Evaluation of the Impact of Human Settlements Development

Evaluation of the Impact of Human Settlements Development Programmes on the environment during implementation of the 2nd edition of Environmental Implementation Plan

Evaluation of the Impact of Human Settlements Development Programmes on the environment during implementation of the 2nd edition of Environmental Implementation PlanSTUDY REPORT


Date: December 2017

Study Report ▪ December 2017 1


Acronyms

BA Basic AssessmentBNG Breaking New GroundBRT Bus Rapid TransitCoGHSTA Cooperative Governance, Human Settlements and Traditional AffairsCRDP Comprehensive Rural Development ProgrammeDDR Detailed Design ReportDHS Department of Human SettlementsDM District MunicipalityDoT Department of TransportDPME Department of Performance Monitoring and EvaluationEIA Environmental Impact AssessmentEIP Environmental Implementation PlanEMPr Environmental Management ProgrammeEPWP Expanded Public Works ProgrammeGDHS Gauteng Department Human SettlementsGHG Greenhouse GasI&AP Interested and Affected PartyIDP Integrated Development PlanLM Local MunicipalityMDG Millennium Development GoalMEIA Monitoring, Evaluation and Impact AssessmentMTSF Medium-Term Strategic FrameworkNDP National Development PlanNEMA National Environmental Management ActNHBRC National Home Builders Registration CouncilNMT Non-Motorised TransportOSR Outline Scheme ReportPDR Preliminary Design ReportPHDP Provincial Multiyear Housing Development PlanSAEO South Africa Environment OutlookSDG Sustainable Development GoalSPLUMA Spatial Planning and Land Use Management ActUN United Nation

List of Figures

Figure 1: Spheres of Sustainable Development 19Figure 2: the UN's Sustainable Development Goals 51Figure 3: Impact theme and secondary impact theme frequency of occurrences counted from

reviewed environmental reports82

Figure 4: Theme risk and frequency overlay thematic map 92

Contents

Acronyms 1 List of Figures 1 List of Tables 21. Introduction 3 1.1 Problem statement 4

1.2 Goal and objectives 5

1.3 Method of research 5

1.4 Limitations to the study 15

1.5 Chapterclassification 17

2. Literature Review 17 2.1 Introduction 17

2.2 Definitionsrelevanttosustainablehumansettlements 18

2.3 Legal context 23

2.4 Overview of the Department of Human Settlements documents 40

2.5 Guidelines for Human Settlement Planning and Design (Volume 1 and 2) 46

2.6 The 2nd South African Environment Outlook (SAEO) Report:

Human Settlement and Environment 46

2.7 Internationalperspective 50

2.8 Conclusion 56

3. Environmental Scan 60 3.1 Introduction 60

3.2 Baseline schedule of environmental impacts 61

3.3 Thematic map and risk matrix 81

3.4 Environmental scan conclusion 93

4. Empirical study 94 4.1 Town planning information 95

4.2 Environmental information 103

4.3 Engineering information 112

4.4 Human settlements Information 122

5. Conclusion and Recommendations 133 5.1 Conclusion 133

5.2 Recommendations 138

5.3 Limitationsofthestudyfindings 148

6 References 149 AppendixA-Qualitativefindings 152 AppendixB-HSSdatabasefiltertodefinethesamplepopulation 242 Appendix C - List of accessed environmental reports 244

Study Report ▪ December 2017


Study Report ▪ December 2017 2 3


List of Tables

Table 1: Description of non-probability 9Table 2: Sustainable Development Principles in NEMA 28Table 3: NEMA EIP requirements and DHS's EIP content 31Table 4: Actions to ensure compliance with environmental policies and laws 34Table 5: Recommendationsforenvironmentalmanagementasdefinedinthe2ndEIP 38Table 6: DHS documents' inclusion of sustainable development concepts with focus on the

natural environment41

Table7: International perspective of indicators used in human settlements development 55Table 8: Environmental core focus areas and environmental impact themes 65Table 9: Impact themes added from the review of the EIP 66Table 10: Main and secondary impact themes 66Table 11: Impacts included in the 2nd ed. EIP – Section 3: Actions to Ensure Compliance with

environmental policies and laws68

Table 12: Impacts included in the 2nd ed. EIP – Section 4: Recommendations for Environmental Management

71

Table 13: Impacts, Themes, Indicator Coverage 74Table 14: ComparisonofimpactthemesidentifiedfromenvironmentalreportsandtheEIP 80Table 15: Environmental impact themes and secondary impact themes and frequency of impact

occurrences counted from the reviewed environmental reports81

Table 16: Ranking of evaluation criteria 84Table17: Risk consequence and likelihood 85Table 18: Risks of environmental impacts linked to impact themes and secondary impact

themes86

Table 19: Frequency and risk of each impact theme 90Table 20: Frequency and Risk average of each impact theme (alter 91Table 21: Town planning questions 95Table 22: Town planning results 96Table 23: Environmental questions 103Table 24: Environmental results 104Table 25: Engineering questions 112Table 26: Human Settlements questions 122Table27: Gauteng sample projects overview 152Table 28: KwaZulu-Natal sample projects overview 192Table 29: Eastern Cape sample project overview 193Table 30: Limpopo sample projects overview 204Table 31: Free State province sample projects overview 219Table 32: Northern Cape sample projects overview 221Table 33: North West province sample projects overview 231Table 34: Western Cape province sample projects overview 232Table 35: Mpumalanga province sample projects overview 234Table 36: Datafilteringtoidentifythesamplepopulation 242

1. Introduction

The South African Department of Human Settlements (DHS), or hereafter also referred to as the Department, has aided 20 million South Africans through the delivery of 4.3 million houses and subsidies since 1994, making it a worldwide leader in housing delivery (Sisulu, 2016). With a grow-ing population and high immigration rates, the country continues to face housing backlogs which the DHS responds to in their mandate to deliver human settlements. In doing so, the Department responds to the South African Constitution (RSA, 1996), which, through the Bill of Rights, provides a basis on which a just and fair society is built, that each citizen has the right to adequate housing.

The Constitution also declares that each citizen has the right to a clean environment and the Consti-tution promotes that development should be sustainable (RSA, 1996). The National Environmental ManagementAct,Act107of1998(NEMA)addressesthethreepillarsofsustainabledevelopmentindeclaring “…sustainable development requires the integration of social, economic and environmen-tal factors in the planning, implementation and evaluation of decisions to ensure that development serves present and future generations”. Thus, for the DHS to deliver sustainable human settlements, the three spheres of sustainability namely environment, social, and economic spheres, must be considered, planned for and managed during planning, during development, and post development phases of the settlement development. All of these aspects of sustainability should be based on sound governance, and in sound governance structures.

The need for an optimally functioning government is dependent on co-operative governance, which is stipulated in Chapter 3 of the Constitution (RSA 1996), and the Constitution lists concurrent gov-ernment functions in Schedules 4 and 5 of the Constitution, which encompasses a few functions related to environmental matters. Sustainable development is further promoted through the NEMA, andspecificationsthroughwhichco-operativeenvironmentalgovernanceisexecutedandlegislatedin Chapter 3 of the NEMA. Thus, co-operative and sound environmental governance is what the NEMA sets out to facilitate. The NEMA acknowledges that “many inhabitants of South Africa live in an environment that is harmful to their health and well-being; everyone has the right to an environ-ment that is not harmful to his or her health or well-being” and states that “the law should ensure that organs of state maintain the principles guiding the exercise of functions affecting the environment”. Henceforth, the NEMA requires that each Organ of State that exercises functions that may affect the environment must report hereon, and that this is to be done through Environmental Implementation Plans (EIP).

DHS is focussed on delivering sustainable human settlements to all people through its policies, plans, and programmes, and to meet the expectations of the NEMA to ensuring environmental im-pacts of the DHS developments are indicated in their EIP, as well as how the Department will comply with the NEMA and national environmental norms and standards. To ensure adequate provision and consideration for these elements of sustainable development, monitoring and evaluation is funda-mental. The Department has therefore set out to determine if adequate provision for environmental





1.2 Goal and objectives

Torespondtotheproblemstatement,agoalandobjectiveswereidentifiedforthestudy.Thefirstaction taken to respond to the problem statement, goal and objectives, involved conducting a com-prehensiveliteraturereview;theaimofwhichisalsoclarifiedbelow.

1.2.1 Goal of the study

The main goal of this project was to evaluate how human settlements development programmes were implemented to make provisions for environmental compliance (through legal frameworks, institutional arrangements, community participation and co-operative governance).

1.2.2 Objectives of the study

The primary objectives of this study were to:

• Determine the impact of human settlements development programmes on the environment; and

• Determine the effects thereof (human settlements developments) during the implementa-tion of the 2nd ed. of the Environmental Implementation Plan.

1.3 Method of research

Research was conducted by means of a literature study and empirical survey.

1.3.1 Literature study

This literature study included:

• Anoverviewofdetailsofexistingtheories,concepts,anddefinitionsrelevanttohumanset-tlements programmes, human settlements planning, environmental impact management, assessment and evaluation, legal context, sustainable development context, and an inter-national perspective on housing and human settlement developments and related environ-mental impact monitoring thereof;

• ClarificationofthelegalrequirementsfortheEIP;and

• Whether environmental considerations were adequately provided for in the literature avail-able for DHS policies, plans and programmes.

The literature review covered various sources to frame the concept of human settlements, sustain-ability,sustainabledevelopment,andenvironmentalimpacts;allidentifiedasapplicabletoachieve

considerations are made within their policies, plans and programmes through conducting research into the matter for a set time period.

Theproblemstatementisclarifiedinthefollowingsectionthroughexplainingtheimportanceofac-knowledgement of environmental impacts of developments and adhering to relevant environmental legislation as part of sustainable development and provides explanation on the methodology fol-lowed in conducting the research.

1.1 Problem statement

The DHS has, over the years, achieved remarkable results through contribution to transformation of the historic apartheid spatial planning and through the development of areas where people live in close proximity to economic opportunities and social amenities (Sisulu, 2016). The development of humansettlementsisalanduseprocessthathassignificantimpactsontheenvironmentthroughbeing the single largest public investment in land development, which range from disturbance and fragmentation of ecosystems, high demand for natural resources and energy, air and water pollu-tion, contamination of water ecosystems, demands for transport, which leads to carbon emission, and many other environmental impacts associated with human settlements development (DEA, 2012). These impacts must be managed throughout the Department’s plans to working towards the achievement of its commitments of delivering 1.5 million housing opportunities by 2019.

The DHS implements programmes (as detailed in the National Housing Code, 2009) that are geared towards achieving the national human settlements outcomes as outlined in Chapter 8 of the National Development Plan (NDP), but has to do so whilst managing its impacts on the environment as is required by the NEMA, which prescribes that the Department must prepare an EIP every 5 years.

In ensuring compliance with the requirements of NEMA, an EIP was developed for the period of 2009-2014, within which a set of environmental indicators were listed as applicable to human settle-ment developments; these indicators, and aspects of environmental management that formed part of this study are included in Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 of the 2nd edition EIP. Comprehensive and suc-cessful application of the EIP and its purpose required evaluation thereof, the results of which would be used to inform future EIPs. The DHS has thus initiated this project to conduct an evaluation of the impact of human settlements development programmes on the environment during implementation of the 2nd edition of environmental implementation plan.

Therefore, the question that this study attempted to address is: “Do policies and pro-grammes of human settlements development make explicit provisions for consid-erations of environmental management in their implementation as envisioned in the 2nd edition of EIP?”





the objectives of this study. To gain a holistic understanding of environmental considerations that have been, and should be, included in the DHS policies, plans, and programmes, the following doc-umentswereidentifiedasapplicable:

a) Environmental legislation

• NEMA - as the overarching relevant environmental legislation (as well as requirements for Interested and Affected Parties (I&AP) participation); and

• NEMA supporting legislation - to ensure comprehension of what the acts aim to achieve; and identify sections of supporting acts that pertain to human settlements developments.

b) Department of Human Settlements’ documents

DHS policies, programmes and plans include the following:

• EIP 2nd Edition;

• The 2015 EIP (to gain insight into the future considerations of the EIP),

• 4 Annual Compliance Reports submitted by the DHS to the Committee for Environmental Co-ordination;

• Social Housing Act;

• Social housing regulations;

• National Housing Code;

• Human Settlements Policies and Programmes, and plans which indicate how DHS should manage impacts on the environment;

• DHS Annual Report 2014/15;

• Breaking New Ground (2004);

• Social Contract for the Development of Sustainable Human Settlements (2014);

• Monitoring, Evaluation and Impact Assessment 2013/2014 - 2018/2019 (Policy & Imple-mentation Framework for the Human Settlements Sector);

• National Report by the RSA for the UN Habitat III;

• Provincial multi-year Housing Development Plans (PHDPs); and

• DHS Medium Term Strategic Framework (MTSF) 2014-2019.

c) International literature pertaining to Human Settlements:

• Australia: Environmental Indicators for National State of the Environment Reporting: Human Settlements;

• Malaysia: Sustainable Development: An Overview – Advancing the Sustainable Development agenda through aligning Malaysia Plans and Policies; and

• Kenya: Population dynamics, climate change, and sustainable development in Kenya,

• UN: New Sustainable Development Goals.

1.3.2 Empirical study

To meet the objectives of the study, empirical research was conducted through which quantitative and qualitative data sampling and analysis was conducted.

Data collection was set out to be undertaken by means of:

(1) Literature review of environmental impacts of selected samples to establish what the pre- development impacts on the environment was;

(2) Desktop data review of environmental impacts of development programmes by means of Geographic Information System data analysis, to identify what impacts of developments on the environment were, and potentially still continue to occur per sample project. This includ-ed reviewing environmental site audit reports and Environmental Management Programme reports (EMPr); and

(3) Projectrelatedsurveys,toobtaindatarelatedtoallrelevantspheresofgovernmentofficials’perceptions of environmental impacts as well as extent to which the 2nd ed. EIP was imple-mented or applied to the sampled projects, as well as establishing co-operative governance structures in place to report on environmental impacts.

Reviewing environmental reports was done to develop the baseline schedule of environmental im-pacts, to develop the relevant environmental risk matrix and calculate the risk of the environmental impacts.

The impacts and related risks allow the DHS to identify themes of impacts within the results, and cat-egorically group these to produce a type of thematic map of the impacts. The results of these tasks produced results that allow the DHS to easily identify which component of the natural environment was most frequently impacted on by activities related to human settlement development, and which of these impacts inherently poses the highest risk to the environment.





Knowledge of such information would allow the DHS to better respond to the requirements of the EIP, which requires cooperative environmental governance, especially with the environmental sector priority areas (see 3.2.1 Theme development). Knowledge of the major impacts of DHS activities on the environment provides the DHS with a base from which strategies and actions may be devised to respond to these impacts, and to align responses to better address the high impact themes that correspond with the environmental sector priorities. Such strategies and plans would provide direc-tion for DHS and DEA in terms of the co-operative governance and intergovernmental structures required to ensure that environmental compliance and monitoring takes place for these high impact and priority areas.

a) Selection of the sampling frame

The DHS provided the list of programmes which includes completed and current projects across multiple years, as was captured in their database, named the HSS database. A population was de-finedfromthislistafterwhichsampleswereselected.

ThedatareceivedfromDHSwasevaluatedandfiltered(refertoAppendixB–HSSdatabasefiltertodefinethesamplepopulation)to identifyprojectsthatwouldcontributetomeaningfulsampling(thus removing projects that would inhibit or produce potential uncertainties when being sampled).

The projects included in the sample population were projects that were implemented and completed within the timeframe during which the 2nd edition EIP was applicable, being 2009 – 2014;

• Only projects initiated and completed in this timeframe formed was included in this study. ThetruestreflectionoftheefficacyoftheEIPwastoreviewprojectsthathavebeencom-pleted as the majority of the environmental impacts would have been caused and the indi-cators of the EIP would have been addressed already (whereas projects that have not been completed could still be in the process of addressing some of the EIP requirements, and could still contribute to impacts on the environment in future).

• Theprojectfocussesonhousingdevelopments(unitsdeveloped),aswasclarifiedduringtheTenderBriefingsession.

The sample frame had to include stakeholders that would have access to information to respond to the various indicators and content of the EIP, which includes environmental, engineering, town plan-ning, and human settlements matters.

b) Sampling methodology

Tustinetal.(2005)statesthat;withinlargesamplingpopulations,aclearlydefinedtargetpopulationmust be aligned to the objectives of the study. This necessitates relying on logic and judgement to guide the overall aim and objectives of the study. Initial assessments conclude that the data obtained

for this study includes projects that could result in selecting samples that would not be capable to provideresponsestotheaimofthestudy;thereforeapopulationhastobedefinedfromthedatareceived. In this case, of a large population size, a small, but carefully chosen sample was used to represent the characteristics of the population from which it was drawn.

SamplingmethodsareclassifiedaseitherProbabilityorNon-probability(Bhattacherjee,2012).Inprobability samples, each member of the population has a known non-zero probability of being selected.Probabilitymethods includerandomsampling,systematicsampling,andstratifiedsam-pling. In non-probability sampling, members are selected from the population in some non-random manner. These include convenience sampling, judgmental sampling, multiplicity (snowball) sam-pling, purposive sampling and quota sampling (Tustin et al., 2005). Table 1 provides a description of non-probability, since this sampling style is most applicable to the data and research available for this study.

Table 1: Description of non-probability

Classification Sampling Method DescriptionNon-Probability Convenience Sampling A convenience sample is made up of people who are easy to

reachJudgement Sampling Participants are chosen based on the opinion of an expertQuota Sampling Similartostratifiedsampling,howeverconvenience

sampling is adopted to choose the necessary number of participants per stratum

Snowball Sampling Participantsareidentifiedinthepopulationofinterest; these participants then identify other participants, and so on

For this study, and based on the sample criteria provided by the DHS (that the sample should include 10% of the study population, and that the sample should include all provinces), the elective sampling method opted for was the quota sampling method, however an element of convenience sampling was applied after the 10% quota, in which samples were selected according to the needs of the study team (Mutinta, 2013).

Convenience sampling was used to select the required number of projects implemented from each stratum(sub-groupswithinthepopulation).Thisdiffersfromstratifiedsampling,wherethestratumsarefilledby randomsampling.Theadoptionofconveniencesamplingachievesa representativedistribution of projects across provinces, however, some provinces had a greater percentage repre-sentation based on provincial representation requirements of the DHS.

Based on direction from the DHS, the project sample must be representative of 10% of the sample population and must include all provinces. To ensure this was achieved, a convenience sampling approach was applied.





(i) Sampling method: convenience sampling

Due to the nature of the study, which involves the evaluation of the effective application of the EIP (which aims to aid organs of state in managing their impacts on the environment, and reporting on actions to ensure compliance with environmental legislation), the following processes were applied:

• The population was divided into groups (stratum) according to the District Municipalities in which programmes and policies were implemented, as well as into the groups of policies, plans and programmes through which projects get implemented. Grouping this per District Municipality(DM)(andnotLocalMunicipality(LM))providesasimplifiedgroupingtoworkwith and contributes to a reduced sampling error. However, the physical sampling was done according to the local municipality in which the policy, plan or programme was implemented.

• A 10% sample of the projects implemented per province was selected, where 10 % equates to less than one project, 1 project was selected per DM.

• To select samples that contribute to the most of the impacts on the environment as a result ofDHSprojects,itmustbeidentifiedwhere(inwhichDistrictMunicipalities(DM))themostprojects have been implemented.

o DHS indicated that total Gauteng project inclusion was required in the sample, and that a reduced sample (less than 10%) could be sampled from Mpumalanga province.

• Convenience sampling allows the project team to select samples from local municipalities that would contribute to selecting samples that would increase representation of policies, plans and programmes in the sample.

This method produces the following:

• Sample size: 61 projects

• Distribution of projects in the sample:

o 9 Provinces;

o 21 district municipalities;

o 21 local municipalities;

o 22 towns; and

o 12 policies, plans and/or programmes.

The selection allowed sampling form the DMs and LMs in which the most environmental impacts should occur based on frequency of project implementation, thus by establishing the effectiveness of EIP implementation from these DMs and LMs would allow DHS to identify causes for ineffective implementation of the EIP, rectify these causes, and contribute to greater implementation of the EIP and optimally reduce the impacts on the environment in areas in which the impacts occur the most frequently.

c) Development of the questionnaire

To obtain information relevant to the project, the 2nd ed. EIP’s Chapter 3 (Actions to ensure com-pliance with environmental policies and laws) and Chapter 4 (Recommendation for environmental management) were evaluated for what the EIP aims to facilitate in terms of environmental consid-erations,andhencewereevaluatedtodefinethetypesofinformationandthesourcesthereofthatwasrequiredfromthesampleprojects.ThefindingfromthisevaluationofChapter3andChapter4of the 2nd ed. EIP is that the types of information addressed by these two chapters may roughly be grouped into four main categories, namely:

• Town planning;

• Environmental;

• Engineering; and

• Human Settlement.

Thesecategorieswereidentifiedbasedoninteractionswithpublicsectorrespondentsworkinginthehumansettlementandspatialplanningsectors;thesewereconfirmedbyrespondentsintheprivatesector, working in the housing engineering design sector, the civil and electrical engineering sector, town planning sector, and environmental sector.

By determining such, the study would be able to identify under which legislative requirements or directives environmental considerations were included, and obtain response to the goal of the study.

To develop questions based on chapter 3 and 4 of the 2nd ed. EIP, questions were formulated to obtain responses to the content, after which the questions were moved into the categories (town planning, engineering, environmental, and human settlements) to allow for structured, categorised, questioning(refertoAppendixA-Qualitativefindingsforindicationofthequestions).

The information categories contains overlapping aspects, e.g. chapter 3 would speak to the descrip-tion of “adequate shelter”, and that such a shelter would include “adequate basic infrastructure”, suchaswatersupplyandsanitation,andwaterefficienthomes,whilstchapter4wouldalsorefertosuch aspects under “access to services” and “resource use”. These themes (or aspects) were iden-





tifiedandincludedinthedatacollectiontemplate.Theseaspectsorthemesassistedinestablishingin which reports or types of reports the relevant information would be contained in, for example, an OutlineSchemeReport(OSR)willdefineifahousingdevelopment(aspartofatownshipestab-lishment)woulddefinethebulkservicesofwaterandsewerageinstalled;andaPreliminaryDesignReport(PDR)orDetailedDesignReport(DDR)woulddefineifanywaterefficiencieswereincludedin the housing design (OSR, PDR, and DDR are engineering reports). Other examples include: densities,accesstosocialservices,andlandusewillbedefinedinthetownshipapplication,orMo-tivating Memorandum (these are town planning reports). Environmental sensitivities, public partici-pation, and pollution aspects will be contained in environmental reports; and construction workforce, beneficiaries,andtenure,forexampleareinformationtypesthatwouldbecontainedinhousingandhumansettlementreports.Theidentificationoflikelyreportstocontainrelevantandkeyinformationis indicated in the respective questionnaires.

The questionnaire consists of open-ended questions to allow for elaboration on answers by the re-spondent or elaboration on questions where the interviewer deemed necessary to do so, in order to obtain any relevant and helpful information for the study (see Appendix A).

Much of the information requirements speaks to aspects of sustainable developments, relating to the requirements of the NEMA which requires that all development should be sustainable and that that such, could be achieved through co-operative environmental governance. The information categories and content within the EIP could contribute to sustainable development if implemented thoroughly (refer to the literature review report of this study regarding EIP content). Many of these themes,e.g.densification,accesstoservices,energyandwaterefficiency,couldcontributetobettermanagement of direct and indirect environmental impacts, and hence are included in the 2nd ed. EIP as actions or recommendations by the DHS to manage impacts on the environment.

d) Identificationofstakeholders

ThestakeholderstotheprojectweredefinedastheimplementersofDHSdevelopments,andproj-ect information data owners (or data keepers) who possess the required information. The study team identified localmunicipalities’andprovincialhousingandhumansettlementdepartments inwhich sample projects were implemented, as key stakeholders. However, based on the information requirements, according to the information categories, respondents, as well as the study team’s col-leagues (in housing engineering and town planning departments) indicated that the town planning departments of the relevant municipalities would be key stakeholders for the reason that the major-ity of the information required, as well as the accompanying reports will be in the relevant housing development’stownshipapplicationmasterfile;alsoreferredtoastheMotivatingMemorandumforthe township.

Stakeholder contact information was obtained from the DHS for provincial contacts, but this had to be augmented with more recent contact information as well as contact details for each local munici-

pality’s housing or human settlement as well as town planning department’s information.

The list of stakeholders included:

• Nine provincial departments of human settlement

• 21 district municipalities’ and 21 local municipalities’ departments of housing or human settlements, departments of town planning, as well as engineering and environmental de-partments.

e) Data collection process

The study team was introduced to all provincial departments of human settlements and local mu-nicipalities’municipalmanagersandlocalmunicipalhumansettlementdepartmentofficialsinwhichsamples were selected, via the DHS emailing of an appointment letter, followed up by an introduction letter. The next communication to the sample projects’ housing or human settlement departments camefromthestudyteam,andcontainedinformationspecifictoeachselectedsample,totherel-evant provinces and municipalities, as well as an indication of the information requirements of the project.

The data collection phase focussed on provinces to which the study team had easier and adequate access (based on sample location, and stakeholder responses) prior to collecting data from less ac-cessible provinces and local municipalities. These included the following provinces (including local municipalities within these provinces) Gauteng, KwaZulu-Natal, Limpopo, and Eastern Cape. Other provinceswerealsocontactedhoweverphysicalengagementanddatacollectionwereinfluencedbyfeedback (response and response rate) and/or information availability provided by the stakeholders.

Telephonicandpersonalinterviewswereheldwithsampleprojectstakeholderswhowereidentifiedto have relevant knowledge and/or information regarding sample projects, or those who had access to information.

Due to lower than desired response rates the study team undertook cold calling, and arriving at de-partmentsforunconfirmedmeetingsinefforttoobtaininformationforthestudy.

The respondents included individuals from various units within departments at housing and/or human settlement departments at provincial and local level government as well as town planning depart-ments at local level government. Where possible, efforts were made to obtain contacts of persons of private institutions who were appointed on the sample projects to obtain any relevant responses to the questions in the questionnaire from them.

Interviews and engagements included emailing and telephonic calls to all provinces, and all district municipalities, as well as local municipalities, as is indicated in the following section. In total, 132





people were included in electronic and telephonic communication related to data collection com-munique. Five physical meetings which resulted in obtaining usable data were held within the two provinces of Gauteng and Limpopo. Various physical engagements within Gauteng, Limpopo, Kwa-Zulu-Natal, and the Eastern Cape provinces and sample project municipalities were held which did not result in obtaining of usable data.

Communication to the Eastern Cape involved contacting 12 people across the province, in various departments of: provincial department of human settlements, district municipalities of Sarah Baart-man Municipality; Alfred Nzo Municipality, and local municipality, Umzimvubu; as well as private entities from Setplan and Aurecon who were indicated to have been appointed to conduct work on the sample projects. Physical visits to local municipalities were also undertaken in effort to obtain information. The only usable information for projects within the Eastern Cape, was obtained from the private entity persons with whom contact was made telephonically and via email.

Communication to the Free State involved contacting 16 people across the province: provincial department of cooperative governance traditional affairs and human settlements, municipalities Ngwathe and Mangaung, in which response was obtained through telephonic and multiple email communications, that the sample project information was not obtainable (It was however, after data collection processes have been concluded, indicated by the respondent from Mangaung was that required information may be available in hard copy only, but actual information requested could not beverified.

CommunicationtoGautenginvolvedcontacting17peopleatprovincialdepartmentsofhumanset-tlements (including regional and head offices), 15 people in Johannesburg’s housing, and townplanning departments; and 10 people in Pretoria’s housing and town planning departments. Physical visitstotheprovincialheadoffice,andregionalofficeswereundertook,ofvariousdepartments(orunits within the provincial human settlements department), as well as meetings with various met-ropolitan municipal town planners. Various people within various spheres and local departments provided bits and pieces of information that was used in the study.

Communication to KwaZulu-Natal involved contacting nine people within the provincial department andfivepeopleatthemetropolitanmunicipality.Physicaltravellingtotheprovincialandlocalmunic-ipality was done in effort to obtain information, which did not result obtaining of information.

CommunicationtoLimpopoinvolvedcontactingsevenpeopleattheprovincialdepartmentandfivepeople across various district municipalities. Fruitful meetings were held at the provincial department whom provided data used in the study.

Communication to Mpumalanga involved contacting 13 people across various districts via email and telephonically, which did not result in obtaining of any information within this province.

Communication to the Northern Cape involved contacting six people within provincial departments

andfourpeopleinthelocalmunicipality.Thelocalmunicipalofficialswereabletoprovideinforma-tion via telephonic interview, based on the respondents’ knowledge of the settlement selected in the sample.Informationverificationthroughevaluationofreportswasnotconductedduetosuchinfor-mation not being readily available.

Communication to the North West province involved contacting six people at provincial level, and two people at local municipal departments, which did not result in obtaining of any information for the sampled projects.

Communication to the Western Cape involved contacting seven people within the provincial de-partment and 11 people across various units or departments within various district and local munic-ipalities included in the sample. Due to the inability to allocate project implementers or owners of information, no information was obtained for projects included in the sample from this province.

1.4 Limitations to the study

Study results were affected by the following matters. These limitations affected the physical tasks to conduct the evaluation. Limitations of the study results are provided in chapter: 5 Conclusion and Recommendations,section5.3.Limitationsofthestudyfindings.

(1) The study team’s ability to establish and obtain contactable individuals relevant to various sample projects

This challenge relates to the database received from the DHS that does not indicate which government sphere (provincial or local), were the implementers of the projects. This result-ed in the project team contacting local municipalities, district municipalities, and provincial departments ineffort tofirstlyestablishwho the implementingagents theprojectswere.An additional complication related to establishing who the implementing agents were, was establishing communication with stakeholders who may have been involved in the sampled project, from whom data could be requested. The challenges in obtaining such contactable stakeholders in include that project implementation may have been shared between pro-vincial departments and local municipalities, leading to scattering of information, or record keeping systems that does not allow for tracing and locating of relevant contact persons or relevant data (e.g. in one instance, a project was shared, or moved between provinces as well as between spheres of government, making it almost impossible to obtain relevant contactable stakeholders).

(2) Existence of information

In various instances contactable individuals were responsive however; relevant sample project information could not be obtained due to information not being saved electronically, or in hard copy. This may be interpreted that reports were never compiled, that reports are





lost, saved or stored by a different department, or that the project may have been imple-mented by a different sphere of government. A few of the sample projects for which town planningfileswereavailable,didnotincludeenvironmentalreportsforunexplainable(orinsome cases, municipalities indicated that housing development related environmental re-ports will be kept by environmental departments only, but that the relevant contact persons at such departments was not known).

(3) Project exemptions from conducting environmental assessments

Some of the selected sample projects were exempt from conducting environmental assess-ments.

(4) The HSS database complications

a. Data capturing standardisation: Project information captured on the HSS database, captures a certain set of information, however it appears as though the guidelines for populating the database are not followed, or such guidelines do not exist, resulting in various ways in which data is captured (this is evident from data captured for the same categories that contain differing content (i.e. some project names would include who the developer of the project is, or some project names would include an exten-sion number, whilst others don’t).

b. Data comparability between sectors: The project names captured on the HSS data-base differ from the names given by town planners to the developments or develop-mentareasortownships,leadingtotheinability,ordifficultytotrackprojectsbytownplanning departments, leading to inability or difficulty to extract human settlementestablishmentfilesthatwouldcontainrelevantdata.

This limitation resulted in the project team consulting environmental reports for human settlement developments to which the team could obtain access (refer to 3.1.1 Lim-itation to the environmental scan). This however included inherent limitations to the studyresults,whichmaybedefinedas:

(5) Theenvironmentalimpactsandrisksidentifiedmayormaynotbeinclusiveofallpotentialimpacts and risks that may exist;

a. The number of accessible reports that were available to the project team cannot be equated to the number of projects in the sample, hence the themes developed from this process relied on a much smaller data pool, and hence may not include all poten-tial impacts on the environment that occur as a result of human settlement develop-ments.

1.5 Chapterclassification

Chapter 1: Introduction, problem statement, goal and objectives

This chapter discusses the above, and state the importance of the study.

Chapter 2: Literature Review

Thischapterdiscussestheories,concepts,anddefinitionsrelevanttohumansettlementsand environmental impacts, legal contexts for the EIP and international perspectives on housing and human settlement developments and related environmental impacts.

Chapter 3: Environmental Scan

This chapter discusses environmental impacts caused by human settlement developments and the risks related to the impacts.

Chapter 4: Empirical Study

This chapter discusses the data that was captured during the research. This provides quan-titative results of the study.

Chapter 5: Conclusions and recommendations

This chapter discusses conclusions derived from the study and recommendations are made.

2. Literature Review

2.1 Introduction

The DHS developed the 2nd ed. EIP to assist in implementing actions to ensure compliance with environmental regulations, and environmental norms and standards, as is required from DHS, by Chapter 3 of NEMA (South Africa, 1998). Before determining if DHS makes provision for environmen-talmattersinitspolicies,plans,andprogrammes,itwasnecessarytodefineterminologyusedinthedocuments selected for review. The objective of evaluating if DHS policies, plans and programmes make explicit provision for considerations of environmental management allows for contextualisation of the relevant terminology used in DHS documents, from this conclusions could be drawn to state whether or not the context in which DHS documents include environmental considerations would require the reader, or responsible organ of state from whom action or implementation is required, to have prior understanding the terminology, or if it is easy to interpret within the document in which it is read, and allow the reader to follow and implement the environmental considerations included in DHS policies, plans or programmes.





Therefore, the terms economic-, social-, and environmental sustainability; human settlements, hous-ing and shelter (and adequate shelter), sustainable development, and sustainable human settle-ments, were reviewed.

The legal context for the requirements to develop an EIP was evaluated to provide perspective of this aspect of the study, and international perspectives on environmental impacts and reporting thereon from human settlements developments were also evaluated.

2.2 Definitionsrelevanttosustainablehumansettlements

2.2.1 Sustainable development

Manydefinitionsof“SustainableDevelopment”exist,themostnotable,oftenreferredtoasthefirstdefinition, was defined during theWorld Commission on Environmental and Development, alsoknown as “the Brundtland Commission” in the “Our Common Future” report. Sustainable develop-mentwasdefinedas:

“Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of futuregenerationstomeettheirownneeds.”Thisdefinitioncontainstwokeyconcepts:

• The concept of needs, in particular the essential needs of the world’s poor, to which over-riding priority should be given; and

• The idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organization on the environment’s ability to meet present and future needs” (United Nations, n.d.).

The Sustainable Development Commission (2011) elaborated that one key principle of sustainable development is to be “living within our environmental limits”. However, sustainable development entails more than only the environmental component which is required to ensure a strong, healthy and fair society. Sustainable development means meeting the diverse needs of all people in existing and future communities, promoting personal wellbeing, social cohesion and inclusion, and creating equal opportunity.

The NEMA informs environmental management and sustainable development for the Republic of South Africa (Republic of South Africa, 1998). The NEMA explains that sustainable development means the integration of social, economic and environmental factors into planning, implementation and decision-making so as to ensure that developments serve present and future generations. The NEMA further explains that sustainable development requires the consideration of all relevant fac-tors including the following:

(i). that the disturbance of ecosystems and loss of biological diversity are avoided, or, where they cannot be altogether avoided, are minimised and remedied:

(ii). that pollution and degradation of the environment are avoided, or, where they cannot be altogether avoided, are minimised and remedied;

(iii). that the disturbance of landscapes and sites that constitute the nation’s cultural heri-tage is avoided, or where it cannot be altogether avoided, is minimised and remedied;

(iv). that waste is avoided, or where it cannot be altogether avoided, minimised and re-used or recycled where possible and otherwise disposed of in a responsible manner;

(v). that the use and exploitation of non-renewable natural resources is responsible and equitable, and takes into account the consequences of the depletion of the resource;

(vi). that the development use and exploitation of renewable resources and the ecosys-tems of which they are part do not exceed the level beyond which their integrity is jeopardised;

(vii). that a risk-averse and cautious approach is applied, which takes into account the lim-its of current knowledge about the consequences of decisions and actions; and

(viii). that negative impacts on the environment and on people’s environmental rights be anticipated and prevented, and where they cannot be altogether prevented are mini-mised and remedied.

Figure 1: Spheres of Sustainable Development

It is clear that the Brundtland Com-mission’sdefinitionof“sustainabledevelopment” is entrenched in the principles which NEMA pre-scribes for development (section 2 of NEMA). The definition, andthe principles in NEMA, clearly indicates that the effective man-agement of the environment, the economy, and society is required to develop sustainably. Figure 1 provides a helpful visual summary of this concept.





2.2.2 Socially sustainable (social sustainability)

Generally, the social aspect of sustainability examines the social relationships, interactions and in-stitutionsthataffect,andareaffectedby,sustainabledevelopment.Definitionshereofareprovidedbelow:

• “Social sustainability occurs when the formal and informal processes; systems; struc-tures; and relationships actively support the capacity of current and future genera-tions to create healthy and liveable communities. Socially sustainable communities are equitable, diverse, connected and democratic and provide a good quality of life” (McKenzie, 2004);

• “A process for creating sustainable, successful places that promote wellbeing, by un-derstanding what people need from the places they live and work. Social sustainability combines design of the physical realm with design of the social world – infrastructure to support social and cultural life, social amenities, systems for citizen engagement and space for people and places to evolve” (Woodcraft et.al., 2012).

2.2.3 Environmentally sustainable (environmental sustainability)

Environmentalsustainabilityisdefinedbythefollowingauthorsas:

• “Meeting the resource and services needs of current and future generations without compromisingthehealthoftheecosystemsthatprovidethem,…andmorespecifical-ly, as a condition of balance, resilience, and interconnectedness that allows human society to satisfy its needs while neither exceeding the capacity of its supporting eco-systems to continue to regenerate the services necessary to meet those needs nor by our actions diminishing biological diversity” (Moreli, 2011);

• sustainability as the ability to maintain the qualities that are valued in the physical en-vironment, e.g. human life, the capabilities that the natural environment has to main-tain the living conditions for people and other species, aspects of the environment that producerenewableresourcessuchaswater,timber,fish,solarenergy(Sutton,2004).

2.2.4 Economically sustainable (economic sustainability)

DefinitionsofeconomicsustainabilityareprovidedbytheBusinessDirectory(2016)as:

• theabilityofaneconomytosupportadefinedlevelofeconomicproductionindefinite-ly;

• the use of various strategies for employing existing resources optimally so that a responsibleandbeneficialbalancecanbeachievedoverthelongerterm.Withinabusiness context, economic sustainability involves using the assorted assets of the companyefficientlytoallowittocontinuefunctioningprofitabilityovertime.

2.2.5 Adequate shelter

TheuniversaldefinitionofadequateshelterisprovidedbytheHabitatAgenda,is:

• “adequate privacy; adequate space; physical accessibility; adequate security; security of tenure; structural stability and durability; adequate lighting, heating and ventilation; adequate basic infrastructure, such as water-supply, sanitation and waste-manage-ment facilities; suitable environmental quality and health-related factors; and ade-quate and accessible location with regard to work and basic facilities: all of which should be available at an affordable cost” (UN, 1996).

Thisdefinitionindicatesthatadequateshelterincludesallthreeelementsofsustainability:economic,social, and environmental aspects.

2.2.6 Housing

The2nded.EIPofDHS(SouthAfrica,2009)defineshousingas:

• “A variety of process through which habitable, stable and sustainable public and pri-vate residential environments are created for viable households and communities. This recognises that the environment within which a house is built on is as important as the house itself in satisfying the needs and requirements of the inhabitants.

“The construction of a house is a culmination of many planning processes and legis-lative requirements that must be adhered to. Land development and spatial planning become critical to the housing process”.

Thisdefinitionofhousingdoesnotexpressivelyrefertoeconomicandsocialenviron-ments,but it is implied.Thisdefinitionplacesgreatemphasisontheimportanceofthenaturalenvironment.Anadditionalnoteworthypointmadeinthedefinitionisthereferencethatthisdefinitionmakestolanddevelopmentandspatialplanning,bothofwhich is necessary aspects for DHS to consider in developments if the aim is to de-velop human settlements which are built with consideration to the natural environment and that would contribute to a sustainable natural surrounding environment.





2.2.7 Sustainable human settlements

“Sustainable human settlements”, as referred to in the Breaking New Ground (BNG) document by the previously titled Department of Housing, states:

• “well-managed entities in which economic growth and social developments are in balance with the carrying capacity of the natural systems on which they depend for their existence and result in sustainable development, wealth creation, poverty alleviation and equity” (DoH, 2004).

The BNG further states that a ‘successful’ human settlement implies the following:

• “The present and future inhabitants of sustainable human settlements, located in both ur-ban and rural areas, live in a safe and secure environment and have adequate access to economic opportunities, a mix of safe and secure housing and tenure type, reliable and affordable basic services, educational, entertainment and cultural activities and health, wel-fare and police services. Land utilisation is well planned, managed and monitored to ensure the development of compact, mixed land-use, diverse, life-enhancing environments with maximumpossibilities forpedestrianmovementsand transitviasafeandefficientpublictransportincaseswheremotorizedmeansofmovementisimperative.Specificattentionispaid to ensuring that low-income housing is provided in close proximity to areas of oppor-tunity. Investment in a house becomes a crucial injection in the second economy, and a de-sirable asset that grows in value and acts as a generator and holder of wealth. Sustainable human settlements are supportive of the communities which reside there, thus contribution towards greater social cohesion, social crime prevention, moral regeneration, support for national heritage, recognition and support of indigenous knowledge systems and the on-going extension of land rights… Therefore, at the core of this initiative is to move beyond the provision of basic shelter towards achieving the broader vision of sustainable human settlementsandmoreefficientcities,townsandregions”(DHS,2004).

