Stellenbosch Landfill Closure SIA 3 November

SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (DRAFT REPORT)

PROPOSED DECOMISSIONING AND REHABILITATION OF THE STELLENBOSCH LANDFILL SITE, STELLENBOSCH, WESTERN CAPE

OCTOBER 2014

Prepared for

AURECON SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD

Prepared by

Tony Barbour and Schalk van der Merwe

Tony Barbour ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT AND RESEARCHER

4 Oakdale Road, Newlands, 7700, South Africa (Tel) 27-21-683 7085 - (Fax) 27-21-683 7085 - (Cell) 082 600 8266 (E-Mail) [email protected]

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

Aurecon South Africa (Pty) Ltd (“Aurecon”) was appointed by the Stellenbosch Municipality as the lead consultant to manage the integrated Basic Assessment (BA) and Waste Management License (WML) application process for the proposed closure and rehabilitation of the Stellenbosch Municipal Landfill Site. The site is located on the western outskirts of the town of Stellenbosch in the Cape Winelands region of the Western Cape.

Tony Barbour Environmental Consulting was appointed by Aurecon to undertake a specialist Social Impact Assessment (SIA) as part of the application process. This report contains the findings of the SIA undertaken as part of the integrated BA and WML process.

The key focus of the BA is to identify the most acceptable post closure land use for the Stellenbosch Landfill Site. The focus of the SIA is therefore on commenting on the three alternative end uses, namely:

• Alternative 1: Open Space green landscaping and community up-liftment project; • Alternative 2: Methane gas extraction of landfill gas for commercial beneficial use; • Alternative 3: No Development Option. However, it should be noted that the no- go alternative does not meet the legal minimum requirements for closure.

Alternative 1 and 2 are not mutually exclusive. In order to meet the legal requirements for the closure the final end use plan for the site will include a landfill gas collection system irrespective of whether the extraction of landfill gas is commercially viable or not. The design of the gas management system will however depend on whether or not the extraction of landfill gas is commercially viable or not.

SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS

Policy and planning issues

The Stellenbosch IDP lists a number of issues raised at the Ward 11 public meetings in which the landfill site is located that are relevant to the closure and future land use of the site. These include:

• Illegal informal settlement; • General safety in Onder-Papegaaiberg; • The development of a walking trail; • Public safety/ law enforcement; • Proper participatory and sensitive planning for developments in the area.

The site is also located outside of the Stellenbosch urban edge. No detailed proposals are made for the Devon Valley study area. The Stellenbosch Integrated Waste Management Plan (IWMP) refers to the closure of the Stellenbosch Landfill Site. However, the IWMP does not address post-closure site rehabilitation and potential land use options for the site. Construction phase impacts

The key social impacts associated with the construction related component for Alternative 1 and 2 include:

• Creation of employment opportunities; • Loss of job opportunities for waste pickers; and • Impacts associated with construction related activities, specifically noise and dust.

No construction impacts are related to Alternative 3.

Creation of employment opportunities

The total number of employment opportunities associated with the engineering component of the project is estimated to be up to 45. The number of people employed as part of the re-vegetation component would depend on the final land use option selected. It is anticipated that the 80% (36) of the employment opportunities associated with the engineering component will be available to low skilled workers, 15% (7) for semi-skilled workers (drivers, equipment operators etc.) and 5% (2) for skilled personnel (engineers, land surveyors, project managers etc.). Members from the local communities in the area are likely to be in a position to qualify for the majority of the low skilled and semi-skilled employment opportunities. The majority of these employment opportunities are also likely to accrue to Historically Disadvantaged (HD) members from the local area. Over a 10 month construction period the total wage bill is estimated to be in the region of R 7.6 million (2014 rand value). The majority of the wage bill is likely to be spent in the local Stellenbosch area.

The significance of the employment opportunities associated with the construction phase is rated as Medium Positive with enhancement. This applies to Alternative 1 and 2.

Loss of job opportunities and income for waste pickers

However, the SLM are in the process of relocating the Slabtown community. This relocation will also impact on their access to the site, which in turn, will, in all likelihood mean that they can no longer salvage from the site. Based on the information provided by the SLM the intention is to relocate the Slabtown community before the Stellenbosch Landfill Site is closed. The impact on livelihoods of the waste pickers will therefore occur before the site is closed.

As indicated in the assumptions, the scope of the SIA does not include an assessment of the social issues associated with the relocation of the Slabtown community. The potential social impacts associated with the relocation of the Slabtown community, including the impact on current livelihood strategies, should therefore form part of the relocation study. However, it is recognised that the loss of

Stellenbosch Landfill Decommissioning: Social Impact Assessment (Draft) October 2014

ii access to the landfill site for waste pickers as a result of either relocation and or closure will represent a significant impact for affected households in Slabtown. This impact is rated as High Negative without mitigation. With mitigation the impact is rated as Low Negative . This applies to Alternative 1 and 2.

Impacts associated with construction related nuisance activities, specifically noise, dust and safety impacts

The findings of the SIA indicate that the potential noise, dust and safety impacts associated with the reworking and shaping of the final landform, followed by final capping of the site and the establishment of the gas management system can be effectively mitigated. The significance of the potential noise, dust and safety impacts associated with the construction phase is rated as Low Negative with mitigation. This applies to Alternative 1 and 2.

Assessment of Alternative 1

Based on the findings of the SIA the following activities were identified as compatible with the development of the area as Public Green Open Space:

• Walking (people and dogs) and jogging trails; • Cycling paths (as opposed to Mountain bike trails). The cycle paths will provide a safe environment for cycling for young children; • View point on the highest point. This would be linked to the trails. The lookout point could also incorporate educational signage indicating location of historic farms and features in the area etc.

The significance of developing a Green Public Open Space on the site that incorporates these land uses was rated as Medium Positive with enhancement. However, in order for the area to be used by the public the issue of safety and access would need to be addressed by the SLM.

The establishment of a seasonal flower garden into the design of the landscaping and re-vegetation programme will involve higher establishment and maintenance costs. These additional costs are difficult to justify given the pressing social needs in the SLM. This proposed land use is therefore not recommended. The findings of the SIA also indicate that the potential for bee keeping as a community venture is likely to be limited. The establishment of a bee keeping operation on the site as part of the post landfill land use plan is therefore not recommended.

While the establishment of a Community Garden is supported in principle, concerns were raised regarding the viability and long term sustainability of the proposal. In addition, the SLM is in the process of relocating the residents of Slabtown. Depending on where they are relocated to it may be difficult and costly (taxi and bus fare) for the current residents of Slabtown to access the proposed Community Garden. This would undermine the objective of providing an alternative livelihood strategy for the current waste pickers. These issues would need to be assessed in more detail by the SLM before a decision is taken with regard to the establishment of a Community Garden.

The issue of land invasions was raised by all of the adjacent land owners as a key issue. This would compromise use of the area as Public Green Open Space and

Stellenbosch Landfill Decommissioning: Social Impact Assessment (Draft) October 2014

iii create safety and security problems in the area. This issue will need to be addressed by the SLM.

Assessment of Alternative 2

Until more detailed tests are undertaken it is not possible to comment on the significance of the potential impact associated with the use of landfill gas as an alternative energy source. An assessment of significance would require information on the volume of landfill gas available for extraction, how the gas will be utilised and for how long. This would in turn provide information of potential for the SLM to use the landfill gas as an alternative energy source and the associated benefits. This information is not available. In the event that the extraction of landfill gas is economically viable the potential impacts would be Positive .

Assessment of no-development option

The no-development option would result in a number of negative social impacts, including continued odours, dust and windblown litter. The site would also pose a negative visual impact on an important gateway entrance to Stellenbosch and continue to attract waste pickers. The employment opportunities and potential benefits associated with the extraction and use of landfill gas as an alternative energy source would also be foregone. The no-development option therefore represents a negative social option and is not supported.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the findings of the SIA the construction related activities associated with the closure and rehabilitation of the Stellenbosch Landfill Site will create employment opportunities. The significance of this impact is rated as Medium Positive with enhancement during construction phase. The potential noise, dust and safety impacts associated with the reworking and shaping of the final landform, followed by final capping of the site and the establishment of the gas management system can be effectively mitigated. The significance of the potential noise, dust and safety impacts associated with the construction phase is rated as Low Negative with mitigation. This applies to Alternative 1 and 2.

The closure and decommissioning of the Stellenbosch Landfill Site will result in loss of the major source of income for the waste pickers who currently operate on the site. The majority of these waste pickers live in the Slabtown information settlement. However, the SLM are in the process of relocating the Slabtown community. The impact on livelihoods of the waste pickers will therefore occur before the site is closed. However, it is recognised that the loss of access to the landfill site for waste pickers as a result of either relocation and or closure will represent a significant impact for affected households in Slabtown. This impact is rated as High Negative without mitigation. With mitigation the impact is rated as Low Negative .

Based on the findings of the SIA the most socially suitable post closure land use for the site would be the creation of a Public Green Public Open Space that can be used for walking, jogging, cycling and dog walking. The significance of developing a Green Public Open Space on the site that incorporates these land uses was rated as Medium Positive with enhancement. However, in order for the area to be used by

Stellenbosch Landfill Decommissioning: Social Impact Assessment (Draft) October 2014

iv the public the issue of safety and access would need to be addressed. In addition, the long term objective of the closure and rehabilitation plan should be to minimise the visual impact of the landfill site and ensure that it does not generate dust once it has been closed.

The issue of land invasions was raised by all of the adjacent land owners as a key issue. This issue will need to be addressed by the SLM.

From a socio-economic point of view the No-Go alternative is not supported.

IMPACT STATEMENT

Based on the findings of the SIA the establishment of a Public Green Public Open Space that can be used for walking, jogging, cycling and dog walking is recommended, subject to the implementation of the recommended enhancement and mitigation measures contained in the report.

Stellenbosch Landfill Decommissioning: Social Impact Assessment (Draft) October 2014

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... i SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION...... 1 1.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.2 TERMS OF REFERENCE ...... 1 1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...... 1 1.4 ALTERNATIVES ...... 3 1.4.1 Alternative 1: Open Space landscaping and community upliftment project4 1.4.2 Alternative 2: Methane gas extraction ...... 4 1.4.3 No-development alternative ...... 5 1.5 OVERVIEW OF THE SITE AND IMMEDIATE SURROUNDS ...... 5 1.6 APPROACH TO STUDY ...... 15 1.6.1 Definition of social impacts ...... 16 1.7 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS ...... 17 1.7.1 Assumptions ...... 17 1.7.2 Limitations ...... 17 1.8 SPECIALIST DETAILS ...... 17 1.9 DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE ...... 17 1.10 REPORT STUCTURE ...... 18 SECTION 2: POLICY AND PLANNING ENVIRONMENT ...... 19 2.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 19 2.2 Stellenbosch Municipality IDP ...... 19 2.3 Stellenbosch Municipality Strategic Framework for Local Economic Development ...... 20 2.4 Stellenbosch Municipality Spatial Development Framework ...... 22 2.5 Stellenbosch Town Spatial Development Framework ...... 24 2.6 Stellenbosch Municipality Integrated Waste Management Strategy ...... 24 SECTION 3: OVERVIEW OF STUDY AREA ...... 25 3.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 25 3.2 ADMINSTRATIVE CONTEXT ...... 25 3.3 LOCAL COMMUNITIES ...... 26 3.3.1 Stellenbosch ...... 26 3.3.2 Onder-Papegaaiberg ...... 27 3.3.3 Devon Valley farming area ...... 28 3.4 DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE ...... 30 3.5 ECONOMIC OVERVIEW ...... 31 SECTION 4: ASSESSMENT OF KEY SOCIAL ISSUES ...... 33 4.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 33 4.2 FIT WITH POLICY AND LAND USE PLANS ...... 33 4.3 CONSTRUCTION RELATED ACTIVITES ...... 34 4.3.1 Creation of local employment opportunities (Alternative 1 and 2) ...... 34 4.3.2 Loss of source of income for waste pickers (Alternative 1 and 2) ...... 35 4.3.3 Nuisance impacts of construction related activities (Alternatives 1 and 2) ...... 37 4.4 ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVE 1 ...... 39 4.5 ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVE 2 ...... 43 4.6 OPERATIONAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES (ALTERNATIVE 1 & 2) ...... 44 4.7 ASSESSMENT OF NO-DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE ...... 45 SECTION 5: KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 46

Stellenbosch Landfill Decommissioning: Social Impact Assessment (Draft) October 2014

5.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 46 5.2 SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS ...... 46 5.2.1 Policy and planning issues ...... 46 5.1.1 Construction phase impacts ...... 47 5.2.2 Assessment Alternative 1 ...... 48 5.2.3 Assessment Alternative 2 ...... 49 5.2.4 No-development Alternative ...... 49 5.3 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 49 5.4 IMPACT STATEMENT ...... 50 ANNEXURE A: LIST OF SOURCES ...... 51 ANNEXURE B ...... 52

Stellenbosch Landfill Decommissioning: Social Impact Assessment (Draft) October 2014

vii

ACRONYMS

AWS Animal Welfare Society BA Basic Environmental Assessment CWDM Cape Winelands District Municipality DEA&DP Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (Western Cape) DEA Department of Environmental Affairs (National) DVTH Devon Valley Transit Housing Facility EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EMP Environmental Management Plan HD Historically Disadvantaged IDP Integrated Development Plan IWMS Integrated Waste Management Strategy LED Local Economic Development PSDF Provincial Spatial Development Framework (Western Cape) SDF Spatial Development Framework SIA Social Impact Assessment SLM Stellenbosch Local Municipality WML Waste Management License WWTW Waste Water Treatment Works

Stellenbosch Landfill Decommissioning: Social Impact Assessment (Draft) October 2014

viii

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 INTRODUCTION

Aurecon South Africa (Pty) Ltd (“Aurecon”) was appointed by the Stellenbosch Municipality as the lead consultant to manage the integrated Basic Assessment (BA) and Waste Management License (WML) application process for the proposed closure and rehabilitation of the Stellenbosch Landfill Site. The site is located on the western outskirts of the town of Stellenbosch in the Cape Winelands region of the Western Cape.

