SOCIO-ECONOMIC

IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT

The Proposed Hoogland Wind Farms and Grid Connection Project

Northern Cluster: Hoogland 1 Wind Farm and Hoogland 2 Wind

Farm

Pre-Application Report

February 2022

Prepared for:

SLR South Africa Consulting (Pty) Ltd

Prepared by:

Dr Hugo van Zyl and James Kinghorn

Independent Economic Researchers
 APPENDIX 6 OF NEMA EIA REGULATIONS: REQUIREMENTS OF SPECIALIST REPORTS
REQUIREMENT SECTION
(1) A specialist report prepared in terms of these Regulations must contain—
(a) details of—
(i) the specialist who prepared the report; and Appendix E
(i) the expertise of that specialist to compile a specialist report including a curriculum vitae; Appendix E
(b) a declaration that the specialist is independent in a form as may be specified by the competent See next
authority; section
(c) an indication of the scope of, and the purpose for which, the report was prepared; Section 2
(cA) an indication of the quality and age of base data used for the specialist report; Section 3
(cB) a description of existing impacts on the site, cumulative impacts of the proposed development Sections 4, 5
and levels of acceptable change; and 6
(d) the duration, date and season of the site investigation and the relevance of the season to the Section 2
outcome of the assessment;
(e) a description of the methodology adopted in preparing the report or carrying out the Appendix A
specialised process inclusive of equipment and modelling used;
(f) details of an assessment of the specific identified sensitivity of the site related to the proposed Section 5
activity or activities and its associated structures and infrastructure, inclusive of a site plan
identifying site alternatives;
(g) an identification of any areas to be avoided, including buffers; Section 5
(h) a map superimposing the activity including the associated structures and infrastructure on the N/A
environmental sensitivities of the site including areas to be avoided, including buffers;
(i) a description of any assumptions made and any uncertainties or gaps in knowledge; Section 3
(j) a description of the findings and potential implications of such findings on the impact of the Section 5
proposed activity or activities;
(k) any mitigation measures for inclusion in the EMPr; Section 5
(l) any conditions for inclusion in the environmental authorisation; N/A
(m) any monitoring requirements for inclusion in the EMPr or environmental authorisation; Section 5
(n) a reasoned opinion—
(i) whether the proposed activity, activities or portions thereof should be authorised; Section 6
(iA) regarding the acceptability of the proposed activity or activities; and
(ii) if the opinion is that the proposed activity, activities or portions thereof should be Section 5
authorised, any avoidance, management and mitigation measures that should be included
in the EMPr, and where applicable, the closure plan;
(o) a description of any consultation process that was undertaken during the course of preparing Section 3
the specialist report;
(p) a summary and copies of any comments received during any consultation process and where Appendix F
applicable all responses thereto; and
(q) any other information requested by the competent authority. N/A
(2) Where a government notice gazetted by the Minister provides for any protocol or minimum
information requirement to be applied to a specialist report, the requirements as indicated in such N/A
notice will apply.

ii
DETAILS OF THE SPECIALIST, DECLARATION OF INTEREST AND UNDERTAKING UNDER OATH

(For official use only)

File Reference Number:
NEAS Reference Number: DEA/EIA/
Date Received:

Application for authorisation in terms of the National Environmental Management Act, Act No. 107 of 1998, as amended and
the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations, 2014, as amended (the Regulations)
PROJECT TITLE
PROPOSED HOOGLAND WIND FARMS:
HOOGLAND 1 WIND FARM AND HOOGLAND 2 WIND FARM

Kindly note the following:

1. This form must always be used for applications that must be subjected to Basic Assessment or Scoping &
Environmental Impact Reporting where this Department is the Competent Authority.
2. This form is current as of 01 September 2018. It is the responsibility of the Applicant / Environmental Assessment
Practitioner (EAP) to ascertain whether subsequent versions of the form have been published or produced by the
Competent Authority. The latest available Departmental templates are available at
https://www.environment.gov.za/documents/forms.
3. A copy of this form containing original signatures must be appended to all Draft and Final Reports submitted to the
department for consideration.
4. All documentation delivered to the physical address contained in this form must be delivered during the official
Departmental Officer Hours which is visible on the Departmental gate.
5. All EIA related documents (includes application forms, reports or any EIA related submissions) that are faxed; emailed;
delivered to Security or placed in the Departmental Tender Box will not be accepted, only hardcopy submissions are
accepted.

Departmental Details
Postal address:
Department of Environmental Affairs
Attention: Chief Director: Integrated Environmental Authorisations
Private Bag X447
Pretoria
0001

Physical address:
Department of Environmental Affairs
Attention: Chief Director: Integrated Environmental Authorisations
Environment House
473 Steve Biko Road
Arcadia

Queries must be directed to the Directorate: Coordination, Strategic Planning and Support at:
Email: [email protected]

iii
SPECIALIST INFORMATION
Specialist Company Name: Independent Economic Researchers
B-BBEE Contribution level (indicate 1 to 4 Percentage 100%
8 or non-compliant) Procurement
recognition
Specialist name: Hugo van Zyl and James Kinghorn
Specialist Qualifications: PhD Economics, MCom Economics
Professional N/A for socio-economic specialists
affiliation/registration:
Physical address: 304 Commerce House, 55 Shortmarket Street, Cape Town, 8001
Postal address: Same as above
Postal code: 8001 Cell: 082 578 4148
Telephone: Fax:
E-mail: [email protected], [email protected]

DECLARATION BY SPECIALISTS
I, Dr Hugo van Zyl, declare that –

● I act as the independent specialist in this application;

● I will perform the work relating to the application in an objective manner, even if this results in views and findings that
are not favourable to the applicant;
● I declare that there are no circumstances that may compromise my objectivity in performing such work;
● I have expertise in conducting the specialist report relevant to this application, including knowledge of the Act,
Regulations and any guidelines that have relevance to the proposed activity;
● I will comply with the Act, Regulations and all other applicable legislation;
● I have no, and will not engage in, conflicting interests in the undertaking of the activity;
● I undertake to disclose to the applicant and the competent authority all material information in my possession that
reasonably has or may have the potential of influencing - any decision to be taken with respect to the application by
the competent authority; and - the objectivity of any report, plan or document to be prepared by myself for
submission to the competent authority;
● all the particulars furnished by me in this form are true and correct; and
● I realise that a false declaration is an offence in terms of regulation 48 and is punishable in terms of section 24F of
the Act.

Signature of the Specialist

Independent Economic Researchers

Name of Company:
04 February 2022
Date:

I, James Kinghorn, declare that –

● I act as the independent specialist in this application;

● I will perform the work relating to the application in an objective manner, even if this results in views and findings that
are not favourable to the applicant;
● I declare that there are no circumstances that may compromise my objectivity in performing such work;

iv
● I have expertise in conducting the specialist report relevant to this application, including knowledge of the Act,
Regulations and any guidelines that have relevance to the proposed activity;
● I will comply with the Act, Regulations and all other applicable legislation;
● I have no, and will not engage in, conflicting interests in the undertaking of the activity;
● I undertake to disclose to the applicant and the competent authority all material information in my possession that
reasonably has or may have the potential of influencing - any decision to be taken with respect to the application by
the competent authority; and - the objectivity of any report, plan or document to be prepared by myself for
submission to the competent authority;
● all the particulars furnished by me in this form are true and correct; and
● I realise that a false declaration is an offence in terms of regulation 48 and is punishable in terms of section 24F of
the Act.

Independent Consultant
Name of Company:
04 February 2022
Date:

v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Red Cap Energy (Pty) Ltd has proposed the construction of four wind farms and associated grid connection
(together known as the Hoogland Projects) in an area located between Loxton and Beaufort West in the
Northern and Western Cape Provinces.

Hoogland 1 Wind Farm and Hoogland 2 Wind Farm are located to the north closer to Loxton and form the
Northern Cluster of wind farms which will share a grid connection, named the Hoogland Northern Grid
Connection. Hoogland 3 Wind Farm and Hoogland 4 Wind Farm are located closer to Beaufort West and
comprise the Southern Cluster which will similarly share a separate grid connection, named the Hoogland
Southern Grid Connection. The two Grid Connections are each in the form of 132 kV overhead power lines and
will connect the Hoogland Wind Farms to the Nuweveld Collector Substation on Red Cap’s adjacent Nuweveld
Wind Farms Project and then to the national grid.

The scope of this report is the socio-economic impacts of the Hoogland 1 Wind Farm and Hoogland 2 Wind
Farm (the Northern Wind Farm Cluster). Even though these are two separate applications they will be
considered in the same specialist report.

The proposed project’s key strategic objectives can be summarised as providing additional electricity generation
capacity whilst meeting national renewable energy and climate change targets. The project was assessed in
terms of its compatibility with South African energy policy and strategic spatial planning, as well as with socio-
economic development planning with a focus on local and regional planning. It was found to be broadly
supported by policy objectives, provided environmental impacts and impacts on other land uses and potentials
are found to be acceptable.

The balance between financial benefits and costs are likely to be positive for the applicant and landowner
partners barring unforeseen risks. The Project is thus highly likely to prove financially viable assuming it is able
to secure a long-term contract through the Renewable Energy Independent Power Producer Procurement
Programme (REIPPPP) and then proceed to control its costs and meet revenue and other expectations.

The expenditure associated with the project would be about R3 billion to R3.4 billion per wind farm (R6 billion–
R6.8 billion for both wind farms) and R108 million to R119 million would be spent annually during operations
per wind farm (R216–R238 million for both). Roughly 160 to 200 jobs of 18 to 24-month duration would be
associated with construction per wind farm (320–400 jobs for both) and between 40 and 60 direct employment
opportunities would be created during operations per wind farm (80–120 jobs for both). It is anticipated by the
applicant that for each wind farm, approximately 56 to 71 temporary jobs would be allocated to workers from
the local municipal area during construction per wind farm. During operations, between 24 and 36 jobs (roughly
60% of available opportunities) would go to residents of the local community per wind farm. Positive impacts
resulting from expenditure on the construction and operation of the project were thus found to be of a medium
positive significance during construction and of a high positive significance during operations.

A relatively significant portion of the proceeds from the project will contribute to local socio-economic
development. This is in keeping with the requirements of the REIPPPP bidding process in which significant
contributions to economic development are mandatory for all bidders. Based on consideration of the bidding
requirements for the REIPPPP, it is anticipated that each wind farm would contribute a minimum of R4.5–R4.9
million per annum if averaged over 20 years to local socio-economic development, local community
shareholding and enterprise development, resulting in positive impacts of a high significance.

Impacts associated primarily with the influx of people were considered. There was a focus on the increased risk
of social ills such as increased alcohol and drug use, increased teenage and unwanted pregnancies, increased
prostitution and increases in sexually transmitted diseases (STDs such as HIV) in the wider community and
potential strain on services (municipal and accommodation) stemming from ‘new’ people coming to the area.

vi
The latter would include those who have already secured employment as well as job-seekers hoping to find
work at the project or in other businesses which may grow as a result of it. Impacts in this regard were found
to be of low significance both during construction and operations with the effective implementation of
mitigation measures. This comes with the caveat that the impact on individually affected community members
has the potential to be high (for example, for an individual being affected by crime) whereas the assessed
impacts are averaged for the whole community.

Impacts on tourism would be driven by visual and associated heritage impacts on a relatively isolated area with
wilderness quality and limited signs of civilisation. However, tourisms facilities and attractions in the areas
surrounding the project site are very limited and sparsely distributed, with the exception of Khulu Umzi Self-
catering Lodge, on Donkergat Farm, 2.4km from the nearest planned wind turbine. With the exception of this
establishment, which is owned by a participant and therefore financial beneficiary of the wind farm project, the
tourism context itself should limit impacts to a low significance during construction and a medium significance
during operations with mitigation.

Impacts on surrounding landowners and communities are expected to result from an increase in the risk of
crime, potential damage to farm infrastructure, increased littering, increased potential for veld fires, greater
risk of increased dust and noise levels and safety concerns associated mostly with presence of large trucks and
machinery. Particular attention was given to increased traffic associated with the proposed temporary gravel
bypass in Beaufort West, which would be required for vehicles with abnormal loads, as well as to increased
traffic and other activity in Loxton and the more isolated communities in the area. The resulting impacts on
surrounding landowners and communities, including to their sense of place, are expected to be low negative
with mitigation during construction and operations.

The assessment of impacts on property values needs to be treated with some caution as property value impacts
tend to be a secondary reflection of other primary impacts. Considering impacts on property values as
additional to other aforementioned socio-economic impacts therefore increases the chances of double
counting impacts. The property context, literature review, results of the other parts of this socio-economic
assessment with relevance to property values and other specialist findings indicate that the project should have
a low overall impact on property values with mitigation in the operational phase. Risks near the site should
remain at an acceptable level and should be somewhat offset by positive impacts particularly in nearby towns.
Note that the visual sensitivity mapping in the Visual Impact Assessment guided the layout of wind turbines
keeping them within what are regarded as acceptable levels of change in visual terms. Staying within these
acceptable limits should also limit the chance of unacceptable risks to property values.

It is considered most likely that the combined positive impacts of the project would exceed its negative impacts
resulting in an overall net benefit with mitigation. The project is therefore deemed acceptable in terms of socio-
economic impacts and should be allowed to proceed.

vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

SPECIALIST INFORMATION IV

DECLARATION BY SPECIALISTS IV

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY VI

TABLE OF CONTENTS VIII

LIST OF TABLES XI

LIST OF FIGURES XII

LIST OF ABREVIATIONS XIII

1. INTRODUCTION 1

1.1. TERMS OF REFERENCE 2

2. APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY 3

2.1. ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS 3

2.2. SOURCES OF INFORMATION 4
2.3. STAKEHOLDER INPUTS 4
2.4. ITERATIVE DESIGN PROCESS 5

3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 5

3.1. PROJECT LOCATION 5

3.2. WIND FARM COMPONENTS 5
3.3. TURBINE SPECIFICATIONS 8
3.4. POWER TRANSMISSION 9
3.4.1. CABLES 9
3.4.2. SUBSTATIONS 10
3.4.3. BATTERY FACILITY 11
3.4.4. GRID CONNECTION (NOT INCLUDED IN THIS REPORT) 12
3.5. TIMEFRAMES 12
3.6. SITE LAYOUTS 13
3.7. ALTERNATIVES 14

viii
4. DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 14

4.1. CURRENT LAND USES 15

4.2. DEMOGRAPHICS 16
4.3. EMPLOYMENT AND SECTORS 19
4.4. EDUCATION LEVELS 21
4.5. AVAILABILITY OF MUNICIPAL SERVICES 23
4.6. HEALTH 26
4.7. LOCAL AND REGIONAL SOCIO-ECONOMIC GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT PLANS/PRIORITIES
27

5. IDENTIFICATION OF IMPACTS 28

6. ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS 30

6.1. COMPATIBILITY WITH POLICY AND PLANNING GUIDANCE 30

6.1.1. ENERGY POLICY IMPERATIVES AND THE ENVIRONMENT 30
6.1.2. STRATEGIC SPATIAL PLANNING FOR SOLAR AND WIND AREAS IN SOUTH AFRICA 32
6.1.3. SOCIO-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND SPATIAL PLANNING 33
6.2. FINANCIAL VIABILITY AND RISKS 36
6.3. IMPACTS FROM EXPENDITURE ON THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE PROJECT36
6.3.1. CONSTRUCTION PHASE IMPACTS 37
6.3.2. OPERATIONAL PHASE IMPACTS 40
6.3.3. DECOMMISSIONING PHASE IMPACTS 44
6.3.4. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 45
6.3.5. MITIGATION 46
6.4. IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FUNDING OF LOCAL SOCIO-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT,
ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT AND SHAREHOLDING DURING OPERATIONS 47
6.4.1. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 49
6.4.2. MITIGATION 49
6.5. IMPACTS ASSOCIATED PRIMARILY WITH THE INFLUX OF PEOPLE 50
6.5.1. CONSTRUCTION PHASE IMPACTS 50
6.5.2. OPERATIONAL PHASE IMPACTS 52
6.5.3. DECOMMISSIONING PHASE IMPACTS 54
6.5.4. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 55
6.5.5. MITIGATION 56
6.6. IMPACTS ON TOURISM 57
6.6.1. THE TOURISM CONTEXT 57
6.6.2. LITERATURE ON THE IMPACTS OF WIND FARMS ON TOURISM 60
6.6.3. SPECIALIST FINDINGS AND KEY CONSIDERATIONS 61
6.6.4. CONSTRUCTION PHASE IMPACTS 62
6.6.5. OPERATIONAL PHASE IMPACTS 63
6.6.6. DECOMMISSIONING PHASE IMPACTS 64
6.6.7. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 65
6.6.8. MITIGATION 66

ix
6.7. IMPACTS ON SURROUNDING LANDOWNERS AND COMMUNITIES 66
6.7.1. CONSTRUCTION PHASE IMPACTS 66
6.7.2. OPERATIONAL PHASE IMPACTS 68
6.7.3. DECOMMISSIONING PHASE IMPACTS 70
6.7.4. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 71
6.7.5. MITIGATION 72
6.8. IMPACTS ON PROPERTY VALUES 72
6.8.1. THE PROPERTY CONTEXT 73
6.8.2. LITERATURE ON THE IMPACTS OF WIND FARMS ON PROPERTY VALUES 73
6.8.3. SPECIALIST FINDINGS AND KEY CONSIDERATIONS 75
6.8.4. CONSTRUCTION PHASE IMPACTS 76
6.8.5. OPERATIONAL PHASE IMPACTS 77
6.8.6. DECOMMISSIONING PHASE IMPACTS 78
6.8.7. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 79
6.8.8. MITIGATION 79
6.9. NO-GO ALTERNATIVE 79

7. MITIGATION AND EMPR REQUIREMENTS 80

8. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 86

9. REFERENCES 87

10. APPENDICES 90

x
LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 List of interviewed stakeholders and informants 4

Table 3.1 Summary of the components, specifications, and approximate areas of impact of each of the
Hoogland Wind Farms based on a maximum of 60 turbines* 6
Table 4.1 Population groups in the towns surrounding the study site, 2011 17
Table 4.2 Sectoral contribution to employment and net employment growth per sector in Beaufort West
Local Municipality 21
Table 4.3 Sectoral contribution to employment and net employment growth per sector in Beaufort West
Local Municipality 21
Table 6.1: Construction expenditure estimate and likely allocation per area for each wind farm 37
Table 6.2: Estimated direct temporary employment during construction 38
Table 6.3: Employment per area during construction 38
Table 6.4: Monthly household incomes during construction (2021 rands ‘000) 38
Table 6.5: Impacts from expenditure on the construction of the project 39
Table 6.6: Preliminary estimate of annual operational expenditure (2021 Rands) 40
Table 6.7: Expenditure by area during operations 41
Table 6.8: Employment associated with operations 41
Table 6.9: Operational employment per area 42
Table 6.10: Impacts from expenditure on the operation of the project 43
Table 6.11: Impacts from expenditure on the decommissioning of the project 44
Table 6.12: Potential funding flows to socio-economic and enterprise development initiatives 48
Table 6.13: Impacts associated with the funding of local socio-economic development, enterprise
development and shareholding 48
Table 6.14: Impacts associated primarily with the influx of people – construction phase 51
Table 6.15: Impacts associated primarily with the influx of people – operations phase 53
Table 6.16: Impacts associated primarily with the influx of people – decommissioning phase 54
Table 6.17 Tourism facilities profile and distance from project components 58
Table 6.18: Impacts on tourism during construction 62
Table 6.19: Impacts on tourism during operations 63
Table 6.20: Impacts on tourism during decommissioning 64
Table 6.21: Impacts on surrounding landowners and communities during construction 67
Table 6.22: Impacts on surrounding landowners and communities during operation 69
Table 6.23: Impacts on surrounding landowners and communities during decommissioning 70
Table 6.24: Visual Sensitivity Mapping Categories for Wind Turbines 75
Table 6.25: Impacts on property values during construction 76
Table 6.26: Impacts on property values during operation 77
Table 6.27: Impacts on property values during decommissioning 78
Table 10-1: REIPPPP socio-economic development criteria and minimum thresholds for Bid Window 5 95

xi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 Regional context map 2
Figure 3.1 Exaggerated rotor swept area envelope 9
Figure 3.2 Typical design of the proposed monopoles to be used for the up to 33kV internal overhead power
lines (where trenching is not possible) 10
Figure 3.3 Example of a Lithium-Ion BESS installation 11
Figure 3.4 Indicative layout of a Flow battery of approximately 0.1 ha 12
Figure 3.5 Proposed layout for Hoogland 1 Wind Farm 13
Figure 3.6 Proposed layout for Hoogland 2 Wind Farm 14
Figure 4.1 Population trends in the CKDM and the BWLM 16
Figure 4.2 Population trends in the PkSDM and the ULM 16
Figure 4.3 Population trends in the KHLM and the NDM 17
Figure 4.4 Age cohorts over time in the Beaufort West Local Municipality 18
Figure 4.5 Age cohorts over time in the Ubuntu Local Municipality 18
Figure 4.6 Age cohorts over time in KHLM 19
Figure 4.7 The unemployment rate in BWLM and CKDM over time 19
Figure 4.8 The unemployment rate in KHLM over time 20
Figure 4.9 Education levels in those over 20 years old in BWLM and CKDM, 2011 and 2016 22
Figure 4.10 Education levels in those over 20 years old in ULM and PkSDM, 2011 and 2016 23
Figure 4.11 Education levels in those over 20 years old in KHLM and NDM, 2011 and 2016 23
Figure 4.12 Access to key municipal services in BWLM and CKDM, 2011, 2016 and 2019 24
Figure 4.13 Access to key municipal services in ULM and PkSDM, 2011 and 2016 25
Figure 4.14 Access to key municipal services in KHLM and NDM, 2011 and 2016 26
Figure 4.15 Public healthcare facilities in the study area 26
Figure 6.1 REIPPP average bid prices in April 2021 terms 31
Figure 6.2 Renewable Energy Development Zones identified in the Strategic Environmental Assessment for the
wind and solar energy Phase 2 and Transmission Corridors 33
Figure 6.3 Scenic landscapes and routes identified in the Western Cape SDF, 2014 34
Figure 6.4 Proportion of total employees in each employment category 42
Figure 6.5 Map showing the study site and identified prominent tourism establishments 58
Figure 6.6 Excerpt from the Roads less travelled in the Karoo tourism map, focus on R381 59
Figure 6.7 Photograph taken 20 km south of the project site, on the R381 facing northwards 60

xii
LIST OF ABREVIATIONS

AIDS Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome

ART Antiretroviral Therapy
BBBEE Broad Based Black Economic Empowerment
BWLM Beaufort West Local Municipality
CDC Community Day Centre
CEQ Council on Environmental Quality
CKDM Central Karoo District Municipality
CSI Corporate Social Investment
DCGHSTA Department of Cooperative Governance, Human Settlements and Traditional Affairs
DEA Department of Environmental Affairs
DEA&DP Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning
DoE Department of Energy (now incorporated into the DMRE)
DMRE Department of Mineral Resources and Energy
DRDLR Department of Rural Development and Land Reform
EAP Environmental Assessment Practitioner
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
EMPr Environmental Management Programme
GN Guide Number
HIV Human Immunodeficiency Virus
IDC Industrial Development Corporation
I&AP Interested and Affected Party
IDP Integrated Development Plan
IRP Integrated Resource Plan
KHLM Karoo Hoogland Local Municipality
kV Kilovolt
LED Local Economic Development
MW Megawatt
MTS Mixed Technology Switchgear
NDM Namakwa District Municipality
NDP National Development Plan
NEMA National Environmental Management Act
NPV Net Present Value
PHC Primary Healthcare Centre
PkSDM Pixley ka Seme District Municipality
REDZ Renewable Energy Development Zone
REFIT Renewable Energy Feed-In Tariff
REIPPPP Renewable Energy Independent Power Producer Procurement Programme
S&EIA Social and Environmental Impact Assessment
SDF Spatial Development Framework
SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment
SMME Small, Medium and Micro-sized Enterprises
STD Sexually Transmitted Disease
TB Tuberculosis
ToR Terms of Reference
ULM Ubuntu Local Municipality
WEF Wind Energy Facility

xiii
1. INTRODUCTION
Independent Economic Researchers (IER) has been appointed by SLR South Africa Consulting (Pty) Ltd, on
behalf of Red Cap Energy (Pty) Ltd and their affiliate companies (Red Cap Hoogland 1 (Pty) Ltd, Red Cap
Hoogland 2 (Pty) Ltd, Red Cap Hoogland 3 (Pty) Ltd and Red Cap Hoogland 4 (Pty) Ltd), hereafter referred to
as “Red Cap”, to undertake a socio-economic impact assessment for the proposed construction of four wind
farms and associated grid connection (together known as the Hoogland Projects) in an area located between
Loxton and Beaufort West in the Northern and Western Cape Provinces (refer to Figure 1.1).
Hoogland 1 Wind Farm and Hoogland 2 Wind Farm are located to the north closer to Loxton and form the
Northern Cluster of wind farms which will share a grid connection, named the Hoogland Northern Grid
Connection. Hoogland 3 Wind Farm and Hoogland 4 Wind Farm are located closer to Beaufort West and
comprise the Southern Cluster which will similarly share a separate grid connection, named the Hoogland
Southern Grid Connection. The two Grid Connections are each in the form of 132 kV overhead power lines and
will connect the Hoogland Wind Farms to the Nuweveld Collector Substation on Red Cap’s adjacent Nuweveld
Wind Farms Project and then to the national grid.
In terms of the EIA Regulations various aspects of the proposed development may have an impact on the
environment and are considered to be listed activities. These activities require authorisation from the National
Competent Authority (CA), namely the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE), prior
to the commencement thereof. Specialist studies have been commissioned to verify the sensitivity and assess
the impacts of the wind farms under the Gazetted specialist protocols (GN R 320 and GN R 1150 of 2020).
The scope of this report is the Hoogland 1 Wind Farm and Hoogland 2 Wind Farm (the Northern Wind Farm
Cluster). Even though these are two separate applications they will be considered in the same specialist report.

1
Figure 1.1 Regional context map

1.1. Terms of reference

The term of reference (ToR) was to undertake all necessary data collection and fieldwork to assess the project
and produce an impact assessment report. The reports must fulfil the requirements of Appendix 6 of the EIA
Regulations (as amended) and provide:
• Project specific description to be assessed,
• A detailed baseline description of the receiving environment in and surrounding the site, including a
description of key no go areas or features or other sensitive areas to be avoided, presented as a
sensitivity maps for the pre-determined infrastructure classes, namely Turbines; Buildings; Roads &
cables and Overhead powerlines.
• A description of all methodology and processes used to source information, collect baseline data,
generate models and the age or season when the data was collected. A description of any
assumptions made and any uncertainties or gaps in knowledge.
• A description of relevant legal matters, policies, standards and guidelines.
• A list of potentially significant environmental impacts that may arise in the construction, operation
and decommissioning phases of the project, including possible cumulative impacts
• A detailed impact assessment of each impact including:
o A pre-mitigation and post-mitigation impact assessment description; and
o A list of essential mitigation measures and management interventions.

2
 • A cumulative impact assessment. The cumulative impact of all three wind farms and gridline should
be assessed (and any other wind farms or similar developments in 30km – of which there are
presently none).
• An assessment of the “No go” alternative.
• An overview and summary of the assessed impacts.
• A discussion on the overall impact of the project and a reasoned opinion as to whether the proposed
activity, or portions of the activity can be authorised. Provide any additional recommendations
regarding avoidance, management, or mitigation measures for consideration in a layout revision or
inclusion into the Environmental Management Programme (EMPr). Any other information the
specialist believes to be important, including recommendations that should be included as
conditions in the Environmental Authorisation.

2. APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY

The approach adopted involved the following steps in line with accepted EIA practice:
1. Investigate the existing context within which the project would be established.
2. Identify impacts.
3. Assess impacts without mitigation measures.
4. Recommend mitigation measures.
5. Re-assess impacts assuming mitigation measures are implemented.
6. Provide a reasoned opinion regarding the impacts and acceptability of the project.
Guidance on the approach was taken primarily from the Department of Environmental Affairs and
Development Planning (Western Cape) guidelines on economic specialist input to EIA processes (van Zyl et al.,
2005) augmented by the guidelines on social specialist input to EIA processes (Barbour, 2007). This included
guidance on the appropriate level of detail required for the assessment in order that it be adequate for
informing decision-making without going into superfluous detail (i.e. superfluous detail in this report as well
as superfluous detail when the briefs of other specialist studies forming part of the EIA are taken into account).
SLR South Africa Consulting provided the impact assessment methodology employed in this assessment and a
copy of the methodology can be found in Appendix A.
Appendix B provides a brief site sensitivity verification report (SSVR) or statement for the project based on the
assessment.

2.1. Assumptions and Limitations

The following assumptions and limitations apply to the study:
• All information provided by the EAP, the applicant, the applicant’s project team, other official
sources and other specialists involved in the EIA is assumed to be correct unless there is a clear
reason to suspect incorrect information.
• The quantification of economic impacts in order to inform the assessment of the significance of
impacts was not possible, nor considered necessary, for all impacts. Where possible, quantification
focused on impacts considered to be most important in the overall assessment. Assessments of
impact significance made without quantification (and based on a consideration of the likely
magnitudes of impacts and/or expert judgements) are, however, considered adequate unless
otherwise specified.
• All impacts are assessed individually and then as a whole to the degree possible and appropriate. An
overall assessment and discussion of net impacts (i.e. whether overall benefits exceed costs) was

3
 undertaken to the degree thought appropriate and justifiable combining quantifiable and
unquantifiable impacts. Given uncertainties and the potentially subjective nature of comparisons
between impact categories, the emphasis in the report is on presenting assessments of impact
categories with less emphasis on trying to reconcile them in an overall assessment of net effects. To
a large degree this role of comparing and weighing up different (and hard to reconcile) impacts is
the ambit of the relevant decision-making authorities.
• The findings of the assessment reflect the best professional assessment of the author drawing on
relevant and available information within the constraints of time and resources thought appropriate
and made available for the assessment. See Appendix C for the disclaimer associated with this
report.
• The assessment only considers the impacts of the proposed projects and the no-go alternative. It
does not make comparisons with other wind energy projects which may or may not be more
desirable. The Department of Energy (DMRE) is primarily responsible for making the necessary
comparisons between projects as part of the process of awarding contracts to aspirant competing
renewable energy developers.