Thisdefinitionincludesallcomponentsofsustainabilityandincludesimportantdetailtothesocialand economic components. Of importance to this study is the reference to “carrying capacity of the natural system” which addresses the environmental component of sustainability. The other referenc-es to “environment” are expressed in a manner which may not be interpreted as necessarily referring to the “natural environment”.

2.2.8 Environmentally sound human settlements

The KZNDHS (2004) states that environmentally sound human settlements are:

• Characterisedbygoodairquality,energyandwaterefficienthomes,withplantingthatpro-vides green lungs or even food security. These may be seen as healthy, sustainable settle-

ments which provide quality living environments. The promotion of settlements with these attributeswouldbringsocial,economicandenvironmentalbenefitstoSouthAfrica.

2.2.9 Housing development

TheHousingAct(Act107of1997)(SouthAfrica,1997)definesahousingdevelopmentas:

• “the establishment and maintenance of habitable, stable and sustainable public and private residential environments to ensure viable households and communities in areas allowing convenient access to economic opportunities, and to health, educational and social ame-nities in which all citizens and permanent residents of the Republic will, on a progressive basis, have access to:

a) permanent residential structures with secure tenure, ensuring internal and external privacy and providing adequate protection against the elements; and

b) potable water, adequate sanitary facilities and domestic energy supply”.

Thisdefinition,aswiththepreviousfromtheBreakingNewGround,usestheterm“environment”inacontext that could be interpreted in a way that does not necessarily refer to the “natural environment”. It does explain that services should be included in the housing development which would ultimately contribute to the impacts on the environment after the development has been completed, referring to services delivery including water and energy, and sanitary facilities, which relates to the impacts on the environment resultant form the use of natural resources, and sanitary waste creation, which requires treatment (and natural resources) to dispose of, or clean, before releasing back into the environment.Thisdefinitiondoesthereforeadequatelyaddresssocialandeconomiccomponentsofsustainability, and environmental components in the same context as those of social and economic stability that is improved through the physical provision of the housing unit and related services. This does not include reference to the act of the development of the settlement (the physical construction) andtheimpactstotheenvironmentrelatedtotheconstructionactivity.ThisisjustifiableasthisActrefers to the products and services to be delivered by the department of human settlements, whose core function is not to protect the environment.

2.3 Legal context

2.3.1 The Constitution

The legal reference source for environmental law in South Africa is found in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Act 108 of 1996 (South Africa, 1996). The Constitution has enhanced the status of the environment by virtue of the fact that environmental rights have been established (Sec-tion 24) and as other rights created in the Bill of Rights may impact on environmental management. The Constitution places the environment in high priority to which all organs of state are bound as is





evident from the Bill of Rights, which state:

“8. Application.-(1) The Bill of Rights applies to all law, and binds the legislature, the executive, the judiciary and all organs of state”

The Constitution provides context for the mandate of DHS, regarding provisioning of houses. The Constitution’s Bill of Rights states the following of housing:

“Housing

26. (1) everyone has the right to have access to adequate housing.

(2) The state must take reasonable legislative and other measures, within its available resources, to achieve the progressive realisation of this right…” (South Africa, 1996).

The DHS has to ensure the enactment of this right. When executing their mandate, the DHS has to ensure that their developments do not infringe other constitutional rights, such as the right to a clean environment.Itisnoteworthythatthisrightincludescomponentsofthedefinitionfor“sustainability”,namely the preservation of the environment for present and future generations – thus this constitu-tional right inherently states that the natural environment must be sustained.

“Environment

24. Everyone has the right-

a. to an environment that is not harmful to their health or well-being; and

b. tohavetheenvironmentprotected,forthebenefitofpresentandfuturegenerations,through reasonable legislative and other measures that-

i. prevent pollution and ecological degradation;

ii. promote conservation; and

iii. secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources while promotingjustifiableeconomicandsocialdevelopment”(SouthAfrica,1996:9).

Fulfillingthemandatetodeliverhousesandsustainablehumansettlementswhilstensuringthattheenvironment is not jeopardised, requires working with other sectors and departments whose man-date includes protection and management of the environment. This is provided for in the Constitution, through Chapter 3, namely “Co-operative governance”. Co-operative governance of the environment is in the best interest of the country since society and the economy depends on the natural envi-ronment. Development, in many instances causes environmental degradation. This phenomenon lead to various states worldwide convening and formulating the need for sustainable development,

through the Brundtland Commission – see 2.2.1 Sustainable development, from which it is clear that the goal of sustainable development is to ensure the long-term stability of the economy, society and environment. Thus sustainable development is achievable through co-operative governance.

Furthermore,Schedules4and5oftheConstitutionprovidethatspecifiedenvironmentalaspectsareof concurrent legislative competence (national and provincial sphere), whilst some environmental functions may be assigned to local sphere, thus requiring co-operative governance of these aspects.

With the understanding that sustainable development is crucial for all sectors and spheres which included governing environment, NEMA sets out to facilitate this amongst all organs of state that are required to co-operate in achieving the common goal of co-operatively governing the environment (co-operative environmental governance).

2.3.2 The National Development Plan

The National Development Plan (NDP) 2030 (South Africa, 2012) aims to eliminate poverty and re-duce inequality by 2030. The NDP focuses on critical capabilities needed to transform the economy and society and it provides a broad strategic framework to guide key choices and actions. Chapter 8 of the NDP is of particular importance since it relates to “Transforming Human Settlements”. While the importance of Chapter 8 is to bridge the gap between historic issues relating to geographic loca-tion of communities, achieving an environmentally sustainable working environment is also stressed therein.

Respect for the natural environment is called for in the NDP. The NDP recognises that developments severely impact on the environment, and continues to state that “green development” should be considered, alluding to waste recycling as well as renewable energies being considered and sought in development activities.

The NDP further provides clear direction for a more environmentally sustainable future through spec-ifying actions to be implemented to reduce impacts of construction on the environment.

The NDP calls on all for government to:

• address and prepare for the challenges related to climate change,

• prioritize green infrastructure

• plan to reduce transport related emissions

• aim for zero-carbon building standards by the year 2030, and

• ensurethatbuildingsmeetenergyefficiencystandards

• introducemeasurestoencourageandfacilitateefficientresourceusage,reduceresourcelossandwastage,andeliminatewastetolandfill.





Chapter 8 of the NDP does speak to the environmental aspect by specifying “how things should be”. The NDP covers aspects relating to air, water and energy, and waste, in terms of impacts and the direction that South Africa should work toward. Spatial planning is indicated as a key component in managingissuessuchastransportnetworks,lowdensificationandchallengesrelatingtowaterandenergy availability. Rural areas, in particular are more constrained where resource availability is a challenge, and therefore resort to alternative, less environmentally-conscious means of livelihood.

The NDP provides clarity that environmental impacts brought about by development and utilisation of resources (after development has been completed), may be reduced, or mitigated, through effec-tive planning prior to development actions being implemented.

2.3.3 The National Environmental Management Act

Constitutional rights take effect through South African Legislation, and environmental rights through the NEMA. The NEMA (South Africa, 1998) dictates that development must be sustainable, thus DHS developments have to incorporate the elements of sustainable development. NEMA’s purpose is:

“To provide for co-operative environmental governance by establishing principles for de-cision-making on matters affecting the environment, institutions that will promote co-op-erative governance and procedures for co-ordinating environmental functions exercised by organs of state; to provide for certain aspects of the administration and enforcement of other environmental management laws; and to provide for matters connected therewith” (South Africa, 1998)

To incorporate all environmental components of sustainable development, it has to do so in compli-ance to the requirements set out in the NEMA, which in its preamble, states:

“Whereas many inhabitants of South Africa live in an environment that is harmful to their health and well-being; everyone has the right to an environment that is not harmful to his orherhealthorwell-being;theStatemustrespect,protect,promoteandfulfilthesocial,economic and environmental rights of everyone and strive to meet the basic needs of pre-viously disadvantaged communities… sustainable development requires the integration of social, economic and environmental factors in the planning, implementation and evaluation of decisions to ensure that development serves present and future generations; everyone hastherighttohavetheenvironmentprotected,forthebenefitofpresentandfuturegener-ations, through reasonable legislative and other measures that—

“prevent pollution and ecological degradation; promote conservation; and secure ecologi-callysustainabledevelopmentanduseofnaturalresourceswhilepromotingjustifiableeco-nomic and social development;

“the environment is a functional area of concurrent national and provincial legislative competence, and all spheres of government and all organs of state must co-operate with, consult and support one another” (RSA, 1998).

This extract from the NEMA highlights that, to develop sustainably, environmental (and the other components of sustainability) must be integrated from development planning stages and carried out throughout the development, and must be monitored – this must be done to ensure a sustainable environment for future generations.

The NEMA preamble concludes:

“And whereas it is desirable—

that the law develops a framework for integrating good environmental management into all development activities”.

Such frameworks have been developed within NEMA, which is binding to the DHS – these are discussed in the following section.

2.3.4 NEMA requirements of Organs of State

National environmental management principles are set out in the NEMA, chapter 2: Principles, to which Organs of State must adhere. NEMA states:

“The principles set out in this section apply throughout the Republic to the actions of all organsofstatethatmaysignificantlyaffecttheenvironmentand-

(b) serve as the general framework within which environmental management and imple-mentation plans must be formulated;

(c) serve as guidelines by reference to which any organ of state must exercise any func-tion when taking any decision in terms of this Act or any statutory provision concerning the protection of the environment” (South Africa, 1998);

The title of Chapter 3 of NEMA is “Procedures for Co-operative governance”; after which it starts with section 11, describing those who are required to compile environmental management and im-plementation plans, as is listed in Schedule 1 and 2 of NEMA. Thus, the procedure to ensure co-op-erative environmental governance, should take place through EIP/EMP/EIMP compilation by the required organs of state.

A principle, on which NEMA elaborates in detail, is the principle of “sustainable development”. These principles have been included in the 2nd ed. EIP, as is required by NEMA’s Chapter 3, as is indicated in Table 2. Although some of the principles are discussed in the EIP, the requirement by NEMA is that policies, plans, and programmes of an organ of state should respond to these principles.





Table 2: Sustainable Development Principles in NEMA

Principle Is the principle discussed in the DHS EIP?

(4) (a) Sustainable development requires the consideration of all relevant factors including the following:(i) That the disturbance of ecosystems and loss of biological diversity are

avoided, or, where they cannot be altogether avoided, are minimised and remedied;

(ii) That pollution and degradation of the environment are avoided, or, where they cannot be altogether avoided, are minimised and remedied;

(iii) That the disturbance of landscapes and sites that constitute the nation’s cultural heritage is avoided, or where it cannot be altogether avoided, is minimised and remedied;

(iv) That waste is avoided, or where it cannot be altogether avoided, minimised and re-used or recycled where possible and otherwise disposed of in a responsible manner;

(v) That the use and exploitation of non-renewable natural resources is responsible and equitable, and takes into account the consequences of the depletion of the resource;

(vi) That the development, use and exploitation of renewable resources and the ecosystems of which they are part do not exceed the level beyond which their integrity is jeopardised;

(vii) That a risk-averse and cautious approach is applied, which takes into account the limits of current knowledge about the consequences of decisions and actions; and

(viii) That negative impacts on the environment and on people’s environmental rights be anticipated and prevented, and where they cannot be altogether prevented, are minimised and remedied.

No

(b) Environmental management must be integrated, acknowledging that all elements of the environment are linked and interrelated, and it must take into account the effects of decisions on all aspects of the environment and all people in the environment by pursuing the selection of the best practicable environmental option.

Yes

(c) Environmental justice must be pursued so that adverse environmental impacts shall not be distributed in such a manner as to unfairly discriminate against any person, particularly vulnerable and disadvantaged persons.

Yes

(d) Equitableaccesstoenvironmentalresources,benefitsandservicestomeetbasic human needs and ensure human well-being must be pursued and special measures may be taken to ensure access thereto by categories of persons disadvantaged by unfair discrimination.

Yes

(e) Responsibility for the environmental health and safety consequences of a policy, programme, project, product, process, service or activity exists throughout its life cycle.

Yes

(f) The participation of all interested and affected parties in environmental governance must be promoted, and all people must have the opportunity to develop the understanding, skills and capacity necessary for achieving equitable and effective participation, and participation by vulnerable and disadvantaged persons must be ensured.

Yes

(g) Decisions must take into account the interests, needs and values of all interested and affected parties, and this includes recognising all forms of knowledge, including traditional and ordinary knowledge.

Yes

(h) Community wellbeing and empowerment must be promoted through environmental education, the raising of environmental awareness, the sharing of knowledge and experience and other appropriate means.

Yes

(i) The social, economic and environmental impacts of activities, including disadvantagesandbenefits,mustbeconsidered,assessedandevaluated,and decisions must be appropriate in the light of such consideration and assessment.

No

(j) The right of workers to refuse work that is harmful to human health or the environment and to be informed of dangers must be respected and protected.

Yes

(k) Decisions must be taken in an open and transparent manner, and access to information must be provided in accordance with the law.

Yes

(k) Decisions must be taken in an open and transparent manner, and access to information must be provided in accordance with the law.

Yes

(l) There must be intergovernmental co-ordination and harmonisation of policies, legislation and actions relating to the environment.

Yes

(m) Actualorpotentialconflictsofinterestbetweenorgansofstateshouldberesolvedthroughconflictresolutionprocedures.

Yes

(n) Global and international responsibilities relating to the environment must be discharged in the national interest

Yes

(o) Theenvironmentisheldinpublictrustforthepeople,thebeneficialuseofenvironmental resources must serve the public interest and the environment must be protected as the people’s common heritage.

Yes

(p) The costs of remedying pollution, environmental degradation and consequent adverse health effects and of preventing, controlling or minimising further pollution, environmental damage or adverse health effects must be paid for by those responsible for harming the environment.

Yes

(q) The vital role of women and youth in environmental management and development must be recognised and their full participation therein must be promoted.

Yes

(r) Sensitive, vulnerable, highly dynamic or stressed ecosystems, such as coastal shores,estuaries,wetlands,andsimilarsystemsrequirespecificattentioninmanagement and planning procedures, especially where they are subject to significanthumanresourceusageanddevelopmentpressure.

Yes

This requirement from NEMA, to indicate which of the policies, plans, and programmes have an im-pact on the environment, and how the principles of sustainable development is incorporated therein, should be reported to the DEA through the EIP.

2.3.5 Environmental Implementation Plan

Chapter 3 (section 11) of the NEMA prescribes the requirements for the DHS through which the Department should report on its impacts and compliance to environmental legislation. This section provides extracts from NEMA Chapter 3, indicating which departments are required to develop an EIP, what the purpose thereof is, and what the content requirements are.





“(1) Every national department listed in Schedule 1 as exercising functions which may affect the environment and every provincial department responsible for envi-ronmentalaffairsmustprepareanenvironmentalimplementationplanwithinfiveyearsofthecomingintooperationofthisActandatintervalsofnotmorethanfiveyears thereafter” (South Africa, 1998).

1) Purpose and objectives of EIPs

The primary purpose of EIPs as outlined in Chapter 3, section 12 of the NEMA is to (South Africa, 1998):

a) “Co-ordinate and harmonise the environmental policies, plans, programmes and decisions of the various national departments that exercise functions that may affect the environment or are entrusted with powers and duties aimed at the achievement, promotion and protec-tion of a sustainable environment and of provincial and local spheres of government, in order to-

(i). minimise the duplication of procedures and functions;

(ii). promote consistency in the exercise of impacting or management functions that may affect the environment;

b) give effect to the principles of cooperative governance;

c) secure protection of the environment across the country as a whole;

d) prevent unreasonable actions by provinces in respect of the environment that are prejudi-cial to the economic or health interests of other provinces or the country as a whole;

e) enable the Minister to monitor the achievement, promotion and protection of a sustainable environment”

2) Content of EIPs

This section provides indication of what the content of EIPs should include, as is required by NEMA, and DHS’s response thereto.

Table 3: NEMA EIP requirements and DHS’s EIP content

NEMA requirements of EIPs DHS’s EIPEIP Content requirements DHS’s responses to the requirements of Chapter 3 of NEMA:Chapter 3, section 13 of NEMA stipulates that every EIP must contain the following (South Africa, 1998):

c) In response to the requirements, the DHS 2nd ed. EIP (South Africa, 2009) includes the following:

a) description of the policies, plans and programmes that maysignificantlyaffecttheenvironment;

• requirement (a): The DHS responds to the requirement through indicating that all of the Department’s development orientated programmes will impact on the environment. Chapter 2 of the 2nd ed. EIP also provides description of policies, plans and programmes, such as funding programmes, which does not impact on the environment; or, if this type of policy, plan or programme does impactontheenvironment,itisnotclearlydefined.

The means by which these policies, plans, and programmes arenotcontextualisedmakesitdifficulttoidentifywhichofthe NEMA’s sustainable development principles or other environmental considerations are applicable to these policies, plans and programmes.

b) description of the manner in the relevant national department or province will ensure that the policies, plans and programmes referred to will comply with the principles in section 2 of NEMA as well as any national norms and standards as envisaged in the Constitution and set out by the Minister which have as their objective the achievement, promotion and protection of the environment;

• requirement (b) and (c): The DHS partially responds to the requirements. The principles of NEMA’s section 2 are addressed by the 2nd ed. EIP, Chapter 3; however not all are addressed with clarity. Those that are mentioned could be elaborated on and expressed with greater practical application to the DHS plans, programmes, and policies. The EIP does not however provide a detailed “description of the manner” in which the Department will adhere to relevant legislation and principles. It could however, be argued that the NEMA states the principles “serve as a framework” for EIPs, and that it is a “general guideline” by which functions must be exercised, and thus does not require detailed attention in the EIP. The 2nd ed. EIP also does not clarify how the DHS will ensure that functions will be exercised to ensure compliance with relevant legislations and principles of the NEMA, or relevant norms and standards.

c) description of the manner in which the relevant national departments or province will ensure that its functions are exercised so as to ensure compliance with relevant legislative provisions, including the principles set out in section 2, and any national norms and standards envisaged under section 146(2)(b)(i) of the Constitution and set out the Minister, or by any other Minister, which have as their objective the achievement, promotion and protection of the environment; and





NEMA requirements of EIPs DHS’s EIPd) recommendations for the

promotion of the objectives and plans for the implementation of the procedures and regulations referred to in Chapter 5”.

• requirement (d): The DHS responds to the requirement within chapter 3 of the 2nd ed. EIP in which it does mention actions for implementation, however the articulation of how these will be implemented should be elaborated on further to discuss the practicalities of such implementations and how these will be realised.

2.3.6 Guidelines for environmental implementation and management plans (Draft 3rd edition)

A review of the Draft 3rd edition Guideline for Environmental Implementation and Management Plans (hereafter referred to as “the Guideline”) (South Africa, 2013) is provided herewith to provide an indi-cation of the developments that took place in legal requirements for EIPs during the time of the 2nd ed. EIP being in place.

The primary purpose of the Guideline (South Africa, 2013), is to provide technical guidance to pro-vincial and national departments on how to develop and/or report on the implementation of en-vironmental implementation and management plans as well as on the combined environmental implementation and management plans required in terms of Chapter 3 of the NEMA. Furthermore, this guideline is developed to encourage and promote consistency in preparation of and reporting on the environmental implementation and management plans by the provincial and national depart-ments listed in schedules 1 or 2 or both schedules of the NEMA. Therefore, it is envisaged that all relevant provincial and national departments will comply with these guidelines when implementing Chapter 3 of the NEMA. It should also be noted that the guideline is not exhaustive, but is intended tobedefinitiveandmandatorywithregardtotheminimumcontentrequiredfortheenvironmentalimplementation and management plans as well as on the content of the related annual reports.

The primary reason for this guideline is to explain and simplify the requirements of an EIP as stipu-lated in the NEMA. It also outlines the relevant considerations which should be taken when compiling the EIP such as the environmental sector priorities and the core focus areas (which are: (i) Air qual-ity; (ii) Waste and Chemicals Management; (iii) Pollution Incident Management; (iv) Environmental Impact Management; (v) Conservation and Sustainable Use of biodiversity; (vi) Marine and Coastal Management; (vii) Green economy and sustainable development”) necessary to address the prior-ities mentioned in NEMA. This guideline document has relevance to future edition EIPs of the DHS as it provides a template which could be used in the compilation of an EIP.

TheEIPguidelineprovidesthedefinitionofanEIPandthenhighlightsthescopeandpurposeofan EIP according to Chapter 3, section 12 of the NEMA. The guideline stipulates under section 3: Purpose and Scope of EIPs:

“The EIP describes policies, plans, and programmes of a department that performs functions that may impact on the environment and how this department’s plans will comply with the NEMA princi-ples and national environmental norms and standards” (South Africa, 2009).

The 2nd ed. EIP does include how the NEMA principles and norms and standards will be complied with; however this could be revised for increased practicalities and application of how compliance with policies, plans and programmes and norms and standards should be achieved.

Section 8.3 of the guideline (South Africa, 2013) indicates what the indicators to monitor should be and what the EIP should include, which is related to the NDP Chapter 5 indicators, which is stated to respond directly to the NEMA principles for sustainable development. Sustainable development is anelementthatcouldberevisedingreaterdepthinfutureEIPdevelopment.Theguidelineclarifiesthat these “indicators are not generally appropriate for monitoring cooperative governance around environmental management”, which is the responsibility of the DEA.

The guideline includes a template for the development of EIPs, which was applied by the DHS in the development of the 3rd ed. EIP (South Africa, 2015). For the purposes of this study, the 3rd ed. EIP (2015) was not evaluated against the 2nd ed. EIP, or its template. Conclusions of this study will consider how future EIPs should respond to the template indicated in the guideline.

2.3.7DHSactionstoensurecompliancewithenvironmentalpoliciesandlawsasdefinedin the 2nd ed. EIP

The DHS’s 2nd ed. EIP’s Chapter 3 discusses actions to ensure compliance with environmental policies and laws (quoted in Table 4) (DHS, 2009). This section of the EIP is reviewed to evaluate if the EIP meets the requirements of NEMA.

The link between the heading of the chapter and the content within this section of the 2nd ed. EIP is not clear, which does not provide the reader with context to how the content should be contextualised and interpreted. Thus this section of the EIP should be framed by introductory statements and expla-nations of the listed “Actions”. In many instances, an explicit statement of what the physical actions are that should have been implemented, or whose responsibility implementation thereof was, are not specified,leavingthereaderuncertainofwhatthissectionof2nded.EIPrequiredorprescribed,towhom it applied, and whom should have been bound thereby.





Table 4: Actions to ensure compliance with environmental policies and laws

2nd ed. EIP’s Actions to Ensure Compliance with environmental policies and laws:

Comment on the content below the actions of the 2nd ed. EIP

Sustainable Development:Development must be socially, environmentally and economically sustainable. The social, economic and environmental Impacts of activities, including disadvantages and benefits,mustbeconsidered,assessedandevaluated.

Environmental impacts of human settlements development are recognised, and henceforth states:

“Solutions to the reduction of the impact of the housing programme on the environment lie in a range of policies, programmes, administered by a range of government departments”.

Herein, the DHS recognises that the Department should manage their impacts through policies and programmes.

Integration of environmental considerations into decision-making:Environmental Management must be integrated, acknowledging that all elements of the environmental are linked and interrelated, and it must take into account the effects of decisions on all aspects of the environment and all people in the environment by pursuing the selection of the best practical environmental option.

This indicates that:• Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA’s) impose

delays and costs on development. • All planning forms must be integrated into Integrated

Development Plan (IDP’s).This creates the perception that EIA’s are seen in a negative light by the DHS; secondly it is not clear as to which aspects of the environment its reference includes when stating “linking… environmental development” single integrated development plans”.

Participation, empowerment and transparency:• The participation of all interested parties

in environmental governance must be promoted.

• Decisions must take into account the Interests, needs and values of all interested and affected parties, and this includes recognising all forms of knowledge.

• Decisions must be taken in an open and transparent manner, and access to information must be provided.

Environmental governance is mentioned; however the EIP explains that this will be met through stakeholder engagement processes.

It must be considered that, where literacy and education levels are not at a desirable level, and where social needs are much greater than concern for the environment, “environmental governance” might not be addressed adequately by the stakeholders involved.

• Community well-being and empowerment must be promoted through environmental education, the raising of environmental awareness, the sharing of knowledge and experience

The explanation below this point refers to the People’s Housing Process, and speaks to support which is sustainable,andlistssupportas:technical,financial,logistical, and administrative. It further refers to aspects that could be seen as social support.

Thus, “environmental education and awareness” is not explained, and requirements or plans for what this should entailarenotclarified.

• ActualorpotentialconflictsofInterestsbetween organs of state should be resolvedthroughconflictresolutionprocedures.

This states that development priorities must be balanced, but there is no reference to environmental considerations.



Participation, empowerment and transparency (continued):• The vital role that women and youth

play in environmental management and development must be recognised and their full participation therein must be promoted.

This section further speaks to empowerment of youth and woman, and various social and economic aspects; however there is no further explanation or link to “environmental management”, or how woman or children will or should play roles therein.

Environmental justice and equity:• Environmental management must place

people and their needs at the forefront of its concern, and serve their physical, psychological, developmental, cultural and social Interests equitably.

This section states that “The Housing Programme” recognises that “adequate shelter” means “suitable environmental quality” and mentions services that contribute to ensuring a clean environment, such as “waste management facilities and sanitation”.

• Equitable access to environmental resources,benefitsandservicestomeetbasic human needs and ensure human well-being must be pursued.

It recognises that the quality of environment is affected bythedepartment’sfinancialabilitytoprovideservicestocontribute to clean environments.

• Environmental justice must be pursued so that adverse environmental impacts shall not be distributed in such a manner so as to unfairly discriminate against any person, particularly vulnerable and disadvantaged persons.

No further link is made to the environment.

• The environment is held in public trust forthepeople,thebeneficialuseofenvironmental resources must serve the public interest and the environment must be protected as the people's common heritage.

This section refers to the Housing Act’s comments on environmental impacts, and building sustainably.

This section’s comment on environmental components are explained well and clear, and mentions how environmental sustainability could be achieved – giving a platform from which potential environmental indicators could be developed.

• Responsibility for the environmental health and safety consequences of a policy, programme, project, process, service or activity exists throughout its life cycle.

This section recognises that “Quality of life” depends on cleanenvironments,andclarifieswhat“environmentallysound human settlements are characterised by”.

This section refers the reader to the “Guidelines for Environmentally sound Low Cost Housing”, which should be consulted to address environmental components in human settlements development.

• The costs of remedying pollution, environmental degradation and consequent adverse health effects and of preventing, controlling or minimising further pollution, environmental damage or adverse health effects must be paid for by those responsible for harming the environment.

This section merely states that environmental standards must be adhered to. It does not make a clear reference to the main point.







Ecological integrity:• Sensitive, vulnerable, highly dynamic or

stressed ecosystems, such as coastal shores, estuaries, wetlands and similar systemsrequirespecificattentioninmanagement and planning procedures, especially where they are subject to significanthumanresourceusageanddevelopment pressure.

• The right of workers to refuse work that is harmful to human health and the environment must be respected and protected.

ThissectionclarifieswheretheDHSsettlementdevelopments probably have most adverse impacts on the environment; and states the type of impacts that occur.

The section further refers to the DHS’s Informal Settlement Upgrading programme, which recommends that settlements in unsuitable environments should be relocated.

The section does not specify what alternative actions or precautions should be considered if relocation is not possible, or if the upgrade to be done does not meet the requirements (or fall into the category of) an “informal settlement”.

The last point is only explained as having relevance to asbestos.

International responsibilities:Global and international responsibilities relating to the environment must be discharged in the national interest.

This section lists relevant international organisations with whom the Department “interacts”. It does not specify how or which of the DHS’s environmental responsibilities stems from, or are reported to, these organisations. Elaborating hereon could enforce the importance of such specificenvironmentalresponsibilities.

This chapter of the EIP does provide discussion on the actions which DHS has implemented, or will implement in their developments, and it provides guidance for action that should be taken. However it does not provide clarity on actual actions taken (or actions that should be implemented) to ensure compliancewithspecificenvironmentallegislation,orenvironmentalnormsandstandardsthatmaybe applicable to the DHS’s developments.

Without stating which actions should be taken to ensure compliance with which laws, regulations, norms, and standards, monitoring and evaluation, and subsequent reporting thereon (to DEA) is not possible.

This chapter also includes aspects of sustainable development that is not legislated (or have don’t legal requirements for DHS to comply with) e.g. participation of woman and youth in environmental management, which is an aspect of sustainable development which DEA has to ensure, not the DHS

This chapter may be improved by addressing the above mentioned actions through indicating which regulations and norms and standards the DHS are subjected to in implementation of their policies, plans and programmes; and by removing content to which DHS would not have to monitor any per-formance against.

2.3.8DHSrecommendationsforenvironmentalmanagementasdefinedinthe2ndEIP

The DHS’s 2nd ed. EIP’s Chapter 4 lists recommended actions, outputs thereof, and indicators un-der the heading of “Recommendations for Environmental Management”. As with the 3rd Chapter, the link between the heading and the content of this chapter of the 2nd ed. EIP should be contextualised by introductory statements and an explanation of the table in the chapter. Without such contextual-isation,theapplicationoftheindicatorsisnotclarifiedandopentointerpretation.Thereadermightnotdefine“environmentalmanagement”,or termsused in the“recommendedaction”columnthesamewaytheDHSintendedittobedefined.ContextshouldbeprovidedbytheDHS,inconsulta-tionwiththeDEA,astowhat“environmentalmanagement”isbeingdefinedasandwhatelementsof environmental management the DHS should address within their EIP versus what environmental management elements should remain to be addressed through the NEMA, without creating unnec-essary or unintended duplication, whilst still providing the DHS a means to monitor what the DEA requires the DHS to monitor in the EIP.

Recommendationsforenvironmentalmanagementasdefinedinthe2nded.EIPare indicatedinTable5.Considerthatthefirstrecommendedactionislistedas“environmentallysustainablelandusedevelopment”,and thefirstoutcome thereof is: “densificationandurban infill”–whichcouldbejustifiedasenvironmentallysustainablelandusesinceitpromotesvariouspracticesthatcouldreduce impacts (e.g. utilisation of land within the urban area, which in turn promotes higher density, which in turn could lead to compact cities. Compact cities reduces the area over which municipal services have to be distributed, which reduces management of larger areas over which faults (e.g. leaking pipes) have to be maintained, it reduces new development on undeveloped areas, and high-er density improves possibility of implementing viable public transport systems, thereby reducing carbonemissionsrelatedtomaintenanceandvehicletraffic).Thesecondoutcomehowever,doesnot have a clear link to “environmentally sustainable land use” because it mentions that “well located land” must be made available for housing development. Herein it is not clear if “well located land” isdefinedaslandsituatedinbrownfieldsites,orwhatotherpotentialenvironmentalattributethisoutcome has. Furthermore, the indicators listed for this recommended action are not linked to the secondoutcome,butonlytothefirst.

Thesecond, thirdandfifth recommendedactions for “Environmentalmanagement”allhaveverystrong focus on societal aspects, thus speaking to the societal aspect of sustainability, however there are no environmental concepts mentioned in any of the three columns, relating to these actions.

The fourth recommended action is “promote environmentally sound low cost housing”. The outcomes andindicatorsforthisactionarefairlywelldefinedandcouldbemonitoredintermsofenvironmentalmanagement post construction. There is however, no indication of environmental considerations that should be applied during planning phases, prior to construction, and hence no indicator to monitor what the DHS is doing in terms of environmental compliance prior to construction.





Table 5: recommendations for environmental management as defined in the 2nd EIP

Recommended Action Output Indicators1. Encourage environmentally

sustainable land use development

• Densificationandurbaninfillactively encouraged

• Introduce measures to make well located land available for low cost housing

• Urbanisation (urban vs. population: numbers, % and rate of growth per year)

• New houses (number of new title deeds registered through the Housing Programme annually)

• Densification:- Average residential

densities in urban areas per municipality (measured every 3 to 5 years)

- Number and percentage of medium density housing units developed through the Housing Programme per Province per year

2. Promote Integrated Development Planning

Housing development and budgets linked with other sector requirements, with the entire process being streamlined to meet a set of minimum requirements

Planninga) Housing Chapter of lDPs

compiled (Y/N) b) Provincial Multi-year

Housing Dev Plans (PHDPs) completed (Y/N) c)

c) Compliance of PHDPs with 10 year lDPs (Y/N)

d) Citizen involvement in planning of housing developments (Description of participatory planning processes)

Funding for integrated developmenta) Level of funding through

Human Settlement Redevelopment Programme.

b) Level of public investment in new bulk infrastructure

c) Level of public investment in informal settlement upgrading.

3. Address the needs and priorities of people in informal settlements

National housing budget increased

• Security of tenure (Tenure types nationally - Census)

• Access to services (No of households without clean drinking water, sanitation and electricity)

• Housing Rights - are there impediments to any person owning or inheriting land?

Recommended Action Output Indicators4. Promote environmentally

sound low cost housingWaterandenergyefficienthousing. Planting of trees promoted in low cost housing projects.

Resource use a) Water consumption (Iitres per

day per person) b) Cost of water (median price

per 10001 of water) c) Energy consumption

(Domestic consumption per yr, by fuel type)

d) Cost of energy (price per fuel type)

e) Affordability (% of household income spent on energy by income category)

Quality of resources a) Air quality (number of days/

year with unacceptable air quality)

b) Water quality (number of cases of water-borne diseases per yr)

Environmentally Sound Housing a) National Building Regulations

reviewed to promote energyandwaterefficientconstruction.

b) Number of trees planted with new subsidised houses.

c) Ceilings in subsidised housing units (as a % of the total built per year)

5. Planning for housing development

Land acquisition entity established Proactiveidentification,acquisition, assessment and release of housing land

The current structure and content of chapter 4 of the EIP, does not provide clarity on who the respon-sible parties are that should consider the recommended action for implementation (e.g. does it apply to all spheres of government, or to implementing agencies, or developers, or all of parties involved in the implementation). The table within this section of the 2nd ed. EIP lists indicators in the last col-umnofthetablewhereastheheadingofthefirstcolumnofthetableis“recommendedaction”.Sincethese actions are introduced as “recommended”, it implies that the indicators are not strict require-ments that must be adhered to; thus making any implementation and adherence thereto optional. Because of this, monitoring progress of implementation of the indicators will be challenging since the “optional”appearancethereofcouldbeusedasjustificationfornon-implementationthereof.





Additional factors that may contribute to indicators listed in this table not being implemented, could be the fact that the Monitoring, Evaluation and Impact Assessment (MEIA) document lists indicators that are different from the 2nd ed. EIP indicators (refer to Table 6: DHS documents’ inclusion of sus-tainable development concepts with focus on the natural environment). Other reasons that may lead to non-implementation of the listed indicators, could relate to misunderstanding of the indicators; jus-tificationwastheapplicationoftheindicatorsidentifiedasnotapplicabletothedevelopment.Thesequestionsaresoughttobeclarifiedthroughtheempiricalresearch.

2.4 Overview of the Department of Human Settlements documents

Incontextofthisstudy,itisnoteworthythatspecificmentionismadeof“economicopportunities”andof “social amenities” in the Department’s mission. The mission also mentions “adequate housing”, and “sustainable” is mentioned in the Department’s vision; which is indicative that the concept of de-veloping sustainably is fundamental to the Department. The focus areas listed also explicitly mention economic and social factors.

Onlytwoofthecomponentsofsustainabilityarespecificallyandexplicitlymentionedinthemission,which could lead to the “environmental” component of sustainability not being considered with equal importance as the other two components of sustainability. This is understandable as housing could be described as a social function, established and acquired by economic means, whereas envi-ronmentalmanagementisafunctionofaseparatedepartment.Specificmentioningofsocialandeconomic, with omission of environmental aspects in the Vision, Mission, and Focus Areas, could be indicative of the level of consideration given to environmental aspects in the DHS policies, plans, and programmes, as well as the level of consideration given thereto by implementing agencies and housing developers.

Reviewing DHS documents was conducted to gain insight into the context and extent to which en-vironmental considerations are included in these documents, and if it is done so as is envisioned in the 2nd ed. EIP. Reviewing the documents listed below may be done to highlight environmental considerations only, however due to the requirements by NEMA, for human settlement policies, plans and programmes to respond to the principles of sustainable development, the review of human settlementdocumentswasdoneinlightofreferringto,firstly,environmentalconcepts,butalso,theother two components of sustainable development, namely social, and economic aspects.

Table 6: DHS documents’ inclusion of sustainable development concepts with focus on the natural environment

Discussion on DHS documents’ content Discussion on inclusion of sustainable development components, especially that of the natural environment

The White Paper on Housing (South Africa, 1994)The White Paper on a New Housing Policy and Strategy for South Africa sets out the fundamental principles and basic points of departure that Government must adhere to when developing and implementing housing policy and contains substantive policy approaches to meeting South Africa’s housing vision. These include:• Stabilisingthehousingenvironmentinordertoensuremaximumbenefitof

state housing expenditure and mobilising private sector investments;• Mobilising housing credit and private savings (whether by individuals or

collectively) at scale on a sustainable basis and simultaneously ensure adequate protection for consumers;

• Providing subsidy assistance to disadvantaged households to assist them to gain access to housing;

• Supporting the People’s Housing Process entailing a support programme to assist people who wish to build or organise the building of their homes themselves;

• Rationalising Institutional Capacities in the housing sector within a sustainable long term institutional framework;

• Facilitating the speedy release and servicing of land; and Coordinating and integrating public sector intervention on a multi-functional basis.

The white paper has, as its strongest focus, ensuring that development of housing takes place, to improve the housing environment, and access to housing for the poor. This document addresses the social aspect of sustainable development, but not the environmental component.

The Housing Act (South Africa, 1997)The DHS EIP 2015-2020 refers to the Housing Act, stating:“Flowing from the White Paper, the Housing Act expands on the provisions of the Constitution, prescribes general principles for housing development and definesthehousingdevelopmentfunctionsofnational,provincialandlocalgovernments. Accordingly Government renews its commitment to a democratic, sustainable process of housing development that, amongst others:• Gives priority to the needs of the poor;• Involves meaningful consultation with individuals and communities;• Ensures a wide a choice of housing and tenure options as is reasonably

possible;• Iseconomically,fiscally,sociallyandfinanciallyaffordableandsustainable;• Is based on integrated development planning;• Is administered in a transparent, accountable and equitable manner;• Upholds the practice of good governance;• Promotes:

- Education and consumer protection;- Conditions in which everyone meets their housing obligations;- The establishment, development and maintenance of socially and

economically viable communities and of safe and healthy living conditions to ensure the elimination and prevention of slums and slum conditions;

- Higher density to ensure the economical utilisation of land and services; and- Takes due cognisance of the impact of housing development on the

environment.”

The reference to the Act by the 2015 EIP indicates addressing of all spheres of sustainable development, with much focus on social and economic aspects, as well as environmental impact considerations.






The National Housing Code (DHS, 2009a)The National Housing Code (the Code) sets the underlying policy principles, guidelines and norms and standards which apply to Government’s various housing assistance programmes introduced since 1994. It provides a description ofthepolicyprinciples,guidelines,qualificationcriteriaandnormsandstandardsfor the implementation of housing programmes. It is a statement of present policy,providinganoverviewandconfirmationoftheexistingpolicyinplace.

The National Housing Code provides an extensive explanation on all the environmental considerations (i.e. ‘green building practices) which should be taken during the construction of “Environmentally Sound Housing”. Settlements areoftenstronglyinfluencedbyaccesstoresourcesintheenvironmentandsettlements and the activities that take place in them alter the environment in which they are set.

The EIP may include that the Code makes reference to envi-ronmental aspects, however it should be noted that the Code’s environmental aspects predominately focuses on the housing design elements, and is not inclusive of environ-mental considerations to be included regarding environmental pro-tection that is needed at development and construction stages of a housing project. Not portrayed in the hous-ing code is how to go about effective plan-ning for environmental processes. It may be argued that the Code is not the document in which such discussion is required – in which case it is still relevant for the Code to recognise that sustainable human settlement development should consider not only housing structure and resource utilisation of per family per housing unit, but also the impact on the environment of the development of the housing unit and support infrastructure for the settlement.


The Comprehensive Plan for the Development of Sustainable Human Settlements (also: Breaking New Ground) (Department of Housing, 2004)The Comprehensive Plan for the Development of Sustainable Human Settlements commonly referred to as “Breaking New Ground” or “BNG”, introduced policy shifts towards more responsive and effective delivery, taking cognisance of socio-economic and demographic dynamics and placing greater emphasis on the creation of sustainable settlements.

TheBNGdefinessustainablehumansettlementsas“...well-managedentitiesinwhich economic growth and social development are in balance with the carrying capacity of the natural systems on which they depend for their existence and result in sustainable development, wealth creation, poverty alleviation and equity” (DoH 2004; as quoted by DEA, 2016). Based on the review of definitionsof“sustainabledevelopment”,theBNGmostaccuratelydefineswhatsustainable human settlement development should include.






DHS monitoring, evaluation and impact assessment policy and implementation for the Human Settlements sector (Department of Human Settlements, 2010)The Monitoring, Evaluation and Impact Assessment (MEIA) Policy and Implementation Framework for the Human Settlements Sector are located within a broader framework where the National Programme of Action attempts to transform the state into a developmental one. The intent of the MEIA Policy and Implementation Framework is to provide the Human Settlements Sector with prescripts to facilitate the rollout of the legislative and other monitoring and evaluation mandates. It applies to all the Departments of Human Settlements at the National, Provincial and Municipal levels as well as to Metropolitan Municipalities, and the Human Settlements Institutions created by the National and Provincial Human Settlements Departments to facilitate the Human Settlements delivery processes.