1.2 TERMS OF REFERENCE

The terms of reference for the SIA require:

• A description of the environment that may be affected by the activity and the manner in which the environment may be affected. • A description and assessment of the potential social issues associated with the proposed activity. • Identification of enhancement and mitigation aimed at maximising opportunities and avoiding and or reducing negative impacts.

1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The Devon Valley landfill site (herein referred to as the “Stellenbosch Landfill Site”) serves the Stellenbosch Local Municipality (SLM). The site is located to the north of the R310 (Adam Tas Road) at the western entrance to the town of Stellenbosch, approximately 3 km to the west of the historic Stellenbosch town core (Dorp Street) (Figure 1.1).

The site has been operational since the 1970’s. Two landfill cells (Cell 1 and 2) have reached capacity, and have been provisionally stabilized and capped with soil covering. Cell 3 was recently commissioned and is expected to reach capacity within the next 3 to 5 years, unless waste minimisation measures are implemented. Once Cell 3 has reached capacity the SLM intends closing down landfilling operations on the site and transferring the SLM’s waste to the Cape Winelands District Municipality (WCDM) Regional (West) site. This site had not been identified at the time of undertaken the SIA.

Figure 1.1: Location of the Stellenbosch landfill site

The proposal essentially consists of two parts, namely:

• Closure and rehabilitation of the site; and • Accommodation of post-closure land-use alternatives.

In terms of environmental and waste management legislation as well as the terms of its permit, the SLM is required to rehabilitate the site upon closure and decommissioning. Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill (DWAF, 1998), hereafter referred to as Minimum Requirements , include provision for pile stabilization, shaping, capping and re-vegetation, as well as for leachate and landfill gas management. Closure and rehabilitation are therefore mandatory requirements.

The proposed closure and rehabilitation would entail the following:

• Reshaping the waste body to create safe and stable slopes (slopes not steeper than 1V:3H); • Storm water infrastructure to divert upstream clean storm water run-off around the site and also to manage storm water run-off from each cell to prevent erosion of the capping system; • Capping of the Cells in accordance with the Minimum R equirements to prevent possible groundwater contamination as a result of precipitation directly on top of the waste bodies; • Vegetative cover of the final landform to manage possible erosion of the capping layers; and, • Establishing post closure monitoring requirements as per the landfill permit.

Apart from the general rehabilitation activities described above, the site will be designed to accommodate an alternative use which is called the end-use option.

It is assumed that the construction phase would be for a period of one year.

1.4 ALTERNATIVES

Viable post closure land uses for the site are guided by the following considerations:

• The waste body may take up to three decades to settle. It is therefore not suitable for developing any large structures; • The visual aesthetics of the site to nearby communities; • A combination of end uses might be possible; • Economic feasibility of an end-use as opposed to the benefit of it; and • No activities can be accommodated that would damage the integrity of the final capping layers on top of waste body (Aurecon, 2014b).

Since the Background Information Document (BID) was compiled, a number of post- closure land use options (e.g. PV solar) have been discarded as unfeasible for various reasons.

Only three development options are currently investigated, namely:

• Alternative 1: Open Space green landscaping and community upliftment project; • Alternative 2: Methane gas extraction for beneficial use; • Alternative 3: No-development option. However, it should be noted that the no- go alternative does not meet the legal minimum requirements for closure.

Alternative 1 and 2 are not mutually exclusive. In order to meet the legal requirements for the closure the final end use plan will include a landfill gas collection system irrespective of whether the extraction of landfill gas is commercially viable or not. The design of the gas management system will however depend on whether or not the extraction of landfill gas is commercially viable or not.

1.4.1 Alternative 1: Open Space landscaping and community upliftment project

Alternative 1 would entail establishing gas management and capping layers, landscaping of the reshaped waste body, and developing the site for planned and managed activities. This alternative consists of a combination potential land uses including:

• Public Green Open Space (vegetate with indigenous vegetation); • A community garden adjacent and west of Cells 1 and 2; • Indigenous seasonal flowers to create a work of art; • Potential bee keeping programme; • Lookout point and walking trails.

Once re-vegetated with indigenous vegetation, it is assumed that maintenance would be minimal. No infrastructure is envisaged. The site would blend in with the natural surroundings and serve a habitat and ecological corridor function. The indigenous vegetation could also support bee keeping, which could in turn benefit the community gardening project (pollination services).

The proposed community garden component would be established on a small portion of triangular land (owned by Council) located within the buffer zone to the west of the waste body (Cells 1 and 2). Sludge and chlorinated water from the Stellenbosch Waste Water Treatment Works (WWTW) could potentially be used to dress and water the garden. As such it could make a modest contribution towards local food production and applying the waste to food principle.

The proposed seasonal work of art would be executed by a landscape artist and have the potential to become a landmark on one of the gateways to Stellenbosch.

Construction activities associated with the establishment of a Public Green Open Space would be minimal. Once operational, the proposed uses are likely to support a limited number of income opportunities, mainly linked to the proposed community garden. Use of the area as a managed public open space is envisaged indefinitely, and no decommissioning phase is therefore associated with this alternative. In terms of access, controlled public access and additional security measures are envisaged (Aurecon, 2014a).

1.4.2 Alternative 2: Methane gas extraction

A draft feasibility report and testing indicated that sufficient landfill gas may be present to warrant extraction for beneficial use.

Potential beneficial use options include:

Stellenbosch Landfill Decommissioning: Social Impact Assessment (Draft) October 2014

• Direct use (used in same way as natural gas for heat - use in boilers, etc.). This would require gas extraction infrastructure to be established on the site and also a facility for storing gas; • Conversion to electricity. This option would only be viable if the landfill gas resource is sufficiently large to justify the costs of associated infrastructure. Should the resource be viable, a gas turbine or internal combustion engine could be used to produce electricity that could be fed into the grid. Evacuation options and associated infrastructure (power lines) are unclear at this stage. • Flaring. This option would occur if gas extraction rates do not warrant direct use or electricity generation. The gas can be flared off to control excess gas.

Further testing would be required to establish feasibility and best use option.

However, should additional testing indicate that the resource is not commercially viable a gas management system would still need to be installed in order for the site to comply with the Minimum Requirements for closure, as well as the landfill permit. The landfill gas would be flared. A flaring structure of between 5m and 10m in height would be required. Flaring is likely to generate an open flame which would be visible at night. This infrastructure would then be associated with the best land use option identified for Alternative 1.

For each option gas would be collected by means of establishing a network of gas extraction wells in the waste body and connecting these wells to a central collection point. Irrespective of the option all aboveground structures (other than manholes) would be limited to a 20m x 20m footprint. Aboveground portions of manholes above each well would extend less than 1.5 m aboveground. The establishment of the wells is likely to generate noise and dust during construction. Drilling structures of up to 15m tall would be used (Aurecon, 2014a). It is envisaged that construction activities would be split up into two phases over two consecutive summers, with the shaping of the waste body during the first, and capping construction during the second.

Once operational, activities would provide a limited number of skilled employment opportunities. Once the aboveground structures have reached the end of their lifespan or have become redundant (flaring), the structures would be decommissioned according to the then applicable legal requirements.

1.4.3 No-development alternative

The closure and rehabilitation of the landfill site, including capping and management of leachate and landfill gas, is a mandatory requirement. The no-development alternative essentially means that the status quo of the site would remain. Thus the site would not be decommissioned and rehabilitated in line with the Minimum Requirements and would continue to impact negatively on the receiving environment and the community of Stellenbosch.

1.5 OVERVIEW OF THE SITE AND IMMEDIATE SURROUNDS

The Stellenbosch Landfill Site is located adjacent to the R 310 on the western outskirts of the town of Stellenbosch, at one of the five key gateways to the town (Photograph 1.1). The site itself falls just outside the urban edge, while the areas to the east and south of the site fall within the urban edge (Stellenbosch Spatial Development Framework, 2012).

Stellenbosch Landfill Decommissioning: Social Impact Assessment (Draft) October 2014

Photograph 1.1: View of Stellenbosch Landfill Site Cells 1 and 2 from R310

The Veldwagters River, a small tributary of the Eerste River, and the Devon Valley Road (DR 0169) are located immediately to the east of the site. The Devon Valley Road provides access to approximately 60 farms that are located in the scenic, agricultural area referred to as the Devon Valley area, located to the north-west of Stellenbosch.

The site is located on the interface between intensive agricultural land uses to the west and north, and various urban land uses towards the east and south. A small municipal housing area, an Eskom substation, the Stellenbosch WWTW, and a proposed Materials Recovery Facility (MRF)/ transfer station are located immediately to the east and south-east of the site. The Devon Valley Industrial Area and middle class Onder-Papegaaiberg residential suburb are located further to the east, approximately 500 m from the site. The low-income suburb of Kayamandi is located approximately 2.5 km north-east of the site. Kayamandi is screened from the site by the Papagaaiberg and there are no direct road links to the site from this area.

Landfill site The site consists of portions of Portion 2 of Farm Morgenster 203, Remainder of Farm 183 and Remainder of Farm 280 Veldwachters Rivier Outspan East. All properties are owned by the SLM. The SLM also owns adjacent land parcels located to the north and west of the site. The larger Council-owned land parcel also includes Remainder Farm Morgenster 203; the Remainder Farm 279; and Portion 1 of Farm 279. The site has been used for landfilling purposes since approximately 1966. It currently serves the entire SLM area (general waste only). The SLM is the permit holder.

Stellenbosch Landfill Decommissioning: Social Impact Assessment (Draft) October 2014

The Stellenbosch Landfill Site comprises three waste cells. The three cells comprise a total area of approximately 17.5 ha. Cell 1 is the oldest cell and is essentially unlined and without a leachate drainage system. Cell 2 is lined with a clay liner and has a leachate drainage system in the form of stone filled trenches. Cell 1 and Cell 2 has reached maximum capacity and waste disposal ceased during 2013. Cells 1 and 2 have been covered with a layer of topsoil, and have to some extent re-vegetated naturally (Photograph 1.2). However, no formal closure and rehabilitation has been undertaken on these cells to date. Waste deposited at these cells from the 70’s to the early 90’s was frequently burnt. As a result the organic pile content (and biogas generation capacity) is not considered to be significant.

Photograph 1.2: Cells 1 and 2 viewed from the Devon Valley Road

Cell 3 has been operational since April 2013 and is lined in accordance with the Minimum Requirements (Photograph 1.3). Cell 3 has a maximum capacity of 600 000m 3 of which 120 000 m 3 has been consumed to date. It is envisaged that Cell 3 will remain operational for the next 3-5 years unless waste minimisation or diversion measures are implemented. Once Cell 3 reaches capacity, the landfill site would be closed. The SLM would then dispose of its waste at the envisaged CWDM Regional site (West).

