Proposed Amendments: Bakubung Platinum Mine - February 2021 - Social Impact Assessment - Knight ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Proposed Amendments: Bakubung Platinum
Mine
Social Impact Assessment
Prepared by:
Equispectives Research & Consulting Services
Contact person: Dr Ilse Aucamp
Prepared for:
Knight Piésold
February 2021
Equispectives Social Impact Assessment
Executive Summary
The purpose of this document is to provide a baseline description of the receiving
socio-economic environment and to identify social and economic impacts for the
Bakubung Platinum Mine’s proposed amendments.
The receiving environment for the project is located in Ward 28 of the Moses Kotane
Local Municipality (MKLM) that falls under the Bojanala Platinum District Municipality
in the North West Province. The area is under the traditional authority of the
Bakubung Ba Ratheo. Given the location of the mine, Wards 13, 14 and 30 of the
Moses Kotane LM and Wards 1 and 2 of the Rustenburg Local Municipality (RLM) have
also been included in the analysis. The area is predominantly rural with predominantly
traditional land ownership. The Sun City resorts and the Pilanesberg Game Reserve
are in the area.
The main economic sectors in the Moses Kotane municipal area are tourism,
manufacturing, agriculture and mining. Besides Pilanesberg there are a number of
smaller nature reserves in the area.
The majority of the population in the study area belong to the Black population group,
except in Ward 13 and 14 where the Pilanesberg Game Reserve and the Sun City
resorts are located and where there are some White, Indian and Coloured residents
as well. In terms of age, the population is relatively young, with more than two fifths
of the population aged 24 years or younger (except in Ward 13 and 14, where the
population is slightly older). In most of the wards the population’s sex distribution is
more or less equal with a bias towards males in Wards 1 and 2 of the RLM and Ward
13 of the MKLM.
Setswana is the home language of most residents in the study area and there are
differences in the language profiles of the different wards. In some wards there is a
relatively large proportion of people with isiZulu as home language.
Education levels are low in general and in most areas about 60% of the population has
only completed up to some secondary education. Education levels tend to be higher
i
Proposed amendments: Bakubung Platinum Mine, October 2020Equispectives Social Impact Assessment
in Ward 13 that include the Pilanesberg Game Reserve and the residential area at the
entrance of Sun City. Annual household income levels are low in most the areas,
except in Ward 13. Based on annual household income, a large proportion of
households are under the food poverty line or in very close proximity of the poverty
line. In the MKLM both the number of poor people as well as the intensity of poverty
have increased more than in the surrounding areas.
Most households in the area have access to piped water either inside their yard or
inside the dwelling, with the lowest incidence in the Moses Kotane municipal area
(excluding Ward 13). Most households have access to electricity, but sanitation
remains a challenge with most households having access to pit toilets (except in Ward
13). Most households have refuse removed by a local authority or private company at
least once a week.
There is limited access to social infrastructure such as schools, clinics and recreational
facilities in the area, but there is a government hospital in the community.
The following key stakeholder groups were identified:
• Government and parastatals
o North West Province;
o Bojanala Platinum District Municipality;
o Moses Kotane Local Municipality;
o Rustenburg Local Municipality; and
o Bakubung Ba Ratheo Traditional Authority.
• Civil society
o Surrounding communities;
o Private landowners.
ii
Proposed amendments: Bakubung Platinum Mine, October 2020Equispectives Social Impact Assessment
• Business
o Pilanesberg Game Reserve;
o Local businesses;
o Sun City Resorts; and
o Other tourism facilities.
As the project proponent, Bakubung Platinum Mine is also a key stakeholder.
The following social impacts specific to the amendments have been identified during
the SIA process:
• Community expectations related to job creation and benefits from the mine
• Dust from social and health perspective
• Skills development
• Job creation during construction and operation
• Positive impact on local economy
• Increase in social ills
The mine is in a rural area known for tourism and close to vast peri-urban settlements.
It is not expected that the project will cause a significant influx of people into the area.
The following recommendations are made:
• The mine must continue to invest in their Stakeholder Relations Division, which
currently comprises of a Manager and Community Relations Officer;
• The mine must continue to implement a community-friendly external
grievance mechanism in conjunction with communities;
• The mine must continue to implement their community relations strategy.
iii
Proposed amendments: Bakubung Platinum Mine, October 2020Equispectives Social Impact Assessment
• The mine should continue to put measures in place to ensure the most
effective local employment strategy;
• The mine must continue to ensure social requirements as specified in the
mitigation measures are included in their contracts with sub-contractors;
The list of recommendations should be included in the environmental authorisation.
From a social perspective, there are no fatal flaws and it is recommended that the
project proceed.
iv
Proposed amendments: Bakubung Platinum Mine, October 2020Equispectives Social Impact Assessment
Declaration of Independence
Equispectives Research and Consulting Services declare that:
• All work undertaken relating to the proposed project were done as
independent consultants;
• They have the necessary required expertise to conduct social impact
assessments, including the required knowledge and understanding of any
guidelines or policies that are relevant to the proposed activity;
• They have undertaken all the work and associated studies in an objective
manner, even if the findings of these studies were not favourable to the
project proponent;
• They have no vested interest, financial or otherwise, in the proposed project
or the outcome thereof, apart from remuneration for the work undertaken
under the auspices of the abovementioned regulations;
• They have no vested interest, including any conflicts of interest, in either the
proposed project or the studies conducted in respect of the proposed project,
other than complying with the relevant required regulations;
• They have disclosed any material factors that may have the potential to
influence the competent authority’s decision and/or objectivity in terms of any
reports, plans or documents related to the proposed project as required by the
regulations.
v
Proposed amendments: Bakubung Platinum Mine, October 2020Equispectives Social Impact Assessment
Record of Experience
This report was compiled by Ilse Aucamp and San-Marié Aucamp.
