... 2 3 METHODOLOGY ...... 3 3.1 Project Affected Communities...... 3 3.2 Desktop studies and literature review ...... 3 3.3 Primary data ...... 3 3.3.1 Initial Community Meetings ...... 3 3.3.2 Environmental Impact Assessment Public Participation ...... 4 3.3.3 SIA Focus Group and Key Informant Interviews ...... 4 3.3.4 Consultation and data collection limitations ...... 4 4 KEY DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION ...... 5 4.1 General Description of the study area ...... 5 4.2 Municipal Background ...... 5 4.3 Population Statistics ...... 5 4.4 Age Distribution ...... 6 4.5 Racial Distribution ...... 6 4.6 Education Background...... 7 4.7 Unemployment Profile ...... 7 4.8 Income Profile ...... 8 4.9 Economic profile of the region ...... 8 4.10 Infrastructure services ...... 10 4.11 Roads and Transport ...... 10 Roads ...... 11 Transport ...... 11 4.12 Waste Management ...... 11 4.13 Community Facilities ...... 11 4.14 Health Status ...... 13 4.15 Tourism ...... 14 4.16 Crime ...... 14 4.17 Disaster Management ...... 15 5 ASSESSMENT OF THE POTENTIAL SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS ...... 16 5.1 Overview ...... 16 5.2 Potential Project Issues and Impacts ...... 16 5.2.1 Issue 1: Influx of Job Seekers ...... 17 5.2.2 Issue 2: Impact on health and general quality of life ...... 23 5.2.3 Issue 3: Stimulation of economic growth ...... 27 5.2.4 No-Go option ...... 32 6 SOCIO-ECONOMIC RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS ...... 33 7 REFERENCES...... 40 APPENDIX A ...... 41 APPENDIX B ...... 44 APPENDIX C ...... 48 APPENDIX D ...... 53 APPENDIX E ...... 55

Socio-Economic & Tourism Impact Assessment –January 2017

TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1: Properties on which the SEZ is proposed...... 2 Figure 1.2: DKLM ward demarcation showing the study area in ward 8, surrounded by wards 6, 7, 9, 13 and 14...... 3 Figure 1.3: Layout plan of the proposed Upington SEZ...... 1 Figure 4.1: DKLM population growth over a ten year period (StatsSA, 2011)...... 6 Figure 4.2: Age distribution in DKLM (StatsSA, 2011)...... 6 Figure 4.3: Education levels for DKLM population aged 20 and above...... 7 Figure 4.4: Unemployment rates at DKLM based on Census 2011 and 2011 data...... 8 Figure 4.5: Crime rating in Upington on a period of over 10 years...... 15

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1: Key informant/Focus Group Interviews...... 4 Table 4.1: Waste removal services in DKLM per ward...... 11 Table 4.2: Community facilities’ distribution by ward in DKLM...... 12

Socio-Economic & Tourism Impact Assessment – January 2017 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction

The Northern Cape Economic Development, Trade and Investment Promotion Agency (NCEDA) propose the establishment of a new Special Economic Zone (SEZ) located within the urban edge of Upington. The SEZ development has been driven by the anticipated outlook for the renewable solar energy power demand in South Africa within the context of the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP 2010) of the South African Government. It is anticipated that the increased utilization of renewable energy as a source of electricity generation will drive the establishment of new industries. The objective of the SEZ in Upington is to become an industrial node that will attract solar related manufacturing, assembly and supporting services in support of South Africa’s renewable energy strategy.

This report presents the Socio-Economic and Tourism Impact Assessment (SIA) study that is part of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process for the proposed Upington Special Economic Zone and PV Facility proposed NCEDA. The SIA aims to address issues that relate to the potential socio-economic impacts associated with the planning and design, construction, operation and decommissioning phases of the proposed development.

1.2 Locality

The proposed project is located immediately north of Upington, in the Dawid Kruiper Local Municipality (DKLM) (previously known as Khara Hais and Mier LMs). The DKLM falls within the ZF Mgcawu District Municipality (previously known as Siyanda District Municipality) in the Northern Cape Province of South Africa.

The study area is bounded by the N10 in the east and the north and by the R360 to the west. The Upington International Airport is located directly east of the site. The study area is adjacent to an existing industrial area.

The study area comprises of three properties, namely Erf 6009, Erf 5645 and an allotment area within ward 8 of DKLM (Figure 1.1). For the purposes of this study and the impact assessment, engagement was extended to ward 6, 7, 9, 13 and 14 as they are surrounding the project area (Figure 1.2).

EOH Coastal & Environmental Services NCEDA SEZ Socio-Economic & Tourism Impact Assessment – January 2017

Figure 1.1: Properties on which the SEZ is proposed.

EOH Coastal & Environmental Services NCEDA SEZ Socio-Economic & Tourism Impact Assessment – January 2017

Figure 1.2: DKLM ward demarcation showing the study area in ward 8, surrounded by wards 6, 7, 9, 13 and 14.

1.3 Project Background

The proposed project entails the development of 440ha of land located north of Upington, Northern Cape as a SEZ as well as the provision of bulk and internal services (i.e. electricity, water, sewer and road/street infrastructure) within the SEZ (Figure 1.3). Electricity for the new SEZ will be provided through the development of a new PV Facility with an output of over 50MW, located on 72ha within the SEZ while water will be provided from the existing municipal services in Upington. A new onsite Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) is also being proposed. The development will occur in 6 phases with phase 1 already approved.

EOH Coastal & Environmental Services NCEDA SEZ Socio-Economic & Tourism Impact Assessment – January 2017

Figure 1.3: Layout plan of the proposed Upington SEZ.

EOH Coastal & Environmental Services NCEDA SEZ Socio-Economic & Tourism Impact Assessment – January 2017

2 PURPOSE OF THE SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

2.1 Purpose of the Social Impact Assessment Report

According to the International Association of Impact Assessments (IAIA), a SIA can be defined as: “…the processes of analysing, monitoring and managing the intended and unintended social consequences, both positive and negative, of planned interventions (policies, programs, plans, projects) and any social change processes invoked by those interventions”. (IAIA, 2012:1).

By assessing the Project Affected Communities (PACs), this report sketches the area’s socio- economic environment and analyses the potential socio-economic impacts of the project on the PACs. In so doing, this SIA provides guidelines for limiting or mitigating negative socio-economic impacts and optimising expected benefits. This report is based largely on primary data gathered by means of qualitative focus group discussions, meetings and key individual interviews held in November 2016. Data has also been supplemented with an analysis of the South African Household Census Data of 2011, as well as secondary literature sources.

It is important to draw a distinction between the scope of work for the SIA and that of the general Public Participation Process (PPP), the latter being an integral part of the EIA process. Whereas the PPP aims to notify and involve all stakeholders and Interested & Affected Parties (I&APs) who might be affected by the project, the SIA is a specialist study aimed largely at providing a broad overview of the most relevant social impacts and issues in the area. It is unfeasible to consult every affected stakeholder or I&AP during the SIA process, for which purposes the PPP has been initiated. Issues and concerns raised during the PPP are incorporated into the SIA.

The Terms of Reference (ToR) for this SIA are as follow:  Provide a detailed description of the socio-economic environment in and around the project area.  Determine the current land-use patterns of the development area and the areas outside of the development boundary that are likely to be affected.  Analyse the potential impacts of the proposed project.  Provide guidelines for limiting or mitigating negative impacts and optimising benefits.  Assess the significance of the potential environmental and social impacts on the local populace and the district.  Evaluate how the project could contribute to Local Economic Development (LED) in line with the Integrated Development Plan (IDP) of the local and district municipalities.  Establish a baseline understanding of current state of livelihoods, income sources, education levels and food security.  Investigate possible effects on livelihoods, income levels, education levels, food security and other factors relevant to the affected communities.

Through the SIA process, communities and stakeholders are also assisted to identify their own development needs, ensuring that positive outcomes are maximised and possible negative impacts on such communities are minimised.

EOH Coastal & Environmental Services NCEDA SEZ Socio-Economic & Tourism Impact Assessment – January 2017

3 METHODOLOGY

The study as described in Section 1.3 above was further refined for community engagement and data collection for this assessment. The project area for the proposed project has not been finalised with regards to bulk services infrastructure and as a result, ALL communities directly surrounding the study area were engaged through ward councillors.

The broad methodology followed during this SIA is highlighted below:

3.1 Project Affected Communities

In terms of the Project Affected Communities (PACs), a distinction is made between those that will be directly affected by the proposed SEZ and those that will be affected by the supporting bulk infrastructure (e.g. pipelines, wastewater treatment work (WWTW), electrical cables, etc.). No land losses or acquisitions are anticipated for the SEZ project area, whereas it’s a possibility for the construction of bulk service infrastructure.

The SEZ PACs – The SEZ is proposed on land currently zoned for industrial use, as such, no land use conflicts and land claims are anticipated.

The infrastructure PACs – The proposed development includes associated infrastructure such as Water Treatment Works (WTW), reservoirs, water and sewer pipelines and the possible construction of a WWTW and substation. The infrastructure may traverse communities and in some instances may be crossing communal arable areas, and also possibly implicate gravesites. In communities where pipelines affect grave sites and/or even private properties, proper consultation must be conducted prior any construction. In some cased it will be necessary to divert the pipeline routes or placement of infrastructure to avoid affecting these areas.

3.2 Desktop studies and literature review

Various data sources were used to obtain information on the social and economic characteristics of the study area. Such data included maps, StatsSA Census 2011 data, internet searches, municipal documents (e.g. IDPs), etc. Where necessary, reference to the various sources is provided in the report.

3.3 Primary data

A more qualitative approach was adopted to analyse the data obtained through the community and one-on-one interviews/consultations, fieldwork and municipal discussions. The primary data is often unstructured and is mostly used in the social sciences to construct social trends and identify socio-economic patterns, relying on participant observation and field notes. Information obtained during the public participation process (PPP) for the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) phase of the project is also integrated and used in the SIA analysis and report. Initial community meetings, EIA public meetings, and focus group and key informant interviews are discussed in detail below.

3.3.1 Initial Community Meetings

NOT YET CONDUCTED

EOH Coastal & Environmental Services NCEDA SEZ Socio-Economic & Tourism Impact Assessment – January 2017

3.3.2 Environmental Impact Assessment Public Participation

Stakeholders were identified during the Scoping phase of the EIA process, especially at local and district level (Refer to Appendix A for the Stakeholder database). Stakeholders were notified of the EIA process via email and telephonically.