2.2. Sources of Information

Key information sources used in the assessment include:
• Census data and other socio-economic baseline data.
• Policy document focused on renewable energy, economic development planning, spatial planning.
• Local and international literature on the impacts of other existing project of a similar nature.
• The requirements of the Renewable Energy Independent Power Producer Procurement Programme
(REIPPPP) and available information from operational wind farms.
• Inputs from the other specialists making contributions to the EIA.
• Interviews with stakeholders and informants (see next section).

2.3. Stakeholder inputs

Interviews were conducted with the stakeholders listed in the table below (consultation notes are provided in
Appendix F).
Table 2.1 List of interviewed stakeholders and informants

Person/s Affiliation
Edna and Samuel Davis Landowners, Slange Fontein, Duikerfontein
Melt van der Heever Landowner, Muranda, Rhenoster Leegte
Sascha Klemm Beaufort West Tourism Organisation
Barbara Koopman Strategic Support Services Manager, Central
Karoo District Municipality
Llewellyn Lakay IDP Manager, Beufort West Municipality
Hoitsema Maree Land Manager, Kalkfontein
Johan Moolman Landowner, Quagga Fontein
Paul Neethling Landowner, Matjiesfontein
Kowie Olivier Landowner, Kalkfontein
Ingrid Schofmann Ubuntu Forum for Socio Economic Development
Nicola van der Westhuizen Landowner, Jaknic Trust

The following key socio-economic issues and impacts were raised by stakeholders and were used to inform
the scope and content of this impact assessment:

4
 • Impacts on sense of place with implications for impacts on surrounding landowners, communities
and tourism.
• Increased crime including livestock theft.
• Increased traffic both during construction and operations with implications for safety on the road
for other road-users including cyclists.
• Impacts associated with movements of people in response to changing land-use (perceived risk of
reduction in employment from farming as well as additional employment generated by wind farms)
and associated social-ills such as increased risk of spread of Sexually Transmitted Disease (STDs).
• Concerns that the Beaufort West temporary N1 bypass would lead to the construction of a
permanent bypass with implications for the town’s economy.
• Increased chances of gates being left open on farms with implications for the movement of livestock
and agricultural productivity.

2.4. Iterative design process

This project followed an iterative design process where various design permutations have been considered
and assessed to inform turbine and associated infrastructure placements. At this stage of design, the key socio-
economic risks identified were to tourism and to surrounding landowners and communities. These risks stem
primarily from visual, heritage, noise and shadow flicker impacts. The design and layout recommendations in
the specialist studies dealing with these impacts were thus also aimed at limiting risks to tourism and to
surrounding landowners. Note that the socio-economic specialist inputs assisted with the design and layout
process by providing baseline information in the form of locations and profiles of the tourism facilities that
had the potential to be impacted.

3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

3.1. Project location

The proposed project is located in an area located between Loxton and Beaufort West in the Northern and
Western Cape Provinces as shown in Figure 1.1.

3.2. Wind farm components

Each wind farm requires several key components to facilitate the generation of electricity at a large scale. This
includes:
• Wind turbines;
• Roads;
• Underground cables and overhead medium voltage power lines (up to 33 kV);
• A substation (including and operations and maintenance area for control, operation, workshop, storage
buildings / areas); and
• A battery storage facility in the vicinity of the substation.

Table 3.1 below represents these various wind farm components and their specifications, as well as a detailed
breakdown of their impact footprints or sizes per wind farm. Temporary areas necessary for construction are
also included. The location of these components in relation to each wind farm site is shown in Figure 3.5 and
Figure 3.6 respectively.

5
Table 3.1 Summary of the components, specifications, and approximate areas of impact of each of the Hoogland
Wind Farms based on a maximum of 60 turbines*
Project Components Description Hoogland 1 Hoogland 2

Location Central coordinates: 31°38'18.90"S, 31°43'16.68"S,

22°18'0.44"E 22°19'50.27"E

Access For commuter traffic and some small loads, access Through Loxton, south along the R381
from the south would be via Beaufort West via the towards HL01 and HL02
N1 and R381 travelling between Beaufort West and
Loxton. For abnormal loads the main access routes
for each wind farm are as follows:

Extent The total area of the site being considered for 16,234 ha 17,799 ha
developing each wind farm:

Number of wind turbines Up to a maximum of 60 wind turbines per wind farm 60 60

and generation capacity will be developed. The targeted nameplate
generation capacity for each wind farm is up to a
maximum of 420 MW.

However, the number of turbines included in the 94 82

layout for approval for each wind farm is as follows:

Wind turbine ● Rotor diameter: 100 m to 195 m (50 m to - -

specifications 97.5 m blade / radius)
● Hub height: 80 m to 150 m
● Rotor top tip height: 130 m to 247.5 m
(maximum based on 150 m hub + 97.5 m
blade = 247.5 m)
● Rotor bottom tip height: minimum of 20 m
(and not lower).
See Figure 3-1 below.

Turbine Foundations Each turbine will have a circular foundation with a 8.4 ha (permanent) 8.4 ha (permanent)
diameter of up to 35 m, alongside the 40 m
hardstand (1,400 m2). The permanent total footprint
is as follows:

Turbine Hardstands and Each turbine will have a permanent crane pad of 80 19.2 ha 19.2 ha
Laydown Areas m x 40 m placed adjacent to each turbine foundation. (permanent) (permanent)
The total permanent footprints are as follows:

An additional 20 m x 40 m of temporary hardstand 31.2 ha 31.2 ha (temporary)

area will also be required near each of the crane (temporary)
pads. Further, a blade laydown area of 104 m x 20 m
and an additional embankment area (where
necessary due to slopes) of approximately 104 m x 5
m will be required. A temporary crane boom
assembly area of 120 x 15 m will also be
accommodated.
Temporary areas are up to a maximum of a
maximum of 5,200 m2 per turbine. The total
temporary footprints per wind farm are as follows:
11.2 km 5.3 km
Cabling Turbines to be connected to on-site substation via up
to 33 kV cables. Cables to be laid underground in 6.7 ha 3.2 ha
trenches mainly adjacent to proposed wind farm
roads (as part of the temporary impact of ‘Site roads’ (temporary) (temporary)
below) but in some instances the cables will deviate
from the road.
Such sections of off-road cables amount to the
following length and footprint:

6
Project Components Description Hoogland 1 Hoogland 2

Where it has been possible, cables have been routed 1.1 km 18.8 km
along existing local roads.
0.7 ha 11.3 ha
Note that cables running next to public roads will not
(temporary) (temporary)
be able to run within the road reserve, but as close
as possible to the road reserve in the adjacent
private owned land.
These have the following length and footprint:

Internal wind farm In limited instances, overhead monopole lines will be 3.1 km 3.5 km
overhead power lines used where burying is not possible due to technical,
1.8 ha (permanent) 2.1 ha (permanent)
geological, environmental or topographical
constraints. Up to 33 kV overhead power lines
supported by 132 kV monopole style pylons of up to
20 m high will be required, as well as tracks for
access to the pylons.
The total length of the line and the footprint of the
pylons and tracks are as follows:
1.6 km 14.7 km
Where possible, to reduce areas of new impact,
sections of overhead line have been routed next to 1 ha (permanent) 8.8 ha (permanent)
proposed Eskom overhead lines. Such sections of
overhead lines have the following additional length
and footprint:

Site roads The total road network for each wind farm* is as 108.3 km 110.8 km
follows:

Permanent roads will be 6 m wide and over above *86.6 ha *88.7 ha

this may require side drains on one or both sides (permanent) (permanent)
depending on the topography. Many roads will have
underground cables running next to them.
The permanent footprint of the road network for each
wind farm is as follows:

An up to 15 m wide road corridor may be temporarily *97.4 ha *99.7 ha

impacted during construction and rehabilitated to (temporary) (temporary)
allow for a 6 m road surface after construction.
The temporary footprint of the road network for each
wind farm is as follows:

Wind farm Substations Each wind farm will have a 150 m x 75 m substation 1.1 ha (permanent) 1.1 ha (permanent)
yard that will include an Operation and Maintenance
(O&M) building, Substation building and a High
Voltage Gantry.
The area for the substation yards are as follows:

Battery energy storage Each wind farm will also potentially have a ±3.5 ha 3.5 ha (permanent) 3.5 ha (permanent)
system (BESS) area for a battery energy storage system (BESS)
which may be adjacent or slightly removed from the
substation depending on the local constraints.
The BESS may either be connected to the wind farm
substation by an underground or overhead cable or
may require its own substation which would be
located within the BESS footprint and would be
connected directly to the Eskom switching station via
a short 132 kV overhead line.

Operations and The O&M area will include all offices, stores, Forms part of Forms part of
maintenance (O&M) area workshops and laydown area. The substation substation yard substation yard
building will be housed in the substation yard.

7
 Project Components Description Hoogland 1 Hoogland 2

Security Security gate and hut to be installed at most 80 m2 80 m2

entrances to each wind farm site (estimated as 4
entrances each at 20 m2).
No fencing around individual turbines, existing
fencing shall remain around perimeter of properties.
Temporary and permanent yard areas to be
enclosed (with access control) with an up to 2.4 m
high fence.

Temporary areas Each wind farm will have the following temporary 6 ha (temporary) 6 ha (temporary)
required for the construction areas:
construction /
● Temporary site camp/s areas of ±20,000
decommissioning phase
m2
● Batching plant area of ±2,000 m2
● General laydown area of ± 36,000 m2
● Each wind farm will have a bunded fuel &
lubricants storage facility at the site camp.
Individual turbine temporary laydown areas including
crane boom laydown areas, blade laydown areas
and other potential temporary areas are detailed
above under “turbine hardstands”.

Shared infrastructure: As part of the Nuweveld Wind Farms, a temporary 6.8 ha 6.8 ha
bypass road is required on the N1 to avoid the town (shared, (shared, temporary)
N1 Bypass Road
of Beaufort West with the major Wind Farm temporary)
components. The road surface will be up to 6 m
wide, with side drains, but a 12 m wide road corridor
may be temporarily impacted during construction and
rehabilitated once construction is complete.
The length of the temporary road will be about 5.6
km of which about 2.5 km is along an existing track.
It is planned that this road will also be used by the
Hoogland Wind Farms and this is why it is shared
infrastructure between the Nuweveld projects and
these projects.

Other shared Stream crossings upgrades along the R381 to the 4.4 ha (shared, 4.4 ha (shared,
infrastructure north of the project area and along the DR02314 to permanent) permanent)
the north-west of the project area are required.
5 ha (shared, 5 ha (shared,
temporary) temporary)

Total disturbance footprint 153.8 ha 163.2 ha

temporary and 126 temporary and
ha permanent 136.2 ha
permanent

3.3. Turbine specifications

Since the turbine technology is continually evolving it is not possible for the developer, at this early stage in the
development process, to specify the exact turbine model and specification (or even what would be available in
the marketplace).

Assumptions have been made as to the maximum possible area of impact by the potential turbine blades based
on a range of turbine sizes. This area of impact is referred to as the “exaggerated rotor swept area envelope”,
as it 1) takes into account multiple turbine size scenarios at once, and 2) assumes each turbine has the largest
blade it can from the lowest hub height and extends this all the way up to the highest hub height (see Figure

8
3.1). This reflects an exaggerated worst-case area of impact that would never be realised in any scenario of
turbine model.

Table 3.1 above sets out these specifications which are visually depicted in Figure 3.1 below.

Figure 3.1 Exaggerated rotor swept area envelope

3.4. Power transmission

3.4.1. Cables
Each turbine will be connected to their respective Wind Farm substation via medium voltage power lines (~33
kV lines). For the most part cables will be laid underground in trenches (~1 m deep), generally running alongside
existing or proposed internal roads, but sometimes deviating from these. In limited instances, where burying of
cables is not possible due to technical, geological, environmental or topographical constraints, then short
overhead power lines will be erected to traverse these constrained areas.

Internal overhead power lines will be spanned using short 132 kV type monopoles of not more than 20 m in
height. The typical design for the proposed internal overhead power line monopoles is depicted in Figure 3.2
below.

Figure 3.5 and Figure 3.6 depict the site layout for Hoogland 1 Wind Farm and Hoogland 2 Wind Farm
respectively and differentiates between ‘Roads and Cables’ where cables run alongside proposed or existing

9
roads, ‘Off-road Cables’ where cables will not run alongside proposed or existing roads, and the ‘Internal
Overhead Power Lines’ where trenching is not possible and overhead cables must be spanned.

Figure 3.2 Typical design of the proposed monopoles to be used for the up to 33kV internal overhead power lines
(where trenching is not possible)

3.4.2. Substations
The medium voltage (~33 kV) cables described above will collect at the Wind Farm Substation (with transformer)
where the power will be stepped-up to 132 kV. The substation yard will house Operation and Maintenance
(O&M) buildings, substation building and a High Voltage Gantry. The substation would typically include an area
with a subterranean earthing mat onto which a number of concrete plinths are constructed. This, together with
several earthing rods, will provide an earth for lightning and possible short circuit currents. Switching gear, step-
up transformers and protection equipment are also mounted on concrete plinths as part of the substation.

10
3.4.3. Battery facility
Each wind farm proposal includes the possibility for the development of a battery energy storage system (BESS).
This will allow for a more continuous source of electricity to the grid as battery facilities can help to smooth out
the fluctuations in energy generation from the renewable energy sources and allow them to be closer to
conventional generation systems in this regard.

The BESS will be located in close proximity to the wind farm substation, will be fenced off and will be linked to
the substation via up to 33 kV cables and will not have any additional office/ operation/ maintenance
infrastructure as those of the substation. However, the BESS may require its own substation, and if this is the
case this substation would include typical substation components and be located within the BESS footprint. If
the BESS does have its own substation, then it will not have an up to 33 kV cable connection to the wind farm
substation but would rather have a short 132 kV connection from the BESS substation to the Eskom switching
station (which is situated next to the wind farm Substation) and this would use monopole pylons up to 32 m in
height.

The battery facility will either be Lithium Ion or Redox Flow and both technologies will be assessed as it is
unknown which technology will be selected. The physical footprint regardless of technology and grid connection
will be approximately 3.5 ha with a peak discharge value of 140 MWac. A brief description of each technology is
provided below.

Lithium-Ion

Charged lithium ions are carried via electrolytes between anode (negative electrode) and cathode (positive
electrode) within each Lithium-Ion battery cell. There are a number of different battery chemistries that are
available. These cells are combined into battery modules, which are housed in battery racks, a number of which
are collectively enclosed in sealed containers. These are all assembled in factories and no electrolytic liquid is
handled on site. In addition to the battery racks, other components within the containers includes a HVAC or air
conditioning system, a fire detection and suppression system (that normally uses inert gas), battery
management system and other electrical components required to manage the batteries. The containers are
normally a standard size of about 12 m long x 2.5 m wide x 2.7-3 m high. The BESS on the wind farm site will
comprise multiple containers (e.g. approximately 240, with an extra 3-5 containers for electrical connections
and controls), refer to Figure 3.3 for an example of an installation. The main risk to health and the environment
relating to for Lithium-Ion BESS is overheating that leads to spontaneous ignition and subsequent explosion i.e.
fire. Since the batteries arrive on site sealed and kept in racks inside sealed containers the risk of chemical spills
are extremely low.

Figure 3.3 Example of a Lithium-Ion BESS installation

11
Redox Flow
Redox flow batteries are charged and discharged by means of the oxidation–reduction reaction of a chemical
whereby ions are transferred from one element to another. Redox flow batteries therefore comprise an
electrochemical battery cell and a flowable electrolyte which is pumped through the cell for charging or
discharging electricity and is stored in electrolyte tanks (one tank acting as a cathode and one as an anode). The
most common Flow battery electrolytes are based on a water solution including vanadium, zinc or iron salts.
Electrolyte storage tanks and cells are typically installed in specially designed steel containers providing
secondary and tertiary containment measures (double wall). The containers are filled with electrolyte on site
during project installation. Adjacent to this is another container housing the conversion systems and auxiliary
systems necessary for the operation of the system (these include HVAC, fire detection and suppression, leak
detection and suppression, BESS management), refer to Figure 3.4. The height of the installation will not exceed
3 m. The main environmental risk specific to Flow batteries during construction and operation is the accidental
leak or spillage to the environment of the liquid electrolyte. The risk of fire and explosion is low.

Electrolyte Battery cell, pumps, converter and auxiliary

container equipment container

Transformer

Figure 3.4 Indicative layout of a Flow battery of approximately 0.1 ha

3.4.4. Grid connection (not included in this report)

The remaining electrical infrastructure is not part of the Hoogland Wind Farm application/s and is part of the
Hoogland Grid Connection application/s subject to a separate environmental authorisation process. This
includes switching stations (adjacent to each wind farm substation) and a 132 kV line supported largely by 132
kV monopole pylons that connects to the Nuweveld Collector Substation. This will be transferred to Eskom once
operational.

3.5. Timeframes
The formal EIA process typically takes 1 to 2 years to complete and if authorised the developer / applicant would
then prepare the project for submission to the REIPPPP during a forthcoming bidding window. It is currently
unknown when the future bidding windows will be. It must be noted that with private sector playing an
increasingly important role in South African energy generation, there is also a possibility the wind farms will be
developed for private off-take (energy sold to private entities).

Should the project be selected and given “preferred bidder” status, it would then move into the next phase
which includes obtaining other permits, licenses, including Water Use Licences, Rezoning permission, and other
consents before reaching financial close which is normally less than 1 year after preferred bidder status is
announced. Thus, construction is likely to commence no earlier than about 1 to 1.5 years after the issuing of an
EA, but this is all dependent on how soon after obtaining the EA the next bidding window is and what the
requirements are in the bidding round. The construction period for the facility is estimated to be between 18
to 24 months.

12
The operational life of a wind energy facility is typically around 20 years where after it could be refurbished /
upgraded, or decommissioned depending on the situation at the time, and all subject to the relevant
environmental processes and authorisations.

3.6. Site layouts

The site layout for each wind farm has been through various iterations during the Screening and Initial Design
Phases. The current Pre-application layout makes provision for a number of potential turbine positions specific
to each wind farm (as detailed in Table 3.1 above), with associated infrastructure as shown in the following
figures (Figure 3.5 and Figure 3.6).

Figure 3.5 Proposed layout for Hoogland 1 Wind Farm

13
Figure 3.6 Proposed layout for Hoogland 2 Wind Farm

3.7. Alternatives

A comprehensive iterative design process has been undertaken to inform the respective Wind Farm layouts and
associated Grid Connection infrastructure for the Hoogland Projects.

By integrating the screening and assessment of environmental and social constraints alongside the technical
components of the project, early in a project lifecycle, allowed for the reduction in risks to the project and
supports the application of the mitigation hierarchy by demonstrating the avoidance and minimisation of
impacts. This integrated design approach negates the need for an alternative’s assessment in the detailed
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process (as per NEMA) as due to the thorough process entailed, it is
unlikely that there will any fatal flaws to prevent the project proceeding.

However, the preferred layouts of the Hoogland Wind Farms, and respective Grid Corridors, will each be
assessed against the ‘no-go’ alternative. The ‘no-go’ alternative is the option of not constructing the Project
where the status quo of the current farming activities on the site would prevail.

4. DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

The significance of impacts is often highly dependent on the socio-economic environment or context within
which they occur. For example, job creation or losses in a small local community with a stagnating economy and
high unemployment will be more significant than it would be in a larger community with a healthy economy. In

14
order to offer such baseline information to the impact assessment this section describes the socio-economic
environment.

The main information sources used were municipal socio-economic profiles generated by the provincial
government, the latest Municipal Economic Review and Outlook, as well as Census 2011 and Community Survey
2016 data. Given that the Community Survey was not carried out at smaller spatial scales and considering that
the Census 2011 is ten years old, these two sources of data were relied upon to a lesser extent.

The proposed wind farm sites and grid corridor of the Northern Cluster (HL01 and HL02) are situated within
Ward 7 of the Beaufort West Municipality which, in turn, forms part of the Central Karoo District Municipality
of the Western Cape Province (note that Ward 7 covers a particularly large area of 8,175 square kilometres and
extends as far as the town of Merweville which is over 100km from the Wind Farm site). The proposed wind
farm sites and grid corridor of the Southern Cluster (HL03 and HL04) are also predominantly within this ward,
with the exception of a part of HL03, which falls within Ward 3 of the Karoo Hoogland Municipality, in the
Namakwa District of the Northern Cape Province. The towns nearest the Wind Farm site are Beaufort West,
Loxton and Fraserburg. Loxton is in the Ubuntu Local Municipality which forms part of the Pixley ka Seme District
Municipality in the Northern Cape Province, while Fraserburg is in the Hoogland Local Municipality

Other towns, which are further than 50km from the Wind Farm site but still relatively nearby, include Nelspoort
in Beaufort West Municipality, and Victoria West in the Ubuntu Local Municipality of the Northern Cape.

With this locational context in mind, socio-economic context data is focused on the Central Karoo, Pixley ka
Seme and Namakwa District Municipalities, as well as the Beaufort West, Ubuntu and Karoo Hoogland Local
Municipalities, along with towns of Loxton, Beaufort West, Fraserburg and Nelspoort within these local
municipalities. Note that due to a greater availability of data, more detail is provided on the Central Karoo
District Municipality and the Beaufort West Local Municipality relative to the municipalities located in the
Northern Cape.

4.1. Current land uses

Current land uses in the wider rural area, where the wind farm and majority of the wind farm infrastructure
would be located, are focused on extensive agriculture with small stock primarily in the form of sheep, game
farming, some tourism and conservation primarily in the form of the Karoo National Park. The farms are large
and homesteads are few and far between to maintain economically viable farm units. Small communities are
housed on the farms and work as farm labourers or in associated tourism ventures. Away from the towns
there are few other sources of enterprise or employment. For more details on agricultural land uses, see the
Agricultural Specialist Study.
Drought has been experienced to varying degrees in different parts of the study area, with many of the farms
surrounding Loxton having received little to no rain over the past ten years. The financial sustainability of
farming in this area has been severely compromised, and many farmers have removed all livestock from their
farms, or have resorted to other coping strategies given the persistently low forage levels available to livestock
in the area. Some farm labourers have been retrenched as a result of the drought and have been forced to
relocate to urban centres in search of employment.
The town of Beaufort West is a regional hub. Typical urban land uses can be found on the urban periphery of
Beaufort West where the temporary N1 bypass would be situated (to be used in the construction of the
Northern Wind Farm Cluster). These include residential areas, recreation / tourism ventures and
accommodations, industrial areas, major infrastructure (such as existing electricity transmission
infrastructure, the N1 road and railway line) some mining (in the form of a quarry in the northern part of the
town) and recreational uses (including the golf course in the northern part of the town).

15
4.2. Demographics
Beaufort West Local Municipality (BWLM) had a population of 51 074 in 2019, up from 49 586 in 2011, which
translates to a population growth rate of around 0.4% per annum over the eight-year period (see Figure 4.1).
This is lower than the annual growth rate for the Central Karoo District Municipality (CKDM), which was 1.2%
over the same period. BWLM had an average household size of 3.8 in 2019.

80 000
70 000
60 000
50 000
40 000 Central Karoo District Municipality

30 000 Beaufort West Local Municipality

20 000
10 000
0
2011 2016 2018 2019
Source: WCPG, 2018a; 2018b; 2020a; 2020b

Figure 4.1 Population trends in the CKDM and the BWLM

Up-to-date statistics are not available for Ubuntu Local Municipality (ULM). But based on the population
growth rate between 2011 and 2016 (average of 0.92% per annum), the 2019 population was estimated to be
20,007 (see figure below). The average growth rate for Pixley ka Seme District Municipality (PkSDM) was
estimated to be 0.98% per year over the 2011–2019 period, based on available statistics for these years, which
indicate that the PkSDM had a population size of 200,835 in 2019.

250 000

200 000

150 000
Pixley ka Seme District Municipality
100 000 Ubuntu Local Municipality

50 000

0
2011 2016 2019
Source: StatsSA, 2011; 2016; NCPG, 2021

Figure 4.2 Population trends in the PkSDM and the ULM

Karoo Hoogland Local Municipality (KHLM) had a population of 13 009 in 2016, up from 12 501 in 2011 (see
figure below), implying an average growth rate of 0.8%. Up-to-date statistics are not available for KHLM, but
assuming that the municipality has grown at a uniform rate since 2011 provides the estimate of a population
size of 13,321 in 2019. The average growth rate for NDM over the 2011–2016 period was negative and
averaged -0.17% over the same period. However, between 2016 and 2019 NDM’s population grew at an
average of 7.15% per year. These trends may reflect in-migration to the District, but the statistics should be

16
treated with caution given that they are based on different datasets, one of which is not publicly available and
the accuracy of which is therefore difficult to ascertain.

160 000
140 000
120 000
100 000
80 000 Namakwa District Municipality

60 000 Karoo Hoogland Local Municipality

40 000
20 000
0
2011 2016 2019

Source: StatsSA, 2011; 2016; NCPG, 2021

Figure 4.3 Population trends in the KHLM and the NDM

Around 53% of BWLM’s population are female. According to statistics published by the Western Cape
Government, this proportion is exactly the same as that of the Central Karoo District Municipality’s (CKDM)
population. In the case of the ULM, around 50.4% of the population are female (based on 2016 figures), which
is also roughly in line with the PkSDM’s 50.59% (also 2016 figures).
Recent population estimates are not available at the settlement level, but the 2011 census gives some
indication of the towns nearby the study site, as outlined in Table 4.1. Beaufort West had a population of
20,053 in 2011, while Loxton had a population of 1,044, Fraserburg 3,029 and Nelspoort 1,696.
Table 4.1 Population groups in the towns surrounding the study site, 2011
Population Group Beaufort West Loxton Fraserburg Nelspoort
Black African 1 452 28 145 288
Coloured 15 624 895 2 569 1 375
Indian or Asian 107 3 18 14
White 2 741 113 288 13
Other 129 5 9 6
Total 20 053 1 044 3 029 1 696
Source: StatsSA, 2012

Between 2011 and 2016, BWLM’s dependency ratio1 showed a decreasing trend over time as an ever-larger
proportion of the population was falling into the working age group (see figure below). The dependency ratio
decreased from 59.7 in 2011 to 56.7 in 2019. The Western Cape Provincial Government had previously projected
that it would continue to reduce to 55.1 by 2024. However, more recent information suggests that this trend
reversed between 2016 and 2019, with an increase in the dependency ratio to a high in recent years of 65.
Interviews with municipal representatives indicate that this could be due to higher than anticipated rates of in-
migration over the period.

1
The dependency ratio expresses the ratio of those typically not in the labour force (being lower than the age of 15 and higher than the
age of 64) to those typically in the labour force (people of ages 15 to 64).

17
 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Population under 15

Population 15 to 64

Population over 65

2011 2016 2019

Source: WCPG, 2018a; 2018b; 2020a

Figure 4.4 Age cohorts over time in the Beaufort West Local Municipality

Between 2011 and 2016, the population of the ULM appeared to be following a similar trajectory to that of
the BWLM. Post-2016 data are not available to confirm whether this trend has continued or, as in the case of
BWLM, reversed. As in BWLM, the dependency ratio in the ULM fell from 64 in 2011 to 50 in 2016, with an
increasingly large portion of the younger population falling into the working age category.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Population under 15

Population 15 to 64

Population over 65

2011 2016

Source: StatsSA, 2011; 2016

Figure 4.5 Age cohorts over time in the Ubuntu Local Municipality
The dependency ratio in the KHLM fell from 61 in 2011 to 56 in 2016, following a similar trend to ULM, although
less pronounced. More recent data are not available to determine whether this trend has continued.

18
 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Population under 15

Population 15 to 64

Population over 65

2011 2016

Source: StatsSA, 2011; 2016

Figure 4.6 Age cohorts over time in KHLM

4.3. Employment and sectors

BWLM’s unemployment rate was around 24.2% in 2019, which is the highest unemployment rate in the CKD.
The local municipality’s trend has for the most part been consistent with that of the district municipality as
well as that of the province at least since 2008 (see Figure 4.7).

30

25

20

15

10

0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Beaufort West Local Municipality Central Karoo District Municipality Western Cape Province

Source: WCPG, 2019; 2020a

Figure 4.7 The unemployment rate in BWLM and CKDM over time

Recent employment data are not available for ULM, PkSDM or KHLM. The 2011 census revealed that in that
year the unemployment rate in ULM was 29.1% and in PkSDM, 28.3%. The youth unemployment rate in 2011
was 34.8% in ULM and 35.4% in PkSDM. For the KHLM, unemployment data is outlined in Figure 4.8, which
shows that the unemployment rate peaked around 2003 and has been falling since. However, recent data is
not available and there is reason to suspect that this trend may not have continued following the impact of

19
the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown restrictions, which have tended to increase unemployment in other
places where the impact has been measured.

Source: KHLM, 2017

Figure 4.8 The unemployment rate in KHLM over time

The sector which contributes most to employment in BWLM is wholesale and retail trade, catering and
accommodation. This sector contributed 3,126 of the total of the area’s 12,515 jobs in 2018. The second
highest number of jobs was in agriculture, forestry and fisheries which employed 2,421 people in that year.
Table 4.2 outlines each sector’s employment numbers in 2018 and shows the change in job numbers between
2014 and 2018.

20
Table 4.2 Sectoral contribution to employment and net employment growth per sector in Beaufort West Local
Municipality

e denotes estimate
Source: WCPG, 2020a

Most jobs in BWLM fall into the semi-skilled (43.1%) and low-skilled (36.4%) categories with skilled jobs making
up only 20.5% of jobs in the area (see Table 4.3).
Table 4.3 Sectoral contribution to employment and net employment growth per sector in Beaufort West Local
Municipality

e denotes estimate
Source: WCPG, 2020a

4.4. Education levels

The proportion of people over the age of 20 years who have obtained a matric certificate increased in the
2011 to 2016 period at both the local and district municipality scales (See Figure 4.9). This indicates that basic
education levels have improved in the study area during this time. The proportion of people who have
obtained some form of higher education has however decreased over the same period, at both the local and
district municipality scales. This metric, previously published by StatsSA, is not available for either BWLM or
CKDM in recent years.