Ilse Aucamp holds a D Phil degree in Social Work obtained from the University of
Pretoria in 2015. She also has Masters’ degree in Environmental Management (Cum
Laude) from the Potchefstroom University for Christian Higher Education which she
obtained in 2004. Prior to that she completed a BA degree in Social Work at the
University of Pretoria. She is frequently a guest lecturer in pre- as well as post-
graduate programmes at various tertiary institutions. Her expertise includes social,
human rights and gender impact assessments, social management plans, social and
labour plans, social auditing, training and public participation. She advises the Centre
for Environmental Rights on social issues and is also on the advisory panel of the
SIAhub, an international website aimed at SIA practitioners. She is a co-author of the
Social Impact Assessment: Guidance for assessing and managing the social impacts of
projects document published by the International Association for Impact Assessment
published in 2015.
San-Marié Aucamp is a registered Research Psychologist with extensive experience in
both the practical and theoretical aspects of social research. She has more than 10
years of experience in social research and she occasionally presents guest lectures on
social impact assessment. Her experience includes social impact assessments, social
and labour plans, training, group facilitation and social research. She is a past council
member of the Southern African Marketing Research Association (SAMRA).
vi
Proposed amendments: Bakubung Platinum Mine, October 2020Equispectives Social Impact Assessment
Table of Contents
GLOSSARY OF TERMS ............................................................................................ 5
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ....................................................................................... 6
1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 7
2 STUDY APPROACH ......................................................................................... 9
2.1 Information base ....................................................................................... 9
2.2 Assumptions and limitations ...................................................................... 9
2.3 Methodology ........................................................................................... 11
2.3.1 Defining of concepts .................................................................................... 11
2.3.2 Literature study............................................................................................ 14
2.3.3 Research approach ...................................................................................... 14
2.3.4 Ethical issues ................................................................................................ 15
3 BASELINE DESCRIPTION OF THE RECEIVING SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT ............. 16
3.1 Description of the area ............................................................................ 17
3.2 Description of the population .................................................................. 20
3.2.1 Population and household sizes ..................................................................21
3.2.2 Population composition, age, gender and home language ......................... 24
3.2.3 Education .....................................................................................................27
3.2.4 Employment, livelihoods and economic activities ......................................28
3.2.5 Housing ........................................................................................................31
3.2.6 Access to basic services ............................................................................... 34
3.2.7 Access to social infrastructure .....................................................................37
3.3 Discussion of receiving environment ........................................................ 38
4 STAKEHOLDER IDENTIFICATION ................................................................... 40
4.1 Government ............................................................................................ 41
4.1.1 Northwest Provincial Government .............................................................. 41
4.1.2 Bojanala District Municipality, Moses Kotane Local Municipality and
Rustenburg Local Municipality ................................................................................ 41
4.1.3 Bakubung Ba Ratheo Traditional Authority ................................................. 42
4.2 Civil society.............................................................................................. 42
4.3 Business .................................................................................................. 43
Proposed amendments: Bakubung Platinum Mine, February 2021 Page |iEquispectives Social Impact Assessment 5 SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ...................................................................... 44 5.1 Impact criteria assessment....................................................................... 44 5.1.1 Impact Assessment Methodology ............................................................... 44 5.2 Impacts identified, mitigation and social management plan ..................... 47 5.2.1 Existing and cumulative impacts..................................................................48 5.2.2 Impact of Covid 19 on the mining industry ................................................. 51 5.2.3 Social impacts specific to the amendment of the Environmental Authorisation and Waste Management License of the Bakubung Platinum Mine .52 6 PROPOSED GRIEVANCE MECHANISM ........................................................... 67 7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................... 67 8 REFERENCES ................................................................................................ 69 Proposed amendments: Bakubung Platinum Mine, February 2021 P a g e | ii
Equispectives Social Impact Assessment
List of Figures
Figure 1: Locality of the proposed TSF in relation to BPM. ...........................................8
Figure 2: Location of the proposed amendments to BPM in municipal context. .......17
Figure 3: Population distribution (shown in percentage, source: Census 2011) ........24
Figure 4: Age distribution (shown in percentage, source: Census 2011) .................... 25
Figure 5: Sex distribution (shown in percentage, source: Census 2011) ..................... 26
Figure 6: Language distribution (shown in percentage, source: Census 2011) ...........27
Figure 7: Education profiles (those aged 20 years or older, shown in percentage,
source: Census 2011) ...................................................................................................28
Figure 8: Labour status (those aged between 15 - 65 years, shown in percentage,
source: Census 2011) ...................................................................................................29
Figure 9: Employment sector (those aged between 15 - 65 years, shown in percentage,
source: Census 2011) ...................................................................................................29
Figure 10: Annual household income (shown in percentage, source: Census 2011) ..30
Figure 11: Enumeration area types (shown in percentage, source: Census 2011) .....31
Figure 12: Dwelling types (shown in percentage, source: Census 2011) .................... 32
Figure 13: Tenure status (shown in percentage, source: Census 2011) ...................... 33
Figure 14: Household size (shown in percentage, source: Census 2011).................... 33
Figure 15: Water source (shown in percentage, source: Census 2011) ...................... 34
Figure 16: Piped water (shown in percentage, source: Census 2011) ........................ 35
Figure 17: Energy source for lighting (shown in percentage, source: Census 2011) ..36
Figure 18: Sanitation (shown in percentage, source: Census 2011) ........................... 36
Figure 19: Refuse removal (shown in percentage, source: Census 2011) ................... 37
Proposed amendments: Bakubung Platinum Mine, February 2021 P a g e | iiiEquispectives Social Impact Assessment
List of Tables
Table 1: Geotypes (source: Census 2011, persons and households, shown in
percentage) .................................................................................................................. 20
Table 2: Population density and growth estimates (sources: Census 2011, Community
Survey 2016) ................................................................................................................ 22
Table 3: Household sizes and growth estimates (sources: Census 2011, Community
Survey 2016) ................................................................................................................ 22
Table 4: Dependency ratios (source: Census 2011). .................................................... 23
Table 5: Poverty and SAMPI scores (sources: Census 2011 and Community Survey
2016). ........................................................................................................................... 24
Table 6: Average age (shown in years, source: Census 2011) .....................................25
Table 7: Nature of impact. ........................................................................................... 44
Table 8: Ranking criteria. ............................................................................................. 45
Table 9: Significance Definitions .................................................................................. 46
Table 10: Impacts identified in 2016 SIA .....................................................................48
Table 11: Mitigation measures for impacts relating to community expectations. .....53
Table 12: Mitigation measures for dust relating to dust from a social and livelihood
perspective................................................................................................................... 56
Table 13: Mitigation measures for economic impacts from a social perspective. ......58
Table 14: Potential mitigation impacts on social pathologies. ....................................61
Table 15: Significance ratings. ..................................................................................... 63
Table 16: Social Action Plan. ........................................................................................ 63
Proposed amendments: Bakubung Platinum Mine, February 2021 P a g e | ivEquispectives Social Impact Assessment
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Sense of place: Defining oneself in terms of a given piece of land. It is the manner in which
humans relate or feel about the environments in which they live.
