NEW LIBERTY GOLD MINE (NLGM) PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS)

Section I: Social Impact Assessment Report

June 2012
Report No. GHA1044
May 2012

AUREUS MINING INC.

New Liberty Gold Mine (NLGM)

Project EIA: Socio-Economic
Assessment

Submitted to:
Aureus Mining Inc.
Allison Street
Congo Town
Monrovia
Liberia

Report Number: 12898

Distribution:
1 Copy: Aureus Mining Inc.
1 Copy: GAA Library
 NLGM SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Executive Summary

Bea Mountain Mining Corporation (BMMC), a company registered in Liberia, is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Aureus Mining Incorporated (AM). BMMC hold a Class A mining license issued by the Liberian Ministry of
Land, Mines and Energy on 29 July 2009 to mine the New Liberty Gold Mine (NLGM) deposit for a period of
25 years, with the right to extend this term for additional terms of 25 years. BMMC proposes to develop an
open pit gold mine, referred to as the NLGM Project (the Project), which is one of a series of gold
exploration deposits located within BMMCs 457 km2 mining license area.

According to Section 37 of the Environment Protection Agency Act of Liberia, BMMC is required to undertake
an environmental impact assessment (EIA) for the proposed project. Based on the findings of the EIA, the
Liberian Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will make a decision on whether the project may go ahead
or not. The EIA has been undertaken to meet Liberian legislative requirements. (Reference has also been
made to applicable international standards/limits).

BMMC appointed an independent consulting company, Golder Associates (Ghana) Ltd, based in Accra,
Ghana, to undertake the EIA and associated specialist studies, with assistance provided by the local Liberian
consulting company, EarthCons, as per requirements of the Environmental Protection and Management Law
(2006).

This report presents the socio-economic impact assessment (SIA), as part of the EIA for the proposed
Project. This report has been prepared by Golder Associates (Golder) on behalf of BMMC as per
requirements of the Liberian Environmental Protection and Management Law (2006).

Specialist Study Scope and Objectives

The key aims and objectives of the socio-economic study included:

To provide an accurate representation of the social, cultural and economic conditions of the population
surrounding New Liberty mining developments;

To identify the potential socio-economic positive and negative impacts of the construction, operations
and decommissioning and closure phases of the proposed project;

To develop attainable mitigation measures to enhance positive impacts and reduce or avoid negative
impacts; and

To develop management and monitoring measures to be implemented throughout the life of the project.

The approach and methodology that was employed during the socio-economic assessment included desktop
review of relevant country reports and documentation pertaining to the project area of influence, government
publications and legislation, and previous social and resettlement project reports, and qualitative and
quantitative fieldwork data collection. Socio-economic fieldwork comprised undertaking a standardised
survey focusing on household composition, education levels, general health status, livelihood strategies,
employment, and income and expenditure, and holding focus group discussions considering the origins and
movements of the local population, the life of miners; contrasts between artisanal mining and BMMC
opportunities, administrative and hierarchical systems within the community, land ownership, and social
concerns in relation to the proposed development.

Baseline Socio-Economic Environment

Overview of the Area
The project area is surrounded by a number of small, agricultural villages and an artisanal mining community
spread across the villages of Kinjor and the smaller Larjor. Communities have not escaped the conflicts of
the civil war, nor the disruption to infrastructure and services, population displacement, and resulting poverty.
Many left the established older villages in the area for a time, only returning in the last five years to reclaim

May 2012
Report No. 12898
 NLGM SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT

and rebuild their homesteads and land. Damages to previously existing infrastructure and loss of
subsistence patterns of life have impacted the potential to regain former livelihoods. The lack of development
or job opportunities has encouraged many of the younger generation to leave agricultural-based villages in
search of better education and livelihood opportunities, often in Monrovia.

Mining prospects however, have had the greatest impact on the immediate area, both artisanal mining and
exploration activities of BMMC. The area surrounding the proposed mining site originally consisted of dense
forest interspersed by small, rural villages supported by agricultural activities. Artisanal miners are thought to
have entered the area in the 1960s, and residents of Kinjor describe the town as being established in 1970.
The villages of Larjor and Kinjor have developed considerably in the last 10 12 years with the
establishment of BMMCs mine camp in 1998, attracting families with potential opportunities for formal and
informal employment, and with ongoing artisanal mining prospects.

The outcome of such mining development and recovery efforts from civil war devastation is that a division
has emerged, forming the mining-based villages of Kinjor and Larjor, and the subsistence agricultural base
of surrounding villages. Households in these latter villages have access to agricultural land, comprising some
6125 acres extending from the village of Janah Brown to the Mafa River. Land customarily owned by families
in these villages was transferred to the Marvoe Development Association (MDA) in 1978 under the new
deeds system. The development association was then officially initiated in 1996 to protect this land. The
oldest customary landowners are the villages of Jawajai, then Janah Brown, Deyhalin and Blang
approximately 15km to 20km away from the project site.

The dispersement of extended family networks across villages, districts, counties and even countries is
common, especially in newer mining villages. In many cases, young males have left subsistence agricultural
villages in search of employment opportunities, either locally in Kinjor, or further afield, leaving females and
the older generation at the homestead. Population in the area is divided between Christian and Islam faith,
with households in the agricultural villages also retaining more traditional, animistic values.

Household Structures, Services and Health

Structures within the project area reflect a dependence on natural, local resources and the lack of access to
or ability to purchase external, more durable, man-made construction materials. Structures predominantly
have walls made from mud, reeds and poles and roofs of thatch, and as such require frequent maintenance
and upkeep. As seen across Liberia, energy needs are largely serviced by natural available resources,
primarily by wood or charcoal. The absence of services and development in rural communities is also noticed
in the lack of safe drinking water in many villages, leaving residents reliant on streams and rivers for water
supply. The impact of BMMC can be seen in the water pumps they have installed in Kinjor, Jikandou,
Jawajai and Mono villages.

Dependence on natural resources extends to a large extent to food supply, although more so in agricultural
villages than mining ones. Whilst farming is the basis of livelihoods in many of the older villages, forming a
whole year business and supplying the majority of food supplies, very few households in Kinjor and Larjor
have access to farming land. Households in mining villages more commonly purchase food either from
surrounding farmers or from Monrovia.

Access restrictions to safe drinking water and insufficient fulfilment of nutritional requirements have a
significant influence on the health status of the local population. This is further exacerbated by the shortage
of medical facilities within the project area. The nearest clinic on foot to Kinjor is Kpeneje Clinic, established
in August 2010, approximately 15km away and consequently too far for many households without transport.
Malaria is the most common illness, affecting at least one household member in 95 percent of households in
the last 12 months. Food shortages were experienced by three quarters of the population in the last 12
months, predominantly during the wet season from August to September, with figures rising in agricultural
villages and falling slightly amongst mining villages. In addition to shortages of locally grown crops and
disposable income from artisanal mining in these months, during the height of the wet season, access
between and out of all villages is difficult and sometimes impossible, restricting possibilities to purchase food
elsewhere.

May 2012
Report No. 12898
 NLGM SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Despite government and NGO efforts to improve primary education across Liberia, access to educational
facilities remains a challenge in the rural project area. There is a small, rudimentary primary school in Kinjor;
however, the distance from many of the more remote, agricultural villages to educational facilities means
primary school attendance is often low.

Employment and Economic Activities

Educational limitations restrict individuals potential to occupy available employment positions. However,
although opportunities with BMMC are predominantly informal, temporary labour roles, these have had a
significant impact on the local area, impacting levels of health, nutrition, education and service delivery.
Approximately three percent of the population has formal employment and a further 18 percent are informally
employed. Employment is highest in Kinjor, as is artisanal mining, providing income to around half of
households in the village. Half of surveyed households also run some form of small business. Income for the
total population is most commonly derived through home enterprises, casual employment, crops and
livestock, and artisanal mining. Although only 12 percent of the population benefit, income from formal wage
employment is the highest, with employees earning between US$83 and US$234 per month. Artisanal
miners also report relatively high incomes; between US$146 and US$211 per month. However, as with
casual employment, income from artisanal mining is variable depending on finds.

Assessment of Potential Socio-Economic Impacts and Mitigation / Management

Measures
Potential Impact Mitigation Measure(s)

Construction Phase

Physical displacement impacting structures The significant physical and economic

and sites of religious significance. displacement of households will require a
Resettlement Action Plan, currently underway.
Initial resettlement studies undertaken in late This plan should include compensation for
2011 indicate that the Project will require the structures and loss of assets and support with
physical resettlement of approximately 300 moving to a new location and establishing a
households. homestead.

