Abstract
The implementation of the Renewable Energy Independent Power Producers Procurement Programme (REIPPPP) established in 2010 signified sustainable initiatives made by the government towards an energy and cost saving society. South Africa has one of the largest coal reserves in the world, including significant amounts of solar insolation. The Northern Cape province is one of the preferred locations for utility scale solar energy developers due to significant amounts of solar energy generation potential. Thus, it is the key province for solar photovoltaic projects.
Generating energy from solar photovoltaics involves energy that is attained directly from the adaptation of solar energy Generating energy in this manner has multiple benefits for all stakeholders. However, the construction and maintenance of solar energy infrastructure can have negative social impacts, including loss of land, displacement of homes, and job losses for some of the interested and affected stakeholders (Martinez & Komendantova, 2020). The growing interest of knowing the extent a project or development may have on society and the degree to which an activity will benefit or negatively impact a community is one of the main reasons for conducting Social Impact Assessment Reports (SIARS).
This study assessed the quality of SIARs for solar projects in the Northern Cape in South Africa. The evaluation used a modified Lee and Colley Review Package on seven SIARs, following the 2017 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Government Notice Regulations (GNR) 326 The results demonstrated that out of the seven SIARs assessed, five (71,4%) received a quality grade of “C”, thus indicating a “generally satisfactory” rating. This suggests that compliance with the applicable legislation was maintained despite certain weaknesses. Additionally, two (28,6%) of the seven SIARs were given a grade of “D" indicating they failed to meet major legislative requirements for a specialist report. These SIARs lacked clear and descriptive maps, and some of the assumptions and mitigation measures were inadequate. They also failed to document participation processes or how stakeholders were identified and engaged meaningfully.
Furthermore, they did not outline uncertainties and assumptions. The analysis of mitigation measures and decision-making was inadequate. In some instances, the map's scale and legends were unclear and complicated to read. There was no stakeholder engagement included in the Social Management Plan, and no consultation or public participation took place. Several recommendations have been proposed to improve the quality of future SIARs and overall social decision-making outcomes.