21
 100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2011 2016 2011 2016
Beaufort West Local Municipality Central Karoo District Municipality
Higher education 7% 4% 7% 3%
Matric 24% 32% 22% 30%
No schooling 10% 5% 10% 6%

Source: Stats SA, 2012; Stats SA, 2017

Figure 4.9 Education levels in those over 20 years old in BWLM and CKDM, 2011 and 2016

Statistics published by the Western Cape Government indicate that learner enrolment has been increasing
gradually in recent years (WCPG, 2020a). This is a promising trend. However, while the demand for education
has risen, supply has decreased according to the measure of the number of public ordinary schools, which has
fallen by one per year over the 2018–2019 period. This combination of trends has resulted in higher learner-
teacher ratios in the municipality, at 1:33.2 in 2019 (higher than the provincial average of 1:30.5 and the
national average of 29.3).
According to StatsSA the proportion of people in ULM over the age of 20 years with no schooling fell from 16%
to 12% over the 2011–2016 period. For the PkSDM this figure decreased similarly from 15% to 12%. At the
same time, the proportion of people who have attained a matric certificate had increased for both ULM and
PkSDM during these years. The proportion of people who had attained some form of higher education had
meanwhile fallen (See Figure 4.10). More recent data has not been published on the above-reported metrics
at either the district or local municipality-level in the Northern Cape.

22
 100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2011 2016 2011 2016
Ubuntu Local Municipality Pixley ka Seme District Municipality
Higher education 6% 4% 6% 5%
Matric 19% 23% 21% 24%
No schooling 16% 12% 15% 12%
Source: Stats SA, 2012; Stats SA, 2017

Figure 4.10 Education levels in those over 20 years old in ULM and PkSDM, 2011 and 2016

Education trends in the KHLM and NDM are more or less in line with those in the ULM and PkSDM and the
BWLM and CKDM over the 2011–2016 period. Detailed data are available in Figure 4.11.

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2011 2016 2011 2016
Karoo Hoogland Local Municipality Namakwa District Municipality
Higher education 8% 12% 7% 8%
Matric 16% 26% 19% 24%
No schooling 17% 13% 7% 4%

Source: Stats SA, 2012; Stats SA, 2017

Figure 4.11 Education levels in those over 20 years old in KHLM and NDM, 2011 and 2016

4.5. Availability of municipal services

Access to basic services has improved over time both at the local and district municipality levels, except in the
case of water. The data in Figure 4.12 was assembled based on statistics generated by StatsSA for 2011 and
2016, as well as 2019 statistics generated by Quantec and reported in the Western Cape Treasury’s 2020 socio-

23
economic profile for Beaufort West. According to this data, a greater proportion of households had access to
a flush toilet connected to sewerage, weekly refuse removal and electricity and lighting in 2016 as compared
to 2011 throughout the local and district municipalities. This progression was somewhat reversed in the 2016–
2019 period, with relatively more households not having access to electricity for lighting in recent years. The
greatest relative improvement over the 2011–2016 period was in the proportion of households with a flush
toilet connected to sewerage, which increased from 83% to 95% in the BWLM and from 78% to 94% in the
CKDM over the period. This trend, too, was reversed in more recent years. However, the proportion of
households with piped water inside their dwelling fell from 81% to 78% in BWLM and from 77% to 74% in
CKDM between 2011 and 2016, but apparently increased to 98% in 2019 for both BWLM and CKDM. Interviews
with municipal representatives suggest that in-migration of poor families has led to the expansion of informal
settlements where the provision of service delivery remains relatively low.

120%

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%
2011 2016 2019 2011 2016 2019
Beaufort West Local Municipality Central Karoo District Municipality
Flush toilet connected to sewerage 83% 95% 93% 78% 94% 90%
Weekly refuse removal 84% 92% 84% 79% 91% 84%
Piped water inside dwelling 81% 78% 98% 77% 74% 98%
Electricity for lighting 92% 96% 93% 89% 95% 93%
Source: Stats SA, 2012; Stats SA, 2017; WCPG, 2020a

Figure 4.12 Access to key municipal services in BWLM and CKDM, 2011, 2016 and 2019

According to the Western Cape Government, there are relatively few informal houses in either the BWLM or
in the CKDM. In the BWLM, 99.6% of households live in formal dwellings, which is a slightly higher proportion
of households than the CKDM with 97.8%.
For the 2011–2016 period, service delivery in the ULM and PkSDM shows a similar trend to that seen in BWLM
and CKDM. During this period, Figure 4.13 shows that service delivery in ULM and PkSDM had improved in all
areas except in terms of the number of households who have access to piped water inside their dwellings. This
was likely the result of water provision not keeping pace with the growing number of households in the local
as well as the district municipality. More recent figures are not available.

24
 100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2011 2016 2011 2016
Ubuntu Local Municipality Pixley ka Seme District Municipality
Flush toilet connected to sewerage 64% 75% 66% 73%
Weekly refuse removal 67% 75% 73% 74%
Piped water inside dwelling 49% 46% 47% 45%
Electricity for lighting 85% 90% 85% 90%
Source: Stats SA, 2012; Stats SA, 2017

Figure 4.13 Access to key municipal services in ULM and PkSDM, 2011 and 2016

In contrast to service delivery trends in the ULM, PkSDM, BWLM and CKDM, the KHLM and NDM have
experienced more mixed results with regards to changes in service delivery levels between 2011 and 2016.
Both the local and district municipalities have seen improvements in the proportions of households which
have access to piped water inside their dwellings. More detailed data are shown in Figure 4.14 below. As in
the case of PkSDM and ULM, more recent data are not available.

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2011 2016 2011 2016
Karoo Hoogland Local Municipality Namakwa District Municipality
Flush toilet connected to sewerage 40% 40% 58% 68%
Weekly refuse removal 63% 58% 80% 82%
Piped water inside dwelling 60% 75% 63% 71%
Electricity for lighting 66% 68% 87% 88%

Source: Stats SA, 2012; Stats SA, 2017

25
Figure 4.14 Access to key municipal services in KHLM and NDM, 2011 and 2016

4.6. Health
Assessing access to health services is key to understanding well-being and poverty. According to StatsSA, 75%
of South Africans rely on public health services, while the remaining 25% make use of private facilities. The
number and types of public healthcare facilities available in BWLM and CKDM are outlined in Figure 4.15.

PHC Clinics (Fixed)

PHC Clinics (Satelite and Mobile)

Community Day Centres

PHC facilities (Fixed clinics, CHCs and CDCs)

District hospitals

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

CKDM BWLM

Source: WCPG, 2020a

Figure 4.15 Public healthcare facilities in the study area

The following healthcare facilities provide treatment in the BWLM:

• Murraysburg Primary Healthcare Centre (PHC)

• Nelspoort PHC
• Nieuveldpark PHC
• Kwa Mandlenkosi PHC
• Hillside Clinic PHC (constructed in 2016/17)
• Merweville Satellite Clinic
• Beaufort West CDC
• Murraysburg Mobile Clinic
• Nelspoort Mobile Clinic
• Beaufort West Mobile Clinic
• Merweville Mobile Clinic
• Beaufort West District Hospital
• Murraysburg District Hospital
• Nelspoort Specialised Hospital

Direct provision of public health services is complemented by service provision more broadly. This is noted in
the PkSDM Health Profile, with inadequate provision of basic services such as water and wastewater treatment
being stressed as having dire implications for the health status of communities.

26
Another major concern in the study area is HIV/AIDS and Tuberculosis (TB) treatment and care. BWLM’s latest
IDP revision notes the importance of providing preventative care to vulnerable communities. This preventative
care is provided by government and consists primarily of condom distributions and campaigns to encourage
the practice of safe sex. In terms of providing treatment, government provides antiretroviral therapy (ART) to
people living with HIV. There were a total of 1,524 people receiving ART in BWLM in 2019, up from 1,499 in
2018. The total number in the CKDM was 2,050 in 2019. The CKDM socio-economic profile, published by the
Western Cape Treasury, notes that the number of newly registered ART patients declined from 207 in 2018 to
164 in 2019. The report suggests that this may indicate a declining level of prevalence, although specific data
on prevalence rates are not available to verify this.
Similar to the BWLM, communities living in the ULM also face challenges with respect to HIV/AIDS and TB.
According to the latest available information, the ULM currently has 3 clinics and 2 Community Health Centres,
no district hospital (for Pikley ka Seme District these are located in the Emthanjeni, Siyancuma and Siyathemba
Local Municipalities), no Mobile Clinics and no Satellite Clinics (HST, no date). The ULM IDP identifies the
following issues in the local health sector:
• “Inadequate health facilities
• Limited medical staff (Doctors & Nurses)
• Limited equipment’s
• Underutilized facility
• Shortage of ambulances
• Arrogance” (ULM, 2021)
The latest available information indicates that the KHM has 3 PHC clinics and 2 Mobile Clinics.
Municipalities continue to address health issues facing communities through the provision of health services
and through the continued training of Community Health Workers. In addition to treating HIV/AIDS, facilities
provide immunisation for children (CKDM’s immunisation rate was 74.9% in 2016). Other challenges faced by
communities include a higher than anticipated neo-natal mortality rate – 13.4 neonatal deaths per 1000 live
births for CKDM in 2019, up from 14 in 2016 (the target had been set at 6 or less). The neonatal death rate for
BWLM is lower, at 8.4 deaths per live birth.

4.7. Local and regional socio-economic growth and development plans/priorities

In terms of future economic development goals, the 2021-2022 review of the 2017-2022 Integrated
Development Plan (IDP) of the BWLM is most instructive. According to this plan, the Municipal Strategic
Programme is aligned to 5 Key Performance Areas:

• “KPA 1: Basic service delivery and infrastructure development

• KPA 2: Economic development
• KPA 3: Institutional development and municipal transformation
• KPA 4: Financial viability and management
• KPA 5: Good governance and community participation”

KPA 2 above (economic development) is linked to the following strategies:

• “To use municipal and government funded projects as means to create jobs and reduce poverty
• To facilitate development and growth of SMME's
• To establish and strengthen LED Structures
• To facilitate Education and Skills Development for Cooperatives & SMME's
• To provide SMME Support and Capacity building
• To manage and enhance the performance of the municipality”

27
At the district level, the Central Karoo District Municipality IDP 2017-2022, 2nd Review 2021–2022, highlights
the following projects, identified in the District LED Strategy:
• “Infrastructure development to increase access for businesses and households;
• Business support programmes to retain existing businesses and encourage start-up or relocating
businesses to enter the area;
• Spatial planning to promote land acquisition and property development for businesses and
households;
• Skills programmes to respond to business and government for greater productivity and efficiency; and
• Social development programmes to increase participation in the local economy and build better
lifestyles for the community.”

The CKDM IDP goes on to mention the importance of establishing an LED unit to coordinate activities, as well as
the Economic Recovery Plan being drafted to respond to the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Ubuntu Local Municipality 2017-2022 & 2020/21 Draft IDP outlines the following strategic objectives
associated with National Key Performance Area 2: Local Economic Development:
“a. Private Sector Investment Upliftment & Acceleration
b. Public Sector Investment Upliftment & Acceleration
c. Tourism Upliftment & Acceleration
d. Agriculture & Agri-processing Upliftment & Acceleration
e. Industry Upliftment & Acceleration
f. Commerce Upliftment & Acceleration
g. SMME Upliftment & Acceleration
h. Industrial & Commercial Economic Zone Establishment” (ULM, 2021: 44)

The Key Performance Areas put forward in the 2017–2022 KHLM IDP, 2021–2022 Review are as follows:

• “KPA 1: Basic service delivery

• KPA 2: Local Economic development
• KPA 3: Financial viability
• KPA 4: Institutional development and municipal transformation
• KPA 5: Good governance and community participation”

In the area of KPA 2: Local Economic Development, the following strategic objectives are listed:

• “Transform Urban areas to vibrant economic centres that are safe and secure
• Promote growth and diversification of the local economy
• Promote BBBEE development
• Promote healthy living and working environments
• Promote social cohesion through economic and social development”

5. IDENTIFICATION OF IMPACTS
Aside from a review of the compatibility of the project with local, regional and national socio-economic
development plans and the financial viability/risks associated with it (broad level review), the following impacts
have been identified as relevant for assessment based on the guidelines for socio-economic specialist inputs,
the nature of the project, stakeholder inputs and the receiving environment:

Construction phase impacts:

1. Impacts on regional employment and household income associated with project activities and
expenditure.

28
 2. Impacts associated primarily with the influx of people including job seekers.
3. Impacts on surrounding landowners and communities.
4. Impacts on tourism.
5. Impacts on property values.

Operations phase impacts:

1. Impacts on regional employment and household income associated with project activities and
expenditure.
2. Impacts on local socio-economic development, enterprise development and shareholding.
3. Impacts associated primarily with the influx of people including job seekers.
4. Impacts on surrounding landowners and communities.
5. Impacts on tourism.
6. Impacts on property values.

Decommissioning phase impacts

1. Impacts on regional employment and household income associated with project activities and
expenditure.
2. Impacts associated primarily with the influx of people including job seekers.
3. Impacts on surrounding landowners and communities.
4. Impacts on tourism.
5. Impacts on property values.

Cumulative impacts
1. Impacts on regional employment and household income associated with project activities and
expenditure.
2. Impacts on local socio-economic development, enterprise development and shareholding.
3. Impacts associated primarily with the influx of people including job seekers.
4. Impacts on surrounding landowners and communities.
5. Impacts on tourism.
6. Impacts on property values.

Note that the above choice of impact categories aims to limit overlap with other specialist studies and is
therefore partially informed by the nature and scope of the work conducted by other specialists contributing to
the EIA. In particular, impacts on agriculture and those associated with traffic are not a focus of this report as
they are dealt with by other relevant specialists in their studies.

A separate assessment of impacts specifically on property values is provided which needs to be treated with
caution as impacts on property values tend to be a secondary reflection of other primary impacts already
assessed. For example, primary negative impacts on tourism and impacts on surrounding landowners and
communities, which are assessed separately, may also be reflected in property value changes. Considering
impacts on property values as additional to other primary impacts therefore increases the chances of double
counting impacts.

29
6. ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS
This section provides an assessment of the identified impacts and suggests suitable management and mitigation
actions aimed to avoid or reduce negative impacts or to enhance positive benefits. The impact assessment
considers all infrastructure associated with the wind farm development, as presented in Table 1-1.

Summary impact rating tables are provided in Section 6 based on the methodology for assessment of impact
significance provided by the EAP outlined in Appendix A.

The purpose of this study is to identify potential impacts that may occur during the construction, operational
and decommissioning phases of development. The decommissioning phase of the project at the end of its design
life would be of similar duration to the construction phase. Note that operational phase impacts were assessed
under the assumption that they would cease after 20 years and that the assessment of decommissioning
consequently does not include a consideration of impacts associated with the cessation of operations.

It should be noted that decommissioning may not necessarily occur after the 20-year minimum life cycle of the
project. Instead, the facility may undergo a regeneration/refurbishment in which turbine components other
project elements are upgraded or replaced. This would result in temporary positive impacts including those from
additional expenditure and temporary employment, as well as risks. Following the regeneration, operational
impacts similar to those experienced during the first 20 years of operations would continue to occur. Aside from
this discussion, assessing the impacts from a potential regeneration phase are beyond the scope of this
assessment and the probability of this phase occurring is unknown.

6.1. Compatibility with policy and planning guidance

The proposed project’s key strategic objectives can be summarised as providing additional electricity generation
capacity whilst meeting national renewable energy and climate change targets. This section contextualises the
project with respect to these objectives along with a wider consideration of the project’s fit or compatibility with
socio-economic and associated spatial development planning objectives and guidance.

6.1.1. Energy policy imperatives and the environment

Historically, South Africa has relied heavily on non-renewable fossils fuels (primarily coal) for energy generation
purposes. This reliance remains a key feature of the current energy mix with about 87% of our electricity
generation needs met by non-renewables. Given our abundance of coal reserves relative to most other
countries, it is not particularly surprising that our energy mix favours coal and it is to be expected that coal will
remain dominant at least in the short and medium term. However, substantial improvements in cost-
effectiveness, imperatives with regard to global warming, other environmental impacts associated with fossil
fuels and energy security have elevated renewable energy solutions.

In recent years the cost of renewables has fallen drastically. Figure 6.1 shows that between bid windows 4 and
5, the average price of electricity purchased through REIPPPP fell by 54% (Magoro, 2021). The result is that the
levelized cost of renewables is now lower than any other form of electricity generation. For the first time in
history, the argument in favour of renewables can now be made on purely on grounds of financial feasibility.

30
Figure 6.1 REIPPP average bid prices in April 2021 terms

In addition to the financial argument, most governments in the global community now recognise that the roll-
out of renewable energy will be needed among a number of other actions to curb global warming. Furthermore,
the South African renewable energy industry is now a major economic sector contributing to socio-economic
development goals in a sustainable manner.

With the above in mind, South African longer-term energy policy has rapidly changed from one that did very
little to encourage renewable energy to one that actively encourages it. The first draft version of the national
Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) released in 2010 set a target for 30% of new generation to come from renewables
by 2030. This was subsequently increased to a target of 42% from renewables in the final IRP approved by
cabinet in 2011. The 2019 IRP proposes that renewable energy will play an increasingly significant role in South
Africa’s energy mix. By 2030, wind energy should contribute 17.8% of total energy (from an installed capacity of
17,742 MW), solar should contribute 7% while coal contributes 59%. Reaching these targets will require
substantial investment in new renewable projects.

In order to facilitate the roll-out of renewable energy and meet ambitious targets, the Renewable Energy
Independent Power Producers Procurement Programme (REIPPPP) was launched in 2011 to replace the
previously mooted Renewable Energy Feed-In Tariff (REFIT) programme. Through the REIPPPP, aspirant
renewable energy developers bid for contracts in terms of which government commits to purchase power from
them in keeping with national targets. The REIPPPP has the following key features:
1. A two-phase tender system in which bidders must first meet qualification criteria (including legal,
environmental and financial requirements) and will then be evaluated on bid price and economic-
development objectives.
2. The programme's evaluation criteria currently scores 90% on price and 10% on a range of socio-
economic development requirements (previously 70% price and 30% socio-economic development).

It is expected that the sixth round of the REIPPPP will be undertaken in 2022.

In summary, the policy case for the roll-out of renewable energy in South Africa has been made at a national
and provincial government level using arguments that are in line with international policy trends, the National
Development Plan 2030 and Integrated Resources Plan. Targets that include wind energy have been set through
the REIPPPP in order to encourage such projects. Aside from impacts on the achievement of national goals and
policy imperatives, the project also has the potential to contribute to greater energy supply stability and security
to the benefit of local residential electricity consumers as well as farmers and businesses due to it contributing
to the improvement of the national electricity grid and supply.

31
6.1.2. Strategic spatial planning for solar and wind areas in South Africa
The project achieves a relatively high degree of compatibility with national strategic planning focused on
renewable energy and associated grid infrastructure development.

Phase 1 of a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) commissioned by the then Department of Environmental
Affairs (DEA) identified Renewable Energy Development Zones (REDZs) for the roll-out of wind and solar energy
in South Africa. The identification of these zones is aimed at enabling the development of large-scale wind and
solar energy facilities in a manner that avoids or minimises significant negative impact on the environment while
being commercially attractive and maximizing socio-economic benefit to the country. Phase 2 of the SEA
includes additional REDZs which have recently been gazetted (see Figure 6.2).

The Hoogland Southern Cluster falls 90% within “REDZ11” (Hoogland 4 is 100% in the REDZ and Hoogland 3 is
approximately 80% in the REDZ) which is one of the REDZs in the Phase 2 REDZ (see the following Figure). This
is the only Phase 2 REDZ that is exclusively for wind energy. The Southern Grid Connection also falls partly within
the Central Transmission Corridor identified as part of the National Electricity Grid Infrastructure Strategic
Environmental Assessment (DEA, 2016) and subsequently gazetted, as well as partly within the REDZ11. The
Northern Cluster falls just to the north outside of the REDZ II and the Central Transmission Corridor, with the
Northern Grid Connection having a slight overlap with the REDZ II and the Central Transmission Corridor. Overall,
the project therefore achieves relatively close alignment with national renewable energy spatial planning.

Source: DEA 2019

Note: Phase 2 Proposed REDZs in map were subsequently accepted and gazetted without alterations

32
Figure 6.2 Renewable Energy Development Zones identified in the Strategic Environmental Assessment for the wind
and solar energy Phase 2 and Transmission Corridors

6.1.3. Socio-economic development and spatial planning

Socio-economic development imperatives inform spatial planning imperatives. A critical aspect of socio-
economic desirability is thus whether the proposed development complements economic planning as reflected
in spatial development planning. Integrated Development Plans (IDPs) and their accompanying Spatial
Development Frameworks (SDFs) are particularly important in this regard. SDFs are central to economic
development planning and serve to guide overall development in a direction that local and provincial authorities
see as desirable. Indeed, the basic purpose of an SDF is to specify the spatial implications of IDPs, with a focus
on optimising economic opportunities and other strategic objectives.

Alignment with SDFs, structure plans and other planning documents is a robust way of ensuring economic and
social feasibility. Projects that do achieve close alignment are more likely to ensure that positive impacts are
optimised, reducing the likelihood of externalities on other stakeholders and productive sectors. Where projects
do not achieve alignment with existing planning, there should be clear and compelling reasons why a deviation
from planning should be considered.

The following provincial and regional planning documents were found to be of relevance and were consequently
reviewed:

• Western Cape SDF 2014

• Northern Cape SDF 2012, updated in 2018
• Central Karoo District Municipality IDP 2021/22
• Central Karoo District Municipality SDF 2014 and draft SDF 2019
• Namakwa District Municipality IDP 2021/22
• Namakwa District Municipality Rural Development Plan 2017
• Beaufort West Local Municipality IDP 2021/22
• Beaufort West Local Municipality SDF 2013
• Ubuntu Local Municipality IDP 2020/21
• Karoo Hoogland Local Municipality IDP 2021/22
• Karoo Hoogland Local Municipality SDF 2019

Provincial planning

The Western Cape SDF recognises the importance of the province’s cultural and scenic landscapes as assets that
underpin the tourism economy. As part of the SDF, a spatial mapping exercise was carried out to identify
landscapes and routes of particular importance, considering their rural, archaeological, agricultural and natural
significance. Figure 6.3 shows the project site, ~45km north of Beaufort West, falls completely within the white
area, which was not identified by the provincial SDF as particularly important as a cultural landscape. It should
be noted, however, that wilderness / natural landscapes (represented by the colour green) do occur south of
the project site (DEAD&P, 2014).

In terms of scenic routes, the R381 between Beaufort West and Loxton was identified in the Provincial SDF as a
‘Primary scenic route’. It is therefore represented by the red line in Figure 6.3. As the project is in the immediate
vicinity of this route, this raises the issue of the potential for some impact on sense of place and tourism. This
issue is discussed further in Section 6.6.

33
Figure 6.3 Scenic landscapes and routes identified in the Western Cape SDF, 2014

The Northern Cape SDF was based on a comprehensive analysis of the province and its regions. It recognises the
importance of the province’s diverse human, natural and built capital and develops a spatial vision to guide
development at a high level. The SDF was first drafted at the beginning of the development of renewable energy
projects in South Africa. It recognises the potential for renewables development in large parts of the province
balanced with conservation and tourism.
District planning

The Central Karoo District SDF of 2014 echoes the provincial SDF in highlighting the importance of the R381
between Beaufort West and Loxton as having significance as a scenic route (AECOM, 2014). However, the most
recent draft SDF, which was published for public input in 2019, does not make mention of this route, except
insofar as it is identified as a priority for improving rural accessibility and mobility for people and goods in
support of a resilient economy (CKDM, 2019).

The 2019 draft SDF further acknowledges that “there are several on-shore wind and solar energy projects which
are currently being planned for the District” (pg. 53), and further states that “opportunities exist for expanding
renewable energy projects related to solar and wind power in the Central Karoo.” (pg. 55)

The Namakwa District has a Rural Development Framework which balances various development priorities
including agriculture, tourism and mining. It lists renewable energy generation as one of six development
priorities within the area (DRDLR, 2017).

The Karoo Readiness Action Plan for Large-scale Development (DEA&DP, 2021) does not provide spatial planning
guidance useful for assessing the project’s fit with policy. It is, however, useful in terms of impact mitigation
measures for municipalities. It evaluates government’s readiness to respond to the foreseen increase in service
delivery associated with large-scale, or regional, development proposals such as shale gas development (SGD),
uranium-molybdenum mining and renewable energy developments in the Central Karoo. It then aims to identify
interventions/actions to be implemented within the short to medium term (i.e. the next 5 to 10 years), as well
as the roles and responsibilities of municipalities, provincial and national government in readiness for these
potential large-scale developments.

34
Local planning

The Beaufort West Municipality Spatial Development Framework (SDF) was found to be most relevant with
respect to planning at the local level. It was completed in 2013 and builds on the 2011 Urban Restructuring
Framework. The SDF acknowledges the need for the development of renewable energy. However, two closely
related constraining factors were identified in the Municipal SDF. The first is the high level of biological diversity
and ecological connectivity present in the Northern part of the Municipality, where the project site is located.
This factor is partly a function of the topographical character of the area and is therefore closely related to its
sense of place, which is considered scenic and therefore of relevance for tourism (CNdV Africa, 2013).

From an ecological perspective, the area’s importance is recognised in the 2013 SDF and refined in the Western
Cape Biodiversity Spatial Plan of 2017 as outlined in the Terrestrial Ecology Assessment Reports. The Report
shows that the wider project area includes Critical Biodiversity Areas and Ecological Support Areas. Given the
close links between tourism, sense of place, and ecological conditions, the iterations of turbine layouts and
power line alignments that respond to ecological constraints taking into account the recommendations of the
Terrestrial Ecology Specialist, are critical.

According to the Beaufort West Municipal SDF, the Nuweveld Highlands contain “romantic landscapes with
rolling hills and mountains” (Pg. 77). The area is therefore identified as a biodiversity and eco-tourism sub-
region. The SDF encourages “the extension of the Karoo National Park and the existing conservancies including
accommodation opportunities focusing on Critical Biodiversity Areas” (Pg. 209). Furthermore, as with the
Provincial SDF and the older District SDF, the Municipal SDF identifies the R381 between Beaufort West and
Loxton as a “Scenic Gravel Route” (CNdV Africa, 2013: 218)

On the topic of how best to manage development in future, the SDF states that “[t]he Department of
Environmental Affairs and Development (DEA&DP) should ensure the protection of these cultural and scenic
landscapes through the preparation of design guidelines for new development” (CNdV, 2013: 217). The SDF goes
on to outline guidance for the development of Wind Farms, to ensure that their impact on the potential of the
surrounding landscape (in broad terms) is minimised. This guidance is largely in keeping with the visual and
ecological sensitivity mapping being undertaken for this Environmental Authorisation process.

The 2020/21 Ubuntu Municipality IDP Review provides some context around socio-economic development in
this local municipality that borders the project site to the north and includes the towns of Loxton and Victoria
West. According to this document, the following strategic objectives have been set for the municipality in the
area of local economic development:

“a. Private Sector Investment Upliftment & Acceleration

b. Public Sector Investment Upliftment & Acceleration
c. Tourism Upliftment & Acceleration
d. Agriculture & Agri-processing Upliftment & Acceleration
e. Industry Upliftment & Acceleration
f. Commerce Upliftment & Acceleration
g. SMME Upliftment & Acceleration
h. Industrial & Commercial Economic Zone Establishment”

The Ubuntu Municipality has therefore prioritised upliftment and acceleration in the tourism and agriculture
sectors, but also in SMME upliftment, industry and commerce more broadly.

Also of relevance is the Karoo Hoogland Local Municipality SDF. This document points out the conservation and
ecological importance of the small portion of Hoogland 3 Wind Farm which is the only Hoogland project falling
within its boundaries (within this smaller portion of Hoogland 3, there is a smaller section of land that is classed

35
within the SDF as ‘Critical Biodiversity Area One’). A detailed assessment of this is provided in the Terrestrial
Ecology Assessment Report for the Southern Wind Farm Cluster.

Discussion

Considered as a whole, the planning documents reviewed recognise the importance of integrated and diversified
economic development that makes optimal use of each area’s comparative advantages and creates economic
opportunities. The concept of a renewable energy project is therefore broadly supported provided
environmental impacts and impacts on other land uses and potentials are acceptable. However, some
potentially constraining spatial factors were identified in the documents, including some tension over the kind
of development considered appropriate for the Nuweveld Highlands. These findings have been used to guide
the remainder of this assessment of socio-economic impacts and in particular those on sense of place and
associated tourism.

6.2. Financial viability and risks

Long-term positive economic impacts can only flow from a project that is financially sustainable (i.e. financially
viable in the long term with enough income to cover costs). The REIPPPP essentially ensures that once a
renewable project is operational there is relatively low levels of financial risks in order to encourage these
types of projects. The Project is thus highly likely to prove financially viable assuming it is able to secure a long-
term contract through the REIPPPP and then proceed to control its costs and meet revenue and other
expectations.
As mentioned previously, under the REIPPPP competitive bidding process, the relevant authorities will only be
offering limited producers long term power purchase contracts. The Project will therefore have to compete
with other projects. At this stage it is not possible to determine whether the Project will be one of those chosen
- the adjudication process will determine this. The existence of a number of alternative wind energy
developers and sites, from around the country, looking to access REIPPPP contracts means that the state can
be selective in allocating contracts to those projects and project alternatives that meet stringent qualification
criteria and offer the cheapest electricity and highest socio-economic development commitments.
The balance between financial benefits and costs are thus likely to be positive for the applicant and landowner
partners barring unforeseen risks. The remainder of this report focuses on the economic impacts (including
costs and benefits) that would accrue to wider society in order to provide information on the overall economic
desirability of the project.