Affected community infrastructure includes The development of alternative livelihood

the primary school, religious buildings (three strategies should be the preferred mitigation
in total), the cemetery, the community measure, maximising all possibilities for
meeting place and two water pumps. involvement in employment opportunities available.
Although many of these positions will be skilled
Economic displacement of private positions, the establishment of appropriate training
landowner, MDA, and customary land users, and skills development at an early stage will allow
affecting access to agricultural land and local community members to benefit from such
natural resources. opportunities.

Economic displacement through the loss of A Livelihood Restoration Plan and Community
artisanal mining opportunities, having a Development Plan should be developed to ensure
significant indirect impact on household households are not left worse off following
income and livelihoods, especially for displacement.
households in Kinjor and Larjor.
Establishment of grievance mechanism prior to
project implementation to facilitate the resolution of
affected community concerns and grievances,
ensuring ongoing interaction with the community in
order to build trust and maintain relationships
throughout the life of the project.

May 2012
Report No. 12898
 NLGM SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Potential Impact Mitigation Measure(s)

Creation of employment opportunities. Establishment of a local labour desk at the mine

or contractor offices to identify a local labour pool.
Opportunities for skills development and
training. Implementation of skills development programmes
to ensure support local population in obtaining
employment opportunities.

Impacts to water levels and water quality See Surface Water Impact Assessment
through diversion of Marvoe Creek and recommendations.
possible pollutants.

Possible displacement of Jikandou village,

who rely entirely on natural water resources
for domestic and agricultural purposes.

Noise and dust pollution related to See Noise and Air Quality Impact Assessment
construction excavations. recommendations.

Increased irritation especially in the directly

affected communities, which may cause
social distress and reaction against the
project.

Access restrictions to services and Develop Community Development Plan taking into
developments. account all villages within traditional area of
jurisdiction and their dependency on services and
Resettlement of the hub of Kinjor, currently resources.
providing services to surrounding villages
will increase the distance households from
other villages need to travel to access such
services.

Population influx through construction Clear communication of all available employment

workers and job seekers resulting in social positions to minimise population influx.
tensions and an increase in sexually
transmitted diseases, notably HIV/AIDS Implementation of health development plans
including upgrading facilities and awareness
campaigns surrounding HIV/AIDS.

Potential for conflict through the A dispute prevention and management plan should
displacement of artisanal mining and the be developed with an aim to manage conflict and
livelihood base of a large proportion of the bring about positive change through conflict
community. resolution processes. This will be assisted by
ongoing community engagement and stakeholder
involvement throughout the process.

May 2012
Report No. 12898
 NLGM SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Potential Impact Mitigation Measure(s)

Increase in traffic and safety hazards to the A detailed health and safety plan must be
local population and construction workers. developed to mitigate the construction and
operation risks of the proposed project on the
surrounding communities. This plan must take
cognisance of the following:

Increased risk of traffic through built-up areas;

Use of streams and rivers at the point of

crossing of waterways and the risk that
increased traffic volumes will pose to people;

Risks associated with blasting activities during

operation;

Risks associated with operating the plant a

emergency plan must be developed that takes
major emergency events and their impact on
the community into consideration, including
community evacuation plans; and

Safety measures in relation to the storage,

transportation and use of cyanide.

Increase in business opportunities in local Explore possibilities to include training

services caused by increased demand for opportunities for developing business opportunities
goods and services and spending power in Community Development Plan.
from construction workers.
Consider funding small business development.

Operations Phase

Employment opportunities estimated at Establishment of a local labour desk at the mine

approximately 300 personnel. or contractor offices to identify a local labour pool.

Implementation of skills development programmes

to ensure support local population in obtaining
employment opportunities.

Loss of sense of place. See Visual Impact Assessment for

recommendations.

Improved services and community Develop Community Development Plan taking into
development potential. account all villages within traditional area of
jurisdiction, with an aim to long-term sustainable
development.

May 2012
Report No. 12898
 NLGM SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Potential Impact Mitigation Measure(s)

Decommissioning and Closure Phase

A temporary increase in employment A program of retrenchment and re-training during

followed by a decrease. the operational phase, providing employees with
clear, transparent information on planned activities
and closure dates, offering full retrenchment
packages or relocation to maintain employment at
other operations sites where possible.

Change in economic benefits from mining to Community Development Plan to include skills
subsistence agriculture. training and development to ensure transferrable
skills and options for alternative livelihood
strategies.

The majority of impacts identified during the impact assessment can be reduced to low significance following
the implementation of mitigation measures. However, impacts of physical and economic displacement
remain of moderate significance, even with mitigation, due to their permanent nature. As such, monitoring
and management measures should extend throughout the life of the project in order to ensure that the
quality of life of displaced persons is equal to or better than prior to displacement. Planning should also take
into consideration additional prospecting areas in the license area and future mining plans, as additional
artisanal mining communities may be affected in the years to come, restricting artisanal mining opportunities
on a regional scale. The development and management of alternative livelihood strategies and skills
development programmes assist in managing this cumulative impact.

Monitoring Plan
Source Monitoring Locations Parameters Frequency
Quality of life of Quarterly reviews in 1st
Resettlement Action Plan Resettlement sites households, 2 years then annual for
commitments in RAP further 3 years
Quarterly monitoring
during 1st year, half-
Livelihood Restoration nd
Resettlement sites Commitments in plan. yearly during 2 year,
Plan
annually for further 3
years
Commitments in plan,
Community Development construction and Annual monitoring
Local communities
Plan operation of throughout life of mine
developments
Quarterly monitoring and
Local communities, site Health and safety
Health and Safety Plan reporting throughout life
operations incidents
of mine
Dispute prevention and Conflicts, stakeholder Annual monitoring
Local communities
management plan engagement throughout life of mine

Conclusion
The proposed New Liberty development will be the first gold mine in Liberia, and the first industrial
development in the project area. New economic activities such as this project have the potential to assist
with the developmental challenges that much of rural Liberia is faced with, providing employment and skills
development to Liberian nationals and contributing to the social, economic and institutional development of

May 2012
Report No. 12898
 NLGM SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT

communities. The benefits of employment opportunities and disposable income in the local project area have
been noted in the baseline, as levels of health, nutrition, education and service delivery are higher in the
towns of Kinjor and Larjor, exposed to such opportunities, than in surrounding rural agricultural villages.
Additional employment and associated indirect economic benefits will maintain and improve the quality of life
of these communities. Continued investment in the project area will also support much-needed development.
The compilation of a Community Development Plan taking into account all villages within the traditional area
of jurisdiction will allow for planning and management of sustainable development.

The most significant negative impact of the project is the physical and economic displacement of
approximately 300 households in Kinjor and Larjor. This includes the displacement of artisanal mining
opportunities, sustaining the livelihoods of a large proportion of households. A Resettlement Action Plan
(RAP) is currently being developed to mitigate this impact. This plan should include compensation for
structures and loss of assets and support with moving to a new location and establishing a homestead. The
development of alternative livelihood strategies should be the preferred mitigation measure, maximising all
possibilities for involvement in employment opportunities available. A Livelihood Restoration Plan should be
developed to ensure households are not left worse off following displacement. Ongoing management and
monitoring, including effective community engagement, and open, transparent communication will assist in
avoiding potential conflict or tensions relating to such displacement, building trust and maintaining
relationships throughout the life of the project.