Stellenbosch Landfill Decommissioning: Social Impact Assessment (Draft) October 2014

Photograph 1.3: Cell 3 viewed from Devon Valley Road

Current site access is from the Devon Valley Road. However, once the envisaged MRF has been constructed, the Devon Valley Road entrance would be closed off and sole access would be from the R310. The site is traversed by two Eskom transmission line corridors and associated servitudes.

Informal salvaging is currently permitted on the workface under semi-controlled conditions during operational hours. No more than 40 people are currently allowed on-site at any given time. Key targeted materials include metals, plastics, white paper, wood and bricks.

Service infrastructure The service infrastructure adjacent to the site includes the Municipal WWTW and an Eskom substation. The Municipal WWTW is located on a portion of Remainder Farm 280 to the south-east of the site (Photograph 1.4). The WWTW serves the town of Stellenbosch, and would likely continue to do so in the foreseeable future. The site is fenced in and has access control. The Eskom substation is located approximately 350 m east of the site. The WWTW site essentially screens the site from the Courtyard shopping centre.

In addition a MRF and waste transfer station has been approved on RE/ 279 to the south of the landfill site. A Waste Management Licence was issued in 2012. The facility would provide for: • New access off the R310 (Adam Tas Road); • A new wet and dry MRF; • A new transfer station to transport waste to the envisaged Regional site. The transfer station and MRF would be linked, complimentary facilities;

Stellenbosch Landfill Decommissioning: Social Impact Assessment (Draft) October 2014

• A new public drop-off area (all materials, including provision for household hazardous waste); • Proposed on-site chipping (for off-site composting) and crushing (rubble) facilities; and • A new weigh bridge (vehicles).

The construction of the MRF is envisaged to take place within the next two years. At present, the relocation of the Slabtown informal settlement on the site and other informal structures in the buffer zone poses a key obstacle to commencement of the construction phase.

Photograph 1.4: The WWTW viewed from the landfill site

Slabtown Slabtown/ Swaarkry informal settlement is located along the existing gravel access road off the R310 to the proposed MRF site (Photograph 1.5). The settlement is located within the WWTW and landfill site buffer zones.

The structures associated with the settlement are located along the east of the access road, and back onto the adjacent Stellenbosch WWTW. The community consists of approximately 20 households, currently living in a similar number of informal structures. The settlement was razed by a fire in April 2011, but has since rebuilt. A number of single shacks are also located within the landfill buffer zone to the west. This raises concerns with regard to the safety of the community (potential pile fires, landslides, air quality etc.), as well as the SLM’s adherence to current buffer zone permit requirements with regard to both the WWTW and landfill site.

The Slabtown community have lived on the site for over a decade. Most households rely on salvaging opportunities linked to the landfill site. The community is

Stellenbosch Landfill Decommissioning: Social Impact Assessment (Draft) October 2014

9 essentially Coloured, and largely consists of people who grew up in the immediate surrounds and general Stellenbosch agricultural area. Children from the community attend schools in Vlottenburg and Jamestown. Some individuals have been salvaging at the landfill all their lives, and essentially have no other skills, frame of reference or life-skills.

The SLM has investigated a number of options for relocating the community to housing in Vlottenburg (2011) or Klapmuts (more recently). However, it would appear that the community are reluctant to relocate away from the landfill site and associated opportunities. Council’s plans and associated timeframes to address relocation are unclear at this stage. As indicated in the Assumptions (Section 1.7.1), the scope of the SIA for the closure of the Stellenbosch Landfill Site does not include an assessment of the relocation of the Slabtown community. The potential social impacts associated with the relocation of the Slabtown community and the identification of suitable housing options is therefore not addressed by the SIA.

Photograph 1.5: Location of Proposed MRF site and Slabtown to the south of the landfill

Devon Valley Industrial Area The Devon Valley Industrial area is located approximately 450 m to the east of the site, east of the intervening WWTW and substation. The Industrial area is located in the triangle formed by Vredenburg Road to the west, Adam Tas Road to the south, and Devon Valley Road to the east and north. The Industrial area essentially consists of three large property blocks located parallel to Adam Tas Road.

The southernmost and middle blocks are owned by the Steinhoff property group. These areas are currently occupied by the Cape Pine Sawmill. The central block is used to accommodate the Bison Board wood processing facility, but has recently

Stellenbosch Landfill Decommissioning: Social Impact Assessment (Draft) October 2014

10 been redeveloped to accommodate a small mall, the Courtyard, which fronts onto the Eskom substation to the west (Photograph 1.6).

Photograph 1.6: Courtyard Centre to the east of the Eskom substation

It is understood that Steinhoff is also envisaging further development of the block to include office space, and approximately 264 apartment units and associated parking (Serdyn, pers. comm, 2014). The portion of the property which falls within the landfill buffer would have to comply with the relevant development restrictions.

The northernmost block is occupied by an assortment of light industrial operations, which include furniture manufacturing (e.g. Vinwood, Daniel), wine barrel manufacturers (Eikestad), panel beaters, a frozen yoghurt factory, screen printers, auto engineering and service centre, and a car dealership. Due to layout, the landfill site is only visible from the western perimeter of all three blocks. In the case of the middle and southern blocks, the view is across the substation and WWTW, respectively.

Stellenbosch Landfill Decommissioning: Social Impact Assessment (Draft) October 2014

Uitvalwerke and Transit Housing Scheme The Uitvalwerke Municipal Housing Scheme is located to the east of the existing landfill, approximately 150 m from the site boundary, and ~300 m from the existing site entrance. The scheme consists of 11 formal face brick residential structures which were erected by Council during the late 1970’s. The houses are occupied by present or retired (all Coloured) Council workers and their families. Many of the occupants have been living in the same structures for many years. The land and houses are owned by Council, but occupants are entitled to stay on after retirement (Visagie, pers. comm, 2014).

The Devon Valley Transit Housing Facility (DVTHF) is located immediately to the north of Uitvalwerke, essentially abutting Uitvalwerke. The DVTHF consists of temporary housing structures (Wendy house type). The Facility is located on Council land, and currently accommodates approximately 20 structures. The Facility was established by Council approximately a decade ago, mainly to accommodate people that were at the time informally living in the Raithby cemetery and elsewhere, as well as a number of untenured farm workers from the Devon Valley area. The Facility was intended to be temporary, but no plan could be obtained for relocation to permanent housing. Livelihood strategies are largely informal, and include seasonal work in the agricultural sector, but the income is mainly generated through materials scavenging at the landfill.

Stellenbosch Animal Welfare Society The Stellenbosch Animal Welfare Society (AWS) occupies a small portion of land south of the current landfill entrance road off Devon Valley Road (Photograph 1.7). The premises are leased from Council at a nominal rate under ten year lease. The facility functions provides a home for abandoned and stray dogs and cats and also rehabilitates sick or injured animals and finds new homes for them. The nearest equivalent facilities are located in the Paarl and Gordon’s Bay.

The facility currently consists of kennels with space for 75 dogs, a cattery with space for 65 cats, and administrative buildings. The facility is staffed by volunteers. There is currently no space to walk dogs on the premises. Dogs are currently walked in the vineyards to the east of Devon Valley road, but this is not ideal due to safety concerns associated with the road crossing (Hughes, pers. comm, 2014).

The land located to the north of the site belongs to the JG Carinus Trust. This includes the large Weltevrede Nursery (wholesale) adjacent to the Devon Valley Road and citrus groves directly north-west of the site. Vineyard blocks are located to the west. Carinus operations also rent Council land planted with vineyard to the east of the Devon Valley road east of the landfill site, and two small vineyard blocks within the landfill buffer zone. One of these is proposed for accommodating the community garden project (Photograph 1.8). Carinus operations currently employ approximately 150 people, most of them tenured on the property. The owners also reside on the property (Carinus, pers. comm, 2014).

Stellenbosch Landfill Decommissioning: Social Impact Assessment (Draft) October 2014

Photograph 1.7: Premises of the Stellenbosch AWS at existing site entrance

Photograph 1.8: Portion of land proposed for community garden

Stellenbosch Landfill Decommissioning: Social Impact Assessment (Draft) October 2014

Asara Wine Estate and Hotel Asara is located to the west of the landfill site accessed off Adam Tas Road (R310). The Asara property does not physically border onto the landfill site, but Asara leases Farms RE/ 203 and 1/ 279 from Council (Figure 1.1), both of which are partially located within the landfill buffer. Both also border onto the triangular portion of land proposed for the establishment of the community garden.

The Asara Wine Estate and Hotel is set on 180 ha of agricultural land. The estate produces award-winning wines, and has its own winemaker. The Hotel is a Five Star facility with 36 rooms. According to their website, Asara aims to be a sustainable agri-tourism destination that offers visitors the opportunity to reconnect with their surroundings. 1 In this regard, Asara offers a number of walking trails and mountain bike paths through its vineyards (Zontendyk, pers. comm, 2014). Despite their proximate location to the landfill site (~900 m), the hotel and entrance road are located in a shallow valley, and as a result offer no direct views onto the landfill site (Photograph 1.9). The landfill site is however visible at the entrance to the Estate along the R310 (Photograph 1.10), as well as from the walking trails in the vineyards.

Photograph 1.9: View in landfill site direction from Asara hotel entrance

1 http://www.asara.co.za/our-story-2/about-us/

Stellenbosch Landfill Decommissioning: Social Impact Assessment (Draft) October 2014

Photograph 1.10: Entrance to Asara from the west (R310), landfill in the right hand corner

1.6 APPROACH TO STUDY

The approach to the SIA study is based on the Western Cape Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning Guidelines for Social Impact Assessment (February 2007). These guidelines are based on international best practice. The key activities in the SIA process embodied in the guidelines include:

• Describing and obtaining an understanding of the proposed intervention (type, scale, and location), the settlements, and communities likely to be affected by the proposed project; • Collecting baseline data on the current social and economic environment; • Review of relevant planning and policy frameworks for the area; • Identifying the key potential social issues associated with the proposed project. This requires a site visit to the area and consultation with affected individuals and communities; • Assessing and documenting the significance of social impacts associated with the proposed intervention; and • Identifying alternatives and mitigation measures.

The identification of potential social issues associated with proposed facility is based on observations during the project site visit, review of relevant documentation, experience with similar projects and the general area. Annexure A contains a list of the secondary information reviewed and interviews conducted. Annexure B summarises the assessment methodology used to assign significance ratings to the assessment process.

Stellenbosch Landfill Decommissioning: Social Impact Assessment (Draft) October 2014

1.6.1 Definition of social impacts

Social impacts can be defined as “the consequences to human populations of any public or private actions (these include policies, programmes, plans and/or projects) that alter the ways in which people live, work, play, relate to one another, organise to meet their needs and generally live and cope as members of society. These impacts are felt at various levels, including individual level, family or household level, community, organisation or society level. Some social impacts are felt by the body as a physical reality, while other social impacts are perceptual or emotional” (Vanclay, 2002).

When considering social impacts it is important to recognise that social change is a natural and on-going process (Burdge, 1995). However, it is also important to recognise and understand that policies, plans, programmes, and/or projects implemented by government departments and/or private institutions have the potential to influence and alter both the rate and direction of social change. Many social impacts are not in themselves “impacts” but change process that may lead to social impacts (Vanclay, 2002). For example the influx of temporary construction workers is in itself not a social impact. However, their presence can result in range of social impacts, such as increase in antisocial behaviour. The approach adopted by Vanclay stresses the importance of understanding the processes that can result in social impacts. It is therefore critical for social assessment specialists to think through the complex causal mechanisms that produce social impacts. By following impact pathways, or causal chains, and specifically, by thinking about interactions that are likely to be caused, the full range of impacts can be identified (Vanclay, 2002). An SIA should therefore enable the authorities, project proponents, individuals, communities, and organisations to understand and be in a position to identify and anticipate the potential social consequences of the implementation of a proposed policy, programme, plan, or project. The SIA process should alert also communities and individuals to the proposed project and possible social impacts, while at the same time allowing them to assess the implications and identify potential alternatives. The assessment process should also alert proponents and planners to the likelihood and nature of social impacts and enable them to anticipate and predict these impacts in advance so that the findings and recommendations of the assessment are incorporated into and inform the planning and decision-making process. However, the issue of social impacts is complicated by the way in which different people from different cultural, ethic, religious, gender, and educational backgrounds etc. view the world. This is referred to as the “social construct of reality.” The social construct of reality informs people’s worldview and the way in which they react to changes.

Social impacts vary in both time and space. In terms of timing, all projects and policies go through a series of phases, usually starting with initial planning, followed by implementation (construction), operation, and finally closure (decommissioning). The activities, and hence the type and duration of the social impacts associated with each of these phases are likely to differ.