During the Scoping phase, a public meeting was held on Thursday the 17th November 2016 at 17h30, at the BVi Engineers office in Upington. The meeting was advertised and publicised on the Volksblad regional newspaper. The meeting was also publicised via ward councillors. ADD INFO ON MEETINGS DURING THE EIR PHASE. Please refer to the Public Participation Report of the EIA for attendance and meeting minutes.

The comments received during the public meetings have been considered in the compilation of this SIA and the impacts chapters (Chapters 5-7).

3.3.3 SIA Focus Group and Key Informant Interviews

Consultation and fieldwork was conducted from 15th to 17th November 2016 in order to gather data regarding the socio-economic conditions and potential issues and impacts of the proposed SEZ and supporting infrastructure. Details of all consultations are presented in Table 3.1 below and attendance registers are presented in Appendix C.

Questionnaires with open-ended questions were used to guide the meetings. The questions were primarily structured to obtain basic socio-economic information on the study and surrounding areas, particularly data which could not be obtained from StatsSA (e.g. social amenities, living conditions and livelihoods, etc.). The questions were also aimed at eliciting and identifying possible positive or negative project impacts. The questionnaires are attached in Appendix B.

Table 3.1: Key informant/Focus Group Interviews. Key Informant Position Date Meeting Status Mr A Tieties ZF Mgcawu DM LED 15/11/2016 Successful Manager Ms V Van Wyk DKLM LED & Tourism 15/11/2016 Successful Manager Cllr JH Opperman Ward 9 Councillor 16/11/2016 Successful Cllr PT van der Steen Ward 8 Councillor 16/11/2016 Successful Cllr S Dubeni Ward 6 Councillor 17/11/2016 Successful Cllr B Kalote Ward 7 Councillor 17/11/2016 Successful Mr C Willemse ACSA 17/11/2016 Successful Cllr EM Lebitsa Ward 13 Councillor 17/11/2016 Not successful Cllr J Moya Ward 14 Councillor 17/11/2016 Not successful

3.3.4 Consultation and data collection limitations

The following limitations are associated with this SIA:  Not all the direct and indirect PACs could be interviewed, therefore inferences had to be drawn and generalisations made. However, the consultant is confident that the communities and groups that were interviewed were generally similar to all other affected areas.

EOH Coastal & Environmental Services NCEDA SEZ Socio-Economic & Tourism Impact Assessment – January 2017

4 KEY DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

4.1 General Description of the study area

The SEZ development study area is situated north of Upington within DKLM in the ZF Mgcawu DM, Northern Cape Province. The development comprises the rezoning of 440ha land as well as the provision of bulk and internal services (electricity, water, sewer and road/street infrastructure) within the SEZ. Electricity for the new SEZ will be provided through the development of a new PV Facility with an output of over 50MW, located on 72 hectares within the SEZ while other bulk services (water and sewage) will be upgraded from the existing services in Upington.

4.2 Municipal Background

DKLM is one of five local municipalities within ZF Mgcawu DM which is the second largest DM in the Northern Cape Province. DKLM was established by the merging of the Khara Hais LM and Mier LM. Mier LM comprised of 4 wards and Khara Hais LM comprised of 14 wards. After the amalgamation, DKLM was demarcated to a total of 14 wards.

DKLM extends over a geographical area of 44 231 km2. The main town/cities in DKLM are Upington, Rietfontein and Mier. Upington is the biggest town in DKLM and has, since its inception, been the hub of activities in the region. The municipality borders with Namibia in the west, the Kgalagadi-Transfrontier Park in the north and Botswana in the northeast.

The discussion below provides a brief socio-economic profile of the municipal area, as extracted from the DKLM IDP 2012-2017.

4.3 Population Statistics

Based on the IDP 2012-2017, DKLM had an estimated population of 100 497 in 2011, with a population growth rate of 1.82%. In 2016 the population stood at 107 161 (www.localgovernment.co.za, n.d.). Of the five (5) local municipalities in ZF Mgcawu DM, DKLM is the most populous.

The population size of the ZF Mgcawu DM was recorded to be 238 063 in 2007 and then increased to a population of 252 692. The main settlements in DKLM is Keimos, Postmasburg and Upington which in itself had a population of 74 834 in the year 2011.

EOH Coastal & Environmental Services NCEDA SEZ Socio-Economic & Tourism Impact Assessment – January 2017

Figure 4.1: DKLM population growth over a ten year period (StatsSA, 2011).

4.4 Age Distribution

DKLM has experienced a negative population growth, which was mainly due to a decline in fertility rate, thus children aged 0-15 declined by 1.9%. (from 31.7% in 2001 to 29.8% in 2011). Currently that statistic stands at 28.6% (www.localgovernment.co.za, n.d.). Other age categories, particularly the proportion of older persons (older than 65) has slightly increased by 0.2% from 5.3% in 2001 to 5.5% in 2011 and in 2016 it was 5.6% thus showing a further increase by 0.1% (DKLM IDP 2012- 2017).

Figure 4.2: Age distribution in DKLM (StatsSA, 2011).

4.5 Racial Distribution

Based on the 2011 census the racial distribution was as follows:  23.1% Black African;  9.9% White;  65.2% Coloured;

EOH Coastal & Environmental Services NCEDA SEZ Socio-Economic & Tourism Impact Assessment – January 2017

 0.7% Indian/Asian; and  1.2% other.

As seen above, coloured people constitute more than half of the entire DKLM population, and as such, Afrikaans is the most dominant language in DKLM.

The gender distribution is 49.3% male and 50.7% female.

4.6 Education Background

According to StatsSA, there was an increase (between 2001 and 2011) of 5.1% of people with grade 12 in DKLM which was evident of an improvement in education level. Furthermore, 26% of DKLM 20-year-and-above population have completed grade 12 (Figure 4.3), and a further increase of 26% in the population with post school education. As a result thereof, there is a decline of 6.5% in people that have no schooling at all. DKLM still, however, has low education levels, which in turn contribute to the unemployment rate.

Figure 4.3: Education levels for DKLM population aged 20 and above.

4.7 Unemployment Profile

Based on Dawid Kruiper LM IDP 2012-2017; unemployment rate decreased from 34% in 2001 to 22.1% in 2011, which is associated with a huge decline in youth unemployment from 42.3% in 2001 to 29% in 2011 (Figure 4.4). However, the youth unemployment rate is still high when compared with the overall unemployment rate of the municipality.

EOH Coastal & Environmental Services NCEDA SEZ Socio-Economic & Tourism Impact Assessment – January 2017

Figure 4.4: Unemployment rates at DKLM based on Census 2011 and 2011 data.

4.8 Income Profile

DKLM is characterised by low economic growth, a high rate of unemployment and subsequent high levels of poverty. Most households earn an income of less than R1280 per month, with 28.8% of all households earning twice the old age pension per month. This means a large part of the population depend on government pension, which in turn has a negative influence on the payment of services.

4.9 Economic profile of the region

Based on ZF Mgcawu DM IDP 2016/2017, the region has been classified as a medium rating area on most development categories. The DM accounts for approximately 30% of the Northern Cape Provincial economy, which is dominated by mining and agriculture.

Of the three main towns/cities in DKLM, Upington is the main contributor in regional economy, as generated through mainly the trade and retail sectors, followed by the agricultural sector with the main contributor being wine farms. The agricultural sector is important to the local economy and represents an emerging strength for DKLM, which creates further opportunities for expansion as well as the development of linkages with other sectors of the economy, creating further opportunities for job creation (DKLM IDP 2012-2017).

Manufacturing is the lagging sector within the municipality, as a result thereof, the municipality has to outsource outside its boundaries for manufactured products, resulting in money flowing out of the local economy (DKLM IDP 2012-2017).

The LM acknowledges that low economic growth and a high rate of unemployment are still prevalent and present a major challenge. This further translates to relatively high levels of poverty which is widespread within the region (DKLM IDP 2012-2017).

There are various economic activities taking place in this area. These include:

EOH Coastal & Environmental Services NCEDA SEZ Socio-Economic & Tourism Impact Assessment – January 2017

Agriculture - which comprises grape production and is mainly exported to Europe, owing to peculiar grapes that are ripe and ready for export before the grapes of other countries can reach these markets, as well as livestock and game farming.

Labourers observed at the Upington local wine farms

Bezalel Wine and Brandy Estate Cellars

Livestock farming - occurs mainly on large farms where farming potential is extensive. The larger majority of these farms are privately owned. In the jurisdiction of the ZF Mgcawu DM there are approximately 1600 farm land units, which belong to 890 owners. Because of the difference in the carrying capacity of the field, there are fairly large differences in the sizes of the farm.

Irrigation farming - This is done for table grapes which are sold to Europe as well as other international countries.

Tourism & heritage - this is one of the most important economic sectors in the Northern Cape as well as within the ZF Mgcawu DM boundaries. The industry is noted as the fastest growing component of the economy by the ZFM IDP (2012– 2017).

National parks & Reserves - The world famous Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park is found in this region. This tourist destination attracts thousands of tourists to the region on an annual basis and has thus a very positive influence on the smaller local tourist enterprises in the area. Approximately

EOH Coastal & Environmental Services NCEDA SEZ Socio-Economic & Tourism Impact Assessment – January 2017

13km outside of Upington is the Spitskop Nature Reserve, which is managed by the Khara Hais Municipality (now DKLM). Although this reserve does not fall specifically under the ZFM management, it plays a role in the tourism industry of the region.

Eco-adventures & Safaris - Experienced local guides offer adventures in this region. There are various opportunities for 4x4 enthusiasts. At Riemvasmaak eco-tourism already forms an important source of income. The potential of the region is far greater than its present utilisation. There are excellent development possibilities in the central part of the area where there are hot water springs in breath-taking natural surroundings. An overnight facility with chalets and camping sites with ablution blocks has been established at these hot water springs.

4.10 Infrastructure services

The increase in housing percentage in DKLM created a larger demand for household-based services such as water, electricity and sewerage. DKLM has introduced an Integrated National Electrification Program that is managed by the department of Energy, currently there are 455 houses in the program for 2015/16 and 320 houses for 2016/17. The electrification of 57 houses in Karos, 97 houses in Raaswater and 167 houses in Melkstroom is in progress (DKLM IDP 2012- 2017). The houses in the Eskom area of supply are also done through the Integrated National Electrification Program by Eskom. Currently electricity is used for lighting, cooking and heating and cooling.

In terms of water services there are 1933 houses that are below the RDP standard and there 1439 houses with no water services being provided for them. Upington itself has a main water purification plant that has a capacity of 84Ml a day. In terms of sanitation, the DKLM has 2725 houses that use the bucket system, 194 use pit latrines and 2466 have no toilet facilities. Free basic sanitation services is delivered to 12 360 households in the area.