May 2012
Report No. 12898
 NLGM SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT

ACRONYMS
Acronym Definition
AMI Aureus Mining Incorporated
AMC Australian Mining Consultant
BMMC Bea Mountain Mining Corporation
CDP Community Development Plan
CIL Carbon in Leach
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
GDP Gross Domestic Profit
IFC International Finance Corporation
ILO International Labour Organisation
LRP Livelihood Restoration Plan
MDA Minerals Development Agreement
MDA Marvoe Development Association
NLGM New Liberty Gold Mine
PS Performance Standards
RAP Resettlement Action Plan
ROM Run Of Mine
SIA Social Impact Assessment
TSF Tailings Storage Facility

May 2012
Report No. 12898
 NLGM SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................ 1

2.0 PROJECT SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................... 1

2.1 Project Background ....................................................................................................................................... 1

2.2 Project Location ............................................................................................................................................ 3

2.3 Project Description ........................................................................................................................................ 3

2.3.1 Mining Method ......................................................................................................................................... 4

2.3.2 Open Pits................................................................................................................................................. 5

2.3.3 Waste Rock Dump .................................................................................................................................. 5

2.3.4 Gold Processing Plant ............................................................................................................................. 5

2.3.5 Tailings Storage Facility (TSF) ................................................................................................................ 5

2.3.6 Water Management ................................................................................................................................. 6

2.3.7 Waste Management ................................................................................................................................ 7

2.4 Development and Operation ......................................................................................................................... 7

3.0 PROJECT MOTIVATION ........................................................................................................................................... 8

4.0 PROJECT FEASIBILITY ............................................................................................................................................ 8

4.1.1 Mineral Resource Estimate ..................................................................................................................... 9

5.0 POLICY, LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK APPLICABLE TO THE PROJECT ............................. 10

6.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES .................................................................................................................................... 12

6.1 Site Layout .................................................................................................................................................. 12

6.2 Processing Plant ......................................................................................................................................... 12

6.3 Diversion of the Marvoe Creek .................................................................................................................... 12

6.4 Go-No-Go Project Alternative ..................................................................................................................... 12

7.0 SPECIALIST STUDY APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY .................................................................................... 13

7.1 Data Collection ............................................................................................................................................ 13

7.1.1 Desktop review of relevant documentation ............................................................................................ 13

7.1.2 Delineation of study area for the assessment ........................................................................................ 13

7.1.3 Field work .............................................................................................................................................. 13

7.2 Assumptions and limitations........................................................................................................................ 14

8.0 BASELINE SOCIO-ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT ..................................................................................................... 1

8.1 Local Overview ............................................................................................................................................. 1

May 2012
Report No. 12898 i
 NLGM SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT

8.2 Household Demographics ............................................................................................................................. 2

8.3 Housing and Services ................................................................................................................................... 4

8.4 Agriculture and Household Nutrition.............................................................................................................. 7

8.5 Health............................................................................................................................................................ 9

8.6 Education .................................................................................................................................................... 11

8.7 Livelihood Strategies ................................................................................................................................... 12

8.7.1 Artisanal Mining ..................................................................................................................................... 13

8.7.2 Small Businesses .................................................................................................................................... 2

8.8 Income and Expenditure ............................................................................................................................... 3

8.9 Belief Systems and Sacred Sites .................................................................................................................. 4

9.0 SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT PREDICTION AND EVALUATION ............................................................................ 4

9.1 Impact Assessment Methodology ................................................................................................................. 4

9.2 Project Phases .............................................................................................................................................. 6

9.3 Construction Phase Impact Assessment....................................................................................................... 6

9.3.1 Physical Displacement ............................................................................................................................ 8

9.3.2 Economic Displacement .......................................................................................................................... 8

9.3.3 Creation of Employment Opportunities .................................................................................................... 8

9.3.4 Loss of Sense of Place ............................................................................................................................ 9

9.3.5 Impacts to Water Quantity and Quality .................................................................................................... 9

9.3.6 Noise and Dust Pollution ......................................................................................................................... 9

9.3.7 Access Restrictions to Services and Developments ................................................................................ 9

9.3.8 Population Influx ...................................................................................................................................... 9

9.3.9 Conflict Potential ..................................................................................................................................... 9

9.3.10 Increase in Traffic and Safety Hazards.................................................................................................. 10

9.3.11 Increase in Business Opportunities ....................................................................................................... 10

9.4 Operational Phase Impact Assessment ...................................................................................................... 10

9.4.1 Creation of Employment Opportunities .................................................................................................. 11

9.4.2 Noise and Dust Pollution ....................................................................................................................... 11

9.4.3 Health and Safety Impacts .................................................................................................................... 11

9.4.4 Improved Services and Community Development Potential .................................................................. 11

9.5 Decommissioning and Closure Phase Impact Assessment ........................................................................ 11

10.0 STATEMENT OF THE DEGREE OF IRREVERSIBLE DAMAGE ........................................................................... 12

11.0 RESIDUAL IMPACTS .............................................................................................................................................. 12

May 2012
Report No. 12898 ii
 NLGM SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT

12.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ......................................................................................................................................... 13

13.0 RECOMMENDED MITIGATION/MANAGEMENT MEASURES .............................................................................. 13

13.1 Construction Phase Mitigation Measures .................................................................................................... 13

13.2 Operational Phase Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................................... 20

13.3 Decommissioning and Closure Phase Mitigation Measures ....................................................................... 23

13.4 Cost estimate for mitigation......................................................................................................................... 25

14.0 SOCIO-ECONOMIC MONITORING PROGRAMME ................................................................................................ 26

15.0 CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................................................... 26

16.0 QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE .................................................................................................................. 27

TABLES
Table 1: NLGM TSF Design Specifications (Golder, May 2012).......................................................................................... 6

Table 2: NLGM Project estimated water usage ................................................................................................................... 7

Table 3: NLGM Mineral Reserve Estimate .......................................................................................................................... 9

Table 4: Weighting of Socio-Economic Survey Results ..................................................................................................... 14

Table 5: Household Composition and Demographics.......................................................................................................... 2

Table 6: Purpose, Construction Materials, Age, and Number of Rooms of Structures ........................................................ 5

Table 7: Main Source of Energy for Lighting, Cooking and Heating (Percentage)............................................................... 6

Table 8: Access to land and food plots ................................................................................................................................ 7

Table 9: Household Meal Ingredients .................................................................................................................................. 8

Table 10: Household Consumption of Natural Resources ................................................................................................... 8

Table 11: Incidence of Illnesses in the Last 12 Months ....................................................................................................... 9

Table 12: Hospitalisation, Death and Hunger in the Last 12 Months ................................................................................. 10

Table 13: Education Status of Population Aged 5 - 18 Years ............................................................................................ 11

Table 14: Educational Attainment of Population Over 18 Years ........................................................................................ 11

Table 15: Employment Status of Population Over 18 Years .............................................................................................. 12

Table 16: Artisanal Mining ................................................................................................................................................. 13

Table 17: Ownership of Businesses .................................................................................................................................... 2

Table 18: Three Most Frequent Expenditure Items ............................................................................................................. 3

Table 19: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for the proposed NLGM Project Construction Phase ..................... 6

Table 20: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for the proposed NLGM Project Operational Phase ..................... 10

Table 21: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for the proposed NLGM Project Decommissioning and
Closure Phase .................................................................................................................................................. 11

Table 22: Environmental Management Programme Construction Phase (NLGM Project) ............................................. 14

Table 23: Environmental Management Programme Operational Phase (NLGM Project) ............................................... 21

May 2012
Report No. 12898 iii
 NLGM SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Table 24: Environmental Management Programme Decommissioning & Closure Phase (NLGM Project) .................... 24

Table 25: Cost estimate for implementing the socio-economic related mitigation measures ............................................. 25

Table 26: Socio-Economic Monitoring Programme ........................................................................................................... 26

FIGURES
Figure 1: Project Location and Surrounding Communities .................................................................................................. 3

Figure 2: Proposed NLGM Site Infrastructure and Mining Layout ....................................................................................... 4

Figure 3: NLGM Gold Production Schedule......................................................................................................................... 8

Figure 4: Project Infrastructure and Surrounding Villages ................................................................................................... 1

Figure 5: Age Distribution by Gender per Village................................................................................................................. 3

Figure 6: Semi-Built Structure in Kinjor ................................................................................................................................ 4

Figure 7: Structure in Larjor Village ..................................................................................................................................... 4

Figure 8: Structures in Jawajai Village ................................................................................................................................. 5

Figure 9: Water Pump in Kinjor............................................................................................................................................ 7

Figure 10: Chilli peppers for Sale in Kinjor .......................................................................................................................... 8

Figure 11: Household Experiencing Food Shortages ........................................................................................................ 10

Figure 12: Primary School in Kinjor ................................................................................................................................... 11

Figure 13: Female Artisanal Miner..................................................................................................................................... 13

Figure 14: Child Assisting with Artisanal Mining ................................................................................................................ 13

Figure 15: Artisanal Mining near Kinjor I ............................................................................................................................ 14

Figure 16: Artisanal Mining near Kinjor II ............................................................................................................................. 1

Figure 17: Small Businesses in Kinjor ................................................................................................................................. 2

Figure 18: Main Source of Income....................................................................................................................................... 3

Figure 19: Church in Kinjor .................................................................................................................................................. 4

Figure 20: Mosque in Kinjor ................................................................................................................................................. 4

Figure 21: Scoring System for Assessment of Significance ................................................................................................ 5

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
Document Limitations

May 2012
Report No. 12898 iv
 NLGM SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Bea Mountain Mining Corporation (BMMC), a company registered in Liberia, is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Aureus Mining Incorporated (AM). BMMC hold a Class A mining license issued by the Liberian Ministry of
Land, Mines and Energy on 29 July 2009 to mine the New Liberty Gold Mine (NLGM) deposit for a period of
25 years, with the right to extend this term for additional terms of 25 years. BMMC proposes to develop an
open pit gold mine, referred to as the NLGM Project (the Project), which is one of a series of gold exploration
deposits located within BMMCs 457 km2 mining license area.