Stellenbosch Landfill Decommissioning: Social Impact Assessment (Draft) October 2014

1.7 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS

1.7.1 Assumptions

Technical suitability It is assumed that all of the alternatives are technically feasible.

Relocation of Slabtown community The scope of the SIA for the closure of the Stellenbosch Landfill Site does not include an assessment of the social issues associated with the relocation of the Slabtown community. The potential social impacts associated with the relocation of the Slabtown community and the identification of suitable housing options is therefore not addressed by the SIA.

Fit with planning and policy requirements Legislation and policies reflect societal norms and values. The legislative and policy context therefore plays an important role in identifying and assessing the potential social impacts associated with a proposed development. In this regard a key component of the SIA process is to assess the proposed development in terms of its fit with key planning and policy documents. As such, if the findings of the study indicate that the proposed development in its current format does not conform to the spatial principles and guidelines contained in the relevant legislation and planning documents, and there are no significant or unique opportunities created by the development, the development cannot be supported.

1.7.2 Limitations

There are no significant limitations that have a bearing on the findings of the SIA.

1.8 SPECIALIST DETAILS

Tony Barbour, the lead author of this report is an independent specialist with 24 years’ experience in the field of environmental management. In terms of SIA experience Tony Barbour has undertaken in the region of 120 SIA’s and is the author of the Guidelines for Social Impact Assessments for EIA’s adopted by the Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (DEA&DP) in the Western Cape in 2007.

Schalk van der Merwe, the co-author of this report, has an MPhil in Environmental Management from the University of Cape Town and has worked closely with Tony Barbour on a number of SIAs over the last ten years.

1.9 DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

This confirms that Tony Barbour and Schalk van der Merwe, the specialist consultants responsible for undertaking the study and preparing the report, are independent and do not have vested or financial interests in proposed the project being either approved or rejected.

Stellenbosch Landfill Decommissioning: Social Impact Assessment (Draft) October 2014

1.10 REPORT STUCTURE

The report is divided into five sections, namely:

• Section 1: Introduction • Section 2: Summary of key policy and planning documents relating to the project and the study area in question • Section 3: Overview of the study area • Section 4: Identification and assessment of key social issues • Section 5: Summary of key findings and recommendations.

Stellenbosch Landfill Decommissioning: Social Impact Assessment (Draft) October 2014

SECTION 2: POLICY AND PLANNING ENVIRONMENT

2.1 INTRODUCTION

Section 2 provides an overview of key policy documents that are relevant to the proposed closure of the landfill site, namely:

• Stellenbosch Municipality Integrated Development Plan (IDP) (2014/ 2015 Review); • Stellenbosch Local Economic Development Framework (2013); • Stellenbosch Municipality Spatial Development Framework (2012); • Stellenbosch Town Spatial Development Framework (in preparation); • Stellenbosch Municipality Integrated Waste Management Strategy (2011).

2.2 Stellenbosch Municipality IDP

The Stellenbosch Municipality 2014/ 2015 IDP is the third revision of the current Stellenbosch five-year (2012-2017) IDP. The IDP represents the overarching strategic framework through which Council aims to realise its development vision for the SLM.

The development vision for the SLM and Greater Stellenbosch is to be “the innovation capital of South Africa”. Council’s mission is to deliver cost ‐effective services that will provide the most enabling environment for civil and corporate citizens.

The IDP is underpinned by five strategic objectives, namely:

• Good governance and compliance • Making the SLM a preferred investment destination

The IDP emphasizes the advantages the SLM and Greater Stellenbosch have in order to become an established preferred investment destination. These include a spectacular scenic environment, the heart of the South African wine industry, a diversified and strongly growing local economy, proximity to Cape Town and Cape Town International Airport, and the concentration of tertiary skills and innovation potential provided by the University of Stellenbosch. Linked investment opportunities are in residential real estate, tourism, agriculture, manufacture/ processing and high technology- industry/ research and development.

• Making the SLM the Greenest Municipality

The IDP notes that sustainable and responsible management of the environment is a precondition. It envisages that all citizens would become custodians of the natural environment, while at the same time having easy access thereto. It provides that the Municipality should lead by example through protecting and rehabilitating existing

Stellenbosch Landfill Decommissioning: Social Impact Assessment (Draft) October 2014

19 natural assets, employing sustainable resource use practices in its own projects, and expanding environmental assets through establishing new parks and tree planting.

• Making the SLM the Safest Valley

The IDP notes that establishing safety and law abiding behaviour in the SLM is an absolute priority. According to the IDP, safety and security, together with cleanliness, are often cited as the most important factors in getting investment into a city or town. Safety is therefore directly linked to the first strategic objective. The IDP however notes that, due to serious staff shortages, insufficient specialist equipment and facilities, and an inadequate fleet of vehicles visible law enforcement in the SLM visible policing is currently not possible at all hours.

• Creating conditions for dignified living for all citizens

The IDP notes that all the SLM’s citizens should have access to a dignified life, irrespective of their relative material wealth or their background. It specifically notes that the definition of dignified living conditions also apply to accessible public facilities and services.

Community needs/ issues

Of relevance to the study the IDP indicates that the promotion of multi-functional landscapes in the Stellenbosch Green Economy was raised as a key issue during the multi-stakeholder Sector meetings which were held in October and November 2013.

Key issues which were raised at the Ward 11 public meetings in which the landfill site is located and that are potentially relevant to the project include:

• Illegal informal settlement; • General safety in Onder-Papegaaiberg; • The development of a walking trail; • Upgrading of sidewalks and storm water drainage along Devon Valley Road; and • Feedback required with regard to potential development on land occupied by sawmill adjacent to landfill site.

Key issues which were raised by the Ward 11 Committee included:

• Public safety/ law enforcement; • Proper participatory and sensitive planning – respect the character of the area (Stellenbosch Municipality, 2014).

2.3 Stellenbosch Municipality Strategic Framework for Local Economic Development

A Strategic Framework for Local Economic Development (LED) was prepared for the Stellenbosch Municipality in September 2013.

Key SLM strengths identified in the Framework LED include:

• Proximity of the sea, mountains, Cape Town and airport; • Location at the outer edge of the Cape Town Metropole with good access routes;

Stellenbosch Landfill Decommissioning: Social Impact Assessment (Draft) October 2014

• Diversified, high-value agriculture across the area, including the heart of South Africa’s world-class wine industry; • Highly attractive tourism environment, capturing overseas, African, up-country and short-distance visitors; • The University of Stellenbosch and other higher-education and research centres; • A broad-based economic sector structure, including several promising niche sectors; • Proximity to regional and (inter-)national transport facilities (sea, air, rail, road); • Popular retirement destination for the skilled and high-income part of the population; • Base for a number of world-class corporates; • Attractive living environment which helps to attract and retain skilled and experienced labour; and • Well-developed local infrastructure.

Identified key challenges include the following:

• Addressing the need continuously to grow the local economy through developing niche sectors such as services, tourism, agri-processing, wood processing and the informal sector; • Increasing economic participation, in particular of the poor and other marginalised groups; and • Changing the largely racially based land use pattern by encouraging the location of new economic opportunities where the poor are located and also locating the poor where current economic opportunity exists.

The following LED focus areas are proposed:

• Initiatives which support growth in the niche sectors with significant growth potential (i.e. services, tourism, agri-processing, wood processing, informal sector and construction); • Education and skills development in relation to the niche sectors identified; and • Enabling sustainable livelihoods, addressing poverty reduction and social welfare support.

Four initiatives are proposed to strengthen the SLM’s competitive advantage for sustained growth:

• Take advantage of the proximity of the Cape Metro proximity; • Promote Stellenbosch as the best food and wine tourism experience in the Southern Hemisphere; • Promote Stellenbosch best university in the Southern Hemisphere; and • Promote Stellenbosch as the best innovation space in the Southern Hemisphere (Stellenbosch Municipality, 2013).

As is evident from the above, the focus is on niche, excellence and innovation. In addition, the scenic, agricultural and tourism components are greatly interlinked. The latter points are of specific reference given the location of the landfill site adjacent to the R310, a key access road to Stellenbosch.

Stellenbosch Landfill Decommissioning: Social Impact Assessment (Draft) October 2014

2.4 Stellenbosch Municipality Spatial Development Framework

The Draft Stellenbosch Municipal Spatial Development Framework (MSDF) was approved by Council in 2010. A Final MSDF was prepared in 2012 and approved by Council in 2013. The key spatial development goals identified in the SDF are to:

• Achieve shared and inclusive growth; • Increase access to opportunities, particularly for disadvantaged citizens; • Improve sustainability by minimising ecological footprints; and • Maintain the unique sense of place of the SLM’s towns and region.

Key principles and land development objectives of the SDF are the following:

• The definition of clear edges to settlements to encourage inward growth and protect important agricultural and scenic land resources and biodiversity; and • Development focused on alternative energy, water and waste service arrangements that do not compound the financial and environmental challenges associated with existing infrastructure provision.

Strategic focus areas

Seven key strategic focus areas are identified at municipal level:

• Create interconnected nodes; • Create car-free environments (where densities allow) by promoting public, pedestrian and cycling forms of transport; • Create conditions to foster and sustain inclusive economic growth, e.g. by providing for lower and middle income housing in closer proximity to economic opportunities; • Optimize land use within the urban edge through infill and densification; • Implement sound resource custodianship, including by implementing landfill diversion measures and promoting the use of green energy generation; • Support the importance of the local food and agriculture sector. The SDF notes the importance of local agriculture to regional exports and tourism, and the need to apply strict urban edges. Land located outside the urban edge should be used for agricultural production, biodiversity conservation, scenic quality and agri ‐tourism; and • Conserve and enhance the SLM’s heritage and scenic attributes. In this regard, the sense of place of the Stellenbosch region is derived from a long agricultural and academic history coupled with well ‐preserved architecture and endemic biodiversity. Tourism that reinforces the Municipality’s sense of place should be encouraged and attractions should be developed that remain appropriate to the region’s well ‐established themes. In this regard, the SDF indicates that the main reasons for local and international tourists visiting the Stellenbosch area are linked to the –

‹ Local wine industry; ‹ Nature, scenery; ‹ Sporting events, Golf; ‹ Relaxation; and ‹ Local history/ heritage.

Stellenbosch Landfill Decommissioning: Social Impact Assessment (Draft) October 2014

The SDF notes that tourism real estate activity also accounts for a large portion of direct investment in the Stellenbosch area. The SDF therefore emphasizes the need for developments to be sensitive to the scenic quality, local wine routes, historic precincts, the Boland type ambience, and agricultural lands of the Stellenbosch area.

Spatial development proposals for Stellenbosch

The SDF envisages the reconceptualization of each of Stellenbosch town’s current five localized centres into mixed income, mixed use interdependent urban villages. The localized centre of relevance here is the West, namely the Onder ‐Papegaaiberg/ Stellenbosch Farmers Winery (SFW) area at the intersection of Devon Valley/Adam Tas/Oude Libertas Roads. The landfill site falls outside the Stellenbosch urban edge (Figure 2.1, dotted line). No detailed proposals are made for the Devon Valley study area.

LANDFILL LOCATION

Figure 2.1: Broad structuring proposals for Devon Valley/ Onder- Papegaaiberg area (Source: Stellenbosch Muncipality, 2012).

Proposals which apply to all of urban Stellenbosch include:

• Encourage social and gap housing in the five centres; • Implement redevelopment, infill and new development to increase thresholds for public transport and prevent sprawl;

Stellenbosch Landfill Decommissioning: Social Impact Assessment (Draft) October 2014

• Encourage redevelopment to raising densities from 100 to 200 dwelling units/ha gross (two to four storey townhouses and apartment buildings) along main transport routes and around public open spaces; • Declare rivers and canals as river conservation corridors with 10 to 30m setbacks from the river bank; and • Define an urban edge that seeks to limit outward growth of the town without compromising key development needs.

2.5 Stellenbosch Town Spatial Development Framework

The broad objectives, principles, strategies and proposals of the MSDF are supplemented by area-based SDFs. These area-based SDFs are intended to provide, detailed, area-specific planning guidance.

The Stellenbosch Town SDF is currently being prepared. No public Draft has been released yet. At the time of preparing the Draft SIA no comments had been provided by the Stellenbosch town planner with regard to the proposed landfill closure and re- use of the site.

2.6 Stellenbosch Municipality Integrated Waste Management Strategy

The Stellenbosch Integrated Waste Management Plan (IWMP) gives local level expression to the objectives of the National Waste Management Strategy (2010). The updated SLM IWMP Final Status Quo Report was compiled in 2010 and a Final Draft Action Plan was prepared in 2011.