The mandate for the MEIA Policy and Implementation Framework for the Human Settlements Sector emanates from the following prescripts:

- TheHousingAct,1997(Act107of1997);- The Government-Wide Monitoring and Evaluation System of the

Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation (DPME);- The Comprehensive Plan for the Development of Sustainable Human

Settlements (Breaking New Ground);- State of the Nation Address;- Treasury Regulation; and- TheNationalEnvironmentalManagementAct(Act107of1998).

The MEIA Policy and Implementation Framework clearly mention the importance of the NEMA and its mandate for all NEMA schedule 1 organisations to develop an EIP. The MEIA Policy and Implementation Framework also provide indicators to monitor the EIP. The indicators set out in the MEIA Policy and Implementation Framework document are:

- Encourage environmentally sustainable land use development;- Promote integrated development planning;- Enhance spatial planning for the development of sustainable human

settlements;- Address the needs and priorities of people living in informal settlements;- Promote environmentally sound low cost housing; and- Planning for housing development.

This policy aims to monitor and evaluate implementation of the EIP, thus would not necessarily require addressing sustainable development concepts and environmental concepts other than the concepts included in the EIP (or other DHS documents to which the MEIA has relevance).

The indicators listed in the MEIA Policy and Implementation Framework do not correspond to the conditions or requirements stipulated within the 2nd ed. EIP.

This could cause confusion and complicate compliance monitoring. Therefore, it is necessary to establish which set of conditions/indicators take preference, or how MEIA Policy and Implementation Framework monitor progress in terms of the EIP.


A social contract for the development of sustainable human settlementsThe Social Contract for Sustainable Human Settlements is a statement of intent to work together for a common goal, whilst appreciating and understanding the relationships between South Africans. It provides a framework for partnerships and targeted resource mobilisation, and articulates commitment to develop answers collectively for a shared future. It is intended to be a living document, maintaining relevance as relationships develop and evolve. It aims to allow for interactive working relationships between all stakeholders in the development of sustainable human settlements and provides a platform to collectively engage challenges and forge new paths to a shared growth.

The document has a social focus, which addresses the social elements of sustainable development. It does mention the environmental components that must be managed to ensure a better environment but does not provide clarity on the environmental aspects in much depth.

What is however of note in this document is that it recognises interactive working relationships between stakeholders to facilitate sustainable human settlement development. This may be referred to as co-operative governance, which is by the Constitution, and environmental cooperative governance, required by NEMA, through the EIP.

From the review, it may be stated that DHS documents do address all aspects of sustainable devel-opment, including concepts of environmental management. Not all documents refer to all aspects of environmental management, meaning some refer to impacts caused on the environment through the use of natural resources by the house occupant, whilst other documents refer to the considerations of the environment, biodiversity, and land carrying capacity, which are environmental considerations that take place prior to development of the settlement.

The EIP does include discussion of both these phases of impacts (occupation phase, relating to re-source usage), and development and construction phase (relating to impacts caused through the ac-





tivity of development). Thus, documents do include environmental considerations. It is however not a blanket statement that could be made for all documents. When doing such an analysis, cognisance is required of publication timelines, which could justify that the 2nd EIP was developed and gazetted after many of the DHS documents, and hence it may be unreasonable to expect such documents to refer to environmental considerations envisioned in the 2nd ed. EIP.

2.5 Guidelines for Human Settlement Planning and Design (Volume 1 and 2)

The purpose of this document, the new Red Book, is not simply to assist professionals in producing efficientlyserviced “townships”but instead tocreatesustainableandvibranthumansettlements.Thus, the purpose is essentially to indicate the qualities which should be sought in South African set-tlements and to provide practical guidance on how these qualities can be achieved. In this guideline, a “human settlement” is regarded as any built environment where people live, work and play, with the provision that only residential areas, and other developments associated therewith, are considered in this book. This document is considered to be a “living document” within which the standards and conceptsshouldbeseenasareflectionofsociety’svaluesatanygiventime.Technologicaldevelop-mentsandchangesshouldalsobeflexibleandadapttochangeswithinsociety.Thus,theintentionof this Red Book, is to provide performance-based guidelines for informed decision-making and is targeted at a range of professionals and other personals from both the public and private sectors who contribute to the planning and design of human settlements (i.e. architects, urban designers, town and regional planners, civil, transportation and electrical engineers, energy practitioners, etc.).

The new Red Book highlights the importance of the concept of sustainability. It explains that sustain-abilityshouldalwaysbethemainconcerninanytypeofdevelopment.Thisconceptisclearlyreflect-ed in numerous other DHS Documents, including the 2nd ed. EIP. Although this document speaks directly to the mandate of the DHS, that is providing sustainable housing, it is not relevant to the 2nd ed. EIP as its primary focus is on the planning phase of developments done by a team of engineers, urban planners, local and regional authorities, provisional and central government department. This document does make some environmental considerations, such as energy supply methods, storm-water management and cross-cutting issues such as environmental design and ecologically sound urban development. However, they are not applicable to the 2nd ed. EIP as it is much early in the initial design and planning phases of human settlements. The EIP should rather refer to this Guide-line for Human Settlement Planning and Design than to include extracted or separate indicators of what a human settlement should include.

2.6 The 2nd South African Environment Outlook (SAEO) Report: Human Settlement and Environment

The 2nd South Africa Environment Outlook (SAEO) report provides a high level overview of the country’s performance on responses to short- and long-term changing conditions of the environ-ment. The aim of this approach is to highlight critical areas, where debates and interventions need to

occur and which require understanding, co-ordination and co-operation across the different sectors and decision-making levels of society, from the individual and community level to the corporate and government level.

The mission of the DHS, which is highly relevant to the aim of the 2nd ed. EIP, is also presented in the 2nd SAEO Report, namely to facilitate the creation of sustainable human settlement and improve the quality of life. The SAEO discusses the stressors that human settlements have on the environ-ment, and indicates that this should be managed (DEA, 2016).

This Human Settlements and Environment holds some relevance to the EIP as it speaks directly to the challenge for the creating sustainable human settlements, which has greater meaning than merely providing housing. The shift from “Housing being just a roof over people’s heads, to providing sustainable and integrated human settlements where people can work, pray, play and have access to amenities required for their day-to-day living” was recognised by government following President Jacob Zuma’s proclamation in 2009 to change the Department of Housing to the Department of Hu-man Settlements.

The 2nd SAEO Report’s chapter on Human Settlements and the Environment deals with the state of South African human settlements and their impact on the natural environment. Its primary focus is on the material conditions of the entire spectrum of human settlement from large metropoles or city regions to villages. It also addresses a range of settlement indicators such as:

o Population growth and distribution, and migration;

o Migration of people (urbanisation);

o Household size;

o Population density, housing density (and household size);

o Housing types (subsidized, informal);

o Household access to services;

o Poverty levels;

o Vulnerability and food insecurity;

o Policy and programme responses to challenges with the human settlements and environ-mental concerns;

o urban and rural sprawl;





o modes of transport; and

o basic services infrastructure

The latter three bullets are stated to be the physical elements of human settlements that have notice-able impact on the environment (DEA, 2016)

Key topics of interest to this study addressed in the 2nd SAEO Report include:

o The importance of the settlement’s structure as a driver of environmental change is also in-cluded,statingthatsettlementstructureisadriverofenvironmentalchangeasitinfluences:

o The amount of natural land that is converted into human habitation;

o The demand for non-renewable natural resources; and

o The production of pollution and waste.

o Population growth and urbanization contributes to higher greater impacts.

Therefore, in South Africa, as well as globally, these processes present a considerable challenge to governments and much effort is placed on creating sustainable human settlements.

The 2nd SAEO Report also makes reference to the responses required by all spheres of govern-ments and explains that Nationals government’s role is primarily that of establishing a coherent and effective framework whereas local government exercises land use decision-making powers. There-fore, municipalities are playing the most direct role in spatial planning, land use management and land development. With reference to creating sustainable human settlements, the 2nd SAEO Report provides reference to the following publications:

a) Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act (SPLUMA): SPLUMA positions the country to systematically reverse its apartheid legacy and redress spatial inequalities. It proposes wall-to-wall land use schemes for all municipalities. SPLUMA quotes the South African Constitution, Section 24, wherein our obligation to protect the environment is noted, and Section 26, wherein the right of citizens to sustainable settlement are declared. Fur-thermore, it states, “...sustainable development of land requires the integration of social, economic and environmental considerations in both forward planning and ongoing land use management to ensure that development of land serves present and future generations” (DRDLR 2012, as quoted by DEA, 2016).

SPLUMAsupports theBNG’definitionandthefocusonaneedforsustainabledevelop-ment, however SPLUMA is written at a level higher than at the level at which the EIP is applied to human settlement developments.

b) Climate Change Adaptation Plan for Rural Human Settlement: The Department of Rural Development and Land Reform is compiling the document and some of the objectives of the Plan include:

o Identify any interventions needed to ensure effective mainstreaming of climate change considerations into the policy, regulatory, institutional and communications framework of the Department;

o Develop a strategy for mobilizing the resources and developing the capacities re-quired for implementation of the plan;

o Identify and prioritize adaptation responses in terms of climate change risks;

o Identify adaptation options that provide opportunities for job creation and alignment with existing programmes, projects, and institutional arrangements; and

o Provide a strategy for management of land that builds the resilience of the most vul-nerable rural households to the impacts of climate change.

This is a unique plan that addresses the future threats on the environment to which human settlements development should respond, and is something that the future EIPs should consider – this also supports the need to respond to Chapter 5 of the NDP (which also respondstotheprinciplesofsustainabledevelopmentasdefinedintheNEMA).Thechal-lengewould however be to definemeasurable outcomes againstwhichmonitoring andcompliance evaluation could be done.

c) Policy on non-motorised transport: The promotion of non-motorised transport (NMT) is mainly aimed at increasing transport mobility and accessibility, mainly in rural areas. The Department of Transport (DoT) has broadened its Shova Kalula (‘Pedal Easy’) Project into a more comprehensive NMT project that incorporates, among other things, cycling and ani-maldrawncarts.TheProjectwasfirstlaunchedin2001andintroducedinLimpopoin2010.

The policy addresses one element that could contribute to sustainable human settlements and is something that could be considered in the EIP; and hence could be a policy to which the EIP could refer.

d) Rapid Public Transport Networks: Twelve cities in South Africa are involved in the imple-mentation of rapid public transport networks. Polokwane, Rustenburg, Mbombela and Piet-ermaritzburg are some of the cities, in addition to the metros that are involved in the rollout of the rapid public transport infrastructure. South Africa decided to introduce Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system rather than other systems, such as light rail, because of the enormous infrastructurecostsassociatedwithsuchothersystems,andtheirinabilityforflexibility.





The policy addresses one element that could contribute to sustainable human settlements and is something that could be considered in the EIP, and thus is a policy to which the EIP could refer.

The plans and policies mentioned in the 2nd SAEO Report mentions that Co-operative Gov-ernance is required to manage the impact human settlements have on the environment.

2.7 International perspective

The international perspective on developments is discussed in the next section, in which a few coun-tries’ considerations to sustainable human settlements are reviewed. To set the platform for what is happening internationally, and what future sustainable human settlement development should consider, this section starts with an overview of the newly adopted United Nations’ (UN) Sustainable DevelopmentGoals(SDGs),providesanindicationofwhattheHabitatAgendastates,andfinallyprovides brief overview of human settlements in other countries.

Atagloballevel,itispredominantlyfoundthatrapidgrowthofcitiescreatessignificantchangesinhuman settlements. These changes often lead to a number of challenges which necessitates the need for “sustainable human settlement development”. Ultimately sustainable human settlement development requires cooperative and complementary actions by implementing parties. Achieving sustainable human settlement developments means that human settlements should be made eco-nomically, socially and environmentally resilient and sound. This in turn suggests maintaining the link between the three dimensions (economic, social and environmental) to limit the impact of devel-opment on the environment. The general observation of major cities at a global scale is one where there are extremely high migratory patterns, increases in industrial behaviours to accommodate job creation resulting in large quantities of land requirements, which is typically synonymous with soil, air and water pollution, as well as wasteful use of resources and destruction of natural resources. In essence, this creates a knock-on effect where sustainable human settlement development becomes more challenging.

2.7.1 Sustainable Development Goals for 2030

Prior to the introduction of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG’s), it is important to note that at the time of developing the 2nd Edition EIP, the Millennium Development Goals (MDG’s) served as an instrumental document which, at the time, guided sustainable development. Essentially, the MDG’s, which were set to expire in 2015, represents 8 goals:

• Goal 1: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger

• Goal 2: Achieve universal primary education

• Goal 3: Promote gender equality and empower women

• Goal 4: Reduce child mortality

• Goal 5: Improve maternal health

• Goal 6: Combating HIV/AIDs, malaria and other diseases

• Goal7:Ensureenvironmentalsustainability

• Goal 8: Develop a global partnership for development

The MDG’s, in relation to providing dwellings with secure tenure for the poor, would have guided the Department of Human Settlements in making addressing tenure security. Following 2015, the SDG’s were developed to set goals which are to be reached by the year 2030.

Keychallengestosustainabledevelopmenthavebeenidentifiedandspecificgoalshavebeensetto address these by leaders across the globe. On the 25 September 2015, the new SDG’s were ad-opted at the United Nations Sustainable Development Summit and are illustrated in Figure 2. These includeasetof17sustainabledevelopmentgoalswhichincludeendingpovertyandhunger,improv-ing health and education, making cities more sustainable, inequality and injustice, as well as tackling climate change and protecting oceans and forests. Many of the SGDs can be addressed through the development of sustainable human settlements. These SDGs provide direction for sustainable development of rural and urban areas for developed and developing countries.

Figure 2: the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals

One of these, goal 11: “Sustainable Cities and Communities”, has a strong focus on urban scenarios; however the challenges and solutions expressed within this goal and its sub-goals can be applied to





various settings. The UN informs of challenges cities are and will be facing, and set goals to improve future city environments, as quoted below:

“Rapid urbanization is exerting pressure on fresh water supplies, sewage, the living envi-ronment,andpublichealth…Butthehighdensityofcitiescanbringefficiencygainsandtechnological innovation while reducing resource and energy consumption…

“Many challenges exist to maintaining cities in a way that continues to create jobs and prosperity while not straining land and resources. Common urban challenges include congestion, lack of funds to provide basic services, a shortage of adequate housing and declining infrastructure”.

“The challenges cities face can be overcome in ways that allow them to continue to thrive and grow, while improving resource use and reducing pollution and poverty. The future we want includes cities of opportunities for all, with access to basic services, energy, housing, transportation and more” (UN, 2015).

To address these challenges, secondary goals are listed for each SDG. Some of these secondary goals include:

• “By 2030, ensure access for all to adequate, safe and affordable housing and basic services and upgrade slums,

• By 2030, enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanization and capacity for participatory, integrated and sustainable human settlement planning and management in all countries,

• By 2020, substantially increase the number of cities and human settlements adopting and implementingintegratedpoliciesandplanstowardsinclusion,resourceefficiency,mitiga-tion and adaptation to climate change, resilience to disasters …” (UN, 2015).

TheUN’sSDGsforcitiesthatrelatespecificallytohousingandhumansettlementsaddressesall3elements of sustainability. These goals create a benchmark which countries should consider in plan-ning and development of human settlements to ensure these developments are sustainable.

Progressmade in fulfilmentofSDGgoal11, since its inception, isbasedondataportrayedperindicator.In2017,theUNreportedsignificanturbanisationataglobalscalewhichinturnhaspre-sented a number of challenges such as increased air pollution, inadequate basic services and infra-structure and unplanned urban sprawl. Nationally, South Africa, experiences challenges relating to rural sprawl too. The effects of both urban and rural sprawl not only includes environmental issues, howeverresultsinincreasedpublicexpenditure,increasedtraffic,healthissuesaswellashavingasocial impact on lives.

FulfilmentoftheDHS’sroleallowsittoaddressoneofthefundamentalchallengesraisedbytheUN,namely: the provision of “adequate housing”. Within its role to provide human settlements, the DHS is in a position to address the other challenges indicated by the UN (reiterated below), and in doing so, contribute to developing human settlements that are sustainable:

o Reducing resource and energy consumption;

o Straining land and resources;

o Lack of basic services provisioning;

o Reducing pollution; and

o Providing opportunities.

From the SDGs, it is noted that key aspects of environmental management that is not included or addressed in DHS literature reviewed, are the aspects relating to climate change mitigation and ad-aptation. Other elements to be included are various DHS policies, plans and programmes are that developments should consider such as disaster risk reduction.

2.7.2 The Habitat Agenda for Sustainable Human Settlements

South Africa committed itself to the Habitat Agenda for sustainable human settlements. The agen-da offers, within a framework of goals, principles and commitments, a vision of sustainable human settlements, where inter alia, all have a healthy and safe environment. The Habitat Agenda goals state that sustainable human settlement development ensures economic development, employment opportunities and social progress, in harmony with the environment; development should incorpo-rate principles of precautionary approach, pollution prevention, respect for the carrying capacity of ecosystems, and the Habitat Agenda states that adequate shelter must be environmentally sound.

The interrelated facets of social and environmental components of sustainable development are explained very well in the chapter VI of the Habitat Agenda, from which it is clear that good, clean environments will support a healthier society:

“Sustainable human settlements depend on the creation of a better environment for hu-man health and wellbeing, which will improve the living conditions of people and decrease disparities in the quality of their lives. The health of the population depends at least as much on the control of environmental causes of poor health as on clinical responses to disease. Children are particularly vulnerable to harmful urban environments and must be protected… It is therefore essential to take a holistic approach to health, whereby both prevention and care are placed within the context of environmental policy, supported by effectivemanagementsystemsandplansofactionincorporatingtargetsthatreflectlocalneeds and capacities”(UN Habitat Agenda, 2016).





This extract mentions that policy plays an important role in achieving desired human settlement de-velopment outcomes – this is preceded by a more direct expression of the importance of cross sector policy development in Chapter 4 B: Adequate Shelter of the Habitat Agenda, which states:

“A fundamental principle in formulating a realistic shelter policy is its interdependence with overall macroeconomic, environmental and social development policies…”

and

“To adopt and implement a cross-sectoral approach to policy development, Governments at the appropriate levels, including local authorities, should:

a. Coordinate and integrate shelter and human settlements policies with other related policies, such as… environment…”

Thus it is clear that to achieve sustainable human settlements, the environment must be protected and adequately managed from the development planning (pre-construction) and in delivering ser-vicestoensurethemaintenanceofacleanandhealthyenvironment,andefficientuseofresourcesafter people has occupied the housing units (post construction); and that this must be done through policy; policies that are coordinated across various relevant departments or sectors.

2.7.3 International country perspectives on indicators used in human settlements development

A brief insight of developments in terms of indicators to manage environmental impacts of human settlements internationally was sought to identify processes followed in indicator development and thetypesofenvironmentalimpactsmonitoredtherewith.Table7providescontexttotheinternationalperspective gained.

Table 7: International perspective of indicators used in human settlements development

Key ConsiderationsEnvironmental Indicators for National State of the Environment Reporting: Human Settlements (Newton et.al., 1998)

Australia Key indicators were developed and categorised into domains which include macro-level indicators, energy, water, urban design, transport and accessibility, population, housing, indoor air quality, environmental health, noise and waste. Individual indicators were then elaborated in terms of description, rationale, analysis and interpretation, monitoring design and strategy, reporting scale, outputs, data sources and linkages.

A key point emphasised is that “monitoring of human settlements must consider both the internal environment of the settlement itself and its success in delivering desirable outcomes to its inhabitants while minimising problems and undesirable effects, as well as the effect that the settlement has on the wider physical environment through resource use and waste outputs”.

Theoutcomeoftheindicatorsleadtotheidentificationofpolicyinstruments,forwhichactual indicator values are used as Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) tools of programme measurement. Sustainable Development: An Overview – Advancing the Sustainable Development agenda through aligning Malaysia Plans and Policies (Rosly, 2011)

Malaysia Malaysia is experiencing massive economic growth, industrial development and an increasing population. The idea of environmental sustainability was linked to the needs of urban development leading to the concept of urban sustainability. Indicators were developed for sixdimensions(efficientandcompetitiveeconomicdevelopment,optimumuseoflandandnatural resources, infrastructure and transport, environmental quality, sustainable community and effective governance). These indicators feed into the index for each dimension which provides an indication of overall urban sustainability.Population dynamics, climate change, and sustainable development in Kenya (AFIDEP and PAI, 2012

Kenya This reviewed document describes indicators as a necessity for adaptation and mitigation of climate change concerns. Indicators included the key dimensions of sustainability (economic, socio-economic and environmental dimensions) while values are presented in accordance to the year in which data is obtained.

2.7.4 Discussion on the international perspective

Through the international guidance given by the UN through its various divisions and publications of the Sustainable Development Goals, and the Habitat Agenda, the need to develop sustainably is stressed. Various countries are already doing so through adopting principles and policies and devel-oping indicators to direct their developments accordingly. South Africa, through the DHS’s approach is already in accordance with international approaches, however when comparing to literature by international organisations and other countries, it is clear that climate change and related impacts should receive attention in the DHS EIP and its indicators. When comparing the local indicators to a developed country such as Australia, it is evident that considerable improvements could be made (Australia reports on 104 indicators related to the environment).





Through gaining international perspective on the use of indicators for environmental considerations in human settlement development, the case of the developed nation of Australia’s indicators is of exemplarynote.TheindicatorspresentedinAustraliaarebroader,definitive,andmeasurable,andare aspects that South Africa should consider when evaluating indicators for human settlement de-velopment. It must be noted though that the Australian indicators consider indicators for human settlement development, whereas the EIP guidelines suggest indicators for meeting Sustainable Development Goals within the relevant policy frameworks such as the NDP, MTSF, etc., thus noting thattheindicatorsrequiredbytheGuidelinesforEIPdevelopment,differsignificantlytotheindica-tors developed for a “sustainable human settlement” in Australia, and hence these two should not be compared. DHS may however wish to develop indicators with detailed methodological approach as was documented by Australia.

ThiscaseofAustralianindicatorsalsopointsoutthatdefiningindicatorstookplacepriortodevelop-ing policy to enforce indicator implementation, and not vice versa. This method could be considered by the DHS for future policy and procedure reviews. Strong policies are also pointed out by the Hab-itat Agenda as the means by which environmental compliance must be sought.

The DHS responds well to the internationally founded challenges and goals listed within the UN’s SDGs within the Department’s existing documents; however an element that is omitted, and must receive imperative attention, is planning for inclusion of mitigation and adaptation to climate change and resilience to disaster risks.

2.8 Conclusion

Theanswertothequestionofwhetherornotsufficientprovisioningismadeforenvironmentalcon-siderations within the reviewed DHS policies and programmes is not a straight forward response, since the reviewed DHS policies and publications address environmental considerations; however the level of depth, the quality, or extent of environmental consideration inclusion may be argued to require expanded contextualisation to meet the intention of the 2nd ed. EIP, which is directed by the requirementsspecifiedinChapter3ofNEMA.

Although South Africa has introduced a wide range of policies, strategies, programmes and plans to address housing challenges, so far not much has been done to encourage detailed consideration of environmentally sound practices in the development of human settlements. Resultantly, many of the country’s residential habitats are not in a suitable state, which detracts from the quality of life of the residents. Many low cost houses are built yearly, yet many of these are built without sound environ-mental considerations. If these interventions are taken into account at the inception phase of each project, it would ensure that quality of life is attained (KZNDHS, 2004).

Thedefinitionsreviewed,inmostcases,includereferencetoallaspectsofsustainabledevelopment(economic,social,andenvironmental),thisistruefordefinitionsreviewedfromtheBNG,andthe

Housing Act. Both refer to environmental aspects. The BNG refers to the carrying capacity of the en-vironment that must be considered – this may imply that the natural state of the environment must be considered prior to development taking place, to assess to what extent the environment may be al-tered by developments. The Housing Act refers to the development of the housing unit and includes that services such as water, energy, and sewerage must be available to communities – provisioning of services relates to allowing residents to use natural resources.

TheevaluationofkeytermsusedindefinitionsinreviewedDHSliterature(i.e.“sustainable”,and“environmental sustainability”) indicated that the DHS’s policies, and programmes are largely posi-tioned to respond to the social and economic components of “sustainability”, and even though the importance of environmental management is expressed clearly, it receives less emphasis than the two other components of sustainability. It is obvious that social aspects are at the core focus of the DHSsincehousingaddressesasocialneed.Evenso,theHabitatAgendaclearlyspecifiestheinter-relatedness of these two aspects when indicating that societal health problems are directly related to the state of the natural environment in which the settlements are. The 2nd SAEO Report empha-sised the need to not only provide housing, but the need to create sustainable human settlements which can contribute to a sustainable environment. The 2nd SAEO Report also recognises a fourth element of sustainable development, namely the important role that co-operative governance plays in managing the impacts that human settlements has on the environment. This is an aspect that the EIP aims to facilitate, and hence the DHS should consider what the environmental and social im-pactsoftheirdevelopmentsare,anddefinetheaccompanyingco-operativegovernanceproceduresrequired to ensure those environmental and social impact management aspects can be executed.

The consideration for the environment in the reviewed documents is noteworthy and points made regarding land development and spatial planning, both of which are necessary aspects to include in holistic planning for sustainable development of human settlements. In some instance the “natural environment” is not directly referred to, but may be inherently affected by the points discussed in the documents. These documents’ references made to service delivery (including water and energy, and sanitary facilities provisioning, which relates to the impacts on the environment resultant form the use of natural resources, and sanitary waste creation, which requires treatment (and natural resources) to dispose of prior to releasing it back into the environment, would ultimately increase or reduce impacts on the environment after the development has been completed.

The impacts to the environment referred to have a stronger focus on the impacts resultant from resource usage and waste generation by residents of the settlements, less focus on the impacts causedbythephysicalconstructionofthesettlement;yet,itisduringplanningthatefficienciesofthefittings(e.g.taps,lights)installedinhousesareselected,whichwouldinfluencethecontinued,dailyimpacts resultant from resource usage and waste generation by occupants of the houses. It is how-ever anticipated that these DHS documents do not include greater detail regarding environmental impacts since these documents are focussed on addressing the products and services that are to be delivered by the DHS, who does not have, as core function, to protect the environment.





However, the vision of what sustainable human settlements will look like in 2030 to 2050, as portrayed in the NDP (South Africa, 2012), includes that there would be “fairness and respect for the natural environment” and citizens would have “environmentally friendly lifestyles”, the link between human settlements and environmental impacts may require greater emphasis on the impacts caused, or the impacts that may be avoided through the planning, design, and construction processes.

The DHS envisions delivering sustainable human settlements to all people and to do so whilst meet-ing the requirements of the NEMA, which is to ensure environmental impacts are minimised, and managed, to ensure compliance to environmental legislation, and to facilitate co-operative environ-mental governance. DHS’s meeting of NEMA’s requirements for co-operative environmental gover-nance should be reported on in the EIP. The NEMA’s content requirements of an EIP are not met in all cases by the DHS’s 2nd ed. EIP. The following are suggested areas of improvement:

o Contextualisation (and introductory or explanatory paragraphs) on the inclusion of pro-gramme descriptions within the EIP;

o Disclosing what the environmental impact of the programmes are that are included in the EIP;

o The 2nd ed. EIP includes most of the NEMA principles on sustainable development verba-tim, but does not provide clarity on actions DHS will implement to ensure that NEMA princi-ples are incorporated into DHS policies, plans and programmes;

o The Actions for Implementation in the EIP were included to respond to the NEMA’s require-ments; however these actions are listed without introductory statements and explanations on the links or relevance between the different columns in chapter 3 of the EIP. The actions should be strengthened through providing clarity of what the actionable task is that should be implemented. Clarity should be given as to whom the responsible which organ of state is or the relevant department or unit with DHS is who would action the task to ensure com-pliance to environmental legislation and norms and standards. The chapter should specify which regulations and norms and standards the DHS are subjected to through implement-ing their policies, plans and programmes, and how these policies, plans, and programmes will incorporate the principles of sustainable development (Chapter 2 of NEMA) in future.

o This chapter also includes aspects of sustainable development that is not legislated (or have don’t legal requirements for DHS to comply with) e.g. participation of woman and youth in environmental management, which is an aspect of sustainable development which DEA has to ensure, not the DHS. Irrelevant content should be removed from the DHS’s EIP.

o Recommendations are included in the EIP, however, it should be contextualised by introduc-tory statements and an explanation of the table in the chapter. Without such contextualisa-tion,theapplicationoftheindicatorsisnotclarifiedandopentointerpretation.Furthermore

the link or reference between the three columns in the table is vague in many cases. The articulation of how these will be implemented should be elaborated on further to discuss the practicalities of such implementations and how these will be realised;

o Confusion is created by the variances in indicators listed in the 2nd ed. EIP and discussions on various environmental aspects within the EIP – this uncertainty makes the management andimplementationoftheactionsdifficultandindicatorsdifficult.

o The requirements of NEMA have to be complied with by DHS. Compliance with the EIP indicators by human settlement developers or implementing agencies, are not legislated. Evenifitwaslegislated,theindicatorsarenotdefinedwellenoughornot“monitorable”andit is not possible to evaluate compliance with these indicators. Thus, DHS should review the EIP, its content, and the prescribed content of the Guidelines for environmental implemen-tationandmanagementplans(Draft3rdedition).Thereafter,definethecontentrelevanttoDHS, and develop indicators that would allow DHS to report progress on these indicators.

o Indicators that would contribute to environmentally sustainable development should be de-veloped for the DHS, in line with the Guidelines for environmental implementation and man-agement plans (Draft 3rd edition). Indicator development should consider monitoring and evaluation practicalities, i.e.

- data availability

- data collection resources and structures are in place. If the latter is not in place, but thedefinedindicatorwouldcontributetoreportingontherequirementsofNEMA,itis suggested that the relevant indicator still be included, and the performance mea-sure for DHS would be the physical action steps to implement to put structures and monitoring and evaluation capabilities in place that would allow for data collection and subsequent reporting on the indicator in future.

The Guidelines for Environmental Implementation and Management Plans (Draft 3rd edition) pro-vides technical guidance for the development of an EIP. The DHS should apply the example struc-ture of an EIP provided in the Guidelines for Environmental Implementation and Management Plans when compiling their next EIP. It should be aligned to the guidelines for human settlement planning and design volume 1 and 2 which are aimed at ensuring that sustainable human settlements are developed by emphasising the importance of sustainability. Guidance is provided for informed deci-sionmakingforthedesignandplanningofhumansettlements,whichcouldaidindefiningindicatorsforthenextEIP,however,whendefiningindicators,thepracticalitythereof(capacitytodoso,dataavailability,timeandfinancialrequirements,processowners,datakeepers,datastorage,extraction,and reporting processes) should also be considered.





3. Environmental Scan

3.1 Introduction

Thedevelopmentofhumansettlementsisalanduseprocessthathassignificantimpactsontheenvironment through being the single largest public investment in land development, which ranges from disturbance and fragmentation of ecosystems, high demand for natural resources and energy, air and water pollution, contamination of water ecosystems, demands for transport, which leads to carbon emission, to many other environmental impacts associated with human settlements develop-ment (UN, n.d.). For this reason, it is pertinent that DHS complies with the environmental regulations, norms and standards applicable to the implementation of their policies, plans and programmes. To do so, an indication of the key environmental impacts caused by the implementation of policies, plans and programmes was required.

To gain insight into the impacts caused by DHS developments, the environmental scan was con-ducted. The term “Environmental Scan” used in this study, refers to the actions undertaken for the evaluation study, which entailed reviewing environmental reports compiled for human settlement de-velopments. This review was done to develop a list of impacts on the environment, caused by human settlement development activities, and to establish the risks of the impacts. Thus, the term “environ-mental scan” does not refer to an “environmental screening” or “environmental scoping” (which are discussedinsection3.2.5Identificationofimpactsandthemesfromenvironmentalreports).

The environmental scan included evaluating the EIP for the extent to which the environmental themes are addressed therein. The hypothesis is that if a theme is not included in the EIP, there would be no monitoring and evaluation or reporting requirements (within context of the EIP) of DHS developmen-tal impacts on the theme in question.

This chapter provides detail of the processes followed in the development of a baseline schedule of environmental impacts, the environmental risk rating of these impacts, matrix for the impact risk calculation, and a record of sample project baseline information.

3.1.1 Limitation to the environmental scan

This phase of the study was designed to evaluate impacts indicated in environmental reports that were compiled for the sampled projects (including environmental scoping reports, EIA, BA, EMPr, and environmental audit reports and/or GIS data). However, various limitations were experienced in obtaining any such reports for the sample projects (refer to 1.4 Limitations to the study).

These challenges resulted in request by the DHS to proceed with the study which lead to alternative housing and human settlement developments’ (that do not form part of the sample) environmental reports being sought to develop the environmental scan report.

3.2 Baseline schedule of environmental impacts

This section provides the processes followed in the development of the baseline schedule of envi-ronmental impacts as well as the development of thematic representation (or thematic map) of these impacts. A baseline schedule of impacts and the matrix representation thereof allows the DHS to easily identify which component of the environment is most frequently or most severely impacted on by activities related to human settlement developments.

The relevance of this information presents the DHS with indication of the environmental themes for which response is required, and allows DHS to respond better to these impacts. Knowledge of the impacts, and the response mechanisms developed to respond thereto provides allows DHS to identify with which potential other sectors liaising, planning and coordination is required to reduce impacts (i.e. if the impact of the development is on water sources, it points to the need for co-opera-tive environmental governance of the water resource, and the supply of the resource, thus engage-ment with DWA and the local municipality responsible for service delivery should be engaged). Such engagements and coordinated planning for impact management contributes to better co-operative environmental governance, as is required by the NEMA Chapter 3 and Schedule 1, which requires the DHS to develop an EIP to address co-operative environmental governance.

3.2.1 Theme development

TheUNreports,initscountryprofileforSouthAfrica(UN,n.d.),thatincreasinglyhumanactivitiesareimpacting on ecosystem integrity. Ecosystems provide the natural resources humans need for daily well-being and economic activities. The UN further states that, for development to be sustainable, integrated management of natural resources is vital.

Tomanagetheenvironmentalimpacts,identificationofimpactswasnecessary.Reviewingofvariousenvironmental reports was done to identify the impacts caused by housing and human settlement developments, which were subsequently grouped into impact themes. Themes were broad (main themes), which required further grouping of themes into secondary impact themes. This process is detailed within this section of the report.

Reports from which impacts were obtained, included those requested from sample project imple-menters, which included requests for (1) environmental screening reports (2) environmental scoping reports, (3) environmental impact assessment (EIA) reports, (4) basic assessment (BA) reports, (5) environmentalmanagementprogrammereports,(6)environmentalauditreports,and(7)GISdata(clarity on the above mentioned reports are provided in the following section). However, the impacts during this phase of the study were done according to human settlement development projects’ environmentalreportsthatwereaccessibletothestudyteam(asisspecifiedin3.1.1Limitationtothe environmental scan). The environmental reports reviewed included, Environmental Impact As-sessment reports, Basic Assessment reports, site audits reports, and Environmental Management Programme reports.





Environmental screening reports:

Environmental screening is process that “determines whether or not a development proposal re-quires environmental assessment, and if so, what type and level of assessment is appropriate” (either mandatory, or pre-application screening), the latter is done to establish if a site earmarked for development requires further environmental studies prior to authorising the development due to environmental issues present on site (DEAT, 2004).

Environmental scoping reports:

Development applications are subject conducting environmental scoping assessments, which in-clude similar information that an EIA or BA would and is done for “authorisations to commence ac-tivities listed in Listing Notice 2”. The scoping report will include a study plan for an EIA, and once thescopingreporthasbeenaccepted,theEIAwillcommence(Enviropedia,2007).Suchscopingreports are conducted prior to the developments to predict the impact of the prosed development on the receiving environment.

Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA):

“Chapter 5 of NEMA provides for integrated environmental management and promotes ‘the applica-tion of appropriate environmental management tools in order to ensure the integrated environmental management of activities’. EIAs are conducted to analyse and predict the nature and extent of the consequences of a particular activity or development on the receiving environment. As a tool, EIAs areintendedtofacilitateinformedandenvironmentallysounddecisionmaking”(Enviropedia,2007).

Basic Assessments (BA):

BAs are stated to be conducted for “smaller scale activities” than development activities requiring EIAs, and is required to be done for activities listed in Listing Notice 1 and Listing Notice 3 (depend-ingonthegeographicalareasoftheactivity)(Enviropedia,2007).LikescopingreportsandEIAs,these reports are conducted prior to development activities taking place, predicting what the impact of the development on the receiving environment would be.

Environmental management programmes (EMPr):

An Environmental Management Program (EMPr) is also required under the Regulations in terms of Chapter 5 NEMA. “The aim of an EMPr is to facilitate appropriate environmental controls during all phases of the Project to minimise environmental damage arising from implementation of the Project during construction and operational phases. To achieve this, the EMPr must make recommendations for the planning and design (pre-construction/design phase), specify the limitations the contractor must abide by during construction, detail the issues that should be taken cognisance of and indicate specificactionsthatmustbeundertakensoastoensurethattheenvironmentisnotunnecessarily

damaged.TheEMPrthusspecifiestheframeworkwithinwhichthecontractormustcarryoutopera-tions. Management and monitoring measures for the operational phase are also included to provide environmental guidance for the lifetime of the development” (Environmental Resource Management, 2014). Such reports are developed in draft form during EIA and BA phases, and provides

Environmental audits:

The objectives of environmental audits include that compliance to conditions are met, which includes conditions provided in the environmental authorisation for a development to commence, as well astheconditionstobemet,andimpactstobemitigated,asdefinedbytheEMPr.Thisreporttypeprovides information of the actual impacts taking place during the construction phases (CER, 2014).

GIS data:

GIS data was requested with the aim of evaluating if data for sample sites were available that would provide an indication of the state of the environment pre and post development.

a) Main impact themes

The Draft 3rd Edition Guidelines for Environmental Implementation and Management Plans (the Guidelines) (South Africa, 2013) includes minimum content of EIPs as is outlined in section13(1),section11(7)andsection14ofNEMA(SouthAfrica,1998).TheGuidelinesprovide considerations for preparing EIPs, which includes that environmental sector prior-ities need to be considered when organs of state prepare their EIPs. This would ultimately assist DEA with integrated management (or co-operative environmental governance) of the natural environmental resources.

The priority areas of the environmental sector were reviewed for the purposes of creating a basis from which environmental impact themes was developed. These priorities are quoted below (South Africa, 2013):

5.1 Relevant considerations when preparing environmental implementation and management plans

5.1.1 Environment sector priorities

The environment sector priorities are driven by the long-term development strate-gies in Chapter 5 of National Development Plan Vision 2030, which should be con-sidered by the Department of Environmental Affairs and provinces when preparing EIPs, namely:

(a)SustainingSouthAfrica’secosystemsandusingnaturalresourcesefficiently;





(b) Building sustainable communities;

(c) Responding effectively to climate change mitigation;

(d) Responding effectively to climate change adaptation;

(e) Managing a just transition; enhancing governance systems and capacity;

“These priorities are addressed through the following seven core focus areas:

(i) Air quality

(ii) Waste and Chemicals Management

(iii) Pollution Incident Management

(iv) Environmental Impact Management

(v) Conservation and Sustainable Use of biodiversity

(vi) Marine and Coastal Management.

(vii) Green economy and sustainable development

”These above listed core focus areas, were considered for impact theme identification.However, the core focus areas vary in context. For example, “air quality” relates to an en-vironmental component that could be impacted; whereas “pollution and incident manage-ment” could be the impacting factor on various receiving environmental components, such as “air quality”, or “water”.

NEMA (South Africa, 1998) states that “environment” means:

“the surroundings within which humans exist and that are made up of—

(i) the land, water and atmosphere of the earth;

(ii) micro-organisms, plant and animal life;

(iii) any part or combination of (i) and (ii) and the interrelationships among and be-tween them; and

(iv) the physical, chemical, aesthetic and cultural properties and conditions of the foregoingthatinfluencehumanhealthandwell-being”.

Supportingtheabovedefinitionisthedefinitionfor“environmentalcomponent”,which,accordingtothe Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, is:

“Fundamental element of the physical, biological or socio-economic environment, including theair,water,soil,terrain,vegetation,wildlife,fish,birdsandlandusethatmaybeaffectedby a proposed project, and may be individually assessed in the environmental assessment” (CEAA, 2016).

Thesedefinitionsindicatethat“environment”referstothecomponentsoftheenvironment.

The DEA’s second State of the Environment report’s (DEA, 2016) chapter on human settle-ments states that: “Human settlements… require large quantities of energy, water and land to sustain their activities, and produce a range of wastes, thus displaying ever-growing eco-logicalfootprints”.TheDEAalsostatesthathumansettlements“influencethenaturalenvi-ronment; they also involve the exploitation of both biological and non-biological resources, generating pollution and waste that has to return to the environment” (DEA, 2016). Thus, it may be deduced that “resource usage” includes the use of an environmental component (such as water), and that impacts, such as pollution, affect one or more environmental com-ponent (such as “air” and “water”). Based hereon, it was concluded that an impact theme should be environmental component that could be impacted, such as: air, land, water, or the interrelated relations between these, thus, biodiversity was also included as a theme. Social impacts were also included as a theme due to the interrelated nature of environmental im-pacts to social wellbeing, with other distinct categories of impact including noise and visual impacts.