Social impact: Something that is experienced or felt by humans. It can be positive or negative.
Social impacts can be experienced in a physical or perceptual sense.
Social change process: A discreet, observable and describable process that changes the
characteristics of a society, taking place regardless of the societal context (that is,
independent of specific groups, religions etc.) These processes may, in certain circumstances
and depending on the context, lead to the experience of social impacts.
Social Impact Assessment: The processes of analysing, monitoring and managing the
intended and unintended social consequences, both positive and negative, of planned
interventions (policies, programs, plans, projects) and any social change processes invoked by
these interventions. Its primary purpose is to bring about a more sustainable and equitable
biophysical and human environment.
Social license to operate: The acceptance and belief by society, and specifically local
communities, in the value creation of activities.
Social risk: Risk resulting from a social or socio-economic source. Social risk comprises both
the objective threat of harm and the subjective perception of risk for harm.
Proposed amendments: Bakubung Platinum Mine, February 2021 Page |5Equispectives Social Impact Assessment LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS BPM Bakubung Platinum Mine DM District Municipality EA Environmental Authorisation EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EMP Environmental Management Plan ESOMAR European Society for Opinion and Marketing Research FPL Food Poverty Line HDSA Historically Disadvantaged South African IDP Integrated Development Plan LBPL Lower Bound Poverty Line LM Local Municipality NEMA National Environmental Management Act SAMPI South African Multidimensional Poverty Index SAMRA Southern African Marketing Research Association SEF Stakeholder Engagement Forum SEP Stakeholder Engagement Plan SIA Social Impact Assessment TSF Tailings Storage Facility UBPL Upper Bound Poverty Line UNEP United Nations Environmental Programme WML Waste Management License Proposed amendments: Bakubung Platinum Mine, February 2021 Page |6
Equispectives Social Impact Assessment
1 Introduction
The Bakubung Platinum Mine (BPM) is located on the farm Frischgewaagd 96JQ (Portions 3,
4 and 11) near Ledig just south of the Pilanesberg Game Reserve and Sun City in the North
West Province. Two reefs are being mined for Platinum Group Elements (platinum, palladium,
rhodium and gold) with copper and nickel as by-products.
BPM had to re-optimise its processes in order to make its operations financially viable due to
the platinum market price. “In March 2019, the mine informed its shareholders of its decision
to implement a new plan that will encompass the development of a 1 million tons per annum
(MTPA) mine, with an equivalent 1mtpa processing plant to treat the ore. The smaller mine
being operational between 2021 and 2026, thereafter, the mine intends to upscale to the
original base case of 3mtpa”.
BPM has an existing approved Environmental Authorisation (EA) and Waste Management
Licence (WML) that was granted in 2017 that they wish to amend. The specific changes to the
project are:
• A change in capacity from 3MT/annum to 1 MT/annum for the initial period of 5
years.; and
• Construction of an additional Tailings Storage Facility (TSF) on the farm
Frischgewaagd.
Figure 1 shows the proposed location of the TSF in relation to other BPM infrastructure.
Proposed amendments: Bakubung Platinum Mine, February 2021 Page |7Equispectives Social Impact Assessment
Figure 1: Locality of the proposed TSF in relation to BPM.
The purpose of the Social Impact Assessment (SIA) report is to provide baseline information
regarding the socio-economic environment, to identify possible social and economic
risks/fatal flaws and to suggest ways in which these impacts can be mitigated. This will assist
decision-makers on the project in making informed decisions by providing information on the
potential or actual consequences of their proposed activities. The process entailed the
following:
• A baseline socio-economic description of the affected environment;
• Identification of potential social change processes that may occur as a result of the
project; and
• Identification of potential social and socio-economic impacts.
Conducting an SIA is one of the ways in which social risk can be managed. Such an assessment
can assist with identifying possible social impacts and risks. Disregarding social impacts can
alter the cost-benefit equation of development and in some cases even undermine the overall
Proposed amendments: Bakubung Platinum Mine, February 2021 Page |8Equispectives Social Impact Assessment
viability of a project. A proper social impact assessment can have many benefits for a
proposed development (UNEP, 2002) such as:
• Reduced impacts on communities of individuals;
• Enhanced benefits to those affected;
• Avoiding delays and obstruction – helps to gain development approval (social license);
• Lowered costs;
• Better community and stakeholder relations; and
• Improved proposals.