Of specific relevance to the study the IWMP identified the following priority issues:

• Closing of the existing Devon Valley (Stellenbosch) Landfill Site and finding alternatives to achieve compliance with current legislation; • Minimising waste and providing education to ensure more responsible waste management; • Reducing waste quantities to the landfill; and • Establishing a regional facility and alignment with Cape District Municipality planning.

The IWMP refers to the closure of the Devon Valley landfill site, but essentially only in terms of maximizing available airspace until such time as the proposed Regional Landfill Site has been established. Measures would include waste minimization at source, and diversion. An MRF is proposed to divert recyclables, gardening waste and rubble.

Post-closure site rehabilitation and potential land use options for the Stellenbosch Landfill are not addressed in the IWMP.

Stellenbosch Landfill Decommissioning: Social Impact Assessment (Draft) October 2014

SECTION 3: OVERVIEW OF STUDY AREA

3.1 INTRODUCTION

Section 3 provides an overview of the study area with regard to:

• The general location and administrative context; • Study area communities; • The demographic context; and, • The economic context.

3.2 ADMINSTRATIVE CONTEXT

The town of Stellenbosch and the landfill site are located within the Stellenbosch Local Municipality (SLM) (WC024). The SLM is one of five Local Municipalities that make up the Cape Winelands District Municipality (CWDM). The SLM is comprised of 22 Wards. The proposed site falls within Ward 11, which includes the areas of Plankenbrug, Onder Papegaaiberg, Devon Valley, Devonvale, and Snake Valley (Kayamandi).

The SLM covers an area of ~900 km 2 and is strategically located in terms of its proximity to the City of Cape Town and access from both the N1 to the west and the N2 to the south. The town is located ~ 50 km from the Cape Metro. The main towns in the SLM are Stellenbosch and Franschhoek. Stellenbosch (town) is the administrative seat of the CWDM as well as the SLM. Smaller settlements include Klapmuts, Koelenhof, Kylemore, Pniel/ Johannesdal, Lanquedoc, Raithby, Jamestown, and Vlottenburg.

Stellenbosch is considered the heart of the South African wine industry, with the Stellenbosch Wine Route being the oldest route in the country. The area also houses the University of Stellenbosch and a number of prestigious schools. It also has a strong business sector, varying from major South African businesses and corporations, to smaller enterprises and home industries (Stellenbosch Municipality, 2013).

At the same time, the SLM is characterized by significant income disparities. According to the 1011/ 2012 IDP, “great wealth in the form of wine estates, luxurious hotels, spas and leafy suburbs exist side by side with impoverished farm workers, displaced farm dwellers, and unemployed and poor households residing in underdeveloped townships situated beyond the main industrial, commercial and entertainment areas and amenities of leisure” (Stellenbosch Municipality; 2011b).

Stellenbosch Landfill Decommissioning: Social Impact Assessment (Draft) October 2014

3.3 LOCAL COMMUNITIES

3.3.1 Stellenbosch

Stellenbosch is the leader town in the SLM, and by far the largest and most developed. The town is also heart of the South African wine industry, and the leading town in the Cape Winelands (Stellenbosch IDP 2014/2105 revision).

The town is the second oldest town in South Africa (1679). In this regard the town and surroundings farming areas have one of the largest concentrations of graded historical buildings/ national monuments in the country. Dorp Street (main street) was one the first street-scale historical renovations of early colonial architecture undertaken in South Africa, and has acquired iconic tourist status.

The Stellenbosch region is also widely considered to have the best wine producing conditions in the country, and is home to many of the top estates. Established in 1971, the Stellenbosch Wine Route is also the oldest and most renowned of all South Africa’s wine routes. It currently includes five sub-routes, and represents approximately 200 wine growers and makers 2.

The town is home to the University of Stellenbosch (~27 000 students) and has a distinctive “student town” feel. The character of Stellenbosch is also closely associated with tree lined streets and green areas. In this regard the town and immediate environs offer numerous opportunities to access green spaces. This is linked to the Jonkershoek, the Eerste River and open public areas such as Braak, Papegaaiberg, etc. Specific provision is also made for open green space and facilities (e.g. play parks) for different residential neighbourhoods. Kayamandi Township is possibly an exception, for land which had been set aside has been invaded and occupied (Serdyn, pers. comm).

As a result of the town’s location and character Stellenbosch is also a sought-after residential destination with many high-value neighbourhoods. With the exception of Onder-Papegaaiberg, residential neighbourhoods are located east of the large Papegaaiberg (hill), and thus not in proximity to the landfill site. Die Boord, a more recent middle class residential neighbourhood is located south of Papegaaiberg, south of the railway line, R310 and Eerste River (~1.7 km south-east of the landfill site). Large lower income residential neighbourhoods like Kayamandi (predominantly Black African) and Cloetesville (Coloured) are located to the north of the town, >2.5 km from the site.

Local industry in the area is largely linked to the processing of agricultural produce, such as wines, spirits and beverages, as well as foodstuffs. Key local multi-national industries based in Stellenbosch include the Rembrandt Group, Distell and Parmalat. Industry and manufacturing are concentrated along the Stellenbosch railway line and the R310/ R44, and include the Devon Valley Industrial Area, the Distell/ Stellenbosch Farmers Winery Complex, and Plankenbrug near the station.

The 2010 Revision of the Growth Potential of Towns in the Western Cape (2004) indicates that Stellenbosch has a very high development potential with relatively low

2 www.stellenbosch.travel/attractions/wine-route

Stellenbosch Landfill Decommissioning: Social Impact Assessment (Draft) October 2014

26 social development needs. In functional terms, Stellenbosch is identified as a Regional Leader town (Stellenbosch University/ CSIR, 2010).

3.3.2 Onder-Papegaaiberg

Onder-Papegaaiberg is an established middle-class neighborhood located on the western and south western foothills of Papegaaiberg, approximately 500m east of the landfill site (across intervening vineyards). The Papegaaiberg effectively separates the suburb of Onder-Papegaaiberg from the rest of Stellenbosch. Papegaaiberg used to be managed as a forest into the 1990’s, but this has mostly been cleared and converted to natural fynbos. Middelvlei Wine Estate and the associated vineyards border onto the suburb to the north, while the Stellenbosch cemetery is located to the south-east, on the lower slopes of Papegaaiberg. The well- known Oude Libertas Theatre with its open-air amphitheater is located to the south of the cemetery. A more recent high-density residential development, Devon Park, is located directly to the south of Onder-Papegaaiberg, off the R310, east of the Cape Pine Sawmill and Devon Valley Industrial Area.

The neighborhood consists of single residential structures located along tree-lined streets. Most properties have well-established gardens with mature trees. A number of large publicly accessible open green spaces are located in the suburb, mostly planted with mature trees (Photograph 3.1). Street blocks in the southern portion of the neighborhood (closest to the landfill site) are laid out along closes which terminate onto a central green belt off Devon Valley Road. Open spaces are connected to Papegaaiberg. Papegaaiberg and vineyards to the north of Onder- Papegaaiberg are currently used as a shortcut for pedestrian traffic between the Devon Valley Industrial Area and Kayamandi.

Photograph 3.1: Open space in Onder-Papegaaiberg off Devon Valley Road

Stellenbosch Landfill Decommissioning: Social Impact Assessment (Draft) October 2014

Access to the houses in the area is off the Devon Valley Road or the Oude Libertas Road (also off the R310). Due the relatively isolated location of the suburb relative to the rest of Stellenbosch there is very limited through-traffic. Property crime is a key concern in the area. This is largely linked to the neighborhood’s isolation and the abundance of vegetation and open spaces (Serdyn, pers. comm).

Due to layout and the abundance of mature trees, the landfill site is only visible from some locations along Patrys Road (off Devon Valley Road). These include Huis Orison, a special needs home (~800m from the landfill site). Otherwise, the site is not visible from residential properties or public open spaces.

3.3.3 Devon Valley farming area

The Devon Valley agricultural area is located to the north of the landfill side on either side of the Devon Valley Road. The sense of place is of a secluded, established agricultural valley dominated by vineyards and orchards (Photograph 3.2).

Photograph 3.2: View across the Devon Valley from the Devon Valley Hotel

Key land uses in the area are agriculture, agri/ tourism, and rural residential. Key crops include wine grapes, stone fruit, citrus, olives and vegetables. A number of established wine estates are located in the Devon Valley area. These include Clos Malverne, Lousivale, Brenaissance, JC le Roux and Sylvanvale (Stellenbosch Valley Wine Route). Wine tasting facilities are available on a number of farms. Operations are typically labour intensive and most farms have permanent workers living on the properties. Rural residential uses are also associated with most properties. A significant number of owners of smaller, non-farming properties are seasonal visitors over the Northern Hemisphere winter.

Stellenbosch Landfill Decommissioning: Social Impact Assessment (Draft) October 2014

Tourism facilities have significantly expanded over the past decade, as have rural/ residential uses. This is directly linked to the valleys agricultural context and scenic setting. The Devon Valley Hotel and its scenic views are a long-established destination in the Stellenbosch area. A number of Bed and Breakfast and other accommodation facilities are also located along the Devon Valley Road. The Devon Valley Hotel and Brenaissiance offer wedding venues.

The Devon Valley Road is currently a cul de sac to the public. Access to the R304 or M12 to the north is across private properties, with only local residents having access to gate keys. The Stellenbosch Landfill Site is essentially located at the entrance to the Devon Valley. However, the site is only visible to motorists travelling along the Devon Valley Road in the immediate vicinity of the site. The site is not visible from other sections of the road due to screening provides by the natural topography and trees that line the road (Photograph 3.3).

Photograph 3.3: Tree lined section of the Devon Valley Road north of the landfill site

The Devon Valley Farmer’s association (which effectively doubles as local land owner’s forum) currently has ~60 members. A Devon Valley neighbourhood watch also operates in the area.

Local community representative indicated that property crime and vandalism are serious concerns in the area. A representative from the Devon Valley Farmers Association estimates that losses of ~R2 million has been incurred by farmers over the past four years. Copper, other metals and portable farming items with resale value are primarily targeted. Losses directly affect operations, as irrigation infrastructure (pipes and pumps) are key targets (Swart, pers. comm, 2014).

Stellenbosch Landfill Decommissioning: Social Impact Assessment (Draft) October 2014

3.4 DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE

Population and households According to Census 2011, the Stellenbosch Municipality had a population of 155 733. This represents a 23.8% increase since Census 2001. Ward 11 had a population of 6 545 in 2011, and represented 4.2% of the SLM population.

The majority of the SLM population was Colored (52.2%), followed by Black Africans (28.1%) and Whites (18.5%) (Table 3.1). In contrast, the Ward 11 population was almost evenly split between White (43.8%) and Colored (42.1%) groups, with the Black African group only contributing 11.9%.

Table 3.1: Population by group

Stellenbosch LM % Ward 11 %

Black African 28.1 11.9 Colored 52.2 42.1 Asian 0.4 0.8 White 18.5 43.8

Source: Census 2011; Stellenbosch Municipality, 2014

Age structure

In comparison to the SLM, the Ward 11 population is generally older. Ward 11 had a relatively lower percentage of youthful dependents (15.9%), but higher percentages of young adults and people of working age (76.8%) and retirees (7.3%) (Table 3.2).

Table 3.2: Age structure

Stellenbosch LM % Ward 11 % 0-14 22.8 15.9 15-64 72.3 76.8 65+ 4.9 7.3

Source: Census 2011; Stellenbosch Municipality, 2014

Socio-economic indicators Approximately 39.8% of Ward 11 households had no access to income, or earned less than R3 200 per month (Table 3.3). This was slightly below the SLM average (41.5%). Both the SLM (5.2%) and Ward 11 (7.8%) recorded unemployment rates well below the national and provincial ones. Ward 11 education levels were significantly higher than for the SLM. The 2011 Census data indicate that 70.9% of the Ward 11 population over 20 had a matric qualification or more, while the figure for the SLM was only 46.4%.

Stellenbosch Landfill Decommissioning: Social Impact Assessment (Draft) October 2014

Table 3.3: Income, unemployment and qualifications

Stellenbosch LM Ward 11 % households with no income, or 41.5 39.8 an income below R3 200/ m 3 Unemployment rate (official) 5.2 7.8 - % of economically active population Highest qualification less than 53.6 29.1 matric - % of population 20+

Source: Census 2011; Stellenbosch Municipality, 2014

Service levels indicators

Census 2011 indicates that Ward 11 outperformed the SLM with regard to all access to services. The portion of the population not living in formal structures is significantly smaller than that for the SLM. While some SLM households continue to lack access to basic services, all households in the Ward 11 area are fully serviced (Table 4.1).

