Socio Economic Impact Assessment for the Olifantsfontein Landfill Site, Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality, Gauteng

SOCIO ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE OLIFANTSFONTEIN LANDFILL SITE, EKURHULENI METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY, GAUTENG

APRIL 2021

Submitted to:

Submitted by:

AND

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Summer Symphony Properties 264 CC. is the landowner of Portions 41 and 179 of the farm Olifantsfontein 410 JR, in the Olifantsfontein area. The landowner has an existing Waste Management Licence for a category G:L:B- landfill facility, referred to as the Olifantsfontein Landfill. The site is situated in Ward 1 of the City of Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality and located to the east of Midrand and east of the Glen Austin Agricultural Holdings, west of the K111 (Republic Road) and approximately 1.5 km south of the R562 (Olifantsfontein Road). Tembisa is located to the east and south-east of the site. The Clayville/Olifantsfontein industrial area is to the north east and the Randjiesfontein Agricultural Holdings to the north west. The Olifantsfontein Landfill site can be viewed as a Brownfields site disturbed by sand quarrying and is approximately 45 ha in extent. The site is zoned as “agricultural”. Access to the site would be from the K111. The site is authorized to receive inert waste, garden waste and building rubble. Construction of the site has commenced. The License Holder intends to apply for an amendment of the Olifantsfontein Waste Management Licence to allow the acceptance of general wastes comprising general- domestic, commercial, garden, builder’s rubble and general dry industrial waste for disposal. The landfill site would require a class B lining system for the disposal of general waste as prescribed by Regulation 636 promulgated under the National Environmental Management: Waste Act (Act 59 of 2008). On average it is expected that the landfill could receive around 15 000 tons of waste per month or 500 tons/day. The project, however, will have a design capacity in excess of 1000 tons/day. The landfill has around 3.5 million cubes of airspace which indicates to a lifespan of between 15 to 30 years. The site development plan consists of the following:  Infrastructure and facilities  Access road, perimeter service road and on-site roads  Perimeter fencing and entrance gate and control  Storm water drainage measures  Office, ablutions and stores building  Weighbridges  Recycling yard and building  Composting yard  Landfill cells, and  Contaminated storm water run-off/leachate evaporation dam.

A Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) will form part of the facility. The main access roads on site would be paved. Dust suppression on the gravel roads would be by means of wetting. The landfill area will be subdivided into seven (7) cells and the development of each of these cells will be phased. Ekurhuleni Ward 102 lies east of the landfill, City of Johannesburg (CoJ) Ward 92 is situated west of the landfill and CoJ Wards 77 and 133 is situated south of the landfill. Generally, socio-economic

impacts of landfills occur within a 1km to 4km radius from landfill sites. Within the 4km radius the following receptors should be noted:

 High density residential areas to the south (towards Tembisa)  Low density plots of Glen Austin and Randjiesfontein to the west  Parts of Olifantsfontein industrial area and Tembisa’s Clayville are located within the 4km boundary east from the landfill  A retail complex (Cashbuild) still under construction at the time of this study, lying within the 1km boundary of the site (north east) in Tswelopele (Tembisa)  Parts of Kaalspruit (flowing in a northerly direction towards Centurion in CoT) within 1km from the site  Olifantsfontein road (R562) passing some 1km north of the proposed site  Glen Austin Bird Sanctuary to the south west of the landfill within the 4km radius.

During the construction phase, the landfill created around 38 direct job opportunities and 25 flow- on jobs for two and a half years, as the construction of the cells occur in a phased manner. This is the full time equivalent (FTE) of 95 direct jobs and 63 flow-on jobs for one year. During the operational phase it is anticipated that the landfill will create in the region of 7 direct jobs during the operational lifetime of the facility. About 5 of these positions could be filled by unskilled workers; 1 semi-skilled site operator and 1 skilled supervisor. The landfill site will thus have direct positive impacts on income and employment created and will result in further indirect positive economic impacts to local suppliers and as a result of the overall increase in income levels and increased spending. One can expect the operations to lead to some inflow of jobseekers (which have likely already been caused by the construction of the recently completed Mall of Tembisa) and more so to some informal reclaimers (waste pickers) to the site, as the landfill site can be easily accessed from the K111 and the Olifantsfontein road (R562). Negative impacts in this regard can be mitigated. Dust created during the construction phase, mainly by vehicles travelling on gravel roads, as well as the actual operations such as wind erosion from exposed surfaces, the compacting of waste and handling of material can have impacts on the air quality with subsequent negative impacts on human health. The Air Quality Impact Assessment (AQIA) however found that the predicted impacts would be low over the areas surrounding the proposed landfill site and fall well within the residential and non-residential area standards (for dust-fall), and the daily and annual SNAAQS. Hazardous air pollutants (HAP) are associated with malodour impacts. In the case of the Olifantsfontein landfill, the AQIA stated that residents located in near proximity south, south-east and east of the proposed landfill could potentially experience odour impacts, but that the possible impacts can be mitigated through the implementation of proper waste control management systems and the implementation of different leachate treatment options. The potential increase in crime rates and other security issues in the local area mainly relate to the movement of vehicles, the influx of an outside workforce and potential jobseekers, as well as the presence of reclaimers on site. Proper landfill management can address and mitigate these possible impacts.

Ground and surface water pollution is a concern usually associated with landfill sites. With regards to the Olifantsfontein landfill, this risk is anticipated to be low due to the low percentage of downstream borehole users and the lower population densities downstream from the landfill. The underlying groundwater aquifer is located more than 20m beneath the landfill floor level and is considered to be a Minor Aquifer. Proper design of a storm water and groundwater control system will limit the risks in this regard. Various ‘nuisance’ factors (noise, dust, litter and odour) could also imply costs for households or activities located close to the landfill. The negative disamenity impact and the economic costs usually translate in lower property prices adjacent to the landfill. Only a fraction of a high density, low-income residential area to the south east is within 1km from the Olifantsfontein landfill. The impact on Glen Austin’s low density higher value properties is also not expected to be of concern. The disamenity impact could also be significantly reduced with proper management of the site. Possible noise impacts relate to construction and operational activities such as the operation of vehicles and machinery which are anticipated on the dwellings located to the south east of the site that fall within the 1km zone. The area is disturbed from its original characteristics due to considerable soil erosion which is a result of historical excavations, quarrying and illegal sand mining. The disturbed character of the site and the presence of alien invasive species impact on the local sense of place. The height of landfill will be the original ground level, due to the significant excavations from the sand mining activities that have been taking place on the site. Further mitigation of the visual impacts and thus the sense of place would only come into effect once the landfill has been rehabilitated to an end- use which is also visually pleasing. Once a suitable end-use is in place, the impact on the sense of place would thus be low. A Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) will further reduce the amount of waste, open up much needed waste air space in Ekurhuleni and environs and extend the lifetime of the project. The anticipated socio-economic impacts associated with the landfill are of a medium rating. Through good site management (largely required by law) the landfill’s negative socio-economic impacts could be managed to low/medium impacts. The environmental authorisation of the Olifantsfontein landfill is recommended based on the:

 Relatively low risks of the landfill;  Potential for a proper management plan to decrease social risks, as well as  Dire need for landfill space for Gauteng’s metros.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 3 1.1 Project Background ...... 3 1.2 Technical details ...... 3 1.3 Locality ...... 4 1.4 The Legal Framework for Socio Economic Impact Assessments ...... 5 1.5 Checklist: Requirements for Specialist Reports, as Contained in the 2014 EIA Regulations ...... 6 1.6 Scope of Work ...... 7 1.7 Purpose of the Report ...... 7 1.8 Site Visit ...... 8 1.9 Consultation ...... 8 1.10 Literature Review, Analysis and Desktop Studies ...... 8 1.11 Impact Methodology ...... 8 1.12 Gaps, Limitations and Assumptions ...... 10 2. DESCRIPTION OF THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC BASELINE ENVIRONMENT ...... 12 2.1 Defining the Local Area ...... 12 2.2 Socio-Economic Sensitive Areas Close to the Landfill ...... 13 2.3 Basic Demographic Profile ...... 14 2.4 Basic Services ...... 16 2.5 Current Status of Landfill Air Space in Gauteng ...... 18 2.6 Health Status and Facilities ...... 19 2.7 Transport Services and Road Infrastructure ...... 19 2.8 Safety and Security ...... 20 2.9 Education and Skills Levels ...... 20 2.10 Employment ...... 21 2.11 Household Income ...... 22 2.12 Local Economic Activities ...... 22 2.13 Identification of Local Community Priorities ...... 23

3. POTENTIAL SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE LANDFILL DURING CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONS ...... 25 3.1 Introduction ...... 25 3.2 Employment Opportunities ...... 25 3.3 Increase landfill airspace through the resource recovery activities ...... 27 3.4 Inflow of Jobseekers and Informal Reclaimers on Site ...... 27 3.5 Potential Impacts on Human Health ...... 28 3.6 Potential Increase in Crime Rates and other Security issues in the Local Area ...... 31 3.7 Potential Economic Costs related to Ground and Surface Water Pollution ...... 32 3.8 Potential Economic Impact Related to Changes in Property Prices ...... 34 3.9 Noise Related Impacts ...... 35 3.10 Visual Intrusion and Impact on Sense of Place ...... 36 4. DECOMMISSIONING AND CLOSURE ...... 39 4.1 Nuisance Factors (Noise and Dust) during Decommissioning ...... 39 4.2 Loss of land ...... 39 5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 41 6. REFERENCES ...... 42 6.1 Documents ...... 42 7. CURRICULUM VITAE OF SPECIALISTS ...... 45 7.1 Detailed Curriculum Vitae of Social Specialist ...... 45 7.2 Detailed Curriculum Vitae of Economic Specialist ...... 48

TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Location of affected ward and adjacent wards...... 12 Figure 2: Socio- Economic Sensitive areas close to Olifantsfontein Landfill ...... 13 Figure 3: Population and Household Growth in Gauteng, 2011-2016 ...... 15

TABLE OF TABLES Table 1: Acronyms ...... 1 Table 2: Requirements for specialist reports, as contained in the 2014 EIA Regulations ...... 6 Table 3: Severity ...... 9 Table 4: Spatial Scale ...... 9 Table 5: Duration ...... 9 Table 6: Occurrence of the activity ...... 9 Table 7: Certainty of the impact ...... 10 Table 8: Impact Ratings ...... 10 Table 9: Basic Demographics of the Project Area, 2011 ...... 14 Table 10: City of Ekurhuleni: Population by Age ...... 15 Table 11: Gender Profile ...... 16 Table 12: Basic Cultural Characteristics of the Local Area, 2011 ...... 16 Table 13: Service Delivery Backlogs in Main Gauteng Metros, 2016 ...... 17 Table 14: Service Delivery Backlogs in the Local Area Close to the Landfill, 2011 ...... 17 Table 15: Reported Crimes in the Local Area Close to the Landfill, 2011 and 2019 ...... 20 Table 16: Highest Level of Education of the Adult Population, 20 years +, 2016 ...... 20 Table 17: The Labour Force Composition, 2011 ...... 21 Table 18: The Official Unemployment Rate, 2011 – 2019 ...... 22 Table 19: The percentage of households in different annual income categories, 2011 ...... 22 Table 20: Expected employment impacts of Olifantsfontein Landfill ...... 25 Table 20: Rating of positive employment impacts during construction ...... 25 Table 21: Rating of positive employment impacts during operations ...... 26 Table 22: Rating of increase of landfill airspace impacts during operations ...... 27 Table 23: Rating of impact of jobseekers and informal reclaimers ...... 28

Table 24: Rating of impact on human health ...... 30 Table 25: Rating of impact on safety and security ...... 31 Table 26: Rating of negative external costs related to surface and groundwater contamination .. 33 Table 27: Rating of the impact of disamenities on property values ...... 34 Table 28: Rating of impact of noise ...... 35 Table 29: Rating of visual intrusion and impact on sense of place ...... 37 Table 30: Nuisance factors ...... 39 Table 31: Loss of Value of Land ...... 39 Table 32: Summary of Impacts ...... 41

GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS Table 1: Acronyms Abbreviation Description AQIA Air Quality Impact Assessment CoJ City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality CoT City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality CPF Crime Prevention Forum DEA Department of Environmental Affairs DWA(F) Department of Water Affairs (and Forestry) DWS Department of Water and Sanitation EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EMM Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality EMP Environmental Management Plan GARA Glen Austin Residents’ Association Ha Hectare IDP Integrated Development Plan Km Kilometre LED Local Economic Development n.a. Not Available NEMA National Environmental Management Act SAPS South African Police Service SEIA Socio-Economic Impact Assessment

DETAILS OF SPECIALISTS Ingrid Snyman (BA Honours degree in Anthropology) has 20 years’ experience in the social field. Ingrid has been involved in various Social Impact Assessments during her career as social scientist. These project themes consist of infrastructure development, waste management, road development, water and sanitation programmes, township and other residential type developments. She has also been involved in the design and management of numerous public participation programmes and communication strategies, particularly on complex development projects that require various levels and approaches. An Kritzinger (Masters Economics) has been working as consultant in the economic development field for the past 18 years. She has extensive experience in the economic profiling and economic development plans for local authorities and districts in South Africa and has designed and implemented a training project for sustainable local economic development monitoring for district municipalities throughout South Africa in collaboration with the Development Bank of Southern Africa. Her work has also concentrated on applied economic modelling in South Africa, Namibia, Botswana and Mozambique including economic impact analysis, economic cost benefit analysis, social incidence studies and macroeconomic forecast modelling. DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE This report has been prepared as per the requirements of Section 32 of Government Notice No. R542 dated 18 June 2010 (Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations) under sections 24(5), 24M and 44 of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act 107 of 1998). We, Anna Sophia Kritzinger and Ingrid Snyman declare that this report has been prepared independently of any influence or prejudice as may be specified by the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA).