Knight Piésold was appointed to manage the process for the amendment of the EA and WML
for the project, and they appointed Equispectives Research and Consulting Services update
the existing SIA that was completed in 2016 to include the proposed amendments. This report
represents the findings and recommendations of the social impact assessment.
2 Study Approach
2.1 Information base
The information used in this study was based on the following:
1. The previous SIA report for this project,
2. Information obtained from various stakeholders participating in the stakeholder
engagement forum,
3. A literature review consulting secondary resources (see list provided in the
References); and
4. Professional judgement based on experience gained with similar projects.
2.2 Assumptions and limitations
The following assumptions and limitations were relevant:
Proposed amendments: Bakubung Platinum Mine, February 2021 Page |9Equispectives Social Impact Assessment
1. Due to the Covid-19 global pandemic, no initial stakeholder engagement could be
conducted. The social scientists attempted to contact stakeholders via e-mail and
telephonically, but this yielded insignificant results.
2. The social scientist attended the BPM Stakeholder Engagement Forum (SEF) where
the project was presented, and stakeholders received feedback on existing activities
of BPM. SEF Members also had the opportunity to participate and share concerns
during the meeting.
3. The social environment constantly changes and adapts to change, and external factors
outside the scope of the project can offset social changes, for example changes in local
political leadership or economic conditions. It is therefore difficult to predict all
impacts to a high level of accuracy, although care has been taken to identify and
address the most likely impacts in the most appropriate way for the current local
context within the limitations.
4. Social impacts can be felt on an actual or perceptual level, and therefore it is not
always straightforward to measure the impacts in a quantitative manner.
5. Social impacts commence when the project enters the public domain. Some of these
impacts will occur irrespective of whether the project continues or not. These impacts
are difficult to mitigate and some would require immediate action to minimise the
risk.
6. There are different groups with different interests in the community, and what one
group may experience as a positive social impact, another group may experience as a
negative impact. This duality will be pointed out in the impact assessment phase of
the report.
7. Social impacts are not site-specific, but take place in the communities surrounding the
proposed development.
Proposed amendments: Bakubung Platinum Mine, February 2021 P a g e | 10Equispectives Social Impact Assessment
2.3 Methodology
Scientific social research methods were used for this assessment. In order to clarify the
process to the reader, this section will start with a brief explanation of the processes that
have been used in this study.
2.3.1 Defining of concepts
The theoretical model used for this impact assessment was developed by Slootweg, Vanclay
and Van Schooten and presented in the International Handbook of Social Impact Assessment
(Vanclay & Becker, 2003). This model identifies pathways by which social impacts may result
from proposed projects. The model differentiates between social change processes and social
impacts, where the social change process is the pathway leading to the social impact. Detail
of how the model works is not relevant to this study, but it is important to understand the
key concepts, which will be explained in the following paragraphs.
Social change processes are set in motion by project activities or policies. A social change
process is a discreet, observable and describable process that changes the characteristics of
a society, taking place regardless of the societal context (that is, independent of specific
groups, religions etc.) These processes may, in certain circumstances and depending on the
context, lead to the experience of social impacts (Vanclay, 2003). If managed properly,
however, these changes may not create impacts. Whether impacts are caused will depend on
the characteristics and history of the host community, and the extent of mitigation measures
that are put in place (Vanclay, 2003). Social change processes can be measured objectively,
independent of the local context. Examples of social change processes are an increase in the
population, relocation, or the presence of temporary workers. Social change processes
relevant to the project will be discussed before the possible social impacts will be
investigated.
For the purpose of this report, the following social change process categories were
investigated:
• Demographic processes;
• Economic processes;
• Geographic processes;
Proposed amendments: Bakubung Platinum Mine, February 2021 P a g e | 11Equispectives Social Impact Assessment
• Institutional and legal processes;
• Emancipatory and empowerment processes;
• Socio-cultural processes; and
• Other relevant processes.
The International Association for Impact Assessment (2003) states that Social Impact
Assessment includes the processes of analysing, monitoring and managing the intended and
unintended social consequences, both positive and negative, of planned interventions
(policies, programs, plans, projects) and any social change processes invoked by these
interventions. Its primary purpose is to bring about a more sustainable and equitable
biophysical and human environment. The Inter-organizational Committee on Principles and
Guidelines for Social Impact Assessment (2003) defines Social Impact Assessment in terms of
“efforts to assess, appraise or estimate, in advance, the social consequences likely to follow
from proposed actions”.
A social impact is something that is experienced or felt by humans. It can be positive or
negative. Social impacts can be experienced in a physical or perceptual sense. Therefore, two
types of social impacts can be distinguished:
• Objective social impacts – i.e. impacts that can be quantified and verified by
independent observers in the local context, such as changes in employment patterns,
in standard of living or in health and safety.
• Subjective social impacts – i.e. impacts that occur “in the heads” or emotions of
people, such as negative public attitudes, psychological stress or reduced quality of
life.
It is important to include subjective social impacts, as these can have far-reaching
consequences in the form of opposition to, and social mobilisation against the project (Du
Preez & Perold, 2005).
