SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED HOUMOED PHASE 2 ROAD EXTENSION AND FORMALISING OF HOUSING IN MASIPHUMELELE, CAPE TOWN

DRAFT REPORT

Prepared by

EOH Coastal and Environmental Services Suite 408, 4th Floor, The Point, 76 Regent Road Sea Point Cape Town 8000 South Africa Prepared for

Chand Environmental and Sustainability Consultants Suite 1.2 A Richmond Centre 174 - 206 Main Road Plumstead Cape Town 7800 South Africa

7 NOVEMBER 2017

This report should be cited as follows: CES. November 2017, Social Impact Assessment for the Proposed Houmoed Phase 2 Road Extension and Formalising of Housing in Masiphumelele, Cape Town. EOH Coastal and Environmental Services, Cape Town.

COPYRIGHT INFORMATION This document contains intellectual property and proprietary information that is protected by copyright in favour of EOH Coastal and Environmental Services. The document is subject to all confidentiality, copyright and trade secrets, rules intellectual property law and practices of South Africa.

EOH Coastal and Environmental Services i

EOH Coastal and Environmental Services

Report Title: Social Impact Assessment for the Proposed Houmoed Phase 2 Road Extension and Formalising of Housing in Masiphumelele, Cape Town. EOH Coastal and Environmental Services, Cape Town. Report Version: Draft

Name Responsibility Signature Date

Maura Talbot Author 6.11.2017

Marc Hardy Author 6.11.2017

EOH Coastal and Environmental Services ii Social Impact Assessment

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 1 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1. Background ...... 1 1.2. Project Description ...... 1 1.3. Project Need and Desirability ...... 1 1.4. Objective of this Social Impact Assessment (SIA)...... 2 1.5. SIA Terms of Reference ...... 3 1.6. The Study Team ...... 4 1.7. Report Structure ...... 5 2. METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH ...... 1 2.1. Introduction ...... 1 2.1.1. The SIA Study Area ...... 1 2.1.2. Ethical Considerations ...... 1 2.2. Data Gathering and Analysis ...... 1 2.2.1. Desktop review ...... 1 2.2.2. Key Informant Interviews (KII) and Focus Group Meetings (FGM) ...... 1 2.3. Impact Significance Rating Methodology ...... 2 2.4. Assumptions and Limitations ...... 2 3. THE PROJECT CONTEXT ...... 4 3.1. Overview ...... 4 3.2. Current land use of the proposed development area and surrounding areas ...... 4 3.3. Masiphumelele ...... 4 3.3.1. Desktop review ...... 4 3.3.2. 2006/9 WIS Household Survey Results ...... 7 3.3.3. 2017 WIS Household Survey Results ...... 9 3.3.4. Comparison of 2006/9 and 2017 Household Surveys ...... 11 3.3.5. Social and Health Conditions ...... 12 3.4. Resettlement and Temporary Relocation ...... 13 3.4.1. Legal Framework relevant to Resettlement ...... 13 3.4.2. Temporary Accommodation ...... 13 3.4.3. Permanent Accommodation ...... 14 3.4.4. Housing Subsidy qualification requirements ...... 15 3.4.5. Non-Qualifiers ...... 16 3.4.6. Institutional Framework ...... 16 3.4.7. Housing Tenure or Security ...... 16 3.4.8. Resettlement Issues and Implications ...... 17 3.5. Identifying Interested and Affected Parties ...... 18 4. SOCIAL ISSUES, RISKS AND IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED PROJECT ...... 21 4.1. Status Quo Issues, Risks and Impacts ...... 21 4.1.1. Communication between I&APs and key stakeholders ...... 21 4.1.2. Health ...... 22 4.1.3. Fire risks ...... 22 4.1.4. Inability to provide bulk services and formal housing ...... 22 4.1.5. Lack of Land or Housing Tenure ...... 23 4.2. Relocation and Resettlement Issues ...... 23 4.2.1. Current lack of a comprehensive resettlement plan ...... 23 4.2.2. Increased distance and travel time to places of work ...... 23 4.2.3. Loss of income and increased living expenses ...... 23 4.2.4. Disruption of schooling ...... 24 4.2.5. Disruption of family or social networks ...... 24 5. IMPACT ASSESSMENT ...... 25 5.1. Social Impacts anticipated to arise from the proposed development ...... 25 5.2. No-Go Impact Assessment ...... 25

EOH Coastal and Environmental Services iii Social Impact Assessment

5.3. Design and Construction Phase ...... 28 5.4. Operational Phase ...... 32 5.5. Decommissioning Phase ...... 35 6. IMPACT MITIGATION AND ENHANCEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 37 6.1. General Recommendations ...... 37 6.2. The Policy and Regulatory Environment ...... 38 6.3. Displacement of Existing Impacts and Issues ...... 38 7. CONCLUSION ...... 40 ANNEXURE A: IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE RATING METHODOLOGY ...... 41 ANNEXURE B: SPECIALIST DECLARATIONS AND SCOPE OF WORK ...... 43

LIST OF ACRONYMS

BAR Basic Assessment Report BNG Breaking New Ground CES Coastal and Environmental Services CoCT City of Cape Town CRU Community Residential Unit DEADP Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning FGM Focus Group Meetings KII Key Informant Interviews HH Households I&APs Interested and Affected Parties BNG Reconstruction and Development Programme SIA Social Impact Assessment TRA Temporary Resettlement Area WIS Wetland Informal Settlement

EOH Coastal and Environmental Services iv Social Impact Assessment

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1: Project Locality Map depicting the Wetland Informal Settlement (WIS) and its different zones ...... 1 Figure 1.2: Proposed Houmoed Road extension (red hatching) and the deviation alternative (blue hatching). The WIS north of the formal housing boundary (green line) will be formalised...... 2 Figure 1.3: Proposed Houmoed Road Phase 2 and conceptual upgrade of the WIS in Masiphumelele ...... 1 Figure 3.1: Backyard informal dwellings developed behind the BNG houses and along the boundary of the plots with the road. Some of these informal dwellings are also double story informal dwellings...... 5 Figure 3.2: Narrow ally-ways between the backyard informal dwellings on a privately owned plot in Masiphumelele...... 5 Figure 3.3: Shacks located in the Wildevoelvlei wetland...... 6 Figure 3.4: Business shack developed on street portion of older BNG plot, with the original BNG house in the background...... 6 Figure 3.5: Newly constructed double story rental accommodation on an original BNG plot...... 6 Figure 3.6: Photographs of some of the blocks of flats, community hall and park developed as part of the Amakhaya Ngoku Social Housing Development in Masiphumelele. Each block provides an average of 30 rent-to-own units...... 7 Figure 3.7: Aerial photograph of a recently developed Temporary ...... 14 Figure 3.8: Communal toilet shared in one of the privately owned older sites within Masiphumelele were the owner shares the property with 6 or more tenant households in 3x3m informal dwellings...... 18 Figure 3.9: Corridor area between shack dwellings in one of the privately owned sites in Masiphumelele...... 18

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1: Key Informant Interviews conducted for the SIA ...... 2 Table 2.2: Focus Group Meetings conducted for the SIA ...... 2 Table 3.1: 2006 and 2009 Wetland Informal Settlement Household survey data results ...... 9 Table 3.2: Summary of the information provided on SA identify document holders in the 2006/9 survey ...... 9 Table 3.3: Comparison of the total number of dwellings that were numbered and the total number of households surveyed in each section of the Wetland Informal Settlement by the CoCT (2017). 10 Table 3.4: Average household size (2017) ...... 10 Table 3.5: Length of time surveyed Households have been resident in Masiphumelele (2017) ..... 11 Table 3.6: Area of origin of surveyed Households (2017) ...... 11 Table 3.7: Comparison of 2006/9 and 2017 Household Surveys ...... 11 Table 3.8: Summary of the Number of flush and portable toilets provided per section of the WIS, and the average number of households sharing these toilets (2006/9) ...... 12 Table 3.9: Estimated number of household accommodation units that could be provided within the redeveloped WIS site, and the % of WIS residents n 2006/9 that could have been accommodated in the same area...... 15 Table 3.10: Land tenure status for respective housing type beneficiaries ...... 16 Table 3.11: I&APs identified in the SIA reporting process ...... 19

EOH Coastal and Environmental Services v Social Impact Assessment EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

This Social Impact Assessment (SIA) Report forms part of the Basic Assessment Report (BAR) process legislatively required for environmental authorisation of the proposed Phase 2 of the Houmoed Avenue Development which includes the formalising of housing for the informal settlement adjacent to the Masiphumelele residential area in the Noordhoek Valley in Cape Town. This informal settlement is hereafter referred to as the Wetlands Informal Settlement (WIS) in this report.

The total length of the proposed road extension is 940m and would run inside the southern fringes of the adjacent wetland (part of the greater Noordhoek, or Wildevoelvlei, wetland system) and would ultimately form the boundary between the wetland and the proposed formalised housing settlement. It is understood that the implementation of the project will take place in a phased manner owing to the wet conditions associated with the wetland. Given the low-lying nature of the WIS significant bulk earthworks are proposed to elevate the site above the 100-year flood line (approximately 5m above sea level) and to shape the site such that storm-water runoff can be attenuated and treated and the new houses and services can be constructed on top of this base. A retaining wall (inside the road reserve) is proposed along the wetland edge to contain fill material and support the road. This wall, which would be approximately 2m high would form a physical barrier between the wetland and residential area. It is hoped that the wall would preclude the possibility of further illegal invasion of the wetland.

The proposed housing re-development is designated for the area between the road and the existing formal housing on the northern border of Masiphumelele. The intention is to maximise the housing opportunities in this area. At this stage, it is estimated that at most 1500 units could be housed in this area thereby necessitating the eventual and permanent resettlement of an estimated 1000 additional households who are currently living in the WIS area. The number of housing opportunities within the proposed development site is dependent on the housing typology that would ultimately be decided upon in the project’s detailed design phase.

In principle however, the City of Cape Town (CoCT) is committed to ensuring that those requiring housing in the Masiphumelele area will be accommodated on-site or within close proximity to the site. The resettlement planning estimates that 75% of the affected households can be accommodated within a 1km radius of the site whilst the remaining 25% can be accommodated within about 2-5km of Masiphumelele. Should there however be households that are willing to relocate outside of the area, this would also be considered. It is not expected that the shaping of the site will affect the formalised properties along the southern boundary. The edge treatment between the proposed road and formalised housing will be determined during the final design as this is largely dependent on the housing typology.

Three different types of housing provision are currently being investigated by the CoCT, namely (1) single residential units (BNG), (2) three story residential units (CRUs), and (3) a mix of both of these. To date there has been no extensive engagement between the CoCT and the residents of the WIS, or Masiphumelele in general, around the proposed development and any resettlement process. The different housing options will need to be considered and decided on by all the parties in the planning and design phase if the proposed development is authorised.

The proposed development is considered necessary and desirable in order to:

 To improve traffic flow and alleviate congestion in the area.  Facilitate more rapid response of emergency and municipal services for local residents.  Easier access to public transport services for residents of Masiphumelele.  Providing an additional assess route into Masiphumelele and accommodate the traffic associated with the settlement.

EOH Coastal and Environmental Services 1 Social Impact Assessment  To reduce flooding in parts of Masiphumelele.  To provide formal houses and services in the area.  To create a physical barrier between the settlement and wetland and facilitate the protection of the wetland.  Improve Municipal access and service provision in Masiphumelele.  Improving public safety.

The objective of the SIA is to identify and assess the potential beneficial and detrimental social impacts of the proposed Phase 2 extension of Houmoed Avenue and the housing development in the Masiphumelele settlement of Cape Town. This assessment investigated the impacts in consultation and engagement with the affected parties and key informants/stakeholders. The significance of the impacts are rated, with and without mitigation, and recommendations have been made on practical measures that could be implemented to avoid and minimise the detrimental impacts and enhance the benefits.

While undertaking this assessment the authors found that the client, the CoCT, was not in a position to provide a detailed plan of how they would deal with the resettlement process that would be associated with the proposed project, and still needed to engage in a protracted planning, design and engagement process in order to develop acceptable plans. As a consequence of this situation, the SIA was not able to evaluate an existing proposed resettlement plan, and focused rather on gathering information on the land and housing options that were being considered and were available to the CoCT via the National Housing subsidy programmes, and evaluating those in relation to the local context and needs.

The authors of this SIA reviewed (1) the 2011 Census data for Masiphumelele, (2) the CoCT 2006 households survey of households living in the WIS - sections A-E, (3) The CoCT 2009 households survey of households living in the Zululand settlement on the eastern end of the WIS and (4) the recently completed 2017 household survey of the WIS area, which became available on the 22 September 2017.

Table 1 provides a list of the Key Informant Interviews (KII) undertaken as part of the SIA investigation. Two Focus Group Meetings (FGM) were held with local leaders representing the various sections of the WIS and a variety of local organisations in Masiphumelele (Table 2). Table 1: Key Informant Interviews conducted for the SIA Date Person Interviewed Their relevance to the proposed development 30/08/2017 Levona Powell and Reginald O’Brien CoCT - Household Survey Unit Local DA Ward Councillor and MercyNetwork (NPO) 06/09/2017 Ms Felicity Purchase and Marti Weddepohl providing Disaster Relief in Masiphumelele 11/09/2017 Suzan Groenewald CoCT: Informal Settlements Unit 12/09/2017 Mr Mfundiso Ngetu Masiphumelele Backyarders Association 13/09/2017 Nigel Titus CoCT: Settlement Planning 14/09/2017 Bernadus Wentzel and Madge George CoCT: Phase 4 Housing Project Manager and Facilitator 21/09/2017 Nicollette Kock CoCT: Housing Information Unit Director: Project and Subsidy Administration, Provincial 21/09/2017 Brian Denton Government of the Western Cape Resident and Representative - Amakhaya Ngoku (Social 22/09/2017 Mzuvukile Mfongo Housing Development in Masiphumelele) 28/09/2017 Heinrich Lotze CoCT. Head: Housing Development Coordinator Table 2: Focus Group Meetings conducted for the SIA Date Persons Interviewed Their relevance to the proposed development Leaders of the sections of Wetlands 12/09/2017 Directly affected households in the WIS. Informal Settlement Directly and indirectly affected households in 13/09/2017 Leaders of local organisations Masiphumelele

EOH Coastal and Environmental Services 2 Social Impact Assessment FINDINGS

The 2011 Census estimated the total population of Masiphumelele (including the WIS) to be 21,904 persons and was made up of 7,413 households, with an average household size of 2,95 persons (which is below the national average). Key characteristics of the population in 2011 were:

 The population of the settlement is predominantly Black African (91%).  1,5% of population is Coloured, 0.1% Asian, 0.1% White and 6,9% Other.  52,6 % of the population is male with the greatest gender difference being in the age group 25-29 years.  48% of the population is under the age of 24, and 13% (2852) are of primary and junior secondary age.  35% of those aged 20 years and older have completed Grade 12 or higher.  69% of the labour force (aged 15-64) is employed.  82% of households have a monthly income of R3,200 or less.  17% of households fall into the R3,201-R12,800 monthly income category, and could potentially be eligible for Social or Gap housing subsidies as long as they are South African citizens or permanent residents and meet all the other criteria.  27% of households live in formal dwellings.  42,5% of households are living in informal dwellings in backyards.  30,4% live in informal dwellings not in a backyard.  A total of 63% of the Masiphumelele community live in informal dwellings.  73% of households have access to piped water in their dwelling or inside their yard.  91% of households have access to a flush toilet connected to a public sewer system (note that this provides no indication of how many people are sharing these toilets).  95% of households use electricity for lighting in their dwellings.  12% of residents own and have paid off their dwellings.  1,5% own but have not yet paid off their dwellings.  60,3% of the population dwell in rented accommodation and 25% occupy their dwellings rent free.

Masiphumelele is a very densely settled area. Most of the available space in the previously developed Reconstruction and Development Programme (BNG) and Breaking New Ground (BNG) sites and houses (1300 of them) have been used to construct and rent out backyard informal dwellings. Many of these informal dwellings are essentially one room structures of 2,5x3m. On some plots as many as 6-8 small informal dwellings have been constructed, leaving only small narrow alleyways between the original dwelling, the informal dwellings and the property boundaries. In 2015 the CoCT estimated that there were 4419 backyard informal dwellings in Masiphumelele. That is an average of 3,4 informal dwellings per property.

It is clear therefore that access to government subsidised land and housing has been used by the beneficiaries to generate a rental income for themselves. Many of the tenants, especially those with sites on the street front, are also operating small retail or other businesses. This rental practice has effectively enabled the growth of the local population. In addition, it is alleged that many of the people who are living in the WIS, were originally backyard tenants who were evicted or chose to leave because of the re-development of the privately-owned properties. Often this re- development involves the construction of double story dwellings to rent out, but it also sometimes involves the development of a bigger dwelling for the owner.

The 2006 and 2009 surveys counted a total of 1238 households in the WIS at that time. Information on their duration of stay indicates that potentially 800 of the surveyed households (31%) could have been living there for more than 11 years (up to 30 years). The 2017 survey collected data from a total of 1948 households, while the total number of household structures numbered by CoCT officials (as provided to EOH-CES) was 2439. This indicates that 80% of the

EOH Coastal and Environmental Services 1 Social Impact Assessment households were surveyed in 2017. The average household size was just over two people per structure, but the range of household sizes varied from 1 to 8. The WIS current estimated total population could therefore be in the region of 5122 people (2.1 persons x 2439 structures). 33,5% (or 813) of respondent households indicated that they had members that had some form employment. The number of surveyed households receiving social grants of some kind was 684 (17%). 605 (15%) households indicated that they were on the housing waiting list.

Additional data on the length of time people had been living in the wetland area indicates that 40% of the surveyed households claimed they had been living there for 11-20 years and another 31% for 6-10 years. Only 3% of households indicated that they had been living there for less than one year. Data on the areas where people originated from indicate that almost all of the households (97,6%) were from the Eastern Cape, with another 1,5% from other provinces and 2,1% from other African Countries. These figures on the number of foreigners (41 household respondents or 2,1%) are very low and do not correspond with anecdotal data from a number of local residents and key informants that the proportion of foreigners living in the wetland area and Masiphumelele is around 50% or more. One possibility that could explain this discrepancy is that most of the dwellings may have been constructed and ‘owned’ by South Africans but rented out to foreigners, and that during the household survey, the owners ensured that their details were captured in the survey and not their tenants. Such behaviour is understandable if they expected that occupancy would secure access to alternative accommodation or housing subsidies for them. The 2017 survey data on occupants of the households and their nationality is therefore not considered a reliable indicator of the existing situation.

The number of structures and people living in the WIS has essentially doubled in the 11 years since the 2006/9 surveys were undertaken. It is not possible to compare information about the length of stay, or area of origin, or number of children and adults and employment, due to the limited data collected in 2006/9 and inconsistencies in the capturing of the data.

Living conditions in the WIS adjacent to Masiphumelele are very poor. While there are some taps and toilets, residents have indicated that these are completely insufficient to meet the needs of the residents. For example, in Zululand and A sections, there are three communal taps, while in section B and E there are two each, and sections D and C apparently share one tap, which is located over the centre of the polluted channel that flows through the settlement into the wetland. According to the CoCT there are a total of 140 flush toilets provided in six different locations spread throughout the WIS. This amounts to an average of almost 9 households (or 19 people) having to share each public toilet, but there is considerable variation between the different sections. Local residents informed us that many of the public toilets are often blocked and are not kept acceptably clean. This is not surprising given the high numbers of people having to use these toilets and the difficulties of managing the use of such communal resources, especially if all the toilet users do not take responsibility for this.

There are also 5-6 polluted channels between the blocks within the wetland area that are so heavily congested with sewerage and solid waste that the CoCT city has had to institute a programme to clear these channels every week. Due to complaints and legal proceedings against the CoCT, the city has been legally compelled to institute this regular clearing project. The CoCT is also busy with some projects to provide additional toilets. However, this may not alleviate the pollution of the channels as many households make use of the bucket toilet system during the night and dispose of the waste in the wetland or channels in the morning. This system is probably safer for women and children than using distant public toilets at night.

The health situation in the WIS is also exacerbated by the fact that, many of the dwellings in the wetland area have actually been built on stilts above the polluted water. These conditions create a significant health and safety risk to the residents and are also polluting and degrading the wetland. Diarrheal diseases are a significant and constant problem amongst the residents, particularly for children. The other major health risk for the residents of the WIS, and the Masiphumelele backyarders, is fire. There have been a number of fires that have occurred in parts of the WIS over the last few years. The dense nature of the dwellings, the lack of road access to these areas

EOH Coastal and Environmental Services 2 Social Impact Assessment and limited water resources make it very difficult to stop the fires once they start. As a consequence, the fires are usually very large and result in the displacement of many households. In 2015 a fire destroyed 800 dwellings and people reconstructed their dwellings on site. In October 2016 another 176 dwellings were burnt and people were relocated to a TRA area adjacent to the Phase 4 development currently under construction.

Legal Situation with respect to Resettlement

The South African regulatory framework relevant to the resettlement of the Masiphumelele WIS residents includes the following legislation:

 The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 108 of 1996  The Extension of Security of Tenure Act 6 of 1997  Land Reform Act 30 of 1996  Interim Protection of Informal Land Rights Act 31 of 1996  Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 19 of 1998 (PIE)  Restitution of Land Rights Act 22 of 1994  The Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 2 of 2003

This legislation essentially allows for, and regulates the legal process requirements for resettling those people living in the WIS. In order to proceed with such a re-development process, the fundamental responsibility of the CoCT is to provide alternative accommodation to the affected households and to involve them in the decision-making processes for such a project. In addition, there are administrative and financial processes that the CoCT and the National Department of Housing need to follow in order to make financial resources available for the road and housing project. It is anticipated that the residents would need to be moved initially to a TRA and from there, either moved to new accommodation developed in the redeveloped WIS area or to other sites in and around Masiphumelele.

The city is currently in the process of identifying and assessing the suitability of various additional land parcels within 1-5 km of Masiphumelele that could be developed for housing and investigating the legal requirements related to the various land options. Financial constraints are further limiting the city’s search to state owned land.

How many households can be accommodated on the redeveloped wetland area depends ultimately on the kind of accommodation developed on that site and the funding available for this housing development. If the whole area is developed as single housing units under the BNG housing subsidy programme, like has been done in the Phase 4 Housing project, only 528 plots/houses (22% of the affected households) could be provided with this kind of accommodation. If the whole area is used to provide Community Residential Units (3 story walk-up blocks of flats) for rental, then a maximum of 1583 accommodation units (for 65% of affected households) could be provided. Consequently, additional land and housing strategies will be needed to accommodate all of the affected wetlands households.

It should also be noted, that there is also considerable demand for houses among people who are living in backyard informal dwellings in Masiphumelele, and that the housing needs for the wetland residents cannot be resolved in isolation from the bigger housing need in the greater Masiphumelele area. These issues will be negotiated and resolved by the CoCT in consultation with all the relevant stakeholders and affected parties, if the proposed wetlands housing re- development is authorised. This will involve some difficult decisions about land, sites, the use of funding and types of housing, backyard informal dwellings and some creative thinking about how the deal with the broader housing shortage for the whole Masiphumelele community.

Temporary Accommodation

Ideally the CoCT would like to design and construct the TRA in such a way that it can eventually be upgraded and converted into a permanent settlement area, once most of the original temporary

EOH Coastal and Environmental Services 3 Social Impact Assessment residents have been moved to other permanent accommodation that is still to be developed. However, this has not been the way that most of the TRA developments around Cape Town have been developed, usually because they have been rapidly constructed in response to various crises such as fires. The city usually makes a piece of land available and will provide R6,000 worth of building materials for each affected household to construct a 3x3m temporary dwelling from wood and zinc sheets. In addition, shared toilets and water taps and planned access roads and pathways between the structures would be provided. To limit the potential fire hazards the thinking with regard to the Temporary Residential Area (TRA) is to construct the new 3x3m temporary dwellings at 1m intervals, as has recently been done in the Hout Bay area. If such a scheme was applied in the development of a new TRA area for the affected WIS households, the city would need 7 ha of land to provide enough land for the 2439 affected households.

In cases where the TRA cannot easily be converted into permanent owned serviced plots, there is concern that TRA areas could become permanent with no private ownership, poor service provision and no local management of shared water and ablution facilities. The CoCT does not at this stage have specific plans about how an up-gradable TRA area could or should be developed. This would be one of the issues that would need to be worked out in consultation with all the relevant stakeholders and affected households during the design and implementation phase after they have received all the necessary authorisations with their conditions.

Permanent Accommodation Options

National Housing subsidy policies will determine who will qualify for a housing subsidy. This will influence who will benefit in what way, from the proposed housing development. To qualify for a BNG single residential housing subsidy an applicant has to meet the following criteria:

 Applicants must be South Africans;  Who have been on the government housing waiting list for at least 10 years;  Are preferably over 40 years of age or have special needs;  Are earning incomes less than R3,500 per month;  Have dependants; and  Have not previously been allocated a government subsidised house/grant or owned fixed property.

To qualify to rent CRUs (three story blocks of flats) applicants have to meet very similar criteria. They must be South Africans and must have been on the housing waiting list for quite some length of time, and have a total household income of less than R3,500 per month.

The city can only assist affected South African households with higher income levels through Social Housing (renting for households with an income between R1,500 and R7,500 pm) and Gap Housing Projects developed with commercial partners (ownership for households with an income over R10,000 pm). The Amakhyaya Ngoku housing development in Masiphumelele is an example of a social housing development. This development has experienced considerable financial management and cooperation problems with beneficiaries that are undermining the full development of the project and its long-term sustainability. Gap housing developments are similar and also require the partnership of commercial development partners and the ability of beneficiaries to secure loans from banks to purchase the flats. There are no existing GAP housing schemes under development in this area and no developers who are known to have come forward with proposals for such developments in this area.