Informal settlements close to the study area with no access to water and sanitation infrastructure.

4.11 Roads and Transport

Upington is the hub of ZF Mgcawu DM and is located 400km west of Kimberly. It has an International Airport, which acts as a main route that connects Upington to cities like Kimberly, Johannesburg, Cape Town and Namibia. DKLM has constructed a new link road and rail overpass

EOH Coastal & Environmental Services NCEDA SEZ Socio-Economic & Tourism Impact Assessment – January 2017 bridge between the areas of Rosedale and Paballelo; and based on Dawid Kruiper LM IDP 2012- 2016, the municipality is planning an extension of Dakota Road to provide a bypass for heavy vehicles commuting on the Namibian-South African export/import route.

Roads Two national routes, N10 and N14 pass through the DKLM and ZF Mgcawu DM. N10 links DKLM and ZF Mgcawu DM to Upington International Airport. The R360 connects villages like Louisvale, Raaswater and Blaaus Kop settlement to Upington. Based on the Table 4.2 below, most of the streets in DKLM are gravel.

Transport The main type of transport used by local people in DKLM is taxis, especially for areas like Paballelo and Belview; and light vehicles to transport people coming from areas like Raaswater and Blaaus Kop settlement. Another type of transport that is used is railway transport and serves Upington and it is a part of TransNamb Railway that links with Windhoek.

4.12 Waste Management

DKLM has two landfill sites; Leerkrans and De Duine landfill sites. The municipality provides weekly waste removal services to all households in most wards, as shown in Table 4.1 below. (DKLM IDP 2012-2017).

Table 4.1: Waste removal services in DKLM per ward. Wards No of Removal Removal Communal Own No rubbish households once/week less often dump refuse disposal dump 1 2055 2055 0 0 0 0 2 1578 1578 0 0 0 0 3 1157 1157 0 0 0 0 4 1023 1023 0 0 0 0 5 1562 1562 0 0 0 0 6 1737 1737 0 0 0 0 7 950 950 0 0 0 0 8 2560 2560 0 0 0 0 9 2204 2204 0 0 0 0 10 2339 2339 0 0 0 0 11 2215 0 2215/2 0 0 0 weeks 12 1769 1769 0 0 0 0 13 1810 1810 0 0 0 0 14 1420 0 1420/2 0 0 0 weeks

4.13 Community Facilities

According to the DKLM IDP 2012-2017, the municipality has the following facilities:  38 schools;  2 hospitals;  10 clinics;  4 police stations;  40 parks;

EOH Coastal & Environmental Services NCEDA SEZ Socio-Economic & Tourism Impact Assessment – January 2017

 16 cemeteries; and  11 community halls

The municipality also has formal sports facilities, including:  5 swimming pools;  8 formal sports fields; and  6 mini sport fields.

In many of the suburbs and informal settlements there are public open areas used as sports fields, especially for soccer. The sports fields are usually not grass-covered, and are viewed as informal fields. Most of the schools also have their own sports facilities for the use of their learners. There are also mobile clinic services for remote settlements. Table 4.2 below shows the community facilities within as distributed through the wards.

Table 4.2: Community facilities’ distribution by ward in DKLM. Ward No of Parks Cemet Halls Fields & Swimming Hospitals Clinics households eries Grounds pools

1 2055 2 2 2 1 1 Harry Surty Sara Strauss 2 1578 1 1 0 0 0 Harry Surty Sara Strauss 3 1157 2 1 1 0 0 Harry Surty Progress 4 1023 1 0 0 0 0 Harry Surty Progress 5 1562 5 1 1 1 2 Harry Surty Louisvale 6 1737 0 0 0 0 0 Harry Surty Lingulethu 7 950 4 0 2 1 1 Harry Surty Lingulethu 8 2560 9 1 0 1 1 Harry Surty Upington 9 2204 5 1 0 0 0 Harry Surty Upington 10 2339 1 0 1 0 0 Harry Surty Sara Strauss 11 2215 2 1 1 1 0 Harry Surty Progress Kalksloot 12 1969 3 3 1 2 0 Harry Surty Raaswater 13 1810 1 2 0 0 0 Harry Surty Lingulethu 14 1420 4 3 3 1 0 Harry Surty Leerkrans Karos Lambrechtsdrift

Public park at Paballelo Library at Paballelo

EOH Coastal & Environmental Services NCEDA SEZ Socio-Economic & Tourism Impact Assessment – January 2017

Thembelihle service centre “Upington 26” Monument

Upington town cemetery

Old church building Paballelo (ward 6) township library

4.14 Health Status

Hospitals in ZF Mgcawu DM are located in Kakamas (Kai! Garib), Keimoes (Kai! Garib), Upington and Gordonia (Khara Hais) and Postmasburg (Tsantsabane). There are five hospitals and only two community health facilities in the ZF Mgcawu DM. Kenhardt (Kai! Garib) and Rietfontein (Mier) are the only settlements where the two community health facilities are situated.

EOH Coastal & Environmental Services NCEDA SEZ Socio-Economic & Tourism Impact Assessment – January 2017

The clinics are generally located in settlements along the main routes through the municipality, namely the N14 and the N10 in the case of Kai! Garib and Kheis. There are 52 clinics in the ZF Mgcawu DM. Kai !Garib has the most clinics, 18, followed by Khara Hais that has 14 clinics. Kgatelopele and Mier have the least amount of clinics, namely three and four, respectively. Medical staff is not stationed at all these facilities on a full time basis and in some cases the staff are on site only once a month (ZF Mgcawu IDP, 2016-2017).

Tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS are some of the infectious diseases that are receiving priority attention and that a shortage of staff hampers the delivery of health services. In 2005 10.8% of the total population was diagnosed as HIV positive. The Northern Cape experienced a steady growth of the number of people infected with HIV between 1996 (6.6%) and 2006 (17.6%) (Stabilis Development, 2007).

Another issue that severely affects this area is poverty whereby according to the last socio- economic survey concluded that 60% of the inhabitants of the area have a monthly income of R800 per month. This causes children to suffer from malnutrition due to a lack of enough money to buy food for children and the rest of the family. This issue of poverty significantly influences the state of health of the local people.

4.15 Tourism

Please refer to Appendix E for a tourism assessment addendum.

4.16 Crime

According to Crime Statistics South Africa, the reported number of crime cases in the region in 2010 was approximately 3785 which is reportedly the second highest number of crime cases spanning from 2005. Although a decrease in crime cases is observed between 2011 and 2016, crime rate in Upington is still rated as high. Upington is the hub of the district municipality, but there is a high rate of unemployment which is one of the main drivers of crime.

Crime rate in Upington 4500

4000

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

EOH Coastal & Environmental Services NCEDA SEZ Socio-Economic & Tourism Impact Assessment – January 2017

Figure 4.5: Crime rating in Upington on a period of over 10 years.

4.17 Disaster Management

The ZF Mgcawu DM prepared a Level 1 Disaster Risk Management Plan, in which the scope, objectives, management issues and other elements pertaining to disaster management are outlined. The plan aims to achieve the following:  To serve as a foundation and guide for local municipal disaster risk management planning and risk reduction;  Prevent and reduce disaster risks;  Mitigate impacts and prepare effective response to disasters; and  To minimize loss and property damage and ensure quick recovery from the impacts of disasters. The plan articulates actions to prevent and mitigate disasters and how risk reduction measures are dealt with in the long-term and managing emergencies in the shorter term, including aspects of preparedness, response and recovery. Newton/Hakabosdraai/Marateng in particular, is lacking disaster management services such as fire-fighting services.

EOH Coastal & Environmental Services NCEDA SEZ Socio-Economic & Tourism Impact Assessment – January 2017

5 ASSESSMENT OF THE POTENTIAL SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS

5.1 Overview

The following section of the report identifies the potential positive and negative impacts of the proposed SEZ on the PACs as well on the broader district and region. These impacts have been identified after consultation with the PACs as well as discussions with municipal officials. In addition, some of the impacts have also been guided by secondary literature and data.

The impacts in this chapter are listed in no particular order. Each impact has been aggregated into several issues. Each issue has a common theme and management strategy at its core. It should be noted that the assessment of socio-economic impacts differs from identifying environmental impacts in the following key ways:

 The social impact of a project is not always measurable, and their assessment often involves a subjective dimension. Considering whether such an impact is positive or negative is also a value judgement in itself. Consequently, such impacts need to be informed by a clear understanding of the social processes and knowledge of the communities under study;  Social impacts are often cumulative and synergistic, i.e. often clustered and interdependent;  Social impacts can change as community dynamics and social processes change. Consequently, the project at hand is one of a number of possible contributing factors to such on-going change, and hence cannot be viewed in isolation from the broader social and economic dynamics of the area. The specialist believes that an SIA should account for such cumulative factors, which in itself alludes to the fact that the project cannot be viewed in isolation. It is therefore often very difficult to attribute a particular impact entirely to the project itself. For example, potential health risks already exist, but it is possible for a project to compound (or indeed even reduce) these impacts; and  It should be noted that social impacts are often unintended and unavoidable, making them extremely difficult to mitigate. Therefore, in this study, mitigation strategies need to be conceptualised as strategies aimed at managing change, as opposed to a means to avoid such impacts entirely. It can also be the case that successful management of potentially negative impacts may even change the impacts from negative to positive.

5.2 Potential Project Issues and Impacts

The potential project related impacts are described below. Most of the impacts are short-term, i.e. during the construction phase of the project. Long term beneficial impacts are anticipated during operational phase and they relate mostly to economic opportunities. Table 5.1 below summarise the issues and impacts discussed in this chapter.

Issue Nr Issues Impacts 1 Influx of Job-Seekers Increased conflicts within communities and between local and outsiders. Increased social pathologies Increase and spread of HIV/AIDS and other communicable diseases Economic stimulation of and investment into business and enterprise due to an increase in demand for local services

EOH Coastal & Environmental Services NCEDA SEZ Socio-Economic & Tourism Impact Assessment – January 2017

2 Impact on health Upgrading of bulk infrastructure and general quality Increased demand on existing facilities and social services of life Noise and dust generated by construction activities Disruption in daily living and movement patterns 3 Stimulation of Employing local labour: Employment opportunities Economic Growth Supporting local businesses and stimulation of economic opportunities in Upington Skills development and capacity building Potential spin-off economic opportunities: e.g. sport, recreation, tourism, etc.

A standard rating scale is used to ensure comparability and consistency of impact assessment. Details of the impact rating scales are provided in Appendix D. The issues and impacts identified above are described in detail, assessed in terms of selected criteria and mitigation measures recommended to reduce negative impacts and enhance positive impacts.

