Draft Status Quo Report for the Pixley Ka Seme ... - SRK Consulting
Draft Status Quo Report for the Pixley Ka Seme ... - SRK Consulting
Draft Status Quo Report for the Pixley Ka Seme ... - SRK Consulting
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
<strong>SRK</strong> <strong>Consulting</strong> in association with BKS<br />
<strong>Pixley</strong> <strong>Ka</strong> <strong>Seme</strong> Local Municipality EMF – <strong>Draft</strong> <strong>Status</strong> <strong>Quo</strong> <strong>Report</strong> Page 16<br />
2.4 Stakeholder engagement<br />
The EMF development process described above is<br />
reliant on a consultation strategy, as per <strong>the</strong> DEA EMF<br />
guidelines. The purpose of <strong>the</strong> consultation process is<br />
to:<br />
• Raise awareness about <strong>the</strong> EMF development<br />
process;<br />
• Provide an opportunity <strong>for</strong> inputs from interested<br />
and affected parties (I&APs); and<br />
• Ensure feedback on <strong>the</strong> results of <strong>the</strong> process and<br />
allow an opportunity <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong>m to respond.<br />
As such <strong>the</strong> public participation process has been<br />
separated into three phases, namely:<br />
• Phase 1: Awareness raising;<br />
• Phase 2: Input; and<br />
• Phase 3: Feedback and response.<br />
2.4.1 Phase 1: Awareness raising<br />
The intention of <strong>the</strong> PKSLM to compile an EMF was<br />
advertised in newspapers. In addition, all I&APs on <strong>the</strong><br />
stakeholder database were sent personal invitations to<br />
one of three focus group meetings held on 8 and 9 June<br />
2010. A database of invited and registered I&APs was<br />
kept as a record.<br />
A background in<strong>for</strong>mation document (BID) was sent to<br />
all I&APs who registered. The BID provided a brief<br />
explanation of <strong>the</strong> EMF process, <strong>the</strong> full extent of <strong>the</strong><br />
study area and what <strong>the</strong> EMF aims to achieve. It also<br />
included details of <strong>the</strong> public participation process and<br />
how I&APs could get involved. Contact details of <strong>the</strong><br />
consultants were provided <strong>for</strong> I&APs to register or to<br />
enquire fur<strong>the</strong>r.<br />
2.4.2 Phase 2: Input<br />
The input phase involves <strong>the</strong> presentation of<br />
in<strong>for</strong>mation related to <strong>the</strong> EMF process and <strong>the</strong> roles<br />
and responsibilities of <strong>the</strong> stakeholders. In addition, <strong>the</strong><br />
opportunity will be provided <strong>for</strong> I&APs to in<strong>for</strong>m <strong>the</strong><br />
baseline data and raise specific concerns/issues that<br />
would influence <strong>the</strong> analysis of sensitivities and <strong>the</strong><br />
associated guidelines. The matters raised at <strong>the</strong><br />
meetings will be recorded in proceedings that are<br />
distributed <strong>for</strong> review. Attendance registers of all<br />
meetings held with stakeholders and <strong>the</strong> general public<br />
will be kept.<br />
2.4.3 Phase 3: Feedback<br />
Once <strong>the</strong> relative sensitivities of components of <strong>the</strong><br />
environment have been rated and guidelines developed<br />
in consultation with <strong>the</strong> PSC, <strong>the</strong> draft EMF report<br />
(including <strong>the</strong> SEMP) will be made available <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
public to peruse. Phase 3 of <strong>the</strong> public participation<br />
process will <strong>the</strong>re<strong>for</strong>e consist of <strong>the</strong> review of <strong>the</strong><br />
report, and public and focus group meetings to present,<br />
explain and discuss <strong>the</strong> findings with registered I&APs.<br />
Comments and concerns raised at <strong>the</strong>se meetings and<br />
noted in <strong>the</strong> proceedings will <strong>for</strong>m part of <strong>the</strong> final EMF<br />
report. Additional comments may also be received by<br />
fax, e-mail or post.<br />
2.5 Assumptions, limitations and<br />
uncertainties<br />
This section lists <strong>the</strong> key assumptions, limitations and<br />
uncertainties identified by <strong>the</strong> project team and <strong>the</strong><br />
specialists during <strong>the</strong> course of <strong>the</strong> status quo<br />
assessment.<br />
It must be noted that <strong>the</strong> status quo assessment does not<br />
include any primary research or comprehensive groundtruthing.<br />
Thus <strong>the</strong> assessment is reliant on <strong>the</strong> review of<br />
existing secondary in<strong>for</strong>mation sources. There is a risk<br />
that specialist investigations, given <strong>the</strong>ir reliance on<br />
existing sources <strong>for</strong> data, could be limited by what has<br />
been produced and <strong>the</strong> quality of <strong>the</strong> in<strong>for</strong>mation<br />
provided. It was assumed that <strong>the</strong> data provided was <strong>the</strong><br />
most up-to-date, accurate and adequately<br />
comprehensive.<br />
Surface water<br />
Much of <strong>the</strong> in<strong>for</strong>mation presented at quaternary and<br />
sub-catchment level is desktop in<strong>for</strong>mation that has<br />
been extrapolated from a limited number of monitoring<br />
sites.<br />
Groundwater<br />
<strong>SRK</strong> did not carry out large-scale baseline investigation<br />
of <strong>the</strong> groundwater resources and <strong>the</strong> data used was<br />
largely sourced from <strong>the</strong> Mpumalanga Department of<br />
Agriculture, Rural Development and Land<br />
Administration, MDEDET, Water Research<br />
Commission studies, DWA and existing data within<br />
KILI/BEAT G:\404946_PIXLEY EMF\7REPORTS\<strong>Status</strong> <strong>Quo</strong> report\<strong>Draft</strong> report\<strong>Draft</strong> status quo report, July 2010.docx July 2010