One of the most difficult issues to deal with are the affected households who would not qualify for housing subsidies. The city is not in a financial (or legal) position to provide alternative permanent accommodation for these people. Non-qualifiers would include people who are foreigners, or South Africans who have previously received housing subsidies or own property elsewhere, or who have total household incomes higher than R3,500 per month. The only housing provision the city can make for these people are the sites in the TRA and the R6,000 worth of building materials and the shared services. At this stage it is not clear how many affected households fit into this category.

EOH Coastal and Environmental Services 4 Social Impact Assessment This issue is one of the factors that could contribute to the risk of the TRA becoming a permanent informal residential area, especially in cases where the residents can’t afford to pay rents as backyard shack dwellers or in other formal accommodation.

Table 3 below provides a list of all the Interested and Affected Parties (I&AP) associated with the proposed development. The report provides a description of how each of these groups could be affected. Table 3: Identified Interested and Affected Parties I&AP Direct Residents of the WIS who are South Africans who have already been allocated housing in the Phase 4 Housing Development currently under construction. Residents of the WIS who are South Africans and qualify for formal BNG housing but have not yet been allocated housing. Residents of the WIS who are South Africans who do not qualify for BNG or CRU housing. Masiphumelele Backyarders who are South Africans and have been on the housing waiting list for at least 10 years and are preferably over 40 years of age or have special needs, are earning incomes less than R3,500 per month, have dependants and have not previously been allocated an BNG house/grant or owned fixed property. Foreigners who are living in the WIS (and do not qualify for housing). Backyarders who can no longer afford the rentals and need to find cheaper alternative accommodation. Indirect Masiphumelele Residential Property owners and landlords. Backyard tenants Masiphumelele residents living immediately adjacent to the WIS. Residents and businesses located adjacent to Houmoed Road Phase 1 section Foreigners who have purchased BNG houses in Masiphumelele. Wealthy private property owners on the northern shore of the wetland (Lake Michelle). SANPARKS. Democratic Alliance. African National Congress.

Status Quo Issues, Risks and Impacts

These are the impacts associated with the current WIS. Besides the above mentioned health and sanitation and service delivery challenges, there are the following specific impacts of the current situation:

 Rapid growth of the community due to the renting out of informal dwellings in backyards and in the WIS by local residents and property owners.  Any new housing development on new land will serve to enable the continued growth of the community.  The removal of these informal settlements and informal dwellings will result in economic losses for the affected WIS households – both alleged ‘owners” renting to tenants in the WIS and those living in WIS rent free.  High fire risks associated with the dense nature of the settlement and limited access  High Health risks associated with pollution, insufficient sanitation and water services and the construction of dwellings in the wetland area.  Inability to provide bulk services and formal housing to local residents.  Lack of land or housing tenure security for local residents.  Poor communication and collaboration between Interested and Affected Parties (I&APs) and key stakeholders.

Resettlement and Relocation Issues and Impacts

 Lack of a comprehensive resettlement and relocation plan.  Increased distance and travel time to places of work.  Loss of income and increased living expenses.  Disruption to schooling and family and social networks.  The growth of other informal settlements (or displacement of informal settlements).

EOH Coastal and Environmental Services 5 Social Impact Assessment  Risk of Temporary Resettlement Areas (TRA) becoming permanent informal settlements.  Except for the provision of alternative temporary shelters in a TRA, the CoCT and Government do not have any existing policies and mechanisms they can use to provide housing for the foreigners and other non-qualifiers. Foreigners are alleged to make up 50% of the local residents. They will continue to depend on rental accommodation and informal settlements.

Conflicted relationships between the residents and the city officials

As a result of previous consultations and experiences between the CoCT and local residents around housing and community development projects in Masiphumelele, as well as the poverty and competition for access to government resources, party-political divisions and competition, the rapid growth of the population and the difficulties of meeting the mounting need for services, there is considerable tension and a lack of trust between all the local stakeholders and the CoCT. This context presents a significant risk to the potential for the proposed development and resettlement planning and implementation processes to become another contested space, and by extension more difficult to execute effectively and efficiently.

Effective communication and collaboration between all the parties will require the development of an open, cooperative and trusting relationship between all the stakeholders. Assistance from independent facilitators who can help everyone to communicate more effectively and compassionately is recommended as a means to help facilitate more effective dialogue and greater cooperation between all these key stakeholders.

Assessment of Impacts

The summary impact significance rating table format prescribed by the DEADP BAR (2010) format is provided in Table 4 below. The impacts are assessed for the No-Go Option, and the Design and Construction, Operational and Decommissioning Phases for the proposed development project. With regard to the latter it is only the decommissioning of the TRA that are assessed. As both the proposed road extension and housing formalisation projects are affecting the same residents and households, the different project components are not distinguished from each other in the impact significance ratings below. Table 4: Impact Assessment Proposed Development No-Go Alternative Impact Significance Impact Before After mitigation Before mitigation After mitigation: mitigation

PLANNING AND CONSTRUCTION PHASE IMPACTS Loss of life and damage to property High + Very High + Very High - High + from fires Ill health and high associated costs due to poor living conditions and High + Very High + High - High + service provision Inability to provide bulk services and N/A N/A High - High + formal housing Land and Housing tenure insecurity – High + Very High + High - High + Qualifying Households Land and Housing tenure insecurity – Neutral/Low + Neutral/Low + High - Low + Non-Qualifying Households Social disruption due to Resettlement Very High - Medium/Low - N/A N/A and temporary relocation Communication between IAPs and Very High - Medium/High + Very High - N/A key stakeholders Continued growth of the High - High + N/A N/A Masiphumelele Settlement

EOH Coastal and Environmental Services 6 Social Impact Assessment

Proposed Development No-Go Alternative Impact Significance Impact Before After mitigation Before mitigation After mitigation: mitigation

OPERATIONAL PHASE IMPACTS Loss of life and damage to property High + Very High + Very High - High + from fires – for formal Housing areas Loss of life and damage to property High - High + Very High - High + from fires – for TRA if poorly planned Ill health and high associated costs due to poor living conditions and High + High + High - High + service provision – for formal housing areas Ill health and high associated costs due to poor living conditions and High - High + Very High - High + service provision – for TRA if poorly planned Social disruption due to Resettlement High - Medium - N/A N/A and temporary relocation Household cost saving and income High – High + High - High - derived from dwellings in WIS (no mitigation) (but illegal)

Proposed Development No-Go Alternative Impact Significance Impact Before After mitigation Before mitigation After mitigation: mitigation

DECOMMISSIONING PHASE IMPACTS Temporary Resettlement Areas becoming permanent informal Very High - High + N/A N/A settlements The growth of informal settlements High - Low + N/A N/A elsewhere (displacement)

Mitigation and Enhancement Recommendations

General Recommendations

 Address the issue of the disposal of waste from the bucket toilet system and waste disposal into the drainage channels of the WIS in consultation with the local residents as soon as possible.  Effective consultation and institutional development processes are urgently needed to develop the capacity of the community to take more responsibility for the management of the population growth and the upgrading of the community.  A substantial amount of time and resources need to be made available by the City to develop an appropriate best-practice resettlement action plan for the WIS community through negotiation between all the relevant parties.  The resettlement plan must explore the potential to subdivide, sell and upgrade existing private properties in Masiphumelele that are currently being used for backyard informal dwellings and if possible implement this. This is essential in order to improve living conditions for the local residents and control the growth of the community.  The TRA needs to be planned and developed in a manner that will enable future upgrading and ownership so that it does not become a permanent informal settlement. In particular, it is recommended that the following option be considered: namely demarcating and allocating privately owned serviced sites, with agreements for temporary accommodation of other residents of the WIS, and eventual development of houses in this area post the TRA phase.  The construction of CRUs for rental should be avoided as these are not preferred by residents and far more expensive than BNG housing to construct and create a long-term financial burden on the CoCT to maintain the buildings and services.  The practice of renting out backyard informal dwellings on new housing plots should be

EOH Coastal and Environmental Services 1 Social Impact Assessment accepted and factored into the housing provision plans – to accommodate the needs of non-qualifiers (of housing subsidies) for rental accommodation.  Physical relocation of those households who are settled up to 5 km from Masiphumelele should be done during the school holidays.

Policy and Regulatory Environment

 Collective management of CRUs and other forms of social housing rented out to tenants should be avoided in preference for the development of privately owned accommodation that also provides rental accommodation (even if this is initially backyard informal dwellings).  This new private rental accommodation that is allowed must be properly planned with the owners to minimize the health and safety risks.  Government to consider allowing housing subsidies to be used to purchase portions of privately owned land in existing urban settlements like Masiphumelele and develop new houses with services on the new smaller properties.  Encourage and assist private land owners who subdivide their plots to use the money to develop additional formal rental accommodation on their properties.  Consider using Masiphumelele as a pilot project to design and implement these new policies.

Displacement of Existing Impacts and Issues

The upgrading of the WIS area may well stimulate the creation or expansion of other informal settlements in the area, especially around the proposed TRA. This is almost inevitable if inadequate provision is made for the non-qualifiers and if the TRA is not developed in ways which will facilitate eventual upgrading. In such a case, the upgrading project will not be eliminating informal settlements, but simply displacing them to other areas.

If a TRA area is established on another piece of land adjacent to the wetland without enabling the private shared use of services on individual plots and eventual upgrading into a formal settlement, then, the current pollution impacts on the wetland and uncontrolled expansion of the settlement is likely to continue. This would be counterproductive and should be avoided at all costs.

Preventing the continued growth of informal settlements in the area will require the Masiphumelele community’s participation in and ownership of these encroachment management efforts. Continued dependence on the city to provide and manage sanitation and other basic services, should be avoided in preference to self-management (by owners and tenants) on private residential properties.

All of this depends on effective engagement and collaboration between all these key stakeholders - government, civil society and residential organisations.

In conclusion, it is apparent to the authors of this report that the proposed project should proceed as its potential social benefits will outweigh any potential negative impacts that may arise there from. However, it is crucial that the resettlement process to be undertaken by the CoCT is in accordance with best practice principles and requirements so as to avoid the negative impacts that are associated with poorly executed resettlement projects.

EOH Coastal and Environmental Services 2 Social Impact Assessment

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background

This Social Impact Assessment (SIA) Report forms part of the Basic Assessment Report (BAR) process legislatively required for the proposed Phase 2 of the Houmoed Road development, which includes the formalising of housing proposed for the informal settlement adjacent to the Masiphumelele residential area in the Noordhoek Valley in Cape Town. It should be noted that this planned road extension and upgrading of the informal settlement investigates the Phase 2 extension of Houmoed Road application by the City of Cape Town (CoCT). An application for authorisation for the Phase 1 extension from Noordhoek Main Road to Lekkerwater Road is also currently underway and is the subject of a separate environmental reporting and environmental authorisation application process. As the motivation and viability for Phase 1 is sufficiently detached from Phase 2, the environmental authorities agreed that two separate applications may be submitted in this regard.

1.2. Project Description

It is the intention of CoCT’s Transport and Urban Development Authority to extend the existing portion of Houmoed Avenue from Fish Eagle Park in the west up to Lekkerwater Road. This is referred to as Phase 2 of the Houmoed road development. This second phase of the project will also entail the upgrading of the informal settlement currently located in the Wildevoelvlei wetland to the north of the formal housing in Masiphumelele. This is hereafter referred to as the Wetlands Informal Settlement (WIS) in this report (Figure 1.1).

The total length of the proposed road extension is 940m and extends over 7 properties. It would run inside the southern fringes of the adjacent wetland (part of the greater Noordhoek wetland system) and would ultimately form the boundary between the wetland and the proposed formalised housing settlement. It is proposed that the 20m wide road would comprise: 1) a 3.4m wide lane in both directions, 2) a 1.5m wide cycle lane in both directions, and 3) a 2.0m sidewalk on both sides. Both the road and sidewalks would be asphalt surfaced. Concrete kerbs and channels will be installed along the road edges. Municipal services and street lighting will be placed in the road reserve in accordance with CoCT standards. It is understood that the implementation of the project will take place in a phased manner owing to the wet conditions associated with the wetland.

Given the low-lying nature of Masiphumelele, significant bulk earthworks are proposed to elevate the site above the 100-year flood line (approximately 5m above sea level) and to shape the site such that stormwater runoff can be attenuated and treated. A retaining wall (inside the road reserve) is proposed along the wetland edge to contain fill material and support the road. This wall, which would be approximately 2m high would form a physical barrier between the wetland and residential area. It is hoped that the wall would preclude the possibility of further illegal invasion of the wetland.

The proposed housing re-development is designated for the area between the road and the existing formal housing that form part of Masiphumelele (see Figure 1.2). The proposal is to raise the ground level in this area above the wetland water level and the 100 year flood level (estimated to be up to 2 metres), with infilling and then to construct roads, water, sewerage and electricity services and houses. The intention is to maximise the housing opportunities in this area. At this stage, it is anticipated that 1500 units could be housed in this area thereby necessitating the eventual and permanent resettlement of an estimated 1000 households from the WIS area. The number of housing opportunities is dependent on the housing typology that would ultimately be decided upon in the project’s detailed design phase.

EOH Coastal and Environmental Services 1 Social Impact Assessment

Figure 1.1: Project Locality Map depicting the Wetland Informal Settlement (WIS) and its different zones.

EOH Coastal and Environmental Services 1 Social Impact Assessment

Figure 1.2: Proposed Houmoed Road extension (red hatching) and the deviation alternative (blue hatching). The WIS north of the formal housing boundary (green line) will be formalised.

EOH Coastal and Environmental Services 2 Social Impact Assessment

In principle however, the CoCT is committed to ensuring that those requiring housing in the Masiphumelele area will be accommodated on-site or within close proximity to the site. The resettlement planning shows that 75% of the households to be relocated can be accommodated within a 1km radius of the site whilst the remaining 25% can be accommodated within about 2 - 5km of Masiphumelele. Should there however be households that are willing to relocate outside of the area, this would also be considered. It is not expected that the shaping of the site will affect the formalised properties along the southern boundary. The edge treatment between the proposed road and formalised housing will be determined during the final design as this is largely dependent on the housing typology.

A conceptual layout has been provided to the authors of this report as to what the proposed WIS area re-development would entail, this is illustrated in Figure 1.3 below.

Figure 1.3: Proposed Houmoed Road Phase 2 and conceptual upgrade of the WIS in Masiphumelele

The numbering on the image above refers to the different block numbers. There are three potential housing options that are being considered for this area by the CoCT planners at this stage. These include 1) Single residential units, 2) three story residential blocks of flats, and 3) a mix of both of these. It is apparent to the authors that no extensive engagement between the CoCT and the residents of the WIS, or Masiphumelele in general, has been undertaken with regard to the redevelopment of the wetland area by them as yet. As such the above conceptual development is just preliminary and will be refined in consultation with all the relevant stakeholders as the project proceeds. The CoCT is also currently investigating other additional portions of land in the valley that could be used to accommodate the affected households.

1.3. Project Need and Desirability

The proposed project’s consulting engineers have provided a summary of the need and desirability for the project as follows:

 Provision of redundancy in the road network - currently Kommetjie Road is the only convenient link between Ou Kaapseweg and the residential areas of Capri, Masiphumelele, Imhoff’s Gift, Ocean View and Kommetjie, and the industrial areas of Heron Park, Fish Eagle Park and Lekkerwater Road. Any traffic incident on Kommetjie Main Road has a significant impact on the community served by this link, and affects the local economy and social activities. The Houmoed link would provide an alternative link to Kommetjie Road, to serve trips between the Kommetjie area and Noordhoek, Sun Valley and the rest of the Cape Town metro area. The link would assist with providing rapid response of emergency

EOH Coastal and Environmental Services 1 Social Impact Assessment

and municipal services to the community in general. A new fire station is being implemented at the Kommetjie Road / Wood Road intersection.  Provision of necessary peak period traffic capacity - even once the current capacity upgrading of Ou Kaapseweg (between Noordhoek and Kommetjie Roads) and Kommetjie Road (between Corsair and Capri Roads) is completed, further road capacity is required to accommodate the predicted increase in peak period traffic demand between the Kommetjie area and the Noordhoek/Sun Valley areas, due to the proposed full development of currently vacant land earmarked for development. The capacity provided by the two lane Houmoed Avenue is required to support weekday commuter demands for this full development scenario.  Provision of much improved circulation for non-motorised transport modes - Houmoed Avenue will provide the residents of in particular Masiphumelele, who are highly dependent on walking as their primary mode of affordable local transport, much shorter walking distances and walking times to access the primary shopping destination in the valley, which is the Longbeach Mall / Sun valley Shopping Centre node. Houmoed Avenue will also have bicycle lanes, which will allow much more convenient access between the Kommetjie area and Noordhoek, and between Masiphumelele and the shopping node, Noordhoek, Fish Hoek and Sun Valley.  Provision of much improved circulation for public transport modes - Houmoed Avenue will provide the residents of in particular Masiphumelele, who are highly dependent on public transport as their primary mode of affordable regional transport, much shorter walking distances and walking times to access public transport stops and services. Houmoed Avenue could in future accommodate public transport services, which will allow much more convenient services between the Kommetjie area and Noordhoek, and between Masiphumelele and the shopping node, Noordhoek, Fish Hoek and Sun Valley.  Provision of an additional access route to serve Masiphumelele - currently the residential area of Masiphumelele is served by two access points namely, Pokela Road and recently completed section of Houmoed Avenue, both routes connecting to Kommetjie Road. Based on the planned number of formalised dwelling units planned for Masiphumelele it is necessary to provide an additional access route into this suburb, to adequately accommodate the pedestrian, cyclist, public transport and private transport generated by the suburb.  To reduce flooding in parts of Masiphumelele.  To provide formal houses and services to the people living in the area.  Provision of a physical barrier between the wetland and Masiphumelele - the Houmoed link will provide vehicular access to the northern boundary of the wetland and will allow the CoCT to protect it from any further encroachment and degradation of the its edges.  Provision of accessibility for much needed municipal services - the road link will afford the CoCT Department’s easier access to efficiently serve the local ratepayers in general, with services such as refuse collection, mitigating illegal dumping and prevention of land invasion.  Provision of a publicly accessible edge along the wetland - the link will create a recreation opportunity for the greater public to enjoy views of the wetland and the views across the wetland of Chapmans and Noordhoek Peaks.  Provision of public safety - by activating an unsafe, out-of-sight strip of land, with improved safety and security through greater visibility and eyes on the wetland edges as a result of general public usage, law enforcement patrols, local security company patrols etc.

1.4. Objective of this Social Impact Assessment (SIA)

The objective of the SIA is to identify and assess the potential beneficial and detrimental social impacts of the proposed Phase 2 extension of Houmoed Avenue and the housing development in the Masiphumelele settlement of Cape Town. This assessment investigated the impacts in

EOH Coastal and Environmental Services 2 Social Impact Assessment consultation and engagement with the affected parties and key informants/stakeholders. The significance of the impacts are rated, with and without mitigation, and recommendations have been made on practical measures that could be implemented to avoid and/or minimise the detrimental impacts while enhancing the benefits.

While undertaking this assessment EOH-CES found that the applicant, the CoCT, was not in a position to provide a detailed plan for how they would deal with the resettlement process that would be associated with the proposed project. There were a number of reasons for this, namely:

 They would only be able to embark on the detailed planning of the housing project after Environmental Authorisation was acquired as their actions would need to be informed by the outcome of the Environmental Authorisation process (of which this study is a part) and the management plan and conditions associated with such authorisation.  In order to make appropriate housing plans, they need more accurate and current information on the affected wetland households and on the greater Masiphumelele community. They are currently embarking on a detailed census of the community and the results of the first part of that (for the WIS) are discussed and evaluated in this report. The household census of the whole Masiphumelele community is continuing.  The CoCT is currently in the process of assessing and identifying suitable land for temporary residential areas (TRAs) and housing development projects around Masiphumelele and obtaining Environmental Authorisation for these possibilities. They are therefore not yet in a position to provide clarity on what land could be used. There are also concerns about illegal land invasions occurring if they make this kind of information public before they have obtained authorisation and other approvals. Accordingly, permission has been received from the Western Cape Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (DEADP) not to include an assessment of the temporary relocation and permanent resettlement host sites in the BAR and this SIA report.  After receiving authorisation, the Applicant would need to engage with the affected stakeholders and initiate the process of planning and applying for housing grants in consultation with them.  The CoCT also needs to comply with the local, provincial and national legal and policy requirements in order to access the financial resources needed to undertake the resettlement and the housing and services project. As a consequence of this situation, the SIA was not able to evaluate an existing proposed resettlement plan, and focused rather on gathering information on the land and housing options that were being considered and were available to the CoCT via the National Housing subsidy programmes, and evaluating those in relation to the local context and needs. The SIA concludes by making a number of recommendations with respect to the management of any resettlement and housing development plans.

1.5. SIA Terms of Reference

The scope of work for the social impact assessment is as follows:

 Describe the local social environment, with particular reference to the communities that will be directly affected by the project.  Determine the number of households (and people) that will need to be relocated/ resettled as a result of the project as informed by the CoCT determinations in this regard.  Determine the current land use of the development area and the areas outside of the development boundary that are likely to be affected.  Describe and investigate possible effects on local cultural and social norms.  Investigate possible effects on livelihoods, income levels, education and health facility access other factors relevant to the affected communities.

EOH Coastal and Environmental Services 3 Social Impact Assessment

 Assess the significance of potential environmental and social impacts on the local populace and the surrounds.  Assess the relocation/resettlement implications for directly affected households as well as the impacts on the host or receiving communities.  Consult with stakeholders in such a way as to contribute to the formulation of a set of recommendations to assist with the Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) development, if required, for directly affected households.

1.6. The Study Team

The study team is comprised of the following persons:

Marc Hardy holds an M.Phil (Environmental Management) from Stellenbosch University’s School of Public Management and Planning (South Africa) as well as undergraduate degrees in Sociology and Development Studies. His professional interests include environmental, health and social impact reporting for linear, energy and large infrastructure projects, resettlement planning, strategic environmental reporting, environmental and social due diligence studies and compliance reviews for development financing institutions, environmental auditing and compliance monitoring. Before entering the consulting field, he gained experience in the EIA regulatory field whilst in the employ of the Gauteng Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Environment. In his time with EOH- CES, Marc has been responsible for the planning and management of projects and research/ specialist teams and support staff, as well as being responsible for the management of the EOH- CES Maputo, Mozambique office. He is currently managing the EIA processes for large infrastructure, renewable energy, commercial agriculture and mining developments throughout Africa (mostly to World Bank and IFC Performance Standards).

Maura Talbot is an independent Environmental Consultant and Socio-Economic Specialist with 12 years of professional experience as an EAP with CES in South Africa. She has a Master of Arts Degree in Geography (with Distinction), and two Honours Degrees in Geography and in Economics from Rhodes University, Grahamstown. She has experience undertaking and managing Environmental Impact Assessments and Basic Assessments, Strategic Environmental Assessments, Risk Assessment, State of the Environment Reporting, Resettlement Action Plans, facilitating public participation processes, as well as undertaking Social and Economic Specialist Assessments. She has worked on the assessment of a wide range of developments from roads, highways, mines, biofuel plantations, forestry, golf-courses, tourism, aquaculture, conservation and rehabilitation projects and Nature Reserves. Most of this work has been undertaken in South Africa, but also involved assessments in Mozambique, Malawi, Madagascar, Sierra Leone and Egypt.

Zweli Nkosi is a prospective young Environmental Scientist. He holds a BSc Life and Environmental Sciences (2013) with specialisation in Geography and Environmental Management obtained from the University of Johannesburg. He recently joined the EOH Coastal & Environmental Services (CES) team as part of young graduate development drive. His graduate research project included conducting a socio-economic study on gentrification evident in the Soweto area. Prior to joining the EOH-CES team, Zweli was involved in the environmental process control aspects of a potable and wastewater treatment plant in Caledon (SA) for distribution to the SA Department of Correctional Services, as per deployment by the South African Department of Public Works. Furthermore, he was involved in community engagement projects undertaken whilst he volunteered at Greenpeace Africa. At Greenpeace, he conducted public awareness campaigns and offered environmental education related to the field of renewable energy as part of the South Africans Government’s Renewable Energy Independent Power Producer Procurement Programme (REIPPP). Zweli was also responsible for researching the involvement of local companies in this programme. At EOH-CES, Zweli has been working closely with the Principal and Senior Environmental Consultants, assisting in various projects including the Western Cape State of the Coast Report project as well as the being engaged in the Greywater research project in Monwabisi

EOH Coastal and Environmental Services 4 Social Impact Assessment

Park, Khayelitsha, and Cape Town. Through the projects he has been involved in, Zweli has worked closely with the public during workshops and stakeholder engagement processes.

1.7. Report Structure

This report follows the following structure:

Chapter 1 provided a brief introduction and rationale for the project, and associated Terms of Reference for the SIA. Chapter 2 describes the methodology which was employed for this study, including assumptions and limitations. Chapter 3 describes the local socio-economic context of the study area, the temporary and permanent resettlement implications of the proposed road upgrade and housing formalisation projects, as well as provides a brief analysis of identified Interested and Affected Parties. Chapter 4 describes the potential issues, risks and impacts associated with the proposed projects. Chapter 5 provides an assessment of the significance of the identified potential project induced impacts. Chapter 6 summarises all the mitigation and/or project enhancement measures by providing a social impact mitigation and enhancement strategy. Chapter 7 concludes the report.

EOH Coastal and Environmental Services 5 Social Impact Assessment

2. METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH

2.1. Introduction

After an initial screening and information gathering exercise (desktop literature review and introductory meetings) focus group discussions and key informant interviews were conducted with members of the community and its leadership and elected or informal representatives. The CoCT household survey data along with the questionnaire supplied to them by EOH-CES was subject to data capture and analysis. This along with the focus group material was collated and synthesized in the reporting. Utilising the prescribed impact significance rating methodology all identified impacts have been subject to a significance rating exercise that factors in available mitigation approaches and considerations available to the CoCT (particularly resettlement and replacement/formalised housing stock), with additional mitigation measures, as and if identified, to be presented in the report by CES.