These themes were linked to the core focus areas (Table 8) listed above, which supported the fol-low-up action to link the content of the EIP to themes and core focus areas (which has to be con-sidered when developing EIPs), as is indicated in Table 13: Impacts, Themes, Indicator Coverage.

Table 8: Environmental core focus areas and environmental impact themes

Environmental Core Focus Areas: Impact Themesi) Air quality Air, 1Biodiversityii) Waste and Chemicals Management Air, 1Biodiversity, Land, Wateriii) Pollution Incident Management Air, 1Biodiversity, Land, Wateriv) Environmental Impact Management Air, 1Biodiversity, Land, Waterv) Conservation and sustainable use of 1biodiversity 1Biodiversity, Land, Water

vi) Marine and Coastal Management Water, 1Biodiversity

vii) Green economy and sustainable development Air, 1Biodiversity, Land, Water

1 “biological diversity” or “biodiversity” means the variability among living organisms from all sources including, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part and also includes diversity within species, between species, and of ecosystems (South Africa, 2004).





Through the review of the EIP and linking of impact themes thereto, it was evident that a wider scope of themes are included in the EIP, and that the theme categories should be elaborated and that social impacts should be included (as is indicated in Table 9 and the following sections which discuss the impactidentificationfromthereviewoftheEIP).

Table 9: Impact themes added from the review of the EIP

Environmental Core Focus Areas: Impact ThemesNA Social (various)

b) Secondary impact themes

Through the review of impacts listed and described in environmental reports, the impacts were linked to impact themes. This process led to the “secondary impact theme” development as since the main themesdonotdescribewithsufficientclarity(themesaretoobroad)whattheimpactrelatesto,thatwould enable DHS to adequately respond to the impact.

The secondary impact themes were only developed and applied to through the process of evaluating of impacts included in environmental reports and was not applied to the review of the EIP chapters 3 and 4. Table 10 provides an indication of these main and secondary impact themes.

Table 10: Main and secondary impact themes

Main impact theme Secondary impact themeAir: Emissions - Equipment Air: Emissions - Waste Air: DustAir: Emissions - FugitiveBiodiversity: Fauna&floraBiodiversity: Aquatic Biodiversity: BiodiversityBiodiversity: HabitatBiodiversity: EcosystemNoise: NoiseSocial - Economy: EmploymentSocial - Health: WasteSocial - Health: LandSocial - Health: WaterSocial - Safety: CrimeSocial - Safety: InjuryLand: AgricultureLand: EcosystemLand: PollutionLand: ErosionVisual: Visual

Water: PollutionWater: Water ReserveWater: EcosystemWater: Disaster Risk

3.2.2IdentificationofcriticalimpactsandthemeswithintheEIP

The two chapters of the 2nd ed. EIP (South Africa, 2009) that was reviewed during the literature reviewstudy(refertosections2.3.6and2.3.7)were:chapter3:Actionstoensurecompliancewithenvironmental policies and laws; and Section 4: Recommendations for environmental management (which includes the EIP’s indicators). These chapters of the EIP were revisited to establish which of the impact themes are addressed in these two chapters, as is indicated the following section.

3.2.3 Chapter 3 of the EIP: Impact themes addressed in Section 3 of the EIP: Actions to ensure compliance with environmental policies and laws

Chapter 3 of the EIP indicates that various impacts occur as result of human settlements and that these impacts must be managed. These impacts are indicated in Table 11. The impacts were grouped into themes (Column A) and relevant content of the EIP is included in Column B. The EIP alsomakesspecificreferencetoinformalsettlementswhichoftencausesgreaterimpactsthanfor-malsettlements,whichisspecificallyindicatedinColumnC.ColumnDindicatesactionstoaddressthe impacts.





Table 11: Impacts included in the 2nd ed. EIP – Section 3: Actions to ensure compliance with environmental policies and laws

A: B: C: D:Impact theme EIP content

(South Africa, 2009)EIP content with specificreferencetoinformal settlements (South Africa, 2009)

Actions to address impacts (South Africa, 2009)

“Housing development must encourage environmentally sustainable land use development practices and processes by…”

Informal settlements have greater impacts on the environment since they are unplanned developments and develop without being subjected to legislation. The impacts specific hereto include:

Water “... controlling water pollution at source"

"…pollution of run-off water and underground water due to inadequate sanitation and waste collection", and that these settlements are usually "situated on marginal land (such as steep slopes and the floodplainsofriversandstreams) and impact heavily on sensitive ecosystems."

"The Guidelines for Environmentally Sound Low Cost Housing were developed to address the issue of environmental health issues and safety"

Air "... controlling air pollution at source”

“air pollution owing to the burning of fossil fuels for all heating, cooking and lighting purposes"


Water & Soil Pollution (waste)

"recycling waste" (this section in the EIP could also imply that separation source is required)

"…pollution of run-off water and underground water due to inadequate… waste collection",

“The Housing Programme recognises that adequate shelter means more than… adequate waste management facilities”

Bio-diversity "...avoiding settlements on unique habitats of floraandfauna;avoidingactions which irrevocably interfere with self-regulating ecological processes... and promote biodiversity".

"the destruction of surrounding forests by residents in search of building materials and firewood"


Social: Health "The right of workers to refuse work that is harmful to human health and the environment must be respected and protected".

No reference “The Guidelines for Environmentally Sound Low Cost Housing were developed to address the issue of environmental health issues and safety”

Water, soil pollution (hazard);Social: Health;Social: Safety

"Housing development must encourage environmentally sustainable land use development practices and processes by... avoiding settlements in places of hazard or high risk".

No reference “The Guidelines for Environmentally Sound Low Cost Housing were developed to address the issue of environmental health issues and safety”

Social: Economic "Decisions must take into account the interests, needs and values of all interested and affected parties, and this includes recognising all forms of knowledge… “However, it is not clear how this is implemented or monitored.

No reference “In meeting the above principles, the Housing Subsidy Programme requires that housing projects be based on inclusive agreements (social contracts) between relevant stakeholders. Of particular importance isthatbeneficiarycommunities, suppliers of infrastructure, services, housing products and financeonaspecificproject, are parties to such an agreement. Housing decisions therefore take into account the interests, needs and values of all interested and affected parties. Communities are also empowered through this process.“





Table 12: Impacts included in the 2nd ed. EIP – Section 4: Recommendations for Environmental Management

A: B: C: D: E2

Recommended Action

Output Indicators New numbering of indicators

Impact Theme

1. Encourage environmentally sustainable land use development

Densificationandurbaninfillactivelyencouraged Introduce measures to make well located land available for low cost housing

Urbanisation (urban vs. population: numbers, % and rate of growth per year)

1

New houses (number of new title deeds registered through the Housing Programme annually)

2

Densification:a) Average residential densities

in urban areas per municipality (measured every 3 to 5 years)

3

b) Number and percentage of medium density housing units developed through the Housing Programme per Province per year

4

2. Promote Integrated Development Planning

Housing development and budgets linked with other sector requirements, with the entire process being streamlined to meet a set of minimum requirements

Planninga) Housing Chapter of lDPs

compiled (Y/N)5

b) Provincial Multi-year Housing Dev Plans (PHDPs) completed (Y/N)

6

c) Compliance of PHDPs with 10 year lDPs (Y/N)

7

d) Citizen involvement in planning of housing developments (Description of participatory planning processes)

8 Social

Funding for integrated developmenta) Level of funding through Human

Settlement Redevelopment Programme.

9

b) Level of public investment in new bulk infrastructure

10

c) Level of public investment in informal settlement upgrading

11

The content of Chapter 3 of the EIP was analysed for the guidance it provides in terms of managing, mitigating, and/or monitoring the impacts that would occur within environmental impact themes.

The impact themes covered by chapter 3 of the EIP include:

• Air;

• Biodiversity;

• Land, water: pollution (hazard) - Hazardous conditions are caused by inadequate hazard-ous and chemicals materials handling and storage, spillage and disposal; and: land, water: pollution (waste) - in this instance, waste refers to littering, which causes pollution of water courses and contamination of land;

• Social: Health;

• Social: Economic; and

• Social: Safety.

Column D’s actions indicate DHS’s response to the impacts. The information included in the EIP does not detail with clarity how these impacts are managed, mitigated, and/or monitored in practice, andthusitisnotabletoconcludewhattheefficacyoftheseresponsestotheimpactsareorwouldbe.Thisfindingcorrespondstotheliteraturereviewstatementsmaderegardingchapter3oftheEIP,in which it was concluded that greater explanation of the EIP section title and the content should be given, and that the content should be elaborated to indicate how actions are implemented to ensure compliance with environmental policies and laws.

3.2.4 Section 4 of the EIP: Impacts as addressed in EIP Section 4: Recommendations for Environmental Management

Table 12 depicts Chapter 4 of the EIP which provides Recommended Actions for Environmental Management (Column A), outputs (Column B), and indicators (Column C). These were reviewed for applicability to environmental management, or environmental impacts, after which environmental impactthemeswereassignedtotheidentifiedimpacts(ColumnE).Foreaseofreference,additionalnumbering was added to the indicators (Column D).





A: B: C: D: E2

Recommended Action

Output Indicators New numbering of indicators

Impact Theme

3. Address the needs and priorities of people in informal settlements

National housing budget increased

a) Security of tenure (Tenure types nationally -Census)

12

b) Access to services (No of households without clean drinking water, sanitation and electricity)

13 Water, Air (energy), Land (inadequate sanitation)

c) Housing Rights -are there impediments to any person owning or inheriting land?

14

4. Promote environmentally sound low cost housing

Water and energy efficienthousingPlanting of trees promoted in low cost housing projects

Resource use a) Water consumption (Litres per

day per person) 15 Water

b) Cost of water (median price per 10001 of water)

16 Water

c) Energy consumption (Domestic consumption per yr, by fuel type)

17 Air (energy)

d) Cost of energy (price per fuel type)

18 Air (energy)

e) Affordability (% of household income spent on energy by income category)

19 Air (energy)

Quality of resources a) Air quality (number of days/year

with unacceptable air quality)20 Air

b) Water quality (number of cases of water-borne diseases per yr)

21 Social; Water

Environmentally Sound Housing a) National Building Regulations

reviewed to promote energy and waterefficientconstruction

22 Air (energy); Water.

b) Number of trees planted with new subsidised houses

23 Biodiversity

c) Ceilings in subsidised housing units (as a % of the total built per year)

24

5. Planning for housing development

Land acquisition entity established

a) Proactiveidentification,acquisition, assessment and release of housing land

25

The impact themes covered by section 4 of the EIP include:

• Air (energy) - in this instance, access to electricity would result in indirect air pollution (causedbycoalfiredpowerplants);whilst lackofaccesstoelectricitycould leadtobio-mass burning for heating and lighting requirements, causing direct air pollution. Electricity is also listed as an indicator monitored for consumption and affordability (whereas affordability wouldinfluenceusageofalternativesources);

• Biodiversity;

• Social - in this instance, the indicator relates to involvement of communities in develop-ments to obtaining their inputs on various matters;

• Land - in this instance, inadequate access to sanitation services could lead to soil pollution;

• Water - in this instance, inadequate access to sanitation services could lead to soil pollution; and Water is also listed as an indicator monitored for consumption, and affordability (where-asaffordabilitywouldinfluenceusageofalternativesources).

Theserecommendedactions,outputs,andindicatorsincludedinTable12couldfitbroadlyintothepillars for sustainable development (social, economic, environmental), which could give indication that the DHS aims to contribute to sustainable development principles provided in Chapter 2 of the NEMA. These are however, not particularly prescriptive in terms of reducing environmental impacts caused by human settlement developments and whether or not these indicators should be applied or monitored pre-, during, or post- construction phases. Yet, a few of the indicators (such as those referring to energy and water use, as well as water quality) provide a basis from which environmental impacts could be monitored post construction (or during occupation) of the development.

3.2.5Identificationofimpactsandthemesfromenvironmentalreports

Thisphaseincludedlinkingthecorefocusareas’impacts(ColumnA)totheimpactthemesidentifiedduring this review, and an impact theme was ascribed to the impact (Column B).

Secondary impact themes were ascribed (Column C). From reviewing environmental reports that were compiled for housing and human settlement developments, common impacts across these developmentswereidentified(aslistedinColumnD).Thelinkbetweentheimpactidentified,andthe section within the EIP with which the impact relates was done, and is indicated in Column E and F. These are indicated in Table 13 and were subjected to risk ratings in the next phase of the study.





Table 13: Impacts, Themes, Indicator Coverage

A:Core Focus Areas for EIMP

BImpact Theme

CSecondary impact theme

DImpacts

EEIP Sec4: Nr

FEIP Sec4: Indicator Nr*

GComment on Indicator

1. Air Quality Air Emissions – equipment

Air pollution caused by emissions from construction machinery

4 20 20: The indicator refers to ambient air quality over a period of time. This does not consider short term impacts caused by construction. Consideration should be given to additional indicators (as well as relevance and applicability of such an indicator).

2. Air Quality Air Emissions – waste

Air pollution related to emissions from waste generation and disposal

4 20 20: The indicator refers to ambient air quality over a period of time. This does not consider short term impacts caused by construction. Consideration should be given to additional indicators (as well as relevance and applicability of such an indicator).

3. Air Quality Air Dust Dust creation on site during construction 4 20 20:Constructionshouldbeshorttermandnotcontributesignificantlytotheambientairquality.However, continuous development in the area will result in cumulative impacts. Environmental screening during site selection should include assessment of ambient air quality in the areas earmarked for the development.

4. Air Quality Air Fugitive Air pollution caused by inadequate materials storage (through exposure to the environment, and through spillage).

4 20 20:Constructionshouldbeshorttermandnotcontributesignificantlytotheambientairquality.However, continuous development in the area will result in cumulative impacts. Environmental screening during site selection should include assessment of ambient air quality in the areas earmarked for the development. Construction and planning must indicate adequate infrastructure requirements for waste management.

5. Environmental impact management

Biodiversity Fauna & Flora Flora and fauna may be disturbed as a result of construction

0 0 Natural elements contribute to the quality of life. Indicator development should consider ecological aspects.


Biodiversity Aquatic Aquatic Ecology may be affected by alterations in the water quality as result of the construction activities impacting on water bodies

4 21 21: The indicator measures the social health aspect. This could be monitored by the number of cases in the area where development takes place, and would give pre-construction/development phase environmental aspects to consider when developing human settlements in the area. If cases exist, it could give indication that, as part of the new HS development, access to the contaminated water bodies should be restricted.


Biodiversity Biodiversity Loss of biodiversity through vegetation clearing

4 23 23: The loss of biodiversity and vegetation could be reduced, or mitigated through proper planning, site rules, and remediation, such as through planting of trees on site.


Biodiversity Habitat Habitat fragmentation from vegetation removal

0 0 Natural elements contribute to the quality of life. Indicator development should consider ecological aspects.


Biodiversity Ecosystem Potential collapse of ecosystem food chains

0 0 Natural elements contribute to the quality of life. Indicator development should consider ecological aspects. This could impede on the livelihoods of communities who are dependent on the land for agricultural production


Biodiversity Ecosystem Increased resilience of species affected by construction development

0 0


Biodiversity Fauna&flora Loss of threatened and protected species (diversity and richness)

0 0 Natural elements contribute to the quality of life. Indicator development should consider ecological aspects. Such impacts could result in wider impacts on nature, and reduce overall ecosystem functioning.

12. Conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity

Biodiversity Ecosystem Environmental reserve alterations 0 0 Natural elements contribute to the quality of life. Indicator development should consider ecological aspects


Biodiversity Ecosystem Environmental degradation due to cumulative impacts i.e. Biodiversity, Hydrology, Air Quality, Agricultural Land etc.

0 0






BImpact Theme


DImpacts

EEIP Sec4: Nr



14. Pollution incident management

Noise Noise Noise pollution created by construction work

0 0 Noise regulations of local authorities should be adhered to. Number of noise incidents reporting could be considered for indicator development for the construction phase.

15. Green economy and sustainable development

Social - Economy Employment Unemployment for the local community if external labour forces are used

2 8 8: The participatory approach applied to the development could include conducting of a skills audit,whichshouldinformwhatskillsareavailableinthesurroundingcommunitiestobenefitfromthe jobs to be created by the development.

16. Waste and chemicals management

Social - Health Waste Uncontrolled disposal of waste negatively effects the community health and status

344

132021

13: The current indicator excludes waste. This should be included under the “access to services”.20: Inadequate waste services causes air pollution and leads to unhealthy environments.21: Inadequate waste services could cause water pollution and leads to unhealthy environments.


Social - Health Land Health risk (contaminated land) 23

813

8: Participatory approach should identify if residents in the area are dependent on land for agricultural produce. 13: Access to services imply that services are in place to prevent land contamination and hence reduce potential for health risks


Social - Health Water Health risk (contaminated water) 234

81321

8: Participatory approach should identify if residents in the area are dependent on water streams in the area. If the new development will give residents access to potable water, the water price wouldinfluencetheresidents’useofwaterfromthelocalstreamsthatmaybepresentinthearea.13: Access to services imply that services are in place to prevent water contamination and hence reduce potential for health risks.21: Obtaining statistics related to water borne diseases in the area could give indication of the preventative measures / infrastructure to be installed to prevent access to polluted water sources.


Social - Safety Crime Conduct of workers on site could impact negatively on the social life of the community

2 8 The participatory processes in planning stages of the development should support assessment of culture and health conditions of the surrounding community. Participation should be structured to establish what the community values are to allow rules and code of conduct to be developed applicable to the development and the construction workers.


Social - Safety Injury Accidents could occur during construction leading to injuries

2 8 The participatory processes in planning stages of the development should support assessment of safety concerns of the surrounding community.


Social - Safety Crime On-site lighting (security) may be a nuisance for the local community

2 8


Land Agriculture Loss of arable land for agriculture, and decrease in agricultural potential

1 Output 2

Output to of Recommended Action 1 indicates that well located land must be made available. Well located land should exclude land of high agricultural value. This output is however not linked to an indicator (no indicator to measure the output)


Land Ecological system

Soil type alteration resultant from borrow pits

0 0


Land Pollution Soil pollution caused by inadequate equipment and materials storage (through exposure to the environment, and through spillage)

0 0


Land Erosion Soil erosion caused by increase in water runoff velocity resultant from removal of vegetation

4 23 The loss of biodiversity and vegetation could be reduced, or mitigated through proper planning, site rules, and remediation, such as through planting of trees on site.


Land Erosion Soil erosion caused by increase in water runoff velocity resultant from construction activities and increased area of hardened surfaces

0 0 Cumulative impacts of future developments on the drainage patterns of the area should be considered in the planning stages. Cumulative impacts should dictate what the drainage design requirements should consider.






BImpact Theme


DImpacts

EEIP Sec4: Nr




Land Pollution Soil contamination caused by inadequate chemical and hazardous material handling

0 0


Land Pollution Soil contamination caused by inadequate disposal of general waste

344

132021

13: The current indicator excludes waste. This should be included under the “access to services” 20: Inadequate waste services causes air pollution and leads to unhealthy environments21: Inadequate waste services could cause water pollution and leads to unhealthy environments


Land Ecological system

Compacting soil by heavy machinery and structural development

0 0


Land Pollution Soil contamination caused by inadequate waste water discharge

34

1321

13: Access to services should imply that adequate drainage systems are installed, hence inadequate discharge should be non-existent.


Visual Visual Building material waste could create negative visual impacts

0 0


Water Pollution Water source pollution through inadequate waste water discharge

34 1321

13: Refers to access to sanitation. Other waste water is however generated during construction, for which relevant discharge points may be necessary (i.e. chemical and paint contaminated water)


Water Pollution Water source pollution through waste water spillage

0 0


Water Pollution Water source pollution through chemical and hazardous material handling and storage

0 0


Water Water reserve Decreaseingroundwaterinfiltration resultant from increased hardened surfaces

0 0


Water Ecosystem Disturbance of wetlands caused by uncontrolled storm water runoff and increased erosion and sedimentation

0 0


Water Water reserve Loss of natural resource through use in the construction processes

44

1522

These two indicators require evaluation of implementation at two different stages in housing development. Indicator 15 should be monitored after development has been completed, whilst 22couldbeverifiedafterdevelopment(duringplanningstages),butshouldbemonitoredpriortoimplementation in the planning stages of the development.15: The indicator refers to usage per day per person. It does not indicate what or how resource usage should be monitored during construction. 22: This indicator requires “review” of the National Building Regulations, but not compliance with anyspecificwaterorenergyefficiencymeasures,designs,fittingsorfeatures.


Water Water reserve Loss of natural resource through leaks on site

4 15 Monitoring consumption should allow management to identify leaks leading to above average consumption rates.


Water Disaster risk Decreaseingroundwaterinfiltration resultant from increased hardened surfaces increasesfloodingpotential

0 0


Water Water reserve Reduced water availability for downstream users

0 0


Water Ecological system

Flow rate alteration in streams affected by the development

0 0

*The renumbering of indicators does not have a correlation with renumbering of indicators for the data collection questionnaire as indicated in the findings report.





The environmental reports reviewed provided a list of impacts that occur as result of human settle-ment development projects and provided detail to which a secondary impact themes could be as-cribed, which allows for a better context to the main impacts, which allows the DHS to better identify and categorise their impact on the environment.

These are the impact themes and sub themes which DHS may include when compiling the EIP, to meet there requirements of the descriptions of the impacts that are caused through the implemen-tation of their projects.

3.2.6 Baseline schedule of environmental impacts conclusion

a) Impact themes addressed by the EIP and environmental reports

Table 14 indicates the comparison of impact themes from the review of environmental reports and those impacts included in the EIP. This illustrates that the EIP does in-clude mention of the majority of the impact themes. Thus, there is cognisance of the impacts created, however there are themes that are not addressed in the EIP.

Table 14: Comparison of impact themes identified from environmental reports and the EIP

EIP Section 3 EIP Section 4 Environmental ReportsAir Air AirBiodiversity Biodiversity Biodiversity

NoiseSocial Social: EconomicSocial Social: Health

Social: Safety Social Social: SafetyLand Land Land

VisualWater Water Water

The impact themes however are not equally impacted by the DHS developments, thus may not re-quire equal response, monitoring and evaluation, and reporting measures.

Theseverityof impactsare influencedbythefrequencyatwhichanimpactoccurs, theextenttowhich it occurs, the sensitivity of the receiving environment to that impact, and the duration of the impact. These factors are considered in the risk calculation of each of the impact themes, as is indi-cated in section 3.3 Thematic map and risk matrix.

3.3 Thematic map and risk matrix

The development of the thematic map of environmental impacts considers the frequency count of the impacts indicated in environmental reports, together with the risk ratings (calculated with the risk matrix) of each impact theme. This section provides details of the development of the thematic map.

3.3.1 Frequency of impact theme occurrence

Toestablishwhichimpactthemehasmoresignificancethananother,thenumberoftimes(orfrequen-cy) at which a theme and related secondary impact theme was raised in the reviewed environmen-talreportswerecounted,whichallowedforthefirstcomponentofthethematicmapdevelopment,namely the thematic map related to frequency of occurrence – this is indicated in Table 15.

Table 15: Environmental impact themes and secondary impact themes and frequency of impact occurrences counted from the reviewed environmental reports

Impact Theme Secondary Impact Themes FrequencyAir Emissions – Equipment 1Air Emissions – Waste 1Air Dust 1Air Emissions – Fugitive 1Biodiversity Fauna & Flora 2Biodiversity Aquatic 1Biodiversity Biodiversity 1Biodiversity Habitat 1Biodiversity Ecosystem 4Noise Noise 1Social: Economic Employment 1Social: Health Waste 1Social: Health Land 1Social: Health Water 1Social: Safety Crime 2Social: Safety Injury 1Land Agriculture 1Land Ecosystem 2Land Pollution 4Land Erosion 2Visual Visual 1Water Pollution 3Water Water Reserve 4Water Ecosystem 1Water Disaster Risk 1





3.3.2 Thematic map of impact theme occurrence

A thematic map has been developed to provide indication of which of the receiving environmental themes and secondary impact themes are affected most frequently. This provides a quick visual in-dication to the DHS of the impact themes within which their developments have impacts, and which of these themes receive impacts most frequently.

Figure 3 illustrates that the themes: Water – water reserve; Land: pollution; and Biodiversity: ecosys-tem, occur most frequently on the list of impacts. This is followed by: Water: pollution; followed by: Land:erosion;Land:ecosystem;andBiodiversity:faunaandflora.

Figure 3: Impact theme and secondary impact theme frequency of occurrences counted from reviewed environmental reports

The most frequented themes in the list of impacts could be indicative of themes that could require more indicators than other themes to control all the related impacts in the various environments in which these occur. This provides an indication of the impact themes that are most likely to occur irrespective of the area or setting in which the development takes place.

This provides a base for decision making regarding the development of indicators for environmental impact description, and for which environmental impact response measures should be considered, as well as indicators to be considered for monitoring of the impacts.

In addition to the frequency of a theme and secondary impact theme occurrence (as is indicated in Figure 3), the actual risk of the impacts to the environmental theme have to be considered, since an impact to a theme or secondary impact theme might occur frequently, however, the impact could have high risk to the environment. To establish the risks of the impacts, a risk analysis was conduct-ed, as is indicated in the next section.

3.3.3 Risk Matrix

For this phase of the study, duplications of the same impact found across the various environmental reports reviewed, were removed; this however does not imply that one theme and secondary impact theme does not occur more than once, since the physical impact (and impact description) may differ per impact and impact theme. Duplications of impacts were removed since the reports reviewed in-clude impacts based on location; thus if the location changes, the impact may not occur, similarly, if the impact is mentioned in all reviewed reports it does not imply that the listed impact is more prom-inent than others, as all locations might be exposed to the same potential impact.

a) Risk Calculation

TheriskmatrixusedandcalculationofriskratingsareexplainedbyinTable16andTable17.





Table 16: Ranking of evaluation criteria

Description of the Severity Risk Rating

Spatial extent, and duration)

Impacts affect the environmental in such a way that natural, cultural and/or social functions and processes are not affected.

1

Affected environment is altered, but natural, cultural and social functions and processescontinuealbeitinamodifiedway

2

Natural, cultural and social functions and processes are altered to extent that they temporarily cease

3

Natural, cultural and social functions and processes are altered to extent that they permanently cease

4

Description of the Spatial Extent Risk Rating

Spatial extent, and duration)

Impact occurs on-site 1Impact occurs within 5km radium of the site 2Impact occurs within a 100km radius of the site 3Impact occurs within South Africa 4

Description of the Duration Risk Rating

Step 1: Add together the ratings from each of the “Consequence” categories (Severity, Spatial extent, and duration)

The impact will either disappear with mitigation or will be mitigated through natural process in a span shorter than the construction phase

1

The impact will last for the period of the construction phase, where after it will be entirely negated

2

The impact will continue or last for the entire operational life of the development, but will be mitigated by direct human action or by natural processes thereafter. The only class of impact which will be non-transitory

3

Mitigation either by man or natural process will not occur in such a way or in such a time span that the impact can be considered transient

4

Description of the Probability Risk Rating

Step 2: “Likelihood” (probability)The possibility of the impact materializing is very low either because of design

or historic experience1

There is a distinct possibility that the impact will occur 2It is most likely that the impact will occur 3The impact will certainly occur 4

Table 17: Risk consequence and likelihood

LIKELIHOOD

CONSEQUENCE (Severity + Duration + Spatial)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 132 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 143 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 154 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Thesignificanceofimpactsisdeterminedbasedontheevaluation of an activity’s impact in terms of consequence and likelihood. Using the sum of the evaluated ranking, the overallsignificancecanbeclassifiedasfollows:

Category Min

Category Max

Risk rating

(>=) (<)

• Whereitwillnothaveasignificantinfluenceontheenvironment.Management measures can be proposed to ensurethatsignificancedoesnotincrease

4 7 Low 1

• Whereitcouldhaveasignificantinfluenceontheenvironmentunless it is mitigated or managed 8 11

Me-dium

2

• Whereitwouldhaveasignificantinfluenceontheenvironmentregardless of any possible mitigation and hence must be either avoided or managed

12 16 High 3

The risk calculation per impact theme and secondary impact theme is indicated in Table 18.





Table 18: Risks of environmental impacts linked to impact themes and secondary impact themes

Impact Theme Secondary impact themes Impacts Duration Extent Severity Probability Total RiskAir Equipment Emissions Air pollution caused by emissions from construction machinery

1 1 1 4 7 Low

Air Waste Emissions Air pollution related to emissions from waste generation and disposal 4 1 1 4 10 Medium

Air Dust Dust creation on site during construction 1 1 1 2 5 Low

Air Fugitive Air pollution caused by inadequate materials storage (through exposure to the environment, and through spillage).

1 1 1 2 5 Low

Biodiversity Fauna & Flora Flora and fauna may be disturbed as a result of construction4 2 4 2 12 High

Biodiversity Aquatic Aquatic Ecology may be affected by alterations in the water quality as result of the construction activities impacting on water bodies

2 2 2 2 8 Medium

Biodiversity Biodiversity Loss of biodiversity through vegetation clearing4 1 4 3 12 High

Biodiversity Habitat Habitat fragmentation from vegetation removal4 2 3 2 11 Medium

Biodiversity Ecosystem Potential collapse of ecosystem food chains4 1 3 2 10 Medium

Biodiversity Ecosystem Increased resilience of species affected by construction development3 2 2 1 8 Medium

Biodiversity Fauna & Flora Loss of threatened and protected species (diversity and richness)4 1 4 1 10 Medium

Biodiversity Ecosystem Environmental reserve alterations4 3 4 1 12 High

Biodiversity Ecosystem Environmental degradation due to cumulative impacts i.e. Biodiversity, Hydrology, Air Quality, Agricultural Land etc.

4 1 2 2 9 Medium

Noise Noise Noise pollution created by construction work 1 1 1 3 6 Low

Social - Economy Employment Unemployment for the local community if external labour forces are used2 2 3 2 9 Medium

Social - Health Waste Uncontrolled disposal of waste negatively effects the community health and status 1 2 3 2 8 Medium

Social - Health Land Health risk (contaminated land)1 1 4 1 7 Low

Social - Health Water Health risk (contaminated water)1 1 4 1 7 Low

Social - Safety Crime Conduct of workers on site could impact negatively on the social life of the community2 1 3 4 10 Medium

Social - Safety Injury Accidents could occur during construction leading to injuries1 1 1 1 4 Low

Social - Safety Crime On-site lighting (security) may be a nuisance for the local community1 1 1 3 6 Low

Land Agriculture Loss of arable land for agriculture, and decrease in agricultural potential4 1 3 2 10 Medium

Land Ecological System Soil type alteration resultant from borrow pits 2 1 1 2 6 Low





Impact Theme Secondary impact themes Impacts Duration Extent Severity Probability Total RiskLand Pollution Soil pollution caused by inadequate equipment and materials storage (through exposure to

the environment, and through spillage)1 1 3 1 6 Low

Land Erosion Soil erosion caused by increase in water runoff velocity resultant from removal of vegetation.3 1 2 2 8 Medium

Land Erosion Soil erosion caused by increase in water runoff velocity resultant from construction activities and increased area of hardened surfaces.

4 1 2 2 9 Medium

Land Pollution Soil contamination caused by inadequate chemical and hazardous material handling4 2 4 2 12 High

Land Pollution Soil contamination caused by inadequate disposal of general waste2 1 3 1 7 Low

Land Ecological System Compacting soil by heavy machinery and structural development3 1 2 4 10 Medium

Land Pollution Soil contamination caused by inadequate waste water discharge3 2 4 1 10 Medium

Visual Visual Building material waste could create negative visual impacts1 1 1 3 6 Low

Water Pollution Water source pollution through inadequate waste water discharge3 2 4 1 10 Medium

Water Pollution Water source pollution through waste water spillage3 2 4 2 11 Medium

Water Pollution Water source pollution through chemical and hazardous material handling and storage4 2 4 2 12 High

Water Water Reserve Decreaseingroundwaterinfiltration resultant from increased hardened surfaces4 1 2 4 11 Medium

Water Ecosystem Disturbance of wetlands caused by uncontrolled storm water runoff and increased erosion and sedimentation

3 2 4 3 12 High

Water Water Reserve Loss of natural resource through use in the construction processes1 1 1 4 7 Low

Water Water Reserve Loss of natural resource through leaks on site1 1 1 1 4 Low

Water Disaster Risk Decreaseingroundwaterinfiltration resultant from increased hardened surfaces increases floodingpotential

1 2 3 1 7 Low

Water Water Reserve Reduced water availability for downstream users2 2 2 1 7 Low

Water Ecological System Flow rate alteration in streams affected by the development3 2 3 2 10 Medium

3.3.4 Environmental impact theme risk average

Each impact per environmental impact theme and secondary impact theme has its own risk rating, as is seen in Table 18. To obtain an average risk rating for the impact theme and secondary impact theme, a numerical value was ascribed to risks (high = 3; medium = 2; and low =1) (as is indicated inTable17Riskconsequenceandlikelihood).Theaverageoftherisksperimpactthemeandsec-ondary impact is indicated in Table 19.





Table 19: Frequency and risk of each impact theme3

Impact Theme Secondary Impact Theme

Frequency Impact Frequency and Risk Rating

Risk Average

Air: Emissions - Equipment 1 L 1Air: Emissions - Waste 1 M 2Air: Dust 1 L 1Air: Emissions - Fugitive 1 L 1Biodiversity: Fauna & Flora 2 H M 3Biodiversity: Aquatic 1 M 2Biodiversity: Biodiversity 1 H 3Biodiversity: Habitat 1 M 2Biodiversity: Ecosystem 4 M M H M 2Noise: Noise 1 L 1Social - Economy: Employment 1 M 2Social - Health: Waste 1 M 2Social - Health: Land 1 L 1Social - Health: Water 1 L 1Social - Safety: Crime 2 M L 2Social - Safety: Injury 1 L 1Land: Agriculture 1 H 3Land: Ecosystem 2 L M 2Land: Pollution 4 L H L M 2Land: Erosion 2 M M 2Visual: Visual 1 L 1Water: Pollution 3 M 2Water: Water Reserve 4 M 2Water: Ecosystem 1 M 2Water: Disaster Risk 1 L 1

Frequency Key: Risk Key:1 Low 2 Low to

medium3 Medium

to high4 High L Low M Medium H High

3Impact themes indicate the component of the environment affected; and secondary impact themes provide detail of how the theme is affected (or which component of the theme is affected). The impact theme “Air” refers to air quality being affected as a result of emissions caused by equipment, waste, fugitive emissions, and dust. “Biodiversity” is affected by specific impacts to fauna and flora, to aquatic life, habitats, or general impacts that affect biodiversity and ecosystems such as veg-etation clearing and disruption in ecosystem food chains. “Land” refers to the quality of land being affected by development activities which may lead to land based ecosystems being affected through soil alteration, pollution, or erosion. Or land suitable for agriculture may be lost to developments. “Water” refers to water quality being affected by pollution, or ecosystems that may be affected (such as wetlands), or resources may be used, affecting the available water reserves. Socio-eco-nomic impacts caused by developments, which are recorded in environmental impact reports, include the theme for “Visual” impacts, referring to the aesthetics of the landscape being affected; “Noise” indicates that developments could cause noise disturbances. “Social” impacts relate to economic impacts of job creation or losses or unrest in local communities due to people of external communities being employed for in developments. Other social impacts relate to community “Health” that may be affected through waste disposal in the community, which could contribute to land and water pollution, and resultantly pose a threat to the health of those living in the area, or to those who are dependent on land and water resources for their livelihoods. Community “Safety” could be affected as crime or injuries on the development site may occur.

Table 20 provides similar information to Table 19, however it provides an easy reference for DHS to evaluate where the highest risks lie, based on average risk score calculations. For example, Table 20indicatesthatthetwoimpactslistedforBiodiversity:faunaandflora,producedanaveragehighrisk rating. Thus it may be deduced that an activity causing an impact to this impact theme would lead to a severe impact. Comparing this to the four instances indicating impacts causing pollution of

land (Land: Pollution), would result in an average medium risk rating, meaning the potential impact of activities causing pollution to land would likely result in less severe impacts than activities that cause impactstothethemeofBiodiversity:faunaandflora.

Table 20: Frequency and Risk average of each impact theme (alter)

Impact Themes

Low Medium HIgh Total Impacts per theme1 1 2 3 4 1 2

Air: 3 1 4Dust 1 1Emissions - Equipment 1 1Emissions - Fugitive 1 1Emissions - Waste 1 1

Biodiversity: 2 1 1 1 5Aquatic 1 1Biodiversity 1 1Ecosystem 4 4Fauna & Flora 2 2Habitat 1 1Noise: 1 1Noise 1 1Social - Economy: 1 1Employment 1 1Social - Health: 2 1 3Land 1 1Waste 1 1Water 1 1Social - Safety: 1 2 3Crime 2 2Injury 1 1Land: 4 4 1 9Agriculture 1 1Ecosystem 2 2Erosion 2 2Pollution 4 4Visual: 1 1Visual 1 1Water: 1 1 3 4 9Disaster Risk 1 1Ecosystem 1 1Pollution 3 3Water Reserve 4 4Grand Total 9 6 6 3 12 2 2 40

The calculated average risk rating per theme and related secondary theme provides the DHS with another base for decision making regarding development of the EIP and related indicators to be measured, monitored, and evaluated and reported on.





3.3.5Thematicmapandriskmatrixfindings

The impact themes and related secondary impact themes most frequently affected, and those with the highest risk rating should receive high consideration when establishing what reporting, monitor-ing, evaluation, and responses are needed to ensure effective co-operative environmental gover-nance.

Table 20 was used to develop Figure 4, which provides a combined thematic map indicating the theme frequency and risk overlaid. This provides DHS with a graphic representation of the impact theme frequency and the risk rating of the impacts per theme.

This map provides DHS with the indication that impacts to the theme Land: Erosion occurs at medi-um frequently (2), and at an average medium risk (2). Other examples indicate that the impact theme Land: Agriculture is not impacted frequently (1), but that the average risk of impacts to this theme are high (3); impacts to the theme Water: pollution occurs at medium to high frequency (3), and the average risk of such impacts to this theme are medium to high (>2).

4 See footnote

Figure 4: Theme risk and frequency overlay thematic map

4 The frequency thematic map is indicated in turquoise colour on the spider graph, and is plotted on turquoise axis lines. The risks plotted on the thematic map is done in different colours to indicate various risk ratings, as is used in the risk matrix, and are plotted on the yellow axis lines.

3.4 Environmental scan conclusion

A range of themes of environmental impacts assist in grouping impacts into categories, which provid-ed a base from which to compare environmental impacts to the impacts covered by the EIP (section 3 and 4). These themes are based on the receiving environment (the environment being impacted) andhavebe linkedtothecorefocusareasspecified intheDraft3rdeditionGuidelinesforEnvi-ronmental Implementation and Management Plans (Notice 1043 of 2013, Government Gazette, 25 October 2013).

These impact themes are developed from the reports that were accessible to the project team, thus a conclusion is made that the themes developed from this process may or may not include all impact themesthatexist,andhencefurtherstudyofthisspecificelementofthisevaluationstudyisrecom-mended.

The EIP does cover the majority of environmental themes brought forth in this report. Although, an indication is given that the EIP could improve in terms of elaborating its indicators to incorporate all oftheimpactthemes,thisdoesnotyet indicate indetail theefficacybywhichtheEIPmanages,mitigates, or monitors the impacts of these themes.

Secondary impact themes have been ascribed to the main themes to provide a next-step indication to what indicators would have to respond to in order to facilitate co-operative environmental gover-nance. The most frequented themes in the list of impacts could be indicative of themes that could require more indicators (or more detailed indicators) to monitor and evaluate the related impacts, than other themes would require.

The average risk ratings ascribed to the themes and related secondary themes provide an indication as to which of these themes should be considered in greater detail with regard to indicators to mon-itor and evaluate the related impacts, than other themes would require.

Both frequency and risk rating determine where response is needed in this regard, since an impact might not have a high risk rating, however it might occur frequently, which could have great impact on the environment cumulatively across various developments, across the country. Similarly; a high risk impact may not occur frequently, yet an impact occurrence once off could have a detrimental effect on the environment and the surrounding community.





4 Empirical study

Thequantitativeresultsofthestudyarepresentedbelowwhilethequalitativefindingscanbefoundin Appendix A - Qualitative findings.

The focus of the results are on items for which clear responses could be obtained regarding whether or not aspects listed in the chapter 3 and 4 of the EIP were included or considered in the imple-mentation of the sample projects. However, this does not provide an indication of the aspects being included in the implementation of the projects as a result of the EIP, and should not be sought to do so since the EIP provides a platform to provide monitoring and reporting on co-operative governance of aspects that affect the environment through the DHS’s developments.

The results thus provide indication of the following (with regards to inclusion of aspects discussed in chapter 3 and 4 of the EIP):

1. Yes (the aspect was considered and included in the development, meaning that this aspect is known to be considered and/or included in the implementation of the sample project);

2. No (the aspect was not considered in the development, meaning the aspect was not con-sidered and/or not included in the development. This response however does not provide the reason for not including the aspect in the implementation of the development, in other words, it is not known if deliberate decisions were made to not include it; or if implementers merely did not consider inclusion of the aspect for whichever reason (either because it was not a requirement for the development, or because it was just not thought of, or because funding did not allow for inclusion, or practical reasons lead to excluding the aspect);

3. Proof of consideration not obtained (response to questions were not obtainable, either due to inability to obtain contactable stakeholders and data/information owners who would be able to respond to questions; or because the respondent could not provide indication of inclusion or exclusion of the relevant question in the sampled development). The results discussions do not include discussion of the instances where proof of consideration could not be obtained;

4. Limited consideration (the aspect was partially considered and/or partially included in the development; or was considered or monitored at a higher level than project level, and can-notbereportedatprojectspecificlevel).