Anna Sophia Kritzinger Ingrid Snyman Signature of the specialists

Southern Economic Development Batho Earth Name of group (trading name): 7 April 2021 Date:

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Background Summer Symphony Properties 264 CC. (hereafter referred to as the applicant/license holder/landowner) is the landowner of Portions 41 and 179 of the farm Olifantsfontein 410 JR, in the Olifantsfontein area. The landowner has an existing Waste Management Licence for a category G:L:B- landfill facility.

The site is situated to the east of Midrand and east of the Glen Austin Agricultural Holdings, west of the K111 (Republic Road) and approximately 1.5 km south of the R562 (Olifantsfontein Road). Tembisa is located to the east and south-east of the site. The farms fall under the jurisdiction of the Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality (EMM).

At present, the site is busy with construction. The License Holder intends to apply for an amendment of the Olifantsfontein Waste Management Licence. The site is authorized to receive inert waste, but the applicant would like to amend the licence to allow the acceptance of general wastes comprising general- domestic, commercial, garden, builder’s rubble and general dry industrial waste for disposal. On average it is expected that the landfill could receive around 15 000 tons of waste per month. The landfill has around 3.5 million cubes of airspace which indicates to a lifespan of between 15 to 30 years (depending on the tons of waste it receives per month).

The landfill site would require a class B lining system for the disposal of general waste as prescribed by Regulation 636 promulgated under the National Environmental Management: Waste Act (Act 59 of 2008).

1.2 Technical details The site is intended to be a commercial waste disposal facility and as such it is intended that more than 500 tons/day of waste will be received. The project, however, will have a design capacity in excess of 1000 tons/day. In view of the wastes to be accepted on site, the landfill will be designed to receive “Low Risk” wastes. The landfill therefore requires a “Class B” containment barrier system. The site development plan consists of the following:  Infrastructure and facilities  Access road, perimeter service road and on-site roads  Perimeter fencing and entrance gate and control  Storm water drainage measures  Office, ablutions and stores building  Weighbridges  Recycling yard and building  Composting yard  Landfill cells, and  Contaminated storm water run-off/leachate evaporation dam.

A Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) will form part of the facility. The various waste components will be extracted and separated on site through the use of manual and mechanical techniques. Such waste would typically include metals, mixed plastics, paper, glass, card and textiles. The main access roads on site would be paved. Dust suppression on the gravel roads would be by means of wetting. No definite end-use has been finalised. In terms of the infrastructure, and depending on the financial viability at the time, these could either be refurbished for ongoing use or they could be demolished and the area be rehabilitated to be incorporated within the surrounding environment. Ongoing rehabilitation will be undertaken for the eventual closure of the landfill. The landfill area will be subdivided into seven (7) cells and the development of each of these cells will be phased. Cell No.1 will be completed, in terms of landfilling, as close as possible to the natural ground level in order to allow time for the excavation and preparation of Cell No.2 to be completed before commencing with the landfilling in Cell No.2. Therefore, all the landfill cells will be developed sequentially and landfilled up to the original ground level. Thereafter the landfill will be raised, as a terrace to final elevations. The incoming waste tonnage and number of vehicles accommodated during the operating day will determine the practical size of the day to day operating cell. The volumes of wastes being landfilled and operational slopes will be monitored by the design engineer on a regular basis to ensure compliance with design parameters. An excavator and at least two tipper trucks will be used to excavate and place the cover material in a working cell. Waste deposition will include spreading, compacting and daily covering of waste. Operational cells will be as narrow as conditions permit to expose as little waste as possible to rainfall. To minimise the inflow of water into the waste and to minimise odours, cover material will be deposited and spread on the top of the cell on a daily basis. Putrescible waste (such as food waste or dead animals) will be deposited and covered immediately. Monitoring at the site would include environmental, health and overall operational monitoring (Envitech, 2012). 1.3 Locality The Olifantsfontein Landfill site can be viewed as a Brownfields site disturbed by sand quarrying and is approximately 45 ha in extent. The site is zoned as “agricultural”. Access to the site would be from the K111. The site is situated to the east of Midrand and east of the Glen Austin Agricultural Holdings, west of the K111 (Republic Road) and approximately 1.5 km south of the R562 (Olifantsfontein Road). Tembisa is located to the east and south-east of the site. The Clayville/Olifantsfontein industrial area is to the north east and the Randjiesfontein Agricultural Holdings to the north west. The site falls within Ward 1 of the Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality (EMM). Illegal dumping of waste is taking place on site and on open land to the eastern side of the K111. The area is also characterised by illegal sand mining, although recently authorised existing sand quarry excavations are taking place on site. Construction of a trading store for a large retailer of

building materials and associated products is underway on the south eastern section of the R562 and K111 intersection. Upgrading of this intersection is also undertaken. The Clayville Industrial area includes manufacturing companies focused on the production of pharmaceutical products, food and beverages, packaging products, plastic fabrication, steel and metal manufacturers, and industrial equipment manufacturers, as well as construction related businesses. The industrial area also hosts a company that specializes in the treatment of hazardous waste. The Interwaste FG landfill located to the north west of the Olifantsfontein Landfill site has been closed and activities relating to closure of the site are being done. 1.4 The Legal Framework for Socio Economic Impact Assessments Section 4 of the Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill, Second Edition (DWAF, 1998) stipulates the need to identify the necessity for a landfill and to select the most acceptable landfill site based on economic criteria and the willingness of the public to accept the site. This means that preference should be given to the landfill that minimizes costs where costs includes both financial costs (site development and transportation costs) and the social and environmental costs to the community related to the site:  The need criteria refer to the high possibility of illegal/unregulated dumping and the associated high public health costs to the community in case of the no-project option.  Economic criteria in the context of the document refer to the costs of obtaining, developing and operating a landfill, including an evaluation of transportation costs. Factors such as economies of scale, the distance of the landfill to waste generation areas, access to the landfill, soil quality and acquisition costs play a role.  The public acceptance criteria involve issues such as the impacts on public health, local land, property values and negative economic impacts on land-uses adjacent to the landfill.

The National Environmental Management: Waste Act (2008) stipulates that the effect of pollution on the environment by a waste disposal activity should be taken into account when considering an application for a waste management licence. This includes impact on economic conditions. The Act furthermore requires that best practicable environmental options available and alternatives should be taken to protect the environment, including economic conditions from harm as a result of the undertaking of the waste management activity.

The National Environmental Management Act, Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, GN R543 (“NEMA EIA Regulations”) were published on 18 June 2010 and came into operation on 2 August 2010. These Regulations has been superseded with the 2014 EIA Regulations, GNR 982 published on 4 December 2014 and came into operation on 8 December 2014. These regulations provide a suite of principles and tools to guide South Africa on a path to sustainable development. “Environment’ is defined in holistic terms and includes biophysical, social and economic components, as well as the connections within and between these components. While the act does not prescribe a specific methodology in terms of socio-economic impact assessment the following stipulations highlights the necessity to include socio economic issues in environmental impact assessments.

The following general principles apply to all identified impacts:

 Responsibility for the impact should apply throughout its life cycle.  The participation of all interested and affected parties in environmental governance must be promoted.  Decisions must take into account the interests, needs and values of all interested parties.  The costs of remedying pollution, environmental degradation, consequent adverse health effects and of preventing, controlling or mitigating further pollution, environmental damage or adverse health effects must be paid for by those responsible for harming the environment, i.e. the so- called polluter-pay principle.

The regulations also make provision for cumulative effects assessment identifying and evaluating the significance of effects from multiple actions representing potential causes of impacts.

1.5 Checklist: Requirements for Specialist Reports, as Contained in the 2014 EIA Regulations Table 2: Requirements for specialist reports, as contained in the 2014 EIA Regulations

EIA REGULATIONS 2014 GNR 982 Appendix 6 Required at Required Cross- Scoping/Desk- at BA/EIA reference in CONTENT OF THE SPECIALIST REPORTS top Phase Phase this Report a) details of the specialist who prepared the Detail of report; and the expertise of that specialist to specialists: p. 2 X X compile a specialist report including a Section 7 curriculum vitae; b) a declaration that the specialist is independent Declaration of in a form as may be specified by the Independence: competent authority; X X p. 2

c) an indication of the scope of, and the purpose Sections 1.6 X X for which, the report was prepared and 1.7 d) the date and season of the site investigation Section 1.8.1 and the relevance of the season to the X X outcome of the assessment; e) a description of the methodology adopted in Section 1.8 preparing the report or carrying out the X X specialised process; f) the specific identified sensitivity of the site Section 2.2 related to the activity and its associated X X structures and infrastructure; g) an identification of any areas to be avoided, Section 2.2 X X including buffers; h) a map superimposing the activity including the Section 2.2 associated structures and infrastructure on the environmental sensitivities of the site X X including areas to be avoided, including buffers

EIA REGULATIONS 2014 GNR 982 Appendix 6 Required at Required Cross- Scoping/Desk- at BA/EIA reference in CONTENT OF THE SPECIALIST REPORTS top Phase Phase this Report i) a description of any assumptions made and Section 1.9 X X any uncertainties or gaps in knowledge; j) a description of the findings and potential Section 3 implications of such findings on the impact of X X the proposed activity, including identified alternatives on the environment; k) any mitigation measures for inclusion in the Section 3 X EMPr l) any conditions for inclusion in the N/A X environmental Authorization; m) any monitoring requirements for inclusion in Section 3 X the EMPr or environmental Authorization; n) a reasoned opinion— Section 5 as to whether the proposed activity or portions thereof should be authorised; and if the opinion is that the proposed activity or X portions thereof should be authorised, any avoidance, management and mitigation measures that should be included in the EMPr, and where applicable, the closure plan; o) a summary and copies of any comments outstanding received during any consultation process and X X where applicable all responses thereto; and p) any other information requested by the N/A X X competent authority 1.6 Scope of Work The scope of the report includes an identification and description of the study area and the identification of anticipated social impacts. 1.7 Purpose of the Report The aim of the SEIA Report is to:  Determine the current socio-economic status of the area and the social characteristics of the receiving environment;  Indicate the anticipated core impact categories and impact areas (possible hot spots);  Identify anticipated positive socio-economic impacts of the proposed project, and provide enhancement measures for these impacts;  Identify and highlight negative socio-economic impacts (social hot spots) of the proposed project and indicate mitigation measures to deal with these impacts;

 Present the findings, recommendations, and conclusions of the Socio-Economic Impact Assessment.

1.8 Site Visit On 4 September 2020 a site visit was undertaken. The aim for the consultants was to familiarise themselves with the site and possibly affected areas, as well as to obtain an overview of the social characteristics of the study area and the socio-economic setting of the proposed landfill project. 1.9 Consultation Consultation would rely on the public participation process to be undertaken by the Environmental Assessment Practitioners (EAP) namely EcoPartners. If required, additional telephonic interviews can be conducted with affected parties that are likely to be affected by the development. 1.10 Literature Review, Analysis and Desktop Studies Secondary sources include:  Public documents including the Integrated Development Plans of the relevant municipalities  Statistics South Africa data including Census 2011 on ward level and Community Survey 2016 data on municipal level  Recent media articles related to the local area  Academic literature related to the local area  Specialists reports responsible for different EIA work streams including soil and wetland assessment, groundwater, air quality, vegetation, geohydrological studies, greenhouse gas emissions, biodiversity and so forth  Review of specialist reports  International and national literature related to external costs of landfills.

1.11 Impact Methodology The following methodology was used to rank the anticipated impacts. Clearly defined rating and rankings scales were used to assess the impacts associated with the proposed activities (Refer to the tables below). Each impact identified was rated according the expected severity, spatial scale, duration, occurrence of the activity and certainty of the impact. Each impact identified was assessed in terms of the consequence and likelihood. Consequence was determined as follows: Consequence = Severity x Spatial Scale x Duration The Risk of the activity was calculated based on occurrence of the activity and impact and the certainty of the impact actually occurring. Thus: Likelihood = Occurrence of activity x Certainty of impact The impact risk is then based on the consequence and likelihood. Impact Risk = Consequence x likelihood

In order to assess each of these factors for each impact, the ranking scales in Table 3: Severity to

Table 7 were used.

Table 3: Severity This refers to how severe the activity impacts on the Environment.