2.1.1. The SIA Study Area The study area for this SIA includes the Wetland Informal Settlement (WIS), the greater Masiphumelele settlement and the areas within 5km of the settlement where the CoCT is exploring the potential to develop additional housing for WISl residents.

2.1.2. Ethical Considerations Due care was exercised to ensure that the study was conducted in accordance with appropriate ethical standards. Attempts were made to identify the full range of interested and affected parties and obtain relevant information on all their interests, needs and views.

As noted above, the DEADP has granted the applicant permission not to identify, or assess, the provisional sites (host areas) identified by the CoCT for temporary or permanent settlement housing areas are not subject to assessment in this report as would normally be the case.

The views, attitudes and biases of the key informants and meeting participants are presented in this report in order to contextualise the political and institutional governance situation in Masiphumelele and the WIS. The authors of this study have reproduced these opinions as reported to them.

2.2. Data Gathering and Analysis

2.2.1. Desktop review The authors reviewed the following existing data on the study area and relevant issues:

 The CoCT 2006 households survey of households living in the WIS - sections A-E;  The CoCT 2009 households survey of households living in the Zululand settlement on the eastern end of the WIS;  The 2011 Census data for Masiphumelele;  The CoCT Housing Policy documents and information pamphlets;  News articles on Masiphumelele; and  The South African legislation relevant to resettlement in urban areas.

In addition, the EOH-CES team analysed the recently completed 2017 household survey of the WIS area, which became available on the 22 September 2017. This was “raw” data, and as such EOH-CES has noted limitations and inconsistencies in the dataset as it currently stands. This will require rectification by the CoCT prior o progressing to the implementation phase.

2.2.2. Key Informant Interviews (KII) and Focus Group Meetings (FGM) A Key Informant Interview (KII) is an unstructured interview, typically one-on-one with a central

EOH Coastal and Environmental Services 1 Social Impact Assessment figure within a community who can provide information upon request, having a certain degree of knowledge of the area and its history. In the context of this study, a key informant constituted CoCT officials, and local leaders. These interviews were used to collect qualitative information on the local community, the CoCT and government housing provision, proposed resettlement options and related practice, issues of concern, and their suggestions with regard to managing the anticipated detrimental social impacts. The following KII were undertaken:

Table 2.1: Key Informant Interviews conducted for the SIA Date Person Interviewed Their relevance to the proposed development 30/08/2017 Levona Powell and Reginald O’Brien CoCT - Household Survey Unit Local DA Ward Councillor and MercyNetwork (NPO) 06/09/2017 Ms Felicity Purchase and Marti Weddepohl providing Disaster Relief in Masiphumelele 11/09/2017 Suzan Groenewald CoCT: Informal Settlements Unit 12/09/2017 Mr Mfundiso Ngetu Masiphumelele Backyarders Association 13/09/2017 Nigel Titus CoCT: Settlement Planning 14/09/2017 Bernadus Wentzel and Madge George CoCT: Phase 4 Housing Project Manager and Facilitator 21/09/2017 Nicollette Kock CoCT: Housing Information Unit Director: Project and Subsidy Administration, Provincial 21/09/2017 Brian Denton Government of the Western Cape Resident and Representative - Amakhaya Ngoku (Social 22/09/2017 Mzuvukile Mfongo Housing Development in Masiphumelele) 28/09/2017 Heinrich Lotze CoCT. Head: Housing Development Coordinator

Two Focus Group Meetings (FGMs) were held with local leaders representing the various sections of the WIS and a variety of local organisations in Masiphumelele.

Table 2.2: Focus Group Meetings conducted for the SIA Date Persons Interviewed Their relevance to the proposed development 12/09/2017 Leaders of the WIS sections Directly affected households in the WIS 13/09/2017 Leaders of local organisations Directly and indirectly affected households in Masiphumelele

The objective of these FGMs was to obtain qualitative data on living conditions and social relationships in the community, their concerns about the proposed development and how it will impact on them, and their suggestions with regard to managing the potential detrimental social impacts on the residents of the WIS with respect to relocation and permanent resettlement.

2.3. Impact Significance Rating Methodology

The impacts presented in this report are in the format prescribed by the DEADP BAR format as presented in Chapter 5. The evaluation method for determining significance of impacts is also included as Annexure A of this report.

2.4. Assumptions and Limitations

The following assumptions and limitations are applicable to this report:

 The locations of the proposed temporary and permanent resettlement sites that households in the WIS will be related to are unknown and subsequently not included in this SIA scope of works. As mentioned above, this has been accepted by the relevant Environmental Authorities in this case.  Similarly, a definitive number of households and affected residents is not known at this time owing to the recently conducted CoCT survey data still being incomplete. As such, this data needs further refinement before it can be deemed as robust and representative. However, the numbers of recorded structures, and the subsequent EOH-CES extrapolation of the total number of people involved, is deemed to be a good indication of the WIS size and population.  There is limited information currently available on the CoCT resettlement and housing plans, subsequently the efficacy of this resettlement planning as an impact mitigation measure cannot be fully assessed in this report. As a consequence, this report has focused

EOH Coastal and Environmental Services 2 Social Impact Assessment

on recommendations that should be considered in the resettlement action plan.

EOH Coastal and Environmental Services 3 Social Impact Assessment

3. THE PROJECT CONTEXT

3.1. Overview

The following chapter provides the data from the KII, FGMs, census data and household surveys. It provides an overview of the Masiphumelele and the WIS social context.

3.2. Current land use of the proposed development area and surrounding areas

The proposed development is located on the current WIS on the northern boundary of the Masiphumelele formal settlement. Immediately north of the WIS is the wetland and north of that is “The Lakes” up-market housing development. East of the WIS are a variety of industrial and residential land uses. West of the WIS is the wetland, coastal dunes and beach. Immediately south west of the WIS is a TRA area on the northern boundary of the Phase 4a Housing development currently under construction. Masiphumelele itself is surrounded by industrial developments on its east and western boundaries, and a high school and other residential areas to the south. There is only one existing road that provides access to the boundary of the WIS, and that is located on the south-western corner of the WIS. There are currently no service roads within the WIS.

3.3. Masiphumelele

3.3.1. Desktop review The 2011 Census has been used to provide a socio-economic profile of the Masiphumelele community. The total population of Masiphumelele in 2011 was estimated at 21,904 persons and was made up of 7,413 households, with an average household size of 2,95 persons (which is below the national average). StatsSA defined a household as “a group of persons who live together, and provide themselves jointly with food or other essentials for living, or a single person who lives alone”. Key characteristics of the population in 2011 were:

 The population of the settlement is predominantly Black African (91%)  1,5% of population is Coloured, 0.1% Asian, 0.1% White and 6,9% Other  52,6 % of the population is male with the greatest gender difference being in the age group 25-29 years  48% of the population is under the age of 24, and 13% (2852) are of primary and junior secondary age  35% of those aged 20 years and older have completed Grade 12 or higher.  69% of the labour force (aged 15-64) is employed  82% of households have a monthly income of R3,200 or less  17% of households fall into the R3,201-R12,800 monthly income category, and could potentially be eligible for housing subsidies as long as they are South African citizens or permanent residents and meet all the other criteria  27% of households live in formal dwellings  42,5% living in informal dwellings in backyards  30,4% live in informal dwellings not in a backyard  A total of 63% of the Masiphumelele community live in informal dwellings.  73% of households have access to piped water in their dwelling or inside their yard  91% of households have access to a flush toilet connected to a public sewer system (but this provides no indication of how many people are sharing these toilets)  95% of households use electricity for lighting in their dwellings  12% of residents own and have paid off their dwellings  1,5% own but have not yet paid off their dwellings

EOH Coastal and Environmental Services 4 Social Impact Assessment

 60,3% of the population dwell in rented accommodation and 25% occupy their dwellings rent free Masiphumelele is a very densely settled area. Most of the available space in the previously developed Reconstruction and Development Programme (BNG) sites and houses (1300 of them) have been used to construct and rent out backyard informal dwellings (see Figures 3.1 and 3.2). Many of these informal dwellings are essentially one room dwellings of 2,5- 3m2. On some plots as many as 6-8 small informal dwellings, leaving only small narrow alleyways between the original dwelling, the informal dwellings and the property boundaries. In 2015 the CoCT estimated that there were 4419 backyard shack dwellings in Masiphumelele. That is an average of 3,4 informal dwellings per property. Many of the residents of the WIS are ex backyarders that have built informal dwellings within the permanent wet zone (Figure 3.3) which is undesirable from both an ecological and human health perspective.

Figure 3.1: Backyard informal dwellings developed behind the BNG houses and along the boundary of the plots with the road. Some of these informal dwellings are also double story informal dwellings.

Figure 3.2: Narrow ally-ways between the backyard informal dwellings on a privately owned plot in Masiphumelele.

EOH Coastal and Environmental Services 5 Social Impact Assessment

Figure 3.3: Shacks located in the Wildevoelvlei wetland.

It is clear therefore that access to government subsidised land and housing has been used by the beneficiaries to generate a rental income for themselves. Many of the tenants, especially those with sites on the street front, are also operating small retail or other businesses (Figure 3.4). This has effectively enabled the growth of the local population.

In addition, it is alleged that many of the people who are living in the WIS, were originally backyard tenants who were evicted or chose to leave because of the re-development of the privately owned properties. Often this re-development involves the construction of double story dwellings to rent out (see Figure 3.5), but it also sometimes involves the development of a bigger dwelling for the owner.

Figure 3.4: Business shack developed on street Figure 3.5: Newly constructed double story rental portion of older BNG plot, with the original BNG accommodation on an original BNG plot. house in the background.

Many of the original plots varying in size from 160 m2 to larger than 300m2). This is large quite large in comparison to the new 75m2 sites being developed as part of the Phase 4 housing development currently under construction. However, given that these new sites will still have some open space around the dwellings that are to be constructed, it is likely that those who will take ownership of these new Phase 4 sites, will possibly seek to rent out some open space on their plots.

There is only one example of a social housing project in Masiphumelele. This is the Amakhaya Ngoku development that was initiated in 2006 and is still in the process of being fully developed (Figure 3.6). The Body Corporate is supposed to manage the facility but a number of stakeholders indicated there seemed to be some difficulties with the collective management by the residents of this development. One anonymous resident saw the need for skilled professionals to manage the

EOH Coastal and Environmental Services 6 Social Impact Assessment development. Eight of the planned 12 blocks of flats have been developed so far, and 232 of the beneficiaries moved in to the flats in August 2008.

Figure 3.6: Photographs of some of the blocks of flats, community hall and park developed as part of the Amakhaya Ngoku Social Housing Development in Masiphumelele. Each block provides an average of 30 rent- to-own units.

Financial constraints and the continued occupation of the remaining land (the growth of the informal settlement on this land and the refusal of occupiers to more) are holding up the completion of the project. Legal processes and negotiations with the CoCT are underway to relocate those who are illegally occupying the remaining portion of the site.

The beneficiaries are people who were living in an informal settlement on this undeveloped school site that was burnt to the ground in October 2006. The beneficiaries were initially moved to a Temporary Resettlement Area (TRA) in close proximity while the flats were being built. The CoCT provided the 1,3 ha of land (which had previously been allocated for a school) for the development and additional funding was obtained from the State and external donors to develop 12 blocks that would provide rent-to-own flats for 352 households. Each flat is 39m2 and provides 2 bedrooms, 1 bathroom and an open plan kitchen and dining area. The project has been designed in such a way that the beneficiaries need to rent their flats (for R400 per month all services included) for four years before they become eligible to purchase the flat and become part of the Sectional Title Body Corporate who manage the development.

Eight of the planned 12 blocks of flats have been developed so far, and 232 of the beneficiaries moved in to the flats in August 2008. Financial constraints and the continued occupation of the remaining land (and refusal to more) are holding up the completion of the project. Legal processes and negotiations with the CoCT are underway to relocate those who are illegally occupying the remaining portion of the site. The total projected budget for the project is R64 million. The provincial government provided 53% off the funding, the private sector 31% and a further 16% (R10 million) is still required to complete the development. That amounts to a development cost of R181,818 per unit. The original cost estimate per flat was R140,000 which was double the amount of government housing subsidy available for BNG type houses.

3.3.2. 2006/9 WIS Household Survey Results The CoCT undertook a survey of the households in Sections A-E of the WIS in 2006 and a survey of the Zululand area in 2009. The results of this survey are summarised in Table 3.1 below. They counted a total of 1238 households in the WIS at the time. An estimate of the number of backyard shack dwelling households in 2015 was 4419 households. A preliminary analysis of the results of 2017 CoCT survey of the WIS is provided in Section 3.2.3 below. The household survey data for the WIS is disaggregated and divided into 6 blocks - sections A to E and Zululand. EOH-CES analysis of the 2006 and 2009 household survey data indicates that 21,5% of the households

EOH Coastal and Environmental Services 7 Social Impact Assessment occupying the structures were not surveyed at the time - that is the dwelling was counted but no information was obtained about the occupants.

EOH Coastal and Environmental Services 8 Social Impact Assessment

Table 3.1: 2006 and 2009 Wetland Informal Settlement Household survey data results Section HH no data HH with data Total structures People Ave HH Size HH Owners A 7 91 98 191 2,1 92 B 1 243 244 640 2,6 244 C 19 157 176 407 2,6 153 D 186 206 391 479 2,3 204 E 49 179 228 485 2,7 178 Zululand 4 97 101 362 3,6 98 TOTAL 266 973 1238 2564 2,65 people 969

Information from the households on their duration of stay indicates that potentially 800 of the surveyed households (31%) living in the informal settlements could have been living there for more than 11 years (up to 30 years), and if they have applied for formal housing could qualify for BNG housing, as long as they meet the other criteria. Zululand seems to have only have begun being occupied in 2009. The authors’ analysis of the 2006 and 2009 survey data indicates that about 50% of the people surveyed are definitely SA citizens or permanent residents. 32% had no SA identity numbers and could be foreigners, and 18% provided no data on identification number or date of birth. This excludes the people living in the structures which were counted but whose residents were not surveyed.

Table 3.2: Summary of the information provided on SA identify document holders in the 2006/9 survey Section SA ID No SA ID No information Total People A 122 1 68 191 B 306 157 177 640 C 201 152 54 407 D 240 177 62 479 E 220 187 78 485 Zululand 199 145 18 362 TOTAL 1288 819 457 2564 % 50% 32% 18% 100%

3.3.3. 2017 WIS Household Survey Results This section provides a preliminary description of the results of the survey of the households in the WIS that was undertaken by the CoCT in August and September 2017. The data had not been cleaned when EOH-CES received it in Microsoft Excel format. When analysing the data EOH-CES found a number of anomalies with respect to the numbering of the households and the number of households surveyed, specifically in sections C and E of the WIS.

In addition, at least 20% of the households who were not surveyed and many surveyed households appeared to be duplicates or cases where one numbered structure was divided into two or three sections and occupied by different people. Table 3.3 below provides a summary of these anomalies for each section. It should be notes that while the existing data discussed here is sufficient to provide a good indication of the size and characteristics of the population living in the wetland area, it is currently not accurate or comprehensive enough for the CoCT to be able to use this to plan the resettlement of the people living in the WIS.

EOH Coastal and Environmental Services 9 Social Impact Assessment

Table 3.3: Comparison of the total number of dwellings that were numbered and the total number of households surveyed in each section of the Wetland Informal Settlement by the CoCT (2017). Section Households Numbered and Surveyed by the CoCT Total HH numbered: 191 A HH surveyed: 152 % 79.58% Total HH numbered: 477 B HH surveyed: 376 % 78.83% Total HH numbered: 380 C HH surveyed: 443 % 116.58% Total HH numbered: 574 D HH surveyed: 255 % 44.43% Total HH numbered: 384 E HH surveyed: 389 % 101.30% Total HH numbered: 433 Zululand HH surveyed: 333 % 76.91% Total HH numbered: 2439 TOTAL HH surveyed: 1948 % 80%

The total number of respondent households surveyed was 1948, while the total number of household structures numbered by CoCT officials and as provided to EOH-CES was 2439. This suggests that 80% of the households were surveyed, but an accurate calculation of this would depend on the cleaning of the dataset to address the anomalies mentioned above. The data obtained on household size is summarised in Table 3.4 below.

Table 3.4: Average household size (2017) Section Average HH size A 2.2 B 2.2 C 1.9 D 2.1 E 2.1 Zululand 1.9 AVERAGE 2.1

This indicates an average household size of just over two people per structure, but the range of household sizes varied from 1 to 8. This suggests that it is mostly individuals and couples occupying dwellings in the wetland, but there are a small proportion of larger families. The WIS total population could therefore be in the region of 5122 people (2.1 persons x 2439 structures). It was difficult to determine the number of school going children in the community due to irregularities with the identity number data provided in the 2017 survey database. A preliminary assessment indicated that there were at least 1570 children of school going age. The number of adults was estimated at 2430 amongst the surveyed households. If extrapolated for the whole population this could be 1966 children of school going age and 3042 adults

33,5% (or 813) of respondent households indicated that they had members that had some form employment, but no information was collected on where they are working and in what kind of employment. The number of households receiving social grants of some kind was 684 (17%).

605 (15%) households indicated that they were on the housing waiting list. Additional data on the length of time people had been living in the wetland area indicates that 40% of the surveyed households claimed they had been living there for 11-20 years and another 31% for 6-10 years. Only 3% of households indicated that they had been living there for less than one year (Table 3.5).

EOH Coastal and Environmental Services 10 Social Impact Assessment

Table 3.5: Length of time surveyed Households have been resident in Masiphumelele (2017) Length of time resident in Masiphumelele (years) Households 0-1 2-5 6-10 11-20 21+ No data Number of HH 58 353 601 777 150 11 % of HH 3 18 31 40 8 1

Data on the areas where people originated from indicate that almost all of the households (97,6%) were from the Eastern Cape, with another 1,5% from other provinces and 2,1% from other African Countries (Table 3.6). These other African countries included Ethiopia, Malawi, Zimbabwe and Mozambique.

Table 3.6: Area of origin of surveyed Households (2017) Area of Origin Number of HH % of HH Elsewhere in Western Cape 7 0.4% Eastern Cape 1863 97.6% KwaZulu Natal 8 0.4% Free State 1 0.1% Gauteng 7 0.4% Limpopo 4 0.2% Mpumalanga 3 0.2% No data 15 0.8% Foreigners 41 2.1% TOTAL 1949 100.0%

These figures on the number of foreigners (41 or 2,1%) are very low and do not correspond with anecdotal data from a number of local residents and key informants that the proportion of foreigners living in the wetland area and Masiphumelele is around 50% or more. One possibility that could explain this discrepancy is if most of the dwellings were constructed and ‘owned’ by South Africans but rented out to foreigners, and that during the household survey, the owners ensured that their details were captured in the survey and not their tenants. Such behaviour is understandable if they expected that ownership would secure access to alternative accommodation or housing subsidies for them. The 2017 survey data on occupants of the households and their nationality is therefore not considered a reliable indicator of the existing situation.

3.3.4. Comparison of 2006/9 and 2017 Household Surveys There are some concerns about the reliability of the 2017 household survey data due to the anomalies mentioned above. It is also noted that sections C and E were over-enumerated. Keeping this in mind, the following differences can be seen. The number of structures and people living in the WIS has essentially doubled in the 11 years since the 2006/9 surveys were undertaken. It is not possible to compare information about the length of stay, or area of origin, or number of children and adults and employment, due to the limited data collected in 2006/9 and inconsistencies in the capturing of the data.

Table 3.7: Comparison of 2006/9 and 2017 Household Surveys 2017 2006/9 Section Numbered Numbered Surveyed HH % Surveyed Surveyed HH % Surveyed Structures Structures A 152 191 80 91 98 93 B 376 477 79 243 244 100 C 443 380 117 157 176 89 D 255 574 44 206 391 53 E 389 384 101 179 228 79 Zululand 333 433 77 97 101 96

EOH Coastal and Environmental Services 11 Social Impact Assessment

2017 2006/9 Section Numbered Numbered Surveyed HH % Surveyed Surveyed HH % Surveyed Structures Structures Total 1948 2439 80 973 1238 79 3.3.5. Social and Health Conditions Living conditions in the Wetlands informal settlement adjacent to Masiphumelele are very poor. While there are some taps and toilets, residents have indicated that these are completely insufficient to meet the needs of the residents. For example, in Zululand and A sections, there are three communal taps, while in section B and E there are two each, and sections D and C apparently share one tap, which is located over the centre of the polluted channel that flows through the settlement into the wetland.

There are a total of 140 flush toilets provided in six different locations spread throughout the WIS. As indicated in Table 3.7 below, this amounts to an average of almost 9 households having to share each public toilet, but there is considerable variation between the different sections. Local residents informed us that many of the toilets provided are often blocked and are not kept acceptably clean. This is not surprising given the high numbers of people having to use these toilets and the difficulties of managing the use of such communal resources, especially if all the toilet users do not take responsibility for this.

An additional 86 portable flush toilets have been provided mostly in Section D. It seems there is some resistance amongst community leaders to accepting such portable toilets as a replacement for the overnight bucket system, but the CoCT officials are still trying to encourage them to accept them.

Table 3.8: Summary of the Number of flush and portable toilets provided per section of the WIS, and the average number of households sharing these toilets (2006/9) Sections No. Flush Toilets 2006 No. HH No. HH sharing each toilet Zululand 52 101 1,9 A 14 98 7,0 B 12 244 20,3 C 18 176 9,8 D 12 391 32,6 E 32 228 7,1 TOTAL 140 1238 8,8

There are also 5-6 polluted channels between the blocks within the wetland area that are so heavily congested with sewerage and solid waste that the CoCT city has had to institute a programme to clear these channels every week. Due to complaints and legal proceedings against the CoCT, the city has been legally compelled to institute this regular clearing project. The CoCT is also busy with some projects to provide additional toilets. However, this may not alleviate the pollution of the channels as many households make use of the bucket toilet system during the night and dispose of the waste in the wetland or channels in the morning. This system is safer for women and children than using distant public toilets at night. The health situation in the WIS is also exacerbated by the fact that, many of the informal dwellings in the wetland area have actually been built on stilts above the polluted water.

These conditions create a significant health and safety risk to the residents and are polluting and degrading the wetland. Diarrheal diseases are a significant and constant problem amongst the residents and particularly for children.

The other major health risk for the residents of the WIS, and the Masiphumelele backyarders, is fire. There have been a number of fires that have occurred in parts of the WIS over the last few years. These occur due to the dependence of the residents on candles, paraffin and other flammable fuels for cooking and lighting, and the extensive use of wood, paper, cardboard etc in the building of shacks. The dense nature of the informal dwellings, the lack of road access to these

EOH Coastal and Environmental Services 12 Social Impact Assessment areas and limited water resources make it very difficult to stop the fires once they start. As a consequence the fires are usually very large and result in the displacement of many households. In 2015 a fire destroyed 800 informal dwellings and people reconstructed their houses on site. In October 2016 another 176 informal dwellings were burnt and people were relocated to a TRA area adjacent to the Phase 4 development currently under construction. 3.4. Resettlement and Temporary Relocation

3.4.1. Legal Framework relevant to Resettlement The South African regulatory framework relevant to the resettlement of the Masiphumelele WIS residents includes the following legislation:

 The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 108 of 1996  The Extension of Security of Tenure Act 6 of 1997  Land Reform Act 30 of 1996  Interim Protection of Informal Land Rights Act 31 of 1996  Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 19 of 1998 (PIE)  Restitution of Land Rights Act 22 of 1994  The Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 2 of 2003

This legislation essentially allows for, and regulates the legal process requirements for resettling those people living in the WIS. In order to proceed with such a re-development process, the fundamental responsibility of the CoCT is to provide alternative accommodation to the affected households and to involve them in the decision-making processes for such a project. In addition, there are administrative and financial processes that the CoCT and the National Department of Housing need to follow in order to make financial resources available for the road and housing project. It is anticipated that the residents would need to be moved initially to a TRA and from there, either moved to new accommodation developed in the redeveloped WIS area or to other sites in and around Masiphumelele.

The city is currently in the process of identifying and assessing the suitability of various additional land parcels within 1-5 km of Masiphumelele that could be developed for housing and investigating the legal requirements related to the various land options. Financial constraints are further limiting the city’s search to state owned land.

How many households can be accommodated on the redeveloped wetland area depends ultimately on the kind of accommodation developed on that site and the funding available for this housing development. If the whole area is developed as single housing units under the BNG housing subsidy programme, like has been done in the Phase 4 Housing project, only 528 plots/houses (22% of the affected households) could be provided with this kind of accommodation. If the whole area is used to provide Community Residential Units (3 story walk-up blocks of flats) for rental, then a maximum of 1583 accommodation units (for 65% of affected households) could be provided. Consequently, additional land and housing strategies will be needed to accommodate all of the affected wetlands households.

It should also be noted, that there is also considerable demand for houses among people who are living in backyard informal dwellings in Masiphumelele, and that the housing needs for the wetland residents cannot be resolved in isolation from the bigger housing need in the greater Masiphumelele area. These issues will be negotiated and resolved by the CoCT in consultation with all the relevant stakeholders and affected parties, if the proposed wetlands housing re- development is authorised. This will involve some difficult decisions about land, sites, the use of funding and types of housing, backyard informal dwellings and some creative thinking about how the deal with the broader housing shortage for the whole Masiphumelele community.

3.4.2. Temporary Accommodation To limit the potential fire hazards the thinking is to construct the new informal dwellings at 1m intervals as per attached photo of a similar TRA recently developed in Hout Bay (Figure 3.7).

EOH Coastal and Environmental Services 13 Social Impact Assessment

Figure 3.7: Aerial photograph of a recently developed Temporary Resettlement Area in Hout Bay.

Ultimately the CoCT would like to design and construct the TRA in such a way that it can eventually be upgraded and converted into a permanent settlement area, once most of the original temporary residents have been moved to other permanent accommodation that is still to be developed. However, most of the existing TRA developments around Cape Town have been developed in response to various crises such as fires and are constructed very quickly and have not been planned and developed in a manner that would facilitate a smooth future conversion into a formal housing settlement. For example, the city usually makes a piece of land available and will provide R6,000 worth of building materials for each affected household to construct a 3x3m shack. In addition, shared toilets and water taps and planned access roads and pathways between the structures would be provided. Figure 3.7 above shows the toilets arranged around the periphery. If this scheme was applied in the development of a new TRA area for the affected WIS households, the city would need 7 ha of land to provide enough land for the 2439 affected households.