6.3. Impacts from expenditure on the construction and operation of the project
The construction and operational phases of the project would both result in positive spending injections into
the area that would lead to increased economic activity best measured in terms of impacts on employment
and associated incomes. Bear in mind that at this stage of project planning estimates of expenditure and
employee needs are generally tentative and not detailed resulting in a broad level of assessment but
underpinned by experience obtained from work done on other wind farm and powerline developments.
All new expenditures will lead to linked direct, indirect and induced impacts. Taking employment as an
example, impacts would be direct where people are employed directly on the project in question (e.g. jobs
such as construction workers), indirect - where the direct expenditure associated with a project can lead to
jobs and incomes in other sectors (e.g. purchasing building materials maintains jobs in that sector) and induced
where jobs are created due to the expenditure of employees and other consumers that gained from the
project. Direct impacts are the most important of these three categories as they are the largest and most likely
create change in the local area. Their estimation also involves the lowest level of uncertainty. The
quantification of indirect and induced impacts is a far less certain exercise due to uncertainty surrounding

36
accurate multipliers particularly at a local and regional level (as each area and community has its own
nuances). This uncertainty makes it inadvisable to quantify indirect employment unless an in-depth analysis is
required. Potential direct employment impacts are consequently quantified here and likely indirect impacts
are considered in a qualitative sense when providing overall impact ratings.

6.3.1. Construction phase impacts

Construction expenditure would not displace other investment and would constitute a positive injection of
new investment. During the construction phase the civil and other construction, specialised industrial
machinery and building construction sectors would benefit substantially. The development would provide a
major injection for contractors and workers in the area that would in all likelihood purchase goods and services
in the local area and the wider region.
Preliminary estimates indicate that a total of between R3 billion and R3.4 billion would be spent on the entire
construction phase including infrastructure and building construction as well as other specialised machinery
installation for each wind farm (see Table 6.1). Therefore, for both wind farms it is expected that between
R6 billion and R6.8 billion would be spent. The local area would benefit primarily from expenditure on civils,
roads and buildings. The majority of the more technical components of the facility would need to be imported
as these items are not currently available in South Arica. During the fifth round of the IPP bidding process, the
DMRE set a minimum threshold for South African content at 40%. Thresholds and targets for the sixth round
of the bidding process have yet to be published but are likely to of a similar magnitude. Development of
domestic industry around inputs to renewable energy projects has been slow, largely due to policy
uncertainty. Notwithstanding the need for imports, the construction of the project represents a significant
investment spread over roughly 18 to 24 months. Note that estimates are only meant to give an approximate
indication of potential expenditure and are subject to revision.
Table 6.1: Construction expenditure estimate and likely allocation per area for each wind farm

Duration of
Spend in 2021 rands spread over
construction
construction phase
phase
Wind farm
Civils, roads and buildings R 970 000 000 - R 1 180 000 000
Machinery and equipment R 2 040 000 000 - R 2 260 000 000 18 - 24 months
Total R 3 010 000 000 - R 3 440 000 000

On local suppliers within 50km R 30 000 000 - R 34 000 000

On suppliers in the rest of the Western Cape R 512 000 000 - R 585 000 000
On suppliers in the rest of South Africa R 993 000 000 - R 1 135 000 000
On imports* R 1 475 000 000 - R 1 686 000 000
Total R 3 010 000 000 - R 3 440 000 000

Standard construction industry estimates for labour required were used to estimate direct temporary
employment during construction. Table 6.2 outlines employment that would be associated with the main
components of the construction phase over 18 to 24 months for each wind farm. Roughly 160 to 200 jobs of
18 to 24-month duration would be associated with the entire construction period. As with expenditure, the
estimates are not to be regarded as highly accurate and are meant to give an indication of potential impacts.
Once the final tenders are received, construction plans will be finalised and the exact figures will become
clearer.
In keeping with the goal set out in the DMRE scorecard for potential REIPPPP bidders, the applicant intends
sourcing as high a possible portion of construction employees from the local area followed by the region and
then the province, with the aim of ensuring local communities derive the greatest benefit.

37
Table 6.2: Estimated direct temporary employment during construction

Number of workers
Duration of
Highly Medium Low
Employment categories Total employment
skilled skilled skilled
Wind farm
Civils, roads and buildings 6 - 8 14 - 18 16 - 20 36 - 46 18 - 24 months
Machinery and equipment 21 - 26 48 - 60 55 - 68 124 - 154 18 - 24 months
Total 27 - 33 62 - 78 71 - 89 160 - 200

Table 6.3 below presents estimates of how much employment is likely to go to workers from different areas.
It is anticipated that approximately 56 to 71 temporary jobs would be allocated to workers from the local
municipal area and a further 60 to 75 jobs to workers from the rest of the province given the project’s skills
profile.
Table 6.3: Employment per area during construction

Construction workers

Highly skilled Medium skilled Low skilled Total

Wind farm
Anticipated % of workers from the local municipal area 5% 20% 60%
Number from the local municipal area 1- 2 12.4 - 15.6 42.6 - 53.4 56 - 71

Anticipated % of workers from the rest of the province 25% 40% 40%
Number from the rest of the province 7- 8 24.8 - 31.2 28.4 - 35.6 60 - 75

Anticipated % of workers from the rest of South Africa 67% 40% 0%

Number from rest of SA 18 - 22 24.8 - 31.2 0- 0 43 - 53

Anticipated % of workers from overseas 3% 0% 0%

Number from overseas 1- 1 0- 0 0- 0 1- 1

Total 27 - 33 62 - 78 71 - 89 160 - 200

Direct household income impacts would flow from all wages paid during construction. These were estimated
by multiplying the projected number of direct jobs associated with the project above by assumed average
monthly salaries for each skill category (i.e. R6,500 for low skilled, R27,000 for medium skilled and R64,500 for
highly skilled employees). Again, these estimates are to be treated as indicators. The results of this exercise in
Table 6.4 below indicate that incomes flowing to workers would be between R3.8 million and R4.8 million for
each wind farm (7.6 million–9.6 million for both).
Table 6.4: Monthly household incomes during construction (2021 rands ‘000)

Direct income during construction (R '000) % of

Highly skilled Medium skilled Low skilled Total total
Wind farm
Workers from local municipality area R 87 - R 106 R 335 - R 421 R 277 - R 347 R 699 - R 875 18%
Worker from the rest of the province R 435 - R 532 R 670 - R 842 R 185 - R 231 R 1 290 - R 1 606 33%
Workers from the rest of SA R 1 167 - R 1 426 R 670 - R 842 R0 - R0 R 1 836 - R 2 268 47%
Workers from overseas R 52 - R 64 R0 - R0 R0 - R0 R 52 - R 64 1%
Total R 1 742 - R 2 129 R 1 508 - R 1 872 R 1 723 - R 2 139 R 3 877 - R 4 813 100%

38
In addition to the above direct employment and associated income opportunities, a significant number of
temporary indirect opportunities would also likely arise from the project. These would stem primarily from
expenditure by the project in the local area and region as well as expenditure by workers hired for the
construction phase.
Impacts during construction with the mitigation proposed would be of a medium significance given the size of
the expenditure injection, construction period and the number of potential employment and income
generation opportunities involved.
Table 6.5: Impacts from expenditure on the construction of the project

Issue Impacts from expenditure on the construction of the project

Description of Impact
Increased economic activity best measured through changes in expenditure and employment
Type of Impact Direct
Nature of Impact Positive
Phases Construction
Criteria Without Mitigation With Mitigation
Intensity Medium High
Duration Short-term Short-term
Extent Regional Regional
Consequence Medium Medium
Probability Definite / Continuous Definite / Continuous
Significance Medium + Medium +
Degree to which impact can be reversed Low
Degree to which impact may cause
Very low
irreplaceable loss of resources
Degree to which impact can be mitigated Medium
Mitigation actions
• Setting targets for how much local labour should be used based on
the needs of the applicant and the availability of existing skills and
people that are willing to undergo training. Opportunities for the
training of unskilled and skilled workers from local communities should
be maximized.
• Using local sub-contractors where possible and requiring that
contractors from outside the local area that tender also meet targets
for how many locals are given employment.
• Exploring ways to enhance local community benefits with a focus on
broad-based BEE and preferential procurement.
• Setting up a skills and services database in partnership with the local
The following measures are municipality and civil society for the local area before any hiring or
recommended: contracting decisions are made. This can help to ensure fairness and
limit potential interference in hiring processes.
• An effective employee induction programme is essential to ensuring
that new employees, some of whom will be unfamiliar with the
responsibilities of maintaining employment, are adequately prepared
and motivated to adjust to the lifestyle required of them. This
programme should incorporate life skills training as well as basic
financial literacy training.
• Counselling services should be made available to employees to ensure
that they have adequate guidance.
• Assisting smaller enterprises where possible in tendering for contracts
and in accessing finance which are common constraints to their

39
 participation in projects.
• Avoiding potential service provider decisions that may lead to abuse
or local dissatisfaction. For example, only appointing one
accommodating rental agent or one catering supplier may lead to local
dissatisfaction regarding the spreading of project benefits.
• As far as possible, avoid significant variation in salaries between
various contractors for the same types of jobs. When variations are too
high, the likelihood of dissatisfaction increases.
Monitoring
The following monitoring is Section 7 on mitigation and EMPR requirements provides details on
recommended: monitoring required for the above mitigation measures.
Cumulative impacts
Increased intensity of positive impact from multiple projects, potential
Nature of cumulative impacts for virtuous cycle of development (economies of scale for supporting
industries)
Rating of cumulative impacts Without Mitigation With Mitigation
Medium + High +

6.3.2. Operational phase impacts

Once established, the operation of the facility would result in direct and indirect economic opportunities over
a 20-year period. These would stem from expenditure on operations including expenditure on employees that
would not otherwise have occurred, particularly in the local area. It is anticipated by the applicant that
between R108 million and R119 million would be spent annually on operations for each wind farm (R216
million–R238 million for both), escalating in line with inflation (see Table 6.6).
Table 6.6: Preliminary estimate of annual operational expenditure (2021 Rands)

Annual costs once plant is fully

Operational cost categories
operational in 2021 Rands

Wind farm
Salaries and wages R 8 600 000 - R 11 830 000
Municipal services R 320 000 - R 540 000
Outsourced engineering services R 84 090 000 - R 89 250 000
Sundry supplies R 3 760 000 - R 4 840 000
Insurance, community benefits etc R 10 750 000 - R 12 900 000
Total costs once fully operational R 107 520 000 - R 119 360 000

The local area would benefit primarily from payments towards salaries and wages (of which around 65% of
payments would accrue locally) and municipal services (100 % would be paid to the local municipality). The
rest of the wider region would also likely benefit substantially from payments towards salaries and wages as
well as outsourced engineering services and sundry supplies (see Table 6.7).

40
Table 6.7: Expenditure by area during operations

% of total costs % of total costs % of total costs

that would go that would go that would go
% of total costs
Operational cost categories to local to suppliers in to suppliers in
for imports
suppliers within the rest of the the rest of
50km Western Cape South Africa

Wind farm
Salaries and wages 65% 20% 15% 0%
Municipal services 100% 0% 0% 0%
Outsourced engineering services 0% 60% 40% 0%
Sundry supplies 1% 80% 19% 0%
Insurance, community benefits etc 3% 0% 97% 0%

With regard to direct employment during the operation phase, Table 6.8 outlines what should be expected. It
is anticipated that between 40 and 60 direct employment opportunities would be created by each wind farm
(80–120 jobs for both wind farms combined) equally spread across skill levels.
Table 6.8: Employment associated with operations

Number of employees Likely annual

Highly Medium salary per
Low skilled Total
Employment categories skilled skilled employee

Site managers 2 - 3 2 - 3 R 1 075 000

Maintenance engineers 2 - 3 2 - 3 R 580 000
Maintenance workers 10 - 15 10 - 15 R 320 000
Security 12 - 18 12 - 18 R 90 000
Cleaning 2 - 3 12 - 18 14 - 21 R 75 000
Total 14 - 21 14 - 21 12 - 18 40 - 60

Site managers; 5%
Maintenance
engineers; 5%

Cleaning; 35%

Maintenance
workers; 25%

Security; 30%

41
Figure 6.4 Proportion of total employees in each employment category

It is anticipated by the applicant that for each wind farm, between 24 and 36 jobs (roughly 60% of available
opportunities) would go to residents of the local community (see Table 6.9). Available skills dictate that the
majority of the high skill positions will initially be filled by people from outside the local area and province in
some cases. It should be possible and desirable to give preference to locals in the majority of medium skill and
all low skill positions, but it should be noted that this could prove challenging due to skills shortages and other
socio-economic challenges faced by communities in the area as outlined in Section 4. Table 6.9 outlines the
major towns and settlements within the local area from which the project should be able to source labour.
These include Loxton, Beaufort West, Victoria West and Carnarvon.
Table 6.9: Operational employment per area

Operational workers

Highly skilled Medium skilled Low skilled Total

Wind farm
Anticipated % of workers from the local municipal area 5% 80% 100%
Number from the local municipal area 1- 1 11.2 - 16.8 12 - 18 24 - 36

Anticipated % of workers from the rest of the province 55% 15% 0%

Number from the rest of the province 8 - 12 2.1 - 3.15 0- 0 10 - 15

Anticipated % of workers from the rest of South Africa 39% 5% 0%

Number from rest of SA 5- 8 0.7 - 1.05 0- 0 6- 9

Anticipated % of workers from overseas 1% 0% 0%

Number from overseas 0- 0 0- 0 0- 0 0- 0

Total 14 - 21 14 - 21 12 - 18 40 - 60

Aside from these direct employment opportunities, the operational expenditure on the project (detailed
above) and the spending of those employed directly would result in positive indirect impacts on the local and
regional economy. Essentially those that secure jobs on the project would spend some portion of their
increased income on local goods and services generally purchased by households. This would benefit those
businesses where the money is spent.
In terms of agricultural incomes on the site, interviews with landowners and land managers revealed that they
expect the negative impact of the project on agricultural productivity should be negligible. While a small area
of grazing land would be lost, this area is relatively inconsequential in terms of productivity, given the extensive
nature of farming in the area, with each small livestock unit requiring in the region of 10 ha grazing land.
Farmers would also gain significant additional income from the project particularly when compared to the
quantum and reliability of income from farming. This would assist in diversifying their income and they may
use the additional income for re-investment in agricultural operations. Some of the farmers interviewed
mentioned that the drought in the area has led them to reconsider what kind of agriculture is viable over the
long run, with droughts expected to intensify under climate change. These farmers mentioned that the income
generated through participating in renewable energy projects could provide a source of capital for adjusting
their approach to agriculture, thereby allowing them to adapt to climate change. Indeed, the Agricultural
Specialist Study concludes that the project would have very low negative impacts on agriculture overall with
positive impacts through increased income and financial security for farming operations.
The potential for the project and other future wind energy projects to result in greater impacts on local
economies and the South African economy as a whole is primarily dependent on economies of scale. Currently,
import content is necessarily high. However, as the wind energy programme grows in size (aided by the
project) it should provide opportunities for manufacturing and servicing at scale and the additional benefit

42
that would flow from it. The intention of the DMRE is also clearly in this direction and it has gradually increased
local content targets with this in mind.
Impacts during operations would be positive with a high significance with mitigation at a regional scale. With
time local impacts should become more pronounced as the sourcing of goods and services becomes easier.
Table 6.10: Impacts from expenditure on the operation of the project
Issue Impacts from expenditure on the operation of the project
Description of Impact
Increased economic activity best measured through changes in expenditure and employment
Type of Impact Direct
Nature of Impact Positive
Phases Operation
Criteria Without Mitigation With Mitigation
Intensity Medium High
Duration Long-term Long-term
Extent Regional Regional
Consequence Medium High
Probability Definite / Continuous Definite / Continuous
Significance Medium + High +
Degree to which impact can be reversed Low
Degree to which impact may cause
Low
irreplaceable loss of resources
Degree to which impact can be mitigated Medium
Mitigation actions
• Setting targets for how much local labour should be used based on
the needs of the applicant and the availability of existing skills and
people that are willing to undergo training. Opportunities for the
training of unskilled and skilled workers from local communities should
be maximized.
• Using local sub-contractors where possible and requiring that
contractors from outside the local area that tender also meet targets
for how many locals are given employment.
• Exploring ways to enhance local community benefits with a focus on
broad-based BEE and preferential procurement.
• Setting up a skills and services database in partnership with the local
municipality and civil society for the local area before any hiring or
contracting decisions are made. This can help to ensure fairness and
The following measures are limit potential interference in hiring processes.
recommended: • An effective employee induction programme is essential to ensuring
that new employees, some of whom will be unfamiliar with the
responsibilities of maintaining employment, are adequately prepared
and motivated to adjust to the lifestyle required of them. This
programme should incorporate life skills training as well as basic
financial literacy training.
• Counselling services should be made available to employees to ensure
that they have adequate guidance.
• Assisting smaller enterprises where possible in tendering for contracts
and in accessing finance which are common constraints to their
participation in projects.
• Avoiding potential service provider decisions that may lead to abuse
or local dissatisfaction. For example, only appointing one
accommodating rental agent or one catering supplier may lead to local

43
 dissatisfaction regarding the spreading of project benefits.

Monitoring
The following monitoring is Section 7 on mitigation and EMPR requirements provides details on
recommended: monitoring required for the above mitigation measures.
Cumulative impacts
Increased intensity of positive impact from multiple projects, potential
Nature of cumulative impacts for virtuous cycle of development (economies of scale for supporting
industries)
Rating of cumulative impacts Without Mitigation With Mitigation
High + High +

6.3.3. Decommissioning phase impacts

Activities associated with the decommissioning of the project at the end of its design life would create
somewhat less, but essentially similar, opportunities as the construction phase in terms of temporary local
employment and other income opportunities. Note that operational phase impacts were assessed under the
assumption that they would cease after 20 years and that the impacts of decommissioning consequently do
not include a consideration of the withdrawal of the project’s operational phase benefits from the economy.
Impacts during decommissioning would be positive with a medium significance with mitigation at a regional
scale.
Table 6.11: Impacts from expenditure on the decommissioning of the project
Issue Impacts from expenditure on the decommissioning of the project
Description of Impact
Increased economic activity best measured through changes in expenditure and employment
Type of Impact Direct
Nature of Impact Positive
Phases Decommissioning
Criteria Without Mitigation With Mitigation
Intensity Medium High
Duration Short-term Short-term
Extent Regional Regional
Consequence Medium Medium
Probability Definite / Continuous Definite / Continuous
Significance Medium + Medium +
Degree to which impact can be reversed Low
Degree to which impact may cause
Low
irreplaceable loss of resources
Degree to which impact can be mitigated Medium
Mitigation actions
• Setting targets for how much local labour should be used based on
the needs of the applicant and the availability of existing skills and
people that are willing to undergo training. Opportunities for the
training of unskilled and skilled workers from local communities should
The following measures are
be maximized.
recommended:
• Using local sub-contractors where possible and requiring that
contractors from outside the local area that tender also meet targets
for how many locals are given employment.
• Exploring ways to enhance local community benefits with a focus on

44
 broad-based BEE and preferential procurement.
• Setting up a skills and services database in partnership with the local
municipality and civil society for the local area before any hiring or
contracting decisions are made. This can help to ensure fairness and
limit potential interference in hiring processes.
• An effective employee induction programme is essential to ensuring
that new employees, some of whom will be unfamiliar with the
responsibilities of maintaining employment, are adequately prepared
and motivated to adjust to the lifestyle required of them. This
programme should incorporate life skills training as well as basic
financial literacy training.
• Counselling services should be made available to employees to ensure
that they have adequate guidance.
• Assisting smaller enterprises where possible in tendering for contracts
and in accessing finance which are common constraints to their
participation in projects.
• Avoiding potential service provider decisions that may lead to abuse
or local dissatisfaction. For example, only appointing one
accommodating rental agent or one catering supplier may lead to local
dissatisfaction regarding the spreading of project benefits.
• As far as possible, avoid significant variation in salaries between
various contractors for the same types of jobs. When variations are too
high, the likelihood of dissatisfaction increases.
Monitoring
The following monitoring is Section 7 on mitigation and EMPR requirements provides details on
recommended: monitoring required for the above mitigation measures.
Cumulative impacts
Increased intensity of positive impact from multiple projects, potential
Nature of cumulative impacts for virtuous cycle of development (economies of scale for supporting
industries).
Rating of cumulative impacts Without Mitigation With Mitigation
Medium + High +

6.3.4. Cumulative impacts

Cumulative impacts would be associated with greater expenditure on all four proposed wind farms and the
two grid connection projects, as well as on the Nuweveld Wind Farm projects and gridline. If all four wind
farms go ahead, in addition to the Nuweveld Wind Farm projects and gridline, between R20.4 billion and R23.4
billion will be spent on construction, generating between 952 and 1190 jobs in the 18 to 24-month period
associated therewith. However, the construction would not likely occur all at once, so these jobs would not
necessarily materialise at the same time. During operations, between R730 million and R810 million would be
spent annually on the four wind farms as well as the Nuweveld wind farms, which would support in the vicinity
of 240 to 360 permanent full-time jobs. If both the Hoogland Southern and the Northern 132 kV grid
connections go ahead, as well as the 400kV Gridline proposed as part of the Nuweveld development, a total
of between R1.25 billion and R1.47 billion would be spent on the construction of Grid Connections for the
Hoogland and Nuweveld projects combined.
Positive cumulative impacts are also likely to stem from the fact that the project should set a positive
precedent for further investment in the area. By committing to investment in large developments, the
applicants would be casting a strong ‘vote of confidence’ in the local economy. This has the potential to
influence other investors (including locals) to also act with similar confidence thereby resulting in cumulative
impacts on overall investment levels.

45
Overall cumulative impacts could have a high positive impact for construction and operations given the size
of the investments involved relative to the size of the local economy. In a sense the projects have the potential
to lead to the ‘crowding in’ of further investment. As has been noted, if the renewable energy industry grows
in size (aided by the proposed project) it should provide opportunities for manufacturing and servicing at scale
and the additional, cumulative benefit that would flow from it.

6.3.5. Mitigation
National government is placing significant emphasis on the local economic development initiatives which
renewable energy project developers commit to in their bids. The Hoogland projects will be such projects. This
should ensure that only projects which have made significant commitments to this aspect will be selected as
preferred bidders in the REIPPPP. Appendix D contains the DMRE scorecard (applicable to projects in the
previous round of bidding) with regard to its economic development sub-criteria covering aspects such as job
creation, local content, ownership, management control, preferential procurement, enterprise development
and socio-economic development. Among other things, the scorecard should ensure that project developers
pay attention to:
• Setting targets for how much local labour should be used based on the needs of the applicant and
the availability of existing skills and people that are willing to undergo training. Opportunities for the
training of unskilled and skilled workers from local communities should be maximized.
• Using local sub-contractors where possible and requiring that contractors from outside the local area
that tender also meet targets for how many locals are given employment.
• Exploring ways to enhance local community benefits with a focus on broad-based BEE and
preferential procurement.
There is no reason to believe the yet-to-be-published DMRE requirements for sixth round local benefit
enhancement that would guide the project would be different in any negative way and thus they should
adequately ensure a suitable base level of local benefit enhancement. Their fair and transparent application
will, however, require extensive interactions and collaborative engagement with the local community and its
representatives. The applicant should therefore ensure that adequate time and resources are devoted to these
activities. Particular attention should be paid to the following objectives:
• Setting up a skills and services database in partnership with the local municipality and civil society
for the local area before any hiring or contracting decisions are made. This can help to ensure
fairness and limit potential interference in hiring processes.
• An effective employee induction programme is essential to ensuring that new employees, some of
whom will be unfamiliar with the responsibilities of maintaining employment, are adequately
prepared and motivated to adjust to the lifestyle required of them. This programme should
incorporate life skills training as well as basic financial literacy training.
• Counselling services should be made available to employees to ensure that they have adequate
guidance.
• Assisting smaller enterprises where possible in tendering for contracts and in accessing finance
which are common constraints to their participation in projects.
• Avoiding potential service provider decisions that may lead to abuse or local dissatisfaction. For
example, only appointing one accommodating rental agent or one catering supplier may lead to local
dissatisfaction regarding the spreading of project benefits.
• As far as possible, avoid significant variation in salaries between various contractors for the same
types of jobs. When variations are too high, the likelihood of dissatisfaction increases.
It is also important to anticipate that there are likely to be people whose (potentially unrealistic) expectations
will not be met leading to dissatisfaction. This is difficult to avoid and can affect community relations. However,
its impacts can be lessened by ensuring that all local benefits are carefully monitored and also communicated

46
to local communities. Interviews with the Central Karoo District Municipality representatives revealed that the
district is available and willing to assist with local communications and stakeholder engagement.

6.4. Impacts associated with the funding of local socio-economic development,

enterprise development and shareholding during operations
The applicant intends ensuring that a as large a portion of the proceeds as feasible from the project contributes
to local socio-economic development. This is in keeping with the requirements of the REIPPPP bidding process
in which significant contributions to economic development are mandatory for all bidders, and the evaluation
of bids is weighted towards a 90% emphasis on competitiveness in terms of price and 10% emphasis on socio-
economic development criteria. During the fourth round of bidding, requirements under these criteria
distinguished between ‘thresholds’ (i.e. minimum requirements that must be met) and ‘targets’ (i.e. amounts
that should be aimed for in order to increase the chances of a successful bid). But during the fifth and most
recent round of bidding, only minimum thresholds were specified. Thresholds for the fifth round of bidding
were outlined in the Economic Development Scorecard associated with the REIPPPP bidding process of 2021
(see Appendix D). They included the following categories of contribution:
1. A minimum/threshold of 1.1% of annual revenue to be committed to Socio-economic Development
Contributions in the local community.
2. A minimum/threshold of 0.6% of annual revenue should be earmarked for Enterprise Development.
3. A minimum/threshold of 3% of the shares in the project to be reserved for the local community.
The bidding process of 2021 turned out to be highly competitive, with some projects opting to invest amounts
greater than the targets outlined above in order to have their project selected (Magoro, 2021). Industry is
currently awaiting the opening of the sixth round of bidding, which will likely see revisions to the requirements
including the above thresholds and targets. These systems and practices help ensure that project benefits are
distributed to the impacted communities.
In order to estimate the amount that is likely to be spent by the applicant on the three categories outlined
above, annual revenue and profit was estimated (based on highly preliminary calculations). Contributions
were then estimated based on the 2021 thresholds, with the results outlined in Table 6.12. These figures
suggest that a minimum of R4.5–R4.9 million could be spent per annum on socio-economic development
contributions, local community shareholding and enterprise development combined. It’s important to note
that the previous regulations, while specifying requirements for the amounts that needed to be spent over
the full duration of contracts, did not specify timeframes for this spending within project life cycles. Failure to
specify requirements in this regard resulted in an incentive for operators to concentrate their spending in the
later stages of project life cycles.
It is not yet clear whether the next round of the REIPPPP process will specify requirements for the timing of
local development spending (or what the threshold requirements will be). However, none of the previous
rounds have done so. It is thus useful to consider the total amounts that are likely to be spent over the 20-
year project timeframe, expressed in Table 6.12 as the net present values of all funds accruing to the local
community discounted over the 20 years. These estimates were arrived at by discounting future annual
contributions using a range of discount rates from 0% (i.e. no discounting) to 3.5%. The results of discounting
at 2.5% are recommended as the most realistic base case and reflect the recent real (i.e. after inflation) returns
on 10-year government savings bonds2. They indicate that if all future fund flows are evenly spread over the
operations period, they would likely have a present value of between R63 million and R69 million (i.e. one
would need to have this magnitude of funds available for investment today in order to be able to receive, as
an annuity, the annual amounts of fund flows). This is a substantial flow of funds and, assuming good fund

2
Discounting is necessary as money received one year from now is worth less in today’s terms due to positive real interest rates – e.g., one would need
to invest less than R1000 today in order to have the equivalent of R1000 one year from now assuming positive real interest rates or investment returns
(i.e. returns that exceed inflation).

47
management and project selection, it has the potential to result in the creation of significant economic
opportunities in the local area.
Table 6.12: Potential funding flows to socio-economic and enterprise development initiatives

Minimum/threshold amounts to
accrue to the local community per
annum smoothed over lifetime of
Contribution category project*

Socio-economic Development Contribution R 2 360 820 - R 2 698 080

Local Community Shareholding R 772 632 - R 883 008
Enterprise Development Contribution R 1 287 720 - R 1 287 720
Total R 4 421 172 - R 4 868 808

Net Present Value of all

Discount minimum/threshold annual funds
rate accruing to the local community
discounted over 20 years

0% R 88 423 440 - R 97 376 160

1.5% R 75 905 505 - R 83 590 806
2.5% R 68 922 368 - R 75 900 638
3.5% R 62 835 480 - R 69 197 463

*This amount is purely indicative and there will not necessarily be spending in every year. Timing of spending will be
dependent on REIPPPP requirements which are yet to be published.

Based on even the minimum values outlined above, impacts during operations with mitigation are predicted
to be of a high positive significance.
Table 6.13: Impacts associated with the funding of local socio-economic development, enterprise development and
shareholding
Impacts associated with the funding of socio-economic development,
Issue
enterprise development and shareholding
Description of Impact
Economic development resulting from REIPPPP requirements and other Corporate Social Investment (CSI)
Type of Impact Direct
Nature of Impact Positive
Phases Operation
Criteria Without Mitigation With Mitigation
Intensity Medium High
Duration Long-term Long-term
Extent Regional Regional
Consequence Medium High
Probability Definite / Continuous Definite / Continuous
Significance Medium + High +
Degree to which impact can be reversed Low
Degree to which impact may cause
Low
irreplaceable loss of resources
Degree to which impact can be mitigated Medium

48
 Mitigation actions
• The project must comply with the requirements of the REIPPPP
bidding process which will have stringent requirements with regard to
socio-economic development, enterprise development, BBEEE
shareholding etc.
• The applicant must establish a communications committee early on in
the project to ensure inclusive planning and regular feedback from
stakeholders.
• Community development should be guided by a community needs
The following measures are
analysis, drawn up by a third party and based on local socio-economic
recommended:
conditions, a review of planning documents such as the IDP, and
discussions with local and district-level government and community
representatives. Interventions should be planned in collaboration with
other energy developers in the area where relevant.
• Close liaison with local and district-level municipal managers, local
councillors and other stakeholders involved in socio-economic
development is required to ensure that any projects are integrated into
wider socio-economic development strategies and plans.
Monitoring
The following monitoring is Section 7 on mitigation and EMPR requirements provides details on
recommended: monitoring required for the above mitigation measures.
Cumulative impacts
The total cumulative funding of local socio-economic and enterprise
development associated with all four Hoogland projects as well as all
three Nuweveld projects would generate a substantial amount of
Nature of cumulative impacts
economic activity. Combined minimum investment would be in the
region of between R31.2 million – R34.5 million in the average year
during operation.
Rating of cumulative impacts Without Mitigation With Mitigation
High + Very High +

Note that operational phase impacts were assessed under the assumption that they would cease after 20 years
and that the impacts of decommissioning consequently do not include a consideration of the withdrawal of the
project’s operational phase benefits from the economy.