Table 3.4: Overview of service levels (2011)

Stellenbosch LM Ward 11 4 % of population not living in brick 40.7 11.7 and concrete house % of population without access to 12.3 0 regional/ local scheme potable water % of population without waterborne 9 0 sewage % of population without access to 13 0 weekly refuse collection % of population not using electricity 7.1 0 for lighting

Source: Census 2011; Stellenbosch Municipality, 2014

3.5 ECONOMIC OVERVIEW

The SLM economy is the thirteenth largest regional economy in South Africa. Since 1994, growth has generally outpaced national, provincial and DM growth rates, as well as that for the City of Cape Town. As a result the SLM economy is the dominant economy in the CWDM, and also the fastest growing. In 2011 the SLM accounted for 33.6% of the CWDM’s economic output. The SLM GDP-R (Gross Domestic Product – Regional) grew by 5.5% per year over the period 2000-2013. The SLM economy was also affected by the global recession, but has recovered well since 2009, already registering a yearly growth of 5.4% in 2011.

3 This figure roughly corresponds to the defined (2011) upper-band poverty line value used in the National Development Plan. 4 It should be noted that Slabtown does not have municipal services.

Stellenbosch Landfill Decommissioning: Social Impact Assessment (Draft) October 2014

The key drivers of the Stellenbosch economy are agriculture (wine, fruit and vegetables), tourism (heritage, food, wine and scenic) and the knowledge economy (tertiary institutions such as the University). Strong links exist between agriculture and tourism. The strong Manufacturing sector is closely linked to agricultural processing (food and beverages, sawmills). While the economy is diversified, it remains critically reliant on agricultural production.

According to Census 2011, four sectors dominated the Stellenbosch economy, namely Financial Services (23.6%); Manufacturing (22.3%); Trade (18.2%) and Government Services (12%). Tertiary sectors together accounted for 65.5% of economic activity. Agriculture accounted for only 5% (down from 13% in 2001). While the relative importance of the Financial Services (+4.6%) and Trade (+8.2%) sectors significantly increased, that of Manufacturing decreased (-7.7%). Manufacturing was hardest hit by the global crisis, but has since shown significant signs of recovery.

The largest providers of employment opportunities were Government Services (30%), Trade (16.9%), Manufacturing (13.4%) and Agriculture (13.1%) (Bureau for Economic Research, 2013; Stellenbosch Municipality, 2013; 2014).

While the primary sector (agriculture) is neither a key sector in terms of direct economic output nor employment provision, it should be noted that agricultural activities and agricultural landscapes crucially underpin the local tourism and manufacturing sectors. Key crops include vineyards, fruit and vegetables.

The SLM tourism sector is probably one of the most mature in the country. Virtually the entire Stellenbosch municipal area is of great local, regional, provincial and national tourism importance. This includes the historic towns of Stellenbosch and Franschoek, as well as the scenically located, intensively cultivated agricultural land occupying much of the broad, fertile valleys in the SLM area not located on steep or mountainous terrain. This area is commonly referred to the Cape Winelands Historical Landscape. The Stellenbosch Wine Route is a priority destination for overseas visitors to the Cape.

Stellenbosch Landfill Decommissioning: Social Impact Assessment (Draft) October 2014

SECTION 4: ASSESSMENT OF KEY SOCIAL ISSUES

4.1 INTRODUCTION

Section 4 provides an assessment of the key social issues identified during the study. The identification of key issues was based on:

• Review of project related information; • Review of key policy and land use planning documents; • Interviews with key interested and affected parties; • Experience/ familiarity of the authors with the area and local conditions; and • Experience with similar projects.

The key focus of the BA is to identify the most acceptable post closure land use for the Stellenbosch Landfill Site. The focus of the SIA is therefore on commenting on the three alternatives, namely:

• Alternative 1: Open Space green landscaping and community upliftment project; • Alternative 2: Extraction of landfill gas for commercial use. • Alternative 3: No-go. The site would remain as is.

4.2 FIT WITH POLICY AND LAND USE PLANS

The Stellenbosch IDP lists a number of issues raised at the Ward 11 public meetings in which the landfill site is located that are relevant to the closure of and future land use of the site. These include:

The site is also located outside of the Stellenbosch urban edge. No detailed proposals are made for the Devon Valley study area.

The Stellenbosch Integrated Waste Management Plan (IWMP) refers to the closure of the Devon Valley Stellenbosch Landfill Site. However, post-closure site rehabilitation and potential land use options for the Devon Valley landfill site are not addressed in the IWMP

Stellenbosch Landfill Decommissioning: Social Impact Assessment (Draft) October 2014

4.3 CONSTRUCTION RELATED ACTIVITES

The key social impacts associated with the construction related component for Alternative 1 and 2 include:

• Creation of employment opportunities; • Loss of job opportunities for waste pickers; and • Impacts associated with construction related activities, specifically noise and dust.

No construction impacts are related to Alternative 3.

4.3.1 Creation of local employment opportunities (Alternative 1 and 2)

Based on the information provided by Mr Jan Palm, the project engineer, the construction related activities will be broken down into two phases. Phase 1 will involve the reshaping of the landfill site. This activity will involve moving of material using bulldozers and is expected to take ~ 4-5 months. The objective of this phase would be to create the final landform prior to capping. Phase 2 will involve the capping and establishment of the leachate, storm-water and landfill gas collection systems. This phase will be more labour intensive and take between 6 and 8 months to complete. The total number of employment opportunities associated with Phase 1 would be in the region of 10-15, while Phase 2 would create ~ 25-30 employment opportunities. The total number of employment opportunities associated with the construction component of the project would therefore be up to 45.

Based on information provided by Mr Palm it is anticipated that 80% (36) of the employment opportunities will be available to low skilled workers, 15% (7) for semi- skilled workers (drivers, equipment operators etc.) and 5% (2) for skilled personnel (engineers, land surveyors, project managers etc.). Members from the local communities are likely to be in a position to qualify for the majority of the low skilled and some of the semi-skilled employment opportunities. The majority of these employment opportunities are also likely to accrue to Historically Disadvantaged (HD) members from the local area. Given high local unemployment levels and limited job opportunities in the area, this will represent a significant, if localised, social benefit. The total wage bill for the construction phase is estimated to be in the region of R 7.6 million (2014 rand value). This is based on the assumption that the average monthly salary for low skilled, semi-skilled and skilled workers will be in the region of R 5 000, R 10 000 and R 30 000 respectively for a period of 10months 5. The majority of the wage bill is likely to be spent in the local Stellenbosch area.

The number of people employed as part of the re-vegetation component (both Alternatives 1 and 2) would depend on the final land use option selected.

The total capital expenditure for the rehabilitation of Cells 1 & 2 is estimated to be in the region of R 70 million. The cost of the re-vegetation component will depend on the land use option selected.

5 These figures are based on wage estimates for the different skills levels used in other SIA studies undertaken by the author.

Stellenbosch Landfill Decommissioning: Social Impact Assessment (Draft) October 2014

Table 4.1: Impact assessment of employment opportunities during the construction phase (Alternative 1 and 2)

Nature: Creation of employment opportunities during the construction phase Without Mitigation With Enhancement Extent Local (2) Local (3) Duration Short term (2) Short term (2) Magnitude Medium (6) Medium (6) Probability Probable (4) Probable (4) Significance Medium (40) Medium (44) Status Positive Positive Reversibility N/A N/A Irreplaceable loss of N/A N/A resources? Can impact be enhanced? Yes Enhancement: See below Cumulative impacts: Opportunity to up-grade and improve skills levels in the area. Residual impacts: Improved pool of skills and experience in the local area.

Recommended enhancement measures In order to enhance local employment and business opportunities associated with the construction phase for Alternative 1 and 2 the following measures should be implemented:

Employment • Where reasonable and practical, the SLM should appoint local contractors and implement a ‘locals first’ policy as far as possible, especially for semi and low- skilled job categories; • Where feasible, efforts should be made to employ local contactors that are compliant with Broad Based Black Economic Empowerment (BBBEE) criteria; • The recruitment selection process should seek to promote gender equality and the employment of women wherever possible. The potential for employing women is likely to be highest for the re-vegetation component of the project.

Note that while preference to local employees and companies is recommended, it is recognised that a competitive tender process may not guarantee the employment of local labour for the construction phase.

4.3.2 Loss of source of income for waste pickers (Alternative 1 and 2)

The Slabtown community consists of approximately 20 households and have lived in the area for over a decade. Most households rely on salvaging opportunities linked

Stellenbosch Landfill Decommissioning: Social Impact Assessment (Draft) October 2014

35 to the landfill site. The SLM has investigated a number of options for relocating the community to housing in Vlottenburg (2011) or Klapmuts (more recently). However, it would appear that the community are reluctant to relocate away from the landfill site and associated opportunities.

Given that the majority of households in Slabtown rely on waste picking at their main source of income the closure of the landfill site will represent a significant impact for these households. However, the impact should be viewed within the context that landfill sites have a finite lifespan and cannot continue to operate indefinitely. The lifespan of the Stellenbosch Landfill is estimated to be 3-5 years (Cell 3). In addition, the SLM are in the process of relocating the Slabtown community. This relocation will also impact on their access to the site, which in turn, will, in all likelihood mean that they can no longer salvage from the site. Based on the information provided by the SLM the intention is to relocate the Slabtown community before the Stellenbosch Landfill Site is closed. The impact on livelihoods of the waste pickers will therefore occur before the site is closed.

As indicated the assumptions, the scope of the SIA does not include an assessment of the social issues associated with the relocation of the Slabtown community. The potential social impacts associated with the relocation of the Slabtown community, including the impact on current livelihood strategies, should therefore form part of the relocation study. However, it is recognised that the loss of access to the landfill site for waste pickers as a result of either relocation and or closure will represent a significant impact for affected households in Slabtown.

Table 4.2: Loss of income of waste pickers (Alternative 1 and 2)

Nature: Loss of primary source of income for waste pickers Without Mitigation With Mitigation 6 Extent Local (4) Local (1) Duration Long term (4) Short term (2) Magnitude High (8) Low (2) Probability Probable (4) Probable (4) Significance High (64) Low (20) Status Negative Negative Reversibility N/A N/A Irreplaceable loss of N/A N/A resources? Can impact be mitigated? Yes Mitigation: See below Cumulative impacts: Increased levels of poverty for residents of Slabtown and impact on future generations and overall poverty levels in the SLM. Residual impacts: See cumulative impacts

6 Assumes that the SLM assist Slabtown community to develop alternative livelihood strategies and also provide financial support for the affected households for a period following their relocation.

Stellenbosch Landfill Decommissioning: Social Impact Assessment (Draft) October 2014

Recommended mitigation measures In order to address the impact the SLM should, as part of the relocation programme, investigate and assist the affected households in Slabtown to develop alternative livelihood strategies. This should include a training and skills development programme for the affected households. It will also be important for the SLM to provide financial support for the affected households for a period following their relocation, specifically given that their prime source of income, namely waste picking, has been lost. The duration of this support will need to be determined as part of the assessment of the impact of relocating the Slabtown community.

4.3.3 Nuisance impacts of construction related activities (Alternatives 1 and 2)

The major construction related activities associated with closure of the Stellenbosch Landfill Site will essentially be the same for each of the two alternatives. These activities will involve the reworking and shaping of the final landform, followed by final capping of the site. These activities will involve the movement of earth moving equipment on the site. There may also be a need to import clay material to the site for capping. These activities will create noise and dust impacts. Reworking the landfill may also expose old waste and result in wind-blown litter. The area that is likely to be the most impacted is the Uitvalwerke housing scheme which is located in relative proximity to the site.

The movement of construction on and off the site may also create safety threats to other road users travelling along the Devon Valley Road. Mud, specifically clay, from construction vehicles also has the potential to create slippery conditions on the access roads to the site, specifically the Devon Valley Road.

In addition, a gas extraction and / or management system 7 will be installed which is likely to generate noise and dust during construction. Drilling structures of up to 15m tall would be used (Aurecon, 2014a). For alternative 2, the final end use will include a gas extraction system. The design and scale of the gas extraction system will be informed by the commercial viability of the landfill gas. However, a more detailed study will need to be undertaken before a final decision is taken in this regard.