For the purpose of this SIA, the following Social Impact Assessment categories were
investigated:
Proposed amendments: Bakubung Platinum Mine, February 2021 P a g e | 12Equispectives Social Impact Assessment • Health and social well-being; • Quality of the living environment; • Economic impacts and material well-being; • Cultural impacts; • Family and community impacts; • Institutional, legal, political and equity impacts; and • Gender impacts. Relevant criteria for selecting significant social impacts included the following: • Probability of the event occurring; • Number of people that will be affected; • Duration of the impact; • Value of the benefits or costs to the impacted group; • Extent to which identified social impacts are reversible or can be mitigated; • Likelihood that an identified impact will lead to secondary or cumulative impacts; • Relevance for present and future policy decisions; • Uncertainty over possible effects; and • Presence or absence of controversy over the issue. For the purpose of this study, the model was adapted to suit the South African context, and where processes and impacts were not relevant to the study, it was omitted. Each category has a number of sub-categories, which also have been investigated. The Equator Principles, International Finance Corporation Performance Standards and World Bank Environmental, Health and Safety guidelines were consulted in the writing of this report and the mitigation suggested adheres to these requirements. Proposed amendments: Bakubung Platinum Mine, February 2021 P a g e | 13
Equispectives Social Impact Assessment 2.3.2 Literature study A literature search was undertaken to obtain secondary data for the baseline description of the socio-economic environment. The information in this report was acquired via statistical data obtained from Statistics South Africa, SIA literature (see References), previous SIA studies conducted in the area and information from reputable sources on the World Wide Web. 2.3.3 Research approach Traditionally there are two approaches to SIA, a technical approach and a participatory approach. A technical approach entails that a scientist remains a neutral observer of social phenomena. The role of the scientist is to identify indicators, obtain objective measures relevant to the situation and provide an expert assessment on how the system will change (Becker, Harris, Nielsen & McLaughlin, 2004). A participatory approach uses the knowledge and experiences of individuals most affected by the proposed changes as the basis for projecting impacts. In this case the role of the scientist is facilitator of knowledge sharing, interpretation and reporting of impacts (Becker et al, 2004). The findings presented in this report are based on limited primary and extensive secondary (desk) research. Quantitative data were used for the secondary research. Qualitative research for the study will be conducted during a later phase of the study. This will be done to supplement the quantitative data that has already been collected. The layperson sometimes criticizes qualitative research as “subjective” or “not really that scientific”. For this reason, it is vital to understand the distinction between qualitative and quantitative research and their respective areas of application. Qualitative research as a research strategy is usually characterised by the inference of general laws from particular instances, forms theory from various conceptual elements, and explains meaning (David & Sutton, 2004). It usually emphasises words rather than quantification in the collection and analysis of data. Data collection takes place by using methods such as unstructured or semi-structured interviews, focus groups, observations, etc. Data is not recorded in any standardised coding format, but are usually reported according to themes. Qualitative data express information about feelings, values and attitudes. This approach is Proposed amendments: Bakubung Platinum Mine, February 2021 P a g e | 14
Equispectives Social Impact Assessment used where insight and understanding of a situation is required (Malhotra, 1996). Participants are selected based on their exposure to the experience or situation under review. The aim of qualitative research is to understand, not to quantify and as such it is extremely suitable for assessing social impacts. A potential impact has to be understood before it can be assessed appropriately. Quantitative research as a research strategy usually makes inferences of particular instances by reference to general laws and principles and tends to emphasize what is external to or independent of the mind (objective) and incorporates a natural science model of the research process (David & Sutton, 2004). This usually makes it easier for a person with a natural or physical sciences background to relate to. This approach usually emphasises quantification in the collection and analysis of data. Data collection takes place by using methods such as structured questionnaires and data is recorded in a numeric or some other standardised coding format. Data is expressed in numerical format and statistical techniques are usually used to assist with data interpretation. This approach is used when information needs to be generalised to a specific population and participants are usually selected using probability sampling techniques (although non-probability methods can be used depending on the characteristics of the target population). 2.3.4 Ethical issues The fact that human beings are the objects of study in the social sciences brings unique ethical problems to the fore. Every individual has a right to privacy which is the individual’s right to decide when, where, to whom, and to what extent his or her attitudes, beliefs and behaviour will be revealed (Strydom, 2002). Every person interviewed for the purposes of the report has been ensured that although the information disclosed will be used, their names will not be disclosed without their permission. Therefore, to protect those consulted and to maintain confidentiality, the people that were interviewed are not named in the report. This is in line with international as well as national research practice such as the ESOMAR and SAMRA codes of conduct. Proposed amendments: Bakubung Platinum Mine, February 2021 P a g e | 15
Equispectives Social Impact Assessment
3 Baseline description of the receiving social environment
According to the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA, 1998) environment refers
to the surroundings in which humans exist. When viewing the environment from a socio-
economic perspective the question can be asked what exactly the social environment is.
Different definitions for social environment exist, but a clear and comprehensive definition
that is widely accepted remains elusive. Barnett & Casper (2001) offers the following
definition of human social environment:
“Human social environments encompass the immediate physical surroundings,
social relationships, and cultural milieus within which defined groups of people
function and interact. Components of the social environment include built
infrastructure; industrial and occupational structure; labour markets; social and
economic processes; wealth; social, human, and health services; power relations;
government; race relations; social inequality; cultural practices; the arts; religious
institutions and practices; and beliefs about place and community. The social
environment subsumes many aspects of the physical environment, given that
contemporary landscapes, water resources, and other natural resources have
been at least partially configured by human social processes. Embedded within
contemporary social environments are historical social and power relations that
have become institutionalized over time. Social environments can be experienced
at multiple scales, often simultaneously, including households, kin networks,
neighbourhoods, towns and cities, and regions. Social environments are dynamic
and change over time as the result of both internal and external forces. There are
relationships of dependency among the social environments of different local
areas, because these areas are connected through larger regional, national, and
international social and economic processes and power relations.”