6.4.1. Cumulative impacts

Similar to the case of project expenditure, the total cumulative funding of local socio-economic and enterprise
development associated with all four Hoogland projects as well as all three Nuweveld projects would generate
a substantial amount of economic activity. Combined minimum investment would be in the region of between
R31.2 million – R34.5 million in the average year during operation. Cumulative impacts are therefore rated as
high positive without mitigation and very high positive with mitigation.

6.4.2. Mitigation
Required mitigation will be determined to a large extent by the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy’s
(DMRE) fifth round bidding requirements which are yet to be published. The DMRE monitors the compliance
of Independent Power Producers with the commitments that they make to local socio-economic development
as part of the bidding process. The environmental authorities should therefore liaise with the DMRE in order
to gather information regarding compliance with the applicant’s commitments.
Mitigation measures should include:

49
 • The project must comply with the requirements of the REIPPPP bidding process which will have
stringent requirements with regard to socio-economic development, enterprise development,
BBEEE shareholding etc.
• The applicant must establish a communications committee early on in the project to ensure inclusive
planning and regular feedback from stakeholders.
• Community development should be guided by a community needs analysis, drawn up by a third
party and based on local socio-economic conditions, a review of planning documents such as the
IDP, and discussions with local government and community representatives. Interventions should
be planned in collaboration with other energy developers in the area where relevant.
• Close liaison with local municipal managers, local councillors and other stakeholders involved in
socio-economic development is required to ensure that any projects are integrated into wider socio-
economic development strategies and plans.

6.5. Impacts associated primarily with the influx of people

Potential impacts of the influx of people have been assessed in detail as part of the social specialist studies for
other renewable energy projects in small communities the findings of which are drawn on here (see Barbour
and van der Merwe, 2012 and van Zyl and Barbour, 2014 in particular). Barbour and van der Merwe note that
while the presence of construction and other workers does not in itself constitute an impact, the manner in
which workers conduct themselves can affect the local community and lead to increased social ills. They also
make the observation that likely impacts are related to the number of employment opportunities that would
go to non-locals and how the recruitment process is managed.
Note that there is some potential for overlap between this section and Section 6.7 which deals with impacts
on landowners and communities. In order to limit overlap, this section focuses on impacts associated with
increased risk of social ills in the wider community and potential strain on services (municipal and
accommodation) stemming from ‘new’ people coming to the area including those who have already secured
employment as well as job-seekers hoping to find work at the project or in other businesses which may grow
as a result of it.

6.5.1. Construction phase impacts

Community concerns are common, especially in smaller communities, regarding the negative impacts
associated with an influx of outside workers particularly during the construction of large projects. These
concerns include those associated with negative impacts on social structures and increased ‘social ills’ such as
increased crime levels, increased alcohol and drug use, increased teenage and unwanted pregnancies,
increased prostitution and increases in sexually transmitted diseases (STDs such as HIV). These types of
impacts are more commonly associated with the influx of people looking for work without success but can
also be associated with workers that do find work. As previously mentioned, the applicant has indicated that
they are committed to implementing a ‘locals first’ employment policy where possible as per REIPPPP
requirements. It is likely that a significant proportion of workers would be sourced locally especially low and
medium skilled workers. These workers would already be part of the local community and its social structures
thereby reducing the risk posed by influx.
Another potential issue raised is that the influx of workers from outside the area during construction may
overwhelm towns in the area in terms of available accommodation. As was outlined in Section 6.3,
construction will create between 160 and 200 jobs for an 18-24-month period. Of these jobs, between 104
and 129 are likely to be filled by people from outside of the local municipality who are thus likely to require
accommodation. As part of the assessment of tourism impacts for the wind farms and gridlines it was
estimated that Beaufort West and surrounds probably has at least 700 to 1000 beds available and there is

50
additional accommodation in Fraserberg, Loxton and Victoria West. Thus, it stands to reason that the area will
be able to accommodate construction workers.
The potential for strain on municipal services is also relevant for the construction phase but is a relatively
greater risk during operations and is therefore discussed in the following section.
It is anticipated that, with mitigation, the threat posed to the community by influx would be manageable. This
comes with the caveat that the impact on individually affected community members has the potential to be
high (for example, for an individual being affected by crime) whereas the assessed impacts are averaged for
the whole community. The significance of impacts are assessed as low negative during construction with the
effective implementation of mitigation measures.
Table 6.14: Impacts associated primarily with the influx of people – construction phase

Issue Impacts associated primarily with the influx of people

Description of Impact
Resulting from influx of workers and job-seekers during the construction phase
Type of Impact Indirect
Nature of Impact Negative
Phases Construction
Criteria Without Mitigation With Mitigation
Intensity Low Low
Duration Short-term Short-term
Extent Local Local
Consequence Low Low
Probability Probable Probable
Significance Low - Low -
Degree to which impact can be reversed Low
Degree to which impact may cause
Low
irreplaceable loss of resources
Degree to which impact can be mitigated Medium
Mitigation actions
• A ‘locals first’ policy with regard to construction labour needs.
• The community should be able to contact the site manager or his/her
representative to report any issues which they may have. The site
manager and his/her representative should be stationed within the
area and should therefore be available on hand to deal with and
address any concerns which may be raised.
• A complaints register should be available on site to any individual who
may have a particular complaint with regards to the construction
process.
• The applicant and the contractors should, develop a Code of Conduct
The following measures are
for the project. The code should identify what types of behaviour and
recommended:
activities by workers are not permitted in agreement with surrounding
landowners and land managers. For example, access on land that is not
part of the development will not be allowed.
• The applicant and the contractor should implement a Tuberculosis
and HIV/AIDS awareness programme for all workers at the outset of the
construction phase.
• Arrangements must be made to enable workers from outside the area
to return home at reasonably regular intervals. This would reduce the
risk posed by non-local construction workers to local family structures
and social networks.

51
 • Condoms should be freely available to employees and all contractor
workers.
• The applicant should honour their commitment to spend R 100 000
per year during construction to contribute to security initiatives in the
affected areas.
• The contractor should make the necessary arrangements for ensuring
that all non-local construction workers are transported back to their
place of residence once the construction phase is completed.
• Close coordination with the municipality is required, including regular
meetings.
Monitoring
The following monitoring is Section 7 on mitigation and EMPR requirements provides details on
recommended: monitoring required for the above mitigation measures.
Cumulative impacts

The cumulative impact associated with all four Hoogland wind farms and
associated gridline, as well as all three Nuweveld wind farms projects and
Nature of cumulative impacts gridline going ahead at the same time would be an increase in the
likelihood of a larger influx of people to the area whether they have jobs
secured or are job seekers. This would result in a higher risk of social
problems associated with influx particularly during construction.
Rating of cumulative impacts Without Mitigation With Mitigation
Medium - Low -

6.5.2. Operational phase impacts

In the context of a community of farmers who have been experiencing drought and low to negative returns
from agriculture, some stakeholders were concerned that once the wind farm site’s landowners started seeing
returns from the project their agricultural activities would cease and their employees, with skills specific to
the agricultural sector, would be laid off. The concern was that this would then lead to localised
unemployment and/or an influx of unemployed people to nearby towns, resulting in a higher risk of social ills
in affected communities. It is considered unlikely this would occur to a significant degree, based partially on
feedback received from the project site landowners who were interviewed. Farmers that receive a new income
stream from the wind farm may be in a better position to keep or hire additional employees to support the
alternative farming methods that some farmers have indicated they would be interested in undertaking. Bear
in mind also that employee numbers are low on the farms (for the farmers interviewed for this assessment,
the average number of workers per farm was between two and five). This will limit impacts in the event of
layoffs.
One of the ways in which an influx of people can impact a municipality is through the additional strain they
place on the provision of municipal services. This is especially true of job seekers who do not end up finding
work, as they will be less likely to contribute to municipal finances through payments for services. Those who
do find work, or who relocate to the area because they have been offered a job, are more likely to have a net
positive impact on municipal finances, thus allowing the municipality to scale-up services provision as demand
increases. In this case there does not seem to be a high likelihood of significant strain on municipal services
resulting from the project. Wind farms are not commonly known to provide large numbers of operational-
phase employment, and the nature of the jobs tend towards more skilled profiles. Therefore, the likelihood of
people relocating to the area in great numbers, when it is understood that there are relatively few positions
available which will mostly need to be filled by qualified individuals, is considered low.
It is anticipated that, with mitigation, the threat posed to the community by influx would be manageable. This
comes with the caveat that the impact on individually affected community members has the potential to be
high (for example, for an individual being affected by crime) whereas the assessed impacts are averaged for

52
the whole community. The significance of impacts has been assessed as low negative during operations with
the effective implementation of mitigation measures.
Table 6.15: Impacts associated primarily with the influx of people – operations phase
Issue Impacts associated primarily with the influx of people
Description of Impact
Resulting from influx of workers and other potential movements of people during operations
Type of Impact Indirect
Nature of Impact Negative
Phases Operation
Criteria Without Mitigation With Mitigation
Intensity Very Low Very Low
Duration Long-term Long-term
Extent Local Local
Consequence Low Low
Probability Probable Probable
Significance Low - Low -
Degree to which impact can be reversed Low
Degree to which impact may cause
Low
irreplaceable loss of resources
Degree to which impact can be mitigated Medium
Mitigation actions
• A ‘locals first’ policy with regard to construction and operational
labour needs.
• The community should be able to contact the site manager or his/her
representative to report any issues which they may have. The site
manager and his/her representative should be stationed within the
area and should therefore be available on hand to deal with and
address any concerns which may be raised.
• A complaints register should be available on site to any individual who
may have a particular complaint with regards to the construction or
The following measures are
operations processes.
recommended:
• The applicant and the contractors should, develop a Code of Conduct
for the project. The code should identify what types of behaviour and
activities by workers are not permitted in agreement with surrounding
landowners and land managers. For example, access on land that is not
part of the development will not be allowed.
• Condoms should be freely available to employees and all contractor
workers.
• Close coordination with the district and local municipalities is
encouraged.
Monitoring
The following monitoring is Section 7 on mitigation and EMPR requirements provides details on
recommended: monitoring required for the above mitigation measures.
Cumulative impacts
The cumulative impact associated with all four Hoogland wind farms
and associated grid connection, as well as all three Nuweveld wind
farms projects and gridline going ahead at the same time would be an
Nature of cumulative impacts increase in the likelihood of a larger influx of people to the area
whether they have jobs secured or are job seekers. This would result in
a higher risk of social problems associated with influx, but relatively less
so than during construction.

53
 Rating of cumulative impacts Without Mitigation With Mitigation
Medium - Low -

6.5.3. Decommissioning phase impacts

Decommissioning would be very similar to construction phase impacts, although it may use slightly less labour
and be of a shorter timeframe. Impacts resulting from workers who are employed as part of the
decommissioning phase would thus be largely similar to those experienced during construction. Note that it
stands to reason that the two phases would differ in terms of the number of job seekers who would likely be
attracted to the area on the prospect of finding work. Newly proposed projects attract people seeking to
benefit from them in terms of finding employment in either the construction or operations phases. Since the
decommissioning phase would signal no further longer-term opportunities, the appeal of perceived
opportunities would be lower than for the construction phase.
The significance of impacts is assessed as low negative during decommissioning with the effective
implementation of mitigation measures.
Table 6.16: Impacts associated primarily with the influx of people – decommissioning phase
Issue Impacts associated primarily with the influx of people
Description of Impact
Resulting from influx of workers and job-seekers during the decommissioning phase
Type of Impact Indirect
Nature of Impact Negative
Phases Decommissioning
Criteria Without Mitigation With Mitigation
Intensity Low Low
Duration Short-term Short-term
Extent Local Local
Consequence Low Low
Probability Probable Probable
Significance Low - Low -
Degree to which impact can be reversed Low
Degree to which impact may cause
Low
irreplaceable loss of resources
Degree to which impact can be mitigated Medium
Mitigation actions
• A ‘locals first’ policy with regard to construction labour needs.
• The community should be able to contact the site manager or his/her
representative to report any issues which they may have. The site
manager and his/her representative should be stationed within the
area and should therefore be available on hand to deal with and
address any concerns which may be raised.
• A complaints register should be available on site to any individual who
The following measures are
may have a particular complaint with regards to the construction
recommended:
process.
• The applicant and the contractors should, develop a Code of Conduct
for the project. The code should identify what types of behaviour and
activities by workers are not permitted in agreement with surrounding
landowners and land managers. For example, access on land that is not
part of the development will not be allowed.
• The applicant and the contractor should implement a Tuberculosis

54
 and HIV/AIDS awareness programme for all workers at the outset of the
construction phase.
• Arrangements must be made to enable workers from outside the area
to return home over the weekends or /at regular intervals. This would
reduce the risk posed by non-local construction workers to local family
structures and social networks.
• Condoms should be freely available to employees and all contractor
workers.
• The applicant should honour their commitment to spend R 100 000
per year during construction to contribute to security initiatives in the
affected areas.
• The contractor should make the necessary arrangements for ensuring
that all non-local construction workers are transported back to their
place of residence once the construction phase is completed.
• Close coordination with the municipality is required, including regular
meetings.
Monitoring
The following monitoring is Section 7 on mitigation and EMPR requirements provides details on
recommended: monitoring required for the above mitigation measures.
Cumulative impacts
The cumulative impact associated with all four Hoogland wind farms
and associated grid connections, as well as all three Nuweveld wind
farms projects and gridline being decommissioned at the same time
Nature of cumulative impacts would be an increase in the likelihood of a larger influx of people to the
area whether they have jobs secured or are job seekers. This would
result in a higher risk of social problems associated with influx, but
relatively less so than during construction.
Rating of cumulative impacts Without Mitigation With Mitigation
Medium - Low -

6.5.4. Cumulative impacts

The cumulative impact associated with all four Hoogland wind farms and associated grid connections, as well
as all three Nuweveld wind farms projects and gridline going ahead at the same time would be an increase in
the likelihood of a larger influx of people to the area whether they have jobs secured or are job seekers. This
would result in a higher risk of social problems associated with influx particularly during construction.
In terms of adequate accommodation, as indicated in Section 6.3, between 104 and 129 construction
employment opportunities are likely to be filled by people from outside of the local municipality per wind
farm. Assuming all four projects go ahead at the same time (this represents the worst-case scenario and there
is more likely to be a staggered construction phase), this will result in about 416 to 516 potential new people
in the area needing housing3. In addition, for the Northern and Southern grid connections combined, between
33 and 52 construction jobs are likely to be filled by people from outside of the local municipality who are thus
likely to require accommodation4. As Beaufort West probably has at least 700 to 1000 beds available for
accommodation and there is additional accommodation in Carnarvon, Loxton and Victoria West, it is expected
that adequate accommodation will be available. With adequate forewarning, it is also likely that businesses
will respond to the opportunity and add accommodation stock if needed.

3
If the jobs filled by outsiders associated with the Nuweveld projects are added to this, the cumulative figure is 728–903
new people in the area. However, this is considered quite unlikely given that the Nuweveld project is further along in the
project planning phase.
4
Adding the Nuweveld gridline to the equation, the cumulative number of outsider construction positions associated with
the gridlines of both projects to 69–105 people, but again this is unlikely as construction is more likely to take place in a
staggered approach, thereby reducing the amount of simultaneous logistics support required at any point in time.

55
In terms of the social impacts resulting from multiple, simultaneous developments, some of the stakeholders
interviewed expressed concern that smaller towns in the area would experience a substantive change in their
sense of place if there were multiple projects being developed in their vicinities. These views were often
related to stakeholders’ experience thus far with oil, gas and uranium exploration in the area, as well as with
the construction of the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope project in the wider region. These experiences
were validated to some degree by interviews with municipal representatives, who confirmed that
communication between project managers and other stakeholders in the area had been historically poor, with
the result that local government, civil society and communities had been inadequately positioned to respond
to either the negative or positive impacts of these projects.
If the mitigation prescribed for each wind farm are adhered to the potential impacts due to an influx of people
should be adequately managed and the overall cumulative impact in this regard would be of medium negative
significance.

6.5.5. Mitigation
Mitigation measures should include:5
• A ‘locals first’ policy with regard to construction and operational labour needs.
• The community should be able to contact the site manager or his/her representative to report any
issues which they may have. The site manager and his/her representative should be stationed within
the area and should therefore be available on hand to deal with and address any concerns which
may be raised.
• A complaints register should be available on site to any individual who may have a particular
complaint with regards to the construction or operations processes.
• The applicant and the contractors should develop a Code of Conduct for the project. The code should
identify what types of behaviour and activities by workers are not permitted in agreement with
surrounding landowners and land managers. For example, access to land that is not part of the
development will not be allowed.
• The applicant and the contractor should implement a Tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS awareness
programme for all construction workers at the outset of the construction phase.
• Arrangements must be made to enable workers from outside the area to return home over the
weekends or at regular intervals. This would reduce the risk posed by non-local construction workers
to local family structures and social networks.
• Condoms should be freely available to employees and all contractor workers.
• The applicant should honour their commitment to spend R100 000 per year during construction to
contribute to security initiatives in the affected areas.
• Introduce alcohol testing on a weekly basis for construction workers.
• The contractor should make the necessary arrangements for ensuring that all non-local construction
workers are transported back to their place of residence once the construction phase is completed.
• Close coordination with the municipality is required, including regular meetings. The local
community hold local government accountable for impacts resulting from the influx of people. Thus,
as an existing focal point, it is important that local government plays a part in addressing these issues
and efforts should be made by the applicant to involve the municipality in developing mitigation
measures as needed and sharing information (including information about procedures surrounding
employment and supplier involvement) with members of the public.

56
6.6. Impacts on tourism
Tourism is a key sector and has the potential to play an increasingly prominent role as a driver of economic
development. It is thus important to consider the potential impacts of the project on this sector. The
assessment of impacts on tourism was based on the following:
• Information on current tourism use and potential focusing on the area surrounding the site.
• A review of the literature on the impact of wind farms on tourism.
• Pertinent information from other specialist studies - the Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) and
Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) were most relevant in this regard.
• Own observations, experience in assessing other similar projects and inputs from stakeholders
including the local tourism organisation.
The focus of assessment was on gauging overall tourism impacts. This overall assessment was, however,
partially informed by a consideration of risks to selected known and more prominent individual tourism
establishments or facilities (this does not imply that there are absolutely no other tourism establishments in
the area nearby the site). Although the primary focus was on tourism risks, the project’s potential to result in
positive impacts on tourism was also assessed.

6.6.1. The tourism context

Information on current tourism use and potential was gathered using planning documents for the district and
local municipalities, interviews with the local tourism organisation and other stakeholders, own observation
and accommodation search websites including SafariNow, AirBnB, Lekkeslaap and Google. The primary overall
tourism appeal of the area lies in its isolated nature. Views are characterised by open landscapes with few
signs of civilisation, reflective of the Karoo’s reputation as a very sparsely populated, quiet place. The Karoo is
sometimes referred to as “Die Niks” – an Afrikaans phrase meaning “The Nothing”, which is suggestive of the
level of isolation that one experiences when travelling through parts of the Karoo such as the area concerned.
The project site does not include any tourism establishments. The Figure below shows the site in relation to
selected known surrounding tourism establishments and facilities. Table 6.17 provides a brief profile of these
establishments which tend to be smaller and offer activities such walking, mountain biking, farm activities and
hunting. The closest prominent establishments to the two wind farms are relatively distant from them, with
the exception of Khulu Umzi Self-catering Game Lodge. This lodge belongs to the Scholtz family, who were not
available for comment. Given that the family is participating in the Hoogland Project, it is assumed that they
have assessed the potential that the project has to adversely affect the Lodge, and have weighed this potential
negative impact against the positives especially in terms of the potential for income generation.
The owner of Jakhalsdans Guesthouse, Nicola van der Westhuizen, was also interviewed. Mr van der
Westhuizen indicated that neither the wind turbines on HL01 nor those on HL02 would not be prominently
visible from this guesthouse, given the topography of the area and the trees which shield the guesthouse from
view6.

6
The visual specialist assessment confirms that Jakhalsdans will have a moderate visibility as it is screened by trees (Lawson
and Oberholzer, 2021)

57
Figure 6.5 Map showing the study site and identified prominent tourism establishments

Table 6.17 Tourism facilities profile and distance from project components

Distance
Number of units / Number of from
Name of tourism facility
rooms beds nearest
Wind Farm

Accommodation
Booiskraal Farmstay 1 farm house 6 20
Duck 'n Dive Accommodation 1 farm house 19 18
Jakhalsdans guesthouse, farmstay and safari 3 units 21 6
Khulu Umzi Self-catering Game Lodge7 1 farm house 9 1
Nuwelande Self-catering 1 farm house 3 5
Riverine Rabbit Retreat 1 farm house 10 6
Other
Loxton guesthouses and other attractions N/A N/A 12

In addition to specific tourist facilities, correspondence with a representative of the Beaufort West Tourism
Organisation (BWTO) has revealed that there has been an increase in self-drive ‘backroads’ tourism since the
COVID-19 pandemic, with more domestic tourists taking to smaller roads to explore remote parts of the

7
Note that this Game Lodge is referred to as Donkergat (the name of the farm) in the visual specialist assessment report
(Lawson and Oberholzer, 2021)

58
country. There has also been an increase in the number of off-road motorbike travellers in the area. In
response, the BWTO has published a map called “Roads less travelled in the Karoo”, which outlines five scenic
routes in the Beaufort West area, highlighting attractions and accommodation options. An excerpt from this
map is shown in Figure 6.6. This excerpt shows that there are three routes that use the R381 between Beaufort
West and Loxton. These include the Aardwolf Loop, the Meerkat Loop and the Porcupine Loop. While these
routes are relatively undeveloped at present, BWTO will continue promoting them and there is some potential
that the area could see some growth in tourism relative to the baseline which is modest but important to some
landowners who rely on the sector for much needed income, especially in times when agricultural incomes
are low due to drought (S. Klemm, pers com).

Figure 6.6 Excerpt from the Roads less travelled in the Karoo tourism map, focus on R381

A photograph taken on this route in the vicinity of the study site is shown below, with the Riverine Rabbit
Retreat in the foreground (left of road) and HL02 southern boundary 20km beyond.

59
Figure 6.7 Photograph taken 20 km south of the project site, on the R381 facing northwards

6.6.2. Literature on the impacts of wind farms on tourism

Many tourism destinations are highly dependent on the visual aesthetic of landscapes for their appeal. Given
the increasing prominence of wind farms in landscapes around the world, there is a growing body of literature
which seeks to explore the relationship between the development of wind farms and tourism. This literature
was reviewed to better understanding the potential impact that wind farms can have on tourism and whether
these impacts are likely to materialise in the context of the present study.
Much of the available literature has relied on qualitative surveys to explore the attitudes of tourists towards
wind farms. Another grouping of literature has used stated preference techniques to see whether the amount
that tourists are willing to pay to visit a place is affected by the presence of wind farms. A third grouping uses
revealed preference techniques to search for evidence of an effect of wind farms on tourism demand using
secondary data collected by tourism establishments situated in the vicinity of wind farm developments. A final
grouping consists of reviews which have systematically synthesised the findings of other studies, known as
meta-analyses. Each of these approaches has strengths and weaknesses and so it is useful to consider all of
them.
The review has revealed mixed findings, with some studies suggesting that wind farms have had no
measurable impact on tourism (Aitchison, 2012; BiGGAR, 2016; Polycon, 2013), some showing that wind farms
have the potential to impact negatively on tourism within specific contexts (Aitchison, 2012; Gordon, 2017;
Broekel and Alfken, 2015; Kalashnikova, 2016), and others which contend that wind farms can have a slightly
positive impact on tourism, at least in terms of stated preferences and perceptions (Aitchison, 2012; Nordman
and Mutinda, 2016; Barrera, 2017). Some studies have been careful to make a distinction between tourist
attitudes towards wind energy in general and attitudes towards the development of wind farms, and even
various configurations of wind farms, within specific landscapes. These studies have found that the vast
majority of tourists support the development of the wind industry, but when it comes to specific wind farms,
attitudes are more nuanced, varied and context dependent (Kalashnikova, 2016).
The majority of available evidence seems to support the view that wind farms have the potential to impact
tourism in a negative way, albeit to a limited degree and in specific contexts. The likelihood that any given

60
wind farm will impact negatively on tourism is determined by a number of factors. One such factor is the
placement of turbines. In this regard, Kalashnikova (2016: 1) found that “a few smaller turbines embedded in
the changed landscapes, rural or urban, were perceived better, than bigger ones in the natural scenery or near
historical sites, though up until certain saturation point”.
Another important factor is the sense of place of the area where the wind farm would be developed, and to
what extent this sense of place is reliant on pristine landscapes, or assets representing significant natural or
historical heritage (Aitchison, 2012; De Sousa and Kastenholz, 2015; Gordon, 2017). In some cases, wind
turbines may contribute to an improved sense of place thus evoking feelings of ‘place attachment’ (Nordman
and Mutinda, 2016). In some cases, wind turbines themselves have become a tourist attraction, but as is
pointed out in the GCU (2008) study, this is only likely to be the case during periods when wind farms remain
a novelty in their respective parts of the world. The available evidence in the GCU review suggests that
instances where wind farms are most likely to result in negative impacts are those where they are situated in
tourist areas with a clear wilderness quality with little or no signs of ‘civilisation’ in the form of infrastructure
such as power lines, major roads, etc.
Finally, the values and preferences of tourists are an important factor in determining how likely they are to
visit a destination where a wind farm has been developed (Barrera, 2017; Gordon, 2017). Some visitors are
simply more inclined to appreciate more pristine landscapes, while others are more comfortable with altered
landscapes. These values and perceptions are likely to change with time. De Sousa and Kastenholz (2015) cite
Thoreau and Wordsworth as examples of those who opposed the altering of rural landscapes during the great
rail expansions of the mid-nineteenth century. In many parts of the world these railway lines have since come
to be seen as part of the landscapes’ character and a form of heritage. This then indicates that the negative
impacts associated with wind farm developments, including those on tourism, are likely to be less pronounced
with time and possibly even reversed, a view which is supported by the GCU (2008) review, which states that
“[o]ver time hostility to wind farms lessens and they become an accepted even valued part of the scenery.”

6.6.3. Specialist findings and key considerations

The Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) sums up the sense of place of the area as follows: “The flat-topped hills
are a characteristic feature of the Great Karoo in an otherwise fairly featureless, parched landscape, an area
noted mainly for its empty, uncluttered landscapes, stillness, red sunsets, dark nights and starry skies, as well
as for the ancient paleontological remains hidden in the rocks. Springbok and many other smaller antelope
roam free on game farms, while the occasional donkey cart still transports 'Karretjie' people along dirt roads.
Isolated farmsteads form green oases in the semi-arid landscape, sheltered from the heat by poplars and other
exotic trees. For the visitor it is a vast landscape inhabited by flocks of sheep and small antelope.” (Lawson
and Oberholzer, 2021)
Impacts on this high-quality landscape are rated high in the VIA which also finds that the overall visual impacts
of the project would be high negative after mitigation given the relatively large number and large scale of the
wind turbines. The VIA does, however, note that, “while the Hoogland 1 Wind Farm and Hoogland 2 Wind
Farm layouts would each respectively have a significant visual impact, the layouts have avoided most of the
scenic resources and visual receptors of the area and provided the recommended mitigation measures are
implemented (specifically the removal of turbines in identified no-go areas as discussed above), would not
present a potential fatal flaw in visual terms”. It concludes that the project may be authorised from a visual
impact standpoint.
The Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) draws on the VIA to assess impacts on cultural landscapes which has
relevance from a sense of place and therefore tourism impacts perspective. The HIA notes several places
where the proposed wind farms may impact specific sites of archaeological or heritage importance, but notes
that these impacts can be easily mitigated through proposed micrositing and archaeological mitigation. The
VIA concludes that the project should be approved in full, but subject to listed recommendations (Orton,
2021).