The adjacent landowners interviewed, acknowledged that the reworking and shaping of the final landform and capping would generate noise and dust impact. However, they also acknowledged that these impacts could not be avoided and that the duration of the activities was likely to be short term.

In addition, it should be noted that the current landfilling and capping activities generate noise and dust impacts and also involve the movement of heavy vehicles on and off the site. This is not to say that these impacts are acceptable, but rather to indicate that the activities associated with the closure of the site will not expose the local community in the area to a new set of impacts.

The findings of the SIA also indicate that the potential noise, dust and safety impacts associated with the reworking and shaping of the final landform, followed by final

7 The choice of a gas extraction vs. a gas management system will depend on the volume of landfill gas and the potential economic viability of extracting and using the methane gas.

Stellenbosch Landfill Decommissioning: Social Impact Assessment (Draft) October 2014

37 capping of the site and the establishment of the gas management system can be effectively mitigated. This applies to Alternative 1 and 2.

Table 4.3: Assessment of nuisance impacts associated with construction related activities (Alternative 1 and 2)

Nature: Potential noise, dust and safety impacts associated with the reworking and shaping of the final landform, followed by final capping of the site and the establishment of the gas management system Without Mitigation With Mitigation Extent Local (2) Local (1) Duration Construction phase (1) Construction phase (1) Magnitude Low (4) Very Low (2) Probability Probable (3) Probable (3) Significance Low (21) Low (12) Status Negative Negative Reversibility Yes Irreplaceable loss No No of resources? Can impact be Yes mitigated? Mitigation: See below Cumulative impacts: Not applicable. The construction related impacts are temporary in nature and are unlikely to result in any significant cumulative impacts. However, depending on the timing of construction activities associated with the up-grading of the WWTW and MRF, there may be cumulative impacts linked to noise, dust and movement of heavy vehicles. However, these significance of these cumulative is likely to be low. Residual impacts: Not applicable. The construction related impacts are temporary in nature and are unlikely to result in any significant cumulative impacts.

Recommended mitigation measures The potential impacts associated with construction related activities can be effectively mitigated. The mitigation measures include:

• Activities associated with reworking, shaping and capping and the establishment of the gas management system should be confined to the period between 8h00 and 17h00 on weekdays. No activities should be undertaken over weekends. • Dust suppression measures, such as regular wetting of surfaces in areas that are being reworked, must be implemented if possible; • Nets to catch windblown litter generated created by exposed waste should be established around the perimeter of the active working area. In addition, all windblown litter should be collected on a daily basis; • All vehicles with mud and or clay on their undercarriage and or wheels should be washed down before leaving the site; • The movement of heavy vehicles associated with the construction phase should be timed to avoid weekends and holiday periods; and • All vehicles must be road-worthy and drivers must be qualified and made aware of the potential road safety issues and need for strict speed limits.

Stellenbosch Landfill Decommissioning: Social Impact Assessment (Draft) October 2014

4.4 ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVE 1

Alternative 1, Open Space landscaping and Community Upliftment, entails landscaping of the reshaped waste body, and developing the site for future planned and managed activities. A number of potential land uses have been identified, these include:

• Public Green Open Space (re-vegetate with indigenous vegetation); • A community garden adjacent and west of Cells 1 and 2; • Indigenous seasonal flowers to create a work of art; • Potential bee keeping programme; • Lookout point and linking system of walking trails.

In terms of a future end-use of the area it was proposed that the landfill and surrounding area should be developed as a Public Green Open Space that could be linked with other open spaces in the area. The establishment of trails for walking, jogging and cycling (as opposed to mountain biking) were also supported by the majority of Interested and Affected Parties interviewed, as was a lookout point.

The representative from the Stellenbosch Animal Welfare Society (SAWS), Ms Hughes, also indicated that the society had limited facilities and there was no space for walking dogs on the premises. Dogs are currently walked in vineyards to the east of Devon Valley Road. Allowing dog walkers from the SAWS access to the landfill site would not only benefit the SAWS, but also improve the safety and security on the site.

However, all of the key stakeholders, including Mr Serdyn (Ward 11 Councillor), local homeowners in Uitvalwerke, Ms Ginny Swart (RLMC Chairperson), and Ryan Zontendyk (Asara), also noted that the long term objective of the closure and rehabilitation plan should be to minimise the visual impact of the landfill site and ensure that it does not generate dust once it has been closed. In this regard Cell 1 and 2 have not been formally re-vegetated, and, in addition to being unsightly, are sources of dust, especially during the dry, windy summer months. Councillor Serdyn and Ms Swart both indicated that closure and capping of Cell 1 and 2 should commence as soon as possible and should not wait until Cell 3 are filled (3-5 years).

In terms of re-vegetation, all of the key stakeholders interviewed indicated that the re-vegetation programme should maximise the use indigenous plants. This would reduce the long term maintenance costs. This is in line with comments from key stakeholders who indicated that the final land use option should not require major input in terms of maintenance.

While the proposal to incorporate a seasonal flower garden into the design of the landscaping and re-vegetation programme would create an attractive landform at the entrance to Stellenbosch, this option would also lead to higher establishment and maintenance costs. Based on the comments from Mr Jan Palm, the project engineer, the re-vegetation costs associated with establishment of a seasonal flower garden as part of the landscaping plan for the site would be considerably more expensive than the other re-vegetation options. In addition, without regular maintenance the area set aside for the seasonal flower garden would become run-down and visually unattractive. This proposal was therefore not widely supported. Expenditure on a

Stellenbosch Landfill Decommissioning: Social Impact Assessment (Draft) October 2014

39 seasonal flower garden would also be difficult to justify given the pressing social needs in the SLM.

The potential for bee keeping as a community venture is likely to be limited, specifically in the form of community type project. Opportunities may exist for private individuals to establish bee hives on the property. However, the security of the hives may be an issue given that the objective of Alternative 1 would be to create a public space. The presence of bee hives and associated bees may also pose risks to members of the public accessing the area. The establishment of a bee community keeping operation on the site as part of the post landfill land use plan is therefore not recommended.

The community garden component is earmarked for a small portion of triangular land (owned by Council) located within the buffer zone to the west of Cells 1 and 2. One of the objectives of the community garden would be to provide an alternative livelihood strategy for the current waste pickers who largely reside in the Slabtown informal area adjacent to the site. The waste pickers would no longer be able to salvage waste from the site once the site is closed and decommissioned.

While the establishment of a Community Garden is supported in principle, concerns were raised regarding the viability and long term sustainability of the proposal. The majority of the key stakeholders interviewed indicated that the actual viability was likely to be low in their opinion. In this regard similar projects in the area that had benefited from generous donor funding had failed (e.g. Khayamandi).

In addition, the SLM is in the process of relocating the residents of Slabtown. The residents of Slabtown will therefore no longer live in close proximity of the site and by extension, to the proposed Community Garden. Depending on where they are relocated it may be difficult and costly (taxi and bus fare) for the current residents of Slabtown to access the proposed Community Garden. This would undermine the objective of providing an alternative livelihood strategy for the current waste pickers. It would also undermine the potential viability of the project. These issues would need to be assessed in more detail by the SLM before a decision is taken with regard to the establishment of a Community Garden.

The issue of land invasions was raised by all of the adjacent land owners as a key issue. The concern is that a closed site, while no longer offering salvaging opportunities, would still offer an attractive target for land invasions and vagrants if not managed properly. This would compromise use of the area as Public Green Open Space and create safety and security problems in the area. The establishment of a community garden may also increase the risk of land invasions in the area. The feasibility of developing a Community Garden is therefore an issue that would need to be investigated in more detail by the SLM before a final decision is taken. It is beyond the scope of the SIA to comment on the potential viability of a community garden, however, based on the findings of the study there do appear to be a number of potential risks. The same applies to the establishment of a bee-keeping operation.

The concerns raised by local residents are linked to their experience with the Slabtown and Devon Valley Transit communities. Local residents in the area indicated that despite repeated assurances from the SLM that the Slabtown and Devon Valley Transit communities would be relocated no action has been taken to address this issue to date. This issue has been raised as a concern by local residents for approximately the last 10 years.

Stellenbosch Landfill Decommissioning: Social Impact Assessment (Draft) October 2014

Based on the findings of the SIA the following activities were identified as compatible with the development of the area as Public Green Open Space:

• Walking (people and dogs) and jogging trails; • Cycling paths (as opposed to mountain bike trails). These paths would provide a safe environment for young children to learn to ride; • View point on the highest point. This would be linked to the trails. The lookout point could also incorporate educational signage indicating location of historic farms and features in the area etc..

The establishment of a seasonal flower garden into the design of the landscaping and re-vegetation programme while potentially attractive would involve higher maintenance costs. This proposed land use is therefore not recommended unless the SLM can commit to on-going financial requirements for maintenance.

The feasibility of developing a Community Garden would need to be investigated in more detail before a final decision is taken.

Stellenbosch Landfill Decommissioning: Social Impact Assessment (Draft) October 2014

Table 4.4: Assessment development of Public Green Open Space

Nature: Creation of Public Green Open Space that benefits the local residents and the broader Stellenbosch community Without Mitigation 8 With Enhancement 9 Extent Local (2) Local (4) Duration Short term (2) Long Term (4) Magnitude Low (3) Medium (6) Probability Probable (4) Probable (4) Significance Low (28) Medium (56) Status Negative Positive Reversibility N/A N/A Irreplaceable loss of N/A N/A resources? Can impact be enhanced? Yes Enhancement: See below Cumulative impacts: Negative cumulative impact would be linked to the negative visual impact on the area’s sense of place and scenic entrance to Stellenbosch and dust , odours and windblown litter generated from the site that has not been closed and rehabilitated . Positive cumulative impact associated with implantation of enhancement measures would be linked to establishment of a land form that is compatible with the area and does not pose odour, dust and windblown litter threat to adjacent land uses. Residual impacts: See cumulative impacts.

Recommended enhancement measures In order to enhance local employment and business opportunities associated with the construction phase the following measures should be implemented:

• Final landform should be designed to blend into the natural topography of the area; • Re-vegetation programme should maximise the use of indigenous, low maintenance plants; • Low-maintenance, walking and cycling paths should be incorporated into the design of the final landform; • The area and trails should be open to dog walkers; • A low profile, lookout point should be established at the highest point of the landfill. The lookout point should incorporate educational signage indicating location of historic farms and features in the area etc.; • The Stellenbosch Municipality, in consultation with local community representatives from Onder-Papegaaiberg and Devon Valley, should identify and put in place appropriate access control and security measures to ensure that the proposed Public Green Open Space area is accessible and safe for members of the public. This would include agreeing on access times, etc.

8 Assumes site is not effectively re-vegetated and or landscaped. 9 Assumes establishment of a safe, accessible and low maintenance, public green open space.

Stellenbosch Landfill Decommissioning: Social Impact Assessment (Draft) October 2014

As indicated above, Alternative 1 will require a gas management system. If the tests indicate that it will not be commercially viable to utilise the gas it will need to be managed possibly through flaring. In order to do so a flaring structure of between 5 and 10m in height would be required. Flaring is likely to generate an open flame which could be visible at night as identified by Mr Ryan Zontendyk from Asara.

Table 4.5: Assessment of gas extraction associated with Alternative 1

Nature: Light impacts as night associated with the flaring of landfill gas from the Stellenbosch landfill site. Visual impact associated with flaring infrastructure. Without Mitigation With Mitigation Extent Local (1) Local (1) Duration Long term (4) Long term (4) Magnitude Low (4) Very Low (2) Probability Probable (3) Probable (3) Significance Low (27) Low (18) Status Negative Negative Reversibility N/A N/A Irreplaceable loss of N/A N/A resources? Can impact be mitigated Yes Mitigation: See below Cumulative impacts: N/A Residual impacts: N/A

Recommended mitigation measures The potential light impacts associated with gas flaring can be effectively mitigated by implementing the following measures:

• The flaring structure should be located in an area where it is not visible from the R310 (Adam Tas Road) and the Devon Valley Road; • A final section of the flaring structure should be designed to minimise size of the open flame visible.

4.5 ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVE 2

As indicated above, the final end use plan for the site will have to include a gas extraction and management programme in order to meet the legal requirements for the closure of the landfill site regardless of the commercial viability of the gas extraction. The potential impacts associated with the installation of the gas collection system are addressed in Section 4.2 above.

While a draft feasibility report and testing have indicated that sufficient landfill gas may be present to warrant extraction for beneficial use this would need to be confirmed by further, more detailed testing.