The following section provides the discussion on the results of each of the categories of town plan-ning, environmental, engineering, and human settlement information categories. For each of these categories, the aspect and related questions are indicated, followed by the results, followed by the discussion of the results.

Where relevant, limitations to the results are indicated and recommendations are made.

4.1 Town planning information

4.1.1 Town planning questions

Table 21: Town planning questions

Aspect Potential report containing content:

Question

Adequate space Township application 1. What/howisspacedefined?Health 2. Is there health facility in surrounding

townships?Waste Planning for waste recycling in the area

Township application 3. The township application document should be circulated to local government, waste management dept. who should comment on it, was this done?

Land use Township application 4. Was land use considered?5. Was land rezoned?

Access to Natural Environment

Township application 6. Do plans indicate locality to green/open space?

Access to services:• food

Township application 7. Do plans indicate location in relation to shops?

• water Township application/OSR reports (Engineering – water & sanitation)

8. Are records kept of houses without access to clean drinking water

• sanitation Township application/ OSR reports (Engineering – water & sanitation)

9. Are records kept of houses without access to sanitation

• electricity Township application/OSR reports (Engineering – electricity)

10. Are records kept of houses without access to electricity

Densification Township application 11. How does development change current area densities? (more, same, less, not indicated?)

Title Deeds Township application 12. Does it indicate nr of title deeds registered?





4.1.2 Town Planning results

Table 22: Town planning results

Adequate Space

Health Waste Planning

Land Use Access to natural

environment

Access to services:

Food

Access to services:

Water

Access to services: Sanitation

Access to services: Electricity

Densification Title Deeds

EASTERN CAPE: Nr of Sample Projects: 3YesNoProof of consideration not obtained 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3Limited considerationTOTAL 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

FREE STATE: Nr of Sample Projects: 2YesNoProof of consideration not obtained 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Limited considerationTOTAL 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

GAUTENG: Nr of Sample Projects: 4Yes 3 3 2No 1Proof of consideration not obtained 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 1 2 4 3Limited considerationTOTAL 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

KWAZULU-NATAL: Nr of Sample Projects: 1YesNoProof of consideration not obtained 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1Limited considerationTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

LIMPOPO: Nr of Sample Projects: 19YesNo 19 19 19 19 19Proof of consideration not obtained 19 19 19 19Limited consideration 19 19TOTAL 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19





Table 22: Town planning results (continued)

Adequate Space

Health Waste Planning

Land Use Access to natural

environment

Access to services:

Food

Access to services:

Water

Access to services: Sanitation

Access to services: Electricity

Densification Title Deeds

MPUMALANGA: Nr of Sample Projects: 20YesNoProof of consideration not obtained 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20Limited considerationTOTAL 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

NORTHERN CAPE: Nr of Sample Projects: 1Yes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1NoProof of consideration not obtained 1 1Limited considerationTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

NORTH WEST: Nr of Sample Projects: 1YesNoProof of consideration not obtained 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1Limited considerationTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

WESTERN CAPE: Nr of Sample Projects: 10YesNoProof of consideration not obtained 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10Limited considerationTOTAL 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

TOTAL OF PROJECTS: Nr of Sample Projects: 61Yes 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 3 1No 19 19 19 19 1Proof of consideration not obtained 61 41 41 41 60 60 38 38 58 60 41Limited consideration 19 19TOTAL 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61

TOTAL OF PROJECTS: % of responses per categoryYes 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 6.6% 6.6% 4.9% 1.6%No 31.1% 31.1% 31.1% 31.1% 1.6%Proof of consideration not obtained 100% 67.2% 67.2% 67.2% 98.4% 98.4% 62.3% 62.3% 95.1% 98.4% 67.2%Limited consideration 31.1% 31.1%TOTAL





4.1.3 Town planning results discussion

Aspect Adequate space

(i) Discussion

• Respondents did not know how or what “adequate space” refers to, and hence could provide no clear indication whether or not this is provided for in the developments.

• Two provinces reported on house sizes in m2 but also were not sure if this is what is referred to.

Aspect HealthWaste planningLand use

(i) Discussion

• 19 projects (all in Limpopo):

o Did not include consideration for health or access to health facilities;

o Did not include waste planning (recycling facilities); and

o Land use consideration or requirement for rezoning was not necessary.

This is due to the sample project being a housing development in already built up rural areas, and was not a new township development. Rural areas do not require rezoning.

• 1 province (Northern Cape) indicated:

o That the sites selection for the housing development was done in existing town-ships,andtownshipsinwhichtheinfilldevelopmentstookplacewereselectedbased on the access to services; and

o Rezoning was considered but not a requirement as the areas selected were in built up areas, zoned for housing already.

Aspect Access to natural environmentAccess to services: Food

(i) Discussion

• 1 project (Northern Cape) indicated:

o The sites selection for the housing development was done in existing town-ships,andtownshipsinwhichtheinfilldevelopmentstookplacewereselectedbased on the access to services, including:

• open space or natural environments;

• food

Aspect Access to services: Water

(i) Discussion

• 4 projects (1 x Northern Cape; 3x Gauteng) concluded that this was considered:

o 1 project in Gauteng indicates that adequate water access is provided;

o 1 project in Gauteng indicated that rudimentary services are provided;

o 1 project in Gauteng indicated that applicants are responsible for the installation of services to their houses (thus bulk services are provided).

• 19 projects (Limpopo) indicated:

o Access to services: Water – in rural projects, this includes boreholes which pro-vide water.

(ii) Limitation

• “accesstowater”isnotdefined;i.e.doesitreferto:

o Access to a tap in the nearby vicinity; or

o Access to tap in the yard; or

o Access to tap in the house?

• “rudimentary”isnotdefinedinreviewedreports,thustheextenttowhichaccessisprovided is not known.

Aspect Access to services: Sanitation

(i) Discussion


o 1 project in Gauteng indicates that adequate water access is provided;




o Sanitationwasnotconsideredinbrownfielddevelopmentswheretheseprojectstook place (however it was mentioned that this is currently considered).





Aspect Access to services: Electricity

(i) Discussion


o 1 project in Northern Cape indicated that this should be available due to selec-tion of already existing townships in which houses were built.



• Respondents in Limpopo indicated that no records are kept hereof, only “Happy Let-ters”, which does not provide indication of electricity supply

(ii) Limitation

• Accessisnotdefinedclearly,whichshouldbeconsideredbasedontheresponsesreceived which indicate “rudimentary services” are available; and that bulk services are available and occupants are responsible for installation of services to their homes.

Aspect Densification

(i) Discussion

• 1 project in the Northern Cape concluded that this was achieved:

o Thedevelopmentwasinfill,thuscontributedtodensification.

(ii) Limitation

• Itcouldnotbeverifiedwhetherornottheneedtodensifyinfluenceddevelopmentsiteselection.

Aspect Title Deeds

(i) Discussion


o Happy letters were signed.

• Gauteng indicated that:

• 1 project’s respondent indicated town planners (working in human settlements depart-ments) are not involved in details regarding title deeds; and

• See Title deeds discussion under the Human Settlements section.

4.2 Environmental information

4.2.1 Environmental questions

Table 23: Environmental questions


Question

Any sensitivities? Environmental Scoping ReportEIA/BA

1. Was this done (environmental scoping, EIA or Basic Assessment (BA) to indicate environmental sensitivities in the area)?

Marginal land (slopes,floodplain,rivers)

Environmental Scoping Report

2. Is the settlement built on such land?

3. Was there any mention of such information prior to housing development?

4. Did an alternative site have to be sought?Geotechnical studies 5. Was this done (geotechnical studies)?Environmental Management Programme (EMPr)

6. Was this done (EMPr reports done during the development)?

Environmental Awareness/ education

EMPr (during construction).Other?

7. Was awareness raised / people educated through knowledge sharing?

Environmental Specialist studies

8. Which of this done (list or discuss specialist studies done)?

Public Participation EIA, BA 9. Was Public Participation done?Culture EIA, BA

Social impact report10. Are Cultural considerations included?

Waste EMPr 11. Is construction waste mentioned ?Hazardous environment

ScopingEIA / BA

12. Any indication of the site containing / located close to, a hazardous environment?

Unique habitats;Interference with ecological processes

ScopingEIA / BA

13. Do reports indicate control and prevention hereof?

Air pollutionAir quality

ScopingEIA / BA

14. Anyspecificstudiesdone,ormentionofambientairquality?

Water pollution ScopingEIA / BASocial impact

15. Anyspecificstudiesdone,ormentionofwaterqualityin the area?

16. Nr of water borne diseases in the area?Electricity Social impact study 17.Any indication of the affordability of electricity to

residents?





4.2.2 Environmental results

Table 24: Environmental results

Environ-mental Sensiti-vities

Marginal land

Geo-technical studies

EMPr Environ-mental

Awareness

Specialist studies

Public Partici-pation

Culture/Social impact

Waste monitoring

Hazardous environ-

ment

Unique habitats

Air quality/pollution

Water quality/

pollution

Electricity - affordability

EASTERN CAPE: Nr of Sample Projects: 3Yes 1No 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1Proof of consideration not obtained 2 2 3 2 3 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2Limited consideration 1TOTAL 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

FREE STATE: Nr of Sample Projects: 2YesNoProof of consideration not obtained 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Limited considerationTOTAL 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

GAUTENG: Nr of Sample Projects: 4Yes 1 1 2NoProof of consideration not obtained 3 3 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4Limited considerationTOTAL 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

KWAZULU-NATAL: Nr of Sample Projects: 1YesNoProof of consideration not obtained 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1Limited considerationTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

LIMPOPO: Nr of Sample Projects: 19YesNo 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19Proof of consideration not obtainedLimited consideration 19 19 19TOTAL 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19





Table 24: Environmental results

(continued)

Environ-mental Sensiti-vities

Marginal land

Geo-technical studies

EMPr Environ-mental

Awareness

Specialist studies

Public Partici-pation

Culture/Social impact

Waste monitoring

Hazardous environ-

ment

Unique habitats

Air quality/pollution

Water quality/

pollution


MPUMALANGA: Nr of Sample Projects: 20YesNoProof of consideration not obtained 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20Limited considerationTOTAL 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

NORTH WEST: Nr of Sample Projects: 1YesNoProof of consideration not obtained 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1Limited considerationTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

WESTERN CAPE: Nr of Sample Projects: 10YesNoProof of consideration not obtained 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10Limited considerationTOTAL 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

TOTAL OF PROJECTS: Nr of Sample Projects: 61Yes 1 1 3 1No 21 2 19 19 21 21 19 21 21 21 21 21Proof of consideration not obtained 39 39 39 41 42 40 40 40 42 40 40 40 40 40Limited consideration 19 19 21TOTAL 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61

TOTAL OF PROJECTS: % of responses per categoryYes 1.6% 1.6% 4.9% 1.6%No 34.4% 3.3% 31.1% 31.1% 34.4% 34.4% 31.1% 34.4% 34.4% 34.4% 34.4% 34.4%Proof of consideration not obtained 63.9% 63.9% 63.9% 67.2% 68.9% 65.6% 65.6% 65.6% 68.9% 65.6% 65.6% 65.6% 65.6% 65.6%Limited consideration 31.1% 31.1% 34.4%TOTAL





4.2.3 Environmental discussion

Aspect Any environmental sensitivities?

(i) Discussion

• 21 projects (1 x Eastern and Northern Cape; 19 Limpopo), concluded that this was not considered in the implementation:

o Northern Cape projects were implemented in already built up areas, which re-sulted in the decision being made that new studies were not necessary.

o Limpopoprojectswereall ruralbrownfieldprojects,whichwasexempt fromdoing environmental studies.

• 1 project (Gauteng) indicated that this was considered.

(ii) Limitation

• Gauteng provided indication of a record of decision for a project, which provides in-dication that environmental studies or scoping was done, however such were not availableoronfile.

• Northern Cape: the respondent could not verify if environmental studies were done for thetownshipsinwhichtheinfilldevelopmentofthesampleprojectwasdone,thusitis not known if any environmental studies were done for the area in which this devel-opment took place.

Aspect Marginal land

(i) Discussion

• This was considered for 1 of the projects (Gauteng)

• This was not considered for 2 projects (1x Eastern and Northern Cape)

o Northern Cape projects were implemented in already built up areas, which re-sulted in the decision being made that new studies were not necessary.

o Eastern Cape respondents indicated that the project was exempt from doing environmental impact studies due to projects being in-situ developments.

• Limited considerations was indicated for 19 of the projects (Limpopo)

o Marginallandwasnotdefined,butrespondentsindicatedthatitisseenasval-leys, in which houses were not built.

(ii) Limitation

• Northern Cape: the respondent could not verify if environmental studies were done for thetownshipsinwhichtheinfilldevelopmentofthesampleprojectwasdone,thusit

is not known if any environmental studies were done for the area in which this devel-opment took place.

Aspect Geotechnical studies

(i) Discussion

• 3 projects indicated that geotechnical studies were done;

o 1x Northern Cape project was implemented in already built up areas, which resulted in the decision being made that new environmental studies were not necessary; however new geotechnical studies were done for each site;

o 2 x GAU projects could verify that geotechnical studies were done;

• 19 projects indicated limited consideration for geotechnical studies:

o Limpopo: it was stated that geotech studies were done in most cases.

(ii) Limitation

• Limpopo respondents could not indicate with certainty if such studies were done for all projects, and for which projects it might not have been done.

Aspect Environmental Management Programme reports

(i) Discussion

• 1 project indicated that this was done:

o 1x Eastern Cape project indicated that this was done.

• 19 projects in Limpopo indicated that this was not done for the projects in the sample.

An EMPr is a report done during the development, which contains audits of the construction and development processes. It would provide good insight into the actual environmental impacts taking place during development, which could include generic or expected impacts, as well as unique im-pacts (however the severity thereof would be different per site, and per EMPr author methodology). This could include monitoring and reporting on aspects such as: waste generated, waste recycled, oil and hazardous materials spillages, erosion caused because of construction activities, environ-mental awareness raised during, and after construction has been completed.

(ii) Limitation

• It is not known if the sample project in the Eastern Cape was completed, thus if the project was continued, it is not known if an EMPr was done for that project.





Aspect Environmental Awareness

(i) Discussion

• For 19 projects (Limpopo), this was not done. This is reported as not done based on feedback received which indicated that no EMPr was done, no environmental studies were done, and no environmental awareness was raised.

Aspect Specialist StudiesCultural and social impactsUnique habitatsAir QualityWater qualityElectricity affordability

(i) Discussion

• This is indicated not to be done for 21 of the sample projects (19 in Limpopo, 1 in Eastern Cape and Northern Cape).

• Specialist studies would have been done if environmental screening reports indicated theneedtodoso,andsuchstudieswouldhaveidentifiedanyspecificuniquehabitatswhich would have had to be considered in site selection and development processes.

• Cultural and social impact studies are gaining importance in development processes, however, in some instances it is seen that cultural and social concerns could be iden-tifiedduringpublicparticipationprocesses,whichisnotalwaysthecase.

• Cultural studies could also indicate the energy use preferences (e.g. burning of an-thracite rather than purchasing energy), which could have multiple health impacts, and affect the quality of life of residents.

• No studies of the ambient air quality or water quality in the site areas were done.

Aspect Public Participation

(i) Discussion

• It is concluded that there was limited consideration for 21 of the projects in the sam-ple. The responses are marked as “limited consideration” since public participation was done, however not done as part of environmental requirements.

o 1x Northern Cape and Eastern Cape: it was indicated that general public partic-ipation would have been done to inform communities of the developments.

o 19 x Limpopo: participation was done by the local municipal departments of housing, and not by the provincial department who were the implementers of the project.

(ii) Limitation

• The content or extent of engagements is not known. This might have included discus-siononenvironmentalmatters,howevercannotbeconfirmed.

Aspect Waste monitoring

(i) Discussion

• 19 projects (Limpopo) could provide indication that waste management services or recycling of waste was not considered due to all projects in the sample being rural developments.

Aspect Hazardous environment

(i) Discussion

• This is indicated not to be done for 21 of the sample projects:

• 19 in Limpopo:

o No environmental issues were considered, thus hazardous environments would not have been known of.

o Health and safety inspection were however being done.

• 1 in Eastern Cape

o It was indicated that all projects were exempt from environmental studies, thus suchenvironmentsmightnothavebeenidentifiedbyotherprocesses.Howev-er, for another project in the Eastern Cape, an EMPr was done, which would indicate hazardous environments at the construction site, however would not identify other hazardous environments of the site.

• 1 in Northern Cape.

o The site selected was in already built up areas, thus no environmental studies were done and assumptions of the environment would lead the implementer not to review the area or sites for any hazardous environmental aspects.





4.3 Engineering information

4.3.1 Engineering questions

Table 25: Engineering questions


Question

Adequate lighting Engineering: Mechanical Design report (at Detail Design Stage)

1. Are any light aspects included in design? a) electric? b) natural?

2. Are any such aspects included in design? a) electric? b) natural?

Heating & Ventilation

Adequate infrastructure: Water & Sanitation

Engineering: OSR – details bulk demand and supply, and carry capacity

3. Was this included in any report?4. Any indication that this was concluded after the

development?Renewables usage OSR – Electricity/Energy

PDR – Electricity/Energy5. Does the PDR specify the renewable sources

that will be used, if any?6. If not, does the OSR mention it should be, or not

be considered?Energy OSR – Electricity

PDR – Electricity7. Anymentionofelectricalefficiencies?8. Or does it mention any designs according to,

e.g. RedBook/SANS standards/National Building Regulations?

9. Istherespecificationofestimatedenergyuse?10. Is there any indication of cost of electricity in the

area?Social impact studyOSR/PDR?

11. Is there any indication of the affordability of electricity to residents?

Water OSR – WaterPDR – Water and sanitation

12. Isthereanymentionofwaterefficiencies?Ordoes it mention any designs according to, e.g. RedBook / SANS standards / National Building Regulations? (3 levels of water pressure services could be indicated: Full, medium, low – which is dictated by class of settlement)

OSR – Water 13. Is there indication of the estimated water consumption per day (Litres per person)?

Cost of water 14. Is there any indication of cost of water in the area?

Access to services: • Water• Sanitation• Electricity

Township application/OSR reports (Engineering - water & sanitation)Township application/OSR reports (Engineering - electricity)

15. Are records kept of houses without access to clean drinking water?

16. Are records kept of houses without access to sanitation

17.Are records kept of houses without access to electricity?





4.3.2 Engineering results

Adequate lighting


Adequate infrastruc-ture: Water

& Sanitation

Renewable energy

Energy - design

standards

Energy - efficiencies

Energy - cost of energy

Water - efficiencies

Water - consumption

Water -cost of water

Access to services -

Water

Access to services - Sanitation

Access to services - Electricity

EASTERN CAPE: Nr of Sample Projects: 3YesNo 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1Proof of consideration not obtained 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 3Limited considerationTOTAL 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

FREE STATE: Nr of Sample Projects: 2YesNoProof of consideration not obtained 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Limited considerationTOTAL 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

GAUTENG: Nr of Sample Projects: 4YesNoProof of consideration not obtained 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4Limited considerationTOTAL 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

KWAZULU-NATAL: Nr of Sample Projects: 1YesNoProof of consideration not obtained 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1Limited considerationTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

LIMPOPO: Nr of Sample Projects: 19YesNo 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19Proof of consideration not obtainedLimited consideration 19 19 19TOTAL 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19





Engineering results

(continued)

Adequate lighting


Adequate infra-

structure: Water &

Sanitation

Renewable energy

Energy - design

standards

Energy - efficiencies

Energy - cost of energy

Water - efficiencies

Water - consump-

tion

Water -cost of water

Access to services -

Water

Access to services - Sanitation

Access to services - Electricity


MPUMALANGA: Nr of Sample Projects: 20YesNoProof of consideration not obtained 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20Limited considerationTOTAL 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

NORTHERN CAPE: Nr of Sample Projects: 1Yes 1 1 1 1No 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1Proof of consideration not obtained 1Limited considerationTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

NORTH WEST: Nr of Sample Projects: 1YesNoProof of consideration not obtained 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1Limited considerationTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

WESTERN CAPE: Nr of Sample Projects: 10YesNoProof of consideration not obtained 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10Limited considerationTOTAL 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

TOTAL OF PROJECTS: Nr of Sample Projects: 61Yes 1 1 1 1No 21 21 1 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 19 1 21Proof of consideration not obtained 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 41 40 41 40Limited consideration 19 19 19TOTAL 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61

TOTAL OF PROJECTS: % of responses per categoryYes 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6%No 34.4% 34.4% 1.6% 34.4% 34.4% 34.4% 34.4% 34.4% 34.4% 34.4% 31.1% 1.6% 34.4%Proof of consideration not obtained 65.6% 65.6% 65.6% 65.6% 65.6% 65.6% 65.6% 65.6% 65.6% 65.6% 67.2% 65.6% 67.2% 65.6%Limited consideration 31.1% 31.1% 31.1%TOTAL





4.3.3 Engineering discussion

Aspect Adequate lightingHeating and ventilationRenewable energyEnergyefficienciesCost of energyEnergy design standards

(i) Discussion 21 samples indicated that this was not considered.

o 1 x Eastern Cape:

• Design standards: The plans drawn up for the original development were done accordingtoNHBRCcodes,whichdoesnotincludespecificationsforelectricity,or any electrical or energy installations or supply.

o 1x Northern Cape:

• Adequatelighting,heating,ventilation,andenergyefficiencies:Prepaidelectric-ity meters were supplied; residents have to install electrical appliances at their owncost.Thus,residentsdecidewhichappliancesofwhichefficiencieswouldbeinstalled.Housedesignsdonotprovidespecificationsofelectricalapplianceor light luminescence or wattage to be installed.

• Renewable energy: some houses have solar geysers installed, but this was a separate programme installed afterwards by Eskom, and was not included as part of the original project, thus, the original project did not include renewable energy supply.

• Design standards: The plans drawn up for the original development were done accordingtoNHBRCcodes,whichdoesnotincludespecificationsforelectricity,or any electrical or energy installations or supply.

o 19 x Limpopo

• Electrical installations were not included in rural setting house designs because of cost implications, thus no design standards for this aspect were followed; thus, residents have to install electricity themselves, which results in faulty in-stallations.

(ii) Limitation

• Adequatelighting,heatingandventilationisnotdefined,thusitisnotknownwhattherequirement would be if compliance is to be monitored.

Aspect Adequate infrastructure: Water & SanitationAccess to services: Sanitation

(i) Discussion 1 sample indicated that this was considered:

o 1 x Northern Cape:

• Sites for the developments were selected in already existing townships; the townships that were selected were done so based on the availability of bulk services.

• 1 sample indicated that this was not considered:

o 1x Eastern Cape:

• No sanitation was provided in plans, but pit latrines might have been included in the design, but would have been external or separate from the house;

• Rain water tank might have been included in designs.

• 19 samples indicated limited consideration of this aspect:

o 1x Limpopo

• VIP toilets are provided in rural areas.

(ii) Limitation

• Adequateinfrastructureisnotdefinedforwaterorsanitation,thusrespondentscouldrelate to this in different manners, whereas one party would consider the provision of pitlatrinesasprovisionforsanitation,andanotherwouldnotdefinethisprovisionasproviding for sanitation to the household.

• The degree or quality of services provided in the township in which the developments tookplaceintheNorthernCapecouldnotbeclarified.

• The respondent in the Eastern Cape worked on the initial project, which was halted, after which the respondent could not verify if the project was completed or not.

• The respondent in the Eastern Cape did not have certainty whether or not pit latrines were included in the designs.

• The respondent in the Eastern Cape did not have certainty whether or rain water tanks included in the designs.





Aspect WaterefficienciesWater consumptionWater cost


o 1 x Eastern Cape:

• Nospecificationsforwaterefficiencieswereconsidered.

o 1x Northern Cape:

• Sites selected for this project’s houses were within already existing townships, and the townships were selected based on already installed bulk infrastructure, thusnospecific considerationwasgiven toanyconsumption,efficienciesorcost of water in the area.

o 19 x Limpopo

• Theview,forruraldevelopments is that is thatefficiencies,consumptionandcostcouldbeimproved.ThusOSRreportsforruraldon’tincludesuchspecifi-cations.

• House owners pay for such installations to water separately if required, thus the ownerscoulddictatewhattheefficienciesofthefaucetsshouldbewheninstall-ing this at their homes.

Aspect Access to services - water


o 19 x Limpopo

• In rural developments there wasn’t consideration for access to services as peo-ple collect water from the nearby rivers. Thus OSR reports for rural don’t include specificationsforwatersupply.

• House owners pay for such installations to water separately if required, thus the ownerscoulddictatewhattheefficienciesofthefaucetsshouldbewheninstall-ing this at their homes.

• 1 sample indicated that this was considered.

o 1x Northern Cape:

• Sites selected for this project’s houses were within already existing townships, and the townships were selected based on already installed bulk infrastructure, thusnospecific considerationwasgiven toanyconsumption,efficienciesorcost of water in the area.

(ii) Limitation

• Itcannotbeconfirmedwhetherornotrainwater tankswere includedinthede-signs for the development in the Eastern Cape.

Aspect Access to services - Electricity

(i) Discussion 1 sample project indicated that these aspects were considered in the development:


• Sites selected for this project’s houses were within already existing townships, and the townships were selected based on already installed bulk infrastructure.

• 19 sample projects indicated that there was limited consideration for these as-pects in the development.

o 19 x Limpopo:

• OSR reports for rural don’t include this, and owners would have to pay for such installations.





4.4 Human settlements Information

4.4.1 Human settlements questions

Table 26: Human Settlements questions

Aspect Detail of potential report containing content:

Question

Woman workforce 30% of housing budget allocated for woman owned projects

Is this monitored or mentioned anywhere?

Youth & Woman workforce

Of temporary workers, 60% to be women, and 20% youth

Is this done, and monitored?

Tenure How/where is types of tenure and security of tenure recorded and updated?Does it record impediments to people owning/inheriting land?

Local Resource Use;Waste material used in buildings

Use locally sourced labour, and materials

Does any report specify this requirement?

Urbanisation Does the report indicate urbanisation rate (in mentioning the need for the development)?

Title Deeds Nr of title deeds registered annually?

Are details of this project’s title deeds recorded?

Densification % of Medium density housing units developed per annum?

IDP IDP Does the IDP have a housing chapter?Provincial multiyear housing development plan (PHDP)

PHDP Is this completed?IDP & PHDP Does the PHDP comply with 10 year IDP

Participation How are citizens involved in housing planning?Funding Municipal hosing capital

investment?Is funding received through Human Settlement Development Programme?Doyouknowthisfigureasa%oftotalfunding?Is funding received through Public Investment for bulk infrastructure? Doyouknowthisfigureasa%oftotalfunding?Level of public investment in informal settlement upgrading?Doyouknowthisfigureasa%oftotalfunding?

Trees Record of number of trees planted with new subsidised houses?

Ceilings % Of subsidised houses with ceilings built in the year?

Land acquisition Where are processes documented for proactive identification,acquisition,assessmentandreleaseof housing land documented?





4.4.2 Human settlements results

Women workforce

Youth & Women

workforce

Tenure Local Resource

Use

Waste material used in

buildings

Urbanisa-tion

Title Deeds Densifica-tion

IDP PHDP Partici-pation

Funding Trees Ceilings Land acquisition

EASTERN CAPE: Nr of Sample Projects: 3YesNoProof of consideration not obtained 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3Limited considerationTOTAL 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

FREE STATE: Nr of Sample Projects: 2YesNoProof of consideration not obtained 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Limited considerationTOTAL 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

GAUTENG: Nr of Sample Projects: 4Yes 2 2NoProof of consideration not obtained 2 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4Limited consideration 4 4TOTAL 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

KWAZULU-NATAL: Nr of Sample Projects: 1YesNoProof of consideration not obtained 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1Limited considerationTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

LIMPOPO: Nr of Sample Projects: 19Yes 19 19 19 19 19No 19 19 19 19 19 19Proof of consideration not obtained 19 19Limited consideration 19 19TOTAL 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19





Human settlements results

(continued)

Women workforce

Youth & Women

workforce

Tenure Local Resource

Use

Waste material used in

buildings

Urbanisa-tion

Title Deeds Densifica-tion

IDP PHDP Partici-pation

Funding Trees Ceilings Landacquisition

MPUMALANGA: Nr of Sample Projects: 20YesNoProof of consideration not obtained 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20Limited considerationTOTAL 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

NORTHERN CAPE: Nr of Sample Projects: 1 Yes 1 1 1 1 1 1No 1Proof of consideration not obtained 1 1 1 1 1 1 1Limited consideration 1TOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

NORTH WEST: Nr of Sample Projects: 1YesNoProof of consideration not obtained 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1Limited considerationTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

WESTERN CAPE: Nr of Sample Projects: 10YesNoProof of consideration not obtained 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10Limited considerationTOTAL 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

TOTAL OF PROJECTS: Nr of Sample Projects: 61Yes 21 19 3 1 20 19 20 1 1No 1 19 19 19 19 20 19Proof of consideration not obtained 38 38 39 41 42 42 39 41 41 42 41 60 41 41 61Limited consideration 23 23 1TOTAL 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61

TOTAL OF PROJECTS: % of responses per categoryYes 34.4% 31.1% 4.9% 1.6% 32.8% 31.1% 38.2% 1.6% 0.0% 1.6%No 31.1% 31.1% 31.1% 31.1% 32.8% 31.1%Proof of consideration not obtained 62.3% 62.3% 63.9% 68.9% 68.9% 68.9% 63.9% 67.2% 67.2% 68.9% 67.2% 98.4% 67.2% 67.2% 100.0%Limited consideration 37.7% 37.7% 1.6%TOTAL





4.4.3 Human settlements discussion

Aspect Woman workforceYouth & Woman workforce

(i) Discussion It may be indicated that there is limited consideration for 23 of the sample projects:

o 19 x Limpopo, and 4x Gauteng

• Women Workforce and Youth and Woman and youth involvement in projects is reported and calculated at provincial level, not per project.

Thesefiguresarereportedbyprojectimplementerstoprovince,whichreportstoExpandedPublicWorksProgramme(EPWP),whowouldreportthesefigurestotheLabourDepartment.

(ii) Limitation

• Thesefiguresarenotreportedperproject,andhencecannotbeindicatedperproject.

Aspect Tenure

(i) Discussion There was limited consideration for 1 of the sample projects:


• The respondent reported back on this aspect jointly with title deeds. Refer to the title deeds aspect.

There was consideration for 21 of the sample projects:

o 19 x Limpopo:

• Records of signed “happy letters” are kept, which signs over the property to the beneficiary.Happylettersdoesnottrackinheritance,thusoriginalownersaredocumented.

o 2x Gauteng

• The Gauteng Department of Human Settlements (GDHS) only issues full ten-ure, which is the title deed. Historic tenure included 99 year ownership, but that is not in place anymore.

• Refer to Title deeds for further information.

• Title deeds registration are in progress for one of the projects; the other project is in a township which is not yet formalised, resulting in the province not being able to register title deeds, thus there is consideration for this, but cannot be done until the township is formalised.

Aspect Title Deeds

(i) Discussion There was consideration for 2 of the sample projects:


• Title deeds registration is in progress.

• Provincial Co-operative Governance, Human Settlements and Traditional Af-fairs (CoGHSTA) Unit deals with properties and registration hereof, and is the department that would report to the national department on this aspect.

Town planning departments don’t get involved with registrations of title deeds.

• 1x Gauteng

• Title deeds registration is in progress for one the projects in Gauteng (Ga-Ranku-wa); local municipalities are working on this aspect.

There was little to no information pertaining to 20 of the sample projects:

o 19 x Limpopo:

• Title deeds are not issued in rural areas.

o 1 x Gauteng

• The sample project is not a formalised township yet, hence title deeds cannot be considered yet.

• Gauteng has indicated that it is tackling backlogs of title deed registration.

(ii) Limitation

• In Gauteng, it was indicated that the process of title deeds registration has not yetbeencompleted,butisinprocess.Thusclarityontheprocessesandeffica-cythereofisnotclarified,thereforeitisnotknownhowlongtheprocesstakes,or when the process will be complete.





Aspect Local Resource Usewaste material used in buildings

(i) Discussion There was consideration for 19 of the sample projects:

o 19 x Limpopo:

• local (within the province) products were used, such as bricks and steel;

(ii) Limitation

• Itisnotdefinedwhattheboundaryof“local”is,noraretherequirementintermsof“local”resourceusedefinedi.e.mustwasteproductsusedinthedevelop-ment be from surrounding area building waste, does products include locally procured (within a certain km radius), or locally made products (within the town, province, country), etc.

Aspect UrbanisationDensification

(i) Discussion UrbanisationandDensificationin19ofthesampleprojectswerenotparticularlydocumented:

o 19 x Limpopo:

• Urbanisationratesareonlyindicatedforgreenfielddevelopmentinurbanareas,not in rural areas.

• Multiyear housing development plans capture the need and desirability per dis-trict in the province for urbanisation, which is compiled by the provincial depart-ments. This also informs the allocation model in the relevant municipalities.

• DensificationinLimpopoisonlyconsideredinurbanareas,notinthesampleddevelopments, which were all rural.

Therewasconsiderationfordensificationin1ofthesamples:


• The Compact City of Sol Plaatje strategy is considered by town planners to se-lecttheseinfillareas,butwouldnotbeinhousingdevelopmentreports.

• Densificationisdonetocombaturbansprawl.

• Since thissampleprojectwasan infilldevelopment, itmaybeassumed thattownplannersconsidered theneed fordensificationandhenceforthselectedthe sites upon which these projects’ houses were built.

Aspect IDPProvincial multiyear housing development plan (PHDP)

(i) Discussion In 20 of the sample projects, respondents indicated that IDPs were considered:

o 19 x Limpopo, 1 x Northern Cape:

• IDPs are done per municipality, and each municipal IDP has a housing chapter.

In 19 of the sample projects, respondents indicated a positive response toward completion of the PHDP:

o 19 x Limpopo:

• Multiyear housing development plans are developed and inform the IDPs; hous-ing developments would not take place if the developments are not captured in the plans.

Aspect Participation

(i) Discussion Participation was indicated for 20 of the sample projects:


• Stakeholder engagement and public participation was done for the project; whereby regular councillor meetings would be utilised to inform communities of the development.

o 19 x Limpopo:

• Stakeholder engagements were done by the local municipalities, not by the provincial department.

Aspect Funding

(i) Discussion Clarity on funding was provided for 1 of the sample projects:


• Built up areas is obtain funding through normal application processes.

• The majority of the projects are funded by CoGHSTA





Aspect Trees

(i) Discussion Indication was obtained that this was not considered for 20 of the sample projects:

o 19 x Limpopo:

• Trees are not planted in rural areas; only in urban areas;

• When planted, this is done on an ad-hoc basis.


• Trees get planted in developments. This is however not monitored.

Aspect Ceilings

(i) Discussion Indication was obtained that this was not considered for 19 of the sample projects:

o 19 x Limpopo:

• Ceilings were not installed in rural houses.

Indication was obtained that this was considered for 1 of the sample projects:


• Ceilings were included in housing designs.

Aspect Land acquisition

(i) Discussion No proof was obtained regarding land acquisition for any of the sample projects.

5 Conclusion and Recommendations

The chapter provides conclusions derived from the various activities undertaken during this study and to make recommendations regarding this evaluation study.

5.1 Conclusion

Conclusions to this study are grouped into various sections, including conclusions on policies, plans and programmes of the DHS and its inclusion of environmental considerations; a section on envi-ronmental impacts of human settlement developments, a section on intergovernmental relations and cooperativegovernanceandfinally,conclusionontheEIPindicators.

5.1.1 Conclusions regarding DHS and its inclusion of environmental considerations in Policies, Plans and Programmes

Theanswertothequestionofwhetherornotsufficientprovisioningismadeforenvironmentalcon-siderations within the reviewed DHS policies and programmes is not a straight forward response, since the reviewed DHS policies and publications address environmental considerations; however the level of depth, the quality, or extent of environmental consideration inclusion may be argued to require expanded contextualisation to meet the intention of the 2nd ed. EIP, which is directed by the requirementsspecifiedinChapter3ofNEMA.

This question may be answered from a literature review viewpoint, that provision is made for environ-mental considerations. However the effectiveness of the provisions made could not be adequately evaluated since the 2nd ed. EIP was published in 2009, and projects sampled during this period may have been approved prior to the publishing thereof. Thus DHS documents that were developed after the publishing of the 2nd ed. EIP may not have had an effect on the inclusion of environmental considerations in the implementation of DHS policies, plans and programmes and human settlement developments.

From the empirical study, the low response rate from stakeholders, and the level of environmental information provided by stakeholders who responded, was limited. A conclusion may be drawn that there is not adequate record keeping of environmental decision making in the implementation of DHS developments – which makes evaluation of actual consideration of environmental impacts during the developments, near impossible. There was however proof that there was a lack of environmental considerations during implementation (since some projects were exempt from environmental stud-ies),andotherprojectsprovidedindicationthattherewasconsideration;verifiabledocumentationofthis was however not obtained.

Based hereon, the conclusion is drawn that there may be adequate environmental considerations in DHS policies, plans, and programmes, however the inclusion thereof in developments lack record keepingandverifiabledata.Orthatthereisalackofenvironmentalconsiderationintheimplemen-





tation, which may point to a need for increased inclusion of environmental considerations in DHS policies, plans, and programmes.

Incontextofthisstudy,itisnoteworthythatspecificmentionismadeof“economicopportunities”andof “social amenities” in the Department’s mission. The mission also mentions “adequate housing”, and “sustainable” is mentioned in the Department’s vision; which is indicative that the concept of developing sustainably is fundamental to the Department. The focus areas listed also explicitly men-tioneconomicandsocialfactors.But,twoofthecomponentsofsustainabilityarespecificallyandexplicitly mentioned, which could lead to the “environmental” component of sustainability not being considered with equal importance as the other two components of sustainability. This is understand-ableasthedevelopmentofhumansettlementsmaybedescribedasafunctiontofulfilasocialneed,established and acquired by economic means, whereas environmental management is a function of aseparatedepartment.Specificmentioningofsocialandeconomiccomponents,withomissionofenvironmental components in the Vision, Mission, and Focus Areas, could be indicative of the level of consideration given to environmental elements in the DHS policies, plans, and programmes, as well as the level of consideration given thereto by implementing agencies and housing developers. These components should however not be considered in isolation from the functioning of other or-gans of state who are required to provide supporting services and developments to provide human settlements, thus requiring co-operative governance and good intergovernmental relations between the DHS and various other departments.

This points to the fourth element of sustainable development, which indicates that development should be based on good governance. The EIP is the tool implemented by the DEA to obtain support from other organs of state to report on their impacts on the environment, adherence to environmental legislation, and co-operative governance structures implemented to ensure co-operative environ-mental governance takes place. Thus, the DHS could consider elaborating on statements pointing to environmental considerations and related intergovernmental relations that are vital to ensuring delivery of sustainable human settlements of which development planning and implementation in-cluded cognisance of environmental, as well as social and economic components of sustainable development.

5.1.2 Conclusions regarding environmental impacts of human settlements development

Impacts to the environment (and related social impacts listed in environmental reports reviewed for the purposes of this study) are found to take place in the following themed groupings of the receiving environment.

Impact Theme Secondary Impact ThemeAir: Emissions - Equipment

Emissions - Waste DustEmissions - Fugitive

Biodiversity: Fauna & FloraAquatic BiodiversityHabitatEcosystem

Noise: NoiseSocial - Economy: EmploymentSocial - Health: Waste

LandWater

Social - Safety: CrimeInjury

Land: AgricultureEcosystemPollutionErosion

Visual: VisualWater: Pollution

Water ReserveEcosystemDisaster Risk

This indicates that DHS developments cause impacts to air, through emissions caused by equipment (including fugitive emissions), generation of waste and causes dust, affecting air quality. Impacts affectingbiodiversityincludeimpactsonfaunaandflora,aquaticlife,biodiversityimpactsingeneral(i.e. through degradation of various environmental components), habitat loss, and ecosystem func-tioning. Noise impacts are caused, and social impacts include employment, health impacts resultant from impacts to land, waste creation, water use and pollution, social safety impacts related to crime and injuries caused during developments and on construction sites. Impacts to land include loss of agricultural land, and ecosystems, pollution to land, and land erosion. Visual impacts may also be caused by developments. Impacts to water include pollution of water, use of water affecting water reserves,impactsonwaterbasedecosystems,anddisasterrisksrelatedtowater,suchasflooding.

Additional conclusions regarding impacts of human settlements are listed below:

• Many of the rural projects selected in the sample, such as those sampled in the Limpopo province, were exempt from environmental studies therefore environmental reports were unavailabletoreview.ThismakesitdifficulttoevaluatewhattheimpactoftheDHS’sdevel-opments was on the receiving environment.





• The EIP speaks to impacts within the construction and occupation phases of a development however, fromthefindings it isevident thatmanyoccupation impactsarenot taken intoconsiderationsuchastheefficientusageofwaterandenergy.Theseimpactswereseldomreported on as being considered or included in the consideration of a development.

• Impacts of human settlements development projects on the environment occur across all aspects of air, water, land, biodiversity, health and economy.

• The most frequent environmental impacts were water: water reserves, soil: soil pollution and biodiversity: ecosystem; thus these are the areas which should receive attention when definingco-operativeenvironmentalgovernanceprocedures;

• The most severe and high risk impacts are observed for biodiversity: biodiversity, biodiversi-ty:faunaandfloraandsoil:agriculture,thusthesearetheareaswhichshouldreceiveatten-tionwhendefiningcooperativeenvironmentalgovernanceprocedures.Despitetheimpactsoccurred, the development in itself provides better housing, which may potentially reduce the environmental impacts resulting from informal settlements i.e. a trade-off between the negative impacts to the environment and societal gain;

• Both frequency and risk rating determine where attention is needed, since an impact might not have a risk rating however, it might occur frequently which could have great impact on the environment cumulatively across various developments.