5.2.1 Issue 1: Influx of Job Seekers

The possibility of an influx of migrant job seekers cannot be dismissed as unemployment in DKLM is a major challenge (refer to Section 4.7 on Employment Profile). Although many of the construction workers will be recruited from surrounding communities, a portion of the job opportunities, especially the skilled and highly skilled positions may need to be sourced externally. This is generally due to the lack of technical skills, since majority of the locals may not have been exposed to industry related construction and infrastructure work. Also, considering the study area’s residents low education level, more educated and skilled labour will certainly be needed from other areas. The construction of the SEZ in the area will therefore cause an influx of job- seekers and contractual workers into the area. It may also result in the return of people who have left the area in search for work.

In addition, the study area is characterised by high levels of unemployment and the possibility of the project creating job opportunities will attract people from neighbouring towns and farms.

The impacts associated with the influx of people can be significant. A major concern raised by communities is the potential conflict between outsiders and locals. In addition, an influx of people to the area may also increase and worsen existing social pathologies such as substance-abuse, sex work, risky sexual behaviours, spread of HIV and other communicable diseases and teenage pregnancies. Although an influx of job seekers is outside the control of project developers, it is suggested that the situation is monitored and managed, as an influx of job seekers can threaten the project.

It should be noted that, as with most social impacts, in-migration may also have a positive impact in terms of providing locals with small business opportunities due to an increased demand for local produce and other goods.

The following issues are discussed under this section:  Increased conflicts within communities and between locals and outsiders  Increased social pathologies (e.g. substance-abuse, crime and an increase in high risk sexual behaviours and related teenage pregnancies)

EOH Coastal & Environmental Services NCEDA SEZ Socio-Economic & Tourism Impact Assessment – January 2017

 Increase and spread of HIV/AIDS and other communicable diseases  Economic stimulation of and investment into business and enterprise due to an increase in demand for local services

Impact 1.1: Increased conflicts within communities and between locals and outsiders.

Cause and Comment Community members and key informant interviewees revealed a general concern that conflict may be stirred between the local residents and potential migrant workers, especially in the areas around the SEZ. Such conflicts could result from tension over perceived preferential treatment. For example, local residents may perceive that migration workers receive unfair benefits from the construction companies.

Conflict within communities could result due to the disruption of the host communities’ social dynamics. Conflict can be generated by a number of factors. Some of these include (but are not limited to):  Conflict between local and outsiders if an outside labour force receives preference;  An increase in economic disparities between those with jobs and those without;  Changes in values and changes in ‘way of life’ of those with jobs;  Changes in power relations between employed youth and elders;  Perceived unfair recruitment strategies; and/or  Perceived preferential procurement strategies;

Mitigation Measures The following mitigation and/or enhancement measures must be adopted: It is suggested that a project steering committee (PSC) consisting of NCEDA, contractor, Community Liaison Officer (CLO), recruitment agency, community leaders, elders, and youth, ward councillors and the ZF Mgcawu DM and DKLM LED departments must be established in order to:  Conduct an audit of the affected communities in terms of employment capacity.  Identify potential workers from the affected and surrounding communities.  Identify possible conflicts in and between communities.  Set up a central labour desk where all workers register and only workers registered on the database should be considered for employment.  Recommend support programmes that would assist with conflict minimisation and resolution.  Contractually oblige sub-contractors to only employ workers through the labour force desk.

With Mitigation Should appropriate mitigation measures be adopted, the overall significance of this impact should be low negative during the construction phase and low during operational phase as direct job opportunities for unskilled workers would have decreased during this phase. With any development, a degree of community tension would be expected.

Without Mitigation Without any mitigation measures, the consultant believes that the overall significance of this impact would be moderate negative during the construction phase. However, its severity might decrease to an overall significance of low negative during the operational phase as there will be fewer job opportunities for unskilled workers during operational phase.

EOH Coastal & Environmental Services NCEDA SEZ Socio-Economic & Tourism Impact Assessment – January 2017

Impact Significant Rating Effect Risk or Overall Impact Temporal Severity of Spatial Scale Likelihood Significance Scale Impact Construction Phase Without Moderately Short-term Study area May occur MOD - Mitigation severe With Short-term Study area Slightly severe May occur LOW - Mitigation Operation Phase Without Long-term Study area Slightly severe May occur LOW - Mitigation With Study area Long-term Slightly severe Unlikely LOW - Mitigation No-Go General No Change – existing status will not be affected Impact

Impact 1.2: Increased social pathologies

Cause and Comment Substance abuse (alcohol- and drug-use) reinforces and accounts for a range of social pathologies, such as intra-household violence, women abuse, rape, teenage pregnancies and crime. Several South African studies have confirmed that these pathologies are directly linked with substance- abuse (cf. Meade et al., 2012; King et al., 2004 and Bhatt, 1998).

Apart from substance-abuse, many people fear that newcomers could elevate levels of crime. Although it is not currently expressed as a major issue, some residents believe that crime might increase with new people coming to the area. An increase in crime rate will place more pressure on policing resources. Attention must also be given to general onsite security at the SEZ, valuable construction and operational material could attract criminals and this may result in negative economic consequences for the developer.

Most residents believe that crime is more often associated with unemployment, as such; they believe that the crime rate would decrease with an increase in job opportunities.

Moreover, it is expected that there might be an increase in risky sexual behaviour and prostitution. Increased numbers of construction workers with an increase in disposable income combined with the low income levels in the surrounding communities may stimulate prostitution.

Mitigation Measures The following mitigation and/or enhancement measures must be adopted:

Crime:  All construction workers must be clearly identifiable and wear easily recognisable uniforms. They need to carry identification cards issued by the contractor.  The SAPS must have access to construction sites.

EOH Coastal & Environmental Services NCEDA SEZ Socio-Economic & Tourism Impact Assessment – January 2017

 Local communities should be encouraged to report suspicious activity to the community liaison or nearest site officer.  The use of local labour will minimise safety and security concerns to a great extent.  The contractor must prevent loitering around the construction camp by providing transport to and from the camp sites.  Implement on site safety and security measures, such as electrical fencing, 24 hour security guards, CCTV cameras and access control.

Increased prostitution and sexual behaviour:  National and local awareness programmes that discourage promiscuity, especially at schools in and surrounding the project area must be supported.  Condoms must be made easily accessible to all construction workers.

With Mitigation Should appropriate mitigation measures be adopted, the overall significance of this impact should be low negative both during the construction and operational phase. Changing social pathological behaviours is extremely difficult, as it involves changing attitudes and community values. At most, associated impacts can be managed, but never eliminated.

Without Mitigation Without any mitigation measures, the consultant believes that the overall significance of this impact would be moderate negative during the construction and low negative during the operational phase.

Impact Significant Rating Effect Risk or Overall Impact Temporal Severity of Spatial Scale Likelihood Significance Scale Impact Construction Phase Without Moderately Short-term Study area May occur MOD - Mitigation severe With Short-term Study area Slightly severe Probable LOW - Mitigation Operation Phase Without Moderately Long-term Study area May occur MOD - Mitigation severe With Study area Long-term Slightly severe May occur LOW - Mitigation No-Go General No Change – existing status will not be affected Impact

Impact 1.3: Increase and spread of HIV/AIDS and other communicable diseases

Cause and Comment The main driver in the increase of communicable diseases, especially on large capital development projects such as the SEZ, is labour migration. This results in social pathologies such as substance abuse, prostitution and short-term relationships with the local residents. As a result, the spreading

EOH Coastal & Environmental Services NCEDA SEZ Socio-Economic & Tourism Impact Assessment – January 2017 of communicable diseases such as HIV is facilitated. This has long-term effects on family well- being, community integrity and the local economy. The increase in and spread of communicable diseases also places pressure on local health facilities and social welfare.

Mitigation Measures The following mitigation and/or enhancement measures must be adopted:  A Health and Safety Officer must be appointed on site and must comply with the Occupational Health and Safety policies.  A HIV/AIDS, non-discrimination, awareness, prevention and health care support policy must be implemented.  Condoms must be made easily accessible to all workers.  An HIV/AIDS education and behaviour change programme for all contracted workers should be developed.  The above program must extend to the communities located near the study area.  Existing public health care centres must be involved in HIV/AIDS campaigns and monitoring of HIV/AIDS prevalence should be undertaken in collaboration with these agencies.  Voluntary counselling and testing should be encouraged for all workers.

With Mitigation Should appropriate mitigation measures be adopted, the overall significance of this impact should be moderate negative during the construction and low negative during operational phase as the number of migrant labourers would have decreased. The spread of HIV cannot be halted, but with proper awareness and education programmes, impacts may be managed.

Without Mitigation Without any monitoring and management interventions, the spread of communicable diseases is likely to be more severe and therefore the overall significance of this impact would be high negative during the construction phase. However, the severity may decrease to an overall significance of low negative during the operational phase, as there will be fewer workers during operational phase.

Impact Significant Rating Effect Risk or Overall Impact Temporal Severity of Spatial Scale Likelihood Significance Scale Impact Construction Phase Without Long-term Study area Severe Probable HIGH - Mitigation With Moderately Long-term Study area May occur MOD - Mitigation severe Operation Phase Without Long-term Study area Slightly severe May occur LOW - Mitigation With Study area Long-term Slightly severe May occur LOW - Mitigation No-Go General No Change – existing status will not be affected Impact

EOH Coastal & Environmental Services NCEDA SEZ Socio-Economic & Tourism Impact Assessment – January 2017

Impact 1.4: Economic stimulation of and investment into business and enterprise due to an increase in demand for local services

Cause and Comment The skilled and unskilled construction workers for the proposed SEZ will require local services such as food, fuel and accommodation. The demand for more services will stimulate investment into local towns and will create a market place in Upington for local resources during the construction phase.

Mitigation Measures The following enhancement measures must be adopted:  NCEDA is limited in its capacity to enhance the benefits of this impact, as the development of the communities and town will occur in response to the needs and demands of construction workers. NCEDA can however play a role in facilitating the skills required to recognise the need and respond appropriately.  NCEDA must link the Local and District Municipal LED programmes and local business chambers with small to medium enterprises (including communities) in the area so that a state of “readiness” to optimise economic benefits is achieved. This may involve training in the following sectors: business, tourism, catering etc.

With Mitigation The success of mitigation cannot be predicted with certainty as it relies on:  The willingness of enterprises to respond to the available demand opportunities  The skills available and acquired  The involvement of organisations that are able to provide support, training and skills transfer.

The proponent can play a key facilitation role. Ultimately, with successful mitigation, the significance of the potential benefits is high during the construction phase, especially since mitigation can prolong benefits into the operation phase. Economic benefits during the operation phase are discussed in Impact 4.4 below.