Parameter Receiving Environment Ranking Disturbance of degraded areas, which have little conservation No Conservation Value 1 value. Minor change in species occurrence or variety. (Low) Historically disturbed area or brownfields area. Deep water Brownfields / Previously Disturbed 2 tables (>30m). Plentiful and available renewable resources. Disturbance of areas that have potential conservation value Conservation Value (ESA) or are of use as resources. Complete change in species 3 occurrence or variety. (Medium) Sensitive. Threatened, protected and or endangered areas not in immediate proximity, but not far away. Close proximity Sensitive Ecological Area (CBA) of large water courses (within 1: 50 year flood line), very 4 shallow water tables (<1m). Limited non-renewable resources. Disturbance of pristine areas that have important Ecological Pristine Area (or Protected) conservation value. Destruction of rare or endangered 5 species (High)

Table 4: Spatial Scale This refers to the size of the area that the aspect is impacting on. Parameter Receiving Environment Ranking Immediate Area Immediate Area 1 On-site Only the site controlled by the organisation is affected. Within Site Boundary. 2 Beyond site boundary. Local area. Neighbours and surrounding properties Local 3 are affected. Local/Regional. Impact of the substance is noticeable in the surrounding Regional 4 community or municipal region. National / Global Widespread. Far beyond site boundary. National to global 5

Table 5: Duration This refers to how long the activity impacts on the environment. Parameter Receiving Environment Ranking < Few days, no measurable sign of pollutant or its effects. Within one day Few days there is no observable or detectable sign of the pollutant. The substance is 1 no longer impacting on the environment. Up to 1 month. Substance has dissipated or disappeared within a month of Short-term 2 release. Minimal loss of resource, species, habitat. Medium-term Quickly reversible. Less than the project lifespan. Short term (0 – 5 years). 3 Long-term Reversible over time. Lifespan of the project. Medium term (5 – 15 years). 4 Permanent Permanent. Beyond decommissioning. Long term (More than 15 years). 5

Table 6: Occurrence of the activity This refers to the probability for the activity to occur. Parameter Receiving Environment Ranking Negligible Negligible. Less than 10% 1

Parameter Receiving Environment Ranking Occasionally Occasionally. 10%-30% 2 Medium Likelihood Medium Likelihood. 30% - 50% 3 High Likelihood High Likelihood Greater than 50% - 75% 4 Definite >75% - 100% chance of occurring 5

Table 7: Certainty of the impact This refers to how of often the activity would impact on the environment. Parameter Receiving Environment Ranking Unsure. Less than 10% sure of a particular fact or the likelihood of an impact Uncertain 1 occurring. Rare (could happen but unlikely) Possible. 10-30% sure of a particular fact or of the likelihood of an impact Possible 2 occurring. Unlikely (has occurred somewhere Probable. Over 30%-50% sure of a particular fact of the likelihood of that Probable 3 impact occurring. Likely (known to occur) High Likelihood Greater than 50% - 75% sure of a particular fact of the Certain 4 likelihood of that impact occurring Definite. 75%-100% sure of a particular fact. Substantial supportive data exist Definite 5 to verify the assessment. Inevitable (Expected to happen often)

Environmental effects will be rated as either of high, medium or low significance on the basis provided above.

Table 8: Impact Ratings How acceptable is the impact? Impact Significance Rating Low (Acceptable). Low risk to public health; environment. <72 Medium (Manageable). With regulatory controls. With project proponent’s 72-639 commitments. High (Unacceptable). Redesign project to remove or avoid impact. 640-3125

1.12 Gaps, Limitations and Assumptions With regards to the SEIA undertaken, the following should be noted:  The social impact assessment section of the study aims to identify possible social impacts that could occur in future. These impacts are based on existing baseline information. There is thus always some form of uncertainty with regards to the anticipated impact actually occurring, as well as the intensity thereof. Impact predictions have been made as accurately as possible based on the information available at the time of the study.  The SEIA will be finalised once the information received during the public participation process undertaken as part of the EIA process, has been considered.  Sources consulted are not exhaustive and additional information can still come to the fore to influence the contents, findings, ratings and conclusions made.  Technical and other information provided by the client is assumed to be correct.

 Individuals view possible social impacts differently due to their association with the anticipated impact. Impacts could therefore be perceived and rated differently than those contained in the Report.  The potential external costs associated with the project was based on information supplied by sub-specialists for the Environmental Impact Assessment of the project

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC BASELINE ENVIRONMENT Each community is unique as it is shaped by its social networks, cultural influences, values and norms, politics and the infrastructure in the area. The report therefore provides an overview of the social characteristics of the area in order to determine its current capacity and its ability to manage change. 2.1 Defining the Local Area The Olifantsfontein landfill site is situated in the northern sections of the City of Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality in the East Rand region of Gauteng, South Africa. Germiston is the seat of the Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality. North eastern wards of the City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality (CoJ) border the landfill to the west while the City of Tshwane (CoT) borders Ekurhuleni Ward 1 (where the landfill is situated in the north east).

For purposes of the socio-economic baseline profile of the local community, the focus will be on local communities adjacent to the site:

 The landfill is situated in Ekurhuleni Ward 1. The ward is situated in the northern section of Ekurhuleni and includes the residential lifestyle estate of Midstream adjacent to the CoT in the northern sections and Olifantsfontein industrial area to the east. The ward also includes Clayville, an outlying northern section of Tembisa north of Olifantsfontein road.  Ekurhuleni Ward 102 lies east of the landfill and includes the western extensions of Tembisa, including the western sections of Tswelopele south of Olifantsfontein road.  CoJ Ward 92 is situated west of the landfill and includes the low density agricultural holdings of Glen Austen and Randjiesfontein that forms part of the larger Midrand area.  CoJ Wards 77 and 133 is situated south of the landfill and includes Ivory Park on the south eastern edges of Midrand but also sometimes claimed as suburb of Kempton Park and Tembisa.

Figure 1: Location of affected ward and adjacent wards

In terms of waste management, the waste management jurisdictions of the CoJ, CoT and Ekurhuleni could be relevant.

2.2 Socio-Economic Sensitive Areas Close to the Landfill As will be discussed in more detail in Section 3 below, research suggests that the highest socio- economic impacts of landfills occur within a 1km to 4km radius from landfill sites. Within the 4km radius Figure 2 below shows:  High density residential areas to the south (towards Tembisa)  Low density plots of Glen Austin and Randjiesfontein to the west  Parts of Olifantsfontein industrial area and Tembisa’s Clayville are located within the 4km boundary east from the landfill  A retail complex (Mall of Tembisa / Cashbuild) opened its doors on 20 November 2020, lying within the 1km boundary of the site (north east) in Tswelopele (Tembisa)  Parts of Kaalspruit (flowing in a northerly direction towards Centurion in CoT) within 1km from the site  Olifantsfontein road (R562) passing some 1km north of the proposed site  Glen Austin Bird Sanctuary to the south west of the landfill within the 4km radius.

Figure 2: Socio- Economic Sensitive areas close to Olifantsfontein Landfill

2.3 Basic Demographic Profile The City of Ekurhuleni has experienced a significant population growth in the last 20 years. Since 2000 the City’s population increased from an estimated 2.3 million individuals to approximately 3.3 million in 2016. The City’s population growth rate is steady at 2.47% per annum, coming down from a high of 4% per annum in the period between 1996 and 2001. The current population represents over 6% of the total population of South Africa (StatsSA: 2017). An important contributor to the growth in the Ekurhuleni population is the in-migration into the City (City of Ekurhuleni: 2018).

As indicated in Table 9 below, the population densities to the east and south of the landfill is considerably higher than to the west or north of the landfill. The relatively smaller household sizes in Ekurhuleni Ward 102 and the CoJ wards south and east of the landfill together with the high ratio of males and people in their economically active years suggests relatively high levels of in-migration in the wards surrounding the landfill.

Table 9: Basic Demographics of the Project Area, 2011 Average Total % Working Household Pop Density AREA1 Population % Males Age (18‐64) Households Size /Km2 Ekurhuleni Ward 1 (landfill 27 896 49.5% 64.7% 8 943 3.1 675 ward) Ekurhuleni Ward 102 48 656 57.9% 74.8% 22 719 2.1 15 819 (Tswelopele) – east CoJ Ward 92 (Glen Austin& 36 978 52.4% 69.3% 13 998 2.6 33 Randjiesfontein) ‐west CoJ Wards 77 and 133 (Ivory 84 350 54.3% 70.8% 32 412 2.6 12 512 Park) ‐south Ekurhuleni 3 178 471 51.2% 67.4% 1 080 646 2.9 1 606 CoJ 4 434 827 50.2% 68.8% 1 550 241 2.9 2 691 Gauteng 12 272 263 50.4% 67.8% 4 164 641 2.9 675 South Africa 51 770 560 48.7% 59.8% 15 065 018 3.4 42 Source: Stats SA (2011)

As indicated in Figure 3 below, since 2011 the population growth in Gauteng and in particular the City of Johannesburg is much higher than the average population growth for South Africa indicating to continued population influx into the province as well as the Johannesburg metro. While the City of Ekurhuleni does not seem to experience the same levels of in-migration after 2011, household growth in the area was much higher than population growth, even outstripping household growth levels of the CoJ. This trend could suggest a higher level of splitting off into households into smaller units than in the country as level. This trend poses challenges for Ekurhuleni metropolitan authority in terms of the availability of affordable housing and associated municipal household services (e.g. waste collection, electricity and water).

1 Refer to Figure 1 for a basic layout of the affected ward and adjacent wards

population growth 2011‐2016 household growth 2011‐2016 4% 3,8% 3,6% 3,5% 4%

3% 2,4% 3% 2,2%

2% 1,8% 1,5% 2% 1,2%

0% Ekurhuleni CoJ Gauteng South Africa

Figure 3: Population and Household Growth in Gauteng, 2011-2016

(Source: Stats SA 2011 and 2016)

According to the Community Survey of 2016, approximately 18.7% of the households in the City of Ekurhuleni are informal dwellings. 52.9% of households are fully owned or being paid off, while 32.8% of the households have women as their heads. There are also 3 737 child-headed households (www.wazimap.co.za).

The City of Ekurhuleni has a median age of 30 and 66% of the population is between the ages of 18-64, 18% is below the age of 18 and 6% is above the age of 65. The city has a relatively young population which is about the same rate as that of Gauteng Province (www.wazimap.co.za). The African population accounts for 80% of the population followed by the white population at 14%, the Coloured population at 3% and the Indian population at 2%.

Males make up 51% of the population within the city and females account for 49%. Table 10: City of Ekurhuleni: Population by Age

City of Ekurhuleni: Population by Age

Age Category Total Percentage Under 18 years 946,843 28% 18-64 years 2,225,730 66% 65 and over 206,531 6%

(www.wazimap.co.za).

Table 11: Gender Profile City of Ekurhuleni: Gender Profile

Gender Total Percentage Males 1,736,750 51.4% Females 1,642,354 48.6%

From the above it is clear that the population composition is typical of that of the rest of South Africa with the majority of people falling within the 18 to 64 years age category and the balanced gender profile.

Within the City of Ekurhuleni, Isizulu is the most widely spoken language at home at about 34% followed by Sepedi at 12%, Sesotho at 11% and English at 10% (www.wazimap.co.za). Generally, the population of the City speak more than 1 official South African language and all 11 languages are spoken within the City (City of Ekurhuleni: 2018).

The table below shows the relative high percentage of the Black African population (Sepedi and Xitsonga speakers) in the wards surrounding the landfill. Ehurhuleni Ward 1 (where the landfill is situated) is an exception mainly because of the presence of the large Midstream Estate further to the north that forms part of the ward.

Table 12: Basic Cultural Characteristics of the Local Area, 2011 % Black African % born in % born AREA Main languages % population Gauteng outside SA Ekurhuleni Ward 1 (landfill ward) 64.8% Afr (25%); Eng (13%) 42.9% 5.8% Ekurhuleni Ward 102 (Tswelopele) – 99.1% Sepedi (46%); Xitsonga (25%) 20.3% 10.6% east CoJ Ward 92 (Glen Austin& 91.2% Sepedi (28%); Xitsonga (10%) 34.7% 15.0% Randjiesfontein) ‐west CoJ Wards 77 and 133 (Ivory Park) ‐ 99.0% Sepedi (25%); Xitsonga (26%) 35.4% 16.8% south Ekurhuleni 78.7% isiZulu (34%); Sepedi (12%) 54.8% 8.0% CoJ 76.4% isiZulu (23%); Eng (20%) 52.0% 12.6% Gauteng 77.4% isiZulu (20%); Eng (13%) 54.4% 9.2% South Africa 79.2% isiZulu (23%); (isiXhosa 22%) 14.7% 4.2% Source: Stats SA (2011)

The relatively low percentages of the population born in Gauteng as well as the relatively high percentages born outside the country underscore the relatively high-in-migration rates into the area, from other provinces in South Africa as well as from outside South African borders.

2.4 Basic Services The table below shows high housing backlogs in the main Gauteng metros in 2016. In Ekurhuleni 28% of households lived in shacks or backyard flats in 2016 and in the CoJ almost a third (31%). These percentages are much higher than the already high 20% for South Africa in general. However, households (including informal settlements) in the Gauteng metros are in general better serviced in

terms of water provision, flush toilets and regular waste removal than households in the South Africa on average. The exception is the relatively high electricity backlogs in Ekurhuleni.

Table 13: Service Delivery Backlogs in Main Gauteng Metros, 2016 % of Households % of Household % of h AREA % of Households without water % of Household without regular Household with living in shacks service without flush service (once a no access to or backyard flats providers toilets week) electricity Ekurhuleni 28.2% 2.5% 10.6% 12.6% 10.2% CoJ 30.8% 2.7% 8.1% 12.6% 6.4% CoT 23.4% 7.8% 20.6% 20.2% 5.2% Gauteng 27.6% 4.7% 12.1% 14.8% 7.4% South Africa 19.6% 19.7% 41.5% 43.3% 7.3% Source: Stats SA (2016)

Despite the relatively smaller backlogs in municipal service provision in the Gauteng metros, the table above indicates that 13% of households in Ekurhuleni and CoJ did not receive regular (once a week) waste removal services while 20% of households in the City of Tshwane did not receive regular waste removal services.

Table 14 below shows the low service delivery levels to the east of the landfill especially Ekurhuleni ward 102 (Tswelopele area) and to some extent also the south (CoJ wards 77 and 133 – Ivory Park). The large housing backlogs in these areas are evident compared to the average for South Africa.

From a groundwater perspective it is worth noting that around 2% of households in the Glen Austin and Randjiesfontein area (CoJ ward 92) and 5% of households to the east of the landfill (Ekurhuleni Ward 102 -Tswelopele) made use of boreholes in 2011. This is below the 6% average for South Africa. In Ekurhuleni ward 1 (the landfill area and including areas north of the landfill, less than 1% of households made use of boreholes.