Stellenbosch Landfill Decommissioning: Social Impact Assessment (Draft) October 2014

Until more detailed tests are undertaken it is not possible to comment on the significance of the potential impact associated with the use of landfill gas as an alternative energy source. An assessment of significance would require information on the volume of landfill gas available for extraction, how the gas will be utilised and for how long. This would in turn provide information of potential for the SLM to use the landfill gas as an alternative energy source and the associated benefits. This information is not available. However, it is reasonable to assume that the impacts would be Positive .

4.6 OPERATIONAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES (ALTERNATIVE 1 & 2)

One of the key objectives of closure and decommissioning is to create a low maintenance land use. In addition, the day-to-day maintenance associated with the selected land use is likely to be undertaken by the existing employees in the SLM. The potential for the creation of new employment opportunities in the SLM is therefore limited. While Alternative 2 (commercial abstraction of landfill gas) would create additional employment opportunities, the total number of employment opportunities is likely to be limited. This can however only be determined once a more detailed study has been undertaken.

Table 4.6: Employment opportunities during operational phase (Alternative 1 and 2)

Nature: Creation of employment opportunities associated with the day-to-day maintenance of the post closure land use Without Mitigation With Enhancement Extent Local (1) Local (2) Duration Long term (4) Long term (4) Magnitude Low (4) Medium (4) Probability Probable (3) Probable (3) Significance Low (27) Medium (30) Status Positive Positive Reversibility N/A N/A Irreplaceable loss of N/A N/A resources? Can impact be enhanced? Yes Enhancement: See below Cumulative impacts: Opportunity to up-grade and improve skills levels in the area. Residual impacts: Improved pool of skills and experience in the local area.

Recommended enhancement measures The enhancement measures listed of the construction phase also apply to the operational phase.

Stellenbosch Landfill Decommissioning: Social Impact Assessment (Draft) October 2014

4.7 ASSESSMENT OF NO-DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE

The closure and rehabilitation of the landfill site, including capping of the waste body and the management of leachate and landfill gas, is a mandatory requirement. The no-go alternative essentially means that the status quo of the site would remain. Thus the site would not be decommissioned and rehabilitated in line with the Minimum Requirements and would continue to impact negatively the receiving environment and the community of Stellenbosch.

Table 4.7: Assessment of no-development option

Nature: The no-development option would result in negative social impacts, including odours, dust and windblown litter. The site would pose a negative visual impact on an important gateway entrance to Stellenbosch and continue to attract waste pickers. Without Mitigation With Mitigation 10 Extent Local (4) Local (4) Duration Long term (4) Permanent (5) Magnitude High (8) High (8) Probability Probable (4) Probable (4) Significance High (64) High (72) Status Negative Positive Reversibility N/A N/A Irreplaceable loss of N/A N/A resources? Can impact be mitigated? Yes Mitigation: See below Cumulative impacts: Negative cumulative impact would be linked to the negative visual impact on areas sense of place and scenic entrance to Stellenbosch and dust, odours and windblown litter generated from the site that has not been closed and rehabilitated. Positive cumulative impact associated with implantation of enhancement measures would be linked t o establishment of a land form that is compatible with the area and does not pose odour, dust and windblown litter threat to adjacent land uses. Residual impacts: See cumulative impacts

Recommended enhancement measures The site should be closed and rehabilitated as per findings of the BA.

10 Assumes site is closed and rehabilitated for the development of a Public Green Open Space

Stellenbosch Landfill Decommissioning: Social Impact Assessment (Draft) October 2014

SECTION 5: KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 INTRODUCTION

Section 5 lists the key findings of the study and recommendations. These findings are based on:

• A review of key planning and policy documents pertaining to the area; • Semi-structured interviews with Interested and Affected Parties; and • The experience of the authors with other landfill projects.

The key focus of the BA is to identify the most acceptable post closure land use for the Stellenbosch Landfill Site. The focus of the SIA was therefore on commenting on the three alternatives, namely:

• Alternative 1: Open Space green landscaping and community up-liftment project; • Alternative 2: Extraction of landfill gas for commercial use; • No-development Alternative.

As indicated above, Alternative 1 and 2 are not mutually exclusive. In order to meet the legal requirements for the closure the final end use plan for the site will include a landfill gas collection system irrespective of whether the extraction of landfill gas is commercially viable or not. The design of the gas management system will however depend on whether or not the extraction of landfill gas is commercially viable or not.

5.2 SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS

The key findings of the study are summari sed under the following sections:

• Fit with policy and planning; • Construction phase impacts; • Assessment of alternative land use options for the site.

5.2.1 Policy and planning issues

Stellenbosch Landfill Decommissioning: Social Impact Assessment (Draft) October 2014

5.1.1 Construction phase impacts

The key social impacts associated with the construction related component for Alternative 1 and 2 include:

• Creation of employment opportunities; • Loss of job opportunities for waste pickers; and • Impacts associated with construction related activities, specifically noise and dust.

No construction impacts are related to Alternative 3.

Creation of employment opportunities

The total number of employment opportunities associated with the engineering component of the project is estimated to be in the region of 45. The number of people employed as part of the re-vegetation component would depend on the final land use option selected. It is anticipated that the 80% (36) of the employment opportunities associated with the engineering component will be available to low skilled workers, 15% (7) for semi-skilled workers (drivers, equipment operators etc.) and 5% (2) for skilled personnel (engineers, land surveyors, project managers etc.). Members from the local communities in the area are likely to be in a position to qualify for the majority of the low skilled and semi-skilled employment opportunities. The majority of these employment opportunities are also likely to accrue to Historically Disadvantaged (HD) members from the local area. Over a 10 month construction period the total wage bill is estimated to be in the region of R 7.6 million (2014 rand value). The majority of the wage bill is likely to be spent in the local Stellenbosch area.

The significance of the employment opportunities associated with the construction phase is rated as Medium Positive with enhancement. This applies to Alternative 1 and 2.

Loss of job opportunities and income for waste pickers

Stellenbosch Landfill Decommissioning: Social Impact Assessment (Draft) October 2014

Impacts associated with construction related nuisance activities, specifically noise, dust and safety impacts

5.2.2 Assessment Alternative 1

Based on the findings of the SIA the following activities were identified as compatible with the development of the area as Public Green Open Space:

Stellenbosch Landfill Decommissioning: Social Impact Assessment (Draft) October 2014

48 more detail by the SLM before a decision is taken with regard to the establishment of a Community Garden.

The issue of land invasions was raised by all of the adjacent land owners as a key issue. This would compromise use of the area as Public Green Open Space and create safety and security problems in the area. This issue will need to be addressed by the SLM.

5.2.3 Assessment Alternative 2

5.2.4 No-development Alternative

5.3 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the findings of the SIA the most socially suitable post closure land use for the site would be the creation of a Green Public Open Space that can be used for walking, jogging, cycling and dog walking. The significance of developing a Green Public Open Space on the site that incorporates these land uses was rated as

Stellenbosch Landfill Decommissioning: Social Impact Assessment (Draft) October 2014

Medium Positive with enhancement. However, in order for the area to be used by the public the issue of safety and access would need to be addressed. In addition, the long term objective of the closure and rehabilitation plan should be to minimise the visual impact of the landfill site and ensure that it does not generate dust once it has been closed.

The issue of land invasions was raised by all of the adjacent land owners as a key issue. This issue will need to be addressed by the SLM.

From a socio-economic point of view the No-Go alternative is not supported.

5.4 IMPACT STATEMENT

Based on the findings of the SIA the establishment of a Green Public Open Space that can be used for walking, jogging, cycling and dog walking is recommended, subject to the implementation of the recommended enhancement and mitigation measures contained in the report.

Stellenbosch Landfill Decommissioning: Social Impact Assessment (Draft) October 2014

ANNEXURE A: LIST OF SOURCES

INTERVIEWS

• Carinus, Mr Hugo (07-10-14). Weltevrede Farm and Nursery, Devon Valley. • Cockraft, Mr Allan (09-10-14). Farm manager: Asara Wine Estate. • Hughes, Ms Lorna (07-10-14). Manager Stellenbosch Animal Welfare Society. • Joubert, Mr Francois (09-10-14). Winemaker: Asara Wine Estate. • Serdyn, Cllr Johannie (07-10-14). Stellenbosch Municipality Ward 11 Councillor. • Swart, Ms. Ginny (07-10-14). Chair: Devon Valley Residents Landfill Monitoring Committee; Devon Valley Farmer’s Association. • Visagie, Ms Christina (07-10-14). Resident Uitvalwerke municipal houses. • Zontendyk, Mr Ryan (09-10-14). Asara Wine Estate and Hotel, Stellenbosch.

REFERENCES

• Aurecon (2014a). Specialist discussion session presentation 23 September 2014 – Integrated Basic Assessment and Waste Management License for the Decomissioning and Rehabilitation of the Stellenbosch Landfill Site in Stellenbosch, Western Cape. • Aurecon (2014b). Background Document – Integrated Basic Assessment and Waste Management License for the Decomissioning and Rehabilitation of the Stellenbosch Landfill Site in Stellenbosch, Western Cape. • Barbour, T, van der Merwe, S (2011). Social Impact Assessment of Proposed Upgrade of Devon Valley Landfill Site, Stellenbosch. Prepared for RMS on behalf of the Stellenbosch Municipality . • Bureau for Economic Research (2013). Stellenbosch by Numbers. Prepared for the LED Department of the Stellenbosch Municipality. • Statistics South Africa (2013). Census 2011 Municipal Fact Sheet . • Stellenbosch Local Municipality (2014). Stellenbosch 2014/ 2015 IDP Revision . • Stellenbosch Local Municipality (2013). Stellenbosch Local Economic Development Framework . • Stellenbosch Local Municipality (2012). Final Spatial Development Framework (2 Vols) . • Stellenbosch Local Municipality (2011a). Integrated Waste Management Plan – Final . • Stellenbosch Local Municipality (2011b). Stellenbosch 2011/ 2012 IDP Revision . • Stellenbosch University/ CSIR (2010). Revision of the Growth Potential of Towns in the Western Cape Study 2004 .

INTERNET

• Google Earth 2014.

Stellenbosch Landfill Decommissioning: Social Impact Assessment (Draft) October 2014

ANNEXURE B

METHODOLOGY FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS

Direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of the above issues, as well as all other issues identified will be assessed in terms of the following criteria: • The nature , which shall include a description of what causes the effect, what will be affected and how it will be affected. • The extent , where it will be indicated whether the impact will be local (limited to the immediate area or site of development), regional, national or international. A score between 1 and 5 will be assigned as appropriate (with a score of 1 being low and a score of 5 being high). • The duration , where it will be indicated whether: ∗ the lifetime of the impact will be of a construction phase duration (0–1 years) – assigned a score of 1; ∗ the lifetime of the impact will be of a short term duration (2-5 years) - assigned a score of 2; ∗ medium-term (5–15 years) – assigned a score of 3; ∗ long term (> 15 years) - assigned a score of 4. • The magnitude , quantified on a scale from 0-10, where a score is assigned: ∗ 0 is zero; ∗ 2 is verly low and will have no effect on the environment; ∗ 4 is low and will cause a slight impact on processes; ∗ 6 is medium and will result in processes continuing but in a modified way; ∗ 8 is high (processes are altered to the extent that they temporarily cease); and ∗ 10 is very high and results in complete destruction of patterns and permanent cessation of processes. • The probability of occurrence , which shall describe the likelihood of the impact actually occurring. Probability will be estimated on a scale, and a score assigned: ∗ Assigned a score of 1–2, is unlikely (probably will not happen); ∗ Assigned a score of 3 - 4 is probable (distinct possibility); ∗ Assigned a score of 5 is definite (impact will occur regardless of any prevention measures). • The significance , which shall be determined through a synthesis of the characteristics described above (refer formula below) and can be assessed as low, medium or high. • The status , which will be described as either positive, negative or neutral. • The degree to which the impact can be reversed . • The degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable loss of reso urces. • The degree to which the impact can be mitigated.

The significance is determined by combining the criteria in the following formula:

S=(E+D+M)P; where

S = Significance weighting E = Extent D = Duration M = Magnitude

Stellenbosch Landfill Decommissioning: Social Impact Assessment (Draft) October 2014

P = Probability

The significance weightings for each potential impact are as follows:

• < 30 points: Low (i.e. where this impact would not have a direct influence on the decision to develop in the area), • 30-60 points: Medium (i.e. where the impact could influence the decision to develop in the area unless it is effectively mitigated), • > 60 points: High (i.e. where the impact must have an influence on the decision process to develop in the area).

Stellenbosch Landfill Decommissioning: Social Impact Assessment (Draft) October 2014