The problem with these types of temporary dwelling arrangements in a TRA area is that they cannot easily be converted at a later stage into permanent owned serviced plots. As a consequence, the TRA areas could become permanent with no private ownership, poor service provision and no local management of shared water and ablution facilities. The CoCT does not at this stage have specific plans about how an up-gradable TRA area could or should be developed. This would be one of the issues that would need to be worked out in consultation with all the relevant stakeholders and affected households during the design and implementation phase, after they have received all the necessary authorisations with their conditions.

3.4.3. Permanent Accommodation There are two different kinds of permanent accommodation that could be provided by the City with financial assistance from the National Government, namely 1) the single residential structures most commonly known as RDP or BNG (Breaking New Ground) housing, and 2) three story blocks of flats known as a Community Residential Units (CRU) that would be rented out to qualifying beneficiaries. In the case of the BNG/BNG houses, ownership would be transferred to the beneficiaries with certain conditions that restrict options to sell for 8 years. The flats would be developed using government funding for CRU housing and would remain owned by the City and the flats rented out to qualifying beneficiaries. In this case the City would remain responsible for the management of these properties. There are also significant differences in the cost implications of the different housing provision options. The estimated total cost of constructing each CRU flat is

EOH Coastal and Environmental Services 14 Social Impact Assessment

R450,000, while the total cost of a BNG single residential house is R145,000. So it is almost 3,5 times more expensive to construct blocks of flats. This places a heavy financial burden on the government and city to construct them and also to maintain them in the long-term.

The formal housing provision in the redeveloped wetland would only accommodate the needs of 35% of the affected households under a mixed BNG and CRU housing scenario, 21% for BNG housing only and 62% for CRU only for the 2009/9 survey total households. It is clear therefore that the city needs to find additional land to accommodate all the affected households.

Table 3.9: Estimated number of household accommodation units that could be provided within the redeveloped WIS site, and the % of WIS residents n 2006/9 that could have been accommodated in the same area.

WIS Area Accommodated Remainder not accommodated Type of accommodation Units potentially % of 2006 HH Number % of 2006 HH provided Single residential (BNG) 528 21 2036 79 Walk ups (CRU) 1583 62 981 38 Mixed (BNG and CRU) 910 35 1654 65 Total 2006/9 HH needing accommodation. 1238 Total 2017 HH needing accommodation 5122 estimated

Then there is the additional demand for houses from all the other Backyard shack dwellers who are waiting on the housing lists (in 2015 these were estimated to be 4419, almost double the estimated number of households living in the Wetlands Informal settlement). The City therefore needs much more land than the land in the WIS, to provide sufficient housing for all the affected households and to meet the total demand. As mentioned earlier, they are currently involved in a process of identifying, assessing and securing additional land around Masiphumelele. It was not possible during this study to make known which land is under consideration.

The city is hoping that about 20-30% of the affected and qualifying households would be willing to move elsewhere in the city. This expectation is based on the findings from a recent household survey in Hout Bay and the assumption that some local residents may actually not work locally or may work elsewhere in the city.

3.4.4. Housing Subsidy qualification requirements There are also national policies determining who will qualify for a housing subsidy - which will influence who will benefit, in what way, from the proposed housing development. To qualify for an BNG housing subsidy an applicant has to meet the following criteria:

 Applicants must be South Africans;  Who have been on the BNG housing waiting list for at least 10 years;  Are preferably over 40 years of age or have special needs;  Are earning incomes less than R3,500 per month;  Have dependants; and  Have not previously been allocated a BNG house/grant or owned fixed property.

In addition to this, the City usually engages with all the leadership of the local community to determine how all the affected households will be accommodated. The Masiphumelele community have experience of these processes as there is currently as Steering Committee that has been set up to facilitate and manage the Phase 4 Housing development in two parts of Masiphumelele (see figure 1.1). To qualify to rent CRUs (three story blocks of flats) applicants have to meet very similar criteria. They must be South Africans and must have been on the housing waiting list for quite some length of time, and have a total household income of less than R3,500 per month.

The city can only assist affected South African households with higher income levels through Social Housing (renting for households with an income between R1,500 and R7,500 pm) and Gap

EOH Coastal and Environmental Services 15 Social Impact Assessment

Housing Projects with commercial partners (ownership for households with an income over R10,000 pm). The Amakhyaya Ngoku housing development in Masiphumelele is an example of a social housing development. This development has experienced considerable financial management and cooperation problems with beneficiaries that are undermining the full development of the project and its long-term sustainability. Gap housing developments are similar and also require the partnership of commercial development partners and the ability of beneficiaries to secure loans from banks to purchase the flats. There are no existing GAP housing schemes under development in this area and no developers who are known to have come forward with proposals for such developments in this area.

3.4.5. Non-Qualifiers One of the most difficult issues to deal with are the affected households who would not qualify for housing subsidies. The city is not in a financial position to provide alternative permanent accommodation for these people. Non-qualifiers would include people who are foreigners, or South African’s who have previously received housing subsidies or own property elsewhere, or who have total household incomes higher than R3,500 per month. The only housing provision the city can make for these people are the sites in the TRA and the R6,000 worth of building materials and the shared services. At this stage it is not clear how many affected households fit into this category. This issue is one of the factors that could contribute to the risk of the TRA becoming a permanent informal residential area, especially in cases where the residents can’t afford to pay rents as backyard shack dwellers or in other formal accommodation.

3.4.6. Institutional Framework If the environmental authorisation for the proposed project is granted, the CoCT will have to go through a detailed design phase in consultation with affected residents, and also go through an application process for housing grants (to determine who will qualify), and the normal approval processes for the building and settlement development plans. Management of implementation would be done by the CoCT according to the usual housing policy and development process guidelines. This would normally include the establishment of a project implementation steering committee that includes the relevant city and government officials and representatives from the affected households and potential beneficiaries. However, the specifics of who is involved varies from case to case depending on the nature of the development and the issues and affected parties. The CoCT would appoint a Project Manager and team to manage the project in liaison with the Steering Committee.

3.4.7. Housing Tenure or Security The resettlement of the residents of the wetlands area will affect the tenure status and security of the affected households in different ways, depending on how they end up benefiting or being accommodated.

Table 3.10: Land tenure status for respective housing type beneficiaries Category of Beneficiaries Impact on tenure security These residents would obtain temporary permission to occupy a site within Residents of the TRA the TRA. Their security after the temporary period expires will depend on which of the following categories of affected households they end up in. Those who qualify for BNG housing Will obtain permanent ownership rights to their site and house with a 5-8 year subsidies limitation imposed on any sale of the property. Those who qualify to rent state They will obtain a lease agreement, and in some cases may get the option to owned CRU flats buy the flat if this is built into the original agreement. Those who become tenants of private property owners (in formal dwellings They will have a rental agreement with the owner. or backyard informal dwellings) Those who don’t qualify for subsidies These households may end up staying permanently (or as long as possible) and can’t afford rental in the TRA, or seek to squat illegally somewhere else, or become homeless. accommodation.

In summary, while most WIS residents will be more secure in terms of tenure, many of them will be excluded from the resettlement process, maintaining their insecure tenure status.

EOH Coastal and Environmental Services 16 Social Impact Assessment

3.4.8. Resettlement Issues and Implications As indicated previously, there is no clear plan from the city at this stage on what alternative temporary and permanent accommodation can be provided to the affected households. There are only various land and housing options that will need to be considered and evaluated by all the relevant parties and then some hard choices made about which combinations of options to implement, where and for whom. Interviews with various key informants and affected parties indicates that there is a preference for the BNG privately owned housing amongst beneficiaries. This gives beneficiaries more security and control, as well as the potential to rent out space to backyard shack dwellers (assuming there is space for that). The problem of course is that this requires more land than the blocks of flats, and there are constraints to obtaining more land and an enormous demand to meet.

However, there is another issue that should be taken into consideration in the decision making about housing options. That is the issue of population growth created by the renting out of space to backyard tenants. Any backyard tenants who become beneficiaries of a new housing project, are likely to be replaced by other tenants, thus creating the potential for more population growth and more demand for houses and services. Providing additional land for BNG housing is likely therefore to continue and expand the current population growth trend and all the service delivery challenges that go with that.

To minimise or avoid this, it would be valuable to explore the potential to subdivide and develop formal housing on portions of the earlier BNG plots/houses that are currently being used for backyard informal dwellings. This is suggested as an additional means of upgrading and making land available for formal housing and services. It is unlikely to eliminate the need for additional land for housing. The purchase of such sub-divided land may also allow the current owners to upgrade their own properties and develop flats to rent out, on the portion that they retain ownership of. However, this all depends on the willingness of all the stakeholders, and the existing BNG property owners in particular, to cooperate, be conscious of the consequences of their actions, and take responsibility for the managed growth and development of their community themselves.

In addition, the reality that people who acquire rights to new BNG plots and houses, will, if there is space, rent out informal dwellings to backyard tenants, needs to be acknowledge and could provide an opportunity to provide some accommodation to households who do not qualify for government subsidized housing. So for example, for every BNG property developed, assume and plan for the development of an average of 2 backyard informal dwellings per property (depending on the size and shape of the property). In this case the development of 300 BNG houses would provide permanent privately-owned properties for 300 qualifying households and 600 rental dwellings for non-qualifiers. That accounts for a total of 900 households.

The only difficulty then would be for those affected non-qualifiers who can’t afford rental payments. These people may opt to illegally occupy other land rather than pay rents.

To avoid the situation where the TRA becomes a permanent informal settlement, it would be beneficial to plan its development in such a way that the area is demarcated into sites that will eventually be formalised and transferred into private ownership, with services provided (including roads and bulk services). Then the location of the new informal dwellings within these sites should be organised to optimise the use of space and communal access to ablutions and water, as well as safety and access to the street. The potential to allocate ownership of these sites immediately should also be investigated, with agreements that the formal housing will only be developed later, once the other beneficiaries have been relocated to their permanent housing elsewhere. There will however be non-qualifiers who will need continued accommodation and could become tenants after the TRA has expired.

One of the problems with communal toilets on the periphery of a TRA (as is the case in the current informal settlement and TRA) is that most households may continue to make use of the bucket toilet system in their informal dwellings at night time - due to safety issues. Provision will need to

EOH Coastal and Environmental Services 17 Social Impact Assessment be made therefore for the safe and easy disposal on these buckets each morning. If such services or facilities are not provided then residents may end up disposing of them in the most easily accessible sites. This could therefore re-create similar unhealthy living conditions to those in the current WIS. If the new TRA area is also located close to the wetland it could also continue to pollute the wetland. It is significant that this problem does not seem to exist in the formal settlement of Masiphumelele even though there are a large number of backyard informal dwellings and the settlement is probably as dense as the wetland settlement. As indicated in Figures 3.8 and 3.9 below – the owners and tenants of these properties share the ablution facilities and seem to be working together to ensure that their living area is healthy and not littered or polluted.

Figure 3.8: Communal toilet shared in one of the Figure 3.9: Corridor area between shack dwellings in privately owned older sites within Masiphumelele one of the privately owned sites in Masiphumelele. were the owner shares the property with 6 or more tenant households in 3x3m informal dwellings.

People who are non-SA citizens or have previously got at subsidy or own other property or have a higher income will not qualify for an BNG subsidy. The only existing institutional ways to address their accommodation needs is through rental options (with private land owners) or Social or Gap Housing Projects. These options will need to be factored into the housing development planning process.

Government grants are also available for the provision of electricity to households. However, as with most government housing related grants, these can only be accessed once. Anyone who has previously used such a grant to install electricity in their dwelling in the wetlands area or elsewhere will therefore not qualify. Similarly, anyone resettled would also be advised to reserve their electricity supply grant for the permanent accommodation they receive. Again, none of these grants will be available to non-South Africans.

The implication of this constraint is that most of the affected households may not be able to access electricity in the TRA settlement. It would therefore be useful to explore creative ways of getting around this constraint. One possibility is to develop the TRA area in such a way that BNG type sites can initially be allocated to some qualifying households and an agreement is reached where other qualifying and non-qualifying households can be temporarily accommodated in 3x3m temporary structures on these site until the alternative permanent accommodation is provided in other areas. The owners can then apply for an electricity connection and the other temporary residents can get electricity through them.

3.5. Identifying Interested and Affected Parties

One of the key tasks in this SIA was to identify who would be affected by the proposed development and how. This was investigated through the interviews with key informants (including city Officials) and focus group meetings with local residents and leaders in Masiphumelele. It was supplemented by additional submissions by Interested and Affected Parties (I&APs) who had registered as such with Chand Environmental who are conducting the BAR process for the

EOH Coastal and Environmental Services 18 Social Impact Assessment activities under application. The table below provides as summary of who the directly and indirectly affected parties area.

Table 3.11: I&APs identified in the SIA reporting process I&AP Way in which they are affected or interested Directly Affected Residents of the WIS who are  The impact on these people will depend on the timing of the completion of the South Africans who have Phase 4 housing development and the initiation of the Houmoed Road already been allocated development. housing in the Phase 4  If the Phase 4 development is completed earlier, then they will not be affected by Housing Development the re-development of the WIS. currently under construction.  These would include South Africans who have been on the BNG housing application list for at least 10 years, are preferably over 40 years of age or have special needs, earning incomes less than R3,500 per month, have dependants and have not previously been allocated an BNG house/grant or owned fixed property.  Those who qualify for such housing and whose applications are approved this Residents of the WIS who are time around, are likely to be moved initially to a TRA in the local area, and later South Africans and qualify for allocated a housing unit in the redeveloped area between the Houmoed road and formal BNG housing but have the existing formal housing in Masiphumelele – assuming there will be enough not yet been allocated housing there for all those from this group who qualify. housing.  The timing and duration of their relocation to the TRA and the eventual permanent housing will depend on how the re-development and resettlement process is phased and the progress with the Houmoed Rd and WIS re-development.  Some of these residents may benefit from getting bumped up the que for housing as a result of their occupation of the WIS. But all who qualify may not obtain this housing, as there are other local residents on the housing list who also need to be accommodated.  These would be South Africans who earn more than R3,500 a month, have not been on the housing list long enough, or who have previously received a housing subsidy or own property elsewhere. The only provision the state makes for these Residents of the WIS who are kinds of households is a site and building materials in a TRA, and/or access to South Africans who do not Social or Gap housing subsidies. qualify for BNG housing.  These options require private sector partners (NGOs and Banks) to collaborate in developing this kind of housing. No such partners are known to exist at this stage in the Masiphumelele area, except for the Amakhaya Ngoku development which is already fully subscribed. Masiphumelele Backyarders  Represented by the Backyarders Association (not all leaders qualify for housing). who are South Africans and Many of these residents live in very difficult situations with poor access to services have been on the BNG and in some cases may have more problematic living conditions to some of the housing waiting list for at residents of the WIS. least 10 years and are  These residents will be competing with the WIS residents for access to the BNG preferably over 40 years of houses that are developed in that area as part of the re-development. Many of age or have special needs, them may have been on the housing list much longer than the residents of the are earning incomes less WIS and may be angry that the WIS residents have effectively jumped the queue. than R3,500 per month, have Access to a BNG house not only provides a home and services, but also an dependants and have not opportunity to earn additional income from renting out space to backyarders or previously been allocated an developing flats to rent out. BNG house/grant or owned  Many of them may therefore fear losing out on this particular opportunity to obtain fixed property. BNG houses and services.  Largely foreigners from other African countries.  They do not qualify for formal BNG housing and would therefore not be accommodated in the redeveloped WIS unless they rent backyard informal dwellings or rooms from those who are allocated housing. The CoCT has Foreigners who are living in indicated that they will be accommodated somewhere but at best they will get the WIS (and do not qualify building materials to construct another informal dwelling on residential site in a for housing). Temporary Residential Area that is developed as part of this project.  Their only other option is to find rental accommodation somewhere or squat somewhere else. Many of these people were attracted to Masiphumelele because of the absence of xenophobic attacks in this area. They may therefore fear xenophobia in other areas they may be relocated to. Backyarders who can no  The re-development of the WIS will result in the loss of the opportunity for them to longer afford the rentals and find alternative cheaper accommodation locally that currently exists within the need to find cheaper WIS. alternative accommodation.  This will make them more vulnerable to evictions and higher rental payments. Indirectly Affected Masiphumelele Residential  Many of those who previously obtained BNG houses in Masiphumelele are renting

EOH Coastal and Environmental Services 19 Social Impact Assessment

I&AP Way in which they are affected or interested Property owners and out backyard informal dwellings, or are in the process of redeveloping their landlords. houses to build flats to rent out.  Often tenants are evicted to enable this re-development process and many of those former tenants seem to have gone to the WIS.  The removal of the WIS eliminates this option and may intensify conflict between landlords and tenants as re-development progresses.  They will be affected by the loss of the WIS as an alternative accommodation option in the case of evictions or rental increases. They may therefore be forced Backyarders. to pay higher rentals in order to stay in Masiphumelele or have to move elsewhere.  Will be temporarily affected by negative construction impacts (noise, dust etc), but Masiphumelele residents also may experience an improvement in health conditions. If they are involved in living immediately adjacent to trading and other business with residents of the WIS, then these will be negatively the WIS. affected during the construction and possibly thereafter too.  Concern has been raised by some of these residents who anticipate that Residents and businesses Houmoed road development will result in more vehicle and pedestrian traffic located adjacent to Houmoed passing by their properties and increasing the risk of crime and potential noise for Road Phase 1 section them.  They may become the target of increasing resentment as the shortage of Foreigners who have accommodation intensified. purchased BNG houses in  Those of them who are renting out accommodation may benefit from increased Masiphumelele. demand and competition amongst prospective tenants.  These residents are concerned about the continued encroachment into the wetland as a result of the expansion of the WIS. Wealthy private property  A concern has been raised about the potential effect the raising and infilling of the owners on the northern shore current WIS area will have on the water levels in their residential area. of the wetland (Lake  The current pollution of the wetland by the sewerage and waste from the informal Michelle). settlement is also a concern for these residents. The removal of the informal settlement and construction of the road would alleviate the pollution and fire risks for these residents.  They are land owners adjacent to the WIS and the Phase 4A development. They SANPARKS. are primarily responsible for conservation and management of the wetland. The WIS is a major threat to the wetland’s ecological functioning and quality.  The DA heads the Western Cape and CoCT Governments. Masiphumelele falls Democratic Alliance. within a DA controlled ward and opposition politics are fierce as a result.  Alleged by the DA to be involved in a political destabilisation campaign in Masiphumelele so as to see the DA (CoCT) as failing to provide services and being successful. African National Congress.  Counter-claims of the CoCT not sufficiently engaging with the community around local development plans have been levelled against them by ANC supporters interviewed during the fieldwork.

Previous discussion of the household surveys provides more information on the estimated number of people directly affected and subject to resettlement or temporary relocation (Section 3.2.3).

It is anticipated that additional information on the views and inputs of the majority of the above stakeholders will be captured through the Chand Environmental led public participation process, and the required Comments and Responses Register, that will be developed over the course of the BAR process that is underway.

EOH Coastal and Environmental Services 20 Social Impact Assessment

4. SOCIAL ISSUES, RISKS AND IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED PROJECT

4.1. Status Quo Issues, Risks and Impacts

As noted in Chapter 2, it is evident that the current settlement pattern and the quality of housing that is currently available in the WIS is resulting in observable and significant impacts within the study area. These are referred to as status quo impacts. Over and above the general health and sanitation, as well as service delivery provision challenges that informal settlements present to all levels of government, some context-specific status quo issues and impacts require discussion here.

Competition for access to housing is intense in Masiphumelele, largely as a result of the widespread backyard tenant situation. Backyarders significantly outnumber the total population of the WIS. Opting to live in an informal settlement creates the possibility of jumping the housing queue in situations where the state bears responsibility for housing provision. Living in an informal settlement can also be a way to avoid rental payments. The 2017 survey of the WIS indicates the possibility that many SA residents in Masiphumelele may have constructed informal dwellings in the WIS to generate an income for themselves by renting them out to others - particularly foreigners. This suggests that these informal settlements are perhaps being used by many as an important income generating or cost saving opportunity. Removal of such a settlement would therefore result in considerable economic losses for the affected households - both ‘owners’ and tenants.

According to informants, the growth of the informal settlement has been fuelled by two local processes:

1 The use of government housing subsidized properties to generate rental income from backyard tenants and 2 The subsequent re-development of formal property areas that are resulting in the eviction of backyard tenants.

However, this situation is also a consequence of the broader social problems of poverty, unemployment, low wage levels, and high levels of rural-urban migration. This is the reality within which any new housing project/programme will need to be developed. It is also possible that this situation will continue to exist no matter how much additional housing the CoCT and/or Provincial and National Government provides. Especially if those renting out informal dwellings find new tenants when their previous tenants gain access to formal housing. This situation does however, create an opportunity for private property owners and the CoCT to collaborate to ensure that all the affected households are provided with accommodation, temporarily and permanently.

It is difficult to get reliable figures on the proportion of the Masiphumelele and WIS population who are foreigners. A number of informants have however indicated that it could be as much as half or more of the total population, but this is not born out by the CoCT data, limited as it may currently be. Except for the provision of alternative temporary shelters in a TRA, the CoCT and Government do not have any existing policies and mechanisms they can use to provide housing for these foreigners. This leaves the foreigners dependent on informal settlements or rental accommodation, unless they are earning sufficiently to be able to afford to purchase property (with or without loans).

4.1.1. Communication between I&APs and key stakeholders There is considerable tension and a lack of trust between all the local stakeholders and the CoCT. This is a result of previous consultations and experiences between the CoCT and local residents around housing and community development projects in Masiphumelele, as well as the poverty and competition for access to government resources, party-political divisions and competition, the rapid growth of the population and the difficulties of meeting the mounting need for services. This

EOH Coastal and Environmental Services 21 Social Impact Assessment context presents a significant risk to the potential for the proposed development and resettlement planning and implementation processes to become another contested space, and by extension more difficult to execute effectively and efficiently.

It is clear from all the informants that relationships between the many and various groups, parties and organisations within Masiphumelele, and between them and CoCT officials, are tense and volatile. During consultations with key stakeholders and affected parties it was observed that there is much fear and suspicion on all sides and everyone is trying, or wanting to control the situation and outcomes, for their own protection, advantage or interests. The poverty, desperation, crime, lawlessness, opportunism and weak governance capacity, are understood to be both causes and consequences of the chaotic and dynamic situation.

The CoCT and its officials rightly note that the WIS is a highly dynamic situation and knowing who to work with in the community remains a major challenge. Their hands are also often “tied” by national, provincial and municipal policies and bureaucratic processes that often impede the delivery of quick and/or effective interventions in local service and housing projects. Conflicts around service delivery are not new to the city or national political landscape. That they have become a contested space for political as well as financial benefit, is a well reported reality at all tiers of government service delivery. It is understandable that local community leaders complain about the city withholding information and not consulting them or their communities widely enough on projects that affect them directly and fundamentally, as is the case for those WIS residents subject to resettlement. Seemingly, this is further aggravated by local service delivery projects being seen to be awarded to outsiders at the expense of greater community benefit or participation in construction activities.

Effective communication and collaboration between all the parties will require the development of an open, cooperative and trusting relationship between all the stakeholders. Assistance from independent facilitators who can help everyone to communicate more effectively and compassionately is recommended as a means to help facilitate more effective dialogue and greater cooperation between all these key stakeholders.

4.1.2. Health The poor living conditions and service provision in the wetlands informal settlement is resulting in considerable health problems for the local residents, and the pollution of the wetland. This is exacerbated by the use of the bucket toilet system at night, and the disposal of this waste into the channels in the morning by resident households. The provision of more distant communal toilets may not meet the sanitation needs of the residents or eliminate the pollution of the settlement area and wetland. There is a need therefore to engage with the residents and find acceptable solutions that will reduce the pollution and improve the living conditions and health of the community. As noted previously, the drainage channels that divide the WIS into its various sections are utilised to dump human, animal (from slaughtering activities) and domestic wastes, further exacerbating the health and ecological impacts that these channels pose for the community.

4.1.3. Fire risks Masiphumelele has been subject to numerous devastating fires in the last few years, the cause and effect thereof being exacerbated by the close proximity of informal dwellings to each other. This dense pattern also has the unfortunate effect of preventing ready and easy access to fire crews in fire events, and severely limits their effectiveness in these emergency situations. Informal dwellings being built into the Wildevoelvlei wetland are additionally exposed to increased fire risk in the dry summer season when the “wet” areas become dry and the vegetation adds to the fire risk.

4.1.4. Inability to provide bulk services and formal housing The provision of bulk services (potable water, sanitation and electricity) to established informal settlements like the WIS remains a challenge countrywide due to the unplanned and dense nature

EOH Coastal and Environmental Services 22 Social Impact Assessment of these settlements. The process of creating emergency TRA areas in Cape Town seems to suffer from the same problem, with a lack of planning and site based service provision that would facilitate the eventual upgrading of these areas into permanent residential areas. In the WIS case, this is further compounded by the prevalence of the above described health and fire risks.

4.1.5. Lack of Land or Housing Tenure The residents of the wetland area are squatting illegally on this land. However, many of them have been there for so long that their informal rights to reside in the area are protected under the various pieces of land legislation that protect them against eviction without the provision of alternative accommodation. With the surveying of this settlement by the city, their occupation has been acknowledged and some have previously been issued with temporary certificates of occupation. Regardless, most residents are likely to be or remain fundamentally insecure in any form of tenure while they reside in the WIS.

4.2. Relocation and Resettlement Issues

The below listed issues, risks and potential impacts are not an exhaustive list of those usually associated with resettlement exercises but serve to illustrate some key impacts which are expected to occur as a result of the proposed development. In the impact significance rating sections that follow in the next chapter, please note that all the below considerations are factored into the temporary relocation and permanent resettlement impact category when assessing the significance thereof.