Environment-behaviour relationships are interrelationships (Bell, Fisher, Baum & Greene,
1996). The environment influences and constrains behaviour, but behaviour also leads to
changes in the environment. The impacts of a project on people can only be truly understood
if their environmental context is understood. The baseline description of the social
environment will include a description of the area within a provincial, district and local
Proposed amendments: Bakubung Platinum Mine, February 2021 P a g e | 16Equispectives Social Impact Assessment context that will focus on the identity and history of the area as well as a description of the population of the area based on a number of demographic, social and economic variables. 3.1 Description of the area The proposed project is located in Ward 28 of the Moses Kotane Local Municipality (MKLM) that falls under the Bojanala Platinum District Municipality in the North West Province (Figure 2) and falls in an area under the traditional authority of the Bakubung Ba Ratheo. It is close to the border with the Rustenburg Local Municipality (RLM). Wards 13, 14 and 30 of the MKLM and Wards 1 and 2 of the RLM have also been included in the analysis to provide a broader social context. For the baseline description of the area, data from Census 2011, Community Survey 2016, municipal IDP’s and websites were used. Figure 2: Location of the proposed amendments to BPM in municipal context. The North West Province is located in the north of South Africa and borders Botswana. It covers an area of 104 882 km2 (www.municipalities.co.za). The capital of the province is Mahikeng, that is located near the Botswana border, and forms a single urban area with the Proposed amendments: Bakubung Platinum Mine, February 2021 P a g e | 17
Equispectives Social Impact Assessment neighbouring town of Mmabatho. Other major cities and towns include Potchefstroom, Klerksdorp, Brits, Rustenburg and Lichtenburg. Mining is the major contributor to the provincial economy and represents almost a quarter of South Africa’s mining industry as a whole. The Rustenburg and Brits districts produce more platinum than any other single area in the world. The province also produces a quarter of South Africa’s gold, as well as granite, marble, fluorspar and diamonds. The most important crops grown in the province are maize and sunflowers and the province is well known for cattle farming. Around Rustenburg and Brits there are fertile, mixed crop farming land. North West has a number of major tourist attractions such as Sun City, the Pilanesberg Game Reserve, the Madikwe Reserve and the Rustenburg Nature Reserve. The province is divided into four districts, namely Bojanala Platinum, Dr Kenneth Kaunda, Dr Ruth Segomotsi Mompati and Ngaka Modiri Molema. The Bojanala Platinum District Municipality covers an area of 18 333 km2 (www.municipalities.co.za) and is seated in Rustenburg. Other cities and towns in the district are Brits, Derby, Hartbeesfontein-A, Hartbeespoort, Koster, Madikwe, Marikana, Mooinooi, Phatsima, Swartruggens and Tlhabane. The district is divided into five local municipalities, namely Kgetlengrivier, Madibeng, Moses Kotane, Moretele and Rustenburg. The district contributed 52.14% of the North West Province’s GDP in 2016 (Bojanala Platinum DM IDP 2019/20) The main economic sectors are mining, community services, finance, trade, transport and manufacturing. The Moses Kotane Local Municipality covers an area of 5 726 km2 (www.municipalities.co.za) and is the largest of the five municipalities that make up the district. Large portions of the municipal area are under traditional leadership. There are 107 villages and two formal towns (Mogwase and Madikwe) (Moses Kotane LM Final IDP 2017-2022). The municipality’s economy is owed to its location within the major tourism and mining belt of the North West Province, Pilanesberg and Sun City. The main economic sectors are tourism, manufacturing, agriculture and mining. The main tourist areas are the Pilanesberg Nature Reserve (including Proposed amendments: Bakubung Platinum Mine, February 2021 P a g e | 18
Equispectives Social Impact Assessment Kwa Maritane, Manyane and Bakgatla) and the Sun City / Lost City complex. Other smaller nature reserves include the Madikwe and Impala, Game Reserves and other tourism facilities include the Molatedi Dam, Madikwe Dam, the Roodeval farm and the Kolotwane River Valley. The Pilanesberg International Airport is located within the municipal area. The Rustenburg Local Municipality covers an area of 3 416 km2 (www.municipalities.co.za). Main cities and towns in the area include Rustenburg, Hartbeesfontein-A, Marikana, Phatsima and Tlhabane. The main economic sectors are mining and trade. The RLM was the greatest contributor to the GDP of the Bojanala DM in 2016 (Bojanala Platinum DM IDP 2019/20). The main economic sectors are mining and trade. The presence of mining activities within the municipal area has largely determined the economic, social and physical characteristics of Rustenburg. Underground mining dominates although open-cast mining also takes place. Commodities include chrome, platinum, tin, lead, marble, granite and slate. Commercial farming in the area ranges from citrus, vegetable farming and live-stock farming. In some rural parts of the municipality subsistence farming of maize, sunflowers and vegetables are practised (RLM IDP Review 2019/20). Agriculture has turned into a less preferred source of income due to trade-offs to other activities such as mining and development, resulting in the loss of high potential agricultural land. The main local tourism attractions in the region are closely linked to its natural assets. Tourism plays an increasingly important role within the municipal area. Primary tourism areas and facilities located in the municipal area includes: • Rustenburg Town; • Kgaswane Game Reserve; • Vaalkop Dam Nature Reserve; • Kroondal; • Bafokeng Sport Palace; and Buffelspoort Dam. Census 2011 shows the proportions of people and households living in urban areas, areas under traditional authority and on farms in the area (Table 1). The majority of persons and households in the Moses Kotane LM live in areas under traditional authority. In Wards 28 (where BPM is located) and 30 of the MKLM and Ward 2 of the RLM the entire population live in areas under traditional authority. Proposed amendments: Bakubung Platinum Mine, February 2021 P a g e | 19
Equispectives Social Impact Assessment
Table 1: Geotypes (source: Census 2011, persons and households, shown in percentage)
Area Urban Tribal/Traditional Farm
Persons Households Persons Households Persons Households
North West Province 44.3 46.5 46.3 44.3 9.5 9.2
Bojanala Platinum DM 37.5 39.6 56.2 53.5 6.3 6.9
Rustenburg LM 68.0 66.5 30.0 32.0 2.0 1.5
Ward 1 50.7 41.9 35.5 46.7 13.8 11.4
Ward 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0
Moses Kotane LM 7.4 8.5 92.4 91.2 0.3 0.3
Ward 13 44.3 37.0 51.4 58.4 4.3 4.6
Ward 14 21.5 12.5 78.5 87.5 0.0 0.0
Ward 28 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0
Ward 30 0 0 100 100 0 0
3.2 Description of the population
The baseline description of the population will take place on three levels, namely provincial,
district and local. Impacts can only truly be comprehended by understanding the differences
and similarities between the different levels. The baseline description will focus on the North
West Province, Bojanala Platinum District Municipality, Moses Kotane Local Municipality and
the Rustenburg Local Municipality. Wards 1 and 2 of the Rustenburg Local Municipality and
Wards 13, 14, 28 and 30 of Moses Kotane Local Municipality are included on a ward level. The
data used for the socio-economic description was sourced from Census 2011. Census 2011
was a de facto census (a census in which people are enumerated according to where they
stay on census night) where the reference night was 9-10 October 2011. The results should
be viewed as indicative of the population characteristics in the area and should not be
interpreted as absolute.