Table 14: Service Delivery Backlogs in the Local Area Close to the Landfill, 20112 % of households % of households % of household % of household AREA living in shacks or without water without flush without regular backyard flats service providers toilets service (once a week) Ekurhuleni Ward 1 (landfill ward) 14.6% 2.3% 3.0% 3.6% Ekurhuleni Ward 102 (Tswelopele) – east 70.3% 8.3% 30.6% 26.9% CoJ Ward 92 (Glen Austin& Randjiesfontein) - 14.2% 4.0% 5.9% 2.4% west CoJ Wards 77 and 133 (Ivory Park) -south 40.2% 2.7% 10.5% 3.2% Ekurhuleni 27.1% 4.7% 14.8% 9.9% CoJ 25.0% 4.9% 12.2% 5.1% Gauteng 23.1% 6.5% 15.5% 11.4% South Africa 15.8% 23.1% 40.0% 42.0% Source: Stats SA (2011)

2 Stats SA 2011 data was used since 2016 community survey data is not available on ward level

2.5 Current Status of Landfill Air Space in Gauteng According to the Draft 2018 State of Waste Report (DEA, 2020), only 7% of South Africa’s waste was reused or recycled rather than being treated as disposed of in 2017. With a growing population, large waste collection backlogs and increased urbanisation, waste generation is expected to increase rapidly in future. With limited landfill airspace available and the construction of new landfills lagging behind, the Revised and Updated National Waste Management strategy (DEA, 2020) continues focusing on waste minimisation strategies. These include waste prevention, waste recycling and recovery around waste as a resource to achieve a more circular economy. The increase of recycling and recovery rates forms a core aspect of the waste minimisation strategy. Sufficient landfill airspace will also enable local government to focus on ensuring that citizens receive appropriate waste services and that the delivery of these services contributes to sustainable development.

Gauteng Province is by far the biggest generator of waste in South Africa and generates roughly 33% of total national waste. In the medium term (10 to 20 years) the province faces serious challenges in terms of available landfill air space. This could be ascribed to the low recycling rates, a number of landfills closing down and the limited remaining landfill life for many municipal landfill sites. It is anticipated that out of the 9 municipal landfill sites currently in operation only 4 municipal landfills in Gauteng will be operational within the next 10 to 20 years including Hatherley (CoT); Rooikraal (Ekurhuleni); Weltevreden (Ekurhuleni) and Platkop (Ekurhuleni) (Otto, 2020):

The City of Ekurhuleni currently has 5 large regional landfills operated under contract namely Rietfontein (GLB+) Rooikraal, Weltevreden, Platkop and Simmer & Jack (all GLB-). There are no municipal landfills in the northern sections of Ekurhuleni. All the municipal landfill sites in Ekurhuleni are located in the southern sections of Ekurhuleni close to Germiston and Springs -some distance from Tembisa. Rietfontein was the last municipal landfill licensed and developed in Ekurhuleni in 1997. The estimated remaining life for Rietfontein and Simmer & Jack is between 5 and 10 years while the estimated remaining life for Rooikraal, Weltevreden and Platkop are 20 years plus.

Apart from the 5 municipal landfills above there is currently 2 landfills operated by the private sector in Ekurhuleni namely Chloorkop (close to Edenvale) and Tonk Meter Road (close to Springs). Both of them are situated in the southern sections of Ekurhuleni. FG Landfill situated in the northern sections close to Tembisa was closed by a directive of the National Environmental Department in 2017.

The City of Tshwane has 1 large regional landfill; 1 medium landfill; and 2 small landfills operated by the municipality: Hatherley (GLB-), GaRankuwa (GMB-), Bronkhorstspruit and Soshanguve (GSB-). Hatherley was the last municipal landfill licensed and developed in CoT in 1997. The estimated remaining life for Bronkhorstspruit, GaRankuwa and Soshanguve is between 5 and 10 years while the estimated remaining life for Hatherley is 20 years plus. There are no municipal landfills in the southern sections of the CoT. In the past 5 years the CoT closed down several municipal landfills, namely Onderstepoort, Derdepoort, Valhalla, Temba, Kwaggasrand, and Garstkloof resulting in a rise in illegal dumping.

The CoT has the largest number of private landfills of all three metros including Rosslyn, Multisand and Bon Accord (all three situated in the north-west of CoT) and Mooiplaats close to Centurion in the south western sections of the municipal area.

The City of Johannesburg (CoT) has 3 large regional landfills and 1 medium landfill operated by the Municipality namely Goudkoppies, Marie Louise, Robinson Deep (all GLB-) and Ennerdale (GMB-). Marie Louise was the last municipal landfill licensed and developed in CoT in 1992. The estimated remaining life for Goudkoppies, Marie Louise, Robinson Deep and Ennerdale are between 0 to 5 years. There is only one private landfill operational in the central area of CoJ, namely Genesis landfill.

2.6 Health Status and Facilities According to the StatsSA community survey of 2016, the life expectancy in the City of Ekurhuleni is 61.2 years for males and at 66.7 years for females. Life expectancy in the City has thus increased in line with national figures. The infant mortality rate is estimated at 32.8 per 1000 live births (StatsSA, 2017). Health and social development challenges in the City that were listed as part of the IDP included:

 Building of new clinics  Shortage of medication  24hr operation of clinics  Staff shortage at clinics  Provision of mobile clinic  Construction and support to Early Child Development Centres; and  High level of substance abuse amongst the youth.

Despite the above and other challenges in financing primary health care, there are approximately 90 clinics in the City of Ekurhuleni and 11 of these clinics operate 24 hours per day. These alleviates some of the strain on the hospitals’ emergency services. There are also social development offices as well as rehabilitation centres to provide further healthcare services. The city still aims to further increase the number of local clinics piloting the 24-hour health care programme. In Ward 102 the New Tswelopele Winnie Mandela Clinic is planned. (City of Ekurhuleni: IDP: 2020; www.ekurhuleni.gov.za). 2.7 Transport Services and Road Infrastructure The study area is surrounded by a well-developed road infrastructure, which includes the N1, the R21, the K111 and the R562.

The area also has diverse transportation modes ranging from and dominated by taxis and buses that serve the residents and workers in the area. It is, however, imperative to link the different areas by means of public transport to ensure ease of access to employment opportunities.

The City’s rail passengers make up 39% of total estimated daily commuters, while bus passengers only make up 2% of that number. Minibus taxi passengers make up 59%. In addition, there is a large flow of passengers across municipal boundaries to and from the City of Johannesburg and the City of Tshwane (City of Ekurhuleni: IDP: 2020).

2.8 Safety and Security Seven police stations serve the larger Tembisa and easter Midrand areas close to the landfill Olifantsfontein, Tembisa, Tembisa south, Ivory Park, Ebony Park, Kaalfontein and Rabie Ridge Police Stations.

The table below shows the comparatively low level of reported crime rates in the Olifantsfontein/Tembisa precincts compared to the size of the population residing in the area. However, since 2011 reported crimes in these precincts showed a sharp increase compared to the national and provincial trend. Violent crimes/crimes against the person (e.g. murder, attempted murder, assault) furthermore made a much larger contribution (40%) towards the total reported crime cases in these precincts compared to nationally (32%). Crimes reported in this category also showed a sharp increase of 52% since 2011.

Table 15: Reported Crimes in the Local Area Close to the Landfill, 2011 and 2019 Growth in total number Reported Cases per 1000 of Reported Cases per 1000 of of crime cases AREA population, 2011 population, 2019 2011‐2019 South Africa 40 33 ‐7.0% Gauteng 46 39 ‐2.6% Olifantsfontein /Tembisa 22 27 43.1% Source: SAPS (2020) https://www.saps.gov.za/services/crimestats.php

Low density plots in Glen Austin are also habitually targeted in terms of so-called ‘land grabs’. The area also reported to have experienced a sharp increase in home burglaries. As a consequence the Glen Austin Crime Prevention Forum (CPF) was established. The forum works closely with the Midrand SAPS Crime Prevention Team (Source: GARA website http://www.glenaustin.co.za/).

In ward 102 there was also a request for the development of a Satellite Police station in Tswelopele (City of Ekurhuleni: IDP: 2020).

2.9 Education and Skills Levels Table 16 below shows the relatively high levels of schooling in Ekurhuleni Ward 1 where the landfill is situated. This is mainly due to the presence of the large residential estate of Midstream on the northern boundary of the ward. Apart from the Glen Austin and Randjiesfontein areas to the west (CoJ ward 92), the other municipal wards shows relatively low education levels of the adult population, the lowest in the wards to the south (CoJ wards 77 and 133- Ivory Park) followed by the ward to the east (Ekurhuleni Ward 102).

The education level of the labour force is in general slightly lower in Ekurhuleni than in the CoJ or the Gauteng average although slightly higher than the national average.

Table 16: Highest Level of Education of the Adult Population, 20 years +, 2016 Education level No Primary Some Matric Tertiary Total schooling secondary education Ekurhuleni Ward 1 (landfill ward) 2% 7% 18% 39% 34% 100% Ekurhuleni Ward 102 (Tswelopele) – east 4% 12% 41% 40% 2% 100%

Education level No Primary Some Matric Tertiary Total schooling secondary education CoJ Ward 92 (Glen Austin& Randjiesfontein) ‐west 6% 9% 34% 44% 8% 100% CoJ Wards 77 and 133 (Ivory Park) ‐south 6% 15% 40% 37% 2% 100% Ekurhuleni 4% 11% 34% 43% 8% 100%

CoJ 4% 10% 32% 42% 12% 100%

Gauteng 4% 10% 32% 43% 11% 100%

South Africa 8% 14% 35% 36% 8% 101% Source: Stats SA 2011 and 2016 (Ward Level information is based on 2011 data)

2.10 Employment Largely corresponding to the low skill levels above, the unemployment rate is the highest in the ward to the east of the landfill (Ekurhuleni Ward 102) followed by the ward to the south (CoJ wards 77 and 133- Ivory Park). The official unemployment rate in these areas was already 30% plus in 2011, much higher than the national unemployment rate of 25% as reported on in 2011 time and about the same as the average for Gauteng. The Ekurhuleni and the CoJ unemployment rates were below the national unemployment rate in 2011, and much lower than the provincial average at the time.

Table 17: The Labour Force Composition, 2011

Employed Official AREA Formal Informal Domestic Unemploym Total Labour Sector Sector Workers ent Force Ekurhuleni Ward 1 (landfill ward) 69% 8% 12% 11% 100% Ekurhuleni Ward 102 (Tswelopele) east 52% 10% 6% 32% 100% CoJ Ward 92 (Glen Austin&Randjiesf) ‐west 56% 9% 12% 24% 100% CoJ Wards 77 and 133 (Ivory Park) ‐south 49% 11% 10% 30% 100% Ekurhuleni 59% 8% 8% 24% 100% CoJ 60% 8% 10% 21% 100% Gauteng 53% 8% 8% 30% 100% South Africa 55% 11% 9% 25% 100% Source: Stats SA 2011

As indicated in the table below, the unemployment rate in Ehurhuleni and the CoJ increased dramatically since 2011 and is currently on par with the provincial average, slightly above the national unemployment rate in 2019. As the unemployment situation in the metros deteriorated markedly since 2011 it could also be expected that the unemployment situation in the wards around the landfill area would have deteriorated even further since 2011. It could be expected that the youth (18-34 years) in these areas would particularly be hard hit by unemployment as is the case nationally. The youth unemployment rate in South Africa is significantly higher than the average unemployment rate with 41% of young people looking for a job in 2019 being left unemployed in 2019, opposed to an average unemployment rate of 29% in 2019.

Table 18: The Official Unemployment Rate, 2011 – 2019

AREA Official Unemployment Rate 2011 2019 Ehurhuleni 24% 31% CoJ 21% 31% Gauteng 30% 31% South Africa 25% 29% Source: Stats SA (2020) Quarterly Labour Force Survey, Q1 2008 – Q4 2019 2.11 Household Income Table 19 below shows the percentage of households that earned R 20 000 and less in 2011. This poverty rate roughly equates to the upper bound poverty income line3 of Stats SA. While poverty rates in South Africa are already high by international standards, the table shows even higher poverty rates in Ehurhuleni Ward 102 and CoJ wards 77 and 133. This corresponds with the high unemployment levels and lower skill levels as discussed above. The relatively high income levels and low poverty levels in Ekurhuleni Ward 1 is, as discussed above, due to the presence of the high income Midstream residential estate on the northern border of the ward.

Table 19: The percentage of households in different annual income categories, 2011 R 20 000 R21 000 – R76 000- R 151 000- More than AREA and below R75 000 R150 000 R 300 000 R300 000 Ekurhuleni Ward 1 (landfill ward) 19% 20% 10% 14% 37% Ekurhuleni Ward 102 (Tswelopele) – east 52% 42% 5% 1% 1% CoJ Ward 92 (Glen Austin& Randjiesfontein) -west 38% 38% 11% 7% 6% CoJ Wards 77 and 133 (Ivory Park) -south 50% 40% 7% 2% 1% Ekurhuleni 39% 32% 11% 9% 10% CoJ 36% 31% 10% 9% 14% Gauteng 37% 31% 11% 9% 12% South Africa 45% 32% 9% 7% 7%

2.12 Local Economic Activities Economic activities close to the landfill site are concentrated in the Clayville/Olifantsfontein industrial area some 5km north east of the site. The area hosts a range of economic concerns including manufacturing companies (e.g. Afritek aluminium manufacturers), construction companies, contractors and suppliers of construction materials (e.g. Afrisam), wholesalers and logistic companies, business services providers and engineering companies as well as some retail and

3 The upper bound poverty rate include income for basic needs (clothing, housing, food) as well as some basic medical and educational expenses

factory shops. There are also some service companies in the southern sections in the Clayville areas including educational, training and business consulting companies. The closest economic activity to the landfill is the Mall of Tembisa within the 1km radius from the site (the doors opened 20 November 2020) just east from Main road, as well as the Mall of Tembisa situated to the north east of the site, just south of the R562.