According to Section 37 of the Environment Protection Agency Act of Liberia, BMMC is required to undertake
an environmental impact assessment (EIA) for the proposed project. Based on the findings of the EIA, the
Liberian Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will make a decision on whether the project may go ahead
or not. The EIA has been undertaken to meet Liberian legislative requirements. (Reference has also been
made to applicable international standards/limits).

BMMC appointed an independent consulting company, Golder Associates (Ghana) Ltd, based in Accra,
Ghana, to undertake the EIA and associated specialist studies, with assistance provided by the local Liberian
consulting company, EarthCons, as per requirements of the Environmental Protection and Management Law
(2006).

This report presents the socio-economic specialist assessment (SIA), as part of the EIA for the proposed
Project. This report has been prepared by Golder Associates (Golder) on behalf of BMMC as per
requirements of the Liberian Environmental Protection and Management Law (2006).
The key aims and objectives of this study included:

To provide an accurate representation of the social, cultural and economic conditions of the population
surrounding New Liberty mining developments;

To identify the potential socio-economic positive and negative impacts of the construction, operations
and decommissioning and closure phases of the proposed project;

To develop attainable mitigation measures to enhance positive impacts and reduce or avoid negative
impacts; and

To develop management and monitoring measures to be implemented throughout the life of the project.
This specialist study report includes the following sections:

Overview, motivation, feasibility, and alternatives of the project (Sections 1 6);

Study approach and methodology (Section 7);

Description of the socio-economic baseline conditions (Section 8); and

Impact prediction, rating and mitigation, management and monitoring measures (Sections 9 14).

2.0 PROJECT SUMMARY

2.1 Project Background
Should the proposed New Liberty Gold Mine be developed, it will be the first commercial gold mine in
Liberia.
The New Liberty Gold Mine Project forms part of a Minerals Development Agreement (MDA) between
BMMC and the Liberian Government (which was signed on the 14 of March 2002). The Liberian Government
retains a 10% ownership in the Project and a 3% Net Smelter Return. The terms of the MDA are for 25
years, which can be extended for another 25-year period and falls under the auspices of the Mining Code of
2000.

May 2012
Report No. 12898 i
 NLGM SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT

BMMC has been exploring the Project area since 1997. Between 1997 and 2009, exploration and resource
drilling was carried out on the Project site by various BMMC employees and drilling companies, as follows:

The exploration programme commenced in 1997 with preliminary geochemical sampling across the
artisanal workings in areas where primary rock was exposed. A programme of trenching over the target
area was undertaken to estimate continuity between the proposed Larjor and Kinjor pits; 24 trench
excavations were initially completed in June and July 1998;

In February 1999 a programme of diamond drilling was undertaken by contractors Drillsure Limited. The
programme comprised 19 holes and intersected mineralisation at depths ranging from 20 to 30 metres
below surface;

In early 2000, a second campaign of drilling was undertaken with the aim of testing the mineralisation at
greater depth under the Kinjor and Larjor zones and to investigate the mineralisation in the Marvoe
Zone;

The third diamond drilling campaign started in January 2005 and was aimed at closing on-strike inter-
hole distances and at the same time certain selected holes were drilled in order to intersect the ore
body at greater depth; and

In 2009, when AM acquired BMMC, the exploration drilling programme was again extended. To date
approximately 400 holes have been drilled within the NLGM Project area in order to assess the
resource potential. Currently, the average depth is 180m and the deepest holes were approximately
520m below surface.

May 2012
Report No. 12898 ii
 NLGM SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT

2.2 Project Location

The Project is located in the Grand Cape Mount County of Liberia, approximately 90 km northwest of the
capital, Monrovia. The Project refers to the NLGM license only of the Class A area as shown in Figure 1.
Project access is by 100 kilometres of tarred road and 40 kilometres of laterite road from the capital city of
Monrovia. The Marvoe Creek runs through the proposed Project area. Sinj is a large town located to the
south of the Project area. Villages in the vicinity of the proposed mine site include Kinjor (adjacent to the
NLGM exploration camp), Larjor and Jawajai.

Figure 1: Project Location and Surrounding Communities

2.3 Project Description

The proposed Project will comprise of an open-pit gold mine that is expected to operate for approximately
8 years with an ore production and treatment rate of approximately 3,050 tonnes per day. Waste rock will be
mined at an average daily production rate of 45,000 tonnes per day.

The Project includes all activities and physical works associated with the construction, operation,
modification and decommissioning of the Project, including, but not limited to, the following key activities and
components:

Open pit gold mine and associated waste rock dump;

Gold processing plant;

Tailings Storage Facility (TSF);

May 2012
Report No. 12898 iii
 NLGM SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Support facilities and infrastructure at the mine site, including water and waste infrastructure and
storage facilities;

Marvoe Creek Diversion;

Accommodation and associated facilities;

Ancillary facilities and buildings, such as administrative offices, service buildings, laboratory,
hydrocarbon storage, explosives storage; and

Non-paved roads and haul roads, existing and new.

The key Project infrastructures are outlined in the following sections with a map of the envisaged NLGM site
infrastructure layout shown in Figure 2 below.

Figure 2: Proposed NLGM Site Infrastructure and Mining Layout

2.3.1 Mining Method

Mining will be undertaken by conventional, open-pit methods: drilling, blasting, excavating, and road haulage
of ore and waste. After selective blasting within the planned open pit, the blasted ore and waste rock will be
loaded onto trucks using excavators. The ore will be transported to the processing plant and the waste rock
to the waste rock dump. Non or low sulphide bearing materials may be used internally to construct haul
roads, the run of mine (ROM) pad, and the tailings storage starter embankment.

May 2012
Report No. 12898 iv
 NLGM SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT

2.3.2 Open Pits

Open pit mining refers to a method of extracting rock or minerals by means of an excavation from surface.
The term is used to differentiate this form of mining from underground extractive methods that require
tunnelling into the earth. The New Liberty open pit will form a contiguous mining area along a strike length of
2 km. The depth of the open pit will be approximately 220 m below surface. Water from the dewatering of the
opencast pits will be treated and pumped into the Marvoe Creek.

2.3.3 Waste Rock Dump

A provisional waste rock dump design has been created by AMC Consultants and is expected to cover an
area of 540 000 m and rise to a height of approximately 60 m. The current design capacity of the waste rock
dump is approximately 28 million m (i.e. 56 million tonnes). The waste rock dump will be constructed with an
18 degree overall slope angle to conform to post closure stability angles. The location of the waste rock
dump will be to the immediate south of the open pit in the valley area currently occupied by the Marvoe
Creek.

The waste rock will be placed on the waste rock dump for the first four (4) years of production. After this time,
the Larjor pit will be exhausted and waste rock mined after this time will either be taken to the ex-pit waste
dump or be used to backfill the Larjor pit.

2.3.4 Gold Processing Plant

A gold processing plant is proposed to be constructed as part of the project and will be used to extract the
gold from the ore. Ore will be processed using a conventional Carbon in Leach (CIL) gold recovery circuit
designed to treat 1,100,000 Mt/year and (91,670 tonnes per month) and will comprise of the following:

A crushing and milling circuit;

Gravity circuit to recover coarse free gold;

A CIL leaching and absorption circuit, in which cyanide leaches the gold from the crushed ore and
carbon recovers the gold from the leachate slurry by absorption;

A tailing thickener to recover water (and therefore reclaim cyanide) from the tailings prior to its
discharge to the tailings storage;

An acid wash followed by an elution circuit to strip gold from carbon; and

Electro-winning of the gold from the elutriate solution and smelting of the loaded electrodes to produce
gold bullion.

2.3.5 Tailings Storage Facility (TSF)

The waste remaining when gold is extracted from crushed rocks is referred to as tailings. Tailings leave the
processing plant in the form of slurry consisting of a solid material (sand-like in texture) and process water.