Fundamentally, environmental impact studies are crucial in order to prevent or minimise the impact of human settlements on the environment. Therefore, in accordance, with the relevant legislation, environmental impact studies must be undertaken.

5.1.3 Conclusion on intergovernmental relations and cooperative governance

• Many of the environmental impact themes were not considered in the selected samples’ development or design phases, thus impacts that could have been mitigated were not mit-igated or avoided, which in some cases leads to continued environmental impacts post construction. This might be because co-operative governance in terms of planning of sus-tainablehumansettlementsarenothighontheagendawhenplansandfinancialalloca-tionsaredefinedfornewhousingdevelopments;

• Co-operative governance and intergovernmental relations between different sectors, and spheres, such as relations between the housing development implementing entity and town planning, engineering, environmental departments and the local human settlement depart-ments are vague, or simply do not exist, or in some cases do exist, however the relations are poor, and hence co-operative governance does not prevail. This has major implications onthefinalhumansettlementproductdeliveredduetotheimpactsthatthehousingunit,or

entire settlement will continue to have on the environment through tenant’s use of natural resourcesandgenerationofeffluentandwaste. Ifproper intergovernmental relationsdonot exist, collaborative planning that may allow for the consideration and inclusion of many environmental impacts in planning phases, may be mitigated. Such intergovernmental rela-tionsare,insomecasesinfluenced,bythemisalignmentofpolicyorframeworktimeframesand budget timeframes, and non-corresponding targets between provincial and local level governments (e.g. provincial human settlement departments may have to meet targets of number of houses built, and has to meet this target, however targets are not aligned with lo-cal government spend on service delivery infrastructure expenditure for the selected sites);

• Manydepartmentsdidnotknowwhereinformationordataandprojectfileswerekeptorlocated for certain projects, nor would the various departments be able to identify relevant units, departments, and or individuals in other departments that might have the required in-formation, therefore revealing inadequate relation between different spheres of government and sectors; and

• Naming of human settlement development projects differ between departments (e.g. a site or development on the HSS database would have a name that is not traceable by town planning departments and vice versa). This makes co-operation and co-ordination between thesetwodepartmentsdifficult,andwouldlikewiseaffectanyotherdepartmentwhowouldbe required to engage on a project site.

5.1.4 Conclusion on EIP indicators

• Current EIP indicators that are used in the EIP may respond to the NEMA principles of sus-tainable development in which policies and programmes in the EIP should be evaluated;

• Current EIP indicators monitor general achievements of the goals of environmental man-agement,butnotthosespecifiedintheGuidelinesforEnvironmentalImplementationandManagement Plans, which aim to provide measurable indicators for co-operative gover-nance implemented to ensure co-operative environmental governance prevails, and that sustainable development takes place in which all relevant organs of state work together to promote such development;

• Current EIP indicators monitor impacts and do not measure the intergovernmental relation-ships that exists between different departments;

• Currentindicatorsarenotwelldefinedandarenot“monitorable”andthereforearedifficultto evaluate for compliance; and

• The parties, units, or departments responsible for ensuring consideration of the EIP indi-catorsare included inhumansettlementdevelopmentsarenotdefined, thus there isno





ownership thereof and no action to ensure such items are incorporated into developments.

5.2 Recommendations

Recommendations are made for each category, data capturing, co-operative governance and inter-governmental relations and EIP. These recommendations are made based on the requirement to review the effectiveness of the implementation of the 2nd ed. EIP, hence these recommendations may be considered if DHS decides that the indicators covered in the 2nd ed. EIP should be carried forward into revised EIPs.

5.2.1 Town Planning

The importance of design plays a major role in reducing the impacts incurred during and after devel-opment. Therefore, it is important to consider sustainable designs that responds and accommodates for building according to land.

a) Adequate space

o Adefinitionforadequatespaceshouldbeincludedandwhetherornotthisreferstoadequate space inside a house or adequate space surrounding the development (i.e. access to parks and open space where high rises and hotels are built).

o With reference to adequate space, reconsideration should take place to include this as an aspect of the EIP, because:

o It does not provide indication of how this relates to environmental impacts;

o It is not clear what the requirement is;

o It is not clear how and where this should be monitored; and

o If this isdefined, itmighthave tobedefinedperdifferentpolicy,plan,and/orpro-gramme.

b) Waste management

Wastemanagementservicescouldinfluenceenvironmentalhealthinacommunity,andifnotdone,could lead to unhealthy and dangerous environments. Providing recycling areas (or recycling sta-tions) in communities would provide platforms to reduce environmental impacts linked to waste and waste management, support the local municipal service delivery actions, and could provide a platformfromwhichtoeducatecommunitiesonthebenefitsandreasonsforrecycling.Recyclingstations could provide job creation opportunities, and reduce service delivery costs. Thus it should be seen as a good indicator to include in human settlements developments in which this depart-

ment could contribute to cooperative environmental governance. This does however require good cooperative planning structures and intergovernmental relations frameworks between the human settlement implementing department, the local human settlement department (if this is not the im-plementing department) and the local municipal town planners (to ensure adequate planning and space allocation for waste management) as well as the local municipal waste management service department.

c) Access to water

Access to water is a key aspect that could improve socio-environmental and economic conditions and hence is a good indicator to include in the EIP. To ensure that this aspect is considered in devel-opments and is monitored, the following should be considered:

o Accesstowatershouldhoweverbedefined(e.g.accesstoatapwithinahousehold,versus access to a tap within a stand, versus access to potable water in the area, etc.);definingthiswouldalsorequirespecifyingwhetherbore-holesareincludedinthedefinition.

o Definitionsshouldcorrespondtoexistingdefinitionsofaccesstowater(e.g.definitionsused in literature, this should be done to ensure consistency and avoid confusion of developers and implementing agencies when more than one standard for “access to water” is available).

5.2.2 Environmental aspects

a) Environmental sensitivities

Many of the samples’ respondents in this study’s timeline indicated that rural development projects were exempt from doing environmental studies. The reasons for this should be reviewed and great-er consideration for environmental impacts should be given since a degraded environment could contribute to a reduced quality of life; thus relevant environmental studies should be conducted for developments conducted by Human Settlements. Where thresholds for conducting environmental studies trigger the need to do environmental studies, such should not be overruled, or sites should not be exempted from environmental studies.

b) Marginal Land

Marginallandshouldbedefined.RespondentsfromtheLimpopoprovinceindicatedwhattheyhavedefinedasmarginallandandsubsequentlydonotdevelopinsuchareas.However,thereshouldbea uniform description of aspects that constitute marginal land.





c) Environmental management programme reports

o A further study similar to this study could be considered to review EMPr reports of various developments currently underway to gain insight into such impacts caused by physical construction phases, which may be used to augment, or verify the impact themes,categories,risksandfrequencyofimpactsidentifiedinthisstudy.

o These impacts should be used to evaluate where actions for cooperative governance are required to mitigate and avoid impacts.

d) Environmental awareness and public participation

o Environmental awareness could include various aspects, including awareness to con-struction staff, house plan designers, architects, consulting engineers, to promote better selection of materials, local selection of materials. This could also be given to construction companies to encourage improved environmental impact management duringtheconstructionphases;andlastly,tocommunitiesandbeneficiariestopro-videawarenessofenvironmentalimpactsrelatedtoenergyusageandefficiencies,energysourceselection(benefitsofelectricityversusburningbiomassinhomes),wa-terefficiencies,waterpollution,wastedisposal,aswellasthehealthimpactsrelatedto energy and water use.

o Environmental awareness could contribute greatly to environmental conditions in communities and could commence as part of a public participation process, thus such requirements could be included in DHS’s Terms of References for human settlement developments; however, DHS should consider developing the relevant materials to ensure the standard of awareness creation is adequate.

e) Specialist studies

o Specialist studies are important to be considered when developing. The following indicates a brief understanding of the importance of specialist studies and the require-ments for inclusion thereof in EIAs and BAs.

o Social impact studies would allow for investigation into the demographics of the ben-eficiariesandcommunities,whichwouldinformtheirabilitytopurchaseelectricityandwater, or afford the installation of such services to their homes (noting that some of theprojectsinthesampleindicatedthatbeneficiarieshavetopayforinstallationofconnection to services). Knowing the demographics should inform the energy and wa-ter installation requirements/needs of the community, since a poor community would default to energy sources that are cheaper or freely available as opposed to electric-ity, thus any hindrances to using cleaner energy sources should be planned for and prevented at planning stages.

o Cultural and social impact studies should link to public participation and environmen-tal awareness education or campaigns to educate residents of the health and environ-mental consequences of cultural and economic preferences of energy use.

o National air quality data is available which would provide indication of areas in which specificairqualitystudieswouldbebeneficialtodo.Ininstanceswhereairqualityisalreadylow,thisshouldinfluencedesignspecificationswithregardstoenergysupplyand appliances of the houses as the development should then be built with access to the necessary services to prevent use or burning of any biomass or material on site as an energy source as this would further reduce air quality in the area.

f) Waste monitoring

o The impact of waste and littering in the environment could result in cleaner natural environments, cleaner rivers and water sources (upon which the communities might depend) and resultantly in less health impacts related to the use of polluted water.

5.2.3 Engineering

The impacts that occur that alter the environment rapidly and in obvious ways relate to impacts brought about by the construction of human settlements. These impacts may be severe, and some may be negligible, and once construction is completed, the impact does not continue to occur. How-ever, although the impacts resulting from the resource usage of house tenants did not form part of environmental scan of this study (which reviewed environmental reports of human settlement devel-opments, listing potential and actual developmental impacts), the tenants will cause impacts on the environment through resource usage and waste creation. Thus, impacts from both the construction and occupation (after development has been completed) should be considered by the DHS because theplanningphasesmayincludespecificationsforhousefronting,andefficiencyoffittingstobein-stalled, which would reduce the resource use related impacts per unit for the lifespan of the installed fitting,whichwouldinfluencetheimpactofbothconstructionandoccupationphases.TheEIPdoesinclude addressing such impacts; in relation hereto, the following recommendations are made.

a)Adequate lighting, heating and ventilation, renewable energy, energy efficiencies,cost of energy and energy design standard:

o Allaboveitemsmustbedefinedtoensuremonitoringandevaluationthereofisprac-tical.

o The cost of energy affects household choice of energy source. Thus where DHS Policies,PlansandProgrammesallowforinstallationorspecificationofappliancesorlightinstallationstobemade,considerationshouldbegiventothemostefficientfittingsavailableforcommunitiesthatwouldbemostaffectedbyelectricityprices.





o Where cost of electricity is a material aspect for residents, i.e. affects their choice of energy source which could result in not buying electricity for heating and cooking purposes, to buying wood or other sources of biomass, it would result in reduced air quality, increased source Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions, and impact the health of the community; thus this should be seen as a key aspect (access to electricity, and access to clean, affordable energy) to include in housing developments and reporting on in the EIP.

o House design, material and front should be informed by green building standards and or other relevant and available building codes or standards to which DHS should refer in specifying housing design requirements. Such requirements should consider the South African climate, and should result in construction of houses that utilise natural environmental conditions for heating, ventilation, and lighting. This would reduce the need to purchase electricity (or burn biomass) for heating, cooling, and lighting pur-poses. Various standards are available to direct human settlements developments, thus DHS should evaluate which standards and sections of standards it could make practical and implementable reference to in housing design standards, such as SANS 10400SA.

o Settlement design should consider the location and layout of the land, and the land should inform the best layout and design of the settlement (consider the Red Book beingrevisedbytheCSIRforcontentthataddressthismatter(Napier,2017).

o Planning and monitoring of this aspect does require adequate co-operative gover-nance and intergovernmental relations between various spheres and departments, i.e. provincial and local town planners and engineering departments, as well as the electrical service provider departments to ensure aligning of budgets for housing de-velopment, bulk service delivery infrastructure development.

b) Adequate infrastructure: water and sanitation; access to services: sanitation and water

o A lack of adequate sanitation services will have direct impacts on the environment, affecting the quality of the environment, and probably affecting the water streams in the area and downstream communities who might be dependent on the water source. Thus, sanitation should be a high priority aspect to be included in the monitoring and reporting of impacts on the environment related to human settlement developments, and a viable aspect to report on in the EIP. This does require adequate co-operative governance and intergovernmental relations between various spheres and depart-ments, i.e. provincial and local town planners and engineering departments, as well as the water and sanitation departments to ensure aligning of budgets for housing

development, bulk service delivery infrastructure development, and ability to service new built infrastructure.

o Inclusions of environmental considerations in DHS policies, plans and programmes shouldincludesufficientinformationfromwhichimplementationmayfollow,andwhichmay allow for adequate monitoring and evaluation, which provides meaningful and verifiabledata;yet,prescriptionsshouldbelenienttochangeoralterationstoallowfor adaptation where required; e.g.

o Urban management of the developed settlements could contribute to reduced or mit-igated environmental impacts. Municipal service delivery and future service delivery plansshouldbeabletoinfluencehouseandsettlementplans,toallowthelocalgov-ernment sphere to plan for, and manage impacts before they occur. This is seen as vital since a municipality would be responsible for service delivery of energy, water, sewerage, waste removal, etc. as well as report on carbon emissions related to their activities in future. Where municipalities engage the housing implementing agency, considerations should be raised related to these aspects, and housing and settlement plans be revised where necessary. E.g. planning for the development of a waste sep-aration areas within a settlement to which residents could take waste for separation and recycling even if the municipality or private contractors do not offer such sepa-rated waste collection services yet, such services would highly likely be available in future. Such proactive planning could lead to quicker introduction of waste separation, jobcreation,andreducefinancialandhumanresourceburdensrelatedtowastere-moval services.

o Financialprovisioningforefficientwaterfittingsasopposedtostandardfittingsmaybe regarded as an unnecessary expensive item, however, will in the long run, allow the household to reduce monthly expenditure and improve their quality of life if less water is used, and less money is spent on water. This will have a positive effect on the residential sector’s share of water used in the country. Based on the reasoning thathousingbudgetsmaynotalwaysallowforinstallationofmoreexpensivefittings,specificationsforsuchefficientfittingsshouldbereferredtoasaguideline,however,itshouldbeconsideredthatefficientfittingsisanon-negotiableitemtobeinstalledinhouses situated in water scarce areas regardless of cost. This, once again, requires close co-operation with other organs of state and entities, such as DWA, local govern-ments, and already published standards. DHS should not repeat standards’ content in their own documents without making reference to the standard and date of the standard to ensure that the most relevant and updated standards are used. To avoid confusion,itisrecommendedthatnonewstandard(e.g.fortapflowrates)shouldbepublished in a DHS document if standards in already exist (such as in the Red Book, or DWA documents).





c) Access to electricity

o Access to electricity influences energy use for heating, cooking and lighting.Withno access to electricity, residents would have to rely on burning fuel sources on site, which causes direct emissions. Use of such energy could be more energy intense in generatingtherequiredamountofenergy,andcouldbedonewithoutenergyefficien-cyconsiderations. Inefficiencies increaseunnecessaryemissions,whichhasdirectimpacts on health and air quality in the area. Thus, reducing housing development Polices, Plans and Programmes in which electricity is not provided is recommended.

5.2.4 Human Settlements

a) Woman workforce: youth and woman workforce

o Thisprovidesagoodindicationofworkcreatedforadiversifiedworkforce,howevershould be reconsidered for inclusion in the EIP since this is an aspect that gets mon-itored and reported at various other reporting requirements of government, and does not report on impacts on the environment.

b) Tenure

o This provides a good indication of tenure, which could support land ownership and management transformation which could be required to ensure sustainable develop-mentofbuiltupareas,especiallyasruralstructuresoftenureinfluencetheabilityofmunicipalities to integrate these areas into formalised town planning structures and service delivery. However this aspect could receive reconsideration for practicalities and relevancy of inclusion into the EIP.

c) Title deeds

o Consider the processes related to title deed registration, the governance structures required and in place to ensure a well-functioning unit and structures between spheres of government.

o Consider the tenure and title deeds in rural areas, based on the comments made by Limpopo.Considertheinfluenceofthisoncreatingsustainablesocietiesinachang-ing world (potentially changing from rural to urban, or the reliance of the rural areas on theurbanareas)andsustainablehumansettlements,thebenefitsanddisadvantagesto various options of tenure and title deed registration, whilst considering traditional authorities and their structures.

o See recommendation under Tenure, and apply the same considerations for inclusion in the EIP.

d) Land resource use; waste material used in buildings

o Using local labour contributes to employment rates, and if local employees from the beneficiarycommunity isused, itcoulddevelopskillsand improveemployabilityofthe community in the future, which is a good matter to report on as it contributes to sustainable development. Thus, the EIP could state that this should be monitored to contribute to sustainable development, and could state where, and how this is tracked and reported. However this does not track governance and protection, or managing impacts on the environment.

o Using locally sourced waste materials, or other building materials in the developments also contribute to sustainable development and development of circular economies; howevertheaspectrequirementsarenotdefinedwellenough,norisrecordkeepingof such activities practical for many developments; thus including comment on this aspect in the EIP should be reconsidered.

e)Urbanisation:densification

o Urbanisation is key aspect to address and plan for in the development of sustainable cities, likewise isdensification.Densificationwillcontribute toeasier,morecostef-fectiveservicedelivery,however thequantifiablemeansbywhichdensificationwillcontribute to an improved environment and improved environmental management, wouldbedifficulttodoatpresent(consideringcurrentlevelsofdataandinformationcapturing). This is an aspect that is planned for by town planning units and should be monitored and reported by those units, thus, it should be monitored at present. This leads to the notion that inclusion of this aspect in the EIP should be reconsidered.

f) IDP-Provincial multiyear housing development plan (PHDP)

o For development to take place, it should be included in the IDPs. Thus, it should be reconsidered whether or not reporting on this aspect is required within the EIP.

g) Participation

o Theextentandcontentofpublicparticipationarenotdefined,andnotspecifiedwhatshouldbeacknowledgedassufficientoradequateengagement.This isapointofuncertainty as environmental processes also require public participation.

h) Trees

o Itisnotclearlyspecifiedwhattherequirementis;anditwouldbedifficulttodosodueto the varieties of policies, plans, and projects of the DHS. Thus if a requirement were





tobespecified, itmighthavetobespecifiedperproject type,whichwouldrequireadditionalfundingtoberingfencedspecificallyforthisaspect.Basedonresponsefrom Northern Cape, indicating that this aspect is not monitored, and based on com-ment by Gauteng, who indicated that they don’t know details about tree planting, as this gets done by the parks department, it should be reconsidered whether or not this aspect should be included in the EIP as something to be monitored by human settle-ments. Planting of trees does contribute to a better environment, however monitoring and reporting hereon requires engagement cooperation with parks departments who would be better suited to ensure this aspect gets done, and that the this is maintained and growing in future (after human settlements departments are not done with the project).

i) Ceilings

o Installation of ceilings benefits residents as it provides better insulation,which re-duces the need for heating and cooling in the house. Where heating and cooling is needed, the residents would have to pay for electricity or other energy source to do so,whichinfluencesthepercentageof incomespentonthisaspect. If thisheatingrequired, it could result in residents reverting to burning of biomass indoors, which results in poor air quality, and resultant health impacts. Thus, installation of ceilings is a very relevant indicator and aspect to include in buildings sustainable human settle-ments. For this reason it should be considered as a vital aspect to include in human settlement developments, and key aspect to monitor as part of the EIP.

5.2.5 Recommendations for inclusion of environmental considerations in DHS Policies, Plans and Programmes

o The EIP should allow for consideration of other impacts from sectors which will have an impact on the environment such as:

o Densification;

o Energyefficiency;

o Waterefficiency;

o Access to open/ green space; and

o Disposal of waste and adequate water and sanitation.

o These aspects fall under various departments and it is acknowledged that DHS does nothavesufficientresourcestoensuretheseaspectsaretakenintoconsideration.

Therefore, relations need to be built between DHS and other sectors and departments such as engineering, town planning and environmental to ensure consideration of the environment is taken account during a development.

5.2.6 Recommendations for Co-operative governance and intergovernmental relations

o Thereisinsufficientconsiderationofoccupationphaseimpacts,whichrevealstheim-portance of inter-governmental relations between different sectors and departments to ensure that a human settlements development is sustainable and adheres to the conditions and requirements established in the EIP.

o Chapter 3 of the constitution indicates that all spheres of government should secure the well-being of the residents of South Africa. This can be achieved through co-oper-ative governance.

o It is recommended that co-ordination between government spheres is improved to ensure minimised duplications of tasks allowing for increased quality of work to be produced.

o Through the distinction of roles and responsibilities of different departments across all threespheres,thiswillimproveefficienciesinestablishingthecustodiansofEIPsandother documents and reports pertaining to Human Settlement development projects.

o The distinction of roles and responsibilities will allow for the designation of a particular departmenttocapturespecificdata,allowingforimproveddatacapturingprocessesandefficiencieswhichwillallowforeasyaccesstowheredocumentsandreportsarestored on databases.

5.2.7 Recommendations for EIP indicators

o The EIP indicators should respond to the Guidelines for Environmental Implementa-tion and Management Plans (Draft 3rd edition);

o Current EIP indicators monitor impacts and do not measure the intergovernmental relationships that exists between different departments.

o Indicators need to be included in the EIP that will allow for the monitoring of coopera-tive governance and how well structures within government perform and relate to one another.

o Indicators should aim to assist DEA in ensuring cooperative environmental gover-nance is achieved, thus it should indicate, for each environmental aspect impacted,





with which departments or units of which spheres of government relations and gover-nance structures or agreements will be made to ensure legal environmental compli-ance, as well as proper consideration and management of the impacts caused. Such governance structures and arrangements should preferably also provide indication if the reporting on environmental compliance, environmental impacts, and management thereof could result in qualitative or quantitative reporting results.

o Termsandrequirementsshouldbeelaboratedonandproperlydefined,allowingus-ers and stakeholders to understand the requirements of the EIP;

o Section 3 and 4 of the EIP contain most of the themes found in environmental reports except for Noise and Visual. However, noise and visual impacts have a low frequency and low impact when developing and are therefore not regarded as serious impacts to look for when developing. However, these impacts should be taken into consideration when developing as cumulatively they could have a great impact over time.

5.3 Limitationsofthestudyfindings

Housing and human settlement developments implemented by the Department of Human Settle-ments, through their various policies, plans, and programmes ultimately provide better living condi-tionsandimprovethequalityoflifeforthebeneficiariesthereof.Thisstudydoesnotcomparethenetgainorlosseffecttotheenvironmentresultantfromresettlingabeneficiaryfromaninformalset-tlement or informal house or shelter, into a formal settlement and a built house. Informal settlement dwellers may have more direct impacts on the environment. For example, informal settlements that do not have access to services would cause direct impacts through direct sewage and waste dispos-al to land and water bodies. Thus resettling and providing formal settlements to citizens of informal settlements, may lead to an overall reduced environmental impact.

6 References

AFIDEP and PAI. 2012. “Population, Climate Change, and Sustainable Development in Kenya”, Nairobi and Washington, DC: African Institute for Development Policy (AFIDEP) and Population Action International (PAI).

Bhattacherjee, A. 2012. Social Science Research: Principles, Methods, and Practices”. Textbooks Collection. Book 3. Available from: http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/oa_textbooks/3 [Accessed: May 2016].

BusinessDirectory,2016.DefinitionforEconomicSustainability.Availablefrom:http://www.busi-nessdictionary.com/definition/economic-sustainability.html.[Accessed:27May2016].

CER(CentreforEnvironmentalRights).2014.Appendix7:EnvironmentalAuditReport.Availablefrom:https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Appendix_7_Environmental_Audit_Report_.pdf[Accessed12December2017].

CEAA (Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency). 2016. Glossary: Part 2. Explanations of Terms. Available from: https://www.ceaa.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=B7CA7139-1&offset=3[Accessed19December2017].

DEA (Department of Environmental Affairs). 2016. 2nd South Africa Environment Outlook for 2012. A report on the state of the environment: Chapter 5: Human Settlements. Department of EnvironmentalAffairs,Pretoria,SouthAfrica.328pp.ISNB978-0-621-44171-0.

DEAT (Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism). 2004. Overview of Integrated Environ-mental Management, Integrated Environmental Management, Information Series 0. Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. Pretoria.

DHS (Department of Human Settlements), 2004. “Breaking New Ground” A comprehensive plan for the development of sustainable human settlements, 1-29.

DHS (Department of Human Settlements). 2009. Second Edition Environmental Implementation Plan (EIP), Notice 328 of 2009, Government Gazette 32056,3-42.

DHS(DepartmentofHumanSettlements),2009a.TheNationalHousingCode,SimplifiedGuideto the National Housing Code, Vol 1.

Dept. of Human Settlements. 2010. Monitoring, evaluation and impact assessment (MEIA) policy & implementation framework for the human settlements sector. Pretoria.

DHS (Department of Human Settlements), 2015. Environmental Implementation Plan (EIP) 2015-2020, Notice No. 1540 of 1999, Government Gazette 19519, 1-42.

Environmental Resource Management. 2014. Burgan Cape Terminals EMPr. Annex K: Environ-mental Management Programme. Available from: http://www.sahra.org.za/sahris/sites/default/files/additionaldocs/Annex%20K%20EMPr_v6.0_combined.pdf[Accessed12December2017].





Enviropedia.(2007).EnvironmentalImpactAssessment(EIA).Availablefrom:http://www.enviro-paedia.com/topic/default.php?topic_id=92[Accessed12December2017].

KZNDHS (KwaZulu-Natal Department of Human Settlements). 2004. Technical Guidelines, Part B: Technical provisions. Available from: http://www.kzndhs.gov.za/Uploads/documents/Resource_Centre/Legislation/National_Policies/Technical%20Guidelines%20KZN%202.pdf [Accessed May 2016].

McKenzie,S.(2004).Socialsustainability:Towardssomedefinitions.WorkingpaperseriesNo.27.Magill,Australia:UniversityofSouthAustralia,HawkeResearchInstitute.

Morelli,J.,2011.EnvironmentalSustainability:ADefinitionforEnvironmentalProfessionals,Jour-nal of Environmental Sustainability, Vol 1(1), 1-10.

Mutinta, G., 2013. An introduction to qualitative research. Non probability sampling methods. Presented at the Postgraduate research seminar for the School of management, information technology and governance. http://smitg.ukzn.ac.za/Libraries/General_Docs/Non-Probabili-ty-Sampling-Methods.sflb.ashxDateofaccess:24Aug.2016.[PowerPointpresentation]

Napier,M.2017.Evaluationoftheimpactofhumansettlementsdevelopmentprogrammesontheenvironment [Project Steering Committee 2nd meeting]. 15 Nov., Pretoria.

Newton P., J. Flood, M. Berry, K. Bhatia, S. Brown, A. Cabelli, J. Gomboso J. Higgins, T. Richard-son & V. Ritchie (1998) Environmental indicators for national state of the environment reporting – Human Settlements, Australia: State of the Environment (Environmental Indicator Reports), Department of the Environment, Canberra.

Rosly, D., 2012. Sustainable development: an overview. Advancing the sustainable development agenda through aligning Malaysia plans and policies. National consultation workshop United Na-tions conference on sustainable development 2012.

Singeni,D.2017.Evaluationoftheimpactofhumansettlementsdevelopmentprogrammesonthe environment [Project Steering Committee 2nd meeting]. 15 Nov., Pretoria.

Sisulu,L.2016.MinisterLindiweSisulu:HumanSettlementsDepartmentBudgetVote2016/17.3May 2016. South African Government. Available from: http://www.gov.za/speeches/minister-lindi-we-sisulu-human-settlements-dept-budget-vote-201617-3-may-2016-0000 [Accessed: 27 May2016].

South Africa. 1994. Department of Housing White Paper: A new housing policy and strategy for South Africa.

South Africa. 1996. Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act No. 108 of 1996.

SouthAfrica.1997.HousingAct107of1997.

SouthAfrica.1998.NationalEnvironmentalManagementActNo107of1998,Vol401,No.19519.

South Africa. 2004. National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act No. 10 of 2004.

South Africa. 2009. Department of Human Settlements Second Edition Environmental Implemen-tation Plan (EIP), Notice 328 of 2009, Government Gazette 32056,3-42.

South Africa. 2012. The National Planning Commission, the National Development Plan 2030 -OurFuture-makeitwork.Availablefrom:https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/NDP-2030-Our-future-make-it-work_r.pdf

[Accessed: May 2016].

SouthAfrica.2014.SpatialPlanningandLandUseManagementAct.ActNo.16of2013.Vol578.No.36730.

South Africa. 2015. Department of Human Settlements Environmental Implementation Plan (EIP) 2015 – 2020. (Notice 880). Government Gazette, 39164:4, 3 Sept.

Sutton, P. 2014. A perspective on environmental sustainability. A paper for the Victorian Com-missioner for Environmental Sustainability. Available from: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/aacd/abdda3eb99fd3e033af4bf615b55493d48ec.pdf[Accessed27May2016].

Tustin, H., Ligthelm, A.A., Martins, J.H. & Van Wyk, H de J., 2005. Marketing research in practice. Pretoria: Unisa Press.

UN(UnitedNations).Nodate(n.d.).Humansettlementcountryprofile:SouthAfrica.Availablefrom http://www.un.org/esa/agenda21/natlinfo/countr/safrica/human_settlements.pdf [Accessed May 2016].

UN (United Nations). 1996. United Nations, General Assembly, The Habitat Agenda, Chapter IV B. Adequate shelter for all. A/165/14. Available from http://www.un-documents.net/ha-4b.htm [Accessed May 2016].

Woodcraft, S., Bacon, N., Caistor-Arendar, L., Hackett, T., and Hall, P., 2012. Design for social sustainability:Aframeworkforcreatingthrivingcommunities.SocialLife.ISBN978-0-9576959-0-0.





AppendixA-Qualitativefindings

Appendix A provides details on the projects selected for the sample and the information obtained for the samples. This is represented per province. Each province’s section is introduced with a table pro-viding an overview of the projects selected as part of the sample, followed by a table with category specificquestionsandanswersorcommentsforeachsampleproject.

Thefirst table includeoverviewsof responsesandanswers to thebroadcategories in theques-tionnaire, namely town planning, environmental, engineering, and human settlements categories). These overviews usually consist of comments and answers to questions obtained from provincial officials,whereresponsesandanswerswouldberelevanttoallsampleprojectswithintheprovince.

The tables that follow, are completed per sample project. These tables provide the detailed ques-tions and comments or answers thereto for each of the categories (town planning, environmental, engineering, and human settlements). In some instances, the study team were not able to obtain any informationforaspecificsample,wherethisoccur,atableforthatspecificsampleisnotincludedinthe appendix.

1. Gauteng data collection

The projects sampled for the province is indicated below. The table includes results or answers to questions that were applicable to all sample projects within the province (i.e. where the provincial departments provided responses that would be applicable to all their projects, or to all of the projects in the sample).

Table 27: Gauteng sample projects overview

PROVINCE GAUTENGLocal Municipality Project sample: City of Joburg City Of Tshwane

Project 1 Project 2 Project 3 Project 1Project Description 3 D Weilersfarm (Kanana Park Ext.2) Gamont 3 D Rabie Ridge Ext.4 & 5 3 D Ivory Park (nyda) 3 D Ga-rankuwa Unit 24 (top structure)ID Feb04281 Feb04238 Feb04131 Feb05101Project Number G13060001 G98120395 G10070002 G11050004Project Type Essential Services Project Essential Services Project Essential Services Project Essential Services ProjectMagisterial District Johannesburg Southern MSS Midrand MSS Johannesburg Eastern MSS Tshwane TLCLocal Authority City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Council City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Council City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Council City of Tshwane Metropolitan CouncilGIS Town Ennerdale Midrand Midrand Ga-RankuwaGIS Suburb Kanana Rabie Ridge Ivory Park Ga-rankuwa Unit 24PSI.LatDegPSI.LongDegProject Completed Completed Completed Completed CompletedYear Completed 2014 2013 2012 2013Planned Units 597 100 100 1527Numberofbeneficiaries 538 1537Houses Completed 490 76Data CollectionTownship application/Develop-ment done under which act?

Less Formal Township Act

Project information/data keeper (owner) (Provincial/Local?)

Province Province Not Available Various

Owning department (indicate here if all info is kept by the same dept., if not, complete below lines re: owning department)

GautengDepartmentofHousing,Headoffice GautengDepartmentofHousing,Headoffice Not available Project Management Unit: Department of Housing and Settlements; City of TshwaneTown Planning unit, Department of Housing and Settlements, City of TshwaneProject Implementation Unit, Gauteng Department of Housing,RegionalOffice:CityofTshwane

ASPECT:Town Planning information Obtained Obtained LimitedEnvironmental Report information No Pending NoEngineering Reports information No Pending NoHuman settlement information Obtained: title deeds Obtained: title deeds Obtained: title deeds Obtained: title deeds






Project 1 Project 2 Project 3 Project 1Project Description 3 D Weilersfarm (Kanana Park Ext.2) Gamont 3 D Rabie Ridge Ext.4 & 5 3 D Ivory Park (nyda) 3 D Ga-rankuwa Unit 24 (top structure)

FINDINGS APPLICABLE TO GAUTENG SAMPLE PROJECTSTown Planning information Comment from Local Municipality: Regarding Land use

• Landuserights,areappliedfor,whendevelopmentistobedoneon(e.g.)agriculturalland(greenfield/openlandnotinbuiltuparea),whichrequiresrezoningoftheland.• In the process of land use rights, the application is circulated to internal and external parties to comment on.Change of landuse is tackled from:• Environmental, for authorisation• Town planning. The two processes can run concurrently.• Townplanningcanapprovethetownship,butstatethatapprovalisdependentonenvironmentalauthorisation.TownplannerswillnothaveenvironmentalreportsintheMasterfile.Townplannersdo

notseetheenvironmentalscopingreport,thiswillbedonebythemunicipalities’environmentaldepartment.Themunicipalenvironmentaldepartmentwillonlyprovidefinaldecisiontotheplanningdepartmentonabilitytoproceedornottoproceed.ReportssuchasEnvironmental,traffic,OSR,social,shouldaccompanythetownshipapplication.

Environmental Report informationEngineering Reports informationHuman settlement informationTitle deedsInformation obtained from Moses Cele, Director: GDHS: Title Deeds.

Ronnie Stevens, Pensioner and former GDHS Deputy Director: Title Deeds

Rajesh Seukumar: GDHS Assistant Dir.: Title Deeds.

Challenges are as is deduced by the service provider based on interactions with stakeholders.

Co-operative governance and intergovernmental relations• Provincial steering committee includes municipal to provincial level governments at which province interacts with local municipalities on title deeds practices. • The second steering committee is the Provincial Steering Committee on Title deed registration.• The Third is the National Steering Committee, the DG of National HS, chairs the meeting, else, in his/her absence, it is chaired by the estate agencies board. All nine provinces discuss progress with

achieving targets of title deed registration..Targets for Title Deeds:• Provincialtargetsaredefinedfortitledeeds;intheprovincialGDHSbusinessplan;• Province works together with local municipalities to reach the targets.General challenges with regards to title deeds: • Registered land: For title deeds to be issued, land must be registered. Formal township establishment can only take place if land is registered. Once land is registered, the projects can be assigned for

development.Oncedevelopmentisdone,thebeneficiariescanbegiventhetitledeeds.Historyindicatesthathouseswerebuiltwithoutlandbeingregistered,andthusmightalsolackformaltownshipestablishment, due to various reasons, potentially including political reasons. Where such houses are built, title deeds cannot be issued due to land not being registered.

• Backlog: There is a backlog of such projects where houses have been built on land that is not registered land. This land needs to be registered and title deeds to be issued; however the focus is currently on ensuring future projects are being done correctly, registered, and title deeds issued, rather than focussing resources on the backlog.

• Beneficiaries:Inmanyinstances,theoriginalbeneficiaries(legalowners)ofthehouses,donotliveinthehouse,andhousesarenowoccupiedbytheillegalowner.Tracingthelegalownertorectifyprocesses and issue title deeds for land that got registered post development becomes challenging.

• HSS Database: • Record of the title deeds is immediately updated on the HSS National database system; however this might not be done for backlog projects, or for projects where legal owners do not occupy the

house.• Staff is currently being sent for training to use the HSS system, to log information regarding title deeds. So moving forward, the HSS system would be in place to do this where historic projects’

information might not have been captured.• ProvinceupdatestheHSSsystemforlocalmunicipaldevelopmentsaslocalarenotaccreditedtofulfilcertainfunctions.Metro’shaveHSSunits,localmunicipalitiesdon’thaveHSSunits.Cityof

Tshwane still currently sends their information to Regional GDHS to update the HSS system, however metro’s were not accredited to do this between 2009-2014. Thus province would do all data capturing.

• The HSS unit at GDHS is within the Ground Management, Finance Department, who captures data and project titles on the HSS system. They capture it as the Human Settlements staff provide project names to them, and do not necessarily include all information in the name as the Town Planners capture township application names.

• Interaction with Local Municipal Town planning:• Municipalitiesshouldupdatetheirdatabasesystemsofwhotheowners/titledeedsownersare.ThisshouldbedoneontheLIS(LocalInformationSystem–thisnameisnotverified,GDHS

believes this is the potential name for local municipal data base systems).• Provincedoesnotinformlocalmunicipalitieswhentitledeedsaredone,butProvincehandsoverTitledeedsregistrationtothem-howeverLocalwillusedeedsofficetoupdatetheirsystem.• Conveyancers are appointed to conduct registration of title deeds. From the conveyancers, documentation are sent back to Province, which will be distributed to respective municipalities, however

itisbelievedthatthelocalmunicipalitieswillconsulttheDeedsofficefortitledeedstoupdatetheirdatabasesystems.






Project 1 Project 2 Project 3 Project 1Project Description 3 D Weilersfarm (Kanana Park Ext.2) Gamont 3 D Rabie Ridge Ext.4 & 5 3 D Ivory Park (nyda) 3 D Ga-rankuwa Unit 24 (top structure)

FINDINGS APPLICABLE TO GAUTENG SAMPLE PROJECTSWoman, youth and disabled persons in the workforce

Trudy Malebye –GDHS :Dir. Sector Development Support.

Regarding Woman, youth and disabled persons in the workforce, the following information was obtained:• 30% of housing budget allocated for woman owned projects; and

• 30% applies to the HSDG budget.

• Data for the % of housing budget that must be allocated to woman owned projects are captured per year, not per project, thus this indicator cannot be tracked per project.

- TheexampleofFY2014/04-2015/03OperationalReportindicatesthefollowingfigures,whichimplythatthetargetwasnotmetduringthisyear,alsonotethatthesepercentagesarenot housing construction indication of work given to projects, but any suppliers.

- % of the budget allocated for the year, not per project, was 20%.

- % of the budget given to Youth was 19%,

- % given to people with disabilities, was 1.4%;

- SAWIC(SAWomaninConstruction)contractswereonlysignedinthelastfinancialyear2016-2017,whichisthebiggestvalueagreedto,todate,betweenGDHSandSAWIC. This is not the only organisation through which contracts are provided to woman. (240 mil for multi year project was allocated. Annual budget for housing is 5Billion) . These types of contracts, and contract values will be increasing in future.

Regarding job creation:• Information was not readily available regarding youth woman, and disabled workers component of the temporary workers requirement mentioned in the EIP. It had yet to be established if such

information is captured per project.

• 2008-2014 report

Regarding Data Capturing:• For Woman, Youth, and Disabled persons in the work force:

- Information required for this is captured by the Reporting Unit, and Supply Chain, not by Sector Development Support, however this information is provided to Sector Development Support.

- Job Creation is reported to 3 department in Gauteng: Nationally, to the department of Public Works, in Gauteng this is the Department of Infrastructure’s Extended Public Works Programme (EPWP);

InGDHSisaspecificunitreportingtoDepartmentofInfrastructureregardingwoman,youth,peoplewithdisabilities(jobcreation,training,localpeople).Thesepercentagesareconveyed

to contractors stating the % of workforce demographics required. Temporary work to woman, youth, and disabled persons are monitored by this unit. The challenges faced by provincial departments in meeting their requirements includes that contractors employ non-South African residents; which may not be counted as jobs created.

GautengDepartmentofEconomicDevelopmentgaveatargetthat15000jobsshouldbecreated,thistargetdoesnotincludespecifictargetsforwoman,youth,disabledpeoplewithinthe

target.

OfficeofTsepo-1million:areportiscompiledandsubmittedtothisunitonpermanentjobscreatedonly(permanentjobsaredefinedassomeoneemployedandworkingfor

12 months or more).

Regarding intergovernmental relations in between Province and Local Municipalities:• GDHS will identify land where it wants to build houses, and build there;

• Local municipalities might not have planned to provide for development of bulk services to that area in the same term of their IDP in which the provincial department wants to develop;

• This creates misalignment of development plans, and unnecessary expenses, for e.g. if the provincial department starts developing prior to bulk services, the title deeds cannot be handed over and housing projects cannot be completed; alternatively, municipalities cannot provide bulk services to open land before it is known when development will take place, since vacant land with bulk services installed attracts crime (stealing and damaging of infrastructure, and illegal connections); which require security expenses to protect such services.

• Thus alignment of IDPs from province to Local level governments must be improved.





GAUTENG Sample Project Detailed Data Collection

This section contains detail for each of the projects for which data or information was available.

Gauteng: City of Johannesburg: Project 1: Weilers Farm, Kanana Park

The DHS database does not capture the township application names exactly the same as town plan-ners use when doing town ship applications (or vice versa), which renders it an inappropriate name which to use when tracking information related to town planning aspects.