61
6.6.4. Construction phase impacts
Aside from impacts driven primarily by visual and heritage changes, construction phase impacts would be
driven by temporary changes and disruptions. These include the following which are discussed in Section 6.7
given their greater relevance to impact on surrounding landowners:
• Deterioration of local roads
• Increased traffic on roads that are ordinarily quiet
• Greater risk of increased dust levels
• Increased risk of crime such as stock theft and poaching
• Increased littering
• Increased potential for veld fires
These would essentially reduce the appeal of the local area as a tourist destination, particularly in a place
ordinarily characterised by tranquillity. These impacts would be experienced to a varying degree over the 18-
24-month construction period.
The tourism context, literature review, other specialist findings and key considerations discussed above
indicate that the project should have a low negative impact on tourism with mitigation in the construction
phase.
Table 6.18: Impacts on tourism during construction

Issue Impacts on tourism

Description of Impact
Reduction in tourism appeal due to construction activities
Type of Impact Indirect
Nature of Impact Negative
Phases Construction
Criteria Without Mitigation With Mitigation
Intensity Medium Low
Duration Short-term Short-term
Extent Site Site
Consequence Low Low
Probability Probable Probable
Significance Low - Low -
Degree to which impact can be reversed Low
Degree to which impact may cause
Low
irreplaceable loss of resources
Degree to which impact can be mitigated Mitigation exists and will notably reduce significance of impacts
Mitigation actions
Impacts on tourism are dependent on how the site is developed and
managed to minimise negative biophysical impacts. The measures
The following measures are
recommended in other specialist reports to these impacts (primarily the
recommended:
minimisation of visual, heritage, traffic and ecological impacts) would
thus also minimise tourism impacts.
Monitoring
The following monitoring is Section 7 on mitigation and EMPR requirements provides details on
recommended: monitoring required for the above mitigation measures.
Cumulative impacts
The cumulative impact associated with all four Hoogland wind farms
Nature of cumulative impacts
projects and the two associated grid connections going ahead at the

62
 same time as the three Nuweveld wind farms and their associated
gridline would be an increase in tourism risk but also tourism
opportunities from business tourism in particular. However, it is highly
unlikely that all of these developments would go ahead at the same
time, as the applicant has indicated that construction would more likely
occur in a staggered way so as to spread the effort over the distinct 18–
24 months construction period planned for both the Hoogland and
Nuweveld projects. Cumulative impacts have therefore been rated
medium negative overall bearing in mind the relatively higher levels of
uncertainty in making cumulative assessments of this nature.
Rating of cumulative impacts Without Mitigation With Mitigation
Medium - Medium -

6.6.5. Operational phase impacts

Experience from other wind farm assessment and the findings of the literature review indicate that instances
where wind farms are most likely to result in negative impacts on tourism are those where they are situated
in areas with a clear wilderness quality with little or no signs of ‘civilisation’ in the form of infrastructure such
as power lines and major roads. The conclusions of the VIA and HIA confirm that the project site and surrounds
have this quality and that impacts would be significant on the cultural landscape which will have consequences
for the sense of place and attraction associated with the area.
Tourism facilities and attractions in the areas surrounding the project site are very limited and sparsely
distributed. Of the tourism establishments identified, only one is closer than 5km from either of the wind farm
boundaries: Khulu Umzi Self-catering Game Lodge (1km from the boundary of HL02 and 2.4km from the
nearest turbine given the current layout). This Lodge is relatively small (9 beds), caters to hunting guests and
is owned by a participant in the Hoogland project that will benefit financially from it. Nonetheless, the findings
of the VIA confirm that this establishment will experience a very high visibility and there will therefore be a
change in the sense of place at this Lodge. It stands to reason that this could have resulting implications for
tourism demand, depending on the exact make-up of tourists to this area. With the exception of this Lodge,
the area’s limited tourism options suggest that the potential for overall negative impacts is relatively limited.
Note that the project has the potential to result in a boost in tourism to the project area through its facilitation
of increased business tourism. The positive impacts resulting from this will mostly have been covered in
Section 6.3, as they will have been included in the estimates of the expenditure which will result from the
proposed project, some of which will go towards accommodation and other expenses incurred by the
company for contractors and employees visiting the project site. Other positive impacts would be more
indirect as trips for work purposes can lead to an extended stay or lead to return visits for leisure when project
personnel are exposed to the attractions of the area and the wider country. Personnel may also recommend
the area to others as a tourist destination.
The tourism context, literature review, other specialist findings and key considerations discussed above
indicate that the project should have a medium negative impact on tourism without and with mitigation in the
operational phase.
Table 6.19: Impacts on tourism during operations

Issue Impacts on tourism

Description of Impact
Reduction in tourism appeal due to changes in sense of place, increase in business tourism
Type of Impact Indirect
Nature of Impact Negative
Phases Operation
Criteria Without Mitigation With Mitigation

63
 Intensity Medium Medium
Duration Long-term Long-term
Extent Site Site
Consequence Medium Medium
Probability Probable Probable
Significance Medium - Medium -
Degree to which impact can be reversed Low
Degree to which impact may cause
Low
irreplaceable loss of resources
Degree to which impact can be mitigated Mitigation will slightly reduce the significance of impacts
Mitigation actions
Impacts on tourism are dependent on how the site is developed and
managed to minimise negative biophysical impacts. The measures
The following measures are
recommended in other specialist reports to these impacts (primarily the
recommended:
minimisation of visual, heritage, traffic and ecological impacts) would
thus also minimise tourism impacts.
Monitoring
The following monitoring is Section 7 on mitigation and EMPR requirements provides details on
recommended: monitoring required for the above mitigation measures.
Cumulative impacts
The cumulative impact associated with all four Hoogland wind farms
projects and the two associated grid connections going ahead, as well
as the three Nuweveld wind farms and their associated gridline would
Nature of cumulative impacts
be an increase in tourism risk but also tourism opportunities from
business tourism. For the operational phase, cumulative impacts are
rated as medium negative without and with mitigation.
Rating of cumulative impacts Without Mitigation With Mitigation
Medium - Medium -

6.6.6. Decommissioning phase impacts

Decommissioning would be similar to construction phase impacts, although it may use slightly less labour and
be of a shorter timeframe and relative intensity. Impacts of the phase would thus be similar but less than those
experienced during construction from disruption and other nuisance factors such as increase dust levels etc.
The tourism context, literature review, other specialist findings and key considerations discussed above
indicate that the project should have a low impact on tourism with mitigation in the decommissioning phase.
Table 6.20: Impacts on tourism during decommissioning
Issue Impacts on tourism
Description of Impact
Reduction in tourism appeal due to decommissioning activities
Type of Impact Indirect
Nature of Impact Negative
Phases Decommissioning
Criteria Without Mitigation With Mitigation
Intensity Medium Low
Duration Short-term Short-term
Extent Site Site
Consequence Low Low

64
 Probability Probable Probable
Significance Low - Low -
Degree to which impact can be reversed Low
Degree to which impact may cause
Low
irreplaceable loss of resources
Degree to which impact can be mitigated Mitigation exists and will notably reduce significance of impacts
Mitigation actions
Impacts on tourism are dependent on how the site is decommissioned
and managed to minimise negative biophysical impacts. The measures
The following measures are
recommended in other specialist reports to these impacts (primarily the
recommended:
minimisation of visual, heritage, traffic and ecological impacts) would
thus also minimise tourism impacts.
Monitoring
The following monitoring is Section 7 on mitigation and EMPR requirements provides details on
recommended: monitoring required for the above mitigation measures.
Cumulative impacts
The cumulative impact associated with all four Hoogland wind farms
projects and the two associated grid connections going ahead at the
same time as the three Nuweveld wind farms and their associated
gridline would be an increase in tourism risk but also tourism
opportunities from business tourism in particular. However, it is highly
unlikely that all of these developments would go ahead at the same
Nature of cumulative impacts time, as the applicant has indicated that the construction and
decommissioning phases would more likely occur in a staggered way so
as to spread the effort over the distinct 18–24 months construction
period planned for both the Hoogland and Nuweveld projects.
Cumulative impacts have therefore been rated medium negative overall
bearing in mind the relatively higher levels of uncertainty in making
cumulative assessments of this nature.
Rating of cumulative impacts Without Mitigation With Mitigation
Medium - Medium -

6.6.7. Cumulative impacts

The Visual Impact Assessment (Lawson and Oberholzer, 2021) found that the cumulative impact “could
potentially be high… given the potential effect on the rural landscape and the Karoo sense of place. It also
notes, however, that this assessment was based on all the potential turbine positions (i.e. 176 in total) while
only a maximum of 60 turbines per wind farm would be developed (i.e. 120 in total) and this may offset some
of the cumulative impacts. In addition, the VIA notes that the “Hoogland Wind Farms have a number of smaller
natural gaps, derived from the various specialist sensitivity mapping, which helps to provide a clustering
effect.” (Lawson and Oberholzer, 2021). The Heritage Impact Assessment found that “cultural landscape are
largely visual and relate to the intrusion of industrial-type structures and equipment in the cultural landscape”.
These impacts will occur during all phases and are rated as medium negative in each case. There is no
mitigation that can make a meaningful difference to these ratings since the structures are far too large to hide
(Orton 2020).
The cumulative impact associated with all four Hoogland wind farms projects and the two associated grid
connections going ahead at the same time as the three Nuweveld wind farms and their associated gridline
would be an increase in tourism risk but also tourism opportunities from business tourism, particularly during
construction. However, it is highly unlikely that all of these developments would go ahead at the same time,
as the applicant has indicated that construction would more likely occur in a staggered way so as to spread
the effort over the distinct 18–24 months construction period planned for both the Hoogland and Nuweveld

65
projects. Cumulative impacts have therefore been rated medium negative without mitigation and low negative
with mitigation bearing in mind the relatively higher levels of uncertainty in making cumulative assessments
of this nature. The same ratings would apply to the decommissioning phase given that it would be similar in
nature to the construction phase. For the operational phase, cumulative impacts are also rated as medium
negative, both with and without mitigation.

6.6.8. Mitigation
Impacts on tourism are dependent on how the site is developed and managed to minimise negative
biophysical impacts. The measures recommended in other specialist reports to these impacts (primarily the
minimisation of visual, heritage, traffic and ecological impacts) would thus also minimise tourism impacts.

6.7. Impacts on surrounding landowners and communities

As is often the case with large projects, concerns are usually raised by surrounding landowners and
communities that relate to potential negative impacts associated mainly with greater activity nearby and the
presence of workers on the site particularly during construction.

6.7.1. Construction phase impacts

During the construction phase, impacts on surrounding landowners and communities would largely result
from:
• Increased risk of crime such as stock theft and poaching
• Damage to farm infrastructure such as fences
• Increased littering
• Increased potential for veld fires
• Greater risk of increased dust and noise levels
• Safety concerns associated mostly with presence of large trucks and machinery
• Deterioration of local roads
Experiences with the presence of construction workers associated with the Eskom sub-stations and
transmission lines in the area, as well as with other large projects, have made landowners particularly wary of
the risks that come with the introduction of a significant labour force into the area. More people in farming
areas are seen as a risk factor for trespassing, theft, damages to farm infrastructure and equipment, littering
along with veld fires. Some of these potential impacts can also lead to changes in the sense of place, which is
discussed in Section 6.6 and elaborated on below under operational phase impacts.
The increased volume of project-related traffic in the area, including that which will use the proposed Beaufort
West N1 temporary bypass, and also including that which will pass through Loxton, could affect surrounding
communities. This will potentially occur through increased levels of noise, dust as well as through the threat
to the safety of children who spend time in the vicinity of the route proposed for the N1 bypass. Given that
the bypass is only for abnormal loads and that these trucks will be travelling at a low speed, safety of children
is considered to be manageable provided that the applicant maintains good communication with community
representatives, as is recommended in the mitigation measures below. Limited dust impacts are also likely
given slow truck speeds.
On the subject of the N1 bypass, The Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) provides explicit impact ratings: “The
proposed temporary bypass road around Beaufort West town for the transport of wind farm components
would result in some visual and noise impacts on adjacent residential development, the golf course and the
Karoo National Park during the construction period, resulting in a medium (negative) visual impact significance
before mitigation, and minor (negative) significance after mitigation, including rehabilitation”.

66
The Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) mentioned the N1 bypass but did not explicitly rate the impacts associated
with this component of the project. All traffic-related impacts during the construction phase have been rated
low with mitigation, including those resulting from increased road incidents, road degradation, dust and
intersection safety. However, the traffic impact assessment strongly recommends that the applicant
undertake voluntary mitigation in the form of road alterations, for example on more precarious sections of
the R381, to ensure the safety of road users including project construction staff. During operations, only
intersection safety was identified as relevant for assessment, and was assessed as having a low impact with
mitigation (Schwarz, 2021).
All of the risks discussed above are considered manageable and impacts on surrounding landowners and
communities have been rated as low negative for the construction phase with mitigation.
Table 6.21: Impacts on surrounding landowners and communities during construction
Issue Impacts on surrounding landowners and communities
Description of Impact
Associated with greater activity nearby and related nuisance and damages
Type of Impact Indirect
Nature of Impact Negative
Phases Construction
Criteria Without Mitigation With Mitigation
Intensity Medium Low
Duration Short-term Short-term
Extent Site Site
Consequence Low Low
Probability Probable Probable
Significance Low - Low -
Degree to which impact can be reversed Low
Degree to which impact may cause
Low
irreplaceable loss of resources
Degree to which impact can be mitigated Mitigation exists and will notably reduce significance of impacts
Mitigation actions
• No construction workers, with the exception of security personnel,
should be allowed to stay on the site overnight.
• The community should be able to contact the site manager to report
any issues which they may have. The site manager should be stationed
within the area and should therefore be available on hand to deal with
and address any concerns which may be raised.
• A complaints register should be available on site to any individual who
may have a particular complaint with regards to the construction or
operations processes.
• The applicant should develop a Code of Conduct for the project. The
The following measures are
Code should identify what types of behaviour and activities by workers
recommended:
are not permitted in agreement with surrounding landowners and land
managers.
• The movement of workers on and off the site should be closely
managed and monitored by the contractors. In this regard the
contractors should be responsible for making the necessary
arrangements for transporting workers to and from site on a daily basis.
• The applicant should honour his commitment to spend R 100 000 per
year during construction to contribute to security initiatives.
• The applicant should implement measures to assist and, if needed,
fairly compensate potentially affected surrounding landowners

67
 whereby damages to farm property, stock theft or significant
disruptions to farming activities can be minimized or reduced.
Measures should be agreed on before construction commences.
• The EMPR must outline procedures for managing and storing waste
on site, specifically plastic waste that poses a threat to livestock if
ingested.
• Mitigation measures proposed by other specialists, in particular those
prescribed in the Traffic Impact Assessment, need to be adhered to.
• The temporary bypass must be gated to prevent use by the public.
• The applicant should consult community representatives, including
relevant people within the local municipality as well as ward
councillors, regarding planning for the use of the N1 temporary bypass
to ensure that all stakeholders are kept informed as to the timing of
project-traffic and potential ways of ensuring the safety of community
members in the area.
Monitoring
The following monitoring is Section 7 on mitigation and EMPR requirements provides details on
recommended: monitoring required for the above mitigation measures.
Cumulative impacts
Cumulatively, construction of the Hoogland grid connections alongside
the Hoogland Wind Farms as well as the Nuweveld wind farms and
associated gridline have the potential to substantially change the area's
sense of place and impacts on surrounding communities could
therefore be noteworthy if all were to go ahead simultaneously.
However, it is highly unlikely that all of these developments would go
Nature of cumulative impacts ahead at the same time, as the applicant has indicated that
construction would more likely occur in a staggered way so as to spread
the effort over the distinct 18–24 months construction period planned
for both the Hoogland and Nuweveld projects. Cumulative impacts
associated with these developments are expected to be medium
negative without mitigation and low negative with mitigation during
construction.
Rating of cumulative impacts Without Mitigation With Mitigation
Medium - Low -

6.7.2. Operational phase impacts

The operations phase would also be associated with relatively similar issues to those assessed for the
construction phase albeit over a longer time-period and of a lower intensity.
One of the most substantial changes will be to the sense of place. One neighbouring landowner commented
that the area is characterised by clusters of houses most of which are not visible to one another, creating a
sense of solitude and isolation. There are very few trees in the landscape and little movement can be seen.
The proposed development would lead to a change in the sense of place experienced throughout the study
site as well as the surrounding landscape. This would occur through changes in the visual character of the area,
as well as through a marked increase in activity in the area, which would result in visual and heritage impacts
such as those discussed in Section 6.6 on tourism.
The presence of more people in the local area during the operations phase was raised as a concern by some
landowners in the area as for the construction phase. These included increased risk of crime such as stock
theft and poaching, damage to farm infrastructure such as fences, increased littering, increased potential for
veld fires, greater risk of increased dust and noise levels, safety concerns and deterioration of local roads.
Impacts associated with these concerns are likely to be of a similar but less intense in nature than for
construction.

68
The environmental noise assessment found that potential noise impacts resulting from Hoogland 1 would be of
a high significance during operation both during the daytime and night-time, while the impacts from Hoogland
2 would be of a very low significance during daytime operations and low significance during night time
operations. With mitigation, the assessment found that the impacts would be low for both wind farms as well
as in the case of cumulative impacts (EARES, 2021).

In the case of the Hoogland 1 wind farm, the shadow flicker assessment identified nine residential receptors
that would likely be affected during the operations phase. In the case of Hoogland 2 wind farm, seven residential
receptors were identified. The impacts were found to be low for both wind farms, but mitigation measures have
nevertheless been recommended to minimize impacts (Lewis, 2021)
As with the construction phase, impacts are largely considered manageable with focused mitigation, and have
been assessed to have a low significance. These impacts have the potential to also be reflected in property
values to some degree, although other factors will also come into play as discussed in Section 6.8. Bear in mind
that confidence in assessment is medium especially as perceptions with respect to sense of place impacts are
likely to be variable.

Table 6.22: Impacts on surrounding landowners and communities during operation

Issue Impacts on surrounding landowners and communities

Description of Impact
Associated with greater activity nearby and related nuisance and damages
Type of Impact Indirect
Nature of Impact Negative
Phases Operation
Criteria Without Mitigation With Mitigation
Intensity Low Low
Duration Long-term Long-term
Extent Site Site
Consequence Low Low
Probability Probable Probable
Significance Low - Low -
Degree to which impact can be reversed Low
Degree to which impact may cause
Low
irreplaceable loss of resources
Degree to which impact can be mitigated Mitigation exists and will notably reduce significance of impacts
Mitigation actions
• A ‘locals first’ policy with regard to labour needs.• The community
should be able to contact the site manager or his/her representative to
report any issues which they may have. The site manager and his/her
representative should be stationed within the area and should
therefore be available on hand to deal with and address any concerns
which may be raised.
The following measures are
• A complaints register should be available on site to any individual who
recommended:
may have a particular complaint with regards to the construction or
operations processes.
• The applicant and the contractors should, develop a Code of Conduct
for the project. The code should identify what types of behaviour and
activities by workers are not permitted in agreement with surrounding
landowners and land managers. For example, access on land that is not

69
 part of the development will not be allowed.
• Condoms should be freely available to employees and all contractor
workers.
• Close coordination with the district and local municipalities is
encouraged.
Monitoring
The following monitoring is Section 7 on mitigation and EMPR requirements provides details on
recommended: monitoring required for the above mitigation measures.
Cumulative impacts
Cumulatively, the Hoogland grid connections considered alongside the
Hoogland Wind Farms as well as the Nuweveld wind farms and
associated gridline have the potential to substantially change the area's
Nature of cumulative impacts sense of place and impacts on surrounding communities could
therefore be noteworthy. Cumulative impacts associated with these
developments are expected to be medium negative without mitigation
and low negative with mitigation during operations.
Rating of cumulative impacts Without Mitigation With Mitigation
Medium - Low -

6.7.3. Decommissioning phase impacts

Decommissioning would be similar to construction phase impacts, although it may use slightly less labour and
be of a shorter timeframe and relative intensity. Impacts of the phase would thus be similar to those
experienced during construction from disruption and other nuisance factors such as increase dust levels,
increased risk of crime, etc. As with construction, impacts on surrounding landowners and communities during
decommissioning have been assessed as having a low significance.
Table 6.23: Impacts on surrounding landowners and communities during decommissioning

Issue Impacts on surrounding landowners and communities

Description of Impact
Associated with greater activity nearby and related nuisance and damages
Type of Impact Indirect
Nature of Impact Negative
Phases Decommissioning
Criteria Without Mitigation With Mitigation
Intensity Medium Low
Duration Short-term Short-term
Extent Site Site
Consequence Low Low
Probability Probable Probable
Significance Low - Low -
Degree to which impact can be reversed Low
Degree to which impact may cause
Low
irreplaceable loss of resources
Degree to which impact can be mitigated Mitigation exists and will notably reduce significance of impacts
Mitigation actions
• No decommissioning workers, with the exception of security
personnel, should be allowed to stay on the site overnight.
The following measures are
• The community should be able to contact the site manager to report
recommended:
any issues which they may have. The site manager should be stationed
within the area and should therefore be available on hand to deal with

70
 and address any concerns which may be raised.
• A complaints register should be available on site to any individual who
may have a particular complaint with regards to the construction or
operations processes.
• The applicant should develop a Code of Conduct for the project. The
Code should identify what types of behaviour and activities by workers
are not permitted in agreement with surrounding landowners and land
managers.
• The movement of workers on and off the site should be closely
managed and monitored by the contractors. In this regard the
contractors should be responsible for making the necessary
arrangements for transporting workers to and from site on a daily basis.
• The applicant should honour his commitment to spend R 100 000 per
year during construction to contribute to security initiatives.
• The applicant should implement measures to assist and, if needed,
fairly compensate potentially affected surrounding landowners
whereby damages to farm property, stock theft or significant
disruptions to farming activities can be minimized or reduced.
Measures should be agreed on before construction commences.
• The EMPR must outline procedures for managing and storing waste
on site, specifically plastic waste that poses a threat to livestock if
ingested.
• Mitigation measures proposed by other specialists, in particular those
prescribed in the Traffic Impact Assessment, need to be adhered to.
Monitoring
The following monitoring is Section 7 on mitigation and EMPR requirements provides details on
recommended: monitoring required for the above mitigation measures.
Cumulative impacts
Cumulatively, decommissioning of the Hoogland gridline alongside the
Hoogland Wind Farms as well as the Nuweveld wind farms and
associated gridline have the potential to substantially change the area's
sense of place and impacts on surrounding communities could
therefore be noteworthy if all were to go ahead simultaneously.
However, it is highly unlikely that all of these developments would go
Nature of cumulative impacts ahead at the same time, as the applicant has indicated that
construction would more likely occur in a staggered way so as to spread
the effort over the distinct 18–24 months construction period planned
for both the Hoogland and Nuweveld projects. Cumulative impacts
associated with decommissioning are expected to be medium negative
without mitigation and low negative with mitigation during
construction.
Rating of cumulative impacts Without Mitigation With Mitigation
Medium - Low -

6.7.4. Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impacts associated with all four wind farms and the grid connections, as well as all three Nuweveld
wind farms and the associated grid connection, are expected to be low negative with mitigation during
construction and operations. This partially draws on the findings of other specialist studies including the traffic,
noise and shadow flicker assessments, all of which found that cumulative impacts would be low with
mitigation (EARES, 2021; Lewis, 2021; Schwarz, 2021). The Visual Impact Assessment, however, found that the
cumulative could potentially be high given the potential effect on the rural landscape and the Karoo sense of
place.

71
6.7.5. Mitigation
Mitigation measures should include:
• No construction workers, with the exception of security personnel, should be allowed to stay on the
site overnight.
• The community should be able to contact the site manager to report any issues which they may
have. The site manager should be stationed within the area and should therefore be available on
hand to deal with and address any concerns which may be raised.
• A complaints register should be available on site to any individual who may have a particular
complaint with regards to the construction or operations processes.
• The applicant should develop a Code of Conduct for the project. The Code should identify what types
of behaviour and activities by workers are not permitted in agreement with surrounding landowners
and land managers.
• The movement of workers on and off the site should be closely managed and monitored by the
contractors. In this regard the contractors should be responsible for making the necessary
arrangements for transporting workers to and from site on a daily basis.
• The applicant should honour their commitment to spend R 100 000 per year during construction to
contribute to security initiatives in affected areas.
• The applicant should implement measures to assist and, if needed, fairly compensate potentially
affected surrounding landowners whereby damages to farm property, stock theft or significant
disruptions to farming activities can be minimized or reduced. Measures should be agreed on before
construction commences.
• The EMP must outline procedures for managing and storing waste on site, specifically plastic waste
that poses a threat to livestock if ingested.
• The applicant should consult community representatives, including relevant people within the local
municipality as well as ward councillors, regarding planning for the use of the N1 temporary bypass
to ensure that all stakeholders are kept informed as to the timing of project-traffic and potential
ways of ensuring the safety of community members in the area.

6.8. Impacts on property values

In well-functioning and informed markets, property values should capture or reflect the supply and demand
dynamics around a number of relevant local, national and even international factors. These include the
physical characteristics, productive potential and amenity of properties along with the environmental and
socio-economic characteristics of their surroundings. The project’s environmental and socio-economic
impacts (already assessed in preceding sections) thus have the potential to also impact on property values.
The assessment of impacts on property values therefore needs to be treated with some caution as these
impacts tend to be a secondary reflection of other primary impacts already assessed. For example, primary
negative impacts on tourism and impacts on surrounding landowners and communities may also be reflected
in property value changes. Considering impacts on property values as additional to other primary impacts
therefore increases the chances of double counting impacts.

The assessment of impacts on property values was based on the following:

• The property value context.
• A review of the literature on the impact of wind farms on property values.
• The results of the preceding sections of this socio-economic assessment with relevance to property
values.

72
 • Pertinent information from other specialist studies - the Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) was most
relevant in this regard.
• Own observations, experience in assessing other similar projects and in the use of property values
as an impact assessment and environmental valuation technique.8

Aside from issues with double counting, it should be borne in mind that the prediction of property value
impacts is associated with relatively high levels of uncertainty. There are a large number of factors that can
influence property values and property markets are driven by perceptions among market participants (buyers
in particular) which can differ a great deal and change, sometimes significantly, over time.

6.8.1. The property context

Aridity and poorly developed soils limit the agricultural potential of the region. Current land uses in the wider
rural area, where the wind farm would be located, are typically restricted to extensive agriculture with small
stock primarily in the form of sheep, game farming, some tourism and conservation such as the Karoo National
Park. The farms are generally large to maintain economically viable units and farmsteads are few and far
between.
A review of current farms for sale in the wider area revealed that farms (portions and/or farming units)
between 800 ha and 15,000 ha are for sale although the majority tended to be between 3,000 and 6,000 ha.9
Asking prices generally varied from R1,750/ha to R2,750/ha for average farms although there were more
exceptional properties on sale for in excess of R3,000/ha. Variations are to be expected depending on farm
features such as veld condition, cultivated land, farm infrastructure, access to water, aesthetic features,
dwellings, other improvements and presence of game.
Residential and peri-urban property in Beaufort West consists of a wide variety of house sizes and values. For
example, many of the smaller 3-bedroom formal houses in Middedorp or Hospital Hill tend to have asking
prices of between R650,000 and R1.25 million with larger, more upmarket properties falling into the R1.25
million to R2 million range. Relatively similar asking prices can be observed in other nearby towns such as
Loxton.

6.8.2. Literature on the impacts of wind farms on property values

The literature on the impacts of wind farms on property values continues to grow. However, commercial scale
wind farms are still a relatively recent development in South Africa. As a result, there is limited South African
research on the impacts of wind farms on property values necessitating the use of research and case studies
from other countries.
Hoen et al. (2009) provide a comprehensive investigation into the impacts of wind farms on property values
using a sample of 7,500 property sales in the vicinity of 24 wind farms in the United States. The study identified
three different potential sources of negative impacts or stigma as follows:
• Area Stigma: A concern that the general area surrounding a wind energy facility will appear more
developed, which may adversely affect home values in the local community regardless of whether any
individual home has a view of the wind turbines.
• Scenic Vista Stigma: A concern that a home may be devalued because of the view of a wind energy
facility, and the potential impact of that view on an otherwise scenic vista.

8
See, for example, Van Zyl (2007), Van Zyl and Leiman (2002) and de Wit et al. (2004)
9
See property24.com and agrisell.co.za

73
 • Nuisance Stigma: A concern that factors that may occur in close proximity to wind turbines, such as
sound and shadow flicker, will have a unique adverse influence on home values.
It found “no conclusive evidence of the existence of any widespread property value impacts that might be
present in communities surrounding wind energy facilities. Specifically, neither the view of the wind facilities
nor the distance of the home to those facilities is found to have any consistent, measurable, and statistically
significant effect on home sales prices.” This overall finding is largely consistent with other research (peer-
reviewed research in particular) conducted prior to 2009 as reviewed by Hoen et al. (2009). The authors do,
however, make the point that their analysis focused on relatively aggregated figures and that it cannot be
used to dismiss the possibility that the property values of individual homes or small numbers of homes have
been or could be negatively impacted. Subsequent to their 2009 review, Hoen et al. (2013) published further
research using a large sample of 50,000 house price observations across nine states in the United States. They
applied newer techniques including difference-in-difference hedonic models and again found no statistical
evidence that house values near turbines were affected. Similar results of no impacts were found by others
including CEBR (2014) and Lang and Opaluch (2013).

Urbis (2016) conducted an assessment in New South Wales, Australia and noted that there was limited
available sales data to make a conclusive finding regarding the impacts of wind farms on residential or lifestyle
properties mostly in rural areas. However, based on what research was possible, their view was that wind
farms may not significantly impact rural properties used for agricultural purposes. They also pointed out that,
“The literature review of Australian and international studies on the impact of wind farms on property values
revealed that the majority of published reports conclude that there is no impact or a limited definable impact
of wind farms on property values. Those studies which identified a negative impact are based in the northern
hemisphere and are associated with countries with higher population densities and a greater number of
traditional residential and lifestyle properties affected by wind farms. This is generally contrary to the
Australian experience, with most wind farms being located in low population density environments that derive
the majority of their value from productive farming purposes.” (Urbis, 2016:i)
The research that has found negative impacts on properties has tended to focus on impacts on residential
properties with views of and in close proximity to wind facilities. Simms & Dent (2007), for example, assessed
two wind facilities in Cornwall, England and found reasons for concern for houses close to turbines mentioning
those with views of the turbines and within a one-mile radius as being at risk. They also found that, over time,
wind farm developers in the United Kingdom appear to be avoiding local opposition and property value risks
by carefully locating their facilities in places where the impact on prices are negligible. This may explain the
lack of evidence or negative impacts (i.e. the risk of negative impacts is simply avoided through judicious
project and turbine placement). Although using a small sample, Kielisch (2009) also found that close proximity
(particularly within half a mile) increased risks significantly for residential properties. Gibbons (2014) used a
sample of 38,000 house price observations in England and Wales and found price reductions associated with
wind farms. Specifically, they found that for wind farms of all sizes, this price reduction is around 5-6% on
average for housing with a visible wind farm within 2 km, falling to under 2% between 2-4 km, and to near
zero between 8-14 km, which is at the limit of likely visibility. In addition, for a small sample of larger wind
farms, Gibbons (2014) found that price reduction can be up to 12% on average for housing with a visible wind
farm within 2 km, 5.3% between 2-4 km, 4.6% between 4-8 km and 1.6% between 8-14 km.
With regard to the timing of impacts, Hinnman (2010) found evidence of depressed values before the building
of a wind farm in Illinois (United States), but not afterwards and once it was operational. In keeping with other
studies (see Wolsink (1989), Exeter-Enterprises-Ltd. (1993) and Palmer (1997)) the most likely reason for these
results are interpreted as the existence of ‘wind farm anticipation stigma’. It is surmised that values may have
decreased initially due to general uncertainty surrounding aesthetics, noise and disruption only to rebound
during wind farm operations when property owners acquired information and experience counter to their
initial fears (Hinnman, 2010). While making clear predictions is not possible, it stands to reason that the South

74
African context lends itself to the emergence of some level of anticipation stigma particularly in smaller
communities.
Although assessments of the impacts of wind farms on property values are scarce in South Africa, Broughton
(2019) assessed the impacts of the West Coast One Wind Farm near Vredenburg in the Western Cape and the
Kouga Wind Farm near Oyster Bay in the Eastern Cape. She conducted interviews with estate agencies
operating in these areas who revealed that wind farm developments did not affect demand nor prices of
property in towns nearby. Oyster Bay, a popular tourism destination, is located 1.7 km away from the nearest
Kouga Wind Farm turbines and about 15 turbines can be found within 7 km of the town. Verdenburg is located
4.5 km away from West Coast One. In addition, a review of historical property price trends in relation to the
development stages of the wind farms was not able to find linkages between local property price dynamics
and the developments of wind farms (Broughton, 2019).
In summary, the majority of the evidence from elsewhere (particularly peer reviewed research) tends to
indicate that findings of overall negative property value impacts from wind farms are not common. However,
instances of negative impacts have been documented primarily in cases where turbines are relatively close to
residences (generally within 1 to 2 km) altering views dominated by natural features with clear aesthetic value.