There are also a number of small businesses and light industrial activities scattered across Glen Austin and Randjiesfontein to the west of the site, mainly small home-based operations. Activities include business consulting, training, construction and specialised retail (e.g. generators). 2.13 Identification of Local Community Priorities According to the latest Integrated Development Plan (IDP) for Ekurhuleni (City of Ekurhuleni, 2020) community priorities identified in Ekurhuleni wards 1 and 102 in close proximity to the landfill include the following:  Request for a Primary school at Clayville Ext 26  Request for traffic lights at K111 road (Provincial road)  Request for traffic signs and speed humps at K111 (Provincial road) outside Tswelopele Ext 8  Request for a Satellite Police station at cnr Ndlovu and D M Marokane, Tswelopele  Construction of structures at Primary schools at Impumelelo and Rev Mapheto Primary schools and Tswelopele high school

In terms of community priorities in the CoJ section west and south west of the landfill, the area falls within Region A of the City of Johannesburg. The region borders Centurion (part of the Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality) to the north and Mogale City (Krugersdorp) to the west. To the east is the township of Tembisa, part of the Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality and on the south it borders Alexandra, Sandton, Randburg and Roodepoort. Within this larger region the community priorities as voiced though the CoJ IDP (City of Johannesburg, 2019) and include the following:  Access to sustainable Human Settlements (i.e. Houses, water, Electricity.)  Improved quality of roads and transport.  Improved safety and security.  Access to health-care services (i.e. Clinics)  Improved public participation (i.e. public meetings, etc.)

Various community protests in the Ekurhuleni and CoJ areas just south from the landfill highlights the frustration of community members in terms of a number of services delivery areas (Midrand Reporter, 2014: Ntobela, 2019):  Decent housing was the theme of a couple of protests in Tembisa (2014) and Rabie Ridge, Ivory Park, Ebony Park, and Rabie Ridge (2019)  The 2014 service delivery protests in Ebony Park also highlighted the community prioritising the upgrading of sewer systems, streetlights as well as water and sanitation (this includes the removal of waste). The protests also focussed on the need for social facilities (e.g. libraries parks and entertainment centres) to combat the high levels of youth substance abuse (especially the nyaope drug) in the community.

The priorities of the higher income areas of Glen Austin and Randjiesfontein to the west are perhaps better represented though the objectives of the Glen Austin Residents Association (GARA) objectives. These are:

 To create a safe and secure environment for all residents;  To preserve and enhance the aesthetic attributes and country atmosphere of the area;  To safeguard and (where possible) enhance the ecology of Glen Austin. The Glen Austin Pan, Bird Sanctuary was proclaimed a nature reserve in 1994. The pan is home to the endangered African Giant Bullfrog and hosts a variety of animal, bird and plant life. For example the pan is a favourite migration stopover for the Yellow Billed Stork, Spoon Billed Stork, Cormorants, White- faced Ducks, Flamingos, Egrets as well as droves of Egyptian Geese.  To encourage residents of the area to get to know each other, to care for each other, and to work together.

The City of Ekurhuleni is also involved in an open space project for Tembisa. The objective of the initiative is to create a safe, accessible and well managed space through an integrated response to ecology and social needs. As part of the open space project, the rehabilitation of the Kaalspruit River, flowing through Tembisa, is proposed (Dimela Eco Consulting, 2015). While the future of the initiative is uncertain, a number of volunteers recently embarked upon a clean-up operation at Kaalspruit. The degraded state of the river (originating in Kempton Park and joining the Hennops River close to Centurion) is contributed to several factors including ageing infrastructure in reticulation and pump stations; the growing population along course way; vandalism; misuse of the sewage network and the rapid increase of informal settlements, some within the 1:100 year flood line (Daily Maverick, 2020).

3. POTENTIAL SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE LANDFILL DURING CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONS 3.1 Introduction The following section provides a list of the anticipated social impacts associated with the Olifantsfontein landfill site during the construction and operational phases. 3.2 Employment Opportunities Olifantsfontein landfill will have direct positive impacts on income and employment created by the project itself; indirect positive impacts due to backward linkages to local suppliers and induced impacts due to the overall increase in income levels and increased spending on goods and services which could lead to a further increase in production and employment in the local area. Based on information from a similar development (SED 2015), and assuming seven waste cells and associated infrastructure (see Section 1) to be constructed within 4 months per waste cell and 4 months for support infrastructure, the project is expected to create around 38 direct job opportunities and 25 flow-on jobs for two and a half years assuming that the infrastructure and each cell will be built in consecutive phases, i.e. the full time equivalent (FTE) of 95 direct jobs and 63 flow-on jobs for one year. As is the case internationally, the direct employment opportunities at landfills are limited. Olifantsfontein is expected to create in the region of 7 direct jobs during the 20/30 years operational lifetime of the facility. About 5 of these positions could be filled by unskilled workers (2 general workers, 1 gate controller and 2 security guards); 1 semi-skilled site operator and 1 skilled supervisor. As illustrated in table 20, the flow-on impacts related to supply links and induced spending could create an additional 5 employment opportunities in the local area surrounding the landfill as well as the broader region depending the region from where suppliers are sourced and where employees spend their money.

Table 20: Expected employment impacts of Olifantsfontein Landfill Phase Duration DIRECT EMPLOYMENT FLOW-ON EMPLOYMENT Unskilled Semi-Skilled Skilled (indirect and induced) Construction (7 1 year FTE 51 21 23 63 waste cells and infrastructure) Operations 20-30 years 5 1 1 5 Source: SED, 2015

During both the operational and the construction phases, workers are expected to be sourced from the areas in close proximity to the landfill. To compensate adjacent communities for potential external costs related to the project, it is good practice to ensure that economic benefits related to the project are focussed on adjacent communities, especially the lower-income area of Ekurhuleni Ward 102 to the east and the CoJ wards 77 and 103 to the south. The economic advantages for the local community will increase if:  If practical, business opportunities are provided for local businesses to become suppliers to the landfill during operations as well as the on-going construction phase.  The community contributes to recycling by separating at source during operations

Table 21: Rating of positive employment impacts during construction

THEME: EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES

Without management With management Status Positive (+) Positive (+)

Severity Low (1) Low (1) Spatial Scale Local (3) Local (3)

Duration Medium (3) Medium (3)

Probability High (4) High (4) Certainty Possible (2) Probable (3)

Impact Risk Low (72) + Medium (108) +

Enhancement measures:  Prioritise local labour in the construction process  Up-skill local labour as far as practical during the construction phase  Incorporate these management measures as part of a contractor management plan where construction activities are sub-contracted

Cumulative impacts:  None foreseen

Residual impacts:  None foreseen

Table 22: Rating of positive employment impacts during operations THEME: EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES

Without management With management Status Positive (+) Positive (+)

Severity Low (1) Low (1) Spatial Scale Local (3) Local (3)

Duration Long term (4) Long term (4)

Probability High (4) High (4) Certainty Possible (2) Probable (3)

Impact Risk Medium (96) + Medium (144) +

Enhancement measures:  Involve the community as far as practical to contribute to recycling by separating at source during operations  Incorporate these management measures as part of a contractor management plan where construction activities are sub-contracted measures as part of a contractor management plan where operations activities are sub-contracted Cumulative impacts:  None foreseen

Residual impacts:  None foreseen

3.3 Increase landfill airspace through the resource recovery activities The planned Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) will reduce the amount of waste, open up much needed waste air space in Ekurhuleni and environs and extend the lifetime of the project. It is also aligned to the National Waste Management strategy as discussed above.

Table 23: Rating of increase of landfill airspace impacts during operations THEME: EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES

Without management With management Status Positive (+) Positive (+)

Severity Medium (2) Medium (2) Spatial Scale Regional (4) Regional (4)

Duration Long term (4) Long term (4)

Probability Medium (3) High (4) Certainty Probable (3) High likelihood (4)

Impact Risk Medium (288) + Medium (512) +

Enhancement measures:  Implement the MRF as planned Cumulative impacts:  None foreseen

Residual impacts:  None foreseen

3.4 Inflow of Jobseekers and Informal Reclaimers on Site The City of Ekurhuleni and Tembisa is experiencing a continuous in-migration of people with a subsequent population growth. The population densities to the east and south of the landfill are quite high and there is a high ratio of males and people in their economically active years in these areas. Together with the unemployment rates in the ward to the east (Ekurhuleni Ward 102) and the wards to the south (CoJ wards 77 and 133- Ivory Park), one can expect an inflow of jobseekers, but more so, informal reclaimers to the site. Informal reclaimers refer to waste pickers that illegally enter the landfill and who aim to sustain a livelihood by picking waste from the landfill, usually without any protective equipment which poses serious risks to their health. The landfill site can be accessed from the K111 and the Olifantsfontein road (R562) which is approximately 1km north of the site. The location of the site and these roads would make the activities easily visible to commuters and passers-by and is further easily accessible from these main local transport routes. This would further attribute to the inflow of possible jobseekers and reclaimers. The influx of jobseekers and reclaimers, especially if seen loitering near and at the landfill site, is also perceived to increase crime levels in the area. Their presence could result in residents holding them responsible for any criminal activities that occur in the area. Even if these individuals are not 27

accountable for any misconduct, these concerns would remain a sensitive issue among the local property owners, especially with the increase in home burglaries within the Glen Austin area and the concerns about land grabs within low density areas. The inflow of jobseekers is challenging as it is difficult to foresee the exact extent of the impact. Avoiding the impact from occurring by pro-active mitigation measures is also challenging. Waste picking should be prevented. The Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) should thus be implemented in a coordinated and formal manner which adheres to all the relevant guidelines associated with a recycling facility. It should further be clearly communicated that the landfill operators would not allow scavenging and that they would not provide informal salvageable material to waste pickers.

Table 24: Rating of impact of jobseekers and informal reclaimers

THEME: JOBSEEKERS AND INFORMAL RECLAIMERS

Without mitigation With mitigation Status Negative (-) Negative (-)

Severity Medium (4) Low (3) Spatial Scale Local (3) On-site (2)

Duration Medium term (3) Medium term (3)

Probability High (4) Medium (3) Certainty Probable (3) Probable (3)

Impact Risk Medium (432) - Medium (162) -

Mitigation measures:  Local employment should be enhanced. The recruitment process and use of contractors should be communicate to the local communities. The communication strategy with regards to employment should ensure that unrealistic employment expectations are not created  Fencing of the site and security on site would be critical. Regular inspections of the fence should be undertaken and broken fences should immediately be repaired. The fence should be of a high quality and materials should be used that makes the fence unsuitable for re-use. Electrification of the fence could be considered.  Recovery should adhere to all the relevant waste management regulations to avoid any informal reclaimers on site.  It should be clearly communicated that the landfill operators would not allow scavenging and that they would not provide informal salvageable material. A strong stance against scavenging should be taken from the start of the operation so that the site does not obtain a reputation of a site where scavenging occurs

Cumulative impacts:  Increased pressure on infrastructure and services should jobseekers remain in the area, although on a small scale  Slight increased localised unemployment rate should jobseekers remain in the area  Health and security risks if scavenging does take place (contracting of diseases, risk of getting hurt or killed by waste vehicles)

Residual impacts:  None foreseen

3.5 Potential Impacts on Human Health Landfill sites could impact on the local community’s health due to: 28

 Impacts on air quality: Construction: Construction vehicles travelling on gravel roads on site, together with earthworks will produce dust and possibly contribute to air pollution. The Air Quality Impact Assessment (AQIA) (Rayton Environmental, 2020) found that these “fugitive emission sources will not be significant, with associated emissions being intermittent and of a short-term”.  Impacts on air quality: Operation: Vehicles operating on site gravel roads would cause dust with subsequent possible impact on the air quality in the area. Dust impacts can further be caused by wind erosion from exposed surfaces, the compacting of waste and handling of material. The AQIA further assessed operational impacts such as the possible impact of “landfill gas emissions passively vented to the atmosphere over the Cell surface area, as well as odour emissions associated with overall landfilling activities (i.e. passive emissions over landfill, the compacting of waste at the cell workface, tipping of waste, exposed fresh waste at truck waiting areas and emissions from the leachate dam)” (Rayton Environmental, 2020).  From a social perspective, however it is important to note that should the areas surrounding the landfill be affected by dust pollution, it could have negative impacts on possible small-scale farming activities within the surrounding area (e.g. Glen Austin AH) and even possibly on the health and wellbeing of the residents. The AQIA found that the “predicted incremental dust-fall rates, PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations are low over the areas surrounding the proposed landfill site and fall well within the residential and non-residential area standards (for dust-fall), and the daily and annual SNAAQS (for PM10 and PM2.5). Higher incremental dust-fall rates, PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations are observed within the proposed landfill site boundary. Exceedances of the standards are predicted over a relatively small area on the landfill site and at certain points along the southern boundary of the landfill for dust-fall and PM10 (daily averages). No exceedances occur beyond the proposed landfill boundary or at any of the modelled discrete receptor points surrounding the landfill.” The dust impact is thus anticipated to be low and not expected to have any impact on the small-scale farming activities and the health of residents surrounding the landfill site.  Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAP) (e.g. sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides), particulates (dust particles) and bio-aerosols have odour impacts and could cause illness in human beings. In terms of possible odours as a result of landfilling, the AQIA found that “..under the worst-case scenario, residents located in near proximity south, south-east and east of the proposed landfill could potentially experience odour impacts associated with hydrogen sulphide emissions”. In addition, the study found that “people residing in areas within approximately 3km of the proposed landfill site could potentially detect or recognise odours associated with emissions of mercaptan compounds.” (Rayton Environmental, 2020). Proper waste control management systems, the implementation of different leachate treatment options, the management and monitoring of hydrogen sulphide and odour would however mitigate these possible impacts. The AQIA stated that: “In terms of odour impacts, the odour emissions at the proposed landfill should be relatively low if the landfill is managed well and the recommendations provided in this report are effectively implemented. The overall impact is identified to result in low to medium negative impacts”.  Health impacts related to flies and rodents: According to a report of the Veterinary Services Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (2012) more than 100 pathogens associated with the house fly may cause disease in humans and animals, including typhoid, cholera, bacillary dysentery, tuberculosis, anthrax, eye infections and infantile diarrhoea, as well as infestation with parasitic worms. Since flies has a wide range that spans between 7 and 9 km, effective fly control programmes on the landfill is essential. Rodents are associated with the spread of salmonella that are linked to nausea, vomiting, abdominal cramps, headaches, fever, diarrhoea and in cases typhoid fever. While rats can travel long distances (2.5 km is the longest 29

recorded distance), they usually stay within medium ranges of 10-30m of food and water. In both the case of rats and mice, these species are likely to stay in close proximity to a constant food source (in this case landfill waste) rather than migrate in search of other food sources (Perry, 2012).  Disease transmission related to reclaimers: Apart from posing a direct health risk to themselves, on-site waste reclaimers could facilitate the outbreak of human diseases through food recovery and consumption of waste food either by themselves or the animals they keep (Perry, 2012)  Spread of disease through birds: Wild birds are capable of carrying a number of pathogens, the most significant of which are Avian Influenza (AI), Newcastle disease, Salmonella and Campylobacter. Above-mentioned report however states that there has been no documented evidence where a South African landfill has played a role in causing outbreaks of disease in humans or birds (Perry, 2012).  Fire hazards associated with landfills