A tailings storage facility (TSF) is a structure used for storing and managing the tailings. In the TSF the solid
material and water separate. The solid material forms the bulk of the dam and the water collects in a pool.
The water is re-used by the mine process.

The Golder engineering team is currently designing the TSF for the NLGM Project. The mining process is
expected generate a total of approximately 8.73Mt of tailings over the life of mine. Specific gravity, settling
and consolidation tests are currently underway to determine the dry density of the deposited tailings. For the
3
purpose of this study, the dry density of the deposited tailings is assumed to be 1.45 t/m . Based on this
assumed density, the TSF will be designed to store a total of 6.02 M-m3 of tailings.

The TSF will be developed in stages. The start-up TSF will be required to provide storage for 2 years of
tailings production. The ultimate TSF occupies a total footprint area of 84 ha. The key components of the
facility are:

May 2012
Report No. 12898 v
 NLGM SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Containment dams (main dam and saddle dams);

Basin liner;

Underdrain;

Non-contact water diversion system;

Contact water collection system; and

Emergency spillway.

The NLGM TSF design specifications are summarised in the table below.
Table 1: NLGM TSF Design Specifications (Golder, May 2012)
Parameter Design specification
Total capacity 8.7 million tons (at 1.1 Mt/annum over 7.9 years)
In situ dry density of tailings 1.45 t/m3
Specific Gravity 2.9 t/m3
Annual tailings volume 0.76 Mm3
Area of footprint 84 ha
Maximum height 24 m
Overall side wall slope 1:2.5 outside slope
Material water content on deposition, after 5.5 % by mass at point of discharge
compaction
In-situ liner 0.3 m compacted clay layer of permeability 10-9 m/s
under laboratory conditions
Drainage management Pumped discharge system comprising ditches and
sumps sized for a 1:100 year storm event

2.3.6 Water Management

Raw Water Dam
A raw water dam will be constructed immediately upstream of the TSF and will be fed by runoff from its own
catchment (may include the ROM and plant site) and water pumped from the Marvoe creek or boreholes.
The capacity should be more than 4 times the inflow of water from rainfall over an average year. The
operational philosophy is that the water level in the dam will be maintained below the level of an emergency
spillway during wet season. An outlet channel will be constructed for when the design capacity is exceeded.

River Diversion
The Marvoe Creek passes through the proposed open pits and will be diverted prior to mining. The diversion
route of the Marvoe Creek is shown in Figure 2. Water from the dewatering of the opencast pits will pumped
into the Marvoe Creek.

Processing Plant
The process plant and ROM pad area will drain into the raw water dam via a channel. The channel will be
constructed with culverts to divert water under the roads.

May 2012
Report No. 12898 vi
 NLGM SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Water Use
The proposed water usage associated with the Project is as shown in Table 2.
Table 2: NLGM Project estimated water usage
Project infrastructure Water volume
3
Process Plant return and make-up water >107 m /hr
3
Plant, stores and workshop potable requirement 5 m /hr
Accommodation camp potable requirement 3 m3/hr

The design of the process water supply assumes that 30 percent of the operational water will be obtained
from the TSF return water. Potable water for both operational and human consumption will be supplied from
boreholes or the Marvoe creek via a water treatment plant fed from a raw water tank/dam.

2.3.7 Waste Management

A waste management strategy will be developed and implemented. Hazardous waste will be incinerated via
an incinerator located and non-hazardous waste will be disposed of at a landfill site close to the
accommodation camp.

A scrap yard will be fenced for storage of used spare tires, scrap material, redundant neutralized products to
be re-used and recyclable materials. Other scrap items not to be re-used or recycled will be disposed of in
the waste rock dump and buried immediately with waste rock material.

All hazardous effluent and discharges will be disposed of at the TSF.

Storage of Materials
Diesel will be stored in tanks, above ground, in a bunded area according to International Standards for
Cyanide Storage and other potentially hazardous substances will be stored in as per Material Supplier Data
Sheets.

Sewerage
A sewerage system will service the accommodation camp. The plant will comprise of an underground tank, d
aerobic treatment unit and sludge disposal. The treated effluent will discharge to the TSF.

2.4 Development and Operation

From the pit designs and mineral reserves a mining and treatment schedule was prepared (Figure 3). The
schedule shows that the mine will produce ore at a rate of approximately 1.1 million tonnes per annum for
8 years after an initial pre-strip.

May 2012
Report No. 12898 vii
 NLGM SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Contained/Produced Au Oz
160.00 100%

90%
140.00

80%
120.00
70%

100.00
60%
Contained Gold (Au oz)
Gold Produced (Au oz)
80.00 50%
Recovery (%)

40%
60.00

30%
40.00
20%

20.00
10%

0.00 0%
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8

Figure 3: NLGM Gold Production Schedule

3.0 PROJECT MOTIVATION

BMMC is committed to ensuring that Liberia and its people benefit from its planned mining operations.
Among the initial benefits that will be realised by the Project, which will be further defined during the EIA
process include:

The Project will be the first gold mine in Liberia and will initiate Liberias entry into the gold mining
industry raising the countries profile as a player in the West African gold mining industry;

Royalties will be paid to the Liberian Government by BMMC;

The training of Liberian personnel in engineering and management skills associated with a mining
operation;

Increased economic activity in the NLGM area, Grand Cape Mount County, Monrovia and within Liberia
in general;

Direct and indirect job creation and employment (with the associated multiplier effect) during operations
approximately 300 personnel will be employed within the mining operations;

Contribution to the social, economic and institutional development of the communities within the
concession area; and

Improvement and development of skills whilst enriching the communities affected by BMMCs
operations in the future.

4.0 PROJECT FEASIBILITY

The New Liberty gold deposit is a classic Archaen shear zone hosted greenstone gold deposit. BMMC
currently plans to mine approximately 8.7 million tonnes of ore and generate 130 million tonnes of waste rock

May 2012
Report No. 12898 viii
 NLGM SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT

over a period of approximately eight (8) years. Exploration drilling to date has delineated four (4) zones of
mineralization known as: Larjor, Latiff, Kinjor and Marvoe, forming a combined strike of over 2 km.

Exploration has confirmed the persistence of gold mineralisation within defined zones extending from known
surface occurrences to drill intersections more than 500 m below surface. The extensive 2011 infill drill
campaign largely confirmed and raised the level of confidence in the interpretation of the mineralisation as
well as the tonnage and grade estimates for the upper, potentially open pit portion of the resource. On the
basis of this evaluation the Project is viable at the average gold price of $1,350 used for the evaluation.

In 2011 a major, mostly infill, drilling campaign added over 200 diamond core drill holes to the existing
171 holes, and almost all the additional holes were suitably located for inclusion in the resource estimate
update conducted by Australian Mining Consultant (AMC). The revised resource constituted input into a pit
optimisation, pit design and scheduling study, undertaken by AMC, leading to the definition of ore reserves.

In July 2009 BMMC, was granted a Class A Mining License for the entire concession area. Under the terms
of the BMMC Mineral Development Agreement (MDA) the Republic of Liberia is entitled to receive, free of
charge, an equity interest on BMMCs operations equal to 10 % of its authorised and outstanding share
capital without dilution (i.e. a 10% carried interest). There is also a 3 % royalty, calculated on a production
basis, payable to the Republic of Liberia in the BMMC-MDA areas.

BMMC has a 100% interest in the BMMC-MDA, which was originally signed with the Liberian Government in
November 2001. To the extent known, the area has only limited surface artisanal workings and no historical
environmental issues.

4.1.1 Mineral Resource Estimate

Resource estimation by BMMC has been based on interpretations using integrated geological and grade
information recorded from diamond drill core logging and assaying. Procedures for classifying the reported
resources were undertaken within the context of the mineral resource classification scheme used in Canada,
the National Instrument 43-101 (NI 43-101).

Estimated tonnages and grades have been classified with consideration of the following criteria:

Quality and reliability of raw data (sampling, assaying, surveying).

Confidence in the geological interpretation.

Number, spacing and orientation of intercepts through mineralised zones.

Knowledge of grade continuities gained from observations and geostatistical analyses.

The likelihood of defined material meeting economic mining constraints over a range of reasonable
future scenarios, and expectations of relatively low selectivity of mining.