6.8.3. Specialist findings and key considerations

The findings of the Visual Impact Assessment (VIA), including its contributions to the iterative design process,
are of particular relevance. They have been discussed previously when considering impacts on tourism and
impacts on surrounding landowners and communities. The VIA adapted general guidelines for buffers around
wind farms to the local context and undertook visual sensitivity mapping whereby scenic resources and
sensitive receptors within the study area were categorised into no-go, high sensitivity, medium sensitivity and
low visual sensitivity zones (Table 6.24). The sensitivity mapping guided the layout of wind turbines and
associated infrastructure and the VIA notes that it provides some indication of the level of acceptable change
in visual terms. Staying within these societally acceptable limits should also limit the chance of unacceptable
risks to property values.
Table 6.24: Visual Sensitivity Mapping Categories for Wind Turbines

Scenic Resources No-go areas High visual sensitivity Medium visualLow visual sensitivity
sensitivity

Topographic feature: prominentFeature within 250m within 500m -

scarps, peaks and ridges
Topographic feature: minor ridges,Feature within 150m - -
scarps and outcrops
Steep slopes Slopes > 1:10 Slopes 1:10 - 1:20 - -
Scenic water features within 250m within 500m - -
Cultural landscapes1 Refer to HIA - -
Protected Landscapes / Sensitive Receptors
National Parks (Karoo NP) within 5km within 10km within 15km -
Nature Reserves n/a - - -
Private reserves / game farms outsideWithin 1,5km within 3 km within 5 km -
the WEF sites
Settlements/ towns (Loxton) n/a n/a n/a -
Farmsteads outside site within 1km within 2km within 3km -
Farmsteads inside site within 500m within 750m within 1km -
Arterial route R3812 within 750m within 1 km within 1,5 km -
Scenic Passes/ Poorts (R381) within 1km within 1,5km within 2km -
Main district road within 250m within 500m within 750m -

75
Source: (Lawson and Oberholzer, 2021)

Visual impacts on residential dwellings are of particular interest given their potential to result in property value
impacts. In this regard, turbine placement, informed by the VIA, ensured that all farmsteads outside the site
would be in the low visual sensitivity zone (i.e. they would be more than 2 km from the nearest turbine). In
general, the VIA found that a highly limited number of neighbouring farmsteads (including guest farms) would
be in close proximity to the wind farm - one farmstead and guest house would be within 2.5 km of it (Khulu
Umzi Self-catering Lodge on Donkergat Farm – 2.4km away), two farmsteads would be within 2.5 to 5 km,
eight farmsteads would be within 5 to 10 km and all other farmsteads would be at a distance greater than 10
km.
Aside from risks nearby the site, positive primary impacts should also have secondary impacts on property
values. For example, the value of properties in towns nearby should experience a slight boost due to increased
commercial activity associated with expenditure and job creation. The value of properties adjacent to the wind
farms may also increase on the basis of speculation that additional wind farms may be approved on these
properties thereby offering a potentially significant additional income stream and economic diversification
opportunity that is resilient to drought. While this is a real possibility, in order to remain conservative, it was
not considered when rating overall impacts on property values due to its speculative nature.

6.8.4. Construction phase impacts

The property value context, literature review, results of the preceding sections of this socio-economic
assessment with relevance to property values and other specialist findings and key considerations discussed
above indicate that the project should have a low overall impact on property values with mitigation in the
construction phase.
There is a risk that negative perceptions and uncertainty regarding the project would result in suppressed
values (and buyer interest) until construction is complete. Only at this point would there be clarity for buyers
regarding what the wind farm would actually look like and how it would operate thereby allowing for more
informed decisions.
Table 6.25: Impacts on property values during construction

Issue Impacts on property values

Description of Impact
Changes in property values due to visual and other impacts
Type of Impact Indirect
Nature of Impact Negative
Phases Construction
Criteria Without Mitigation With Mitigation
Intensity Low Low
Duration Short-term Short-term
Extent Site Site
Consequence Low Low
Probability Possible / frequent Possible / frequent
Significance Low - Low -
Degree to which impact can be reversed Low
Degree to which impact may cause
Low
irreplaceable loss of resources
Degree to which impact can be mitigated Mitigation exists and will notably reduce significance of impacts
Mitigation actions

76
 Impacts on property values are dependent on how the site is developed
and managed to minimise negative biophysical and socio-economic
The following measures are impacts. The measures recommended in other specialist reports to
recommended: these impacts (primarily the minimisation of visual, heritage, traffic and
ecological impacts) and in this study would thus also minimise property
value impacts.
Monitoring
The following monitoring is Section 7 on mitigation and EMPR requirements provides details on
recommended: monitoring required for the above mitigation measures.
Cumulative impacts
Cumulative impacts associated with all four Hoogland wind farms and
associated grid infrastructure, as well as all three Nuweveld wind farms
and associated gridline, are expected to be low negative with mitigation
during construction and operations. This reflects the greater scale of
Nature of cumulative impacts development and the findings of the Visual Impact Assessment that the
cumulative impacts could be high given the potential effect on the rural
landscape and sense of place. It also recognises that development at
this scale will provide a more significant boost to the local economy
with the potential to boost property values.
Rating of cumulative impacts Without Mitigation With Mitigation
Medium - Low -

6.8.5. Operational phase impacts

The property value context, literature review, results of the preceding sections of this socio-economic
assessment with relevance to property values and other specialist findings and key considerations discussed
above indicate that the project should have a low overall impact on property values with mitigation in the
operational phase. Risks near the site should thus remain at an acceptable level and should be somewhat
offset by positive impacts particularly in nearby towns. Note that risks will be highest for individual properties
where tourism and leisure uses are the main drivers of value.
Table 6.26: Impacts on property values during operation

Issue Impacts on property values

Description of Impact
Changes in property values due to visual and other impacts
Type of Impact Indirect
Nature of Impact Negative
Phases Operation
Criteria Without Mitigation With Mitigation
Intensity Low Low
Duration Long-term Long-term
Extent Site Site
Consequence Low Low
Probability Possible / frequent Possible / frequent
Significance Low - Low -
Degree to which impact can be reversed Low
Degree to which impact may cause
Low
irreplaceable loss of resources
Degree to which impact can be mitigated Mitigation exists and will notably reduce significance of impacts
Mitigation actions

77
 Impacts on property values are dependent on how the site is developed
and managed to minimise negative biophysical and socio-economic
The following measures are impacts. The measures recommended in other specialist reports to
recommended: these impacts (primarily the minimisation of visual, heritage, traffic and
ecological impacts) and in this study would thus also minimise property
value impacts.
Monitoring
The following monitoring is Section 7 on mitigation and EMPR requirements provides details on
recommended: monitoring required for the above mitigation measures.
Cumulative impacts
Cumulative impacts associated with all four Hoogland wind farms and
associated grid infrastructure, as well as all three Nuweveld wind farms
and associated gridline, are expected to be low negative with mitigation
during construction and operations. This reflects the greater scale of
Nature of cumulative impacts development and the findings of the Visual Impact Assessment that the
cumulative impacts could be high given the potential effect on the rural
landscape and sense of place. It also recognises that development at
this scale will provide a more significant boost to the local economy
with the potential to boost property values.
Rating of cumulative impacts Without Mitigation With Mitigation
Medium - Low -

6.8.6. Decommissioning phase impacts

Decommissioning would be similar to construction phase impacts, although it may use slightly less labour and
be of a shorter timeframe and relative intensity. Impacts of the phase would thus be similar but less than those
experienced during construction.
Table 6.27: Impacts on property values during decommissioning
Issue Impacts on property values
Description of Impact
Changes in property values due to visual and other impacts
Type of Impact Indirect
Nature of Impact Negative
Phases Decommissioning
Criteria Without Mitigation With Mitigation
Intensity Low Low
Duration Short-term Short-term
Extent Site Site
Consequence Low Low
Probability Possible / frequent Possible / frequent
Significance Low - Low -
Degree to which impact can be reversed Low
Degree to which impact may cause
Low
irreplaceable loss of resources
Degree to which impact can be mitigated Mitigation exists and will notably reduce significance of impacts
Mitigation actions
Impacts on property values are dependent on how decommissioning
The following measures are happens, how the site is managed to minimise negative biophysical and
recommended: socio-economic impacts. The measures recommended in other
specialist reports to these impacts (primarily the minimisation of visual,

78
 heritage, traffic and ecological impacts) and in this study would thus
also minimise property value impacts.
Monitoring
The following monitoring is Section 7 on mitigation and EMPR requirements provides details on
recommended: monitoring required for the above mitigation measures.
Cumulative impacts
Cumulative impacts associated with all four Hoogland wind farms and
associated grid infrastructure, as well as all three Nuweveld wind farms
and associated gridline, are expected to be low negative with mitigation
during decommissioning. This reflects the greater scale of development
Nature of cumulative impacts and the findings of the Visual Impact Assessment that the cumulative
impacts could be high given the potential effect on the rural landscape
and sense of place. It also recognises that development at this scale will
provide a more significant boost to the local economy with the
potential to boost property values.
Rating of cumulative impacts Without Mitigation With Mitigation
Medium - Low -

6.8.7. Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impacts associated with all four Hoogland wind farms and associated grid infrastructure, as well
as all three Nuweveld wind farms and associated gridline, are expected to be low negative with mitigation
during construction and operations. This reflects the greater scale of development and the findings of the
Visual Impact Assessment that the cumulative impacts could be high given the potential effect on the rural
landscape and sense of place. It also recognises that development at this scale will provide a more significant
boost to the local economy with the potential to boost property values.

6.8.8. Mitigation
Impacts on property values are dependent on how the site is developed and managed to minimise negative
biophysical and social impacts. The measures recommended in other specialist reports to these impacts
(primarily the minimisation of visual, heritage, traffic and ecological impacts) and in this study would thus also
minimise property value impacts.

6.9. No-go alternative

The no-go alternative is, by definition, the continuation of the status quo the impacts of which can best be
described as neutral. In particular, it can be noted that the no-go alternative would result in:

• Neutral impacts linked to project expenditure as this expenditure would not occur.

• Neutral impacts associated with the funding of local socio-economic development initiatives as there
would be no additional funding from the project.

• Neutral social impacts associated primarily with the influx of people as there would be no influx.

• Neutral impacts on surrounding landowners and communities as the risk factors associated with the
project would be absent.

• Neutral impacts on tourism as the risk factors associated with the project would be absent.

Neutral impacts on property values as risks associated with factors that might influence property values would
be absent.

79
7. MITIGATION AND EMPR REQUIREMENTS

Impact Management Outcome: Economic impacts associated with expenditure during the construction and operation phases of the project are maximised
Time period for Monitoring
Impact Management Actions implementation of the impact
Method Frequency Responsible person
management actions
Set targets for use of local CONSTRUCTION PHASE • Employee profiles should Auditing of these REI4P Holder of the EA
labour, based on REIPPP OPERATION PHASE be compiled by project requirements as per the REI4P
thresholds and targets outlined owner and assessed by the auditing schedule
in DMRE, 2021 (eg. RSA-based IPP office as per the REI4P
employees who are citizens and requirements to determine
from local communities should whether local labour
make up at least 20% of the sourcing targets have been
workforce). met.
• Where targets have not
been met, the IPP office
penalties and rectification
actions must be complied
with.
Maximise the use of local sub- CONSTRUCTION PHASE • Records of spending on Auditing of these REI4P Holder of the EA
contractors where possible OPERATION PHASE procurement should be requirements as per the REI4P
through tendering and compiled by project owner auditing schedule
procurement and ensure and assessed by the IPP
meeting the REI4P local content office as per the REI4P
requirements requirements
• Where targets have not
been met, the IPP office
penalties and rectification
actions must be complied
with.
Ensure that employees are OPERATION PHASE • Programme resources to be Annual check of records to Holder of the EA
adequately prepared to cope checked by ECO or ensure that programming is
with the challenges that come equivalent being done for all staff brought
with being employed through • Attendance schedules to be on board.
the establishment of an checked by ECO or
equivalent

80
employee induction
programme

Impact Management Outcome: Impacts associated with project’s contribution to socio-economic and enterprise development initiatives are maximised
Time period for Monitoring
Impact Management Actions implementation of the impact
Method Frequency Responsible person
management actions
Close liaison with local OPERATION PHASE • Consultations with Auditing of these REI4P Holder of the EA
municipal and other municipal and other requirements as per the REI4P
stakeholders involved in socio- relevant stakeholder auditing schedule
economic development in order representatives will reveal
to ensure that any projects are whether the project’s
integrated into wider strategies socio-economic
and plans with regard to socio- development spending is
economic development. aligned with wider
strategies and plans.
• Efforts should be made to
ensure that socio-economic
development spending is
aligned with local and
district municipal strategies
and plans as outlined in
IDPs and SDFs, as well as
communicated through
consultative processes.
• The socio-economic
development spending
must be assessed by the
IPP office as per the REI4P
requirements
• Where targets have not
been met, the IPP office
penalties and rectification
actions must be complied
with.

Impact Management Outcome: Social impacts associated with an influx of people are minimised and controlled.

81
Impact Management Actions Time period for Monitoring
implementation of the impact Method Frequency Responsible person
management actions
The Project Owner and the CONSTRUCTION PHASE • Establish Code of Conduct. Auditing of these REI4P Holder of the EA
contractors should develop a OPERATION PHASE • ECO or equivalent to review requirements as per the REI4P
Code of Conduct for the project. Code of Conduct. auditing schedule
The Code of Conduct should • Ensure that all staff,
identify what types of behaviour contractor and member of
and activities by workers are not the workforce has received
permitted taking account of the basic training on the Code
needs of surrounding of Conduct during their
landowners and communities induction onsite.
residing in affected areas. • Ensure that the Code of
All staff, contractors and Conduct requirements are
members of the workforce must well understood and
be made aware of the Code of respected by all staff,
Conduct during the recruitment contractor and member of
process. the workforce.
Awareness training must be • Monitor the behaviour of
provided during their induction any staff, contractor and
onsite and prior to member of the workforce
commencement of work duties onsite during the
on site. construction phase.
Display the Code of Conduct in • Record complaints and
the operation and maintenance incidents in the
buildings and construction environmental incident log.
areas.

The Project Owner and the CONSTRUCTION PHASE • Record and file attendance Auditing of these REI4P Holder of the EA
contractor should implement an registers and material requirements as per the REI4P
HIV/AIDS awareness presented during the auditing schedule
programme for all construction HIV/AIDS awareness
workers at the outset of the programme for all
construction phase. construction workers
• ECO or equivalent to review
and file the attendance
registers and training
material for the external
audits

82
 • Attendance registers and
copy of training material is
kept on site and included in
internal audit reports.
• Record complaints and
incidents in the
environmental incident log.

Impact Management Outcome: Socio-Economic impacts on surrounding landowners and communities are minimised and controlled.
Impact Management Actions Time period for Monitoring
implementation of the impact Method Frequency Responsible person
management actions
Apply the Code of Conduct for CONSTRUCTION PHASE • Same as those outlined Auditing of these REI4P Holder of the EA
the project. Continue with the OPERATION PHASE above surrounding requirements as per the REI4P
REI4P monitoring requirements. implementation of Code of auditing schedule
Conduct
The movement of workers on CONSTRUCTION PHASE • The ECO or equivalent Auditing of these REI4P Holder of the EA
and off the site should be should conduct randomized requirements as per the REI4P
closely managed and monitored interviews with workers of auditing schedule
by the contractors. In this contractors to monitor the
regard the contractors should provision of transport.
be responsible for making the • Where transport can be
necessary arrangements for confirmed not to have been
transporting workers to and provided (through
from site on a daily basis. discussions with the
contractors), this should be
recorded in the
environmental incident log.
The Contractor/ Project Owner CONSTRUCTION PHASE • Affected landowners can Auditing of these REI4P Holder of the EA
should implement measures to raise any incidents of requirements as per the REI4P
assist and, if needed, fairly damages to farm property, auditing schedule
compensate potentially stock theft and other
affected landowners whereby disruptions to their
damages to farm property, operations, which can be
stock theft or significant shown to have resulted due
disruptions to farming activities to the presence of the
can be minimized or reduced. project.
Measures should be agreed on

83
before construction • If the incidents can be
commences. For these to be shown to be the result of
fairly dealt with, it will be the project, and where the
necessary to set up a project owners fail to
Monitoring Programme in resolve the matter with
collaboration with affected affected parties, the
landowners that is specifically incident can be recorded in
designed to provide clarity on the environmental incident
impacts and risks. Aspects or log and further action be
risks that should be monitored considered.
need to be agreed on with
affected land owners. The
Contractor/ Project Owner
should formally commit to
mitigation and potential
compensation actions that may
arise from REI4P monitoring
requirements.
A fire management plan should CONSTRUCTION PHASE • Control that the fire Monthly external audits Holder of the EA
be drawn up prior to management plan is
construction in agreement with compiled and approved by
affected land owners. This plan the ECO or equivalent prior
should clearly specify what to the commencement of
types of behaviour would not construction activities.
be acceptable with appropriate • Ensure that onsite Fire
sanction for transgressions. The Control Officer is appointed
Contractor/ Project Owner prior to commencement of
should also ensure that they construction activities and
join the local fire protection that a collaboration is set
agency. If the local fire up with the local fire
protection agency deems it protection agency.
necessary then fire breaks • Control that the staff who
around the site should be have specific
constructed as a first order of responsibilities in case of
business before any other fire are trained to
construction works begin. implement the emergency
plan for dealing with a fire
situation (audit of the
training session attendance

84
 registers and material used
for the training).
The EMPR must outline CONSTRUCTION PHASE • Audits of waste Monthly external audits Holder of the EA
procedures for managing and segregation/disposal
storing waste on site, methods on a monthly Weekly inspections by
specifically plastic waste that basis. Environmental Manager during
poses a threat to livestock if • Monitor that wastes are construction phase and
ingested. correctly separated into decommissioning phase.
recyclable and non-
recyclable waste on weekly Weekly inspections by Facility
basis during construction Manager during operation
phase. phase.
• Inspect that all refuse bins
have a lid secured to
prevent animal scavenging
and scattering on weekly
basis during construction
phase.
• Inspect condition and
integrity of skips and waste
collection bins, particularly
after rainfall events.
• Record and report non-
conformance to the ECO for
external audits.

85
8. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In term of positive impacts, the project would be largely supportive of local and regional socio-economic
development and energy supply planning imperatives including the diversification of the economy and energy
sources. The expenditure associated with the project would be about R3 billion to R3.4 billion per wind farm
(R6 billion–R6.8 billion for both wind farms) and R108 million to R119 million would be spent annually during
operations per wind farm (R216–R238 million for both). Roughly 160 to 200 jobs of 18 to 24-month duration would
be associated with construction per wind farm (320–400 jobs for both) and between 40 and 60 direct employment
opportunities would be created during operations per wind farm (80–120 jobs for both), resulting in major benefits.
In addition, each wind farm would contribute a minimum of R4.5 to R4.9 million per annum if averaged over
20 years to local socio-economic development, local community shareholding and enterprise development
(R9 million–R9.8 million for both wind farms). As these figures are based on the minimum requirements, they
represent conservative estimates.
Negative impacts would primarily arise at a local scale. It is anticipated that, with mitigation, the risks posed to the
community by the influx of people, including job seekers, would be manageable and of a low significance with
mitigation. Impacts on tourism would be driven by visual and associated heritage impacts on a relatively isolated
area with wilderness quality and limited signs of civilisation. However, tourisms facilities and attractions in the areas
surrounding the project site are very limited and sparsely distributed, with the exception of Khulu Umzi Self-catering
Lodge, on Donkergat Farm, 2.4km from the nearest planned wind turbine. With the exception of this establishment,
which is owned by a participant and therefore financial beneficiary of the wind farm project, the tourism context
itself should limit impacts to a low significance during construction and a medium significance during operations
with mitigation. Impacts on surrounding landowners and communities, including to their sense of place, are
expected to be low negative with mitigation during construction and operations. Overall impacts on property values
should also remain low with mitigation in keeping with the avoidance of no-go and high visual sensitivity areas and
reflecting the findings of the assessment of other socio-economic impacts.
It is considered most likely that the combined positive impacts of the project would exceed its negative impacts
resulting in an overall net benefit with mitigation. The project is therefore deemed acceptable in terms of socio-
economic impacts and should be allowed to proceed.

86
9. REFERENCES

Aitchison, C. 2012. Tourism impact of wind farms. Submitted to Renewables Inquiry, Scottish Government. The
University of Edinburgh.
BiGGAR Economics. 2016. Wind Farms and Tourism Trends in Scotland: A Research Report. BiGGAR Economics,
Midlothian, Scotland.
Broughton, E. 2019. EIA of for the proposed Boulders Wind Farm near Vredenburg in the Western Cape: Property
values, tourism, and economic issues assessment report. Prepared for Savannah Environmental. Urban-Econ,
Pretoria.
Barbour, T, 2007. Guideline for undertaken Social Impact Assessment in the EIA process: Provincial Government of
the Western Cape, Department of Environmental Affairs & Development Planning, Cape Town.
Barbour, T. and van der Merwe, S. 2012. EIA of the SAGIT Wind Energy Facility near Wolseley, Western Cape: Social
Impact Assessment. Report to GIBB, Cape Town.
Beaufort West Local Municipality (BWLM). 2021. Integrated Development Plan 2017 – 2022: 4th Annual Review
2021/2022. BWLM, Beaufort West.
Broekel, T. and Alfken, C. 2015. Gone with the wind? The impact of wind turbines on tourism demand. Energy Policy,
86: 506-519.
Central Karoo District Municipality (CKDM). 2021. Integrated Development Plan 2021-2022 Review. CKDM,
Beaufort West.
Centre for Economics and Business Research (CEBR). 2014. The effect of wind farms on house prices. CEBR, UK.
CNdV Africa. 2013. Beaufort West Municipality SDF. CNdV Africa, Cape Town.
De Sousa, AJG. Kastenholz, E. 2015. Wind farms and the rural tourism experience – problem or possible productive
integration? The views of visitors and residents of a Portuguese village
De Wit, M., van Zyl, H.W. and King, N. 2004. The Cost of Noise Pollution. In: Blignaut, J & de Wit, M (Eds). Sustainable
Options: Development Lessons from Applied Environmental Economics. UCT Press, Cape Town.
DEA (Department of Environmental Affairs). 2019. Draft National Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) for the
effective and efficient roll-out of large scale wind and solar development in South Africa Phase 2. Draft CSIR Report
to DEA. DEA, Pretoria.
DEA (Department of Environmental Affairs). 2016. National Electricity Grid Infrastructure Strategic Environmental
Assessment. CSIR Report to DEA. DEA, Pretoria.

EARES, 2021. Environmental noise impact assessment for the proposed Hoogland 1 and Hoogland 2 Wind Farms and
associated infrastructure near Loxton, Western Cape Province. EARES Enviro Acoustic Research, Garsfontein East.
Frantál, B. Kunc, J. 2011. Wind turbines in tourism landscapes: Czech experience. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(2):
499-519. doi:10.1016/j.annals.2010.10.007.
Gibbons, S. 2014. Gone with the Wind: Valuing the Visual Impacts of Wind turbines through House Prices. Spatial
Economic Research Centre (SERC) DISCUSSION PAPER 159. SERC, London.
Gordon, DS. 2017. Wind farms and tourism in Scotland: A review with a focus on mountaineering and landscape.
Mountaineering Scotland, Perth.
Health Systems Trust (HST). no date. Pixley ka Seme District Profile (Online). Available:
https://www.hst.org.za/publications/NonHST%20Publications/Northern%20Cape%20-
%20Pixley%20ka%20Seme%20District.pdf [Accessed 18/12/2019].
Helblich, S., Olner, D., Pryce, G. & Timmins, C. 2016. Impact of wind turbines on house prices in Scotland. Report
for ClimateXChange, the Scotland's centre of expertise on climate change. funded by the Scottish Government.

87
https://www.climatexchange.org.uk/media/1359/cxc_wind_farms_impact_on_house_prices_final_17_oct_2016.
pdf

Hinman. J.L. 2010. Wind farm proximity and property values: a pooled hedonic regression analysis of property values
in central Illinois. In partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Applied Economics,
Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois.

Hoen, B., Brown, J.P., Jackson, T., Wiser, R., Thayer, M. and Cappers, P. 2013. A Spatial Hedonic Analysis of the Effect
of Wind Energy Facilities on Surrounding Property Values in the United States. Berkley National Laboratory, California,
USA.

Hoen, B., Wiser, R., Cappers, P., Thayer, M. & Sethi, G. 2009. The Impact of Wind Power Projects on Residential
Property Values in the United States: A Multi-Site Hedonic Analysis. Report Nr. LBNL-2829E prepared for the Office
of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy. Prepared by Berkeley National Laboratory,
Environmental Energy Technologies Division, Berkeley, California.

Lang, C. and Opaluch, J. 2013. Effects of Wind Turbines on Property Values in Rhode Island. Environmental and Natural
Resource Economics Dept, University of Rhode Island.

Lewis, E. 2021. Proposed Hoogland Wind Farms and Grid Connection Project, Northern Cluster: Hoogland 1 wind
Farm and Hoogland 2 Wind Farm. Arcus Consulting, York.

Kalashnikova, Y. 2016. The ABC of tourist attitudes towards wind industry in Skåne: affective, behavioral and cognitive
dimensions. Master Thesis, Lund University Centre for Sustainability Studies.
Karoo Hoogland Local Municipality (KHLM). 2021. Integrated Development Plan (IDP) of the Karoo Hoogland
Municipality 2017 – 2022. KHLM, Williston.
Kielisch, K. 2009. Wind Turbine Impact Study: Dodge and Fond Du Lac Counties, WI. Appraisal Group One. Prepared
for Calumet County Citizens for Responsible Energy (CCCRE), Calumet County, WI. September 9, 2009. 73 pages.
Lawson, Q and Oberholzer, B. 2022. Proposed Hoogland Wind Farms and Grid Connection Project: Northern Cluster:
Hoogland 1 and Hoogland 2 Wind Farms, Visual Impact Assessment.
Magoro, TB. 2021. PFL Live Webinar: Analysing South Africa’s Renewable Energy Bid Window 5 Results.
Independent Power Producers Office.
Namakwa District Municipality (NDM) 2021. Integrated Development Plan Revision 2021–2022. NDM: Springbok.
Nordman, E. Mutinda, J. 2016. Biodiversity and wind energy in Kenya: Revealing landscape and wind turbine
perceptions in the world’s wildlife capital. Energy Research & Social Science. Energy Research & Social Science, 19:
108-118.
Northern Cape Provincial Government (NCPG) 2021. Northern Cape Socio-economic Review and Outlook 2021.
Northern Cape Provincial Treasury, Kimberly.
Orton, J. 2021. Heritage Impact Assessment: Proposed Hoogland 1 Wind Farm and Hoogland 2 Wind Farm, Beaufort
West Magisterial District, Western Cape. ASHA Consulting, Lakeside.
Pixley ka Seme District Municipality (PkSDM) 2021. Integrated Development Plan: Draft IDP 2021–2022.

Polecon Research. 2013. The Impact of Wind Farms on Tourism in New Hampshire. Dover, New Hampshire.

Schwarz, A. 2021. Red Cap Energy Hoogland Northern Cluster Wind Farms Traffic Impact Assessment. Athol Schwarz,
Table View.

Sims, S. and Dent, P. 2007. Property Stigma: Wind Farms Are Just The Latest Fashion. Journal of Property Investment
& Finance. 25(6): 626-651.
Statistics South Africa (Stats SA). 2012. Census 2011. Stats SA, Pretoria.
Statistics South Africa (Stats SA). 2017. Community Survey 2016. Stats SA, Pretoria.
88
Ubuntu Local Municipality (ULM). 2021. 2017-2022: 2020/21 Draft IDP Review. ULM, Victoria West.
Urbis. 2016. Review of the Impact of Wind Farms on Property Values. Report to the NSW Office of Environment and
Heritage, Australia. Urbis, Sydney.
Van Zyl, H.W. and Barbour, T. 2014. Environmental Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kleinberg Dam Scheme
and Associated Infrastructure, Hex River Valley, Western Cape: Socio-economic Specialist Study. Report to Holland
and Associates. Independent Economic Researchers, Cape Town.
Van Zyl, H.W. 2007. Property Price Approaches to the Valuation of Urban Wetlands: Theoretical Considerations and
Policy Implications. PhD Economics Thesis. School of Economics, University of Cape Town.
Van Zyl, H.W. and Leiman, A. 2002. Hedonic Approaches to Estimating the Impacts of Open Spaces: A Case Study in
the Cape. South African Journal of Economics and Management Science, Vol. 5(2). June.
Wesgro, 2018. Cape Karoo Visitor Trends 2018. Wesgro, Cape Town.
Western Cape Provincial Government. 2018a. Socio-economic profile: Beaufort West Municipality. WCPG, Cape
Town.
Western Cape Provincial Government. 2018b. Socio-economic profile: Central Karoo District Municipality. WCPG,
Cape Town.
Western Cape Provincial Government. 2020a. Socio-economic profile: Beaufort West Municipality. WCPG, Cape
Town.
Western Cape Provincial Government. 2020b. Socio-economic profile: Central Karoo District Municipality. WCPG,
Cape Town.