Gauteng: City of Johannesburg: Project 1: Weilers Farm, Kanana ParkOSRPDRDDR

Outline scheme report (engineering reports)Preliminary design Report (engineering report)Detailed Design Report

EIA – Environmental Impact AssessmentBA – Basic AssessmentEMPr – Environmental Management Programme Report (aka :Environmental Management Plan)

EIP indicator #

GENERAL INFORMATION ENQUIRY RESPONSES:

NHBRC Is a NHBRC report available regarding this project?

Builders inspection report

Is such a report available regarding this project?

Line Nr # REPORTS: TOWN PLANNING REPORTSAspect Potential report

containing content:Question Name actual report in

which this info is?Comment/Answer

GPS Coordinates • The DHS database did not capture GPS coordinates for the project.• The DHS database captured the project as being in GIS Town: Ennerdale. • However CoJ Ennerdale specialist indicated that this project does not fall under him. Map

research indicated that the project falls under Kanana Park, which has its own specialist. • Thus the database logs the GIS town does not correspond to GIS Town indications used

by town planners, or the database was compiled incorrectly by DHS.3.4.2.1 Adequate space Township application What/howisspacedefined?3.4.2.5 Health ? Is there health facility in surrounding

townships?3.4.2.73.4.2.8.7(see Environmental)

Waste Planning for waste recycling in the area

Township application The township application document should be circulated to local gov. waste management dept. who should comment on it. Did they?

3.4.2.8.1 Land use Township application Was land use considered?Was land rezoned?

3.4.2.9. Access to Natural Environment

Township application Do plans indicate locality to green/open space?

Access to services: Food

Township application Do plans indicate location in relation to shops?





Line Nr # REPORTS: TOWN PLANNING REPORTSAspect Potential report



4.3.2(see Engineering)

Access to services: Water

Township application OSR reports (Engineering - water & sanitation)

Are records kept of houses without access to clean drinking water

Letter Johannesburg Water (JW) to Bigen Africa• Comment from JW indicates that adequate water services are provided for the

development

Sanitation Township application OSR reports (Engineering – water & sanitation)

Are records kept of houses without access to sanitation

Letter Johannesburg Water (JW) to Bigen Africa• Comment from JW indicates that adequate sanitation services are provided for the

development

Electricity Township application OSR reports (Engineering & electricity)

Are records kept of houses without access to electricity

4.1.3 Densification Township application4.1.2 (see HS documents)

Title Deeds Township application

3.5.1 Any sensitivities? Environmental Scoping Report

Was this done?

3.1.23.5.1

Marginal land(slopes,floodplain,rivers)


Is the settlement built on such?Was any mention of such info prior to housing development?Did an alternative site have to be sought?

3.2.1 Geotechnical studies Was this done?3.2.1 Environmental

Management Programme (EMPr)

Was this done?

3.3.2 Environmental Awareness/education

EMPr (during construction). Other?

Was awareness raised/educated through knowledge sharing?

3.2.1 3.5.1


Which were done?

3.3.1 Public Participation EIA, BA Was Public Participation done?3.4.1 Culture EIA, BA

Social impact reportAre Cultural considerations included?

3.4.2.7See town plan)3.4.2.8.7

Waste EMPr Is construction waste mentioned

3.4.2.8.43.5.2

Hazardous environment

Scoping EIA / BA

Any indication of site containing / located close to Hazardous environment?

3.4.2.8.53.5.1


Scoping EIA / BA Do reports indicate control and prevention hereof?

3.4.2.8.63.4.2.9.1


Scoping EIA / BA Anyspecificstudiesdone,ormentionofambient air quality?

4.4.8 Water pollution Scoping EIA / BA Social impact

Anyspecificstudiesdone,ormentionofwater quality in the area?Nr of water borne diseases in the area?

4.4.6 Electricity Social impact study Any indication of the affordability of electricity to residents?






Line Nr # REPORTS: ENGINEERING REPORTSAspect Potential report



3.4.2.3 Adequate lighting Engineering: Mechanical Design report (at Detail Design Stage)

Are any light included in design?• electric?• natural?

3.4.2.3 Heating & Ventilation Engineering: Mechanical Design report (at Detail Design Stage)


3.4.2.6 Adequate infrastructure: Water & Sanitation


Was this included in the report (if any report)?Any indication that this was concluded after the development?

3.4.2.8.2 Renewables usage OSR - electricity / energyPDR - electricity / energy

Does the PDR specify the renewable sources that will be used, if any?If not, does the OSR mention it should be, or not be considered?

3.4.1.9.2 Energy OSR - electricityPDR - Electricity

Anymentionofelectricalefficiencies?• Or does it only mention of designs

according to RedBook / SANS standards / National Building Regulations?

4.4.3 Specificationofestimatedenergyuse?4.4.5 Any indication of cost of electricity in the

area?4.4.6 Social impact study

OSR / PDR?Any indication of the affordability of electricity to residents?

3.4.1.9.3 Water OSR– WaterPDR – Water and sanitation

Anymentionofwaterefficiencies?• Or does it only Any mention of

designs according to RedBook / SANS standards / National Building Regulations?

(3 levels of water pressure services could be indicated: Full, medium, low – dictated by class of settlement)

4.4.1 OSR- water Estimated water consumption per day? (Litres per person)

4.4.2 Cost of water Any indication of cost of water in the area?4.3.2(Town Planning)

Access to services: • water

Township application/OSR reports (Engineering - water & sanitation

Are records kept of houses without access to clean drinking water?

• sanitation Are records kept of houses without access to sanitation?

• electricity Township application/OSR reports (Engineering - electricity)

Are records kept of houses without access to electricity?









3.3.3 Woman workforce 30% of housing budget allocated for woman owned projects

Is this monitored?/Mentioned anywhere?

3.3.4 Youth & Woman workforce

Of Temporary workers, 60% to be women, and 20% youth.

Is this done?

3.4.2.24.3.14.3.3

Tenure How / where is types of tenure and security of tenure recorded and updated? Does it record impediments to people owning/inheriting land?

Interview Moses Cele, Director: GDHS: Title Deeds.Ronnie Stevens, Pensioner and former GDHS Deputy Director: Title DeedsRajesh Seukumar: GDHS Assistant Dir.: Title Deeds• GDHS only issues full tenure, which is the title deed. Historic tenure included 99 year

ownership, but that is not in place anymore.3.4.2.8.13.4.8.7

Local Resource Use;waste material used in buildings


Does any reports specify this requirement?

4.1.1 Urbanisation Does the report indicate urbanisation rate (in mentioning the need for the development?

4.1.2(see town planning


Is details of this project’s title deeds recorded?

Interview Moses Cele, Director: GDHS: Title Deeds.Ronnie Stevens, Pensioner and former GDHS Deputy Director: Title DeedsRajesh Seukumar: GDHS Assistant Dir.: Title Deeds• This is not yet a formalised township, and hence will have no title deeds. • People built houses here on land that are not registered land and thus without township

application being done.• Title deeds may only be issued once a formal township has been established.• If a township has not been formally established, very limited information of any sort will

be available.• See General challenges with regards to title deeds from GDHS.Potential alternative contacts:• Linda Ngcobo. • Gamont was appointed to develop this as established town, hence the name Gamont is

included in the name on HSS.4.1.4 Densification % of Medium density

housing units developed per annum?

4.2.1 IDP IDP Does the IDP have a housing chapter?4.2.2 Provincial multiyear

housing development plan (PHDP)

PHDP Is this completed?

4.2.3 IDP & PHDP Does the PHDP comply with 10 year IDP4.2.4 Participation How are citizens involved in housing

planning?4.2.5 Funding Municipal housing

capital investment?Is funding received through Human Settlement Development Programme? Doyouknowthisfigureasa%oftotalfunding?









4.2.6 Municipal housing capital investment?

Is funding received through Public Investment for bulk infrastructure? Doyouknowthisfigureasa%oftotalfunding?

4.2.7 Level of public investment in informal settlement upgrading?Doyouknowthisfigureasa%oftotalfunding?

4.4.10 Trees ? Record of number of trees planted with new subsidised houses?

4.4.11 Ceilings ? % of subsidised houses with ceilings built in the year?

4.4.12 Land acquisition Where are processes documented for proactiveidentification,acquisition,assessment and release of housing land documented?

Gauteng: City of Johannesburg: Project 2: Rabie Ridge, Ext. 4 and 5OSRPDRDDR

Outline Scheme Report (Engineering Reports) Preliminary Design Report (Engineering Report) Detailed Design Report

EIA – Environmental Impact Assessment BA – Basic Assessment EMPr – Environmental Management Programme Report (aka :Environmental Management Plan)

EIP indicator # GENERAL INFORMATION ENQUIRY RESPONSES:NHBRC Is a NHBRC report available regarding this

project?Builders inspection report Is such a report available regarding this

project?Line Nr # REPORTS: ENGINEERING REPORTS


Question Name actual report in which this info is?

Comment/Answer

GPS Coordinates3.4.2.1 Adequate space Township application What/howisspacedefined?3.4.2.5 Health ? Is there health facility in surrounding


WastePlanning for waste recycling in the area

Township application The township application document should be circulated to local gov. waste management dept. who should comment on it.Did they?






Gauteng: City of Johannesburg: Project 2: Rabie Ridge, Ext. 4 and 5

3.4.2.9 Access to Natural Environment

Township application Do plans indicate locality to green / open space?

Access to services: • Food


• Water Township applicationOSR reports (Engineering - water & sanitation)


Memorandum The Memorandum, from the Provincial department of Housing and Land Affairs indicates:• Indicates that rudimentary services have been installed for the development

• Sanitation Are records kept of houses without access to sanitation


• Electricity Township application OSR reports (Engineering - electricity)



4.1.3 Densification Township application How does development change current area densities? (more, same, less, not indicated?)

4.1.2(see HS documents

Title Deeds Township application Does it indicate nr of title deeds registered?




3.5.1 Any sensitivities? Environmental Scoping Report EIA/BA

Was this done?

3.1.23.5.1



Is the settlement built on such?Was any mention of such info prior to housing development?Did an alternative site have to be sought?

3.2.1 Geotechnical studies Was this done? Memorandum The Memorandum, from the Provincial department of Housing and Land Affairs indicates:• Indicates that a Geotechnical study was conducted for both extensions

Geotechnical report for Rabie Ridge Ext. 4 and 5 was available,

Environmental Management Programme (EMPr)

3.3.2 Environmental Awareness/ education

EMPr (during construction)Other…?

Was awareness raised / educated through knowledge sharing?

3.2.13.5.1


Which of this done?

3.3.1 Public Participation EIA, BA Was PP done?3.4.1 Culture EIA, BA


3.4.2.7(See town plan)3.4.2.8.7


3.4.2.8.43.5.2


Scoping EIA / BA


3.4.2.8.53.5.1


ScopingEIA / BA

Do reports indicate control and prevention hereof?









3.4.2.8.63.4.2.9.1


ScopingEIA / BA

Anyspecificstudiesdone,ormentionofambient air quality?

4.4.8 Water pollution ScopingEIA / BASocial impact




1. Are any light included in design?Electric?Natural?


2. Are any light included in design?Electric?Natural?


Engineering: OSR – details buik demand and supply, and carry capacity

3. Was this included in the report (if any report).

4. Any indication that this was concluded after the development?

3.4.2.8.2 Renewables usage OSR - electricity / energyPDR - electricity / energy

5. Does the PDR specify the renewable sources that will be used, if any? If not, does the OSR mention it should be, or not be considered?

3.4.1.9.2 Energy OSR - electricityPDR - Electricity

6. Any mention of electricalefficiencies? • Or does it only mention of designs

according to RedBook/SANS standards /National Building Regulations?

4.4.3 7. Specificationofestimatedenergyuse?4.4.5 8. Any indication of cost of electricity in

the area?4.4.6 Social impact study

OSR / PDR?9. Any indication of the affordability of

electricity to residents?3.4.1.9.3 Water OSR- water

PDR – Water and sanitation

10. Anymentionofwaterefficiencies?• Or does it only Any mention of

designs according to RedBook/SANS standards/National Building Regulations? (3 levels of water pressure services could be indicated: Full, medium, low – dictated by class of settlement)


4.4.2 Cost of water Any indication of cost of water in the area?









4.3.2(Town Planning

Access to services: • Water• Sanitation

Township application/OSR reports (Engineering - water & sanitation)


• Electricity Township application/OSR reports(Engineering-electricity)

Are records kept of houses without access to electricity?


Is this monitored?/Mentioned anywhere?


Of Temporary workers, 60% to be women, and 20% youth

Is this done?

3.4.2.24.3.14.3.3


Interview Moses Cele, Director: GDHS: Title Deeds.• Ronnie Stevens, Pensioner and former GDHS Deputy Director: Title DeedsRajesh Seukumar: GDHS Assistant Dir.: Title Deeds• GDHS only issues full tenure, which is the title deed. Historic tenure included 99 year


Local Resource Use;Waste material used in buildings




4.1.2(see town planning)



Interview Moses Cele, Director: GDHS: Title Deeds.Ronnie Stevens, Pensioner and former GDHS Deputy Director: Title DeedsRajesh Seukumar: GDHS Assistant Dir.: Title Deeds• This will fall under Midrand, under CoJ, thus GDHS does not have information for this;

however is on land that belongs to Province.4.1.4 Densification % of Medium density






planning?









4.2.5 Funding Municipal hosing capital investment?

Is funding received through Human Settlement Development Programme? Doyouknowthisfigureasa%oftotalfunding?

4.2.6 Is funding received through Public Investment for bulk infrastructure? Doyouknowthisfigureasa%oftotalfunding?

4.2.7 Level of public investment in informal settlement upgrading?Doyouknowthisfigure as a % of total funding?




Gauteng: City of Johannesburg: Project 3: 3D Ivory Park (NYDA)

The DHS database does not capture the township application names exactly the same as town plan-ners use when doing township applications (or vice versa).

Gauteng: City of Johannesburg: Project 3: 3D Ivory Park (NYDA)OSRPDRDDR


EIA – Environmental Impact Assessment BA – Basic Assessment EMPr – Environmental Management Programme Report (aka: Environmental Management Plan)

EIP indicator # GENERAL INFORMATION ENQUIRY RESPONSES:NHBRC Is a NHBRC report available regarding this project?Builders inspection report





GPS Coordinates3.4.2.1 Adequate space Township application What/howisspacedefined?3.4.2.5 Health ? Is there health facility in surrounding



Township application The township application document should be circulated to local gov. waste management dept. who should comment on it. Did they?





Gauteng: City of Johannesburg: Project 3: 3D Ivory Park (NYDA)Line Nr # REPORTS: ENGINEERING REPORTS



Comment/Answer


3.4.2.9. Access to Natural Environment

Township application Do plans indicate locality to green/open space?

Access to services: • Food


• Water Township application OSR reports (Engineering - water & sanitation)


• Sanitation Township application OSR reports (Engineering – water & sanitation)





4.1.2 (see HS documents)


3.5.1 Any sensitivities? Environmental Scoping ReportEIA/BA

Was this done?

3.1.23.5.1

Marginal land (slopes, floodplain,rivers)


Is the settlement built on such?

Was any mention of such info prior to housing development? Did an alternative site have to be sought?

3.2.1 Geotechnical studies Was this done?3.2.1 Environmental


Was this done?

3.3.2 Environmental Awareness/education

EMPr (during construction)Other…?


3.2.13.5.1


Which of this done?



3.4.2.7See town plan)3.4.2.8.7









Comment/Answer

3.4.2.8.43.5.2


Scoping EIA / BA


3.4.2.8.53.5.1


ScopingEIA / BA


3.4.2.8.63.4.2.9.1


ScopingEIA / BA


4.4.8 Water pollution ScopingEIA / BA Social impact









Was this included in the report (if any report).Any indication that this was concluded after the development?

3.4.2.8.2 Renewables usage OSR - Electricity/EnergyPDR - Electricity/Energy


3.4.1.9.2 Energy OSR - ElectricityPDR - Electricity

Any mention of electricalefficiencies? • Or does it only mention of designs

according to RedBook/SANS standards/National Building Regulations?

4.4.3 Specificationofestimatedenergy use?4.4.5 Any indication of cost of electricity in the


OSR/PDR?Any indication of the affordability of electricity to residents?

3.4.1.9.3 Water OSR- Water PDR – Water and sanitation

Anymentionofwaterefficiencies?• Or does it only Any mention of

designs according to RedBook/ SANS standards/National Building Regulations?

(3 levels of water pressure services could be indicated : Full, medium, low – dictated by class of settlement)








Comment/Answer


4.4.2 Cost of water Any indication of cost of water in the area?4.3.2(Town Planning

Access to services: • Water

Township application / OSR reports (Engineering - water & sanitation)



• Electricity Township application / OSR reports (Engineering - electricity)



Is this monitored? Mentioned anywhere?



Is this done?

3.4.2.24.3.14.3.3


Moses Cele, Director: GDHS: Title Deeds.Ronnie Stevens, Pensioner and former GDHS Deputy Director: Title DeedsRajesh Seukumar: GDHS Assistant Dir.: Title Deeds• GDHS only issues full tenure, which is the title deed. Historic tenure included 99 year


Local Resource Use; waste material used in buildings




4.1.2 (see town planning)



Moses Cele, Director: GDHS: Title Deeds.Ronnie Stevens, Pensioner and former GDHS Deputy Director: Title DeedsRajesh Seukumar: GDHS Assistant Dir.: Title Deeds• This is a COJ project, Province will not have information on it.Potential point of contact:• Gloria Nkosi, 011 018 6606 from CoJ Johannesburg Housing• Linda Ngcobo – she is Chief Director: CoJ Region; GDHS. She manages and will direct

totherelevantprojectmanager.Basedat37Sauerstreet(BankofLisbonBuilding).083602 5051

4.1.4 Densification % of Medium density housing units developed per annum?





planning?








Comment/Answer

4.2.5 Funding Municipal hosing capital investment?







Gauteng: City of Tshwane: Ga-Rankuwa Unit 24.

The CoT Housing and Human Settlements Department, provided comment on this sample: This project was developed on land that was originally owned by the North West province. Thereafter land was handed over to either province, or Tshwane. City of Tshwane conducted the township lay-out and application process, however thereafter the project was taken over by the Province, whom developed top structures and services. However the GIS records on City of Tshwane’s database still indicatesthatunitsorlandareownedbythecityofTshwane.Clarificationhereonhasbeenprovidedby GDHS – refer to the section on Title Deeds.

City of Tshwane indicated that it is not their project, and hence do not have access to information. Thecitymighthaveaccesstoprojectfilesrelatingtotownshipapplication,howeverduetotherecentrelocationofoffices,allfilesarearchivedintheoldbuilding,towhichaccessislimited.

Itwasalsoindicatedthatthisdevelopment,unit24,wasoriginallypartofGa-Rankuwaunit17,whichwas found to be too large, and subsequently subdivided into more units, which further complicates tracking of relevant information.





Gauteng: City of Tshwane: Ga-Rankuwa Unit 24OSRPDRDDR



EIP indicator # GENERAL INFORMATION ENQUIRY RESPONSES:NHBRC Is a NHBRC report available regarding this project?Builders inspection report





GPS Coordinates3.4.2.1 Adequate space Township application3.4.2.5 Health ?3.4.2.73.4.2.8.7(see Environmental)

Waste Township applicationPlanning for waste recycling in the area

Township application

3.4.2.8.1 Land use Township application3.4.2.9. Access to Natural

EnvironmentAccess to services:

Township application

• Food Township application Do plans indicate location in relation to shops?

4.3.2 (see Engineering)

• Water Township applicationOSR reports (Engineering - water & sanitation)


Town Planning: Final Conditions of Establishment

The report indicates that the applicant is responsible for the installation of services: water


The report indicates that the applicant is responsible for the installation of services: sanitation



The report indicates that the applicant is responsible for the installation of services: electricity


4.1.2 (see HS documents)


3.5.1 Any sensitivities? Environmental Scoping Report EIA/BA

Was this done? Town Planning: Final Conditions of Establishment

Indication was seen of a record of decision, which provides indication that environmental studies were done, however such were not available.

3.1.23.5.1



Is the settlement built on such? Town Planning: Final Conditions of Establishment

Indication was seen of a record of decision, which provides indication that environmental studies were done, however such were not available.

Was any mention of such info prior to housing development? Did an alternative site have to be sought?

3.2.1 Geotechnical studies Was this done? Town Planning: Final Conditions of Establishment

Town Planning: Final Conditions of Establishment indicates:• The township complies with the requirements set out in a geotechnical report (the report

is not available)





Gauteng: City of Tshwane: Ga-Rankuwa Unit 24Line Nr # REPORTS: ENGINEERING REPORTS



Comment/Answer

3.2.1 Environmental Management Programme (EMPr)

Was this done?

3.3.2 Environmental Awareness/ education

EMPr (during construction) Other…?


3.2.13.5.1


Which of this done?



3.4.2.7See town plan)3.4.2.8.7


3.4.2.8.43.5.2


Scoping EIA/BA Any indication of site containing / located close to Hazardous environment?

3.4.2.8.53.5.1


Scoping EIA/BA Do reports indicate control and prevention hereof?

3.4.2.8.63.4.2.9.1

Air pollution Air quality

Scoping EIA/BA Anyspecificstudiesdone,ormentionofambient air quality?

4.4.8 Water pollution Scoping EIA/BASocial impact









Was this included in the report (if any report).Any indication that this was concluded after the development?

3.4.2.8.2 Renewables usage OSR - electricity /energy PDR - electricity /energy









Comment/Answer

3.4.1.9.2 Energy OSR - electricity PDR - electricity

Any mention of electricalefficiencies? • Or does it only mention of designs


4.4.3 Specificationofestimatedenergy use?4.4.5 Any indication of cost of electricity in the



3.4.1.9.3 Water OSR – Water PDR – Water and sanitation

Any mention of waterefficiencies? • Or does it only Any mention of

designs according to RedBook/SANS standards/National Building Regulations?

(3 levels of water pressure services could be indicated : Full, medium, low – dictated by class of settlement)

4.4.1 OSR - water Estimated water consumption per day? (Litres per person)

4.4.2 Cost of water Any indication of cost of water in the area?4.3.2 (Town Planning

Access to services: • water• sanitation• electricity

Township application/OSR reports (Engineering - water, sanitation & electricity)

Are records kept of houses without access to• clean drinking water• sanitation• electricity


Is this monitored/Mentioned anywhere?



Is this done? EPWP, reported quarterly

3.4.2.24.3.14.3.3


3.4.2.8.13.4.8.7





4.1.2 (see town planning)



Interview Moses Cele, Director: GDHS: Title Deeds.Ronnie Stevens, Pensioner and former GDHS Deputy Director: Title DeedsRajesh Seukumar: GDHS Assistant Dir.: Title Deeds• Development by GDHS; title deed registration is in progress. • Theverificationofbeneficiarieshaveyettobedone.• SigningofthePoAhavetobefinalisedbeforetitledeedscanbesigned.Municipalities

are working on this component.








Comment/Answer

4.1.4 Densification % of Medium density housing units developed per annum?





planning?4.2.5 Funding Municipal hosing











2. KwaZulu-Natal Data Collection

Efforts to obtain data from the local municipality and provincial departments has not delivered posi-tive results. The persons indicated to be ones who might be relevant in providing information did not respondtoanyeffortsincontactingthemtelephonically,viaemail,orvisitingtheiroffices.

Table 28: KwaZulu-Natal sample projects overview

KWAZULU-NATALeThekwini

ID Feb07281Project Number K10050005Project Description K10050005 Cornubia Phase 1a Housing ProjectProject Type Progress Payment Housing ProjectMagisterial District ETHEKWINI LOCAL COUNCIL (DURBAN)Local Authority ETHEKWINI DISTRICTGIS Town Ottawa SouthGIS Suburb CornubiaPSI.LatDeg 1.791666667PSI.LongDeg 32:85:60Project Completed CompletedYear Completed 2014Planned Units 486

Numberofbeneficiaries 477Houses Completed 482DATA COLLECTIONTownship application/Development done under which act? ?Project information/data keeper (owner) (Provincial/Local?) Not EstablishedOwning department (indicate here if all info is kept by the same dept., if not, complete below lines re: owning department)

Not Established

ASPECT: Information obtained? Yes pending / not available / no / NATown Planning information NoEnvironmental Report information NoEngineering Reports information NoHuman settlement information No

3. Eastern Cape Data Collection

The projects sampled for the province is indicated below. The table includes results or answers to questions that were applicable to all sample projects within the province (i.e. where the provincial departments provided responses that would be applicable to all their projects, or to all of the proj-ects in the sample).

Efforts to obtain data from the Province, District, and Local municipalities have not delivered re-sults due to inability to access or identify individuals who would be able to provide project related information. Limited information was available for the project in Mount Ayliff, Umzimvubu Local Municipality, Alfred Nzo District. Upon contacting the local departments of human settlements, the

project team was informed that town planners would have such information. Information could how-evernotbeobtainedduetoinabilitytofindrelevantpeopletorespondtoquestionsandrequests.

Table 29: Eastern Cape sample project overview

EASTERN CAPESarah Baartman District Municipality

Alfred Nzo District Municipality

Makana Local Municipality Umzimvubu Local MunicipalityProject sample 1 Project sample 2

ID Feb01370 Feb01368 Feb00078Project Number C10040011 C10040004 C09060003Project Description Grahamstown -

TransitCamp27Units (SUNSHINE)

Grahamstown - TransitCamp27Units (SIMAIRO)

Mount Ayliff - Dundi 500 units

Project Type Progress Payment Housing Project

Progress Payment Housing Project

Rural Housing Project

Magisterial District Grahamstown TLC Grahamstown TLC Mount Ayliff TLCLocal Authority GRAHAMSTOWN GRAHAMSTOWN MOUNT AYLIFFGIS Town Grahamstown Grahamstown Mount AyliffGIS Suburb DundiPSI.LatDegPSI.LongDegProject Completed Completed Completed CompletedYear Completed 2014 2014 2013Planned Units 27 27 250Numberofbeneficiaries 27 27 250Houses CompletedDATA COLLECTIONTownship application/Development done under which act?Project information/data keeper (owner) (Provincial/Local?)

Not established Not established Not established

Owning department (indicate here if all info is kept by the same dept., if not, complete below lines re: owning department)ASPECT:Town Planning information No No NoEnvironmental Report information No No NoEngineering Reports information No No NoHuman settlement information No No NoFINDINGS APPLICABLE TO GAUTENG SAMPLE PROJECTSTown Planning informationEnvironmental Report information All rural projects were

exempted from doing EIAs due to the fact that the construction is in-situ.

Engineering Reports informationHuman settlement information





Eastern Cape Sample Project Detailed Data Collection


Eastern Cape: Sarah Baartman District Municipality: Makana Local Municipality: Grahamstown

The project team were not able to obtain relevant information from any of the sample projects from Makana Local Municipality.

Eastern Cape: Alfred Nzo District Municipality: Umzimvubu Local Municipality: Mount Ayliff

Data and information from the Province, District, and Local municipality were not available for the sample project, however the study team established which private companies were contracted on the project and liaised with them in effort to obtain information. Limited information was available fromaprivate company,whowaspreviouslyemployedby theengineering consulting firmswhoworked on the project.

Information source:

Theinformationobtainedwerefromacolleaguewhowasemployedbyanengineeringfirmthatwasappointed to develop housing and foundation plans for the project at the time of implementation. It was stated that, at time of this housing development project implementation, there were the issues with the project, namely: the engineers appointed worked on the project for 9 months; however, seven months into the project schedule, the contractor appointed for construction had built basic foundations only, which lead to the department cancelling the contract due to non-performance of the construction contractor. Thereafter the colleague who provided information captured in the table below, could not provide indication if the project was restarted and new contractors appointed.

Limitations to information obtained:

The information provided by the colleague and included in the table below is based on memory, and notonreviewedorverifieddocumentsbytheprojectteam.Itisalsonotascertainediftheprojectwas reinstated and continued at a later stage.

Ambiguities in information received:

The colleague indicated that an environmental consultant was appointed to do environmental audits ontheconstructionsite,(asisindicatedinthetablebelow),whereasamunicipalofficialindicatedthat all rural in-situ developments were exempt from EIAs. It could not be ascertained.





Eastern Cape: Alfred Nzo District Municipality: Umzimvubu Local Municipality: Mount Ayliff1. OSR

PDRDDR



2. EIP indicator # GENERAL INFORMATION ENQUIRY 3. NHBRC Is a NHBRC report available regarding this project? GIBB colleague indicated:

• Housing plans would have been done according to NHBRC requirements, and general building codes. These do notincludeanyelectricalorwaterinstallationswithregardstocapacityorefficiency.

4. Builders inspection report


Line Nr EIP indicator # REPORTS: TOWN PLANNINGAspect Potential report



GIBB colleague indicated:• This was a rural project, so sites were merely pegged for development.• Thus, no former township development was undertaken.

GPS Coordinates What are the coordinates?5. 3.4.2.1 Adequate space Township application What/howisspacedefined?6. 3.4.2.5 Health ? Is there health facility in surrounding

townships?7. 3.4.2.7

3.4.2.8.7(see Environmental)



8. 3.4.2.8.1 Land use Township application Was land use considered? Was land rezoned?

9. 3.4.2.9. Access to Natural EnvironmentAccess to services: • Food• Water• Sanitation• Electricity

Township application OSR reports (Engineering - water & sanitation) OSR reports (Engineering - electricity)

Do plans indicate locality to green/open space?

10. Do plans indicate location in relation to shops?

11. 4.3.2(see Engineering)


12. Are records kept of houses without access to sanitation?

13. Are records kept of houses without access to electricity?

14. 4.1.3 Densification Township application How does development change current area densities? (more, same, less, not indicated?)

15. 4.1.2(see HS documents)






16. REPORTS: ENVIRONMENTAL17. Aspect Potential report



18. Regarding Environmental reports and studies, the following general answer affects all below questions:

General Comment:• Lakhe Mbozani from Umzimvubu Municipality indicated • “All our rural projects were exempted in doing the EIA due to the fact that the

construction is in-situ”.19. 3.5.1 Any sensitivities? Environmental Scoping

Report EIA/BAWas this done? • See general comment above

20. 3.1.23.5.1




21. Was any mention of such info prior to housing development?

22. Did an alternative site have to be sought?23. 3.2.1 Geotechnical studies Was this done?24. 3.2.1 Environmental


Was this done? Private company individual, who previously worked on the project, indicated:• A consortium was involved in doing environmental work: AEGIS did monthly

environmental audits – a few were done initially, after which the project was halted due to non-performance by appointed construction contractors.

• (Access to these reports could not be obtained from the private contractor who was employed to work on the project)

25. 3.3.2 Environmental Awareness/ education

EMPr (during construction). Other…?


• See general comment above

26. 3.2.13.5.1


Which of this was done?

27. 3.3.1 Public Participation EIA, BA Was PP done?28. 3.4.1 Culture EIA, BA Social impact

reportAre Cultural considerations included?

29. 3.4.2.7(See town plan)3.4.2.8.7

Waste EMPr Is construction waste mentioned • See general comment above, versus the comment from the private contractor, indicating that environmental audits were done on site, which should usually be based on an EMPr, in which this aspect would be audited.

30. 3.4.2.8.43.5.2


ScopingEIA/BA

Any indication of site containing/located close to Hazardous environment?

• See general comment above

31. 3.4.2.8.53.5.1

Unique habitats; Interference with ecological processes

ScopingEIA/BA


32. 3.4.2.8.63.4.2.9.1


ScopingEIA/BA


33. 4.4.8 Water pollution ScopingEIA/BA Social impact

Anyspecificstudiesdone,ormentionofwater quality in the area?Nr of water borne diseases in the area?34.

35. 4.4.6 Electricity Social impact study Any indication of the affordability of electricity to residents?








38. Regarding Environmental reports and studies, the following general answer affects all below questions:

General Comment:• *Below comments by this respondent are applicable to the time of project initiation, and

the following reason: work halted on the project about 9 months after initiation, due to non-performance of the appointed construction contractor, after which this correspondent does not have additional information regarding this project.

• Engineering works was done by Sektor Consulting engineering – which was bought out by another engineering company later on, the name of which is not known by the respondent.

39. 3.4.2.3 Adequate lighting Engineering: Mecha-nical Design report (at Detail Design Stage)

Are any light included in design?• electric?• natural ?

• Engineering reports did not include any OSC, PDR, or DDR, however only included foundation design, and house plans. Copies of such old records or reports are not accessible.

• Such house plans would have been done according to NHBRC requirements, and general building codes. These do not include any electrical or water installations with regardstocapacityorefficiency.

40.

41. 3.4.2.3 Heating & Ventilation Engineering: Mecha-nical Design report (at Detail Design Stage)


42.

43. 3.4.2.6 Adequate infrastructure: Water & Sanitation


Was this included in the report (if any report). Any indication that is was concluded after the development?

• No sanitation was provided in plans.• Pit latrines might have been included in the design, but would have been external or

separate from the house,• Rain water tank might have been included in designs.

44. 3.4.2.8.2 Renewables usage OSR - electricity/energyPDR - electricity/energy


45. 3.4.1.9.2 Energy OSR - electricity PDR - Electricity

Anymentionofelectricalefficiencies?Or does it only mention of designs according to RedBook/SANS standards/National Building Regulations?

• Reports include a house plan, and foundation plan, according to NHBRC handbook regulationsaswellasapplicablebuildingcodes–thesedonotincludespecificationsforelectricalefficiencies.

46. 4.4.3 Specificationofestimatedenergy use? • No. 47. 4.4.5 Any indication of cost of electricity in the

area?• No.

48. 4.4.6 Social impact studyOSR/PDR?

Any indication of the affordability of electricity to residents?

• No social studies were done, apart from engagements with the community to explain, amongstothers,mainlyprocessesandbeneficiarydetails.

49. 3.4.1.9.3 Water OSR - water PDR - Water and sanitation

Any mention of waterefficiencies? Or does it only Any mention of designs according to RedBook/SANS standards/National Building Regulations? (3 levels of water pressure services could be indicated: Full, medium, low – dictated by class of settlement)Estimated water consumption per day? (Litres per person)

• Rain water tank might have been included • Reports include a house plan, and foundation plan, according to NHBRC handbook

regulationsaswellasapplicablebuildingcodes–thesedonotincludespecificationsforelectricalefficiencies.

50. • No social impact study done.• Beneficiariesofsocialfacilitationwasdone,whichmerelyincludedbeneficiaryregistration.

51. 4.4.2 Cost of water Any indication of cost of water in the area? • No. No social studies were done, apart from engagements with the community to explain, amongstothers,mainlyprocessesandbeneficiarydetails.

52.53.54.

4.3.2(Town Planning

Access to services: • water• sanitation• electricity

Township application/ OSR reports (Engineering - water & sanitation)Township application/ OSR reports (Engineering - electricity


• Rain water tank might have been included • Theprojectwasnotcompleted(tobeverifiedifitwascompletedatlaterstage)

Are records kept of houses without access to sanitationAre records kept of houses without access to electricity

• No sanitation was provided in plans, no further design reports were done.• Pit latrines might have been included in the design, but would have been external or

separate from the house.• Theprojectwasnotcompleted(tobeverifiedifitwascompletedatlaterstage)• Norecord:Theprojectwasnotcompleted(tobeverifiedifitwascompletedatlater

stage)





REPORTS: HUMAN SETTLEMENTS REPORTSEIP indicator #


Question Name Actual report in which this info is?

Comment / Response

1. 3.3.3 Woman workforce 30% of housing budget allocated for woman owned projects

Is this monitored? / Mentioned anywhere?

2. 3.3.4 Youth & Woman workforce


Is this done?

3. 3.4.2.24.3.14.3.3

Tenure How / where is types of tenure and security of tenure recorded and updated? Does it record impediments to people owning / inheriting land?

4. 3.4.2.8.13.4.8.7




5. 4.1.1 Urbanisation Does the report indicate urbanisation rate (in mentioning the need for the development?

6. 4.1.2(see town planning



7. 4.1.4 Densification % of Medium density housing units developed per annum?

8. 4.2.1 IDP IDP9. 4.2.2 Provincial multiyear


PHDP

10. 4.2.3 IDP & PHDP11. 4.2.4 Participation12. 4.2.5 Funding Municipal hosing


13. 4.2.6 Is funding received through Public Investment for bulk infrastructure? Doyouknowthisfigureasa%oftotalfunding?

14.15.


16. 4.4.10 Trees Record of number of trees planted with new subsidised houses?

17. 4.4.11 Ceilings % of subsidised houses with ceilings built in the year?





4. Limpopo Data Collection

The projects sampled for the province are indicated below. The table includes results or answers to questions that were applicable to all sample projects within the province (i.e. where the provincial departments provided responses that would be applicable to all their projects, or to all of the projects in the sample).

In the case of Limpopo, the respondents indicated that all selected projects are all rural development projects, thus responses will be the same for all sample projects, and hence no individual responses were obtained per sample project.

Table 30: Limpopo sample projects overview

LIMPOPO PROVINCECapricorn District Municipality

Polokwane Local MunicipalityProject sample 1

Project sample 2

Project 3 Project 4 Project 5 Project 6

ID Feb08845 Feb08908 Feb08843 Feb08853 Feb08817 Feb08926Project Number

N12030017 N12020009 N11110022 N11110011 N11010013 N10120014

Project Description

Capricon/Polokwane Muni./Magzozo/(100)/Rural/12/13 Additional

Capricon/Polokwane Muni./Sly Junior (100) Rural 12/13

Capricon/Polokwane Muni./Letumo (75)Rural11/12

Capricon/Polokwane Muni./Mangoedi (300) Rural 11/12

Capricon/Polokwane Muni./Dingatana Supplies (100) Rural 11/12

Capricon/Polokwane Muni./Zedek(175)Rural/11/12

Project Type Rural Housing Project






Magisterial District

Polokwane Municipality






Local Authority

Capricorn DM

Capricorn DM

Capricorn DM

Capricorn DM

Capricorn DM

Capricorn DM

GIS Town Polokwane Polokwane Polokwane Polokwane Polokwane PolokwaneGIS SuburbPSI.LatDegPSI.LongDegProject Completed

Completed Completed Completed Completed Completed Completed

Year Completed

2014 2014 2014 2014 2012 2012

Planned Units

100 100 75 300 100 175

Number of beneficiaries

100 100 75 300 109 175

Houses Completed

100 64 300 100 175

LIMPOPO PROVINCEGreater Sekhukhune District Municipality

Greater TubatseProject sample 1

Project sample 2

Project 3

ID Feb09326 Feb09343 Feb09316Project Number

N11010056 N10120006 N10020008

Project Description

Sekhu/Tubatse Muni./Ntema Invest(100) Rural 11/12

Sekhu/Tubatse Muni./Zohra Khan (445) Rural11/12

Sekhu/Tubatse Muni./Magzozo P/D (100) Rural 10/11





Tubatse Municipality



Local Authority

Sekhukune DM

Sekhukune DM

Sekhukune DM

GIS Town Burgersfort Burgersfort BurgersfortGIS Suburb TubatsePSI.LatDegPSI.LongDegProject Completed

Completed Completed Completed

Year Completed

2012 2014 2011

Planned Units

100 445 100


103 445 100

Houses Completed

100 445 100





LIMPOPO PROVINCEMopani District Municipality

Greater GiyaniProject 1 Project 2 Project 3 Project 4

ID Feb09528 Feb09517 Feb09482 Feb09478Project Number

N12020047 N11010049 N10120004 N10020027

Project Description

Mopani/Giyani Muni./ Zorha (50) Rural 12/13

Mopani/Giyani Muni./ Tlouneo B/E (100) Rural 11/12

Mopani/Giyani Muni./ Katekani (30) Rural 11/12

Mopani/Giyani Muni./ Civil Dev (100) Rural 10/11






Greater Giyani Municipality




Local Authority

Mopani DM Mopani DM Mopani DM Mopani DM

GIS Town Giyani Giyani Giyani GiyaniGIS SuburbPSI.LatDegPSI.LongDegProject Completed

Completed Completed Completed Completed

Year Completed

2013 2012 2012 2011

Planned Units

50 100 30 100


50 100 31 100

Houses Completed

50 100 30 100

LIMPOPO PROVINCEVhembe District Municipality

Thulamela Local MunicipalityProject 1 Project 2 Project 3


N12110007 N12020019 N11010003

Project Description

Vhembe/Thulamela Muni./Dada World (50) Rural 12/13

Vhembe/Thulamela Muni./Rivoni (40) Rural 12/13

Vhembe/Thulamela Muni./Rivoni Group (615) Rural 11/12





Thulamela Municipality



Local Authority

Vhembe DM Vhembe DM Vhembe DM

GIS Town Thohoyan-dou

Thohoyan-dou

Thohoyan-dou

GIS SuburbPSI.LatDegPSI.LongDegProject Completed


Year Completed

2014 2013 2012

Planned Units

50 40 615


50 40 614

Houses Completed

37 40 608





LIMPOPO PROVINCEWaterberg District Municipality

Mogalakwena Local MunicipalityProject 1 Project 2 Project 3


N12020069 N11010011 N10030009

Project Description

Waterberg/Mogala-kwena Muni./Lepamos (57)Rural11/12

Waterberg/Mogala-kwena Muni./Raluthaga T(75)Rural11/12

Waterberg/Mogala-kwena Muni./Roswika (100) Rural 10/11





Mogala-kwena Municipality



Local Authority

Waterberg DM

Waterberg DM

Waterberg DM

GIS Town Mokopane Mokopane MokopaneGIS SuburbPSI.LatDegPSI.LongDegProject Completed


Year Completed

2014 2014 2011

Planned Units

57 75 100


57 75 100

Houses Completed

57 75 100

DATA COLLECTIONIn the case of Limpopo, the respondents indicated that all selected projects are all rural development projects, thus responses will be the same for all sample projects, and hence no individual responses were obtained per sample project.Township application/Development done under which act?