All material has been reported at a 1.0 g/t Au cut-off (Table 3), as this value corresponds to a likely open pit
cut-off ranges.
Table 3: NLGM Mineral Reserve Estimate
RESERVE CATEGORY

PROVEN Tonnes (Mt) 0.7

Au Ounces In-situ (kozs) 102
Au Grade In-situ (g/t) 4.3

PROBABLE Tonnes (Mt) 8.0

Au Ounces In-situ (kozs) 771
Au Grade In-situ (g/t) 3.0

May 2012
Report No. 12898 ix
 NLGM SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Tonnes (Mt) 8.7

TOTAL
Au Ounces In-situ (kozs) 873
Au Grade In-situ (g/t) 3.1
Waste Tonnes (Mt) 130
Strip Ratio (t/t) 14.9
Notes: 1. CIM definitions were used for Mineral Reserves
2. A cut off of 0.65 g/t Au is applied for all zones
3. Due to rounding, some columns or rows may not add up exactly to the computed totals

5.0 POLICY, LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK

APPLICABLE TO THE PROJECT
Institutional Framework
The institutional frameworks under which the EIA, and thus this Scoping Report, will be conducted are as
follows:
The Constitution of the Republic of Liberia (January 1986).

The Environmental Protection and Management Law of the Republic of Liberia (November 2006);

Section 11 describes the scoping process that is required in the seeking of approval for the EIA /
EIS;

Section 13 (1) outlines that an environmental impact study shall be prepared in accordance with the
Terms of Reference developed by the applicant or project proponent based on the results of the
scoping activities and in consultation with the Agency and Line Ministry; and

Section 37 describes the EIA process and requirements which the NLGM Project schedule
complies to.

The Environmental Protection and Management Act of Liberia (2003) Part 3 deals with Environmental
Impact Assessment, auditing and monitoring. According to Part 3, Section 6 and Annexure 1 of this law,
the project requires an EIA because it involves mining (i.e. an extractive industry).
The Minerals and Mining Act (March 2006), Act 703 Section 18 outlines the necessary permits required
prior to mining.
Policies and Frameworks
The following policies and frameworks will be followed during the EIA process:

The National Environmental Policy of the Republic of Liberia (November 2002).

The National Biosafety Framework (November 2004).

The National Integrated Water Resources Management Policy (November 2007).

The Water Supply and Sanitation Policy (April 2009).

The National Forestry Reform Law (2006) and the National Forestry Policy and Implementation
Strategy (2006).

Mineral Policy of Liberia (March 2010), Section 7.

Proposed Regulations Governing Exploration Under a Mining Exploration License of the Republic of
Liberia and Form of Notice of Proposed Regulations, Ministry of Land, Mines and Energy, August 2008.

May 2012
Report No. 12898 x
 NLGM SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Treaties and Conventions

The Government of Liberia is a signatory of the following international treaties and conventions:

Convention of Biological Diversity;

International Tropical Timber Agreement;

United Nations Convention on Climate Change;

UN Convention on International Trade and Endangered Species; and

RAMSAR (The Convention on Wetlands of International Importance).

Terms of the Mineral Development Agreement

Section 16 of the Mineral Development Agreement between the proponent and the Liberia Government is of
relevancy to this Scoping Report which reads 16.1 Environmental Impact Statement: The Parties recognize
that Operations may result in some pollution, contamination or other environmental damage to land, water
and the atmosphere within the Contract Area and elsewhere. Accordingly, the Operator shall submit to the
Minister before the commencement of Exploration and Production and Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) The EIS shall show the adverse effect operations will have on the environment and review plans to
mitigate such effects.

International Standards
The International Finance Corporation (IFC) applies its Performance Standards (PS) (2007) to manage
social and environmental risks and impacts on projects and to enhance development opportunities through
its private sector financing in member countries eligible for financing. The Performance Standards may also
be applied by other financial institutions electing to apply them to projects in emerging markets.

Together, the eight Performance Standards establish standards that the proponent is to meet throughout the
life of an investment by IFC or other relevant financial institution. The eight Performance Standards are:

Performance Standard 1: Social and Environmental Assessment and Management System;

Performance Standard 2: Labour and Working Conditions;

Performance Standard 3: Pollution Prevention and Abatement;

Performance Standard 4: Community Health, Safety and Security;

Performance Standard 5: Land Acquisition and Involuntary Resettlement;

Performance Standard 6: Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Natural Resource Management;

Performance Standard 7: Indigenous Peoples; and

Performance Standard 8: Cultural Heritage.

This SIA complies specifically with PS1 which underlines the importance of managing social and
environmental performance throughout the life of a project, specifically concerning labour, health, safety and
security. The performance standard entails a thorough assessment of the potential social and environmental
impacts of a development in a dynamic and continuous process involving the client, workers and local
community. Reference is also made to PS5, which has an objective to avoid or minimise both physical and
economic involuntary displacement and improve or at least restore the livelihoods and standards of living of
displaced persons. PS5 aims to mitigate adverse social and economic impacts on land acquisition by
providing compensation for loss of assets and ensuring resettlement activities are implemented with
appropriate disclosure of information, consultation and informed participation of those affected. Full

May 2012
Report No. 12898 xi
 NLGM SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT

compliance with PS5 will be achieved during the compilation of a resettlement action plan which is not
included in the scope of this SIA. No indigenous people (PS7) were identified during the field study; and
PS8 will be addressed in a separate cultural heritage study for the EIA.

6.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES

Assessing alternatives helps to identify the most appropriate method of developing the Project, taking into
account location, activity alternatives, technology alternatives, temporal alternatives and the no-go
alternative. Alternatives also help identify the activity with the least environmental and social impact.

6.1 Site Layout

The placement of infrastructure such as the TSF, waste rock dumps, processing plant, roads, workshops,
and offices took into account financial, environmental and social considerations to develop a site layout with
the fewest impacts as possible.

6.2 Processing Plant

The design of the processing plant was being based on a number of key considerations and alternatives, the
objective being that the plant is efficient and will meet international construction and environmental
standards. The key design and location considerations were as follows:

Technologically proven process design;

Reliability of the equipment during operation;

Efficient process design for maximum recovery of gold;

Ease of maintenance;

Geology and topography;

Cost-effective technology;

Power and fuel efficiency; and

Compliance with environmental, health and safety standards.

BMMC is completing a feasibility study and detailed design to determine the ultimate capacity of the
processing plant. Currently, BMMC envisages the process capacity of the plant to be approximately
1,100,000 ore tonnes per annum (i.e. 91,700 tonnes per month) with an average of 17 million tonnes per
annum of total rock to be mined.

6.3 Diversion of the Marvoe Creek

A number of alternatives were assessed for the proposed diversion of the Marvoe Creek so as to allow
mining of the ore deposits. These alternatives were assessed based on topography, resource location and
environmental and social impacts. Currently, the most promising alternative aims at diverting the creek
around the mining area to the west before re-joining its original course.

6.4 Go-No-Go Project Alternative

The current land use consists of limited agricultural and logging operations. The no-project option will result
in the continuation of such land uses. Although economically viable, the continuation of subsistence
agriculture will not provide the level of short-term and long-term economic growth to the area that this Project
would offer. The economic benefits of the Project potentially include:

Increased employment opportunities for local people in the area;

Improved livelihood opportunities; and

May 2012
Report No. 12898 xii
 NLGM SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Greater development and associated socio-economic development of the NLGM area, Grand Cape
Mount County and Liberia as a whole.

If the Project were not to proceed, the additional economic activity, skills development and availability of jobs
would not be created. In addition, the gold reserves would remain unutilised and there would be little or no
economic growth developing in the region and country. If the Project were not to go ahead there would be no
royalties/revenues paid to the Government of Liberia.

7.0 SPECIALIST STUDY APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY

The approach and methodology that was employed during the socio-economic assessment is outlined in the
following sub-sections. The SIA was conducted through a combination of qualitative research methods,
quantitative household surveys, and desktop study.

7.1 Data Collection

Relevant recent information from Aureus and project consultants such as AMC, DRA, Aquaterra and Digby
Wells was used to inform the impact assessment.

7.1.1 Desktop review of relevant documentation

A literature review of relevant country reports and documentation pertaining to the project area of influence,
government publications and legislation, and previous social and resettlement project reports provided the
wider socio-economic context for the social assessment and afforded an initial understanding of the project
area for fieldwork preparation.