4.2.1. Current lack of a comprehensive resettlement plan For the purposes of this report the terms relocation and resettlement need to be understood as meaning two different things. Temporary relocation for these households will be provided in host sites while the proposed road construction and housing formalisation process programme rolls out. On completion of the project, those households temporarily relocated in a TRA from the WIS, will be resettled in the new housing provided by the CoCT, either in the redeveloped wetlands area, or in other locations that are developed by the city. Resettlement should be understood as the affected households being permanently moved to alternative accommodation.

This distinction is important as the temporarily relocated households will in effect be “moving” twice over the projects lifespan, experiencing the same level of nuisance and potential impact each time, as opposed to the once-off move by the permanently resettled households. Currently it is not known how the project construction process will proceed, and how many households will be moved at what time. This has yet to be determined during the detailed engineering design and planning. However, the way in which the project is implemented can have significant implications for the resettlement process, depending on the number of people moved at any one time. The TRA and permanent resettlement sites are likely to be settled by the affected households over a protracted period. As mentioned previously, the CoCT does not yet have a detailed resettlement plan in place, but the plan that is developed will need to be informed by the construction phasing, and ideally inform the manner in which this phasing is sequenced.

4.2.2. Increased distance and travel time to places of work Temporary and permanent resettlement can imply that WIS residents with employment of some sort (formal, casual/part time, informal) may have to travel longer distances to their places of work, or be further removed from established transport routes that would increase their travel time thereto. It is possible however, that some may find that they are moved closer to their place of work or to transport routes.

4.2.3. Loss of income and increased living expenses Increased transport costs associated with longer travel distances may be incurred by permanently resettled households, with food costs potentially also rising as they are forced to utilise more expensive “spaza” shops in new locations as opposed to commercial retailers that they are

EOH Coastal and Environmental Services 23 Social Impact Assessment currently in closer proximity to in the WIS. Residents who are currently living rent free may end up having to pay for rental accommodation if they do not qualify for housing subsidies or government rental accommodation.

4.2.4. Disruption of schooling On the assumption that all WIS children are likely to be enrolled in Masiphumelele schools or immediate surrounds, those households that are permanently resettled further away from Masiphumelele (up to 5km away) may face the challenge of having to re-enrol school going children in other schools, alternatively, face the inconvenience and costs of having to transport children to their existing schools from their new location. At this time it is unknown how many scholars are potentially affected and where they are being educated.

4.2.5. Disruption of family or social networks It is likely that existing family or social networks (people who rely on each other for assistance of some kind and reciprocate accordingly - child minding, food contributions in hard times, short period cash loans etc.) that have been established by WIS residents will be disrupted to some degree. These support networks are not necessarily replicated in new locations when communities or “blocks” of shack residents are relocated. The potential for family or relatives to become separated will need to be actively managed in the pending resettlement planning process.

EOH Coastal and Environmental Services 24 Social Impact Assessment

5. IMPACT ASSESSMENT

5.1. Social Impacts anticipated to arise from the proposed development

The chapter utilises the impact significance rating table format prescribed by the DEADP BAR (2010) format. The impacts are assessed for the No-Go Option, and the Design and Construction, Operational and Decommissioning Phases of the proposed project. With regard to the latter it is only the decommissioning of the TRA that are assessed in this chapter. As both the proposed road extension and housing formalisation projects are affecting the same residents and households the different project components are not distinguished from each other in the impact significance ratings below.

5.2. No-Go Impact Assessment

Potential impacts on socio- Loss of life and damage to property from fires economic aspects: The WIS and Masiphumelele surrounds are very prone to major fire events and loss of property, and occasionally life. The lack of access to these Nature of impact: densely packed settlements via road and pathways creates a major challenge in fighting fires. Extent and duration of impact: Localised and Long-Term Probability of occurrence: Definite (High) Degree to which the impact can be Low reversed: Degree to which the impact may cause High- irreplaceable loss of resources: Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: High- Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation (Low, Medium, Medium- High- High, High, or Very-High) Degree to which the impact can be High mitigated: The redevelopment and upgrading of the area as proposed in the Houmoed Rd Phase 2 Extension and Formalisation of Housing development for the Proposed mitigation: occupied wetland area would provide a much safer and accessible living environment for the affected households. Cumulative impact post mitigation: High+ Significance rating of impact after mitigation (Low, Medium, Medium- High+ High, High, or Very-High)

Potential impacts on socio- Ill Health and high associated costs due to poor living conditions and economic aspects: poor sanitation Nature of impact: Currently the residents of the informal settlement are living in very cramped and unordered circumstances in a very wet area, some on stilts above the water. There are not enough public toilets or water supply points to service the needs of the large population. There are also large volumes of human waste and solid waste being disposed of in the five ditches that drain into the wetland. All of this together created very unhealthy living conditions and contributes to high incidents of diarrhoea and other associated illnesses, especially amongst children. Extent and duration of impact: Localised and Long-Term Probability of occurrence: Definite Degree to which the impact can be Low reversed: Degree to which the impact may cause High- irreplaceable loss of resources: Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: High-

EOH Coastal and Environmental Services 25 Social Impact Assessment

Potential impacts on socio- Ill Health and high associated costs due to poor living conditions and economic aspects: poor sanitation Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation (Low, Medium, Medium- High- High, High, or Very-High) Degree to which the impact can be High mitigated: Proposed mitigation: The redevelopment and upgrading of the area as proposed in the Houmoed Rd Phase 2 Extension and Formalisation of Housing development for the occupied wetland area would raise the area above the water table, provide roads, water, sanitation and electrical services and provide much better quality of housing. This will create a much healthier living environment for the residents. Cumulative impact post mitigation: High+ Significance rating of impact after mitigation (Low, Medium, Medium- High+ High, High, or Very-High)

Potential impacts on socio- Inability to provide Bulk Services and Formal Housing economic aspects: Nature of impact: The dense random nature of the WIS makes it practically impossible to provide bulk services to the residents without resettling and servicing these sites and areas. Extent and duration of impact: Localised and Long-Term Probability of occurrence: Definite Degree to which the impact can be Low reversed: Degree to which the impact may cause High- irreplaceable loss of resources: Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: High- Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation (Low, Medium, Medium- High- High, High, or Very-High) Degree to which the impact can be High mitigated: Proposed mitigation: The redevelopment and upgrading of the area as proposed in the Houmoed Rd Phase 2 Extension and Formalisation of Housing development for the occupied wetland area would create the opportunity to provide bulk service: roads, water, sanitation and electricity. Cumulative impact post mitigation: High+ Significance rating of impact after mitigation (Low, Medium, Medium- High+ High, High, or Very-High)

Potential impacts on socio- Insecure Land or Housing Tenure economic aspects: Nature of impact: The people living in the WIS are currently living their illegally although many who have been living there for a long time have obtained certificates of occupation from the city which allows them to obtain identity documents. The rights of those who have been living there for many years is protected under the various legislation referred to in section 3.3.1 of this report. Legally they cannot be removed without alternative accommodation being provided to them. However they have no prospect of obtaining secure ownership rights over their dwellings in the WIS. Extent and duration of impact: Localised and Long-Term Probability of occurrence: Definite Degree to which the impact can be Medium reversed: Degree to which the impact may cause Medium- irreplaceable loss of resources:

EOH Coastal and Environmental Services 26 Social Impact Assessment

Potential impacts on socio- Insecure Land or Housing Tenure economic aspects: Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: High - Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation (Low, Medium, Medium- High - High, High, or Very-High) Degree to which the impact can be High for qualifying households but mitigated: Low for non-qualifying households Proposed mitigation: The redevelopment and upgrading of the area as proposed in the Houmoed Rd Phase 2 Extension and Formalisation of Housing development for the occupied wetland area would provide an opportunity for qualifying households to gain access to formal houses they would be given ownership of, or rental accommodation from the CoCT. They will also obtain temporary dwellings in a TRA until such time as their formal housing becomes available (after construction).

Non-qualifying households will however only benefit from alternative temporary dwellings in a TRA. They may well have to seek alternative rental accommodation or accommodation in other informal settlements when the TRA is decommissioned and turned into a formal settlement. Cumulative impact post mitigation: Medium+ Significance rating of impact after Very High+ for qualifying households mitigation (Low, Medium, Medium- Neutral or low impact for non-qualifying households High, High, or Very-High)

Potential impacts on socio- Household cost savings and income derived from WIS economic aspects: Nature of impact: There are many residents of the WIA who are living there without paying for rent or services. Given the low reporting of foreign national residents in the WIS survey, it is possible that there are many South African Masiphumelele residents (property owners or backyard shack tenants) who have built and rent out dwellings in the WIS. These people generate income for themselves from these rental arrangements. Extent and duration of impact: Localised and Long-Term Probability of occurrence: Possible Degree to which the impact can be High (through the proposed development) reversed: Degree to which the impact may cause High+ for the affected households it will result in a loss of income. irreplaceable loss of resources: High- (neg) for the wetland and the health and safety of the WIS residents due to the growth of the WIS. Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: High+ Significance rating of impact prior to High+ for the affected households it will result in a loss of income. mitigation (Low, Medium, Medium- High, High, or Very-High) Degree to which the impact can be Low. These activities are illegal and should not require mitigation. mitigated: Proposed mitigation: The proposed development. Cumulative impact post mitigation: High- for the affected households it will result in a loss of income. Significance rating of impact after High- for the affected households it will result in a loss of income. mitigation (Low, Medium, Medium- High, High, or Very-High)

EOH Coastal and Environmental Services 27 Social Impact Assessment

5.3. Design and Construction Phase

Potential impacts on socio- Loss of life and damage to property from fires economic aspects: The WIS and Masiphumelele surrounds are very prone to major fire events and loss of property, and occasionally life. The design and construction phase of the proposed development implicitly caters for addressing fire risks through the planning and establishment of formal serviced housing and road access, the latter being the major challenge in fighting fires in densely packed Nature of impact: settlements when fire crews cannot gain access to burning areas. The construction phase will see blocks of the WIS residents, temporarily or permanently relocated, as the project (road and housing) construction process progresses. The planned development of the TRA will also ensure that the risks of fires will be reduced. Extent and duration of impact: Localised and Long-Term Probability of occurrence: Probable. The proposed development will have a positive impact that is not desirable to reverse. However, the way in which the new housing is developed has not yet Degree to which the impact can be been determined, and the potential for the development of new backyard reversed: informal dwellings that recreate major fire risks remains a possibility. The exact nature of the housing to be provided has not yet been determined and will be subject to a lengthy consultation and planning process. Degree to which the impact may cause Low irreplaceable loss of resources: Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Medium+ Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation (Low, Medium, Medium- High+ High, High, or Very-High) Degree to which the impact can be High mitigated: It is recommended that the TRA areas and the new housing developments be planned in a manner that takes cognisance of the practice of hiring out backyard informal dwellings by residents and plans for this in ways that Proposed mitigation: facilitate the minimisation of fire risks. This would reduce the risks to lives and property from fire during the resettlement process (to TRAs and permanent housing development) and in the long-term. Cumulative impact post mitigation: High+ Significance rating of impact after mitigation (Low, Medium, Medium- Very High+ High, High, or Very-High)

Potential impacts on socio- Ill Health and high associated costs due to poor living conditions and economic aspects: poor sanitation Nature of impact: The proposed development entails the raising of the ground level above the water table and the provision of planned roads and other bulk services and housing in the currently occupied wetland area, but also in other parcels of land close to Masiphumelele. As such it will definitely have a positive impact on living conditions and the health of the residents. However, the effectiveness of this impact will depend on the extent to which the CoCT is able to plan the TRA in such a way that it can be upgraded and services are provided to each planned plot and managed by the owners/tenants themselves. The continuation of existing TRA development practices with shared communal ablutions managed by the CoCT would recreate the current poor health situation in the longer term, particularly if the TRA is located adjacent to the wetland. Extent and duration of impact: Localised and Long-Term Probability of occurrence: Definite Degree to which the impact can be The proposed development will have a positive impact that is not desirable to reversed: reverse. However, the way in which the new TRA and permanent housing is developed has not yet been determined, and the potential for the

EOH Coastal and Environmental Services 28 Social Impact Assessment

Potential impacts on socio- Ill Health and high associated costs due to poor living conditions and economic aspects: poor sanitation development of a permanent TRA with communal services remains a possibility and risk, particularly if it is located adjacent to the wetland. The exact nature of the TRA and permanent housing to be provided will be subject to a lengthy consultation and planning process. Degree to which the impact may cause Low irreplaceable loss of resources: Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: High+ Significance rating of impact prior to High+ mitigation (Low, Medium, Medium- High, High, or Very-High) Degree to which the impact can be High mitigated: Proposed mitigation: Provision of bulk water and sanitation services, formalised housing and the rectification/rehabilitation of the polluted drainage channels will considerably improve the overall health conditions and baseline in the Masiphumelele community and WIS area. It is recommended that the TRA should not be located adjacent to the wetland unless it is well planned and serviced in a way that will enable upgrading. Cumulative impact post mitigation: High+ Significance rating of impact after Very High+ mitigation (Low, Medium, Medium- High, High, or Very-High)

Potential impacts on socio- Land or Housing Tenure economic aspects: Nature of impact: Those WIS residents who qualify for housing, or subsidies in some form as part of the proposed development will benefit from increased security of tenure or occupation rights.

The tenure insecurity of non-qualifiers is likely to continue in that they are not eligible for government provided housing or subsidies. For these households the impacts are likely to be detrimental in that they will be relocated to a temporary dwelling in a TRA and later (after decommissioning of TRA) required to find alternative rental accommodation at prices they may not be able to afford, or to erect informal dwellings where they can in proximity to Masiphumelele and its surrounding area. The number of households that fall into this category is unknown at this time. They could be much more than 50%, particularly if the newly provided housing needs to be shared between the WIS and backyard shack residents who qualify for subsidies. Therefore the scale of this impact is difficult to establish but is likely to be high.

The potential for higher income SA residents to benefit from the development is unlikely as there are no private partners working with the city on this project and it therefore does not include any proposals to develop social or gap housing development for these households. Extent and duration of impact: Localised and Long-Term Probability of occurrence: Definite Degree to which the impact can be The proposed development will have a positive impact for qualifying reversed: households that is not desirable to reverse. The negative impact on non-qualifying households could potentially be reversed through changes in national to municipal planning, land and housing policies, but is probably beyond the scope of this proposed development. Degree to which the impact may cause Unlikely irreplaceable loss of resources: Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: High positive for qualifying households Neutral or low positive for non-qualifying households. Significance rating of impact prior to High+ mitigation (Low, Medium, Medium-

EOH Coastal and Environmental Services 29 Social Impact Assessment

Potential impacts on socio- Land or Housing Tenure economic aspects: High, High, or Very-High) Degree to which the impact can be Those who are Qualifying households will benefit from the proposed mitigated: development and need no mitigation measures. This impact should not be reversed.

The degree to which this impact on non-qualifying households can be mitigated is low. Proposed mitigation: Formal certification or issuance of some form of certification of tenure will provide assurance and stability to the affected WIS households.

The provision of housing and some form of tenure security for non-qualifiers depends very largely on their ability to secure affordable rental accommodation from local property owners – usually in backyard informal dwellings. The potential for this kind of accommodation to be provided by those who benefit from ownership of new houses should also be incorporated into the planning of the development and resettlement process. It would also be beneficial for tenants to organise themselves and engage with landlords as a collective rather than individuals.

The possibilities of developing some form of social or Gap housing for the 18% of households who may earn more than R3500 pm, together with commercial business partners should also be investigated. Cumulative impact post mitigation: High+ for qualifiers Neutral or Low+ for non-qualifiers Significance rating of impact after High+ for qualifiers mitigation (Low, Medium, Medium- Neutral or Low+ for non-qualifiers High, High, or Very-High)

Potential impacts on socio- Disruption and potential negative impacts on household incomes and economic aspects: their children’s schooling due to permanent Resettlement and Temporary Relocation Nature of impact: Resettlement and relocation will potentially affect the resident’s jobs, expenses, and access to services, transport, shops and schooling. It will also change their neighbours and disrupt their social networks and make them more vulnerable to crime. Emotional stress due to uncertainty and insecurity will also occur. Administrative errors may also have significant impacts on people’s lives - especially in a situation where the affected households are not adequately recorded/surveyed, and where administrative capacity is inadequate. Extent and duration of impact: Localised and Medium-Term Probability of occurrence: Definite Degree to which the impact can be Low reversed: Degree to which the impact may cause Low- irreplaceable loss of resources: Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Very High- Significance rating of impact prior to Very High- mitigation (Low, Medium, Medium- High, High, or Very-High) Degree to which the impact can be High mitigated: Proposed mitigation: With well informed and appropriate resettlement plans being negotiated, developed and implemented, the potential social disruption and impacts on household income earning opportunities, schooling and transport costs can be minimised. It is essential that the gaps and anomalies in the survey of households be addressed, and that the CoCT involves the community in the negotiations around the planning and implementation processes. Given the lack of guiding resettlement regulations nationally (and locally), the CoCT

EOH Coastal and Environmental Services 30 Social Impact Assessment

Potential impacts on socio- Disruption and potential negative impacts on household incomes and economic aspects: their children’s schooling due to permanent Resettlement and Temporary Relocation should strive to adhere to international resettlement best practice guidelines, such as those developed by the International Finance Corporation (IFC) and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). Cumulative impact post mitigation: Medium/Low- Significance rating of impact after Medium/Low - mitigation (Low, Medium, Medium- High, High, or Very-High)

Potential impacts on socio- Poor Communication between I&APs and key stakeholders economic aspects: Nature of impact: As a result of previous consultations and experiences between the CoCT and local residents around housing and community development projects in Masiphumelele, as well as the poverty and competition for access to government resources, party-political divisions and competition, the rapid growth of the population and the difficulties of meeting the mounting need for services, there is considerable tension and a lack of trust between all the local stakeholders and the CoCT. This context presents a significant risk to the potential for the proposed development and resettlement planning and implementation processes to become another contested space, and by extension more difficult to execute effectively and efficiently. Extent and duration of impact: Localised and Short-Term Probability of occurrence: Definite Degree to which the impact can be High reversed: Degree to which the impact may cause Insignificant irreplaceable loss of resources: Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Medium- Significance rating of impact prior to Very High- mitigation (Low, Medium, Medium- High, High, or Very-High) Degree to which the impact can be High mitigated: Proposed mitigation: Implementation and maintenance of appropriate and effective stakeholder engagement processes that provide the platform to address the status quo issues and concerns voiced by stakeholders to date. This is necessary not only for project planning, construction and resettlement process implementation purposes but also crucial to ensuring that the longer-term objectives of preventing ongoing encroachment of the wetland areas is as cooperative (CoCT and community) as possible. Contracting the services of independent and skilled social engagement facilitators to assist with the engagement process is highly recommended. Cumulative impact post mitigation: High+ Significance rating of impact after Medium/High+ mitigation (Low, Medium, Medium- High, High, or Very-High)

Potential impacts on socio- Continued growth of the Masiphumelele community economic aspects: Nature of impact: As new land and housing is made available for local residents - both those in the WIS and in backyard informal dwellings - the existing informal dwellings they have occupied are likely to be rented out to new tenants. In this way the potential for the continued growth of the population is facilitated. This will increase the pressure on the government to provide more housing and services. It will also increase the competition for access to health and educational facilities and demands on government to meet the growing needs. Extent and duration of impact: Localised and Long-Term

EOH Coastal and Environmental Services 31 Social Impact Assessment

Potential impacts on socio- Continued growth of the Masiphumelele community economic aspects: Probability of occurrence: High Degree to which the impact can be Low reversed: Degree to which the impact may cause High irreplaceable loss of resources: Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: High- Significance rating of impact prior to High- mitigation (Low, Medium, Medium- High, High, or Very-High) Degree to which the impact can be Medium/Low mitigated: The potential to avoid or mitigate this impact will depend very considerably on the ability of the community to collaborate and take responsibility for managing the growth of the community themselves, and the ability of the CoCT and the Housing Authorities to modify their policies and practices to enable the upgrading of the backyard shack areas in Masiphumelele. Proposed mitigation: To facilitate densification and upgrading of the existing Masiphumelele settlement and manage population growth, it is recommended that the potential for housing grant policies to be modified to enable existing privately- owned properties in Masiphumelele (where there are backyard shack tenants) to be sub-divided and upgraded into new serviced plots with houses, be investigated and piloted. If such land can be purchased and the finance used to develop more rental accommodation on the original owners’ portion of the plot, then this would further improve living conditions in the community and increase the provision of formal properly serviced accommodation. Cumulative impact post mitigation: High+ Significance rating of impact after High+ mitigation (Low, Medium, Medium- High, High, or Very-High)

5.4. Operational Phase

Potential impacts on socio- Loss of life and damage to property from Fires economic aspects: Nature of impact: Fire risks will be significantly reduced in the operational phase of the proposed development as in theory the redeveloped WIS will contain less informal dwellings and appropriate road access and corridors in the formalised setting will allow for quick access and response to any fires that may eventuate. The extent to which fire risks can be minimised in the TRA will depend on the effectiveness of the planning for this element of the project and the extent to which it can be developed in a manner that facilitates eventual upgrading and minimise the fire and health risks. Extent and duration of impact: Localised and Long-Term Probability of occurrence: Definite Degree to which the impact can be It is not desirable to reverse the positive impact for the formal housing reversed: element of the project. A failure to plan and implement the TRA in a manner that facilitate eventual upgrading and minimize health and fire risks has a high risk of recreating a similar situation to the current WIS, particularly if it is located adjacent to the wetland. Degree to which the impact may cause Low (for formal housing) irreplaceable loss of resources: High (for any poorly planned TRA adjacent to wetland) Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: High+ (for formal housing) High- (for any poorly planned TRA adjacent to wetland) Significance rating of impact prior to High+ (for formal housing) mitigation (Low, Medium, Medium- High- (for any poorly planned TRA adjacent to wetland) High, High, or Very-High) Degree to which the impact can be High mitigated: Proposed mitigation: It is recommended that the TRA is designed in a manner that divides the area

EOH Coastal and Environmental Services 32 Social Impact Assessment

Potential impacts on socio- Loss of life and damage to property from Fires economic aspects: into single residential plots with services provided, that are allocated to specific beneficiaries and upgraded with formal housing after the TRA period. Further, that these plots temporarily be shared with other affected WIS households who will obtain permanent housing elsewhere, and to non- qualifiers who may have to rent accommodation in the long term. The layout of the temporary dwellings also needs to be planned to facilitate the sharing of water, sanitation and electrical services and the minimization of fire risks.