Table 25: Rating of impact on human health

THEME: HUMAN HEALTH

Without mitigation With mitigation Status Negative (-) Negative (-)

Severity Medium (4) Low (3) Spatial Scale Local (3) Local (3)

Duration Long term (4) Long term (4)

Probability High (4) Medium (3) Certainty Probable (3) Probable (3)

Impact Risk Medium (576) - Medium (324) -

Mitigation measures:  Mitigation and management measures to deal with possible dust impacts as recommended by the Air Quality Impact Assessment must be implemented.  Waste management control measures and odour monitoring as recommended by the Air Quality Impact Assessment must be implemented.  The buffer zone of 200 m around the landfill as referred to in the Air Quality Impact Assessment should be adhered to. In addition, the following good practice management measures could be applied:  Waste should also be covered as soon as possible and disturbed as little as possible to prevent bio-aerosols being generated and to prevent wind-blown litter. These preventative measures can also minimise odour emissions.  Safe disposal of animal carcasses, condemned foodstuff and animal products is regarded as a priority  On-site gravel roads should be wetted in hot dry weather to reduce dust from traffic when necessary.  Permanent security should be on-site to prevent waste reclaimers or any other unauthorised persons from accessing the site. The perimeter should be patrolled to provide proper inspection.  Vehicle access should be limited to a single controlled entrance  The site entrance must comprise a lockable gate which must be manned during hours of operation

 Fences are recommended to be 1,8m, suitably sturdy and durable material. Where normal fencing is removed, or is not practicable because of continued theft despite security measures, alternative means to prevent vehicle access must be used.  Burning of waste must be prohibited. Compaction and covering of waste minimises the fire risk by minimising oxygen and exposure. Where fires do occur, the burning waste should be exposed, spread, and smothered with cover material.  Buffer zones from the property boundary of the landfill site to the residential areas must be adhered to in order to prevent any nuisance, unhygienic or offensive conditions that are harmful to human health.

Cumulative impacts:  Windblown litter and existing illegal dumping in the area would impact on community and animal health

Residual impacts:  None foreseen

3.6 Potential Increase in Crime Rates and other Security issues in the Local Area During the construction and operational phases, the following could impact on the safety of workers, pedestrians and members of the surrounding communities:

 The movement of vehicles transporting goods and materials on the K111 and R562 or possibly through the local neighbourhood of Glen Austin and other local communities (e.g. heavy machinery, heavy vehicles, and earthmoving equipment);  The influx of an outside workforce and potential jobseekers which could be seen to impact on the crime levels in the area or where opportunist criminals make use of the presence of these workers to undertake criminal activities; and  An increased risk of veld fires due to the presence of construction workers and construction related activities on site that in turn pose a threat to residents, animals and houses in the area.

Informal reclaimers on site are usually associated with landfills. The likelihood of this occurring at the Olifantsfontein landfill is possible as discussed above. Based on the desktop assessment, increasing crime rates in the Glen Austin area is of concern to the residents. The increased economic activity, movement of people and possible influx of jobseekers and informal reclaimers can increase the risk of crimes in the area surrounding the landfill site. However, a perimeter fence will be installed to control access to the site. The site will further be provided with a suitable security system, including guarding and patrols, to control and manage all access to the facility and prevent the presence of unauthorised people on site. Another safety and security concern is the possibility of waste catching fire due to varied reasons. “Hidden fires” which smoulder inside the waste are also difficult to extinguish and would create continued smoke which again impacts on the overall air quality. Under unfavourable conditions the fires could thus spread to nearby properties. Although this aspect could be mitigated by proper landfill management such as compaction and daily covering of the waste, the concern should still be addressed by developing a Fire Prevention and Management plan. On-site, workers would furthermore be exposed to operational safety risks. These risks should be addressed as part of the Occupational Health and Safety Act (1993).

Table 26: Rating of impact on safety and security

THEME: SAFETY AND SECURITY

Without mitigation With mitigation Status Negative (-) Negative (-)

Severity Medium (4) Low (3) Spatial Scale Local (3) Local (3)

Duration Long term (4) Medium term (3)

Probability Medium (3) Medium (3) Certainty Probable (3) Probable (3)

Impact Risk Medium (432) - Medium (243) -

Mitigation measures:  The site should be properly fenced and the fence should be inspected on a regular basis. Security personnel should be on site on a permanent basis.  Unauthorised access to the landfill should not be allowed. Access to the site should not be allowed after hours except for security personnel  An Emergency Plan including a Fire Prevention and Management plan should be developed.  An Emergency Plan including a Fire Prevention and Management plan should be developed. All personnel should undergo safety training so that they are aware of the potential dangers on site and the appropriate safety measures to be taken

 Compaction and cover of waste should be undertaken as soon as possible  Personal protective clothing and equipment should be provided to all staff and “visitors” entering the site. Those working in high traffic areas should wear highly visible clothing  Vehicles should be kept in good working order and drivers should be properly trained and should adhere to traffic rules and regulations.  Site rules and regulations should be strictly implemented and adhered to

Cumulative impacts:  Possible negative impact on crime levels in the area due to various individuals entering the area as a result of the landfill construction and operation.

Residual impacts:  None foreseen

3.7 Potential Economic Costs related to Ground and Surface Water Pollution Landfills have been identified as a threat to groundwater resources throughout the world. The complex biochemical reactions and interaction of various elements and compounds within a waste body can result in the generation of leachate (“garbage juice”) which can be toxic and which can contaminate groundwater and surface water resources, leading to unsuitability of water for drinking (Mukherjee and Nelliyat, 2007). As was discussed earlier, the Kaalspruit flows within 1km from the landfill site (to the east and southeast of the project area) and there is a risk that storm water run-off during the rainy season could compromise the existing poor surface water quality of the river and impacting negatively on downstream water users including recreational activities of local children. Households making use of boreholes in close proximity to the landfill could also be negatively impacted if the landfill results in groundwater pollution.

It should, however, be noted that households to the east of the site in nearby Tembisa are supplied by municipal water (AGES, 2011). Socio-economic risks of contamination of groundwater of existing borehole users could be considered relatively low due to the low percentage of downstream borehole users and the lower population densities downstream (north) from the landfill. The underlying groundwater aquifer is located more than 20m beneath the landfill floor level and is considered to be a Minor Aquifer. Due to the nature of the soil on site, the only concern that could arise would be perched water that could occur during the rainy season however this can be overcome by proper design of a storm water and groundwater control system.

The potential costs related to groundwater and surface water contamination by landfill is furthermore largely internalized through increased compliance costs as prescribed by the National Environmental Management: Waste Act (Act 59 of 2008) together with Regulations promulgated under the Act. External costs imposed on the local community are therefore expected to be low.

Table 27: Rating of negative external costs related to surface and groundwater contamination

THEME: GROUND AND SURFACE WATER POLLUTION COSTS

Without management With management Status Negative (-) Negative (-)

Severity Medium (3) Low (2) Spatial Scale Local (3) Local (3)

Duration Long term (4) Long term (4)

Probability Occasionally (2) Occasionally (2)

Certainty Certain (4) Possible (2)

Impact Risk Medium (288) - Medium (96) -

Mitigation measures:  Adhere to the requirements of the Waste management Act in terms of : o Construction of the required landfill cell lining systems according to specified standards o A storm water management system to manage uncontaminated upslope run-off, contaminated run- off from the landfill itself, and highly contaminated leachate generated within the landfill o On-going air quality, surface and ground water monitoring. Details of water quality tests that will be performed need to be supplied. There are three groundwater monitoring boreholes on site which were drilled and groundwater monitoring will be carried out every six months or in accordance with the permit requirements. o Strict access control to prevent the disposal of contaminated poultry or animal carcasses and other prohibited articles on the landfill o There should be sufficient trained staff to monitor, control and record incoming waste  No animal carcasses to be disposed of at the landfill.  Monitoring of landfill operations by a monitoring committee comprise representatives of the department, the operator and representatives of those affected by the landfill. Groundwater monitoring results to be shared with the monitoring committee on a quarterly basis. Cumulative impacts:  Informal settlements and other upstream activities polluting Kaalspruit Residual impacts:  Minimal

3.8 Potential Economic Impact Related to Changes in Property Prices Various ‘nuisance’ factors (noise, dust, litter and odour) could also imply costs for households or activities located close to the landfill. The negative impact of the factors is also called the disamenity effect of landfills and the economic costs usually translate in lower property prices adjacent to the landfill. The negative impact that proximity to landfills have on property prices is well documented and only a few studies find no correlation between the proximity to a landfill and property prices (Du Preez, et.al. 2014). A study by an Australian research group (BDA) however shows the marked difference between the disamenity costs of landfills that are regulated under stricter norms and older landfills (BDA, 2007). Despite best practice control measures to minimize ‘nuisance’ factors, there is still a high likelihood of disamenity costs (measured by decline in property values) due to the role that negative sentiment and perceptions with regard to landfills play in property values (DEFTA, 2003). Disamenty factors include noise from the trucks working outside agreed operating hours, waste spillage from trucks, landfill related odours and deteriorating air quality..

South African studies (Nahman, 2012, Du Preez and Lottering, 2009 and Du Preez, et.al. 2014) found that disamenity effects of landfills could impact negatively on house prices up to 4 km from the landfill site, with evidence suggesting a decline in property values between 6-29% within 1km of the site; 4-19% between 1 and 2km from the site; 2-10% between 2 and 4km from the site. The disamenity impact declines over time and has a higher impact on higher to medium income residential areas than lower income areas.

It is only a fraction of a high density, low income residential area to the south east that is within 1km from the Olifantsfontein landfill. The impact on Glen Austin’s low density higher value properties is far less than was the case of the former FG Landfill although a north eastern section of Glen Austin is still located within 4km from the landfill. The property value impact is potentially significantly lower than in the case of FG landfill also because the lower property values to the south of the site. The disamenity impact could also be significantly reduced with proper management of the site.

Table 28: Rating of the impact of disamenities on property values

THEME: PROPERTY VALUES

Without management With management Status Negative (-) Negative (-)

Severity Medium (3) Medium (3) Spatial Scale Local (3) Local (3)

Duration Long term (4) Long term (4)

Probability Medium (3) Occasionally (2)

Certainty Certain (4) Probable (3)

Impact Risk Medium (432) - Medium (216) -

Mitigation measures:  The daily compaction and covering of waste would be critical  At sites characterised by high winds, movable litter fences are a minimum requirement. Windblown litter must be picked up and removed from fences and vegetation on a daily basis.  Malodorous waste should be covered immediately. In extreme cases, odour suppressants such as spray curtains may be required.  In the absence of by-laws, national regulations on noise control must be complied with  Un-surfaced roads and un-grassed or unpaved areas, must be regularly watered to restrict dust levels  A committee representing community interests is recommended to monitor external costs to the community and provide feedback on a regular basis. Quarterly meetings are advised as well as dedicated personnel from the operator’s side that should be changed regularly to maintain commitment to the initiative

Cumulative impacts:  None foreseen Residual impacts:  Low/medium

3.9 Noise Related Impacts During the construction phase, general construction activities create different types of noise, such as noise associated with the movement of construction vehicles, the reverse indicator of plant and trucks, the loading or movement of material and general construction activities. These types of noises would have different nuisance impacts on those within the construction site and possibly on nearby dwellings, mainly to the south east of the site.

During the operational phase noise is continuously created by the movement of haulage trucks and mobile equipment like excavators, compactors, tippers and bulldozers. The area, however, is from a social perspective not classified as a low ambient area due to the proximity of general urban noise associated with the movement of people, industrial and construction activities, as well as vehicular noise from the roads surrounding the site. The intensity of the landfill impact would thus depend on the proximity of dwellings to the site, as well as the number of trucks making use of the local roads on a daily basis. Possible impacts are anticipated on the dwellings located to the south east of the site that fall within the 1km zone. Mitigation measures should be pro-active and should minimise the noise created by the movement of vehicles and landfill activities to a minimum.