The following documents were reviewed at a desk-top level:

Liberia: Tapping Natures Bounty for the Benefits of All: Diagnostic Trade Integration Study, Vol. 1,
December 2008

Republic of Liberia Public Administration Country Profile, United Nations, January 2004

Republic of Liberia, Joint IDA-IMF Staff Advisory Note on the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper, June
2008

Grand Cape Mount County Profile, 2009,

http://www.liberianonline.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=706

The National Environmental Policy of the Republic of Liberia, Approved November 26 2002

Resettlement Policy Framework, Final Report, Education for All Fast Track Initiative (ETF-FTI) Catalytic
Fund Project, February 2010;

New Liberty Gold Mine Community Development Plan: Draft Outline. Digby Wells; and

New Liberty Gold Mine Resettlement Action Plan Draft. Digby Wells.

7.1.2 Delineation of study area for the assessment

For the purposes of the socio-economic assessment, the local study area was defined as the NLGM site
layout area (as shown in Figure 2), with a buffer study zone of approximately 5km around this area. Socio-
economic fieldwork included the directly affected villages of Kinjor and Larjor and those identified within the
buffer zone of the project site. Socio-economic fieldwork also included villages with traditional authority over
Kinjor and Larjor, further away from the project area..

7.1.3 Field work

A preliminary site visit to the project area was conducted in August 2010. Primary data collection was
subsequently undertaken during March and April 2011. This included the collection of baseline demographic
and socio-economic information through a standardised survey focusing on household composition,

May 2012
Report No. 12898 xiii
 NLGM SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT

education levels, general health status, livelihood strategies, employment, and income and expenditure. In
light of potential resettlement requirements, the survey took the form of a census in villages of Kinjor and
Larjor (a requirement of the IFCs Performance Standard 5 for population displacement), and a sample
survey in surrounding villages of Jikandou, Jawajai, Zolu, Bayima and Mono. A survey of businesses was
also undertaken in Daniels Town and Sinj, the closest towns to the project site, to gain insight into local
economic opportunities and the availability of goods and services.

Qualitative research was undertaken to compliment the quantitative data collection and gain contextual
understanding of the social environment and deeper meaning of observed daily practices. This took the form
of five focus group discussions, three held in Kinjor separated into male and female groups, and mixed sex
discussion groups in Jawajai and Janeh Brown, and key informant interviews with artisanal miners and
community members. Discussions centred on the origins and movements of the local population, the life of
miners; contrasts between artisanal mining and BMMC opportunities, administrative and hierarchical
systems within the community, land ownership, and social concerns in relation to the proposed development.
Informal stakeholder interviews were also held with the District Commissioner and county administration
representatives.

Five fieldworkers (residents of Kinjor) were trained and deployed to administer the survey questionnaire,
assist with facilitation and translation during focus group discussions and interviews, and undertake
qualitative research at household level into topics such as daily diets. Quality control measures were put in
place to monitor the data collection process with regular checking of surveys and household numbering.
Data was captured offsite into an MS Access database, analysed, and then used to describe and interpret
the socio-economic and cultural environment for the project affected areas.

During the process of analysis a count of households was done to establish the representativeness of the
sample in relation to the total household population. It was found that the village sample sizes did not reflect
the share of individual villages in the total population. Although villages of Kinjor, Larjor and Jawajai were
already identified as potentially affected communities prior to commencing fieldwork, additional villages were
identified as potentially being within the project area of influence at the start of the fieldwork. The additional
villages were included into the sample socio-economic survey of the population. The total results across the
villages have therefore been weighted as shown in Table 4. These weighted results provide representative
baseline data for the villages combined against which future surveys can measure change.
Table 4: Weighting of Socio-Economic Survey Results
Village Households % Population Sample Size Sample Size % Total Sample Weighting
Bayima 2 1% 1 50% 1% 1.62
Jawajai 26 11% 14 54% 7% 1.50
Jikandou 8 3% 2 25% 1% 3.23
Kinjor 152 65% 152 100% 80% 0.81
Larjor 7 3% 7 100% 4% 0.81
Mono 33 14% 12 36% 6% 2.22
Zolu 7 3% 2 29% 1% 2.83
Total 235 100% 190 - 100% -
* % population and % total sample are rounded; weighting is calculated as (%total sample)/(%population)

7.2 Assumptions and limitations

This report assumed that potential impacts relating to noise, air quality and water quality and quantity will be
addressed in specialist assessment reports. It is assumed that these assessments will identify suitable
mitigation and management measures to ensure that environmentally intrinsic impacts do not negatively
impact local communities, their quality of life or health status.

May 2012
Report No. 12898 xiv
 NLGM SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT

8.0 BASELINE SOCIO-ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

This section provides a detailed discussion of the socio-economic baseline environment and context in which
the proposed project will take place within the NLGM concession area.

8.1 Local Overview

The project area is surrounded by a number of small, agricultural villages and an artisanal mining community
spread across the villages of Kinjor and the smaller Larjor (Figure 4). Communities have not escaped the
conflicts of the civil war, nor the disruption to infrastructure and services, population displacement, and
resulting poverty. Many left the established older villages in the area for a time, only returning in the last five
years to reclaim and rebuild their homesteads and land. Damages to previously existing infrastructure and
loss of subsistence patterns of life have impacted the potential to regain former livelihoods. The lack of
development or job opportunities has encouraged many of the younger generation to leave agricultural-
based villages in search of better education and livelihood opportunities, often in Monrovia. According to
residents in Jawajai, a significant proportion of households moved to Monrovia during and prior to the war
and have not returned, reducing the former town to a small village.

Mining prospects however, have had the greatest impact on the immediate area, both artisanal mining and
exploration activities of BMMC. The area surrounding the proposed mining site originally consisted of dense
forest areas and small, rural villages supported by agricultural activities. Artisanal miners are thought to have
entered the area in the 1960s, and residents of Kinjor told the team that the town was established in 1970.

Prior to the civil war, over 75,000 Liberians were engaged in artisanal mining (of all metals), contributing 32%
of Gross Domestic Profit (GDP) in 19821. Small-scale mining remains an important livelihood for many; the
2000 Mining Annual Review of Liberia estimated that alluvial gold deposits were being mined by 25,000 local
miners2, of which some 6,000 were members of the nationwide Gold and Diamond Miners and Workers
Association. The project area was initially under the control of nine Class C mining licenses, a license
intended for individuals with no social investment obligations and only the requirement of annual registration
and survey service fees. Each license covered 25 acres of land located 500ft on both sides of the river.
These licenses were then bought by BMMC who now own a Class A mining license in the project area and
are subject to certain conditions regarding environmental authorisation and social development
commitments. Although developments for large-scale mining have been underway since then, BMMC gave
permission to artisanal miners to continue mining prior to initialisation of construction activities at the site.

Consequently, the villages of Larjor and Kinjor have developed considerably in the last 10 12 years with
the establishment of BMMCs mine camp in 1998, attracting families with potential opportunities for formal
and informal employment, and with ongoing artisanal mining prospects. Kinjor has experienced significant
growth, with many households moving in over the last 6 - 7 years. More recently, a large proportion of
households in Larjor have migrated to Kinjor, attracted by the employment opportunities of BMMC and the
services Kinjor has to offer. BMMC has also been encouraging households in Larjor to move to Kinjor in light
of mine plan developments.

Mining developments have assisted the recovery from the effects of civil war with a subsequent emergence
of two villages established around artisanal mining activities, Kinjor and Larjor, and the subsistence
communities of the surrounding villages. Households in these latter villages have access to agricultural land,
comprising some 6125 acres extending from the village of Janah Brown to the Mafa River. Land customarily
owned by families in these villages was transferred to the Marvoe Development Association (MDA) in 1978
under the new deeds system. The development association was then officially initiated in 1996 to protect this
land. The oldest customary landowners established the villages of Jawajai, then Janah Brown, Deyhalin and
Blang approximately 15km to 20km away from the project site. Elders of these villages were responsible for
distributing land to visitors who established Jikandou, approximately 3km south west of the site, Mono, Zolu
and Bayima between 5km and 10km along the road leading away from the site, and later to villages of Kinjor
and Larjor (Figure 4).