Without Mitigation Without a key facilitator or driver, it is unlikely that stakeholders will engage and integrate in a cohesive manner with the primary objective to ensure maximum benefits to all affected communities. The potential economic benefits of an influx of people will not be optimised and the significance will therefore be moderate.

Impact Significant Rating Effect Risk or Overall Impact Temporal Severity of Spatial Scale Likelihood Significance Scale Impact Construction Phase Without Moderately Medium-term Study area Probable MOD + Mitigation severe With Long-term Study area Severe Probable HIGH + Mitigation No-Go

EOH Coastal & Environmental Services NCEDA SEZ Socio-Economic & Tourism Impact Assessment – January 2017

General No Change – existing status will not be affected Impact

5.2.2 Issue 2: Impact on health and general quality of life

In all interviews community members expressed support of the project, especially as it will bring the much needed economic development. It is acknowledged that the proposed SEZ will improve the welfare of the study area, through increased access to infrastructure and services such as:  Improved access roads will improve access to markets, education and health care services  Improved communication networks will improve education

The project may also however have negative short-term (construction) effects on the provision of particular social services by increasing their demand and placing limited resources under pressure. Such services include: health care, education, municipal and policing.

The SEZ will have additional short-term impacts on the health and quality of life of surrounding communities through noise and dust generation during the construction phases of all aspects of the project.

Impact 2.1: Upgrading of bulk infrastructure

Cause and Comment There are currently no bulk services in place to support the proposed Upington SEZ. For this reason, a lot of bulk services will need to be constructed as part of the SEZ development.

Electrical infrastructure (i.e. substation, new 132/11kV, 25 MVA step-down facility and SEZ load centre) will be constructed which will add considerable load to the existing municipal network and improve the limited municipal spare capacity which Eskom cannot increase due to the current energy situation in the country.

The existing bulk water supply system is fully operational and capacitated. However, the capacity of the current bulk water supply system is adequate for Phase 1, and additional infrastructure is required for Phases 2 – 6 of the SEZ. In order to supply water for the latter phases; a booster pump station, rising main, storage reservoir, lifting pump station and high level storage will need to be constructed as part of Phase 2. This will ease the pressure on the existing bulk water supply system.

While the sewage contribution of Phase 1 of the proposed Upington SEZ is small in relation to the load that the current sewerage system can handle; Phases 2 – 6 will require the development of bulk sewage infrastructure. Two alternatives are proposed to manage the sewage produced in Phases 2 – 6 of the SEZ, namely:  Alternative 1: The construction of a new sewer pump station to the south of the SEZ target area, and all sewage produced at the SEZ will be gravity fed to a sewer pump station and ultimately pumped to a municipal wastewater treatment works (WWTW). This will benefit the municipal area as well, as it will entail the construction of new and upgrading of the existing sewage reticulation and treatment systems.  Alternative 2: All sewage will be handled and treated by new infrastructure that will be constructed as part of the SEZ development.

EOH Coastal & Environmental Services NCEDA SEZ Socio-Economic & Tourism Impact Assessment – January 2017

Mitigation Measures The construction and upgrading of bulk infrastructure will be very beneficial for Upington, more especially the implicated communities who will reap long term benefits. No mitigation or enhancement measures have been identified.

Impact Significant Rating Effect Risk or Overall Impact Temporal Severity of Spatial Scale Likelihood Significance Scale Impact Construction Phase Without Long-term Study area Beneficial Definite MOD + Mitigation With Long-term Study area Beneficial Definite MOD + Mitigation Operation Phase Without Long-term Study area Beneficial Definite MOD + Mitigation With Long-term Study area Beneficial Definite MOD + Mitigation No-Go General No Change – existing status will not be affected Impact

Impact 2.2: Increased demand on existing facilities and social services

Cause and Comment The influx of people into Upington making use of the direct and indirect economic opportunities of the proposed Upington SEZ project will require access to basic infrastructure and services. The increase in demand may especially place pressure on social service provision, such as hospitals and clinics and schools. This will place pressure on DKLM who will be required to improve their service delivery (e.g. sanitation and solid waste management) in order to cope with the anticipated development of the area.

An increased in criminal elements will place pressure on current resources and may affect effective policing of the surrounding communities.

Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures must be adopted:  Service providers associated with DKLM, clinics, schools and the SAPS must be made aware of the potential increase in demand for services, and the anticipated increased pressure to provide services for new households.  This will require the establishment of direct contact between LM, DM, the Department of Health, SAPS, Department of Education, etc. The channels of communication must be established as permanent points of contact throughout the construction phase of the project.  Regular monitoring of schools and clinics must be undertaken in order to determine whether there are sufficient resources. When resources are insufficient, NCEDA must communicate, through established channels, with the relevant departments for assistance.

EOH Coastal & Environmental Services NCEDA SEZ Socio-Economic & Tourism Impact Assessment – January 2017

With Mitigation NCEDA is limited in its capacity to increase the resources allocated to social services, but can be instrumental in communicating with the relevant departments. With mitigation, resource allocation to social services may meet the demand, resulting in moderate-low negative impact. This impact is likely to be much less severe during the operation phase as the project will retain fewer workers.

Without Mitigation The current resource allocation to social services in Upington is fairly adequate. The SEZ will however result in a significant increase in the demand for social services, and therefore increase the pressure and resulting in poor service delivery during the construction period. This is considered a high significance impact, without necessary monitoring and intervention from NCEDA.

Impact Significant Rating Effect Risk or Overall Impact Temporal Severity of Spatial Scale Likelihood Significance Scale Impact Construction Phase Without Short-term Project area Severe Probable HIGH - Mitigation With Long-term Project area Slightly severe Probable MOD - Mitigation Operation Phase Without Short-term Project area Slightly severe May occur LOW - Mitigation With Long-term Project area Slightly severe May occur LOW - Mitigation No-Go General No Change – existing status will not be affected Impact

Impact 2.3: Noise and dust generated by construction activities

Cause and Comment Noise and dust generation by construction machinery (such as excavators, graders and compaction equipment) and activities may become a nuisance to areas surrounding the proposed SEZ site.

Mitigation Measures The following mitigation/enhancement measures must be adopted:  Noise and dust prevention measures and monitoring thereof must be included in an Environmental Management Programme.  Surrounding communities must have access to a grievance reporting mechanism, e.g. through a project steering committee.

With Mitigation

EOH Coastal & Environmental Services NCEDA SEZ Socio-Economic & Tourism Impact Assessment – January 2017

With mitigation, the associated impacts of noise and dust may be reduced to low significance during construction phase. The noise impact will still prevail during operational phase but is expected to be much less severe as noise buffering techniques would be implemented.

Without Mitigation Without mitigation, noise and dust nuisance will affect the quality of life in the communities surrounding the SEZ, throughout the construction period. The significance of these impacts is moderate.

Impact Significant Rating Effect Risk or Overall Impact Temporal Severity of Spatial Scale Likelihood Significance Scale Impact Construction Phase Without Moderately Short-term Study area May occur MOD - Mitigation severe With Short-term Study area Slightly severe May occur LOW - Mitigation Operation Phase Without Long-term Study area Slightly severe May occur LOW - Mitigation With Long-term Study area Slightly severe May occur LOW - Mitigation No-Go General No Change – existing status will not be affected Impact

Impact 2.4: Disruption in daily living and movement patterns

Cause and Comment Disruptions in daily living and movement patterns for surrounding communities and road users could manifest in the form of traffic and intrusion impacts resulting in short-term disruptions and safety hazards, particularly during the pre-construction/site preparation phase.

Mitigation Measures The following mitigation/enhancement measures must be adopted:  Disruptions and road closures must be announced throughout the municipal area, and especially in the communities surrounding the construction area.

With Mitigation With mitigation, the associated traffic disruption impacts may be reduced to low significance during construction phase and low significance during operational phase.

Without Mitigation Without mitigation, traffic disruption will result in the likelihood of accidents, damage to roads and vehicles, and this could affect the communities surrounding the SEZ, throughout the construction and operational phases. The significance of these impacts is moderate.

EOH Coastal & Environmental Services NCEDA SEZ Socio-Economic & Tourism Impact Assessment – January 2017

Impact Significant Rating Effect Risk or Overall Impact Temporal Severity of Spatial Scale Likelihood Significance Scale Impact Construction Phase Without Short-term Study area Severe Definite MOD - Mitigation With Moderately Short-term Study area Definite LOW - Mitigation severe Operation Phase Without Long-term Study area Slightly severe May occur LOW - Mitigation With Long-term Study area Slightly severe May occur LOW - Mitigation No-Go General No Change – existing status will not be affected Impact

5.2.3 Issue 3: Stimulation of economic growth

Even though the construction of the SEZ will be phased and therefore employment won’t be constant, it will also be labour intensive with a magnitude of positive socio-economic impacts. One of the major positive impacts of the project is the fact that a significant number of direct and indirect employment opportunities will be generated during construction, together with skills development opportunities for the youth. In addition, significant spin-off opportunities exist during the operation phase. Tourism activities are some of the potential economic possibilities associated with the SEZ.

However, appropriate mitigation and project enhancement measures are needed to ensure that employment remains a positive impact and that all the benefits are equitable and can be optimised or enhanced. The following impacts are discussed under this section:

 Employment of local labour;  Developing and supporting local businesses;  Skills development and capacity building; and  Economic spin-off opportunities associated with sport, recreation, tourism, etc.

Impact 3.1: Employing local labour: Employment opportunities

Cause and Comment The SEZ project will bring about the much needed employment opportunities to Upington. The concern of employment of local people was one of the main concerns raised during engagements with ward councillors, and is perceived to be one of the biggest impacts.

The significance of employing local residents cannot be stressed enough. Employment provides an income to households that have none, in addition to other benefits that could include but not limited to:  Reduced crime rates;

EOH Coastal & Environmental Services NCEDA SEZ Socio-Economic & Tourism Impact Assessment – January 2017

 Reduced alcohol and drug-abuse; and  Reduced intra-household violence, which is believed to be worsened by substance-abuse.

It is understood that the construction of the proposed Upington SEZ will require highly skilled and experienced workers. However, a large number of the tasks can be performed by local labour, and NCEDA is encouraged to maximise such opportunities as far as reasonably possible.

Mitigation Measures The following mitigation/enhancement measures are proposed:  Equal jobs opportunities for women and men must be promoted.  Culture and tradition must be considered when planning the division of labour for construction.  Employment must be managed by a recruitment agency/labour desk that uses a selection system that ensures recruitment of semi and unskilled workers from all local impacted communities in accordance with recent government policies related to local procurement. This must ensure a fair and equitable recruitment process.  Where appropriate, employees involved in the construction phase should be incorporated into the permanent maintenance staff for the operational phase; and  Particular attention must be paid to employment opportunities for women and disabled persons.