Not indicated


Province


COGHTA: Project Managementoffice.

ASPECT: Information obtained? Yes pending/not available/no/NA

Town Planning information YesEnvironmental Report information

Yes: No environmental studies done for rural projects as these were brown fieldsdevelopments.

Engineering Reports information

Yes.

Human settlement information

Yes.





Limpopo Sample Project Detailed Data Collection


Limpopo: Information related to all projects in the sample.

Eastern Cape: Alfred Nzo District Municipality: Umzimvubu Local Municipality: Mount Ayliff1. OSR

PDRDDR



2. EIP indicator # GENERAL INFORMATION ENQUIRY 3. NHBRC Is a NHBRC report available regarding this project? NHBRC did not do produce / issue reports for rural areas4. Builders inspection

reportIs such a report available regarding this project? Onlyoccupationalcertificatesaresignedandkept.

This is not a builder’s inspection report.Line Nr EIP indicator # REPORTS: TOWN PLANNING



Comment/Answer

GIBB colleague indicated:• This was a rural project, so sites were merely pegged for development.• Thus, no former township development was undertaken.

GPS Coordinates What are the coordinates? Scattered upgrading of houses across areas.GPS coordinates are available per house.

5. 3.4.2.1 Adequate space Township application What/howisspacedefined? NA. • Thisisnotdefined.• The response indicated that space is interpreted as “Where individuals reside”, and

adequatespaceisnotcalculatedordefined• Houses in Limpopo are generally between 40-50m2, whereas Nationally, average sizes

are 40m26. 3.4.2.5 Health ? Is there health facility in surrounding

townships?NA. • Thiswasnotdoneforbrownfieldsdevelopments.

7. 3.4.2.73.4.2.8.7(see Environmental)



NA. • This was not done for rural area developments.


NA. • No,theprojectsareruralbrownfielddevelopments.• No rezoning required




• Municipalities supply development areas for the provincial dept. to develop Housing / human settlements.

• No indication of open space / green space in rural area developments.10. Do plans indicate location in relation to

shops?11. 4.3.2

(see Engineering)


• Boreholes provide water to rural developments.• No indication of what the “access to water” consists of (i.e. close to water tap, tap in the

yard, or tap in the house).12. Are records kept of houses without access

to sanitation?• New projects considers other infrastructure, like electricity, health care, etc. This is not

consideredinbrownfielddevelopments,wheresuchruralprojectstookplace.• Happy letters are signed, this does not indicate any engineering plans of housing

designs.13. Are records kept of houses without access

to electricity?







Title Deeds Township application Does it indicate nr of title deeds registered? • No proof of title deeds other than that. But the chief writes a letter (happy letter) for the beneficiary(PTO/PermissiontoOccupy).

• Thehappyletterissignedby:Engineers,Beneficiaries,Municipality,andDHS,whichindicateshandoverofthepropertyownershiptothebeneficiary.




18. 3.5.1 Any sensitivities? Environmental Scoping Report EIA/BA

Was this done? • NoEIAsorenvironmentalreportsweredoneforbrownfieldorruralhousingdevelopments

19. 3.1.23.5.1



Is the settlement built on such? • No. Marginal land is seen as valleys, and houses will not be built in such areas.

20. Was any mention of such info prior to housing development?

21. Did an alternative site have to be sought?22. 3.2.1 Geotechnical studies Was this done? • In most cases this is done.

• Not indicated per project.23. 3.2.1 Environmental


Was this done? • No,notforbrownfielddevelopments.




• No EMPrs done.

25. 3.2.13.5.1


Which of this was done? • Geotech studies.

26. 3.3.1 Public Participation EIA, BA Was PP done? • Public Participation done by the municipality, not by the Province.- (also relevant to: human settlements section of this questionnaire).

27. 3.4.1 Culture EIA, BA Social impact report

Are Cultural considerations included?

28. 3.4.2.7(See town plan)3.4.2.8.7


29. 3.4.2.8.43.5.2


ScopingEIA/BA

Any indication of site containing/located close to Hazardous environment?

• No Environmental issues are being considered.• Health and Safety inspections are being done by contractors, • (Potential recommendation: H&S inspections to be elaborated into SHE inspections to

include environmental compliance checks)30. 3.4.2.8.5

3.5.1Unique habitats; Interference with ecological processes

ScopingEIA/BA


31. 3.4.2.8.63.4.2.9.1


ScopingEIA/BA


32. 4.4.8 Water pollution ScopingEIA/BA Social impact

Anyspecificstudiesdone,ormentionofwater quality in the area?Nr of water borne diseases in the area?33.









37. 3.4.2.3 Adequate lighting Engineering: Mecha-nical Design report (at Detail Design Stage)


• Electrical installations are taken out of house designs for rural houses, but not for urban houses (because of cost implications).

• Thus, local residents have to install it themselves – which causes people to do it wrongly.38.

39. 3.4.2.3 Heating & Ventilation Engineering: Mecha-nical Design report (at Detail Design Stage)


• No provision for heating.• Ventilation is stated to be more than adequate , no indication of how this is considered.40.



Was this included in the report (if any report). Any indication that is was concluded after the development?

• In urban areas, bulk reticulation is provided. • VIP toilets are provided in rural areas.

42. 3.4.2.8.2 Renewables usage OSR - electricity/energyPDR - electricity/energy


43. 3.4.1.9.2 Energy OSR - electricity PDR - Electricity

Any mention of electricalefficiencies? Or does it only mention of designs according to RedBook SANS standards/National Building Regulations?

• Electrical installations are taken out of house designs for rural houses, but not for urban houses (because of cost implications).

44. 4.4.3 Specificationofestimatedenergy use?45. 4.4.5 Any indication of cost of electricity in the

area?46. 4.4.6 Social impact study


47. 3.4.1.9.3 Water OSR - water PDR - Water and sanitation

Any mention of waterefficiencies? Or does it only mention of designs according to RedBook/SANS standards/National Building Regulations? (3 levels of water pressure services could be indicated: Full, medium, low – dictated by class of settlement)Estimated water consumption per day? (Litres per person)

48. • Rural, this is not done, as people collect water from rivers in the area..• ThusOSRreportsforruraldon’tincludesuchspecifications.• Owners can pay for such installations separately if required.

49. 4.4.2 Cost of water Any indication of cost of water in the area? • As above50. 4.3.2

(Town PlanningAccess to services: • water• sanitation• electricity

Township application/ OSR reports (Engineering - water & sanitation)Township application/ OSR reports (Engineering - electricity

Are records kept of houses without access to clean drinking waterAre records kept of houses without access to sanitationAre records kept of houses without access to electricity

• As above• In urban areas, bulk reticulation is provided. • VIP toilets are provided in rural areas• OSR reports for rural don’t include this.• Owners can pay for such installations separately.

51.

52.

53. REPORTS: HUMAN SETTLEMENTS54. EIP indicator

#Aspect Potential report

containing content:Question Name Actual report

in which this info is?55. 3.3.3 Woman workforce 30% of housing budget

allocated for woman owned projects

Is this monitored? / Mentioned anywhere? • Above 30% (about 41-42%), includes contractors, workers.





56. 3.3.4 Youth & Woman workforce


Is this done? • Notkeptinthisfile• EPWP – Reported quarterly

57. 3.4.2.24.3.14.3.3

Tenure How / where is types of tenure and security of tenure recorded and updated? Does it record impediments to people owning / inheriting land?

• In Happy Letters.• Inheritance is not tracked by Happy letters, this only tracks original ownership

58. 3.4.2.8.13.4.8.7



Does any reports specify this requirement? • Local as in provincial. Bricks and steel procured in Limpopo.


• No,thisisonlyindicatedforgreenfielddevelopmentinurbanareas.• Multiyear housing department plans capture the need and desirability per district in the

province. The study also informs the allocation model in municipalities.• Urbanisation - multiyear housing development plan captures the need and desirability per

district in the province. They study also inform the allocation model in municipalities. • Urbanisation is indicated in the Multiyear H&S development plan, done by Province

60. 4.1.2(see town planning


Are details of this project’s title deeds recorded?

• Not in rural areas, title deeds are not issued there.

61. 4.1.4 Densification % of Medium density housing units developed per annum?

• Applicable in Urban areas only, not in rural developments.

62. 4.2.1 IDP IDP Does the IDP have a housing chapter? • Done per Municipality - their IDPs have housing chapters.63. 4.2.2 Provincial multiyear



64. 4.2.3 IDP & PHDP Does the PHDP comply with 10 year IDP65. 4.2.4 Participation How are citizens involved in housing

planning?• Public Participation done by the municipality, not by the Province.

66. 4.2.5 Funding Municipal housing capital investment?



68.69.


70. 4.4.10 Trees Record of number of trees planted with new subsidised houses?

• Done in urban areas, adhoc only. No record for rural areas.

71. 4.4.11 Ceilings % of subsidised houses with ceilings built in the year?

• Ceilings are not installed in urban or rural houses.

72. 4.4.12 Land acquisition Where are processes documented for proactiveidentification,acquisition,assessment and release of housing land documented?





5. Free State Data Collection

The projects sampled for the province are indicated below. The table includes results or answers to questions that were applicable to all sample projects within the province (i.e. where the provincial departments provided responses that would be applicable to all their projects, or to all of the projects in the sample).

Efforts to obtain data from the local municipality and provincial departments took longer than the projecttimelinescouldafford.AlthoughsomeofthelocalmunicipalofficialsinMangaungweredil-igent in assisting to establish where project related information may be obtained, no data could be obtained. Subsequently provincial contacts of the Human Settlements department originally indicat-ed that the projects in the sample are in fact established under local township establishments and henceallrelevantinformationwouldbekeptat localoffices,howeveruponindicationtoprovincethatlocalmunicipalofficialsinMangaungindicatedthatinformationisnotkeptatlocallevel,provincecommitted to continue searching for information, upon which response was obtained that township applicationfilesareavailablefortheprojectinthemetro(contentnotverified),andtownplanningrelated information is available for the project in Ngwathe local municipality (this was however indi-catedon13September2017),andhencephysicalaccesstoinformationhasnotbeenobtaineddueto information stored as hard copy only.

HSS Data base comment:

FeedbackwasobtainedfromthelocalmunicipalofficialinMangaung,indicatingthatthedescriptionsprovidedfromtheHSSdatabasedoesnotprovidesufficientinformationfromwhichaprojectcouldbe traced adequately. It was stated that the Project Description provided contractor names who were appointed on the project, however there is more than one contractor in the province with the same name,andthattheywouldbecontactedtoprovideanyrelevantinformation.Themunicipalofficialsubsequently responded that information could not be obtained.

TheprovincialofficialindicatedthattheinformationcapturedontheHSSdatabasecreatesconfusion,which might lead to inabilities to establish who the project implementers were and where information mightbekept.Specificreferencewasmadetotheline“LocalAuthority”,sincetherespondentwasof the meaning that the project in Mangaung should indicate “Mangaung” (and not “Bloemfontein”), and the project in Ngwathe, should indicate “Ngwathe”(and not “Heilbron”).

Limitation:

Provincialgovernmentofficialsindicatedthatreasonsforprojectspecificinformationnotbeingavail-able could be related to the fact that projects were implemented as part of already existing town-ships, hence township establishments would not contain information relevant to these projects.

Table 31: Free State province sample projects overview

FREE STATEMangaung Metropolitan Municipality

Fezile Dabi District MunicipalityNgwathe Local Municipality

ID Feb02516 Feb01805Project Number F08020003 F08030005Project Phase F08020003/1 F08030005/1Project Description Bloemfontein - 800 Kentha

Developers (2008/2009)Heilbron 500 Enm Trading 2008/2009

Project Type Progress Payment Housing Project Project Linked Housing Project on Existing Sites

GIS District Municipality Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality Fezile Dabi District MunicipalityPSI.Region Mangaung Fezile dabiPSI.Municipality Mangaung Metro Municipality Ngwathe Local MunicipalityGIS Local Municipality Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality Ngwathe Local MunicipalityMagisterial District BLOEMFONTEIN HEILBRONLocal Authority BLOEMFONTEIN HEILBRONGIS TOWN Bloemfontein HeilbronGIS_SUBURB Bloemfontein NULLPSI.LatDeg -29.1638 -27.2764PSI.LongDeg 26.1761 27.9773Project Completion Completed CompletedYear Completed 2010 2010Planned Units 725 410NumberofBeneficiaries 726 411DATA COLLECTIONTownship application/Development done under which act?

?


Free State CoGTA (township application for Mangaung; and township related information for Heilbron); other information keepers are not known.


As above: Free State CoGTA, Spatial Planning Unit.Other information: not known.

ASPECT: Information obtained? Yes pending/not available/no/NATown Planning information Pending Findings applicable to

Gauteng sample projectsEnvironmental Report information Pending (if contained in the township

applicationmasterfile)Town Planning information

Engineering Reports information Pending (if contained in the township applicationmasterfile)

Environmental Report information

Human settlement information Pending (if contained in the township applicationmasterfile)

Engineering Reports information





6. Northern Cape Data Collection

The project sampled for the province is indicated below. The table includes results or answers to questions that were applicable to all sample projects within the province (i.e. where the provincial departments provided responses that would be applicable to all their projects, or to all of the projects in the sample).

Limitation:

InformationobtainedforthesampleprojectidentifiedinSolPlaatjelocalmunicipalitywasbasedonverbal informationprovidedbyalocalmunicipalofficialandwasnotverifiedagainstanyphysicaldocuments.Therespondentindicatedthatinformation(filesorfolderscontaininginformationwouldbe located and feedback be given to the study team when such is located – this was however not done). However, the respondent came across as very knowledgeable about the project.

Table 32: Northern Cape sample projects overview

FREE STATEFrances Baard District MunicipalitySol Plaatje Local Municipality

ID Feb13192Project Number A08050001Project Phase A08050001/1Project Description SolPlaatjeKimberleyInfillAreas370Project Type Progress Payment Housing ProjectGIS District Municipality Frances Baard District MunicipalityPSI.Region FRANCES BAARD DISTRICT PSI.Municipality SOL PLAATJEGIS Local Municipality Sol Plaatje Local MunicipalityMagisterial District SOL PLAATJE LMLocal Authority FRANCES BAARD DMGIS TOWN KimberleyGIS_SUBURB Open Space 1PSI.LatDeg NULLPSI.LongDeg NULLProject Completion CompletedYear Completed 2014Planned Units 370NumberofBeneficiaries 373DATA COLLECTIONTownship application/Development done under which act?

?


Sol Plaatje Local Municipality


CoGHSTA for human settlement information requested.Information obtained verbally was form a local municipal humansettlementsdepartmentofficial,workinginInfrastructure and Services Department, Housing

ASPECT: Information obtained? Yes pending/not available/no/NATown Planning information YesEnvironmental Report information Not available.Engineering Reports information No.Human settlement information Yes





Northern Cape Sample Project Detailed Data Collection


Northern Cape: Frances Baard District Municipality: Sol Plaatje Local Municipality: Kimberley

Northern Cape: Frances Baard District Municipality: Sol Plaatje Local Municipality: Kimberley1. OSR

PDRDDR



2. EIP indicator # GENERAL INFORMATION ENQUIRY 3. NHBRC Is a NHBRC report available regarding this project? No indication. However, see comment related to Geotech questions4. Builders inspection

reportIs such a report available regarding this project? Not obtained.

Line Nr EIP indicator # POTENTIALREPORTS:

TOWN PLANNING (OR ALTERNATIVE)



Comment/AnswerThe respondent indicated:• Areas in which this development was done, were already established townships. • The sample project was for houses that could not be built as originally planned, but

subsequentlygapswhere370housescouldbebuilt,crossing7areasofdifferenttownship,wereidentifiedinwhichthesehousescouldbebuilt.ThetownshipsincludeBoikhutsong, Nxumalo, Thambo Square, Greater Number 2, Kutlwanong and Phutanang Areas

GPS Coordinates What are the coordinates?5. 3.4.2.1 Adequate space Township application What/howisspacedefined? • Internal drafts people were used to draft 40-42m2 housing plans. No other forms of

“adequatespace”aredefined.6. 3.4.2.5 Health Is there health facility in surrounding

townships?• Sites for this housing project included gaps or open spaces in existing townships. These

spaces in the selected townships were chosen because of the space availability, which would imply that the sites would have been approved based on the functionality of the existing township, such as access to services.

7. 3.4.2.73.4.2.8.7(see Environmental)




• No rezoning was required as houses were built in existing townships.




10. Do plans indicate location in relation to shops?

11. 4.3.2(see Engineering)


• Townships in which developments were done was selected based on the availability of bulk services

12. Are records kept of houses without access to sanitation?

13. Are records kept of houses without access to electricity?


• The development was done in open space or gaps in existing townships, thus it would have contributed to increased density.







16. POTENTIALREPORTS:

ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS (OR ALTERNATIVE)

17. Aspect Potential report containing content:


Comment/Answer

18. 3.5.1 Any sensitivities? Environmental Scoping Report EIA/BA

Was this done? • The townships were established 10 years before this project was initiated. Thus, the status of the area was already built-up, hence only Geotechical studies were re-done for the areas.

• Itisassumedthatenvironmentalstudiesweredoneforthetownships,notfortheseinfillareadevelopmentspecifically.

19. 3.1.23.5.1




20. Geotechnical studies Was any mention of such info prior to housing development?

21. Environmental Management Programme (EMPr)

Did an alternative site have to be sought?

22. 3.2.1 Geotechnical studies Was this done?23. 3.2.1 Environmental


Was this done?




25. 3.2.13.5.1


Which of this done?

26. 3.3.1 Public Participation EIA, BA Was PP done? • General public participation would have been done to inform communities that houses will be built.

27. 3.4.1 Culture EIA, BASocial impact report

Are Cultural considerations included?

28. 3.4.2.7See town plan)3.4.2.8.7


29. 3.4.2.8.43.5.2


Scoping EIA / BA Any indication of site containing / located close to Hazardous environment?

30. 3.4.2.8.53.5.1

Unique habitats; Interference with ecological processes

Scoping EIA / BA Do reports indicate control and prevention hereof?

31. 3.4.2.8.63.4.2.9.1


Scoping EIA / BA Anyspecificstudiesdone,ormentionofambient air quality?

32. 4.4.8 Water pollution Scoping EIA / BA Social impact


33.







ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS (OR ALTERNATIVE)



Comment/Answer

37. 3.4.2.3 Adequate lighting Engineering: Mechani-cal Design report (at Detail Design Stage)


• Pre-paid electricity boxes were used, so owners decide themselves as to what lights they would install.

• Housingdesignsandspecificationsdonotspecifylightinginstallations38.

39. 3.4.2.3 Heating & Ventilation Engineering: Mechani-cal Design report (at Detail Design Stage)


40.



Was this included in the report (if any report).Any indication that is was concluded after the development?

• Sites were selected in already existing townships, the townships that were selected were done so based on the availability of bulk services.

42. 3.4.2.8.2 Renewables usage OSR - electricity/energyPDR - electricity/ energy


• Some houses have solar geysers installed, but this was a separate programme installed afterwards by Eskom, and was not included as part of the original project, thus, the original project did not include renewable energy supply.

43. 3.4.1.9.2 Energy OSR - electricityPDR - electricity

Any mention of electricalefficiencies? Or does it only mention of designs according to RedBook/SANS standards/ National Building Regulations?

• Applied normal building regulations for the house plan, as per NHBRC requirements.

44. 4.4.3 Specificationofestimatedenergy use?45. 4.4.5 Any indication of cost of electricity in the

area?46. 4.4.6 Social impact study


47. 3.4.1.9.3 Water OSR - waterPDR - Water and sanitation

Any mention of waterefficiencies? • Or does it only mention designs


(3 levels of water pressure services could be indicated: Full, medium, low – dictated by class of settlement)

48. 4.4.1 OSR- water Estimated water consumption per day? (Litres per person)

• Nospecificstudiesweredoneforusageandcostofwater.

49. 4.4.2 Cost of water Any indication of cost of water in the area? • Nospecificstudiesweredoneforusageandcostofwater50. 4.3.2

(Town PlanningAccess to services: • water

Township application / OSR reports (Engineering - water & sanitation)


• Sites selected for this project’s houses were within already existing townships, and the townships were selected based on already installed bulk infrastructure.

51. • sanitation Township application / OSR reports (Engineering – water & sanitation)


52. • electricity Township application / OSR reports (Engineering -







HUMAN SETTLEMENTS (OR ALTERNATIVE)



Comment/Answer

55. 3.3.3 Woman workforce 30% of housing budget allocated for woman owned projects

Is this monitored?/Mentioned anywhere? • This project was ended long ago and hence access to such reports were not available.• Normally monthly reports would report on this to Public works who reports to Labour

Department. 56. 3.3.4 Youth & Woman

workforceOf temporary workers, 60% to be women, and 20% youth

Is this done?

57. 3.4.2.24.3.14.3.3


• Most of them have been registered for title deeds, this is in progress, is at approximately 80%

58. 3.4.2.8.13.4.8.7

Local Resource Use;waste material used in buildings




60. 4.1.2(see town planning)



• Most of the houses have been registered for title deeds, this is in progress, is at approximately 80% completion.

• Provincial COGHSTA Unit dealing with properties and registration hereof, is the department who would report to national department on this aspect.

• Town planning departments don’t get involved with registrations of title deeds.61. 4.1.4 Densification % of Medium density


• The Compact city of Sol Plaatje strategy will be considered by town planners to select theseinfillareas,butwouldnotbeinhousingdevelopmentreports.

• Densificationisdonetocombaturbansprawl.62. 4.2.1 IDP IDP Does the IDP have a housing chapter? • This was included in the IDP63. 4.2.2 Provincial multiyear



64. 4.2.3 IDP & PHDP Does the PHDP comply with 10 year IDP65. 4.2.4 Participation How are citizens involved in housing

planning?• Stakeholder engagement and public participation was done for the project; • Councillor meetings would be utilised to inform communities – these were regular

engagements. • Designspecificationsinformhouseplans–thenationalbenchmarkisusedforhousing

designed. 66. 4.2.5 Funding Municipal hosing


• Most of the projects are funded by CoGHSTA– according to the municipal business plan.


• No, built up areas is done through normal application processes, funded by CoGHSTA. – they would track such information.

68. 4.2.7 Level of public investment in informal settlement upgrading?Doyouknowthisfigureasa%oftotalfunding?

69. 4.4.10





70. Trees ? Record of number of trees planted with new subsidised houses?

• Trees get planted in developments. This is not tracked.

71. 4.4.11 Ceilings ? % of subsidised houses with ceilings built in the year?

• Ceilings were included in housing designs.

72. 4.4.12 Land acquisition Where are processes documented for proactiveidentification,acquisition,assessment and release of housing land documented?

7. North West Province Data Collection

Efforts to obtain data from the local municipality and provincial departments has not delivered posi-tive results. The persons indicated to be ones who might be relevant in providing information did not respond to any efforts in contacting them telephonically, or via email hence no arrangements could bemadetoestablishtimestovisittheoffices.

Evident from the overview of information capturing in the below table, is the project description which, in this case, provides description of the human settlements programme related to the sample project, whereas in other provinces the project description refers to the area name (either the town, or extension, or township, or part thereof). Thus this provides clarity that there is not uniformity in terms of what the requirement is when completing the database.

Table 33: North West province sample projects overview

NORTH WEST PROVINCEBojanala District MunicipalityRustenburg Local Municipality

ID Feb13924Project Number B12050007Project Phase B12050007/1Project Description FLISP - Finance Linked Individual SubsidiesProject Type FLISP ProjectsGIS District Municipality Bojanala District MunicipalityPSI.Region North WestPSI.Municipality North WestGIS Local Municipality Rustenburg Local MunicipalityMagisterial District NORTH WESTLocal Authority SOUTH AFRICAGIS TOWN RustenburgGIS_SUBURB NULLPSI.LatDeg -25.568978PSI.LongDeg 27.251074Project Completion CompletedYear Completed 2014Planned Units 325NumberofBeneficiaries 66DATA COLLECTIONTownship application/Development done under which act?

?


Not established


Not established

ASPECT: Information obtained? Yes pending / not available / no / NATown Planning information NoEnvironmental Report information NoEngineering Reports information NoHuman settlement information No





8. Western Cape Province Data Collection

Data collection and information requests from government departments have not lead to fruitful results. The persons indicated to be ones who might be relevant in providing information provided alternative persons to contact at different spheres of government, resulting in multiple attempts to establish who the relevant contacts are, without obtaining information.

Table 34: Western Cape province sample projects overview

WESTERN CAPECape Winelands District Municipality Eden District Municipality West Coast District Municipality

Stellenbosch Local Municipality Hessequa Local Municipality Bergrivier Local MunicipalityProject 1 Project 2 Project 3 Project 4 Project 5

ID Feb15799 Feb15546 Feb15900 Feb15419 Feb15471Project No W09040008 W09080002 W09100004 W10100003 W11070002Project Phase W09040008/1 W09080002/2 W09100004/3 W10100003/1 W11070002/1Project Description COCT: Noordhoek Masiphumelele:

Zwelitsha-330PHP<790>COCT: Kraaifontein: Wallacedene: Masizakhle 3 - 440 PHP <901>

COCT: Philippi Brown's Farm: Masibuzaneni-134PHP<791>

COCT: Khayelitsha: Site C Imbokotho Emnyama:103-PHP<739>

COCT: Khayelitsha: Site C: Umzimhlophe 2: 400 PHP

Project Type People’s Housing Project People’s Housing Project People’s Housing Project People’s Housing Project People’s Housing ProjectGIS District Municipality City of Cape Town Metropolitan

MunicipalityCity of Cape Town Metropolitan Municipality

City of Cape Town Metropolitan Municipality



PSI.Region METRO METRO METRO METRO METRO PSI.Municipality COCT COCT COCT COCT COCTGIS Local Municipality City of Cape Town Metropolitan

MunicipalityCity of Cape Town Metropolitan Municipality




Magisterial District CAPE CAPE CAPE CAPE CAPELocal Authority METRO AREA METRO AREA METRO AREA METRO AREA METRO AREAGIS TOWN Cape Town Cape Town Cape Town Cape Town Cape TownGIS_SUBURB Masiphumelele Wallacedene Browns Farms NULL UmzimhlophePSI.LatDeg NULL NULL NULL NULL NULLPSI.LongDeg NULL NULL NULL NULL NULLProject Completion Completed Completed Completed Completed CompletedYear Completed 2012 2013 2011 2013 2013Planned Units 50 250 13 51 94NumberofBeneficiaries 50 250 13 51 94DATA COLLECTIONTownship application/Development done under which act? NotdefinedProject information/data keeper (owner) (Provincial/Local?)Owning department (indicate here if all info is kept by the same dept., if not, complete below lines re: owning department)Aspect: Information obtained? Yes pending / not available / no / NATown Planning information NOEnvironmental Report information NOEngineering Reports information NOHuman settlement information NO





9. Mpumalanga Province Data Collection

Data collection and information requests from government departments were not met with fruitful results. The persons indicated to be ones who might be relevant in providing information did not respond to any efforts in contacting them telephonically, or via email hence no arrangements could bemadetoestablishtimestovisittheoffices.

Table 35: Mpumalanga province sample projects overview

MPUMALANGAEhlanzeni District Municipality

Mbombela Local Municipality NelspruitPROJECT 1 PROJECT 2 PROJECT 3 PROJECT 4 PROJECT 5

ID Feb10605 Feb10575 Feb10694 Feb10558 Feb10561Project No E12090019 E12080005 E11090040 E11080007 E10120006Project Phase E12090019/1 E12080005/1 E11090040/1 E11080007/1 E10120006/1Project Description Cbrs/Memeza Invest/Various Areas/

Mbombela Mun (100To43)Cbrs/Khumalo And Family Cater/Various Areas/Mbombela Mun (50To25)

Child Headed Households/Jenny and Thembi Trad/Manzini/Mbombela Mun (1)

Cbrs/Intombi Engagugi Trad/Various Areas/Mbombela Mun (25)

Cbrs/Joseph Zulu Constr/Pienaar, Mbon-sweni, Surroun Vill/Mbombela Mun (20)

Project Type CBRS CBRS CBRS CBRS CBRSGIS District Municipality Ehlanzeni District Municipality Ehlanzeni District Municipality Ehlanzeni District Municipality Ehlanzeni District Municipality Ehlanzeni District MunicipalityPSI.Region Ehlanzeni Ehlanzeni Ehlanzeni Ehlanzeni Ehlanzeni PSI.Municipality Mbombela Municipality Mbombela Municipality Mbombela Municipality Mbombela Municipality Mbombela MunicipalityGIS Local Municipality Mbombela Local Municipality Mbombela Local Municipality Mbombela Local Municipality Mbombela Local Municipality Mbombela Local MunicipalityMagisterial District Mbombela Mbombela Mbombela Mbombela MbombelaLocal Authority Ehlanzeni Ehlanzeni Ehlanzeni Ehlanzeni EhlanzeniGIS TOWN Nelspruit Nelspruit Nelspruit Nelspruit NelspruitGIS_SUBURB NULL NULL NULL NULL PienaarPSI.LatDeg NULL NULL NULL NULL NULLPSI.LongDeg NULL NULL NULL NULL NULLProject Completion Completed Completed Completed Completed CompletedYear Completed 2014 2014 2011 2012 2013Planned Units 43 25 1 25 20NumberofBeneficiaries 43 25 1 25 20





MPUMALANGAEhlanzeni District Municipality

Mbombela Local Municipality NelspruitPROJECT 7 PROJECT 8 PROJECT 9 PROJECT 10 PROJECT 11

ID Feb10625 Feb10537 Feb10549 Feb10562 Feb10871Project No E10110003 E10080010 E10080009 E10080002 E10050016Project Phase E10110003/1 E10080010/1 E10080009/1 E10080002/1 E10050016/1Project Description Cbrs/Ntwaleng Trad/Zombo & Zwelisha/

Mbombela Mun (100)Cbrs/Avax Sa 181/Chweni Ward-21/Mbombela Mun (25)

Cbrs/Deebo Constr/Mbonis,Jerus,Clau-Clau, Daan/Mbombela Mun (100To101)

Cbrs/Jv Mdhluli/Mboni,Jerus,Clau-Clau, Daant/Mbombela Mun (120To135)

War Vet/Jenny And Thembi Trad/Thulamahase/Bushbuckridge Mun (2)

Project Type Cbrs Cbrs Cbrs Cbrs CbrsGIS District Municipality Ehlanzeni District Municipality Ehlanzeni District Municipality Ehlanzeni District Municipality Ehlanzeni District Municipality Ehlanzeni District MunicipalityPSI.Region Ehlanzeni Ehlanzeni Ehlanzeni Ehlanzeni Ehlanzeni PSI.Municipality Mbombela Municipality Mbombela Municipality Mbombela Municipality Mbombela Municipality BushbuckridgeGIS Local Municipality Mbombela Local Municipality Mbombela Local Municipality Mbombela Local Municipality Mbombela Local Municipality Mbombela Local MunicipalityMagisterial District Mbombela Mbombela Mbombela Mbombela BushbuckridgeLocal Authority Ehlanzeni Ehlanzeni Ehlanzeni Ehlanzeni EhlanzeniGIS TOWN Nelspruit Nelspruit Nelspruit Nelspruit NelspruitGIS_SUBURB NULL NULL NULL NULL NULLPSI.LatDeg NULL NULL NULL NULL NULLPSI.LongDeg NULL NULL NULL NULL NULLProject Completion Completed Completed Completed Completed CompletedYear Completed 2012 2011 2011 2011 2012Planned Units 100 25 101 135 2NumberofBeneficiaries 100 25 101 135 2





MPUMALANGAGert Sibande District Municipality

Albert Luthuli Local Municipality TjakastadPROJECT 1 PROJECT 2 PROJECT 3 PROJECT 4 PROJECT 5

ID Feb11522 Feb11564 Feb11563 Feb11569 Feb11568Project No E11020020 E11050019 E11050019 E11050017 E11050017Project Phase E11020020/1 E11050019/2 E11050019/1 E11050017/2 E11050017/1Project Description Emergency/Phandasi/Tjakastad/Albert

Luthuli Mun (1)Php(Crdp)/Mathonsi Constr/Tjakastad,Avonteer,Mbejeka/Albert Luthuli Mun (240)

Php(Crdp)/Mathonsi Constr/Tjakastad,Avonteer,Mbejeka/Albert Luthuli Mun (240)

Php(Crdp)/Mshengu Gen Dealer/Tjakastad,Avonteer,Mbejeka/Albert Luthuli Mun (240)

Php(Crdp)/Mshengu Gen Dealer/Tjakastad,Avonteer,Mbejeka/Albert Luthuli Mun (240)

Project Type Disaster Programme Peoples Housing Process Peoples Housing Process Peoples Housing Process Peoples Housing ProcessGIS District Municipality Gert Sibande District Municipality Gert Sibande District Municipality Gert Sibande District Municipality Gert Sibande District Municipality Gert Sibande District MunicipalityPSI.Region Gert Sibande Gert Sibande Gert Sibande Gert Sibande Gert Sibande PSI.Municipality Chief Albert Luthuli Municipality Chief Albert Luthuli Municipality Chief Albert Luthuli Municipality Chief Albert Luthuli Municipality Chief Albert Luthuli MunicipalityGIS Local Municipality Albert Luthuli Local Municipality Albert Luthuli Local Municipality Albert Luthuli Local Municipality Albert Luthuli Local Municipality Albert Luthuli Local MunicipalityMagisterial District Chief Albert Luthuli Chief Albert Luthuli Chief Albert Luthuli Chief Albert Luthuli Chief Albert LuthuliLocal Authority Gert Sibande Gert Sibande Gert Sibande Gert Sibande Gert SibandeGIS TOWN Tjakastad Tjakastad Tjakastad Tjakastad TjakastadGIS_SUBURB Null Tjakastad Tjakastad Tjakastad TjakastadPSI.LatDeg Null Null Null Null NullPSI.LongDeg Null Null Null Null NullProject Completion Completed Completed Completed Completed CompletedYear Completed 2012 2013 2013 2013 2014Planned Units 1 183 57 138 102NumberofBeneficiaries 0 183 57 138 102





MPUMALANGANkangala District Municipality

Emalahleni Local Municipality EmalahleniPROJECT 1 PROJECT 2 PROJECT 3 PROJECT 4 PROJECT 5

ID Feb12592 Feb12603 Feb12612 Feb12593 Feb12591Project No E10080043 E11090012 E11090014 E11100007 E12080025Project Phase E10080043/1 E11090012/1 E11090014/1 E11100007/1 E12080025/1Project Description Ph2 Infor/Citra Shine Trad/

Empumelelweni/Emalahleni Mun (100)Ph2 Infor/Otj Build Constr/Various Areas/Emalahleni Mun (100)

Ph2 Infor/Zamani Engineer/Various Areas/Emalahleni Mun (100)

Ph2 Infor/Citra Shine Trad/Various Areas/Emalahleni Mun (145)

Ph2 Infor/Bull Pull Invest/Various Areas/Emalahleni Mun (100To51)

Project Type Project Approval Pre-Planning Project Approval Pre-Planning Project Approval Pre-Planning Project Approval Pre-Planning Project Approval Pre-PlanningGIS District Municipality Nkangala District Municipality Nkangala District Municipality Nkangala District Municipality Nkangala District Municipality Nkangala District MunicipalityPSI.Region Nkangala Nkangala Nkangala Nkangala Nkangala PSI.Municipality Emalahleni Municipality Emalahleni Municipality Emalahleni Municipality Emalahleni Municipality Emalahleni MunicipalityGIS Local Municipality Emalahleni Local Municipality Emalahleni Local Municipality Emalahleni Local Municipality Emalahleni Local Municipality Emalahleni Local MunicipalityMagisterial District Emalahleni Emalahleni Emalahleni Emalahleni EmalahleniLocal Authority Nkangala Nkangala Nkangala Nkangala NkangalaGIS TOWN Emalahleni Emalahleni Emalahleni Emalahleni EmalahleniGIS_SUBURB Null Null Null Null NullPSI.LatDeg Null Null Null Null NullPSI.LongDeg Null Null Null Null NullProject Completion Completed Completed Completed Completed CompletedYear Completed 2011 2013 2013 2014 2014Planned Units 100 100 100 145 51NumberofBeneficiaries 100 100 100 11 51DATA COLLECTIONTownship application/Development done under which act? NotdefinedProject information/data keeper (owner) (Provincial/Local?)Owning department (indicate here if all info is kept by the same dept., if not, complete below lines re: owning department)Aspect: Information obtained? Yes pending / not available / no / NATown Planning information NOEnvironmental Report information NOEngineering Reports information NOHuman settlement information NO





AppendixB–HSSdatabasefiltertodefinethesamplepopulation

Table36providesindicationofthefilteringappliedtothedatasetreceivedfromDHS.

Table 36: Data filtering to identify the sample population

StepstakentodefinethesamplePup Nr of projectsExpose the pivot data: from sheet: “Original Pivot (received as is)”, select “Show details” of the total nr of projects.Display in a new sheet: “Pivot Extracted -no change made” to create a reference for the Exposed pivot table data.

12425

Start Filtering process on a new sheet, from which consecutive sheets will be developed. Filtering Sheet to which change /Filter

appliesStart Filter Process: Identify which data will be relevant

Column Name Column nr Nr of projects Comment

Filter 1 4a. Pivot Extract & Filter Add Filter: (& colour) Show only “Approved” projects

Project Status Type AE 12418 Differences between the lists of projects is the Pivot Table data sent, excluded any projects that were not “Approved”.

Filter 2 4a. Pivot Extract & Filter Add Filter: (& Colour)Show only “Completed” Projects

Project Completion AG 5329 Only “Completed” projects are selected, since the projects that are not completed, might still have impacts, or still be in process of addressing EIP requirements.

Filter 3 4a. Pivot Extract & Filter Add Filter: (& Colour)Exclude “NULL”

GIS District Municipality N 5272 Remove projects that don’t indicate District Municipality location. All projects that indicate the DM as “NULL”: has no Local Municipality indicated.

Filter 4 4a. Pivot Extract & Filter Add Filter: (& colour)Exclude any “0” (zero) values

(Units) AK 4017 Thisproject’sfocusisonHumanSettlementdevelopments,specificallydevelopmentofhousingunits(aspertheTenderClarificationMeeting).Thus,removeprojectswhere zero (0) units are built.

Filter 5 4a. Pivot Extract & Filter Add Filter: (& colour)Show only 2009 to 2014

(Plan Start Date) AA 1076 To include projects implemented during 2nd ed. EIP period

Filter 6 4a. Pivot Extract & Filter Add Filter: (& colour)Show only 2009 to 2014

(Planned end date) AB 495 To include projects planned for completion during 2nd ed. EIP period. Projects that have not yet been completed , might still have impacts, or still be in process of addressing EIP requirements.

Filter7 4a. Pivot Extract & Filter Add Filter (& colour)Show only 2009 to 2014

Year Completed AJ 475 To include projects completed during 2nd ed. EIP period. Projects that have not yet been completed , might still have impacts, or still be in process of addressing EIP requirements.

Results indicate that with current filtering,therearenoprojectsin:- Western Cape- KwaZulu Natal.

A new Sheet with new pivot shouldbecreatedtoreflectnrofprojects per District Municipality & per Programme/Policy - see 5a. Extract & Filter Result Copy thereafter: Backtrack thefilteringprocessuntilWC& KZN projects are included - evaluateiftheseprojectsarefitfor purpose for inclusion in the sample.

Filter 6 Removed

4a. Pivot Extract & Filter Remove Filter(to show all planned end dates). Filter7willshowallprojectsthathave been completed.

Planned end date AB 611 Results indicate that all provinces are present in the data.





Appendix C – List of accessed environmental reports

Final Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Valleyview Residential Development on Portion 22 Of Farm Naauwpoort 335-JS, Mpumalanga ProvinceDraft Basic Assessment Report - Proposed Kloof Extension 15 And 21 Housing Project, Ethekwini MunicipalityKagiso Integrated Development (21) Monthly E.C.O. Audit ReportBardale Housing Development (Phases 5a And B)Monthly E.C.O. Audit Report July 2014Basic Assessment Report - Proposed Residential Development at Belton Farm: Basic Assessment Report DelftSymphonyPrecinct3&5HousingProject.EnvironmentalControlOfficerServices: Construction Phase. (08) E.C.O. Audit Report July 2016; and (16) E.C.O. Audit Report June 2014Final Basic Assessment Report For Metro-Grounds Housing Scheme on Portion of Erf 464, Metro-Grounds GeorgeProposed Forest Village Development, Blue Downs, Eerste River. Construction and Operational Environmental Management Programme (COEMPr)Final Basic Assessment Report for the Proposed Forest

Village Housing Development Erven 1905, 1913, 1915, and 1916, Blue Downs Eerste RiverForestVillageDevelopmentProjectConstructionPhase:EnvironmentalControlOfficerServices(02)E.C.O. Audit Report July 2016Draft Impact Assessment Report: Amendment To proposed development of Cotswold Fenns Estate, Portion734oftheFarmUpperEndofLangefonteinNo.980Environmental Management Programme for the housing development to be known as Rethabiseng Extension 5. Installation of water and sewer reticulation for 320 stands for Rethabiseng Ext 5 EnvironmentalControlOfficersMonthlyAuditECO Audit Number Fourteen: Status update on preliminary Closure Report November 2015Construction of 543 top structures for Rethabiseng Ext 5 EnvironmentalControlOfficersMonthlyAuditECOAuditNumberFourteenNovember 2015Environmental Management Programme for the Heidelberg Military Base Housing Project



246