It is further recommended that the design of the TRA and the new housing developments takes cognisance of the local practice of hiring out backyard informal dwellings and plans for this in ways that facilitate the minimisation of fire risks and the accommodation of non-qualifying households as tenants. In addition, the potential to sub-divide older privately owned single residential properties in Masiphumelele to be subdivided, sold and redeveloped with formal housing be explored as part of the proposed development, as an alternative to making additional State land available for housing. This would reduce the risks of fire in these areas too. Cumulative impact post mitigation: Medium+ Significance rating of impact after High+ mitigation (Low, Medium, Medium- High, High, or Very-High)

Potential impacts on socio- Ill Health and high associated costs due to poor living conditions and economic aspects: poor sanitation Nature of impact: It is anticipated that once the formal housing and road projects are in place the baseline health conditions will improve substantially in the formal housing areas. The extent to which health impacts can be minimised in the TRA will depend on the effectiveness of the planning for this element of the project and the extent to which it can be developed in a manner that facilitates eventual upgrading and minimise the fire and health risks. Extent and duration of impact: Localised and Long-Term Probability of occurrence: Definite Degree to which the impact can be It is not desirable to reverse the positive impact for the formal housing reversed: element of the project. A failure to plan and implement the TRA in a manner that facilitate eventual upgrading and minimize health risks has a high risk of recreating a similar situation to the current WIS, particularly if it is located adjacent to the wetland. Degree to which the impact may cause Low (for formal housing) irreplaceable loss of resources: High (for any poorly planned TRA adjacent to wetland) Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: High+ (for formal housing) High - (for any poorly planned TRA adjacent to wetland) Significance rating of impact prior to High+ (for formal housing) mitigation (Low, Medium, Medium- High- (for any poorly planned TRA adjacent to wetland) High, High, or Very-High) Degree to which the impact can be Low (for formal housing) mitigated: High (for any poorly planned TRA adjacent to wetland) Proposed mitigation: The same mitigation measures as those recommended above to minimize the fire risks are recommended for this impact. Cumulative impact post mitigation: Medium+ Significance rating of impact after High+ mitigation (Low, Medium, Medium- High, High, or Very-High)

Potential impacts on socio- Disruption and potential negative impacts on income and schooling due economic aspects: to Resettlement and Temporary Relocation Nature of impact: Resettlement of WIS housing beneficiaries will continue into the operational phase as the TRA are closed down and qualifying households move into the

EOH Coastal and Environmental Services 33 Social Impact Assessment

Potential impacts on socio- Disruption and potential negative impacts on income and schooling due economic aspects: to Resettlement and Temporary Relocation formalised housing areas. While this can largely be beneficial impact if appropriately planned and managed, the possibility for households to be detrimentally impacted remains - particularly those households moving twice (to the TRA and then onward to their allocated housing) and non-qualifying households who may have to seek rental accommodation elsewhere. Extent and duration of impact: Localised and Long-Term Probability of occurrence: Definite Degree to which the impact can be Low reversed: Degree to which the impact may cause Low- irreplaceable loss of resources: Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Medium- Significance rating of impact prior to High- mitigation (Low, Medium, Medium- High, High, or Very-High) Degree to which the impact can be High mitigated: Proposed mitigation: With appropriate resettlement plans being developed and implemented, the potential social disruption and impacts on household income earning opportunities, schooling and transport costs can be minimised. The development of a plan (in consultation with the community) that makes provision for non-qualifying households to acquire rental accommodation from qualifying households in the new settlements, could minimise this detrimental impact on them. Cumulative impact post mitigation: Medium/Low- Significance rating of impact after Medium- mitigation (Low, Medium, Medium- High, High, or Very-High)

Potential impacts on socio- Household cost savings and income derived from WIS (lost). economic aspects: Nature of impact: There are many residents of the WIA who are living there without paying for rent or services. These households will lose these benefits due to the proposed re-development and resettlement. Given the low reporting of foreign national residents in the WIS survey, it is possible that there are many South African Masiphumelele residents (property owners or backyard shack tenants) who have built and rent out dwellings in the WIS. These people will lose this income as a result of the proposed development. Extent and duration of impact: Localised and Long-Term Probability of occurrence: Possible Degree to which the impact can be High (through the proposed development) reversed: Degree to which the impact may cause High+ for the affected households it will result in a loss of income. irreplaceable loss of resources: High- for the wetland and the health and safety of the WIS residents due to the growth of the WIS. Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: High+ Significance rating of impact prior to High+ for the affected households it will result in a loss of income. mitigation (Low, Medium, Medium- High, High, or Very-High) Degree to which the impact can be Low. These activities are illegal and should not require mitigation. mitigated: Proposed mitigation: The proposed development. Cumulative impact post mitigation: High- for the affected households it will result in a loss of income. Significance rating of impact after High- for the affected households it will result in a loss of income. mitigation (Low, Medium, Medium- High, High, or Very-High)

EOH Coastal and Environmental Services 34 Social Impact Assessment

5.5. Decommissioning Phase

Potential impacts on socio- Temporary Resettlement Areas becoming permanent informal economic aspects: settlements Nature of impact: It is possible the TRA could end up becoming denser informal settlements themselves, and attracting the development of informal dwellings on any open land on the periphery of these. This in turn creates the same growth problem currently experienced with the WIS. Failure to plan and manage the TRA effectively in a manner that can facilitate later upgrading will result in similar health, fire and uncontrolled growth impacts to the existing situation in the WIS. Extent and duration of impact: Localised and Long-Term Probability of occurrence: Probable Degree to which the impact can be Low (once it is enabled by poor planning) reversed: Degree to which the impact may cause High- irreplaceable loss of resources: Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Very High- Significance rating of impact prior to Very High- mitigation (Low, Medium, Medium- High, High, or Very-High) Degree to which the impact can be High mitigated: Proposed mitigation: The CoCT will have to ensure that the TRA are planned and managed appropriately. These areas are ultimately earmarked for the development of formal housing themselves in the future and it is essential that the resettlement and development planning process takes these eventualities into account and makes provision for them from the beginning. It is recommended that the TRA be developed along similar lines to BNG plots with basic service provision for each site, allocated to qualifying beneficiaries, on the understanding that other affected households are accommodated in temporary dwellings alongside the owners until their permanent housing elsewhere are ready for occupation. This would also allow the owners and other occupants of each site in the TRA to take responsibility for the management of the shared use of the water, sanitation and electrical services themselves, and not need or depend on communally provided water and sanitation services. It will also facilitate access to electricity for all households. In this case the building of formal houses for the plot owners would be delayed until the temporary residents are moved to their new permanent sites elsewhere. Ways to make provision for some non-qualifying households to stay on as tenants should also be considered and included in the plans. Cumulative impact post mitigation: High+ Significance rating of impact after High+ mitigation (Low, Medium, Medium- High, High, or Very-High)

Potential impacts on socio- The growth of other informal settlements (or displacement of informal economic aspects: settlements) rather than reducing them. Nature of impact: The upgrading of the WIS and the decommissioning of the TRA, is likely to result in non-qualifying households having to seek rental accommodation somewhere. If they cannot find affordable accommodation they may well end up homeless or may move to other informal settlements or creating new ones. Consequently, the negative impacts of informal settlements will not be avoided or minimized but simply displaced to other areas. Extent and duration of impact: Localised and Long-Term Probability of occurrence: High Degree to which the impact can be Low (due to a lack of government resources to meet the continually growing reversed: demand for houses and services and high levels of unemployment, poverty and rural-urban migration). Degree to which the impact may cause High

EOH Coastal and Environmental Services 35 Social Impact Assessment

Potential impacts on socio- The growth of other informal settlements (or displacement of informal economic aspects: settlements) rather than reducing them. irreplaceable loss of resources: Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: High- Significance rating of impact prior to High- mitigation (Low, Medium, Medium- High, High, or Very-High) Degree to which the impact can be Low (the CoCT and government in general has limited scope to quickly mitigated: address the issues of unemployment and poverty in Cape Town and South Africa. They also do not have access to sufficient funds or land to provide everyone with formal housing and services.) Proposed mitigation: Although difficult, the CoCT will need to prohibit and control the expansion of additional or new informal settlements in the area. Cumulative impact post mitigation: Medium+ Significance rating of impact after Low+ but will remain negative if the growth of new informal settlements is not mitigation (Low, Medium, Medium- controlled or prevented. High, High, or Very-High)

EOH Coastal and Environmental Services 36 Social Impact Assessment

6. IMPACT MITIGATION AND ENHANCEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

The proposed management plans or procedures are to be developed and implemented to mitigate and enhance the anticipated social impacts over the planning, construction, operational and decommissioning phases of the project are provided below.

6.1. General Recommendations

An Interim measure or solution to the disposal of waste from bucket system toilets into the drainage channels traversing the WIS must be identified and implemented as soon as possible to reduce the health risks for the residents and minimize the impacts on the wetland. This will require effective dialogue and cooperation between the CoCT and the local residents.

An effective stakeholder engagement process is required to develop a viable and acceptable relocation and resettlement action plan for the WIS. Consultation and institutional development processes are needed to develop the capacity of the community to take more responsibility for the management of the population growth and the upgrading of the community. A substantial amount of time and resources will need to be made available by the City to develop an appropriate best- practice resettlement action plan for the WIS community through negotiation between all the relevant parties.

The implementation of existing housing subsidies is encouraging expansion of low income settlements into virgin land and maintaining existing backyard informal dwellings in the Masiphumelele formal settlement. This is contributing to urban expansion or “sprawl” rather than densification and upgrading of the existing settlement. Their needs to be more focus and creative thinking around ways to facilitate the upgrading of backyard informal dwelling areas, as well as alternative subsidy mechanisms that allow qualifying low income households to acquire ownership of portions of existing privately owned subdivided plots to develop their own homes.

The TRA area needs to be developed in ways which facilitate eventual upgrading and ownership, so that it does not become a permanent informal settlement. The Hout Bay example referred to in this report should be avoided, as it is likely to result in the creation of a permanent informal settlement and the continued contamination of the wetland and expansion into it (if the TRA is located adjacent to the wetland). It is recommended that the TRA be developed along similar lines to BNG plots with basic service provision for each site, allocated to qualifying beneficiaries, on the understanding that other non-qualifying affected households are accommodated in temporary dwellings alongside the owners, until their permanent housing elsewhere become ready for occupation. This would also allow the owners and other occupants of each site to take responsibility for the management of the shared use of the water, sanitation and electrical services.

It is recommended that the construction of CRUs should be avoided as these are much more expensive and difficult to manage (see Section 6.2 below). They are also not favoured by local residents as ownership is preferred to renting.

In developing the resettlement action plan, the practice of renting out ‘open space’ in privately owned plots acquired through government subsidised housing grants, needs to be acknowledged and worked with, rather than being resisted. Accepting, accommodating and making provision for this practice, could create an opportunity to provide additional (rental) accommodation for non- qualifying households. If this is adopted, then each single BNG housing site could provide one or two additional rental dwellings (informal dwellings) for non-qualifying residents, depending on the size and building plans for each site.

Physical relocation of households that will be settled up to 5 km from Masiphumelele should ideally be undertaken over the school holidays so as to minimise disruption of schooling. And if necessary, allow for parents to enrol them in other schools if this ends up being necessary.

EOH Coastal and Environmental Services 37 Social Impact Assessment

6.2. The Policy and Regulatory Environment

Management of communal rental accommodation (CRU and Social Housing Projects) is problematic and not functioning well. It requires considerable collective responsibility and accountability amongst the beneficiaries and the capacity to manage the system financially. The CoCT officials are also not well equipped to take on this responsibility and would only serve to maintain dependent relationships between the City and the beneficiaries. On the other hand, self- management of the privately-owned properties and the sharing of services between owners and tenants seems to be resulting in more healthy living conditions - except for the continued high risks of fires. Narrow and long meandering ally-ways between houses and informal dwellings contributes very significantly to the risks of being unable to escape fires or put them out.

The subdivision and re-development of the original large properties in ways that allow for more and better-quality accommodation to be built, could contribute to improving living conditions in Masiphumelele. The difficulty of course is that many of the poor people renting backyard informal dwellings cannot afford the higher rents or to purchase property. The current impossibility of using government housing subsidies to purchase existing properties or to build your own home on land you purchase, contributes to maintaining the demand for more and more state land for new housing developments rather than the upgrading of existing private properties rented out to backyard shack tenants. It is only the wealthier residents who could afford to buy and build for themselves. It may also be difficult to borrow money for such property developments.

This situation could potentially change if government housing policies were reviewed and amended in ways that would promote the upgrading and densification of existing larger properties that are currently being used to generate incomes from backyard tenants. It was not possible to find out during the short time frame for this SIA whether such alternative housing subsidy options are under consideration but this issue should be investigated further. Some pilot projects along these lines would also probably be necessary to facilitate the development of new policies in this regard. Perhaps Masiphumelele could be used as a pilot project for this purpose.

6.3. Displacement of Existing Impacts and Issues

The upgrading of the WIS area may well stimulate the creation or expansion of other informal settlements in the area, especially around the proposed TRA. This is almost inevitable if inadequate provision is made for the non-qualifiers and if the TRA is not developed in ways which will facilitate eventual upgrading. In such a case, the upgrading project will not be eliminating informal settlements, but simply displacing them to other areas.

If a TRA area is established on another piece of land adjacent to the wetland without enabling the private shared use of services on individual plots, and eventual upgrading into a formal settlement, then, the current pollution impacts on the wetland and uncontrolled expansion of the settlement is likely to continue. This would be counterproductive and should be avoided at all costs.

The CoCT cannot prevent the expansion of informal settlement in the area on its own if it relies solely on anti-land invasion unit activities. Success will require the Masiphumelele community’s participation in, and ownership of these encroachment management efforts. It is important therefore to explore private ownership and subsidy models in the TRA and other permanent housing developments, which meet the residents’ needs and enable owner and occupier self- management and self-development, rather than dependence on the Municipality and National/Provincial government for management of collective services.

The latter imperative underlines the need for more effective engagement and collaboration between all these key stakeholders - government, civil society and residential organisations. Community members and organisations canvassed during the SIA fieldwork have emphasised the need for the community to be consulted and involved in planning and management of any

EOH Coastal and Environmental Services 38 Social Impact Assessment upgrading, re-development and resettlement. They recognise and are concerned about the problems with population growth and service provision, and that the housing issue for the WIS cannot be solved in isolation from the broader housing issues for Masiphumelele (i.e. the backyard tenants). There is a valuable opportunity therefore to harness the concern and energy of the local residents to participate in the management, development and upgrading of their community. This would be a far more effective way to manage population growth than the current government control and enforcement approach.

EOH Coastal and Environmental Services 39 Social Impact Assessment

7. CONCLUSION

It is clear that the road and housing formalisation projects hold great potential benefit to the Masiphumelele community by virtue of the amenity and improvement in living and health conditions both these project components will bring to the community. The associated ecological benefits are also apparent, although not subject to extensive discussion or assessment in this report.

The lack of a definitive number of households to be affected, compounded by the current lack of a cogent resettlement plan for the WIS communities, does imply a high level of execution risk for the CoCT at this point in time. Poorly executed resettlement processes will negatively impact on permanently resettled households more than they should be. This is doubly true for those households who will be moving into a TRA, before being allocated formal housing in the redeveloped sections of Masiphumelele, and even more so for those affected households who do not qualify for government subsidised housing. Effective planning and execution will require extensive work and consideration by the CoCT together with the local residents.

This report has highlighted the need for all stakeholders in the community and the CoCT to establish effective engagement mechanisms and processes to address the fear and fundamental mistrust and confrontation that most parties claim categorizes the local government/society interface in Masiphumelele. This is a prerequisite for the project’s’ success, as well as the sustainable and cooperative management of the community’s environment and local development processes going forward.

In conclusion, it is apparent to the authors of this report that the proposed project should proceed as its potential social benefits will outweigh any potential negative impacts that may arise there from. However, it is crucial that the resettlement process to be undertaken by the CoCT is in accordance with best practice principles and requirements so as to avoid the negative impacts that are associated with poorly executed resettlement projects.

EOH Coastal and Environmental Services 40 Social Impact Assessment

ANNEXURE A: IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE RATING METHODOLOGY

Potential impacts on socio-economic aspects: Nature of impact: Extent and duration of impact: Probability of occurrence: Degree to which the impact can be reversed: Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable loss of resources: Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation (Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: Proposed mitigation: Cumulative impact post mitigation: Significance rating of impact after mitigation (Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)

The assessment methods used include the desktop analysis of the site and alternatives, a site visit and identification of impacts. The identified impacts were then assessed using the EOH-CES impact assessment methodology as described below. These assessment methods are considered to be adequate for the basic assessment report. Four factors need to be considered when assessing the significance of impacts, namely:

1. Relationship of the impact to temporal scales - the temporal scale defines the significance of the impact at various time scales, as an indication of the duration of the impact. 2. Relationship of the impact to spatial scales - the spatial scale defines the physical extent of the impact. 3. The severity of the impact - the severity/beneficial scale is used in order to scientifically evaluate how severe negative impacts would be, or how beneficial positive impacts would be on a particular affected system (for ecological impacts) or a particular affected party. The severity of impacts can be evaluated with and without mitigation in order to demonstrate how serious the impact is when nothing is done about it. The word ‘mitigation’ means not just ‘compensation’, but includes concepts of containment and remedy. For beneficial impacts, optimization means anything that can enhance the benefits. However, mitigation or optimization must be practical, technically feasible and economically viable. 4. The likelihood of the impact occurring - the likelihood of impacts taking place as a result of project actions differs between potential impacts. There is no doubt that some impacts could occur (e.g. loss of vegetation), but other impacts are not as likely to occur (e.g. vehicle accident), and may or may not result from the proposed development. Although some impacts may have a severe effect, the likelihood of them occurring may affect their overall significance.

Each criterion is ranked with scores assigned as presented in Table A1 to determine the overall significance of an activity. The criterion is then considered in two categories, viz. effect of the activity and the likelihood of the impact. The total scores recorded for the effect and likelihood are then read off the matrix presented in Table A2, to determine the overall significance of the impact. The overall significance is either negative or positive.

The environmental significance scale is an attempt to evaluate the importance of a particular impact. This evaluation needs to be undertaken in the relevant context, as an impact can either be ecological or social, or both. The evaluation of the significance of an impact relies heavily on the values of the person making the judgment. For this reason, impacts of especially a social nature need to reflect the values of the affected society.

The evaluation of the impacts, as described above is used to prioritise which impacts require mitigation measures.

Negative impacts that are ranked as being of “VERY HIGH” and “HIGH” significance will be investigated further to determine how the impact can be minimised or what alternative activities or mitigation measures can be implemented. These impacts may also assist decision makers i.e. numerous HIGH negative impacts may bring about a negative decision.

For impacts identified as having a negative impact of “MODERATE” or “MEDIUM” significance, it is standard practice to investigate alternate activities and/or mitigation measures. The most effective and practical mitigations measures will then be proposed.

EOH Coastal and Environmental Services 41 Social Impact Assessment

For impacts ranked as “LOW” significance, no investigations or alternatives will be considered. Possible management measures will be investigated to ensure that the impacts remain of low significance.

Table A1: Ranking of Evaluation Criteria Temporal Scale Short term Less than 5 years Medium term Between 5-20 years Between 20 and 40 years (a generation) and from a human perspective also Long term permanent Over 40 years and resulting in a permanent and lasting change that will always Permanent be there Spatial Scale Localised At localised scale and a few hectares in extent Study Area The proposed site and its immediate environs Regional District and Provincial level National Country International Internationally Severity Detrimental Beneficial Slight impacts on the affected Slightly beneficial to the affected Slight system(s) or party(ies) system(s) and party(ies) Moderate impacts on the affected Moderately beneficial to the affected Moderate system(s) or party(ies) system(s) and party(ies)

Severe/ Severe impacts on the affected A substantial benefit to the affected

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

Beneficial system(s) or party(ies) affected system(s) and party(ies) EFFECT

Likelihood Unlikely The likelihood of these impacts occurring is slight May Occur The likelihood of these impacts occurring is possible Probable The likelihood of these impacts occurring is probable

Definite The likelihood is that this impact will definitely occur LIKELIHOOD

* In certain cases it may not be possible to determine the severity of an impact thus it may be determined: Don’t know/Can’t know

Table A2: Description of Environmental Significance Ratings and associated range of scores Significance Description An acceptable impact for which mitigation is desirable but not essential. The impact by itself is insufficient even in combination with other low impacts to prevent the development being Low approved. These impacts will result in either positive or negative medium to short term effects on the social and/or natural environment. An important impact which requires mitigation. The impact is insufficient by itself to prevent the implementation of the project but which in conjunction with other impacts may prevent its Medium/Moderate implementation. These impacts will usually result in either a positive or negative medium to long-term effect on the social and/or natural environment. A serious impact, if not mitigated, may prevent the implementation of the project (if it is a negative impact). High These impacts would be considered by society as constituting a major and usually a long-term change to the (natural and/or social) environment and result in severe effects or beneficial effects. A very serious impact which, if negative, may be sufficient by itself to prevent implementation of Very High the project. The impact may result in permanent change. Very often these impacts cannot be mitigated and usually result in very severe effects, or very beneficial effects.

EOH Coastal and Environmental Services 42 Social Impact Assessment

ANNEXURE B: SPECIALIST DECLARATIONS AND SCOPE OF WORK

THE INDEPENDENT PERSON WHO COMPILED A SPECIALIST REPORT OR UNDERTOOK A SPECIALIST PROCESS

I MARC RICHARD HARDY, as the appointed independent specialist hereby declare that I:

 acted as the independent specialist in this application;  regard the information contained in this report as it relates to my specialist input/study to be true and correct, and  do not have and will not have any financial interest in the undertaking of the activity, other than remuneration for work performed in terms of the NEMA, the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2010 and any specific environmental management Act;  have and will not have no vested interest in the proposed activity proceeding;  have disclosed, to the applicant, EAP and competent authority, any material information that have or may have the potential to influence the decision of the competent authority or the objectivity of any report, plan or document required in terms of the NEMA, the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2010 and any specific environmental management Act;  am fully aware of and meet the responsibilities in terms of NEMA, the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2010 (specifically in terms of regulation 17 of GN No. R. 543) and any specific environmental management Act, and that failure to comply with these requirements may constitute and result in disqualification;  have ensured that information containing all relevant facts in respect of the specialist input/study was distributed or made available to interested and affected parties and the public and that participation by interested and affected parties was facilitated in such a manner that all interested and affected parties were provided with a reasonable opportunity to participate and to provide comments on the specialist input/study;  have ensured that the comments of all interested and affected parties on the specialist input/study were considered, recorded and submitted to the competent authority in respect of the application;  have ensured that the names of all interested and affected parties that participated in terms of the specialist input/study were recorded in the register of interested and affected parties who participated in the public participation process;  have provided the competent authority with access to all information at my disposal regarding the application, whether such information is favourable to the applicant or not; and  am aware that a false declaration is an offence in terms of regulation 71 of GN No. R. 543.

Note: The terms of reference must be attached. (see below)

Signature of the specialist

Name of company: EOH Coastal and Environmental Services Date: 16/102017

EOH Coastal and Environmental Services 43 Social Impact Assessment

THE INDEPENDENT PERSON WHO COMPILED A SPECIALIST REPORT OR UNDERTOOK A SPECIALIST PROCESS

I MAURA TALBOT, as the appointed independent specialist hereby declare that I:

 acted as the independent specialist in this application;  regard the information contained in this report as it relates to my specialist input/study to be true and correct, and  do not have and will not have any financial interest in the undertaking of the activity, other than remuneration for work performed in terms of the NEMA, the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2010 and any specific environmental management Act;  have and will not have no vested interest in the proposed activity proceeding;  have disclosed, to the applicant, EAP and competent authority, any material information that have or may have the potential to influence the decision of the competent authority or the objectivity of any report, plan or document required in terms of the NEMA, the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2010 and any specific environmental management Act;  am fully aware of and meet the responsibilities in terms of NEMA, the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2010 (specifically in terms of regulation 17 of GN No. R. 543) and any specific environmental management Act, and that failure to comply with these requirements may constitute and result in disqualification;  have ensured that information containing all relevant facts in respect of the specialist input/study was distributed or made available to interested and affected parties and the public and that participation by interested and affected parties was facilitated in such a manner that all interested and affected parties were provided with a reasonable opportunity to participate and to provide comments on the specialist input/study;  have ensured that the comments of all interested and affected parties on the specialist input/study were considered, recorded and submitted to the competent authority in respect of the application;  have ensured that the names of all interested and affected parties that participated in terms of the specialist input/study were recorded in the register of interested and affected parties who participated in the public participation process;  have provided the competent authority with access to all information at my disposal regarding the application, whether such information is favourable to the applicant or not; and  am aware that a false declaration is an offence in terms of regulation 71 of GN No. R. 543.

Note: The terms of reference must be attached. (see below)

Signature of the specialist

Date: 16/10/2017

EOH Coastal and Environmental Services 44 Social Impact Assessment

EOH Coastal and Environmental Services 45 Social Impact Assessment

EOH Coastal and Environmental Services 46 Curriculum Vitae: Maura Talbot Feb 2017

Curriculum Vitae

Maura Talbot Feb 2017

SURNAME: Talbot FIRST NAME: Maura PREVIOUS MARRIED NAME: Andrew HOME & WORK ADDRESS: Physical: 7 Fairfield Road, Observatory, 7925. Postal: P.O.Box 13912, Mowbray, 7705 , South Africa. BORN: London, 27 April 1963 MARITAL STATUS: Divorced DEPENDANTS: Two children (born in 1994 and 1997) DRIVERS LICENCE: South African Code 8 (manual car) licence LANGUAGES: English (Mother tongue) Afrikaans (fair understanding but not fluent) HOME TELEPHONE: 021 448 9440 CELL PHONE NO: + 27 (0)72-386 0537 E-MAIL ADDRESS: [email protected] SKYPE ADDRESS: maura.talbot2

EDUCATION: Primary Attended Primary Schools in Dublin (Ireland), Ndola (Zambia) and Manzini (Swaziland) between 1967 and 1976.

EDUCATION: Secondary Attended the following High Schools: 1976: Dominican Convent, Dublin 1976-8: Piet Retief Hoer Skool, Tvl 1979: Jan Smuts High, Vereeniging, Tvl 1980-1: Barbarton High School, Tvl

- 1 - Curriculum Vitae: Maura Talbot Feb 2017

Matriculated in 1981 with a Transvaal Senior Certificate and University Entrance.

EDUCATION: Tertiary

1986: Graduated with a BA Degree (Economics and Sociology) at Rhodes University 1987: Completed Geography III Major 1988: Graduated with Rhodes Univ. BA Honours (Geography) at Rhodes University Courses: Philosophy and Methodology in Geography; The Political Economy of Development; African Urban Development; The Soviet Union. 1989: Graduated with a BA Honours Degree with distinction at Rhodes University. 1992: Graduated from Rhodes University with a Master of Arts Degree in Geography with distinction. Thesis title : A geographical study of agricultural change since the 1930's in Shixini Location, Willowvale/Gatyana District, Transkei. 2007 Graduated with Honours Degree in Economics at Rhodes University. Courses: Micro- economics, Macro-economics, Econometrics 3 & 4, Public Finance, Environmental Economics, Growth Economics, and Monetary Economics. Project: Economic Impact Assessment – Sand Mining in Madagascar.

EDUCATION: Short Courses

1993: Training Course: Participatory Rural Appraisal, organised by MIDNET, 19-26 April 1993, Bulwer, Natal. 1996: Training Workshop: Project Planning and Management. Run by CENCE at the University of Port Elizabeth in November 1996. 2008 (10-15 May) Centre for Environmental Economics and Policy in Africa. Biannual Research Workshop and Biofuels Modeling Training session. Cape Town. CEEPA is based at the University of Pretoria, Agricultural and Resource Economics Department. 2013 Non-Violent Communication – Introductory Course and Conflict Mediation, 6 days August, Cape Town, SA Landscape Functions and People: Landscape Leadership, Conflicts and Collaboration, 17 to 29 November 2014, Centre for People and Forests, Bangkok, Thailand. 2014 Presencing Institute Foundation Course – Collective Social Learning, March 2014 Cape Town, SA. Qualitative Data Analysis and Atlas.it Course, 2 weeks August 2014, Stellenbosch University, Sociology Dept., SA. 2015 Non-Violent Communication – Intermediary Course, 10 days, July, San Francisco, USA 2016 Getting Things Done – personal time and task management, 2 days, Sept, Cape Town, SA.

CURRENT ACTIVITIES

I am currently in-between jobs. Until August 2016 I was employed by the NPO Living Lands initially (2015) as their Landscape Mobiliser and in 2016 as their Knowledge Broker and Collective Social Learning Researcher in the Kouga and Kromme catchments (Langkloof) in the Eastern Cape province of South Africa. I set up and managed a base for Living Lands in the Langkloof, initiated the process of engaging with all the stakeholders (farmers, farmworkers, local residents, - 2 - Curriculum Vitae: Maura Talbot Feb 2017

Municipal officials, community organisations, NGOs, and various Government Departmental Officials (Agriculture, Environmental and Water Affairs), academics and funders), identifying potential projects to collaborate with them on, designing projects, raising funding, finding new staff and students to assist with the work, inducting and supervising them, and coordinating the team and the implementation of projects. Although I was very successful with this work and set up Living Lands and its partners to take this process forward, I elected to leave, recover after a period of intense stress, and re-assess how I wanted to continue to live and work.

PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS AND REGISTRATIONS

2008 Member of the SA Branch of the International Association of Impact Assessment

Registered as an Environmental Assessment Practitioner with the Interim Certification Board, Secretariat Office: P.O. Box 1749, Noordhoek, 7979, SA Tel/Fax: (021) 789 1385, Email: [email protected]

EMPLOYMENT HISTORY

Period Employment Description 1982 - 1991 Student Holiday waitress, Sociology tutor, Geography Demonstrator, Employment Research Assistant, temporary Lecturer (Geography), Library Clerical Assistant at Rhodes University, Grahamstown. 1992 - 1995 Researcher Full-Time employment with the Grahamstown and later Border and Rural Committee (BRC) (NGO) as a land reform researcher Development and development worker for communities acquiring land under Worker the land claims and land redistribution programmes. Based in Grahamstown. Nov 1995 - Project Employed as project manager for the Institute of Social and Feb 1997 Manager Economic Research (ISER) at Rhodes University on an action research project entitled `Integrating Conservation and Community Development: Great Fish River Reserve (Eastern Cape, SA)'. This project facilitated collaboration and cooperation between the Park and its poor rural neighbours in the former Ciskei. Mar 1997 – Maternity and Lived on the shores of Lake Malawi where my husband was Oct 1998 Overseas working on an Environmental Education Programme for an Leave international Biodiversity Project for Lake Malawi. Cared for my two very young daughters Nov 1998 – Freelance Nov 1998 – Feb 1999 – Data organisation and representation April 1999 Consultant in tables and graphs for a Consultant, Ms R. Kingwill, for the District and Locality Studies of Land Reform Issues in the Amatola District. Contract job for the national Department of Land Affairs and the Amatola District Council. Nov 1998 – Jan 1999 – Contracted by ‘Coastal and Environmental Services’ (CES) as a social scientist on their - 3 - Curriculum Vitae: Maura Talbot Feb 2017

Period Employment Description Environmental Impact Assessment team for the Coffee Bay/Hole in the Wall link-road project. Responsible for social investigations and consultations with the public re the proposed link-road. March-April 1999 – Contracted by the East Cape Agricultural Research Project (ECARP) to analyse their survey data for the Farmerfield community and write a Human Resource Development Plan for the same community. This community had won their land claim and were involved in negotiations with the Department of Land Affairs to effect their move back to Farmerfield. June -Dec Researcher in Contracted by Rhodes University’s Environmental Science 1996 the Programme to manage their Addo Elephant National Park Department of Pilots Research Project. Responsibilities included: Environmental • Liaison with project leaders, clients and staff Science • Appointment and management of research team • Design of research process • Preparation of research assistants • Organisation of field trips • Field research • Analysis and presentation of census data • Write-up of research findings • Report writing • Public presentation of report • Project administration and financial management April 1999 - Part-Time Employed as a temporary lecturer between April and Dec 2001 Lecturer and December 1999, in Rhodes University’s Environmental Researcher in Science Program to provide 13 weeks of lectures, tutorials and the Dept of practicals on global environmental issues to third year Environmental students. Science, Rhodes 2000: Employed as Lecturer in the Rhodes University University Environmental Science Program. Responsibilities included co-ordinating and lecturing the bulk of the third year course in Global Environmental Issues (302), occasional lecturing in the second year Environmental Science Courses (201 and 202) and co-ordination of the Environmental Science Honours students.

Project Manager and Researcher for the DIFID/CSIR PrivateSector/ Community Forestry Partnerships Research Project.

Temporary Lecturer in the Rhodes Univ. Geography Department – Honours course in Rural Development.

- 4 - Curriculum Vitae: Maura Talbot Feb 2017

Period Employment Description 2001: Employed as Lecturer in the Rhodes University Environmental Science Program. Responsibilities included: • lecturing modules on Political Ecology and on Environment and Trade Issues, • co-ordinating the 202 second year course in Environmental Management, • Occassional lecturing in the second year Environmental Science 202 • Temporary Lecturer in the Rhodes Univ. Geography Department – Honours course in Rural Development. • Employed as lecturer in Rhodes University’s Department of Environmental Science. Responsibilities included: • Lecturing modules on Political Ecology and on Environment and Trade Issues, • Co-ordinating the 201 second year course in Environmental Systems, • Supervision on Honours students research projects • Fundraising and organisation of the EMSU 2002 in Africa Conference. • Temporary Lecturer in the Rhodes Univ. Geography Department – Honours course in Rural Development. • Employed as a part-time lecturer in Rhodes University’s Department of Environmental Science. Responsibilities include: • Designing and co-ordinating the Environmental Science 2nd year tutorials on academic writing and critical thinking • Supervision of tutors • Moderating ENV 202 essay marks and providing students with feedback 2000 -2005 Free Lance March-June 2000 - Social researcher and consultant for Consultant Coastal & Environmental Services: Kentani Strategic Environmental Assessment September 2001 – Consultant for Coastal & Environmental Services: SEA and Socio-economic/Institutional Assessment for the Greater Addo Elephant National Park Programme. Developing a Monitoring Programme. Oct/Nov 2002 – Consultant for Enviro Fish Africa (Grahamstown): Evaluation of the Border Zone Development Project’s (BZDP) Aquaculture Project (1997-2002), Malawi. May 2003 - Advisory consultant for Enviro Fish Africa on the ‘Environmental and Social Review of the Les Gambas De L’Ankarana ( Ltd.) Prawn Farm at Ambilobe, Madagascar March – August 2003 – Consultant for Enviro Fish Africa on the Socio-Economic Survey for the development of the Malawian Aquaculture Master Plan. Project funded by JICA (the Japanese Overseas Development Organisation). Work - 5 - Curriculum Vitae: Maura Talbot Feb 2017

Period Employment Description entailed the design of a socio-economic survey, analysis of the data and assisting with the writing and editing of the report. Aug - Dec 2004: Socio-Economic consultant with Coastal & Environmental Services for the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry’s (DWAF) Strategic Environmental Assessment of Water Management Area 12. Nov 2005 – May 2006: Social Research consultant with Enviro Fish Afica working on the Lake Malawi Artisanal Fisheries Development Project: Baseline Study of the Fisheries and Forestry sectors. 20 04 Editor for Employed by the National Inquiries Services Centre (NISC) in NISC Grahamstown to assist them with the preparation of papers for publication in Journals published by NISC. Work involved the proofing, editing and layout of papers for the South African Botanical Journal and others, as well as communicating with authors about their papers. 2005 -Feb Full Time Senior consultant and socio-economic specialist by Coastal 2010 Senior and Environmental Services (CES), Grahamstown. Consultant for Responsibilities include: heading up CES’s Stakeholder CES Engagement Unit, Managing Projects, providing specialist social and economic input into various CES projects, writing proposals and securing work for CES. Specific projects worked on included: • Impact Assessment (EIA) for the Knysna N2 Toll Highway (Bypass) • Strategic Environmental Assessments for Ngqushwa Municipality • Strategic Environmental Assessments for Amahlati Municipality • Strategic Environmental Assessments for DWAF’s Water Management Area 12 – focused on Afforestation potential. • Limpopo Province State of the Environment Report: Phase 2. • Corridor Sands Limited (Mozambique): Social Monitoring of Resettlement Process • Kenmare Moma Powerline Project: Development of a Resettlement Action Plan (Mozambique) • EIA for the Toliara Sands Mining Project – Madagascar (Natural Resource Use Survey and Economic Impact Assessment). • EIA for the Madiba Bay Leisure Park Development – Social Impact Assessment. • Coleske Area Study (Baviaanskloof Nature Reserve): Study of Rights and Entitlements, Socio-economic Survey - 6 - Curriculum Vitae: Maura Talbot Feb 2017

Period Employment Description and Survey of Natural Resource Use amongst former farmworkers living in the Nature Reserve. • Coleske Resettlement Action Plan: Facilitation of negotiations between stakeholders to find a settlement solution for the Coleske Residents and develop an action plan (according to World Bank requirements) for the implementation of the agreed solution. • Economic Impact Assessment of the El Burulus Heavy Mineral Sands Mine, Egypt. • Prefeasibility assessment of the Dimbi Diamond Mine, Central African Republic. • Prefeasibility Environmental Assessment of the Transport options for the Corridor Sands Mining Project, Mozambique. • Addendum EIA for the Corridor Sands Mining Project: Economic Impact Assessment. Mozambique. • Social Impact Assessment for the proposed Wildcoast Toll Highway, Eastern Cape, SA. • Social Impact Assessment for the proposed La Repose Tourist Resort, Alexandria, Eastern Cape, South Africa. • Economic Impact Assessment for the proposed La Repose Tourist Resort, Alexandria, Eastern Cape, South Africa. • Resettlement Action Plan for the proposed La Repose Tourist Resort, Alexandria, Eastern Cape, South Africa. • Scoping Process for the Grown Energy Biofuel Project in the Zambezi Province, Mozambique. • Scoping Process for the Dutch Jatropha Consortium’s proposed Jatropha Estate, Mozambique. • Basic Environmental Assessment of the Visitor Centre in the Grahamstown Botanical Gardens. • Social Impact Assessment for the Dutch Jatropha Consortium’s proposed Jatropha Estate and Biofuel Production Facilities, Buzi District, Mozambique. • Social Impact Assessment for the Grown Energy Biofuel Project in the Zambezi Province, Mozambique. • ESIA Public Participation Process for the proposed ADDAX Biofuel Development in Sierra Leone. • Economic Impact Assessment for the Kalagadi Manganese Smelter in the Coega IDZ, Port Elizabeth, South Africa. • Economic Impact Assessment for the Exaro Smelter in the Coega IDZ, Port Elizabeth, South Africa. • Scoping Process for the Environmental Impact Assessment of Cape Nature’s Proposed Eradication of Alien Fish in parts of four rivers in the Cape Floristic - 7 - Curriculum Vitae: Maura Talbot Feb 2017

Period Employment Description Region. CES in association with Enviro Fish Africa, Grahamstown. • Social Impact Assessment for the Pereguin Dunes Golf Estate, Kidds Beach. • Knysna Estuary Management Plan for the CAPE Programme • Gamtoos Estuary Management Plan for the CAPE Programme • Socio-Economic Study for the Garden Route Initiative’s Marine Protected Areas. CES in Association with Anchor Environmental for WWF. • Tsitsi Catchment Land Use Development Option Planning, former Transkei, SA, for ASGISA-EC. • Development of Guidelines for Environmental and Social Impact Assessments (ESIA) for the Round Table on Sustainable Biofuels. An initiative of the École Polytechnique Fédérale De Lausanne (EPFL) Energy Centre, Switzerland. • Socio-Economic Impact Assessment for the Greater Addo Elephant National Park, Eastern Cape, South Africa. Commissioned by SANParks and the World Bank. 2001 - 2010 Supervision of 2001: Supervision of Master of Arts student Lindsey Post- McDermott and Honours Student, Melita Steele. Graduate 2001-2003 Supervision of Master of Arts student Lindsey Students McDermott (Environmental Science). 2002 - Supervision of Master of Arts student Lindsey McDermott and Honours Student, Melita Steele 2004 - Supervision of Master of Arts student Lindsey McDermott (Environmental Science). 2007: Supervision of Economics Honours Student - Matthew Rose 2008: Supervision of two Economics Honours students – Craig Doig, Christopher Long and Mathew Rose 2008-9: Supervision of Economics Masters student, Mathew Rose 2006 -7 Part-Time Rhodes University Economics Department. Courses: Micro- Economics economics, Macro-economics, Econometrics 3 & 4, Public Honours Finance, Environmental Economics, Growth Economics, and Student Monetary Economics. Project: Economic Impact Assessment – Sand Mining in Madagascar. 2010 -2012 Consultant to Jan – Oct 2010: Social Research Consultant with CSIR’ CSIR, Natural Resources Unit working on Work Package 4.2 ( ECOSAS & Policies to ensure that bioenergy development does not CES result in communities being alienated from forest land and resources that they currently depend on) of the Joint

- 8 - Curriculum Vitae: Maura Talbot Feb 2017

Period Employment Description CSIR/CIFOR research project entitled “ Bioenergy, sustainability and trade-offs: Can we avoid deforestation while promoting bioenergy?”. Jan-March 2010: Contracted by Annie Sugrue of ECOSAS to assist with the development of a Bioenergy Policy Development Tool for SADC. 2010:Socio-economic Consultant for CES on the Biofuel Social Impact Assessment and Resettlement Planning Framework for the Grown Energy, Zambezi Company in Mozambique. Project Manager and lead consultant for CES on the Tsitsa Land Use Development Planning Project, in the former Transkei. 2011: CES EIA Consultant for the Knysna Toll Highway EIA, Southern Cape, SA. May 2011: Social Impact Assessment Contributor to the CES EIA Training Course. Jan – June 2011: Lead Research Consultant on the GIZ “Initiating and Advancing Payments/Rewards for Ecosystem Services in South Africa” Project. 2012: Social Impact Assessment Contributor to the CES EIA Training Course, May 2012 201 1-2014 PhD Student - PhD in transdisciplinary Studies at Stellenbosch University, in Stellenbosch the School of Public and Development Leadership. The PhD focuses on the institution opportunities and constraints to the development of ecosystem services markets in South Africa, more commonly known as Payments/Rewards for Ecosystem Services (PES) and Markets for Ecosystem Services (MES). These are essentially incentive schemes to encourage a shift towards more sustainable uses of land and water by land holders and greater private sector investment in restoration activities. Due to financial and personal (divorce & relocation) reasons, along with major shifts in the PhD focus – I suspended my PhD in 2015 and 2016 and am currently deciding whether or how to complete it. 2013 -2014 Organisational Part-Time assistance with the organisational and strategic Management management of the Living Lands NPO – whom I was working for Living closely with on my PhD. Lands 2015 Landscape Full time Landscape Mobiliser in the Langkloof – EC. Living Mobiliser for Lands facilitates the development of collaborative efforts to Living Lands create living landscapes and address key social and ecological challenges around water, environmental restoration and sustainable lands uses on five different landscapes in the Eastern and Western Cape provinces of South Africa. As the

- 9 - Curriculum Vitae: Maura Talbot Feb 2017

Period Employment Description mobiliser and initiator of Living Lands work on this landscape, I was responsible for identifying and engaging with all the stakeholders on the landscape, listening to their stories and concerns, identifying potential project we could collaborate with them and students on, developing project proposals and fundraising, setting up a centre for Living Lands in the Langkloof and collaborating with other LL colleagues and supervising students. 2016 Knowledge Full time Knowledge Broker and Collective Social Learning Broker and Researcher in the Langkloof. Developing and maintaining the Researcher Living Lands Research Programme, running the LL Learning for Living Centre in the Langkloof, Supervising and coordinating student Lands research and internship work on the landscape, fundraising, report writing, project management, and qualitiative research on collective social learning and stakeholder engagement work in the landscape and within Living Lands.

UNPUBLISHED RESEARCH REPORTS AND PAPERS:

1992: Research Report: Land, tenure, agriculture and management of communal resources in Merino Walk, Queenstown district, written for BRC and the Merino Walk community, June 1992.

Research Report: Land, tenure, agriculture and management of communal resources in Mgwali, Stutterheim District, written for BRC and the Mgwali community, October 1992.

1993: Research Report: Land, tenure, agriculture and management of communal resources in Mooiplaas, near East London, written for BRC and the Mooiplaas community, June 1993.

Case Study of Merino Walk: Service provision, local government and community structures in an emergent community; written for the World Bank Rural Restructuring Study, Sections 6 & 7: Administrative Requirements and Community Group Structures, August 1993.

Case Study of Merino Walk: demands for land, land use and agricultural problems in emergent communities; written for the World Bank Rural Restructuring Study, Section 9: Agricultural Development Options, August 1993.

Case Study of Thornhill (Group 4 residents): demands for land, and land use preferences in emergent communities; written for the World Bank Rural Restructuring Study, Section 9: Agricultural Development Options, August 1993.

Research Report: Analysis of some of the State's new land reform legislation to be applied to Black rural communities in the Border Region, implications, implementation and possible impact. The specific legislation includes: the Upgrading of land Tenure Rights - 10 - Curriculum Vitae: Maura Talbot Feb 2017

Act of 1991 (including amendments in the General law Second Amendment Act 108 of 1993); amendments to the Black Rural Areas Land Regulations, R188 of 1969; and the Land Titles Adjustment Act 111 of 1993. Written for BRC and the National Land Committee, September 1993.

1995 Research Report: An analysis of land issues in the former Ciskei: the demand for and availability of land. This report forms part of the Regional Overview of the Eastern Cape compiled by ARDRI (Fort Hare Univ.), BRC and ISER (Rhodes Univ), for the Land and Agricultural Policy Centre's (LAPC) National Land Reform Research Programme, February 1995.

1999 Scoping Report on the Coffee Bay/Hole in the Wall Link-road Project – Social component. Compiled by Coastal and Environmental Services.

Scoping Report for the Socio-Economic Surveys Project around the Addo Elephant National Park. This is a sub-report of the larger research project aimed at assessing the opportunities and constraints for mutually beneficial partnerships between the AENP and disadvantaged communities neighbouring the Park.

General Socio-Economic Overview of all Disadvantaged Communities Neighbouring the Addo Elephant National Park. For the Socio-Economic Surveys Project around the Addo Elephant National Park. This is a sub-report of the larger research project mentioned above.

Case Studies Report for the Socio-Economic Surveys Project around the Addo Elephant National Park. This is a sub-report of the larger research project mentioned above.

2000 Social Report for the Strategic Environmental Assessment of Resource Use Options at Wavecrest in the Kentani District, Eastern Cape. Coastal and Environmental Services, Grahamstown.

An Overview of Private Sector Community Partnerships in Forestry and other Natural Resources in the Eastern Cape. Compiled for DFID/CSIR as part of their national research project entitled ‘Instruments for Sustainable Private Sector Forestry in South Africa’.

2000 Socio-Economic Survey Report: Aquaculture Masterplan Development in Malawi. Enviro Fish Africa, Grahamstown, South Africa.

2001 Socio-Economic Report for the Strategic Environmental Assessment of Afforestation Potential in Water Management Area 12, Eastern Cape. Produced by CES for DWAF.

Strategic Environmental Assessment for the Ngqushwa Local Municipality (Peddie), Eastern Cape.

2002 Toliara Sands Natural Resource Use Assessment. Dec 2006. Report for the proposed heavy mineral sands mine at Toliara, South Western Madagascar. Produced by CES for Exxario.

- 11 - Curriculum Vitae: Maura Talbot Feb 2017

State of the Environment Report for the Limpopo Province: Phase 2 Report. Produced by CES and Naledzi Consulting for the Limpopo Department of Economic Affairs, Environment and Tourism.

2003 Toliara Sands Economic Impact Assessment, Madagascar. June 2007. Economic Impact Assessment of the proposed heavy mineral sands mine at El Burulus, Egypt. Produced by CES for Exxario.

Scoping Report for the Environmental Impact Assessment of the Proposed Knysna N2 Toll Highway. (May 2007). Produced by CES for SANRAL.

Social Impact Assessment for the Proposed Wildcoast Toll Highway (Section from East London to Mthatha). Produced in collaboration with G. Huggins, J. Zingel and N. Bews for SANRAL. (Nov 2007).

Baviaanskloof Mega Reserve - Coleske Area Study. Assessment of Entitlements of the Coleske community. Rhodes Consortium including M. Andrew, L. Bosman, M. Cocks, R. Kingwill, C. Shackleton, and S. Shackleton. (Jan 2007)

El Burulus Sands Economic Impact Assessment, Egypt. (August 2007). Economic Impact Assessment of the proposed heavy mineral sands mine at El Burulus, Egypt.

Inception Report for Coleske Phase 2: Resettlement Action Plan. (Baviaanskloof Mega- Reserve, Eastern Cape, SA). Scoping Report for the Grown Energy Biofuel Project in the Zambezi Province, Mozambique. CES EIA Report.

2008 Social Impact Assessment for the Proposed La Repose Tourism Resort, Alexandria, Eastern Cape. CES Report

Phase 1 Report on the Rights and Entitlements of the La Repose Farmworkers, Alexandria, Eastern Cape.

Resettlement Action Plan for the Coleske Residents: Baviaanskloof Nature Reserve. CES Report for the Baviaanskloof Mega-Reserve Project Management Unit - Wilderness Foundation, Port Elizabeth.

Basic Assessment for the Grahamstown Botanical Gardens Visitor Centre, CES Report.

Scoping Report for the Environmental Impact Assessment of Cape Nature’s Proposed Eradication of Alien Fish in parts of four rivers in the Cape Floristic Region. CES in association with Enviro Fish Africa, Grahamstown.

Social Impact Assessment of the Dutch Jatropha Consortiums proposed Jatropha Estate and Biofuel Production Facilities in Grudja, Buzi district, Mozambique. CES EIA Report.

Biofuels: Ensuring Sustainable Development in Sub-Saharan Africa. Paper presented at the 2009 International Association of Impact Assessment – South African Annual - 12 - Curriculum Vitae: Maura Talbot Feb 2017

Conference. August 2009. Bela Bela, Mpumalanga, SA.

2009 Tsitsa River Basin Situation Assessment. CES Report for the Tsitsa River Basin Land Use and Environmental Management Planning Project commissioned by ASGISA-EC.

Tsitsa River Basin Land Use Planning Report. CES Report for the Tsitsa River Basin Land Use and Environmental Management Planning Project commissioned by ASGISA- EC.

Round Table on Sustainable Biofuel Development (RSB) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Guidelines. An initiative of the École Polytechnique Fédérale De Lausanne (EPFL) Energy Centre, Switzerland. CES Report.

Socio-Economic Survey Report for the Garden Route Marine Protected Areas, South Africa. Anchor Environmental Report commissioned by the World Wildlife Fund.

Draft Knysna Toll Highway Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Report. CES Report commissioned by the South African National Roads Agency (SANRAL), Cape Town.

Draft Knysna Toll Highway EIA Specialist Volume. CES Report commissioned by the South African National Roads Agency (SANRAL), Cape Town.

Draft Knysna Toll Highway Environmental Management Plan. CES Report commissioned by the South African National Roads Agency (SANRAL), Cape Town.

Final Knysna Toll Highway Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Report. CES Report commissioned by the South African National Roads Agency (SANRAL), Cape Town.

Final Knysna Toll Highway EIA Specialist Volume. CES Report commissioned by the South African National Roads Agency (SANRAL), Cape Town.

Final Knysna Toll Highway Environmental Management Plan. CES Report commissioned by the South African National Roads Agency (SANRAL), Cape Town.

2010 Tsitsa River Basin Environmental and Social Management Plan. CES Report for the Tsitsa River Basin Land Use and Environmental Management Planning Project commissioned by ASGISA-EC.

Addendum Report for the Knysna Toll Highway Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Reporst. CES Report commissioned by the South African National Roads Agency (SANRAL), Cape Town

Prelimary Report: Socio-Economic Impact of the Addo Elephant National Park. Commissioned by SANParks and the World Bank. CES Report.

Results Report: Socio-Economic Impact of the Addo Elephant National Park. Commissioned by SANParks and the World Bank. CES Report.

- 13 - Curriculum Vitae: Maura Talbot Feb 2017

Socio-Economic Impact Report: Addo Elephant National Park. Commissioned by SANParks and the World Bank. CES Report.

2011 Talbot, M. 2011. Payments for Ecosystem Services in South Africa: Overview Report. GIZ Mpumalanga Rural Development Programme, Nelspruit, South Africa.

Talbot M. 2011. Improving Algoa’s Water Security through Restoration, Sustainable Land Uses and Investments in Ecosystem Services: Action Plan. GIZ Mpumalanga Rural Development Programme, Nelspruit, South Africa.

2014 Living Lands. Baviaanskloof Hartland Learning Platform – Final Report – Lessons Learnt. Report produced for the Table Mountain Fund, 5 May 2014.

2016 April: Living Lands’ 1 st Biannual Progress Report for EU Switch Africa Green Project.

June: Living Land’s Inception Report for the project entitled: “Participatory Hydrological Modelling for collective exploration of water resource protection, restoration and water use management options in the western Algoa water management area”. Report for the SA Water Research Commission (WRC), project number K5/2527.

PUBLISHED ARTICLES AND PAPERS

1993: Putting the Poorest First: Rural Development, Groundwork (Border Rural Committee Newsletter) Vol 1, No. 1, March 1993.

Black Rural Communities Facing Strong Opposition to Communal Land Tenure, Groundwork (Border Rural Committee Newsletter) Vol 1, No. 1, March 1993.

Settlement Patterns and Land Use: The Problems Communities Face When Moving onto New Land, Groundwork (Border Rural Committee Newsletter) Vol 1, No. 5, Sept 1993.

New Land Tenure Legislation: How will it affect the rural trust areas' right to land?, Groundwork (Border Rural Committee Newsletter) Vol 1, No. 5, Sept 1993.

Local Government Negotiating forum, Groundwork (Border Rural Committee Newsletter) Vol 1, No. 6, Oct 1993.

Local Government in the Border Communities, Groundwork (Border Rural Committee Newsletter) Vol 1, No. 6, Oct 1993.

1994: State farms for landless, Daily Dispatch, 5 May 1995. National Parks, Pretoria.

2000: M.Andrew, E. Janse van Rensburg and C. Fabricius (2000) Three-way partnerships: Maximising the Value of Collaborative Research in Park-Neighbour Projects. Paper presented at the SANP’s ‘Towards Best Practice’ Conference in May 2000. - 14 - Curriculum Vitae: Maura Talbot Feb 2017

2003 Land Use and Livelihoods. Programme for Land and Agrarian Studies (PLAAS) Occasional Paper No. 8: Evaluating Land and Agrarian Reform in South Africa. University of the Western Cape, Cape Town.

Land use and rural livelihoods: Have they been enhanced through land reform? Policy Brief No. 5, Debating Land Reform and Rural Development. Programme for Land and Agrarian Studies, University of the Western Cape, Cape Town.