With Mitigation This is sensitive impact which could, if managed properly, have a high positive overall impact on the population during the construction phase, and a low positive impact during the operational phase. During the operational phase there will be fewer job opportunities and the spatial scale would become local.

Without Mitigation Without proper labour recruitment practices and use of local resources the project may garner negative sentiment with local communities. Also, without specific enhancement measures, some economic benefits may not be realised. Such a missed opportunity would result in a high negative impact during the construction phase and a low negative during the operational phase.

Impact Significant Rating Effect Risk or Overall Impact Temporal Severity of Spatial Scale Likelihood Significance Scale Impact Construction Phase Without Short-term Study area Very severe Probable HIGH - Mitigation With Very Short-term Study area Definite VERY HIGH + Mitigation beneficial Operation Phase Without Slightly Long-term Local May occur LOW - Mitigation beneficial With Slightly Long-term Local Probable LOW + Mitigation beneficial No-Go

EOH Coastal & Environmental Services NCEDA SEZ Socio-Economic & Tourism Impact Assessment – January 2017

General No Change Impact

Impact 3.2: Supporting local businesses and stimulation of economic opportunities in Upington

Cause and Comment The buying power of people living in the area will increase due to increased individual and household income. This will increase the demand for goods and services, which presents an opportunity for local businesses to diversify and expand.

With specific reference to the financial spend of the SEZ associated with construction, the demand for building materials, accommodation, food, fuel, catering, conferencing facilities etc., will also present significant opportunities to local business enterprises and SMMEs. Building materials for the project will be sourced locally and regionally which will boost local and regional businesses.

Mitigation Measures NCEDA must ensure that the principle of utilising local business resources (suppliers and SMMEs), in accordance with recent government policies related to local procurement, forms part of the procurement specifications.

With Mitigation Should appropriate mitigation measures be implemented, the overall significance of this impact would be high positive especially during the construction phase. SMMEs will develop skills during the construction phase that could then be applied to other sectors, such as tourism. In this way the SEZ will result in moderate beneficial impacts on local businesses during the operation phase.

Without Mitigation Should local SMMEs not be supported and their development not stimulated, the economic benefit of the SEZ would be considered a missed opportunity and therefore result in high negative impact during the construction phase and would be low positive (as some benefits would ultimately accrue due to skill development in the project area) during the operation phases.

Impact Significant Rating Effect Risk or Overall Impact Temporal Severity of Spatial Scale Likelihood Significance Scale Impact Construction Phase Without Short-term Regional Very severe May occur HIGH - Mitigation With Very Medium-term Regional Definite HIGH + Mitigation beneficial Operation Phase Without Slightly Long-term Regional May occur LOW + Mitigation beneficial With Medium-term Regional Beneficial Definite MOD + Mitigation No-Go General No Change

EOH Coastal & Environmental Services NCEDA SEZ Socio-Economic & Tourism Impact Assessment – January 2017

Impact

Impact 3.3: Skills development and capacity building

Cause and Comment The construction of the SEZ and supporting bulk infrastructure will need skilled, unskilled and experienced staff. Although some community members may have building experience, a concern was raised that much of this knowledge may not be related to the construction of SEZs, but mostly housing construction. Sufficient community skills and training opportunities should be provided prior and during the construction phase of the SEZ, in order for the communities to meet the labour requirements. Training and skills development throughout construction will assist with the long-term employability of the local communities.

Mitigation Measures The following enhancement measures are proposed:  NCEDA must implement a skills development programme which will also include training in business, project management, monitoring and evaluation.

With Mitigation By implementing a skills development programme, the SEZ should have a positive overall significant impact on the communities. This is considered as a benefit of high significance during the construction phase and of moderate significance during the operation phase due to the long- term benefits of training and skill development.

Without Mitigation Without mitigation measures, such as not having a skills development programme, the effect on the population would remain unchanged. Therefore, there would be no affect (no benefits) during the construction or operational phases. However, the missed opportunity to improve the livelihoods of the local communities due a lack of skills transfer and training is considered a moderate negative during construction and operation phase.

Impact Significant Rating Effect Risk or Overall Impact Temporal Severity of Spatial Scale Likelihood Significance Scale Impact Construction Phase Without Moderately Medium-term Study area Possible MOD - Mitigation severe With Long-term Regional Beneficial Definite HIGH + Mitigation Operation Phase Without Slightly Long-term Regional May occur MOD - Mitigation beneficial With Medium-term Regional Beneficial Definite MOD + Mitigation No-Go General No affect

EOH Coastal & Environmental Services NCEDA SEZ Socio-Economic & Tourism Impact Assessment – January 2017

Impact

Impact 3.4: Potential spin-off economic opportunities: e.g. sport, recreation, tourism, etc.

Cause and Comment There is a very real and significant economic opportunity that the proposed SEZ may provide in terms of spin-off projects and investment opportunities. This includes the consideration of industrial sectors such as renewable energy related manufacturing, assembly and support services in support of South Africa’s renewable energy strategy.

Mitigation Measures The following mitigation and/or enhancement measures must be adopted:  NCEDA is limited in terms of their input regarding the spin-off business opportunities as these depend on investor interest and market demand; however they play a key role in permitting sectors within the SEZ. NCEDA should therefore, in their consideration of industrial sectors, consider the benefit to local communities and ensure that equitable benefits are realised and readily facilitate sectors that will benefit the communities and region at large.

With Mitigation The facilitation of spin-off business opportunities will assist the local communities to realise not just the social benefits, but also the long-term highly significant economic benefits of the proposed SEZ.

Without Mitigation It is unlikely that NCEDA would limit development opportunities associated with the SEZ. However, applications that do not result in local beneficiation will decrease the direct economic benefit of the SEZ for local communities, resulting in long-term moderate economic benefits. . Impact Significant Rating Effect Risk or Overall Impact Temporal Severity of Spatial Scale Likelihood Significance Scale Impact Construction Phase Without Mitigation Not applicable With Mitigation Operation Phase Without Long-term Regional Beneficial Possible MOD + Mitigation With Very Long term Regional Possible HIGH + Mitigation beneficial No-Go General No change Impact

EOH Coastal & Environmental Services NCEDA SEZ Socio-Economic & Tourism Impact Assessment – January 2017

5.2.4 No-Go option

The No-Go alternative is described as the “without project” scenario, i.e. no SEZ construction and associated infrastructure. The No-Go alternative is considered as HIGH negative impact, as this will hinder economic development of the area, and a loss in job opportunities which deprives the local people of an improved quality of life.

EOH Coastal & Environmental Services NCEDA SEZ Socio-Economic & Tourism Impact Assessment – January 2017

6 SOCIO-ECONOMIC RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

Since many of the socio-economic impacts cannot be prevented, management responses, rather than preventative actions, are required to mitigate the severity of the negative impacts. It is recommended that the mitigation/management and/or enhancement measures contained in this SIA (as highlighted in Table 6.1 below) must be actively implemented and incorporated into the Environmental Management Programme (EMPr), where applicable. This would assist as much as possible in minimising the negative impacts and enhancing the positive impacts that could possibly arise during the construction and operational phases of the Upington SEZ and supporting infrastructure.

EOH Coastal & Environmental Services NCEDA SEZ Socio-Economic & Tourism Impact Assessment – January 2017

Table 6.1: Summary of the identified socio-economic issues and impacts associated with the proposed Upington SEZ; and recommended response measures. Issues Impacts Mitigations Influx of jobseekers Increased conflicts within communities It is suggested that a project steering committee (PSC) and between local and outsiders. consisting of NCEDA, contractor, Community Liaison Officer (CLO), recruitment agency, community leaders, elders, and youth, ward councillors and the ZF Mgcawu DM and DKLM LED departments must be established in order to:  Conduct an audit of the affected communities in terms of employment capacity.  Identify potential workers from the affected and surrounding communities.  Identify possible conflicts in and between communities.  Set up a central labour desk where all workers register and only workers registered on the database should be considered for employment.  Recommend support programmes that would assist with conflict minimisation and resolution.  Contractually oblige sub-contractors to only employ workers through the labour force desk. Increased social pathologies Crime:  All construction workers must be clearly identifiable and wear easily recognisable uniforms. They need to carry identification cards issued by the contractor.  The SAPS must have access to construction sites.  Local communities should be encouraged to report suspicious activity to the community liaison or nearest site officer.  The use of local labour will minimise safety and security concerns to a great extent.  The contractor must prevent loitering around the

EOH Coastal & Environmental Services NCEDA SEZ Socio-Economic & Tourism Impact Assessment – January 2017

Issues Impacts Mitigations construction camp by providing transport to and from the camp sites.  Implement on site safety and security measures, such as electrical fencing, 24 hour security guards, CCTV cameras and access control.

Increased prostitution and sexual behaviour:  National and local awareness programmes that discourage promiscuity, especially at schools in and surrounding the project area must be supported.  Condoms must be made easily accessible to all construction workers. Increase and spread of HIV/AIDS and  A Health and Safety Officer must be appointed on site and other communicable diseases must comply with the Occupational Health and Safety policies.  A HIV/AIDS, non-discrimination, awareness, prevention and health care support policy must be implemented.  Condoms must be made easily accessible to all workers.  An HIV/AIDS education and behaviour change programme for all contracted workers should be developed.  The above program must extend to the communities located near the study area.  Existing public health care centres must be involved in HIV/AIDS campaigns and monitoring of HIV/AIDS prevalence should be undertaken in collaboration with these agencies.  Voluntary counselling and testing should be encouraged for all workers. Economic stimulation of and investment  NCEDA is limited in its capacity to enhance the benefits of into business and enterprise due to an this impact, as the development of the communities and

EOH Coastal & Environmental Services NCEDA SEZ Socio-Economic & Tourism Impact Assessment – January 2017

Issues Impacts Mitigations increase in demand for local services town will occur in response to the needs and demands of construction workers. NCEDA can however play a role in facilitating the skills required to recognise the need and respond appropriately.  NCEDA must link the Local and District Municipal LED programmes and local business chambers with small to medium enterprises (including communities) in the area so that a state of “readiness” to optimise economic benefits is achieved. This may involve training in the following sectors: business, tourism, catering etc. Impact on health and general quality of Upgrading of bulk infrastructure  The construction and upgrading of bulk infrastructure will life be very beneficial for Upington, more especially the implicated communities who will reap long term benefits. No mitigation or enhancement measures have been identified. Increased demand on existing facilities  Service providers associated with DKLM, clinics, schools and social services and the SAPS must be made aware of the potential increase in demand for services, and the anticipated increased pressure to provide services for new households.  This will require the establishment of direct contact between LM, DM, the Department of Health, SAPS, Department of Education, etc. The channels of communication must be established as permanent points of contact throughout the construction phase of the project.  Regular monitoring of schools and clinics must be undertaken in order to determine whether there are sufficient resources. When resources are insufficient, NCEDA must communicate, through established channels, with the relevant departments for assistance.