89
10. APPENDICES

Appendix A: Methodology

PART A: DEFINITIONS AND CRITERIA

Determination of CONSEQUENCE Consequence is a function of intensity, spatial extent and duration

Determination of SIGNIFICANCE Significance is a function of consequence and probability

Severe change, disturbance or degradation caused to receptors. Associated with severe consequences. May result in
Very High severe illness, injury or death. Targets, limits and thresholds of concern continually exceeded. Substantial intervention
will be required.
Prominent change, or large degree of modification, disturbance or degradation caused to receptors or which may
High
affect a large proportion of receptors, possibly entire species or community.
Criteria for ranking of the INTENSITY of
Moderate change, disturbance or discomfort caused to receptors and/or which may affect a moderate proportion of
environmental impacts Medium
receptors.
Minor (slight) change, disturbance or nuisance caused to receptors which is easily tolerated without intervention, or
Low
which may affect a small proportion of receptors.
Negligible change, disturbance or nuisance caused to receptors which is barely noticeable or may have minimal effect
Very Low
on receptors or affect a limited proportion of the receptors.
Very Short-
The duration of the impact will be < 1 year or may be intermittent.
term

Short-term The duration of the impact will be between 1 - 5 years

Criteria for ranking the DURATION of impacts Medium-term The duration of the impact will be Medium-term between, 5 to 10 years.

Long-term Long term, between 10 and 20 years. (Likely to cease at the end of the operational life of the activity)

Permanent The duration of the impact will be permanent

Site Impact is limited to the immediate footprint of the activity and immediate surrounds within a confined area.

Local Impact is confined to within the project site / area and its nearby surroundings.

Criteria for ranking the EXTENT of impacts Regional Impact is confined to the region, e.g. coast, basin, catchment, municipal region, district, etc.

National Impact may extend beyond district or regional boundaries with national implications.

International Impact extends beyond the national scale or may be transboundary.

90
 PART B: DETERMINING CONSEQUENCE
EXTENT
Site Local Regional National International
Intensity- Very Low
Permanent Low Low Medium Medium High
Long-term Low Low Low Medium Medium
DURATION Medium-term Very Low Low Low Low Medium
Short-term Very low Very Low Low Low Low
Very Short-term Very low Very Low Very Low Low Low
Intensity -Low
Permanent Medium Medium Medium High High
Long-term Low Medium Medium Medium High
DURATION Medium-term Low Low Medium Medium Medium
Short-term Low Low Low Medium Medium
Very Short-term Very low Low Low Low Medium
Intensity- Medium
Permanent Medium High High High Very High
Long-term Medium Medium Medium High High
DURATION Medium-term Medium Medium Medium High High
Short-term Low Medium Medium Medium High
Very Short-term Low Low Low Medium Medium
Intensity -High
Permanent High High High Very High Very High
Long-term Medium High High High Very High
DURATION Medium-term Medium Medium High High High
Short-term Medium Medium Medium High High
Very Short-term Low Medium Medium Medium High
Intensity - Very High
Permanent High High Very High Very High Very High
Long-term High High High Very High Very High
DURATION Medium-term Medium High High High Very High
Short-term Medium Medium High High High
Very Short-term Low Medium Medium High High
Site Local Regional National International
EXTENT

91
 PART C: DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE
Definite /
Very Low Low Medium High Very High
Continuous

Probable Very Low Low Medium High Very High

Possible /
PROBABILITY (to exposure of events) Very Low Very Low Low Medium High
frequent
Conceivable Insignificant Very Low Low Medium High

Unlikely /
Insignificant Insignificant Very Low Low Medium
improbable
Very Low Low Medium High Very High
CONSEQUENCE

PART D: INTERPRETATION OF SIGNIFICANCE

Represents a key factor in decision-making. In the case of adverse effects, the impact
Very High - Very High +
would be considered a fatal flaw unless mitigated to lower significance.

These beneficial or adverse effects are considered to be very important considerations

High - High + and are likely to be material for the decision-making process. In the case of negative
impacts, substantial mitigation will be required.

These beneficial or adverse effects may be important but are not likely to be key decision-
making factors. The cumulative effects of such issues may become a decision-making
Medium - Medium +
issue if leading to an increase in the overall adverse effect on a particular resource or
receptor. In the case of negative impacts, mitigation will be required.
These beneficial or adverse effects may be raised as localised issues. They are unlikely
to be critical in the decision-making process but could be important in the subsequent
Low - Low +
design of the project. In the case of negative impacts, some mitigation is likely to be
required.

These beneficial or adverse effects will not have an influence on the decision, neither will
Very Low - Very Low + they need to be taken into account in the design of the project. In the case of negative
impacts, mitigation is not necessarily required.

Any effects are beneath the levels of perception and inconsequential, therefore not
Insignificant
requiring any consideration.

92
Appendix B: Site sensitivity verification report

In accordance with GN 320 and GN 1150 of the NEMA EIA Regulations of 2014, prior to commencing with a specialist
assessment, a site sensitivity verification must be undertaken to confirm the current land use and environmental
sensitivity of the proposed project area as identified by the National Web-Based Environmental Screening Tool
(Screening Tool).
No preliminary socio-economic sensitivities or sensitivity rating was identified or provided based on the DFFE
Screening Tool (i.e. a preliminary sensitivity rating was not provided that could then be confirmed or altered based
on further assessment). Nevertheless, this assessment report contains a detailed assessment of the socio-economic
impacts of the proposed project. As such, it provides all the necessary information and assessment data to provide
an opinion on the sensitivity rating of the site.
It was therefore found that the site would have a low to medium sensitivity rating based on the following:
• The planning documents relevant to the site do not identify significant or inherent constraints to
appropriate development. Considered as a whole, the planning documents reviewed recognise the
importance of integrated and diversified economic development that makes optimal use of the area’s
comparative advantages and creates economic opportunities. The concept of a renewable energy project
is therefore broadly supported provided environmental impacts and impacts on other land uses and
potentials are acceptable.
• Tourism facilities and attractions in the areas are very limited and sparsely distributed reducing tourism
sensitivities. However, it should be recognised that the area is relatively isolated with wilderness quality
and limited signs of civilisation which contributes to its tourism potential. It has a remote sense of place
which makes it more sensitive to potential impacts on tourism and also on surrounding landowners and
communities.
• Given its remote and relatively isolated location, the site would be relatively sensitive to the influx of
people, including job seekers, that may be associated with the project. The influx of large numbers of
people are not thought likely and these risks should be manageable and are common to most larger
projects.
• The area is sensitive, in a positive sense, to increased economic opportunities as they are much needed as
reflected in low employment and income levels. Projects that can provide such opportunities are therefore
to be encouraged where possible.

93
Appendix C: Disclaimer

The primary role of this study is to inform the decision-making processes being undertaken by the relevant
environmental authorities with regards to the proposed project. Due care and diligence has been applied in the
production of the study. However, ultimate responsibility for approving, denying or requiring changes to the
proposed project application rests with the relevant environmental authorities (and other government bodies
where relevant) who also bear responsibility for interrogating and determining how assessment information from
this economic specialist study along with other information is to be used to reach their decisions. Independent
Economic Researchers and Dr Hugo van Zyl can therefore not be held responsibility or liable for any consequences
of the decisions made by the relevant environmental authorities with regard to the proposed project. This includes
any financial, reputational or other consequences that such decisions may have for the applicant, the
Environmental Assessment Practitioner responsible for conducting the Environmental Impact Assessment process
or for the environmental authorities themselves.

94
Appendix D: REIPPPP Economic Development Scorecard for evaluation of wind energy project bids – subject to revision for
current bidding window

Bidders in the REIPPP are required to meet specified minimum thresholds in respect of criteria including Job Creation; Local
Content; Ownership; Management Control; Skills Development; Preferential Procurement; Enterprise and Supplier
Development; and Socio-Economic Development. Table 10-1 shows selected thresholds for REIPPPP bidders wishing to
participate in Bid Window 5 in 2021. Bidders tend to win bids when they exceed some or all these thresholds relative to other
bidders whilst keeping their prices low.

Table 10-1: REIPPPP socio-economic development criteria and minimum thresholds for Bid Window 5
Minimum
Criteria acceptable
threshold

Job creation
RSA Based Employees who are Citizens 65%
RSA Based Employees who are Black People 40%
RSA Based Skilled Employees who are Black People 20%
RSA Based Skilled Employees who are Black People with specialised skills (eg engineering) 10%
RSA Based Employees who are Citizens from Local Communities (within 50km of project) 20%
RSA Based Employees who are Black Youth 30%
RSA Based Employees who are Black Women 10%
Local content
Local Content Spend during Construction and Operation for On-shore Wind 40%
Local Content Spend during Construction and Operation for Solar PV 45%
Designated Local Content for project components also in National Treasury Sector Circulars
Ownership in Seller
Shareholding by Black People 30%
Shareholding by Local Communities 3%
Shareholding by Black Women 5%
Ownership in Material Contractors
Shareholding by Black People in the Construction Contractor 25%
Shareholding by Black People in the Operations Contractor 25%
Shareholding by Black Women in the Construction Contractor 5%
Shareholding by Black Women in the Operations Contractor 5%
Management Control
Black Board Directors 25%
Black Executive Management 30%
Black Senior Management 30%
Black Women Board Directors 8%
Black Women in Executive Management 8%
Black Women in Senior Management 8%
Skills Development
Skills Development Contributions Spend (as % of revenue) 0.05%
Higher Education Bursaries for Black Students Spend (as % of revenue) 0.05%
Skills Development Contributions Spend for Black Disabled Employees (as % of revenue) 0.005%
Preferential Procurement
B-BBEE Procurement (as % of total project spend) 30%
Black Enterprise Procurement (as % of total project spend) 10%
B-BBEE Procurement on QSEs and EMEs (as % of total project spend) 5%
B-BBEE Procurement on Black Women Owned Suppliers (as % of total project spend) 3%
Supplier Development
Supplier Development Contributions as % of Construction Spend 0.1%
Supplier Development Contributions as % of Operations Spend 0.1%
Enterprise Development
Enterprise Development Contributions (as % of revenue) 0.6%
Socio-economic Development
Socio-Economic Development Contributions (as % of revenue) 1.1%
Source: IPP Office (2021)
95
Appendix E: Abbreviated CV for Hugo van Zyl and James Kinghorn

Dr Hugo Van Zyl

Profile and Key Expertise

Economist with a PhD and 20 years’ experience focusing on the analysis of projects and policies with significant
environmental and development implications. Has conducted over 60 economic appraisals of infrastructure
projects, industrial developments, mixed use developments, mining, energy projects, conservation projects and
eco-tourism initiatives. The majority of these appraisals have involved the use of socio-economic impact assessment
tools and cost-benefit analysis in order to inform decision-making. Has lead, participated in and co-ordinated
research in socio-economic impact assessment, environmental resource economics (incl. ecosystem services
assessment and valuation, biodiversity finance and offsets, payments for ecosystem services, policy reform),
strategic assessment and conservation financing. Has provided economic inputs and guidance to national water
tariff, air pollution, biodiversity conservation, biofuels, mine closure funding and climate change policy. Has had
broad exposure to options for local economic development and their successful implementation. Country
experience includes: South Africa, Namibia, Ethiopia, Botswana, Russia, Seychelles, Georgia, Cape Verde, Armenia,
Kazakhstan and Nigeria.

Selected relevant experience:

Economic and socio-economic impact assessments forming part of Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs)

➢ Renewable energy:
Wind – Nuweveld near Beaufort West (2021); Ishwati Emoyeni near Murraysburg (2015); SWE near Vleesbaai, Western
Cape (2013); SAGIT Energy Ventures near Bot River and Wolesley, Western Cape (2012). Windcurrent Banna ba Pifhu
near Jeffrey’s Bay, Eastern Cape (2011); InnoWind near Mossel Bay, Western Cape (2011); Mainstream near Jeffrey’s
Bay, Eastern Cape (2010).
Solar – Mainstream Kentani near Dealesville, Free State (2014); Mainstream near Douglas and Keimoes, Northern Cape
(2012); Thupela Energy near Vaalwater, Limpopo (2011).
➢ Roads:
N2 bypasses at Butterworth and iDutywa (2016); R44 upgrading between Stellenbosch and Somerset West (2014);
Musina Ring Road, Limpopo (2011); Bloubos local road in Somerset West, Western Cape (2010); N1/N9 intersection
upgrade at Colesberg, Free State (2009); tolling of the N1, N2 and R300 roads in the vicinity of Cape Town (2005);
Changing road configurations on Hospital Bend in Cape Town (2001)
➢ Infrastructure and agricultural development:
Farm dams and production expansion for Habata Agri in the Robertson area, Western Cape (2017); Desalination plants
for Umgeni Water, Kwa-zulu Natal (2015); Kleinberg Dam in the Hex River Valley, Western Cape (2014); Desalination
plant for West Coast District Municipality, Western Cape (2012); Green Point World Cup Stadium, Cape Town (2008);
Petroline petrol pipeline between Maputo and Gauteng (2008); Muldersvlei water treatment plant and reservoir near
Klapmuts, Western Cape (2007); Iron ore terminal expansion at Saldanha port, Western Cape (2000); Wastewater
treatment plan for East London, Eastern Cape (1996); Vissershok landfill expansion, Cape Town (2002); Regional landfill
to service Cape Town (2006 and 2012); Helderberg waste transfer station in Somerset West, Western Cape (2008).
➢ Industrial developments and mining:
➢ Oil and gas exploration drilling in PEL 34 off Luderitz coast, Namibia (2017); Upgrade and expansion of the Tsumeb
copper smelter, Namibia (2017); Kamiesberg mineral sands mine, Northern Cape (2015); Burgan Oil fuel storage and
distribution facility at Cape Town Harbour, Western Cape (2015), Frankfort Kraft Paper Mill, Free State (2015);
Saldanha Regional Marine Outfall Project in Danger Bay near Saldanha Bay, Western Cape (2014), AfriSam limestone
mine and plant at Saldanha Bay, Western Cape (2012); Vedanta zinc mine near Aggeneys, Northern Cape (2013);
Expansion of the PPC cement plant at Riebeek West, Western Cape (2009); Burnstone gold mine expansion (2009);
Valencia uranium mine in Namibia (2008); Tata Steel ferrochrome smelter in Richards Bay, KZN (2003); Conversion of
the Sasol Chemical Industries plant in Sasolburg from a coal based to a natural gas based plant, Free State (2002).
➢ Mixed-use and residential developments:
Granger Bay extension of V&A Waterfront, Cape Town (2014); Ladysmith mixed-use development, Kwa-Zulu Natal
(2014); Barinor and Richmond park developments in greater Cape Town (2011); De Plaat residential estate near
Velddrif, Western Cape (2009); Langezandt leisure development in Struisbaai, Western Cape (2011); Garden Route
Dam mixed use development in George, Western Cape (2008); Anandale mixed use development in Cape Town (2008);
Schalkenbosch Golf Estate, Le Grand Golf Estate and Ceres Golf Estates (2006); Carpe Diem Eco Estate near Port Alfred,
Eastern Cape (2006); Altona mixed use development in Worcester, Western Cape (2007).

➢ Lead author of the Western Cape Provincial Government guidelines on economic specialist inputs into Environmental
Impact Assessments. (2005)
96
 Inputs to Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEAs)
➢ Lead economic specialist making inputs to the Strategic Environmental Assessment for shale gas development (fracking)
in South Africa (2016).
➢ Economic specialist inputs to form part of the Strategic Environmental Assessment for the roll-out of electricity
transmission infrastructure throughout South Africa. (2015)
➢ Environmental resource economic and socio-economic specialist study to form part of the Strategic Environmental
Assessment and accompanying management plan for the Port of Saldanha, Western Cape. (2013)
➢ Lead author of a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of the potential production of biofuels based on Jatropha in
the Kavango and Caprivi regions of Namibia. (2010)
➢ Environmental resource economics specialist study to form part of the Strategic Environmental Assessment and
accompanying Environmental Management Framework for the Pixley ka Seme municipality in Mpumalanga. (2010)
➢ Environmental resource economics specialist study to form part of the Strategic Environmental Assessment and
accompanying Environmental Management Framework for the Albert Luthuli and Msukaligwa municipalities in
Mpumalanga. (2008)

James Kinghorn

Profile and Key Expertise

James conducts applied economic research to inform development, specifically where environmental aspects are
important to consider in decision-making. He has six years’ experience as an applied researcher, and a further three
years working in humanitarian and disaster assistance programming. He has contributed economic and socio-
economic specialist inputs to a total of fourteen environmental and social impact assessments; conducted
economic and financial analysis in support of eight Green Climate Fund (GCF) and Global Environment Facility (GEF)
funding proposals and projects; and provided strategic research and analysis to inform policy in the areas of climate
change, biodiversity finance, and natural resource management.

Selected relevant experience:

Economic and socio-economic impact assessments forming part of Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) and
Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEAs)

➢ Renewable energy and powerlines:

Wind – Nuweveld, Karoo Highlands, Western and Northern Cape (2021); Bann aba Pifhu, Eastern Cape (2019)
Solar – Paulputs PV, near Pofadder, Northern Cape (2018)
Powerlines – Nuweveld Grid Connection, de Jager’s Pass, Western Cape (2021); Impofu Grid Connection, near
Gqeberha, Eastern Cape (2019); Paulputs Grid Connection, Northern Cape (2018)
➢ Roads:
N2 bypasses at Butterworth and iDutywa (2016)
➢ Infrastructure and agricultural development:
Farm dams and production expansion in Langkloof, near Worcester, Western Cape (2019); Assessment of economic
benefits for the TAHAL Integrated Agriculture Projects, Angola (2019); Farm dams and production expansion for Habata
Agri in the Robertson area, Western Cape (2017);
➢ Industrial developments and mining:
Vedanta zinc Smelter-Refinery Complex near Aggeneys, Northern Cape (2018); Oil and gas exploration drilling in PEL
34 off Luderitz coast, Namibia (2017); Upgrade and expansion of the Tsumeb copper smelter, Namibia (2017);
Contributing Author to the Strategic Environmental Assessment for shale gas development in South Africa (2016)
➢ Mixed-use developments:
Malmesbury Shopping Mall and Private Hospital, Western Cape (2019)

Economic and financial appraisal in support of Funding Proposals

➢ Lead author of the economic assessment for the proposed South-Cooks Wastewater Treatment System, St. John’s,
Antigua and Barbuda (2020)
➢ Lead author in the economic and financial analysis of the following funding Green Climate Fund proposals:
Ecosystem-based adaptation in Botswana’s communal rangelands (2021); Climate resilient development in refugee camps
and host communities in Kigoma region, Tanzania (2021); Peru’s Natural Legacy – Amazon Climate (2021); Heritage
Colombia – Protected Areas and Climate Resilience (2021); Climate Service and Multi-hazard Early Warning for
Resilience in Sudan (2020); Strengthening Climate Systems in the Greater Horn of Africa through regional cooperation
(2020)
Appendix F: Consultation notes

97
Landowners

Meeting with project site landowners – Edna and Samuel Davis

Date: 25 October 2021
Location: Slange Fontein
Attendees: Edna Davis
Samuel Davis
James Kinghorn
Notes:
• Info on farming activities provided, including info on the impact of the drought on local
livelihoods and incomes
• Generally supportive of project (increase in income, improved infrastructure)
• Plan to use part of the additional income from wind turbines to improve staff accommodation
with piped water inside homesteads
• No impact on livestock farming foreseen
• Some info provided about the impacts of windfarms on communities in Loeriesfontein
• Info shared regarding the locations of neighbouring landowners and management
arrangements

Meeting with project site landowner – Melt van der Heever

Date: 26 October 2021
Location: Muranda
Attendees: Melt van der Heever
James Kinghorn
Notes:
• Info on land parcels (Duikerfontein, Muranda and Rhenoster Leegte) and farming activities
provided (mainly around impact of drought, which has been the worst in living memory,
and adaptation measures used in sheep farming)
• Info on alternative livelihood options being pursued by farmers in the area, including
tourism and farm-based value addition to products
• Support for project expressed as it is expected to bring much needed income to the area
• Concern expressed over the increase in competitiveness in the labour market during
construction, as had occurred in the Victoria West area during construction of the Square
Kilometre Array Project.

Meeting with project site landowner and tourist facility owner – Nicola van der Westhuizen
Date: 26 October 2021
Location: Laken Valley
Attendees: Nicola van der Westhuizen
James Kinghorn
Notes:
• Info on farming activities provided (mainly around impact of drought and role of alternative
livelihoods)
• Info on tourism establishments provided, including Jakhalsdans Guest House and Die Rooi
Granaat Restaurant in Loxton.
• Expressed views on the importance of maintaining enough distance between wind turbines
and sensitive tourism receptors. Expressed support for proposed layout, given that critical
view points on farm, such as Jakhalsdans Guest House, would not be in the viewshed of
either Nuweveld or Hoogland Wind Farms

Meeting with neighbouring landowner – Johan Moolman

Date: 27 October 2021
Location: Dunedin
Attendees: Johan Moolman
James Kinghorn
Notes:

98
 • Info on farming activities provided (areas, livestock numbers, drought, spending and labour
relations)
• Concern over wind farms expressed. Especially Hoogland 4 in the Southern Cluster, given
proximity, as well as southern power line corridor even if power line is built on neighbouring
property. Concerns are around the following:
o Change in sense of place will impact on unique tourism offering provided by the
Riverine Rabbit Retreat.
o If the power line is constructed too close to the northern border of the property,
this could negatively affect tourism offering, given that this is the most pristine part
of the land and is used for hiking, hunting, bird watching and other forms of nature-
based tourism and recreation.
o The presence of the wind turbines in the view from the farm will lead to a change in
the sense of place and will impact their own lives. Decision to relocate to the area
was in search of a more isolated existence away from people and crime.
o Visual impacts likely to affect their own lifestyles as well as the Riverine Rabbit
Retreat (disruption to clear night sky for stargazing with red light flicker and
disruption to local ecological processes and iconic species to impact on tourism)
o Increase in number of people in the area due to the project could lead to an
increase in crime (stock theft and other) and a decrease in road safety
o Influx of people could also have adverse effects for communities, with potential to
create social tension and reduced cohesion.
o Will need to incur additional costs in order to mitigate increase in crime levels
(better fencing, etc)
o Layoffs from farms will lead to increase in indigent populations in local towns
o Concern that the above impacts will lead to a reduction in property values
• Concern expressed that some of the stakeholder engagement conducted is merely a box-
checking exercise without genuine intent to report on the anticipated social and economic
impacts.
• Noted that the above issues are especially acute since Mr Moolman had been excluded
from the project and would therefore bare costs associated with the development while not
enjoying any of the benefits.

Meeting with neighbouring landowner and land manager – Kowie Olivier and Hoitsema Maree
Date: 27 October 2021
Location: Eende Kuils Leegte (other property owned by Mr Olivier, near Fraserburg,
relatively distant from project sites)
Attendees: Kowie Olivier
Hoitsema Maree
James Kinghorn
Notes:
• Info on land parcels and farming activities provided (types of farming, impact of drought).
Kalkfontein is the parcel located adjacent to the project site. There are no homesteads on
this farm and the land is used exclusively for sheep farming.
• Expressed some concern that roads could deteriorate with increased traffic.
• Expressed some concern over where water would be sourced for use in concrete
production

Phone call with neighbouring landowner – Paul Neethling

Date: 29 November 2021
Attendees: Paul Neethling
James Kinghorn
Notes:
• Info provided on land parcels and boundaries which have changed over time, with changes
not reflected in all administrative data
• Some info shared regarding another application for a wind farm proposed on Matjiesfontein
412

99
 • Discussion about the social impacts of wind farms. Opportunities are provided for
employment which is much needed in area, but noting that not all jobs will be suitable for
locals who might not necessarily have the skills needed. Some discussion on potential
negatives for tourism industry, although no tourism activities take place on Matjiesfontein
412. Other risks were also discussed, such as the potential that the development could
attract job-seekers who if they are unsuccessful, will simply end up stranded in a place with
not many other opportunities.
• Some discussion over the impact of the drought, which has led some farmers to retrench
workers.
• Expressed that a major benefit of the project would be additional income to farmers who
are in need of alternative income streams after the drought.
• Major concern is environmental – how the wind turbines will effect sensitive species and
ecosystems.
• Mentioned that if tourism is ever developed on Matjiesfontein, it would be on a part of the
farm where the Hoogland wind farm would not be visible.

Institutional stakeholders

Phone call with Chairperson of the Ubuntu Forum for Socio Economic Development (UFSED) – Ingrid
Schofmann
Date: 27 October 2021
Attendees: Ingrid Schofmann
James Kinghorn
Notes:
• Discussions around Loxton’s socio-economic context provided including social dynamics,
local economic development and socio-economic needs. Info shared on the challenges of
development including with a recent project to upgrade the water distribution network.
• Information regarding challenges in local governance shared.
• Discussion over the experience of Sutherland during construction of wind farms in the area
and construction of the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) project. This construction was said to
have resulted in Sutherland experiencing increased crime levels, including prostitution and
related conflict, increased drug use, increased crime including house break-ins and assault,
increased transmission of STDs such as AIDS, reduced demand for local businesses and
resulting loss in turnover, displaced farm workers from SKA.
• Concern over impact of increased demand for accommodation during construction in terms
of temporarily crowding out of tourism visitors and a resulting change in the character of
the town. In Loxton, some houses have recently been purchased by people who do not live
in the area. People are putting in containers and erecting fences which is changing the
character of the town.
• Concerns expressed over the following:
o impacts on raptors and other birds
o impacts on livestock from vibrations emanating from wind turbines
o That project selection in terms of socio-economic development spending by
applicant could be vulnerable to political influences

Meeting with the IDP Manager for Beaufort West Local Municipality
Date: 27 October 2021
Location: Beaufort West Local Municipality
Attendees: Llewellyn Lakay – IDP Manager
James Kinghorn
Notes:
• Info provided around socio-economic conditions in Beaufort West
• Suggestion that if approval is granted, a presentation be prepared for Municipal Leadership
to outline
o Likely requirements in terms of skills profiles for jobs during construction and
operations (Municipality can look at how to support upskilling of locals through the
Local Government Sector Education and Training Authority – LGSETA)
100
 o Info regarding supplier and enterprise development initiatives
o To discuss a way forward in terms of the planning for socio-economic development
spend in the Municipality
• Some discussion around the influx of job-seekers to the area and implications for social
cohesion and pressure on the delivery of services

Meeting with the manager of Beaufort West Tourism Organisation (BWTO)

Date: 27 October 2021
Location: BWTO Offices
Attendees: Sascha Klemm – manager, BWTO
James Kinghorn
Notes:
• Info provided on the local tourism context. Info shared about the “Roads Less Travelled in
the Karoo” Tourism Promotion Campaign. Recently produced map shared that outlines
scenic routes in the area. Info provided on the growing trend of motorcycle tourism and on
hunting, birdwatching and stargazing attractions in the area.
• Concerns expressed over visual impacts on sense of place (and thus Tourism), given scenic
routes in the area. Three of the five scenic drive routes in the area use the R381 between
Beaufort West and Loxton, including the Aardwolf Loop, the Meerkat Loop and the
Porcupine Loop. These loops represent a form of tourism which has seen increased interest
during recent times, with changes in the profile of tourism demand seen to result from the
COVID pandemic – namely more self-drive tourism. As this has coincided with the impact of
the drought, some new tourist accommodation has opened up on farms in the area, some
of it not yet advertised online but rather advanced through local tourism centres and word
of mouth. This implies that although the number of tourism establishments is relatively low
in the project area, there is some possibility of the area having a higher tourism potential
than has been realised in previous years, although tourism growth is not reflected in any
data given the lack of research into this.
• Some info provided into the area of the Karoo National Park used by Honorary Rangers and
other groups such as the Land River Club, Bird Club and Private Tour Groups. This area
includes the Mountain View Rest Camp and Die Berg Hut. Contact information shared for
the head of the Honorary Rangers.
• Concerns over impact on ecology expressed in line with email correspondence received
during the Nuweveld assessment: “[T]he impact of the construction of the line will cause
damage to the sensitive karoo environment. The line as well as the wind turbines naturally
cause a collision danger to birds, especially the small population of resident Black Eagle who
nest on the cliffs.”. Question over the choice of wind turbine type was relayed to the project
team, with information in turn relayed back from the project team to Mr Klemm.

Phone call with the Strategic Support Services Manager for Central Karoo District Municipality
Date: 11 November 2021
Location: Phone call
Attendees: Barbara Koopman – Manager, CKDM Support Services
James Kinghorn
Notes:
• Info provided on the role of local and regional government in the process of development and
need for more partnerships between public and private spheres.
• Experience of towns in the area with Uranium exploration. Poor communication, public sector
unable to support.
• Info shared on socio-economic priorities for and regional local government, which are
outlined in the 2019/20 CKDM District Safety Plan.
• Suggests that if project is approved, that a Project Steering Committee be formed and to
include representatives of the CKDM. In addition, Action Plans can be developed to ensure
that project team is prepared and issues can be dealt with as they arise. Members of CKDM
will be eager to support in terms of helping to ensure that the applicant can meet its
requirements for local labour sourcing and local procurement. This can be done by providing

101
 support to SMMEs as has been done in the past, for example with the Vuk'uphile Programme
Construction Skills Workshop held in Beaufort West.
• District Municipality can also support in terms of ensuring smooth communication with public
to ensure that public support for the project is reflective of the extent to which local
opportunities are created. All stakeholders should participate in the development from the
earliest possible stage. This will ensure integrated planning between sectors.
• Trade-offs and synergies with the tourism sector were discussed.

102