In some municipalities the ward boundaries have changed in 2016 and StatsSA made Census
2011 data available that is grouped according to the 2016 boundaries.
The following points regarding Census 2011 must be kept in mind (www.statssa.co.za):
• Comparisons of the results of labour market indicators in the post-apartheid
population censuses over time have been a cause for concern. Improvements to key
questions over the years mean that the labour market outcomes based on the post-
apartheid censuses have to be analysed with caution. The differences in the results
over the years may be partly attributable to improvements in the questionnaire since
1996 rather than to actual developments in the labour market. The numbers
Proposed amendments: Bakubung Platinum Mine, February 2021 P a g e | 20Equispectives Social Impact Assessment
published for the 1996, 2001, and 2011 censuses are therefore not comparable over
time and are higher from those published by Statistics South Africa in the surveys
designed specifically for capturing official labour market results.
• For purposes of comparison over the period 1996–2011, certain categories of answers
to questions in the censuses of 1996, 2001 and 2011, have either been merged or
separated.
• The tenure status question for 1996 has been dropped since the question asked was
totally unrelated to that asked thereafter. Comparisons for 2001 and 2011 do however
remain.
• All household variables are controlled for housing units only and hence exclude all
collective living arrangements as well as transient populations.
• When making comparisons of any indicator it must be taken into account that the
time period between the first two censuses is of five years and that between the
second and third census is of ten years. Although Census captures information at one
given point in time, the period available for an indicator to change is different.
Where available, the Census 2011 data will be supplemented with data from Community
Survey 2016. It must be noted that the Community Survey 2016 data is not available on ward
level.
3.2.1 Population and household sizes
According to the Community Survey 2016, the population of South Africa is approximately
55.7 million and has shown an increase of about 7.5% since 2011. The household density for
the country is estimated on approximately 3.29 people per household, indicating an average
household size of 3-4 people (leaning towards 3) for most households, which is down from
the 2011 average household size of 3.58 people per household. Smaller household sizes are
in general associated with higher levels of urbanisation.
The greatest increase in population since 2011 has been in the Rustenburg LM (Table 2), much
higher than the national average, while the population in the Moses Kotane LM stayed more
or less the same. Population density refers to the number of people per square kilometre. In
Proposed amendments: Bakubung Platinum Mine, February 2021 P a g e | 21Equispectives Social Impact Assessment
the study area the population density has increased since 2011, except for in the Moses
Kotane LM where it stayed more or less the same.
Table 2: Population density and growth estimates (sources: Census 2011, Community
Survey 2016)
Area Size in Population Population Population Population Growth in
km2 2011 2016 density density population
2011 2016 (%)
North West Province 104,882 3,509,953 3,748,436 33.47 35.74 6.79
Bojanala Platinum DM 18,333 1,507,505 1,657,148 82.23 90.39 9.93
Moses Kotane LM 5,726 242,554 243,649 42.36 42.55 0.45
Rustenburg LM 3,416 549,575 626,522 160.88 183.41 14.00
The number of households in the study area has increased on all levels (Table 3), while the
average household size has shown a decrease on all levels. This means there are more
households, but with less members per household.
Table 3: Household sizes and growth estimates (sources: Census 2011, Community Survey
2016)
Area Households Households Average Average Growth in
2011 2016 household household households
size 2011 size 2016 (%)
North West Province 1,062,015 1,248,766 3.30 3.00 17.58
Bojanala Platinum DM 501,696 611,144 3.00 2.71 21.82
Moses Kotane LM 75,193 80,654 3.23 3.02 7.26
Rustenburg LM 199,044 262,576 2.76 2.39 31.92
The total dependency ratio is used to measure the pressure on the productive population and
refer to the proportion of dependents per 100 working-age population. As the ratio increases,
there may be an increased burden on the productive part of the population to maintain the
upbringing and pensions of the economically dependent. A high dependency ratio can cause
serious problems for a country as the largest proportion of a government’s expenditure is on
health, social grants and education that are most used by the old and young population.
The lowest total dependency ratio is found in Ward 13 (Table 4) while Ward 30 has the highest
dependency ratio. Ward 28, where BPM is located, has the second highest dependency ratio
but the highest youth dependency ratio. Employed dependency ratio refers to the proportion
of people dependent on the people who are employed, and not only those of working age.
Wards 28 and 30 have the highest employment ratio.
Proposed amendments: Bakubung Platinum Mine, February 2021 P a g e | 22Equispectives Social Impact Assessment
Table 4: Dependency ratios (source: Census 2011).