Table 29: Rating of impact of noise

THEME: NOISE

Without mitigation With mitigation Status Negative (-) Negative (-)

Severity Low (3) Low (3) Spatial Scale Local (3) Local (3)

Duration Long term (4) Long term (4)

Probability Medium (3) Occasionally (2) Certainty Probable (3) Probable (3)

Impact Risk Medium (324) - Medium (216) -

Mitigation measures:  All equipment and trucks used during the construction and operation of the landfill should be in a good working order.  The landfill owner/manager to comply with all relevant legislation pertaining to the operation and management of a landfill

Cumulative impacts:  None foreseen

Residual impacts:  None foreseen

3.10 Visual Intrusion and Impact on Sense of Place The social issues associated with the impact on the sense of place relates to the change in the landscape character and visual impact of the proposed landfill. The following discussion should thus be read from a social perspective as the impact on the sense of place, as the study does not include a Visual Impact Assessment. The area is disturbed from its original characteristics due to considerable soil erosion which is a result of historical excavations, quarrying and illegal sand mining as indicated in the Soil and Hydropedological Assessment (Rehab Green, 2019). Various alien and invasive tree species and disturbed grasslands are found on the site. Unauthorised dumping on site and littering adjacent the entrance to the site was also noted during the site visit. The disturbed character of the site impacts on the local sense of place (Kyllinga Consulting, 2020). The main visual impact associated with the construction phase would be the actual construction site where construction activities (e.g. cell development) are taking place, possible storage of equipment and construction vehicles, as well as the disruption of the soil and vegetation. These intrusions are not expected to have any significant negative impacts on any surrounding property owners. Windblown litter from the landfill could not only be visually unpleasing but can be a nuisance and create health risks especially for animals. Lightning at night can impact on properties in close proximity to the site. These potential visual impacts must be avoided by proper landfill management. Negative visual impacts of a landfill could lead to the devaluation of certain properties (also refer to Section 3.8). The landfill activities during the operational phase would not introduce ‘new’ or ‘different’ visual impacts to the area as the FG landfill operated in close proximity to the Olifantsfontein landfill site for a number of years and is proposed on a brownfields site. The Olifantsfontein landfill site is also further located to the east and south east from the higher income properties of Glen Austin and Randjesfontein compared to the FG Landfill. The latter’s landfilling and landscaping could even act as a potential buffer between some properties situated within the Glen Austin area and the proposed landfill activities. The Olifantsfontein landfill site, however, is situated closer to the lower income area to the south and east of the landfill in relation to the location of the former FG Landfill. The height of landfill will be the original ground level, due to the significant excavations from the sand mining activities that have been taking place on the site (AGES, 2011).

Even though the visual impacts could be relatively low as only a few residential areas fall within the 1km buffer zone, the landfill could negatively change the perception that the surrounding landowners and communities have of their living environment, mainly because of the stigma associated with the former FG Landfill and the residents’ experience with that landfill, and thus the perception that another landfill would be developed soon after its closure. This would impact on the residents’ sense of place. Additional aspects that could influence the sense of place could include:  Possible noise pollution  Possible negative impacts on the air quality  Risks associated with possible surface and groundwater pollution  The satisfactory operation of the landfill and legal compliance  Any other nuisances created by the landfill; and  Safety and security risks created or perceived to be created by the landfill activities.

As noted, the Soil and Hydropedological Assessment (Rehab Green, 2019) indicated that the landfill could mitigate the negative visual impacts of the quarrying. Further mitigation of the visual impacts and thus the sense of place would only come into effect once the landfill has been rehabilitated to an end-use which is also visually pleasing. Once a suitable end-use is in place, the impact on the sense of place would thus be low.

Table 30: Rating of visual intrusion and impact on sense of place

THEME: VISUAL INTRUSION AND IMPACT ON SENSE OF PLACE

Without mitigation With mitigation Status Negative (-) Negative (-)

Severity Low (2) Low (2) Spatial Scale Local (3) Local (3)

Duration Long term (4) Long term (4)

Probability Medium (3) Medium (3) Certainty Probable (3) Possible (2)

Impact Risk Medium (216) - Medium (144) -

Mitigation measures:  Vegetation clearing (indigenous) should be kept to a minimum and be undertaken only in designated construction areas  Alien invasive plant species should be removed in consultation with a relevant specialist  The design of buildings (e.g. security/guard house/resource recovery facility) should blend in with surrounding environment.  Outdoor lighting should be as unobtrusive as possible  Topsoil should be stored in such a manner as to preserve the productivity of the soil for the long term future landfill rehabilitation potential  Landscaping initiatives on site such as maintenance of paths and fences and ongoing tree planting along the fence could assist in limiting the negative visual impacts

Cumulative impacts:

 None foreseen

Residual impacts:  None foreseen

4. DECOMMISSIONING AND CLOSURE

4.1 Nuisance Factors (Noise and Dust) during Decommissioning Decommissioning and closure would mainly include rehabilitation and landscaping of the landfill site. It could further entail vegetation management and conservation enhancement. Nuisance factors that could possibly have an impact on nearby residents are a repeat of the construction related activities and relate to noise and dust created by landfill activities. This would include dust and noise created by vehicle movement and noise as a result of equipment used.

Table 31: Nuisance factors

THEME: NUISANCE FACTORS

Without management With management Status Negative (-) Negative (-)

Severity Low (2) Low (2) Spatial Scale Local (3) Local (3)

Duration Permanent (5) Long term (4)

Probability Medium (3) Occasionally (2)

Certainty Probable (3) Probable (3)

Impact Risk Medium (270) - Medium (144) -

Mitigation measures:  Decommissioning of the landfill should be undertaken in accordance with the stipulations in the waste management licence.  Noise and dust should be kept to a minimum by ensuring that all vehicles and equipment are in good working order, and by wetting gravel roads where required.

Cumulative impacts:  None Residual impacts:  None foreseen

4.2 Loss of land The future value of the land could be lost due to its use as landfill site.

Table 32: Loss of Value of Land

THEME: LOSS OF LAND VALUE

Without management With management Status Negative (-) Negative (-)

Severity Medium (3) Low (2) Spatial Scale Local (3) Local (3)

Duration Permanent (5) Long term (4)

Probability High (4) High (4)

Certainty Probable (3) Probable (3)

Impact Risk Medium (540) - Medium (288) -

Mitigation measures:  The landfill should be progressively rehabilitated by means of capping and the subsequent establishment of vegetation Immediately on completion of an area, final cover must be applied  A high level first draft rehabilitation plan should be developed in consultation with the monitoring committee in the first 3 years of the project, to be refined some 3 years before final decommissioning of the landfill

Cumulative impacts:  None Residual impacts:  None foreseen

5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The table below summarises the potential socio-economic impacts of the Olifantsfontein landfill. The table shows that most impacts are expected to be medium. Through good site management (largely required by law) the landfill’s negative socio-economic impacts could be managed to low/medium impacts.

A committee representing community interests is recommended to monitor external costs to the community and provide feedback on a regular basis. It is highly recommended that a dedicated person from the operator’s side should be selected to serve as community liaison person and that this role should be changed regularly to maintain commitment to the initiative.

Table 33: Summary of Impacts Impact rating Impact rating after Phase Potential impact without mitigation mitigation Construction Job opportunities Low Medium Operations Job opportunities Medium Medium Increase landfill airspace through Operations Medium Medium the resource recovery activities Construction & Influx of job seekers and reclaimers Medium Medium Operations Operations Community health impact Medium Medium Construction & Safety impacts Medium Medium Operations External environmental costs Operations Medium Medium (surface and ground water) Disamenities and impact on Operations Medium Medium property values Construction & Noise impacts Medium Medium Operations

Operations Visual impact and sense of place Medium Medium

Decommissioning Dust and noise pollution Medium Medium & closure Decommissioning Loss of land Medium Medium & closure

Based on the relatively low risks of the landfill, the potential for a proper management plan to decrease social risks as well as the dire need for landfill space for Gauteng’s metros the environmental authorisation of Olifantsfontein landfill is recommended.

6. REFERENCES 6.1 Documents

Ackerman, F. and Becker, M. (1990). Economies of Scale at Landfill Sites, , Journal of Resource Management and Technology, Vol 18 no 3, Tellis Institute, Boston AGES (Pty) Ltd. (2011) Preliminary geohydrological investigation of the aquifer underlying Portion 41 of the Farm Olifantsfontein 410 JR in support of a landfill permit application APAC (2020). A Report on a Phase 1 Heritage Impact Assessment for the Olifantsfontein Landfill Facility Development on the Farm Olifantsfontein 410 JR near Thembisa, Gauteng BDA. (2009). The full cost of landfill disposal in Australia, BDA Group, Melbourne Becker, H. 1997. Social Impact Assessment: Social Research Today. UCL Press Becker, H.A. and Vanclay, F. 2003. The International Handbook of Social Impact Assessment: Conceptual and Methodological Advances. Edwar Elgar, UK. Burdge, R.J. 1995. A community guide to Social Impact Assessment. Social Ecology Press: Middleton

City of Ekurhuleni (2020). Integrated Development Plan 2016-2021, 2020/2021 Review, City of Ekurhuleni, Germiston

City of Johannesburg (2019). Integrated Development Review 2018/19. CoJ, Marshalltown

Daily Maverick (2020. Kaalspruit River Clean-Up Boosts Revival of Gauteng Watercourses. In https://headtopics.com/za/photo-essay-kaalspruit-river-cleanup-boosts-revival-of-gauteng- watercourses-15546161. Accessed 13 October 2020 De Witt, M. (2012). The Economics of Landfills, Presentation at Sandton Convention Centre, Johannesburg. In http://www.slideshare.net/martindewit/the-economics-of-landfills Accessed 15 October 2014 DEFRA (2003). A study to estimate the disamenity costs of landfill in Great Britain, Cambridge Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London

Department of Environmental Affairs (2006) Socio-Economic Impact Assessment, Integrated Environmental Management Information Series 22, Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT), Pretoria

Department of Environmental Affairs (2020). Revised and updated National Waste management strategy, Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA), Pretoria

Dimela Eco Consulting (2015). The proposed Kaalspruit Open Space Project, Tembisa, Gauteng Kaalspruit River Rehabilitation. Biodiversity Scan: Vegetation and vertebrate report NuLeaf Planning and Environmental, Pretoria

Du Plessis, R.(2010). Establishment of composting facilities on landfill sites, Submitted in accordance with the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts, University of South Africa, Pretoria

Du Preez, M. (2009). Determining the negative effect on house values of proximity to a landfill site by means of an application of the hedonic pricing method, Department of Economic History, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, East London

Du Preez, M., Aarifah, B., Steven R., Koch F. and R. Gupta (2014). House Values and Proximity to a Landfill: A Quantile Regression Framework, University of University of Pretoria Working Paper: 2014-42 Department of Economics: University of Pretoria, Pretoria

Ecotone Freshwater Consultants (2011) Olifantsfontein Jr 410 Portion 41 Development: Wetland Delineation

Ecotone Freshwater Consultants (2019) Landfill and Sand Mine Development: Wetland Specialist Study

Envitech Solutions (Pty) Ltd. (2012). Proposed Olifantsfontein Class G:L:B- Landfill Site: Design Report

Envitech Solutions (Pty) Ltd. (2012). Geotechnical & Hydrogeological Investigation Report for the Proposed Olifantsfontein Class G:L:B- Landfill Site

Finsterbusch, K., L.G. Llewellyn and C.P. Wolf. 1983. Social Impact Assessment Methods.

Geldenhuys, L.M.M (2012). A Comparative Study of The Roohuiskraal And Marie-Louise Landfill –Sites Indicating Differences In Management Strategies and the Consequences thererof on Operational and Management Issues for partial fulfilment of MA in environmental sciences, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg

Kyllinga Consulting (2020) Vegetation Assessment for the proposed Olifantsfontein Landfill Waste Management License

Malarin, H. and W.J. Vaughan (1997)). An Approach to the Economic Analysis of Solid Waste Disposal Alternatives. A Good Practice Paper, Inter-American Development Bank, Washington D.C.