EOH Coastal & Environmental Services NCEDA SEZ Socio-Economic & Tourism Impact Assessment – January 2017

Issues Impacts Mitigations Noise and dust generated by  Noise and dust prevention measures and monitoring construction activities thereof must be included in an Environmental Management Programme.  Surrounding communities must have access to a grievance reporting mechanism, e.g. through a project steering committee. Disruption in daily living and movement  Disruptions and road closures must be announced patterns throughout the municipal area, and especially in the communities surrounding the construction area. Stimulation of economic growth Employing local labour: Employment  Equal jobs opportunities for women and men must be opportunities promoted.  Culture and tradition must be considered when planning the division of labour for construction.  Employment must be managed by a recruitment agency/labour desk that uses a selection system that ensures recruitment of semi and unskilled workers from all local impacted communities in accordance with recent government policies related to local procurement. This must ensure a fair and equitable recruitment process.  Where appropriate, employees involved in the construction phase should be incorporated into the permanent maintenance staff for the operational phase; and  Particular attention must be paid to employment opportunities for women and disabled persons. Supporting local businesses and  NCEDA must ensure that the principle of utilising local stimulation of economic opportunities in business resources (suppliers and SMMEs), in accordance Upington with recent government policies related to local procurement, forms part of the procurement specifications.

EOH Coastal & Environmental Services NCEDA SEZ Socio-Economic & Tourism Impact Assessment – January 2017

Issues Impacts Mitigations Skills development and capacity building  NCEDA must implement a skills development programme which will also include training in business, project management, monitoring and evaluation. Potential spin-off economic  NCEDA is limited in terms of their input regarding the spin- opportunities: e.g. sport, recreation, off business opportunities as these depend on investor tourism, etc. interest and market demand; however they play a key role in permitting sectors within the SEZ. NCEDA should therefore, in their consideration of industrial sectors, consider the benefit to local communities and ensure that equitable benefits are realised and readily facilitate sectors that will benefit the communities and region at large.

EOH Coastal & Environmental Services NCEDA SEZ Socio-Economic & Tourism Impact Assessment – January 2017

Although some negative impacts have been identified in this SIA, it is expected of the positive impacts to majorly outweigh the negative. Negative impacts can be sustainably managed through proper monitoring, engagement and the involvement of affected parties from project inception stage. The proposed project may possibly negatively affect surrounding private landowners, particularly for the construction of bulk infrastructure. Further discussions and engagements would then be needed to come into agreement with the landowners.

The Upington SEZ SIA is based on fieldwork undertaken in November 2016 and …….. The fieldwork methodology entailed community and focus group meetings, as well as face-to-face interviews with key stakeholders. The engagement process showed that the project is highly desired mainly due to the associated skills development and employment opportunities.

In conclusion, EOH Coastal & Environmental Services (EOH) is of the opinion that the project will ultimately uplift the economy of the area; from communities, local, regional and district level. No fatal flaws with respect to any of the proposed activities have been raised or identified.

It is also the opinion of EOH that this SIA contains sufficient information to allow the competent authority to make an informed decision. Therefore, EOH recommends that the application for authorisation be approved on condition that the recommended mitigation measures provided herein are effectively implemented.

EOH Coastal & Environmental Services NCEDA SEZ Socio-Economic & Tourism Impact Assessment – January 2017

7 REFERENCES

Barbour, T. 2007. Guideline for Involving Social Assessment Specialists in EIA Processes. [Online]. Available: http://www.asapa.org.za/images/uploads/guideline_involving_social_assessment_specialists_eia_ process.pdf

GoSA. 1995. Labour Relations Act Nr 66 of 1995. [Online]. Available: http://www1.chr.up.ac.za/undp/domestic/docs/legislation_30.pdf

GoSA. 2007a. Guideline for Involving Social Assessment Specialists in EIA Processes. [Online]. Available: http://www.asapa.org.za/images/uploads/guideline_involving_social_assessment_specialists_eia_ process.pdf

GoSA. 2007b. Department of Economic Development Service Delivery Improvement Plan: 01 April 2007 to 31 March 2008. [Online]. Available: http://www.dpsa.gov.za/batho- pele/docs/SDIP/northern%20cape/economic%20development.pdf

GoSA. 2009a. Medium Term Strategic Framework: 2009-2014. [Online]. Available: http://www.wsu.ac.za/campuslife/indaba/documents/2009%20- %202014%20Government's%20Medium%20Term%20Strategic%20Framework.pdf

Integrated Development Plan 2012-2017. Dawid Kruiper Municipality 2016/17 Financial Year Review. 30 August 2016.

Integrated Development Plan 2012-2017. ZF Mgcawu District Municipality 2016/2017 Final Review.

King, G., Flisher, A.J., Noubary, F., Reece, Ro., Marais, A. and Lombard, C. 2004. Substance abuse and behavioural correlates of sexual assault among South African adolescents. Child Abuse & Neglect, 28(1): pp. 683-696.

StatsSA. 2011a. Census 2011.[Online]. Available: http://www.census2011.co.za/

StatsSA. 2011b. Regional Economic Growth. [Online]. Available: http://www.statssa.gov.za/articles/16%20Regional%20estimates.pdf

EOH Coastal & Environmental Services NCEDA SEZ Socio-Economic & Tourism Impact Assessment – January 2017

APPENDIX A

Stakeholder Database STAKEHOLDERS

DEPARTMENT/ORGANISATION CONTACT POSTAL/PHYSICAL ADDRESS TELEPHONE NO. MOBILE N0. EMAIL ADDRESS Department: Environmental Affairs: Biodiversity &

Conservation Mr Dumisani Mabona 473 Steve Biko (Old Beatrix Street), Arcadia, Pretoria, 0001 (0)12 399 9823 [email protected] Metlife Towers, 13th Floor, Cnr Stead & Knight Streets,

Department: Economic Development & Tourism Northern Cape Kimberley, 8301 (0)53 839 4000 [email protected] Department: Economic Development & Tourism (PA to Metlife Towers, 13th Floor, Cnr Stead & Knight Streets,

HoD) Northern Cape Kimberley, 8301 (0)53 839 4000 [email protected] Department: Economic Development & Tourism (Executive Metlife Towers, 13th Floor, Cnr Stead & Knight Streets,

Assistant to HoD) Northern Cape Kimberley, 8301 (0)53 839 4000 [email protected] Bryan Fisher Department: Environment & Nature Conservation Sasko Building, 90 Long Street, Kimberley, 8300 (0)53 807 7503 (0)83 270 8323 [email protected] Department: Environment & Nature Conservation (ZF O Riba

Mgcawu District Environ Officer) (0)54 338 4800 (0)60 991 4817 [email protected] Department: Public Works, Roads and Transport Northern Cape 9-11 Stokroos Street, Squarehill Park, Kimberley, 8301 (0)53 839 2100 65- Phakamile Mabija Street, Perm Building, 3rd floor,

Department: Energy Northern Cape Kimberley (0)53 836 4000 [email protected] Department: Mineral Resources Northern Cape 65 Phakamile Mabija Street, Perm Building, Kimberley, 8300 (0)53 807 1700

Department: Water & Sanitation Mr Abe Abrahams 28 Central Road, Beaconsfield, Kimberley, 8301 (0)53 830 8800 (0)82 883 6741 [email protected] Department: Water & Sanitation (Orange Proto-CMA: Mr Moses

Licensing) Mahunonyane [email protected] Department of Water and Forestry, 19 Aqua Street,

Department: Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Mr. J Cilliers Upington, 8800 (0)54 338 5902 [email protected] Department: Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural

Development Mr. Viljoen Mothibi 162 George Street, Kimberlite Building, Kimberley (0)53 838 9100 [email protected] New Public Building Corner Knight & Stead Street, Kimberley,

Department: Rural Development & Land Reform Mr. Moeketsi Ntsane 8300 (0)53 830 4012 [email protected] Department: Social Development Northern Cape Mimosa Complex, Barkly Road, Homestead, Kimberley, 8300 (0)53 807 5600 Kulawula House, 526 Madiba (former Vermeulen) Street,

National Energy Regulator (NERSA) Arcadia, Pretoria, 0001 (0)12 401 4600 [email protected]

Dawid Kruiper Local Municipality (Secretary to MM) Cnr Scott & Mutual St, Upington, 8801 (0)54 338 7000 [email protected] Dawid Kruiper Local Municipality (Acting Municipal

Manager) DE Ngxanga Cnr Scott & Mutual St, Upington, 8801 (0)54 338 7000 [email protected]

Dawid Kruiper Local Municipality (LED) Cnr Scott & Mutual St, Upington, 8801 (0)54 338 7000 [email protected]

ZF Mgcawu District Municipality (MM) Mr Ntoba 26 Upington Dve, Upington, 8800 (0)54 337 2800 (0)72 038 7580 [email protected]

ZF Mgcawu District Municipality (Admin) Suzelle Coetzee 26 Upington Dve, Upington, 8800 (0)54 337 2800 [email protected]

SAHRA 111 Harrington Street, Cape Town, 8001 (0)21 462 4502 [email protected]

EOH Coastal & Environmental Services NCEDA SEZ Socio-Economic & Tourism Impact Assessment – January 2017

Ngwao Boswa Kapa Bokone (Provincial Heritage Resources

Authority) 1 Roper Street, Kimberley, 8301 (0)53 831 2537 [email protected]

WESSA Environmental Governance Programme Manager Morgan Griffiths 2 Lawrence Street, Central Hill, Port Elizabeth, 6001 (0)41 585 9606 (0)72 417 5793 [email protected]

ESKOM (Servitude and Investigations Department) Lungile Motsisi (0)11 800 5734 [email protected] TRANSNET (Transnet Property) Eddie Seton (0)11 308 2417 [email protected]

South African Civil Aviation Authority (Solar Farms) Obstacle Applications (0)11 545 1232 [email protected] 24 Johnson Road, The Maples Office Park, Bedfordview,

Airports Company South Africa (ACSA) Johannesburg (0)11 723 1400 [email protected]