Area Total Youth Aged Employed
dependency dependency dependency dependency
North West Province 54.5 45.8 8.7 76.0
Bojanala Platinum DM 46.4 38.7 7.7 71.0
Rustenburg LM 37.9 33.2 4.6 64.3
Ward 1 45.9 40.4 5.4 69.8
Ward 2 42.8 36.9 5.9 66.5
Moses Kotane LM 58.6 46.3 12.3 80.9
Ward 13 29.3 26.3 3.0 63.4
Ward 14 42.8 32.4 10.5 70.1
Ward 28 47.1 42.6 4.5 72.3
Ward 30 51.5 41.9 9.6 76.8
Poverty is a complex issue that manifests itself on economic, social and political levels and to
define poverty by a unidimensional measure such as income or expenditure would be an
oversimplification of the matter. Poor people themselves describe their experience of poverty
as multidimensional. The South African Multidimensional Poverty Index (SAMPI) (Statistics
South Africa, 2014) assess poverty on the dimensions of health, education, standard of living
and economic activity using the indicators child mortality, years of schooling, school
attendance, fuel for heating, lighting and cooking, water access, sanitation, dwelling type,
asset ownership and unemployment.
The poverty headcount refers to the proportion of households that can be defined as
multidimensionally poor by using the SAMPI’s poverty cut-offs (Statistics South Africa, 2014).
The poverty headcount has increased on all levels since 2011 (Table 5), but to a greater extent
in the Moses Kotane LM.
The intensity of poverty experienced refers to the average proportion of indicators in which
poor households are deprived (Statistics South Africa, 2014). The intensity of poverty has
increased on all levels. The intensity of poverty and the poverty headcount is used to calculate
the SAMPI score. A higher score indicates a very poor community that is deprived on many
indicators. The SAMPI score has increased on all levels, indicating that households are multi-
dimensionally poorer in 2016 than in 2011, particularly in the Moses Kotane LM.
Proposed amendments: Bakubung Platinum Mine, February 2021 P a g e | 23Equispectives Social Impact Assessment
Table 5: Poverty and SAMPI scores (sources: Census 2011 and Community Survey 2016).
Area Poverty Poverty SAMPI Poverty Poverty SAMPI
headcount intensity 2011 headcount intensity 2016
2011 (%) 2011 (%) 2016 (%) 2016 (%)
North West Province 9.2 42 0.039 8.8 42.5 0.037
Bojanala Platinum DM 8.2 42.1 0.035 8.8 42.9 0.038
Moses Kotane LM 8.3 41.3 0.034 10.6 42.5 0.045
Rustenburg LM 7.2 42.9 0.031 8 44.6 0.036
3.2.2 Population composition, age, gender and home language
In all the wards, except Wards 13 and 14, the majority of the population belongs to the Black
population group (Figure 3). The Pilanesberg Game Reserve and the Sun City resorts are
located in Wards 13 and 14, and the population composition in these wards are mixed to
include people from all population groups.
Figure 3: Population distribution (shown in percentage, source: Census 2011)
100%
7,3 7,0 9,4 4,8 10,0 8,0
90% 2,0 3,0
5,9
80%
70%
60%
50% 99,3 98,3 99,0 99,1
89,8 91,4 88,5 93,6
81,7 86,8
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
North West Bojanala Rustenburg Ward 1 Ward 2 Moses Ward 13 Ward 14 Ward 28 Ward 30
Platinum LM Kotane DM
DM
Black Coloured Indian White Other
The average age in the study area ranges from about 27 years to 32 years (Table 6). Ward 28
where BPM is located has the lowest average age.
Proposed amendments: Bakubung Platinum Mine, February 2021 P a g e | 24Equispectives Social Impact Assessment
Table 6: Average age (shown in years, source: Census 2011)
Area Average
Age
North West Province 28.33
Bojanala Platinum DM 29.03
Rustenburg LM 28.86
Ward 1 28.10
Ward 2 28.30
Moses Kotane LM 29.49
Ward 13 28.80
Ward 14 32.16
Ward 28 27.07
Ward 30 28.93
More than two fifths of the population in all wards are aged 24 years or younger (Figure 4).
Such a young population place a lot of pressure on resources and infrastructure of the area,
and a great demand for future infrastructure and creation of livelihoods can be expected.
Figure 4: Age distribution (shown in percentage, source: Census 2011)
100% 3,4 2,3 3,0
5,6 5,3 3,7 4,2 7,7 7,3 6,3
10,1 10,3 9,4 9,0 9,7
90% 10,9 10,9
11,9 11,5
15,7
80%
21,9 20,9 20,2 22,9 20,0
17,9 19,1 16,7
70% 16,5
19,7
60%
17,1 18,4 17,6
19,8 18,6 21,6 16,0
22,6 24,5
50% 17,3
40% 18,8 18,6 19,9
18,5 18,7 20,3
18,8
17,9 17,4
30% 20,9
20%
29,6 26,4 27,7 25,8 29,2 29,0 27,7
10% 24,1 20,3 22,7
0%
North West Bojanala Rustenburg Ward 1 Ward 2 Moses Ward 13 Ward 14 Ward 28 Ward 30
Platinum LM Kotane DM
DM
0-14 15-24 25-34 35-49 50-64 65+
The sex distribution is more or less equal (Figure 5), except in the Rustenburg LM, Wards 1
and 2 in the Rustenburg LM and Ward 13 of the Moses Kotane LM where the bias is towards
males. In mining areas there is often a bias towards males as most mine workers are male
and have migrated to the area, with their families still at the area where they come from.
Game reserve employees tend to be biased towards males as well.
Proposed amendments: Bakubung Platinum Mine, February 2021 P a g e | 25You can also read