2004 Andrew, M & Fox, R.C. (2004) ‘Under-cultivation’ and intensification in the Transkei: a case study of historical changes in the use of arable land in Nompa, Shixini. Development Southern Africa, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp 688-706.

2011 Andrew, M & Van Vlaenderen H. (2010) Commercial Biofuel Land Deals and Environmental and Social Impact Assessments in Africa: Three Case studies in Mozambique and Sierra Leone. Institute for Poverty, Land and Agrarian Studies (PLAAS), Land Deal Politics Initiative (LDPI) Working Paper 1.

2016 Talbot M & Van den Broeck D. 2016. Shifting from Individual to Collective Action: Living Land’s Experience in the Baviaanskloof, South Africa. Book Chapter 8.3 in Land Restoration: Reclaiming Landscapes for a Sustainable Future. Edited by Chabay I, Frick M and Helgeson J. Published by Academic Press (Elsevier), Waltham, USA. P. 599.

POST-GRADUATE MASTERS STUDENTS SUPERVISED

1. Lindsay McDermott, 2006. Contrasting Livelihoods in the upper and lower Gariep River basis: a study of livelihood change and household Development. Master of Arts Thesis, Environmental Science Department, Rhodes Univesity.

2. Matthew Calvin Rose. 2011. A Critical Analysis of the Socioeconomic Impact Assessments of the Addo Elephant National Park. Master of Commerce Thesis, Economics Department, Rhodes University.

COMPUTOR SKILLS

I have considerable experience using the following computor software pagkages: • Word processing packages: Wordstar, Word Perfect, Microsoft Word and Quark. • Statistical packages: Lotus, Quatro-Pro, Hulett Packard, Stat Graphics and MS Excel, E- views. • GIS packages: Arc Info Geographic Information System (GIS) and ARC View 3.1 and have used these packages to capture data, draw and print maps and analysis of spatial data. • Presentation Packages: MS Powerpoint • Atlas.ti – for capture and analysis of qualitative data • Others: Reference Manager.

I am also competent with the use of windows based e-mail programs and the internet/world wide - 15 - Curriculum Vitae: Maura Talbot Feb 2017 web, time management programmes, and google drive.

PROFESSIONAL AND RESEARCH INTERESTS

• Sustainable land/resource use and management • Water Policy and Governance • Agricultural production amongst small scale producers in Africa • Markets dynamics and market access with respect to agriculture and natural resources • Rural land use, land reform and land tenure in South Africa • The history of black rural communities in South Africa • Environmental and ecological economic policy options to address environmental and development problems in Africa and the global economy. • Environmental, Social and Economic Impact Assessment & Strategic Assessments • Collective Social Learning and Change processes • Non-Violent Communication

INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE

I have lived in a number of countries including England, Ireland, Zambia, Malawi, Swaziland, Tristan Da Cunha (South Atlantic Ocean) and South Africa. I have also worked on socio-economic studies and assessments in South Africa, Madagascar, Egypt, Mozambique, Malawi, the Central African Republic, and Sierra Leone.

LIFE GOALS

To love myself, be happy and well, become fully conscious of myself and master of myself – able to choose to act in compassionate, considerate and loving ways to myself, others, all living beings and Mother Earth.

Through my example, sharing my learning and the work that I do, help others to reconnect to themselves, to one another and to Mother Earth in ways that meet everyone’s needs.

Signature:

Date: 18 Jan 2017

- 16 - Marc Richard Hardy Curriculum Vitae

CONTACT DETAILS

Name of Company EOH Coastal & Environmental Services Designation Principal Environmental Consultant Profession Environmental Consultant Social Specialist Years with firm 8 E-mail [email protected] [email protected] Office number +27 21 045 0900 Nationality South African Professional body IAIAsa

Key areas of expertise  Environmental and Social Impact Assessments  Social Impact Assessments  Resettlement Action Plans  Environmental and Social Due Diligence

PROFILE

Marc holds a M. Phil (Environmental Management) from the Stellenbosch University’s of School of Public Management and Planning after completing his undergraduate degrees in development studies and sociology/human geography. His professional interests include environmental impact reporting for linear, energy and large infrastructure projects, strategic environmental reporting, due diligence studies for development financing institutions, environmental auditing and compliance monitoring. At CES, Marc has been responsible for the planning and management of projects and research/specialist teams and support staff, the preparation and management of project budgets in excess of $500 000, as well as being responsible for the management of the CES Maputo, Mozambique office. He is currently managing the EIA processes for large infrastructure, renewable energy, commercial agriculture and mining developments throughout Africa (often to World Bank and International Finance Corporation Performance Standards). Marc has gained extensive social impact assessment (SIA) and baseline study experience through the various projects involved in to date that have resettlement implications, alternatively, those that potentially impact on large numbers of people. He has also gained notable SIA and resettlement planning experience in the mining, agro- industry and large infrastructure project environment throughout in Africa.

Coastal & Environmental 2017 Page 1 of 14 Services

Marc Richard Hardy Curriculum Vitae

EMPLOYMENT Principal Environmental Consultant and Mozambique EXPERIENCE Country Manager - EOH Coastal and Environmental Services (cape Town)

2009 – Current

 Large ESIA, RAP and SIA study leader  Socio-Economic Baseline Studies  Extensive exposure and experience to date in Environmental and Social Due Diligence assessments  Strategic Environmental Assessments  Country-manager for CES Maputo office

Senior Environmental Consultant - Royal Haskoning DHV (Johannesburg)

2008 -2009

 ESIA studies  Strategic Environmental Assessments  Extensive linear and energy project experience

Senior Environmental Officer - Gauteng Provincial Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Environment (GDACE - Johannesburg)

2006 -2007

 Appointed to various panels tasked with developing Spatial Development Frameworks, Urban Edge Policy and Environmental Management Frameworks Responsibilities/Achievements  Review and management of all EIA applications for the Ekurhuleni region and associated intra-government consultation and representation forums related thereto;

2003 - 2005

Environmental Consultant / Research Assistant - Various research organisations and consultancies (Cape Town,

Coastal & Environmental 2017 Page 2 of 14 Services

Marc Richard Hardy Curriculum Vitae

Western Cape).

June - November 2004

Temporary Lecturer - Department of Environmental and Geographical Science, UCT.

1999 – 2002

Full time studies at UCT.

1992 - 1998:

Commercial Diver/Diving Supervisor - Marine and alluvial diamond recovery operations in South Africa, Namibia and Angola.

1990 - 1991:

Learner Official Mining - mining engineering training programme (St. Helena Gold Mine - Welkom, Free State).

ACADEMIC  2001 - B.Soc.Sci. Development Studies (University of QUALIFICATIONS Cape Town)  2002 - B.Soc.Sci. (Hons) Environmental and Geographical Science (UCT)  2009 - M.Phil Environmental Management (Stellenbosch University)

COURSES   Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA) Certificate course in ISO 14001 Auditing, June 2007.  Certificate course in Project Management, U.C.T. Graduate School of Business, May 2009.  Coastal setback line determination, Department of Port & Coastal Engineering, Stellenbosch University, September 2010.  Achieving better resettlement outcomes in development projects, Rhodes University, July 2013 (NQF 6).

Coastal & Environmental 2017 Page 3 of 14 Services

Marc Richard Hardy Curriculum Vitae

CONSULTING Subsequent to completing his full time studies Marc was EXPERIENCE involved in research projects through various organisations on behalf the Department of Marine and Coastal Management (MCM) pertaining to various fisheries along the South African coast as research team member for the following:

1. On-board monitoring of rock lobster fishing vessels in the Hangklip concession area, False Bay as part of the MCM fishery monitoring program, Cape Town (Research Assistant); 2. Compilation of a fishery permit holder database and implementation of a community-based catch monitoring system for the Cape South Coast oyster picking fishery for the MCM (Research Assistant); 3. The identification and development of potential additional livelihood options, key intervention strategies, as well as the implementation of a community-based catch monitoring system for the west coast Olifants River subsistence fisher community for the Environmental Evaluation Unit – U.C.T. (Research Assistant).

In the environmental management and assessment field Marc has been project manager or team member for the following projects and processes -

Regulatory:

4. Appointed to various panels tasked with developing Spatial Development Frameworks, Urban Edge Policy and Environmental Management Frameworks for local/provincial government while employed by GDACE; 5. Team member of a unit tasked with the development of GDACE Departmental EIA review and Basic Assessment Report (BAR) format and reporting requirement guidelines in line with 2006 NEMA EIA Regulations. 6. Review and management of all EIA applications for the Ekurhuleni region and associated intra-government consultation and representation forums related thereto; 7. Joint reviewer for the Gautrain Rapid Rail Project variation alignment applications, as well as numerous linear,

Coastal & Environmental 2017 Page 4 of 14 Services

Marc Richard Hardy Curriculum Vitae

service supply and large infrastructure project applications while employed by GDACE, and represented the Department of the Gautrain Environmental Monitoring Committee.

Strategic environmental management processes:

8. The Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality Environmental Management Framework (EMF), Gauteng Province; 9. The Dinokeng EMF, Gauteng Province; 10. The Tlokwe (Potchefstroom) EMF, North West Province; 11. Strategic assessment and environmental risk analysis for 12 potential wind farm projects Western and Northern Cape provinces; 12. Environmental risk assessment for a proposed Pretoria Portland Cement manufacturing plant in Tete, Tete Province, Mozambique; 13. Rapid Assessment Study for a proposed resettlement project for the Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, Palma District, Cabo Delgado Province, Mozambique; 14. Environmental risk assessment for the proposed Kenmare Nataka titanium mineral sands mining expansion project, Nampula Province, Mozambique; 15. Environmental risk assessment for the proposed Kenmare Pilivilli and Congolone mining expansion projects, Nampula Province, Mozambique; 16. Environmental risk assessment of possible route alternatives for hydrocarbon pipelines from Saldanha Bay to Ankerlig Power Station in Atlantis on behalf of the Central Energy Fund (iGas), Western Cape Province; 17. Environmental risk assessment for Frontier Rare Earths’ proposed graphite project, Cabo Delgado Province, Mozambique.

Environmental auditing, due diligence and compliance monitoring:

18. New Vaal Colliery EMPr compliance audit, Vereeniging, Gauteng Province; 19. Gauteng Freeway Improvement Project (GFIP) Construction EMP compliance audits, Johannesburg,

Coastal & Environmental 2017 Page 5 of 14 Services

Marc Richard Hardy Curriculum Vitae

Gauteng Province; 20. Cerebos Salt due diligence audit, Coega IDZ, Eastern Cape Province; 21. Komati Power Station return to service project Construction EMP compliance audits, Mpumalanga Province; 22. Camden Power Station return to service project Construction EMP compliance audits, Mpumalanga Province; 23. Grootvlei Power Station return to service project Construction EMP compliance audits, Mpumalanga Province; 24. Environmental due diligence assessment for Zone 5 of the Coega Industrial Development Zone, Eastern Cape Province; 25. Port Alfred Waste Water Treatment works expansion project, Environmental Control Officer (ECO) and Construction EMP compliance audits, Eastern Cape Province; 26. Egazini Memorial Precinct Project, ECO and Construction EMP compliance audits, Grahamstown, Eastern Cape Province; 27. Green Resources Forestry Company plantation and pole treatment works environmental and social due diligence audit against International Finance Corporation (IFC) Performance Standards (PS), Jinja and Lira, Uganda; 28. Environmental and Social Due Diligence (ESDD) audit of a proposed photovoltaic solar electricity generation facility (against IFC PS and EHS guidelines) on behalf of the Standard Bank Group, De Aar, Northern Cape Province; 29. ESDD of the ESIA and Draft Resettlement Action Plan (against IFC PS/EHS guidelines) for the Copperbelt Energy Company’s proposed Kabompo Gorge Hydroelectric scheme on behalf of the Standard Bank Group, North-Western Province, Zambia; 30. IFC PS deviation assessment for Kenmare mineral sands, Moma, Nampula Province, Mozambique; 31. Construction EMP compliance audits for the Kenmare Namalope mineral sands expansion project, Moma, Mozambique; 32. Construction and Operational phase compliance

Coastal & Environmental 2017 Page 6 of 14 Services

Marc Richard Hardy Curriculum Vitae

monitoring of the Solar Capital Ilanga Lethemba 1 photovoltaic facility, De Aar, Northern Cape Province; 33. Construction and Operational phase compliance monitoring of the Solar Capital Ilanga Lethemba 3 photovoltaic facility, De Aar, Northern Cape Province; 34. Kenmare titanium mineral sands mining project, Project Lender’s Completion Test compliance audit, Moma, Nampula Province, Mozambique; 35. Usutu Forestry plantation and pulp mill due diligence audit on behalf of Deutsche Investions und Entwicklungsgesellschaft bank (DEG), Bhunya, Swaziland; 36. Copperbelt Energy Corporation corporate Environmental and Social Management System IFC PS compliance review, Solwezi, North-Western Province, Zambia; 37. Independent Environmental and Social Monitor (IESM) for the operation of the Kenya-Uganda (Mombasa to Kampala) railway line, on behalf of Rift Valley Railways Kenya Ltd. (RVRK) and Rift Valley Railways Uganda Ltd. (RVRU) as the IESM for the operation of the Kenya- Uganda railways line system of a total track length of approximately 2,350 km. The project involves an investment by various international investors including the IFC, the AfDB, the FMO, DEG, KfW, PROPARCO and the Equity Bank of Kenya; 38. IFC PS Gap Analysis for the proposed Ossiomo Petrochemical Ammonia-Urea Project on behalf of SWEDFUND, Ologbo, Edo State, Nigeria; 39. IFC PS Gap Analysis, First Quantum Minerals, Kalumbila Copper Project, North Western Province, Zambia; 40. Performance audit on the the implementation of Busoga Forestry Company’s implementation of the Kachung community Development Plan, Lira, Uganda; 41. ESDD for Chikweti Forest of Niassa (Global Solidarity Forest Fund) operations on behalf of a potential investor, Lichinga, Niassa Province, Mozambique; 42. Phase 1 Environmental Assessment on a South African based agro-chemical (pesticides and fungicides) manufacturer, importer and distributing entity on behalf of Winfield Land ‘O Lakes, Texas, U.S.A.; 43. ESDD for the proposed Graphit Kropfmühl graphite mining

Coastal & Environmental 2017 Page 7 of 14 Services

Marc Richard Hardy Curriculum Vitae

project situated in Ancuabe (Cabo Delgado Province), Mozambique on behalf of DEG; 44. ESDD for the proposed Kabanga Nickel mine in, Kagera District, Tanzania, on behalf of the Independent Group; 45. ESDD for the proposed purchase of the AngloGold Ashanti Obuasi gold mining project, Ghana, on behalf of Australian based Equatorial Resources; 46. ESDD on Depthwize Limited, a shallow water and swamp barge oil and gas drilling contractor operating in the Delta region on behalf of the Africa Finance Corporation, Delta State, Nigeria.

Power generation, transmission and renewable energy applications:

47. Upgrade of the ashwater return process at Eskom’s Arnot Power Station, Mpumalanga Province (Basic Assessment); 48. 3MW alien invasive wood fired electrical energy project, Grahamstown, Eastern Cape Province, (Basic Assessment); 49. EA Energy 13 MW solar photovoltaic electricity generation project, Coega IDZ, Eastern Cape Province, (Basic Assessment); 50. Eskom multi products fuel transport infrastructure (rail and pipeline) from Milnerton refinery to Ankerlig Power Station, Western Cape Province (EIA); 51. Transnet New Multi Products Pipeline (NMPP), Jameson Park to Langlaagte route alignment, Gauteng and Mpumalanga Provinces (EIA); 52. Matla Power Station to Jupiter B-Sebenza 400kV overhead powerlines and Substations, Mpumalanga and Gauteng Provinces (Full EIA); 53. Johannesburg East electricity supply strengthening project: 400/132KV overhead powerlines and Substations, Gauteng Province (EIA); 54. Witkloof-Thuli 132kV overhead power line, Mpumalanga Province (EIA); 55. Vryburg 400kV/132kV Substation and loop in lines North- West Province (EIA); 56. Boulders-Malelane 132kV overhead power line,

Coastal & Environmental 2017 Page 8 of 14 Services

Marc Richard Hardy Curriculum Vitae

Mpumalanga Province (EIA); 57. Tarlton-Magaliesburg 132kV overhead power line, North- West Province (EIA); 58. Watershed-Sephaku 132kV overhead power line, North- West Province (EIA); 59. Cookhouse wind energy project, Eastern Cape Province (EIA); 60. Grahamstown wind energy project, Eastern Cape Province (EIA); 61. Riebeeck East wind energy project, Eastern Cape Province (Scoping to date); 62. Beaufort West wind energy project, Western Cape Province (Scoping); 63. Poortjie Wes wind energy project, Western Cape Province (Scoping); 64. Carolina wind energy project, Mpumalanga Province (EIA); 65. Nanagha Hills wind energy project, Eastern Cape Province (Scoping); 66. Brakkefontein wind energy project, Western Cape Province (Scoping); 67. Vrede wind energy project, Eastern Cape Province (Scoping); 68. Richards Bay wind energy project, Kwa-Zulu Natal Province (EIA); 69. St Lucia wind energy project, Eastern Cape Province (EIA); 70. Hluhluwe wind energy project, Kwa-Zulu Natal Province (EIA); 71. Peddie wind energy project, Eastern Cape Province (EIA); 72. Richards Bay wind energy project, Kwa-Zulu Natal Province (EIA); 73. Mossel Bay wind energy project, Western Cape Province (EIA); 74. Grassridge-Coega IDZ wind energy project, Eastern Cape Province (EIA); 75. Rietkloof and Brandvallei wind energy projects, Northern and Western Cape Province (EIA); 76. Coega IDZ wind energy project, additional turbines and substations (Basic Assessment); 77. JCM Greenquest 60MW solar photovoltaic electricity

Coastal & Environmental 2017 Page 9 of 14 Services

Marc Richard Hardy Curriculum Vitae

generation project, Mbalmayo, Cameroon.

General:

78. Numerous meteorological monitoring masts for wind energy projects nationally (Basic Assessments); 79. Coega IDZ (St Georges Interchange) filling stations, Eastern Cape Province (Scoping); 80. Hopewell Private Game Reserve lodge expansion, Alexandria, Eastern Cape (Basic Assessment); 81. Greys Gift lodge development, Makana, Eastern Cape (Basic Assessment); 82. Egazini Memorial Precinct Project, Grahamstown, Eastern Cape Province (Basic Assessment); 83. Pinedale eco-estate residential development, Bathurst area, Eastern Cape Province (full EIA); 84. EMP revision for the N2 highway bridge upgrades between Umtata and Butterworth, Eastern Cape Province (EMP); 85. Ecological Fatal Flaw Assessment for the proposed Diaz Road Arterial from the Port Elizabeth CBD to Rocklands, Eastern Cape Province.

Waste management, large and bulk service infrastructure:

86. Ingagane Power Station domestic waste landfill closure, Newcastle, KZN Province (Basic Assessment and landfill closure permit); 87. Regional Hazardous Waste Disposal Facility for the Coega IDZ, Port Elizabeth, Eastern Cape Province (Full EIA and Permit Application Report - PAR). 88. Rooiwal Waste Water treatment Works (WWTW) infrastructure and sludge treatment works upgrades, Pretoria Gauteng Province (Basic Assessment and waste permit application); 89. Fishwater Flats Wastewater Treatment Works Upgrade, Port Elizabeth, Eastern Cape Province (Full EIA); 90. Gansbaai Waste Water treatment Works (WWTW) EMP development, Western Cape Province (EMP); 91. Numerous potable water bulk supply pipeline applications for Rand Water, Gauteng Province (Basic Assessments);

Coastal & Environmental 2017 Page 10 of 14 Services

Marc Richard Hardy Curriculum Vitae

92. Environmental Management Plans (EMPs) for storm water management system upgrades, Port Elizabeth, Eastern Cape Province; 93. Regional Hazardous Waste Disposal Facility for the Coega IDZ, Port Elizabeth, Eastern Cape Province (Addendum EIA).

Commercial agriculture, plantations and biofuels:

94. Addax Bioenergy sugarcane to ethanol biofuel project, Makeni, Sierra Leone (Full Environmental, Social and Health Impact Assessment (ESHIA) to IFC and Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels (RSB) standards including the Resettlement Action Plan (RAP); 95. Equatorial Palm Oil expansion projects, Butaw and Palm Bay, Grand Bassa and Sinoe Counties, Liberia (ESHIA to AfDB and RSPO standards) 96. Nedoil Lokomasama palm oil project, Port Loko District, Sierra Leone (Environmental Scoping and Risk Assessment); 97. Green Resources Niassa forestry project, Lichinga, Niassa Province, Mozambique (ESIA); 98. Green Resources Lurio forestry project, Nampula Province, Mozambique (ESIA); 99. EcoFarm Mozambique (Ltd) organic sugarcane growing project, Chemba District, Sofala Province, Mozambique (Full ESIA); 100. Balmed Holdings cocoa and coffee outgrowers scheme Kenema, Sierra Leone (Social and Environmental Assessment as aligned with the Africa Agriculture and Trade Investment Fund (AATIF) environmental and social reporting requirements); 101. Zambeef Holdings (Stakeholder Engagement and Biodiversity Management Plans for Zambeef’s Zambian operations, notably, five major agricultural production estates situated throughout the country), Zambia; 102. Envalor sugarcane to ethanol biofuel project, Sena, Sofala Province, Mozambique (ESIA); 103. Crookes Brothers Grains and Macadamia project in Gúrùe, Zambezia Province, Mozambique (Environmental and Social Management System (ESMS) implementation

Coastal & Environmental 2017 Page 11 of 14 Services

Marc Richard Hardy Curriculum Vitae

for the estate operations); 104. Ugandan Ministry of Agriculture Animal Industry and Fisheries - Buvuma Island vegetable oil development project, Lake Victoria, Uganda (ESHIA).

Mining and Resources:

105. Xstrata Ferrochrome bag filter plant upgrades, North- West Province, South Africa (Basic Assessment); 106. GS Cimentos cement factory in the Mozal IDZ and associated limestone mine, Maputo and Salamanga, Mozambique (ESIA to Mozambican reporting standards). 107. Kenmare Namalope mineral sands expansion project, Moma, Nampula Province, Mozambique (Addendum EIA); 108. Kenmare Nataka expansion project, Nataka, Nampula Province, Mozambique (ESHIA to IFC PS); 109. First Quantum Minerals, Kalumbila Copper Project, North Western Province, Zambia (ESHIA to IFC PS); 110. World Titanium Resources Toliara mineral sands project, Ranobe and Toliara, Madagascar (ESHIA to IFC PS); 111. Syrah Resources graphite mining project, Balama, Cabo Delgado Province, Mozambique (ESHIA to IFC PS); 112. Zirco mineral sands mine, Groenrivier, Northern Cape, South Africa (ESHIA); 113. Kenmare Pilivilli and Congolone mineral sands expansion projects, Nampula Province, Mozambique (Scoping); 114. Baobab Resources iron ore mining project, Tete, Mozambique (ESHIA); 115. Triton Minerals Nicanda Hill graphite mining project, Cabo Delgado Province, Mozambique (Full ESHIA to IFC PS); 116. Triton Minerals Ancuabe graphite mining project, Cabo Delgado Province, Mozambique (Full ESHIA and RAP to IFC PS); 117. Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) offshore 3D seismic survey in the Zambezi Basin, Mozambique (ESIA to Mozambican reporting standards); 118. Metals of Africa Balama and Montepuez graphite mining projects, Cabo Delgado Province, Mozambique

Coastal & Environmental 2017 Page 12 of 14 Services

Marc Richard Hardy Curriculum Vitae

(ESHIA to IFC PS); 119. Alphamin Bisie Mining SA tin mining project, Bisie, North Kivu Province, DRC (ESHIA to IFC PS).

Resettlement Action Plans and Baseline Studies:

120. Equatorial Palm Oil expansion projects, Butaw and Palm Bay, Grand Bassa and Sinoe Counties, Liberia (RAP); 121. Syrah Resources graphite mining project, Balama, Cabo Delgado Province, Mozambique (RAP); 122. Baobab Resources iron ore mining project, Tete, Mozambique (RAP); 123. Green Resources Lurio forestry project, Nampula Province, Mozambique (RAP); 124. Crookes Brothers Grains and Macadamia project in Gúrùe, Zambezia Province, Mozambique (RAP); 125. Socio-Economic Baseline Study (SEBS) on behalf of the Lesotho Highlands Development Agency (LHDA) for the proposed Polihali Dam - Phase 3 of the Lesotho Highlands Water Scheme – constituting a survey of 11 000 households in the catchment and downstream areas of the proposed dam - including the development of the Social Baseline and Income and Expenditure Reports, Mokhotlong, Lesotho; 126. Biological Resources Baseline Study of the proposed Polihali Dam catchment area on behalf of the LHDA, Mokhotlong, Lesotho; 127. MPC SPRL & Alphamin Resources Corporation Bisie tin mining project, Bisie, North Kivu Province, Democratic Republic of Congo (SEBS); 128. Eleqtra Envalor sugarcane to ethanol biofuel project, Sena, Sofala Province, Mozambique (SEBS).

During the course of his professional career Marc has worked in Angola, Ghana, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Madagascar, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Democratic Republic of Congo, Zambia, Swaziland, Lesotho, Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania and South Africa. Marc has been actively involved in lecturing and presenting environmental management training content over the last few years as a course presenter

Coastal & Environmental 2017 Page 13 of 14 Services

Marc Richard Hardy Curriculum Vitae

for the CES hosted annual EIA training courses, as well as the presenting of undergraduate and postgraduate environmental management course modules at Rhodes University.

CERTIFICATION

I, the undersigned, certify that to the best of my knowledge and belief, this CV correctly describes me, my qualifications, and my experience. I understand that any wilful misstatement described herein may lead to my disqualification or dismissal, if engaged.

Marc Richard Hardy Date: 03 April 2017

Coastal & Environmental 2017 Page 14 of 14 Services