Airports Company South Africa (ACSA) Mr Conwill Willemse (0)54 337 7911 [email protected]

Airports Company South Africa (ACSA) (EHSO) Ms Gwen Wessels (0)54 337 7911 [email protected]

SANRAL Mrs. Mpati Makoa (0)12 844 8013 [email protected] Block Two, Montrio Corporate Park, Number 10. Oliver Road, SALGA (Northern Cape) Monument Heights, Kimberley, 8300 (0)53 836 7900 Isdell House, 17 Hume Road, Dunkeld West 2196,

BirdLife South Africa Johannesburg, South Africa (0)11 789 1122 [email protected] Hanneline Smit- Isdell House, 17 Hume Road, Dunkeld West 2196,

BirdLife South Africa (Terrestrial bird conservation) Robinson Johannesburg, South Africa (0)11 789 1122 [email protected] Birdlife South Africa (Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas Isdell House, 17 Hume Road, Dunkeld West 2196,

Programme) Daniel Marnewick Johannesburg, South Africa (0)11 789 1122 [email protected] Building K2, Pinelands Office Park, Ardeer Road, Endangered Wildlife Trust (Head of Conservation) Harriet Davies-Mostert Modderfontein, 1645 (0)11 372 3600 [email protected] Philippus Theodorus van

Ward 8 Cllr (Study area) der Steen Potgieter Straat 34, Die Rand, Upington, 8801 (0)82 491 0401 [email protected] Ward 6 Cllr (Surrounding area) Siyabulela Dawid Dubeni Omega Straat 87, Paballelo, Upington, 8801 (0)73 951 6714 Ward 7 Cllr (Surrounding area) Bettie Kalote King Straat 724, Paballelo, Upington, 8801 (0)78 601 0125 Bergman Straat 25 Propshaft & Tune-up Centre, Upington,

Ward 9 Cllr (Surrounding area) Jan Hendrik Opperman 8801 (0)82 553 8819 [email protected] Ward 13 Cllr (Surrounding area) Elliot Mxolisi Lebitsa Vulindlela Straat 47, Nkululeko, Paballelo, Upington, 8801 (0)73 590 3868 Ward 14 Cllr (Surrounding area) James Moya Hoof Straat 71, Karos, 8813 (0)84 328 7265 LANDOWNERS & SURROUNDING LANDOWNERS

COMPANY/ORGANISATION CONTACT PERSON POSTAL/PHYSICAL ADDRESS TELEPHONE NO. MOBILE N0. EMAIL ADDRESS Republic of South Africa: [email protected]

Erf 6009 Portion 0 (Landowner) Mziwonke Dlabantu Private Bag x 65, Pretoria, 0001 (0)12 406 1000 .za Erf 5645 Portion 0 (Landowner) Khara Hais Local Municipality: DE

Erf 20110 Portion 0 (Surrounding Landowner) Ngxanga Cnr Scott & Mutual St, Upington, 8801 (0)54 338 7000 [email protected] Gordonia Kenhardtse Erf 2 Portion 0 (Surrounding Landowner) (Algal Farm?) Landbougenoot Skap

EOH Coastal & Environmental Services NCEDA SEZ Socio-Economic & Tourism Impact Assessment – January 2017

Trust Khara Hais Local Municipality: DE

Erf 5530 Portion 0 (Surrounding Landowner) Ngxanga Cnr Scott & Mutual St, Upington, 8801 (0)54 338 7000 [email protected]

EOH Coastal & Environmental Services NCEDA SEZ Socio-Economic & Tourism Impact Assessment – January 2017

APPENDIX B

SIA Questionnaires

Northern Cape Economic Development, Trade and Investment Promotion Agency (NCEDA) Special Economic Zone (SEZ) and PV Facility Socio-Economic Impact – Municipal Survey Organisation Represented by:

Date of survey: Signature:

1. Population dynamics (ethnic composition, size), has the population increased in the last few years?

2. Major residential areas and surrounding towns?

3. Primary and secondary schools nearest to study area? And Universities?

4. Clinics and Hospitals? Nearest to study area.

5. Clinics and Hospitals? Nearest to study area.

6. Clinics and Hospitals? Nearest to study area.

7. Clinics and Hospitals? Nearest to study area.

8. Clinics and Hospitals? Nearest to study area.

9. Any land claims on the current study area? Erf 6009 (RSA) and Erf 5645 (LM)

10. Any land claims on the current study area? Erf 6009 (RSA) and Erf 5645 (LM)

11. What is the property currently primarily used for?

EOH Coastal & Environmental Services NCEDA SEZ Socio-Economic & Tourism Impact Assessment – January 2017

12. Migration trends?

13. Major skills of the locals?

14. Upington economy? Major contributors (industries)?

15. Main tourism attractions?

16. Planned development projects in the area?

17. Employment rate of the area and main employment sectors?

18. Access to electricity, access to how much from Eskom? – has there been any application for a power increase?

19. Alternative energy generation options? Solar Power/Wind Energy?

20. Areas of cultural heritage?

21. Opinion about the proposed SEZ? (water, visual, noise, dust, tourism, biodiversity, social)

22. Project expectations?

23. Municipality needs?

EOH Coastal & Environmental Services NCEDA SEZ Socio-Economic & Tourism Impact Assessment – January 2017

Northern Cape Economic Development, Trade and Investment Promotion Agency (NCEDA) Special Economic Zone (SEZ) and PV Facility Socio-Economic Impact – Community Survey Ward/Community: Represented by:

Date of survey: Signature:

24. Is there a regular influx of people into town during the year?

25. Main types of local dwellings and how have they been obtained?

26. How would you describe the town members’ education status?

27. Which schools do the children attend and how do they get there?

28. In your knowledge, are there any people with land-use rights on the erfs proposed for the development?

29. What is the cultural background of the area? Is the project area close to any significant cultural/heritage/traditional areas?

30. Is there a high rate of crime in the area?

31. What do you do in cases of crime and where do you go for help?

32. How do you think the project may affect the towns’ safety?

33. What is the main mode of transport and how would you describe the condition of the roads?

34. What recreational activities do locals engage in, and how do you think the project may affect such activities?

EOH Coastal & Environmental Services NCEDA SEZ Socio-Economic & Tourism Impact Assessment – January 2017

35. Are there any important organisations in your area that you think NCEDA needs to interact with?

36. What do most people do? Employment profile?

37. Is there any difference in employment between men and women? Who receives the most income and has the best skills?

38. How do you think the SEZ could affect the employment trend?

39. What are the households’ major incomes and expenditures? Does this change through the years?

40. What major skills do people have and what are the most important employment sectors?

41. Satisfaction with social service provision? (water, sanitation, health facilities, schools)?

42. Describe the importance of tourism in the area and how the project could affect this?

43. Describe your areas greatest needs?

44. Do you have any concerns regarding the project?

45. Do you have any expectations regarding the project, how do you think it will impact the town and people’s lives?

EOH Coastal & Environmental Services NCEDA SEZ Socio-Economic & Tourism Impact Assessment – January 2017

APPENDIX C

Consultation Attendance Registers

ZF Mgcawu District Municipality Engagement

EOH Coastal & Environmental Services NCEDA SEZ Socio-Economic & Tourism Impact Assessment – January 2017

Dawid Kruiper Local Municipality Engagement

EOH Coastal & Environmental Services NCEDA SEZ Socio-Economic & Tourism Impact Assessment – January 2017

Ward 6 and 7 Councillors Engagement

EOH Coastal & Environmental Services NCEDA SEZ Socio-Economic & Tourism Impact Assessment – January 2017

Ward 8 Councillors Engagement

EOH Coastal & Environmental Services NCEDA SEZ Socio-Economic & Tourism Impact Assessment – January 2017

Ward 9 Councillor Engagement

EOH Coastal & Environmental Services NCEDA SEZ Socio-Economic & Tourism Impact Assessment – January 2017

APPENDIX D EOH Impact Rating and Evaluation Criteria

Temporal Scale Score Short-term Less than 5 years 1 Medium-term Between 5-20 years 2 Between 20 and 40 years (a generation) and from a human Long-term perspective also permanent 3 Over 40 years and resulting in a permanent and lasting change Permanent that will always be there 4 Spatial Scale Localised At localised scale and a few hectares in extent 1 Study Area The proposed site and its immediate environs 2 Regional District and Provincial level 3 National Country 3 International Internationally 4 Severity Severity* Benefit Slight impacts on the affected Slightly beneficial to the system(s) or party(ies) affected system(s) and Slight party(ies) 1 Moderate impacts on the Moderately beneficial to the affected system(s) or affected system(s) and Moderate party(ies) party(ies) 2 Severe impacts on the A substantial benefit to the Severe/ affected system(s) or affected system(s) and Beneficial party(ies) party(ies) 4

Very severe change to the A very substantial benefit to Very Severe/ affected system(s) or the affected system(s) and

Beneficial party(ies) party(ies) 8 EFFECT

Likelihood

Unlikely The likelihood of these impacts occurring is slight 1 May Occur The likelihood of these impacts occurring is possible 2 Probable The likelihood of these impacts occurring is probable 3

Definite The likelihood is that this impact will definitely occur 4 LIKELIHOOD * This refers to the impact’s intensity

Matrix used to determine the overall significance of the impact based upon the likelihood and effect of the impact Effect 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 2 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 3 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

4 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Likelihood

Description of socio-environmental significance ratings and associated range of scores* Significance Description Score rating

EOH Coastal & Environmental Services NCEDA SEZ Socio-Economic & Tourism Impact Assessment – January 2017

An acceptable impact for which mitigation is desirable but not essential. The impact by itself is insufficient even in combination with Low other low impacts to prevent the development being approved. These 4-8 impacts will result in either positive or negative medium to short term effects on the social and/or natural environment. An important impact which requires mitigation. The impact is insufficient by itself to prevent the implementation of the project but which in conjunction with other impacts may prevent its Moderate 9-12 implementation. These impacts will usually result in either a positive or negative medium to long-term effect on the social and/or natural environment. A serious impact, which if not mitigated, may prevent the implementation of the project (if it is a negative impact). These High impacts would be considered by society as constituting a major and 13-16 usually a long-term change to the (natural &/or social) environment and result in severe effects or beneficial effects. A very serious impact which, if negative, may be sufficient by itself to prevent implementation of the project. The impact may result in Very High 17-20 permanent change. Very often these impacts are unmitigatable and usually result in very severe effects, or very beneficial effects.

EOH Coastal & Environmental Services NCEDA SEZ Socio-Economic & Tourism Impact Assessment – January 2017

APPENDIX E

Tourism Impact Assessment

EOH Coastal & Environmental Services NCEDA SEZ