Masange, H., (2014) The Role of Environmental Governance in Municipal Waste Management: Newcastle (Kzn) as Case Study, Submitted as part of Master’s Degree in Governance and Political Transformation, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein

Midland Reporter (2019) Service delivery Protest in Ebony Park. In https://midrandreporter.co.za/116329/service-delivery-protest-in-ebony-park/. Accessed 13 October 2020

Mukherjee S. and P. Nelliyat (2007). Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture, Discussion Paper 4: International Water Management Institute, Sri Lanka 2007

Nahman, A. (2011). Pricing Landfill Externalities: Emissions and Disamenity Costs in Cape Town, South Africa, Waste Management 31 2046 – 2056, Elsevier

Ntobela T. (2019). Ivory Park, Ebony Park City Officials Removed from Offices by Protesters. In https://citizen.co.za/news/south-africa/local-news/2070200/ivory-park-ebony-park-city-officials- removed-from-offices-by-protesters/. Accessed 13 October 2020

Otto, K. (2020). Current Status of Landfill Airspace in Gauteng: The Institute for Waste Management of Southern Africa, Roodepoort

Perry, D. (2012).) Assessment of Biosecurity Risks for Livestock and Poultry Associated with Proposed Landfill Development at Atlantis or Kaalbaskraal, Chief State Veterinarian Biosecurity, GDARD, Johannesburg

Rayten Environmental (Pty) Ltd. (2020) Air Quality Impact Assessment: A Proposed General Waste Landfill Site in Olifantsfontein

Rayten Environmental (Pty) Ltd. (2020) Proposed Olifantsfontein Waste Disposal Facility: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory & Report

Rehab Green (2019). Soil and hydropedological assessment of the proposed landfill and sand mine development site, situated on portion 179 of the farm Olifantsfontein 410 JR, in Midrand, Gauteng Province

SAPS (2020). Crime Statistics per Precinct. In https://www.saps.gov.za/services/crimestats.php. Accessed 12 October 2020

SED (2015). Economic Study for Multisand Landfill, Gauteng. AECOM, Centurion

Stats SA (2011). Census, Stats SA, Pretoria

Stats SA (2016). Community Survey, Stats SA Pretoria

Stats SA (2020). Quarterly Labour Force Trends 2008- 2019 Q4, January 2020. Stats SA, Pretoria

7. CURRICULUM VITAE OF SPECIALISTS

7.1 Detailed Curriculum Vitae of Social Specialist

Name: Ingrid Helene Snyman Profession: Social Development Consultant Name of firm: Batho Earth Years of 20 years Experience:

KEY QUALIFICATIONS

 Social Impact Assessment (SIA)  Public Participation programmes  Communication, development of community structures and community facilitation  Community-based training and  Workshop reports EDUCATION 1992: B A (Political Science) University of Pretoria 1995: B A (Hons) Anthropology University of Pretoria 1996 - 1997: Train the Trainers Centre for Development Administration - UNISA

EXPERIENCE RECORD 2000 to date Independent Development Consultant: Batho Earth

Mining Industry  SIA for the proposed Vandyksdrift Central (VDDC) Mining: Infrastructure Development, Mpumalanga (ongoing)  PPP for the development of various additional listed activities at the Dwarsrivier Chrome Mine, near Steelpoort, Limpopo Province  SIA and Public Participation for the proposed Project 10161 and Project 10167 (Gold Mining) by Stonewall (Pty) Ltd., near Sabie and Pilgrims Rest, Mpumalanga  SIA for the proposed Tharisa Mine UG1 Project, near Marikana, North West Province  SIA for the Manganese Mine North West of Hotazel, Northern Cape (Mukulu Environmental Authorisation Project)  SIA for the proposed South32 SA Coal Holdings Middelburg Colliery Environmental Management Plan (EMP) and Water Use Licence (WUL) Application Project (Life of Asset Open Cast Expansion and Dispatch Rider Project), Middelburg, Mpumalanga  SIA for the proposed Manganese Mine on the Remaining Extent of the Farm Paling 434, Northern Cape Province: Revision And Amendment Of Existing Approved Environmental Management Programme (EMP) For A Mining Right

 SIA and Public Participation for the proposed Western Bushveld Joint Venture Project (Maseve Platinum Mine), North West Province  Public Participation for Sable Platinum for the proposed prospecting application on the farm Doornpoort, Pretoria, Gauteng  Public Participation for the prospecting application on the farms Frischgewaagd and Kleinfontein, Mpumalanga Province for PTM  SIA to determine the impact of the Tharisa Mine on the neighbouring properties and property owners, Buffelspoort area, near Marikana, North West Province  Public Participation for the prospecting application on the farm Klipfontein, Gauteng for PTM  SIA as part of the Basic Assessment for the extension of the Komati coal stockyard, Mpumalanga  SIA for the proposed Dorstfontein Mine Western Expansion Project, Kriel, Mpumalanga  SIA for the proposed Grootboom Platinum Mine, Steelpoort, Limpopo Province  SIA for the proposed Dorstfontein Mine Expansion Project, Kriel, Mpumalanga Bulk Infrastructure and Supply  SEIA for the proposed K43 Road Construction near Lenasia, Gauteng (ongoing)  SIA for the proposed Mangaung Bus Depot for the Integrated Public Transport Network (IPTN) in Bloemfontein, Free State  SEIA for the proposed Greenwich Landfill Site, Newcastle, KwaZulu Natal  SIA for the proposed Mangaung Gariep Water Augmentation Project, Free State  SIA for the proposed development of the new Tshwane Regional General Waste Disposal Facility (Multisand Landfill), Pretoria, Gauteng Province  SIA as part of the Basic Assessment for the proposed K97 Road northbound of the N4 at Bon Accord and investigation with regards to the possible resettlement of business premises, Pretoria, Gauteng  SIA for the proposed extension of the Wemmershoek Wastewater Treatment Works (WWTW), decommissioning of the Franschhoek WWTW and construction of a transfer and outfall sewer between the two works, Franschhoek, Western Cape  SIA for the proposed Lefaragathle, Mogono, Rasimone, Chaneng outfall sewer and Chaneng sewer treatment plant, Rustenburg (Phokeng), North West Province  SIA for the proposed upgrading of railway stations and railway line for Metrorail in Mamelodi, Gauteng  SIA for the proposed ACSA Remote Aprons Project, O.R. Tambo International Airport, Gauteng  Public Participation and SIA as part of the Environmental Scoping Study for the proposed upgrading of the Waterval Water Care Works Ecosystem Services Review  Proposed Ngonye Falls Hydro-Electric Power Plant Project, Western Province, Zambia: Biodiversity Assessment: Stakeholder Engagement Plan and Social Assessment for the Ecosystem Services Review (ESR) Projects related to electricity generation, transmission and distribution  SIA for the proposed Crowthorne-Lulamisa power line, Midrand, Gauteng  SIA as part of the Basic Assessment for the proposed Crowthorne Underground Cable, Gauteng  SIA as part of the Basic Assessment for the proposed Diepsloot East Servitude and substation, Gauteng

 SIA for the proposed Mitchells Plain-Firgrove-Stikland Transmission Line project and investigation with regards to the possible resettlement of individuals within Mitchells Plain, Western Cape  SIA for the proposed 400 kV Transmission Power Line for approximately 10km to the west of the existing Marathon Substation and possible resettlement of homesteads, Nelspruit area, Mpumalanga  SIA as part of the Basic Assessment for the proposed construction of a 400 kV transmission line between the Ferrum substation (Kathu) and the Garona substation (Groblershoop), Northern Cape Province  SIA as part of the Basic Assessment for the proposed construction of the Eskom Rhombus- Lethabong 88kv Powerline and Substation, North West Province  SIA for the proposed Aberdeen-Droerivier 400 kV Transmission Power Line, Eastern and Western Cape Province  SIA for the proposed Houhoek Substation Upgrade and Bacchus-Palmiet Loop-In and Loop-Out, near Botrivier, Western Cape Province  SIA for the proposed Arnot-Gumeni 400 kV Transmission Power Line, Mpumalanga  SIA for the proposed Aggeneis-Oranjemond Transmission Line project, Northern Cape Province  SIA for the proposed Ariadne-Venus Transmission Line, KwaZulu Natal  SIA for the proposed Dominion Reefs Power Line project, North West Province  SIA for the proposed Kyalami Strengthening Project, Kyalami, Gauteng  SIA for the proposed Apollo Lepini 400 kV Transmission Line Project, Tembisa, Gauteng  Public Participation for the proposed new Medupi (then referred to as Matimba B) coal-fired power station in the Lephalale area, Limpopo Province  Public Participation and SIA for the proposed Poseidon-Grassridge No. 3 400 kV Transmission line and the extension of the Grassridge Substation, Eastern Cape Province  Public Participation and SIA for the proposed construction of power lines between the Grassridge Substation (near Port Elizabeth) and the Coega Industrial Development Zone, Eastern Cape Province  Public Participation and SIA for the Matimba-Witkop No. 2 400 kV Transmission line in the Limpopo Province

Photovoltaic and Wind Energy Facilities  SIA for the proposed Christiana PV facility on the farm Hartebeestpan, North West Province  SIA for the proposed Hertzogville PV facility on the farms Albert and Wigt, Free State Province  SIA for the proposed Morgenzon PV facility on the farm Morgenzon, Northern Cape Province  SIA as part of the Basic Assessment Process for the Exxaro Photovoltaic Facility, Lephalale, Limpopo Province  SIA for the Upington Solar Energy Facility, Northern Cape Province  SIA for the Kleinbegin Solar Energy Facility, Northern Cape Province  SIA for the proposed Ilanga solar thermal power plant facility on a site near Upington, Northern Cape Province  SIA and public participation for the proposed Karoo Renewable Energy Facility, Northern Cape  SIA for the Wag’nbiekiespan Solar Energy Facility, Northern Cape Province  SIA for the proposed Kathu and Sishen Solar Energy Facilities, Northern Cape Province  Public Participation and SIA for the proposed Thupela Waterberg Photovoltaic Plant, Limpopo Province

 SIA for the proposed Kannikwa Vlakte Wind Farm Project, Northern Cape

Township Developments  SIA for the proposed Wildealskloof Mixed Use Development near Bloemfontein, Free State  SIA for the proposed Mixed Land Use Township Establishment on the Remainder of Portion 406 of the Farm Pretoria Town and Townlands 351 JR, and investigation with regards to the possible resettlement of households, Salvokop, Tshwane CBD  SIA for the proposed Mixed Land Use Development situated on the Remainder of Allandale 10 IR, known as Rabie Ridge Ext 7, Midrand, Gauteng  SIA as part of the Basic Assessment for the proposed development of Project One (1) of the Vosloorus Extension 9 High Density Housing Project, Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality  SIA for the proposed Mapochsgronde Residential Development, Roossenekal, Limpop Province  SIA for the proposed Cullinan Estate Development, Cullinan, Gauteng  SIA for the proposed Vlakfontein Residential Development and investigation with regards to the possible resettlement of individual households, Brakpan, Gauteng  SIA for the proposed township development/eco-estate on the farm Grants Valley, Eastern Cape

Public Participation  Public Participation for Dwarsrivier Chrome Mine (Pty) Ltd.: Environmental Authorisation Application for various Listed Activities at the Dwarsrivier Chrome Mine, Near Steelpoort, Limpopo Province (ongoing)  Public Participation for the proposed piggery near Modimolle, Limpopo Province  Public Participation for the proposed development of a Truck Stop, Buffelspoort, North West Province  Public Participation for the upgrading of the Menlyn Road Network and the investigation, as well as negotiations with regards to the resettlement of households, Pretoria, Gauteng  Public participation and SIA for the proposed Platinum Highway Project from the N1 (Gauteng) to the Botswana Border (North West Province), including investigations with regards to the possible resettlement of individual households  Public participation assistance for the proposed construction of a brewery and associated industrial activities for Heineken Supply Co (Pty) Ltd, Kempton Park, Gauteng.

7.2 Detailed Curriculum Vitae of Economic Specialist

Profession: Economic Development Name of firm: Southern Specialist Economic Development Years of 20 years Experience:

KEY QUALIFICATIONS

 Economic impact assessments  Applied economics (macro-economic and social impact analysis; economic cost benefit analysis, economic incidence analysis, scenario planning)  Skills development in development profiling and strategies  Economic databases & economic reviews  Local social and economic development strategies  Industry and market analysis  Analyses of higher education systems in Africa (analyses of demand and supply factors)

EDUCATION 1985: B.Admin (Hons) (Economics) (University of Pretoria) 1992: M.Admin (Economics) (University of Stellenbosch)

EXPERIENCE RECORD (1998- current): Examples of similar projects

Socio-Economic impact analyses:  High level economic impact assessment for various projects (including tourism projects) related to the mine closure programme for Sishen Mine, Northern Cape (South Africa (2019)  High level economic impact assessment including economic cost benefit assessment, direct and flow-on impacts for a number of tourism projects for the national tourism department South Africa (2018)  Cost effectiveness assessment of a space technology applied for early fire detection in South Africa (BDO-UK, 2018)  Socio-economic impact assessment of the Animal Health Technology Innovation Programme of the Technical Innovation Agency, South Africa (2017)  Socio-economic impact assessment for the Cape Health Technology Park (South Africa (2016)  Socio- economic impact assessment for the closure of Ezulwini gold mine, Gauteng (2016)  Socio- economic impact assessment for Rustenburg Smelter Ferrochrome Complex, North West (2016)  Socio- economic impact assessment of the Cape Health Technology Park, Western Cape (2016)  Socio-economic impact assessment for route selection of power lines in Mpumalanga ( 2016)  Study lead for revenue management study, entailing the identification of mitigation strategies related to project –related revenues (employment and public revenues) for a large-scale gas project for Anadarko petroleum in Mozambique (2012-2014)  Socio-economic impact assessment for Jeanette mine, Free State (2015)  Economic study for a waste disposal site in Tshwane, Gauteng (2014)  Economic impact assessment as part of Social Impact Assessment (SIA) of a Glencore/Xtrata chrome mine in Rustenburg, Mpumalanga (2014)  Economic impact assessment as part of Social Impact Assessment (SIA) for the extension of a mining right application for Boschmanspoort coal mine in Mpumalanga (2014)  Economic impact assessment as part of Social Impact Assessment (SIA) for a casino/retail project in Delmas, Mpumalanga (2014)  Economic study for a private regional landfill in the Ga-Rankuwa area of City of Tshwane (2014)

 Economic impact assessment as part of SIA for a CFB coal plant in Delmas area, Mpumalanga, South Africa (2013)  Economic impact assessment as part of SIA of a coal mine in Chrissiesmeer, Mpumalanga, South Africa (2013)  Economic impact assessment as part of SIA for an existing vanadium mine in the Brits area (2012)  Economic impact assessment as part of SIA for selected wind farms and solar plants in the Northern Cape, Sivest (2012)  Economic impact assessment as part of SIA for a diamond mine in Alexander Bay area, West Coast, South Africa (2012)  Measured the impact of the global financial crisis on the mining industry of 8 SADC countries including South Africa (SADC countries; 2009)  Conducted an analysis of the economic contribution of state owned enterprises to the Namibian economy (Namibia; 1999 and 2009)  Conducted a socio economic impact analysis for the development of an Africa centre and sustainable housing development project in the Western Cape (South Africa; 2007)  Developed economic criteria for the evaluation of projects for the Strategic Infrastructure Programme (SIP) for the Western Cape Province( 2005)  Conducted the economic evaluation of an infrastructure project in the Mosselbay area (South Africa;2001);  Economic impact assessment for horse-mackerel industry (Namibia 2003)