1
State of the Environment Report Industry and Trade: Mining, 2010
2
Mining Annual Review, Liberia 2000

May 2012
Report No. 12898 i
 NLGM SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT

8.2 Household Demographics

Household demographics of villages reflect these mining and agricultural differences, especially concerning
age and gender distributions. Households have an average of eight members, 47 percent of whom are
female, 54 percent of whom are male. Gender distribution varies amongst villages, presenting some
anomalies in Jikandou and Zolu, potentially due to small sample sizes. However, in many cases, young
males have left subsistence agricultural villages in search of employment opportunities, either locally in
Kinjor, or further afield, leaving females and the older generation at the homestead. The male population in
the age category of 18 55 years is especially high in the mining villages and household heads are up to 20
years younger in the villages than in agricultural villages of Jawajai and Zolu.
Table 5: Household Composition and Demographics
Bayima Jawajai Jikandou Kinjor Larjor Mono Zolu Total
Number of Households
2 26 8 152 7 3 7 235
Counted
Average Household Size 10 6.5 7 6.5 5.6 6.7 4.5 7.9
Total Survey Population 10 91 14 985 39 80 9 1,238
Female-headed
0 0 1 23 1 3 1 29
Households
Disabled adults 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 4
Disabled children 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
Average Age of Household
40 54 37 39 34 45 54 43
Heads
Female 50% 46% 71% 44% 53% 49% 67% 47%
Male 50% 54% 29% 56% 48% 51% 33% 54%
Length of stay (years) 30 42 10 7 7 14 5 29
Percentage of households
100% 36% 50% 96% 100% 100% 100% 87%
with another home

The extension of family networks across villages, districts, counties and even countries is common,
especially in newer mining villages. According to informal interviews held with household members in Kinjor,
family and friends often move to the area and stay as tenants for a period of time; approximately 15 percent
of households in Kinjor and Larjor indicated having tenants. These tenants do not always pay rent, and may
remain with the family for a number of months or years. Some end up building their own houses. The
presence of artisanal miners, a highly transient group, also points to household mobility. Artisanal miners are
dependent on finds for income, moving wherever new prospects are found, and many have several mining
3
claims in different locations .

3
Poverty and Social Impact Assessment and Strategy Formulation on Artisanal Diamond Mining Reform in Liberia, March 2008

May 2012
Report No. 12898 ii
 NLGM SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Figure 5: Age Distribution by Gender per Village

Households were questioned about the presence of another home during the survey questionnaire, with an
aim to establish the degree of community transience, their dependency on homesteads within the project
area and the potential for external support or alternative living locations should resettlement be necessary.
The results showed nearly 90 percent of households to have another home, although figures were far lower
in older, agricultural villages of Jawajai and Jikandou, suggesting that these villages are bases from which
people leave rather than entry points for new migrants. Of the households indicating owning another home,
92 percent are within Liberia, 65 percent from within Cape Mount County and 14 percent from Monserado
County in which Monrovia lies. The remaining 8 percent are from Sierra Leone, Guinea, Cote dIvoire, and
Nigeria.

Interview respondents interpretation of the concept of another home differed from that expected by the
research team. Although in some cases, respondents may own a house where their wife or children remain
whilst they travel in search of artisanal mining and employment opportunities, the majority understood the
question to refer to the social networks and links present across Liberian society. Reference was therefore
made to their birth place or original family homestead, where family may or may not remain. Existence of
such networks does not confirm householders current residences as temporary, especially as all households
described the household head as living in their surveyed residence rather than the alternative home, with the
exception of one woman in Mono village who was the second wife to her husband.

May 2012
Report No. 12898 iii
 NLGM SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Figure 6: Semi-Built Structure in Kinjor

8.3 Housing and Services

Although demographic and livelihood differences can be seen between households in mining and agricultural
villages, the service deficiencies and dependence of natural resources is a common theme throughout.
Structures within the project area reflect this dependence on natural, local resources and the lack of access
to or ability to purchase external, more durable, man-made construction materials. Structures predominantly
have walls made from mud, reeds and poles and roofs of thatch, and as such require frequent maintenance
and upkeep, with the majority of
structures being less than 10
years old. The average age of
structures also reflects the
countrys history of conflict as
many structures needed re-
building following the civil war.

Households own an average of

1.5 structures, often separated
according to purpose.
Approximately 30 percent of the
total survey population also own
structures to keep livestock.
Homesteads in agricultural
villages tend to own more Figure 7: Structure in Larjor Village
structures than those in the mining
villages, more frequently having
stronger, zinc roofs. This reflects the establishment of older, agricultural villages and the temporal nature of
many households in mining villages. The distribution of structures may also indicate the need of poorer,
subsistence-based villages to develop smaller structures over time, gradually adding separate kitchens or
toilets to their initial sleeping structure. This is compared to households in mining villages who build a single,
potentially larger, multi-purpose structure and then spend spare time in income-generating activities rather
than building additional structures which have limited wealth value.

May 2012
Report No. 12898 iv
 NLGM SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Figure 8: Structures in Jawajai Village

Table 6: Purpose, Construction Materials, Age, and Number of Rooms of Structures

Total Structures Surveyed 3 22 4 193 10 24 4 260

Average Number of Structures per 1.5

3 1.6 2 1.3 1.4 2 2
Household
Sleeping 33% 32% 50% 24% 40% 63% 50% 35%

Multi 0% 32% 0% 42% 40% 4% 25% 30%

Kitchen 33% 23% 50% 6% 10% 33% 25% 17%

Purpose
of Residential and
0% 5% 0% 16% 0% 0% 0% 9%
Structure business
Toilet / shower 0% 5% 0% 6% 10% 0% 0% 4%
Business only 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1%
Other 33% 5% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 4%
Mud / poles / reeds 67% 86% 100% 92% 90% 100% 100% 93%
Mud or clay blocks 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Material of
Plastic 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1%
Walls
Sticks and Thatch 33% 9% 0% 1% 10% 0% 0% 3%
Timber 0% 5% 0% 6% 0% 0% 0% 4%

May 2012
Report No. 12898 v
 NLGM SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT

No roof 0% 5% 0% 7% 10% 0% 0% 5%
Plastic 0% 0% 0% 1% 40% 0% 0% 1%
Material of
Thatch / leaves 100% 77% 50% 88% 50% 100% 100% 87%
Roof
Timber 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1%
Tin / Zinc 0% 18% 50% 3% 0% 0% 0% 6%
1 Room 0% 18% 50% 17% 20% 29% 50% 22%
2 Rooms 67% 14% 0% 20% 70% 25% 25% 22%
Number of 3 Rooms 33% 36% 25% 34% 0% 42% 25% 34%
Rooms 4 Rooms 0% 14% 0% 15% 0% 4% 0% 11%
5 Rooms 0% 14% 0% 6% 0% 0% 0% 5%
6 Rooms 0% 0% 25% 2% 0% 0% 0% 2%
0 - 3 years 0% 36% 0% 34% 10% 29% 25% 30%
4 - 6 years 100% 14% 0% 44% 20% 29% 25% 35%
7 - 9 years 0% 18% 25% 12% 40% 33% 50% 20%
Age of
10 - 12 years 0% 14% 75% 5% 30% 8% 0% 10%
Structure
12 - 15 years 0% 0% 0% 6% 0% 0% 0% 3%
15 - 30 years 0% 9% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%
31 years + 0% 9% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

As seen across Liberia, energy needs are largely serviced by natural available resources, primarily by wood
or charcoal. Differences between mining and agricultural villages are apparent: charcoal, a cash commodity,
is more frequently used in mining villages dependent on a cash-economy, whereas all households in
agricultural villages with subsistence economies rely on locally gathered firewood. A large proportion of
households indicated using batteries for lighting. However, as these are a cash commodity, it is likely that
households only use them when cash is available rather than on a regular basis, restraining activities to
natural light.
Table 7: Main Source of Energy for Lighting, Cooking and Heating (Percentage)

Lighting Battery 100% 93% 100% 90% 60% 75% 100% 89%
Candle 0% 0% 0% 3% 40% 0% 0% 3%
Electricity 0% 7% 0% 4% 0% 0% 0% 4%
Paraffin / oil 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 25% 0% 4%
Other 0% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Cooking Charcoal 0% 14% 0% 62% 0% 0% 0% 41%
Paraffin 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0%

May 2012
Report No. 12898 vi
 NLGM SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Wood 100% 86% 55% 35% 100% 100% 100% 56%

Unknown 0% 0% 55% 2% 0% 0% 0% 3%
Battery 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Heating
Charcoal 0% 14% 0% 39% 0% 0% 0% 27%
Wood 100% 43% 55% 11% 33% 41% 0% 21%
Unknown 0% 43% 55% 49% 67% 59% 100% 52%

The absence of services and development in rural

communities is noticed in the lack of safe drinking
water in many villages, leaving residents reliant on
streams and rivers for water supply. The impact of
BMMC can be seen in the water pumps they have
installed in Kinjor, Jikandou, Jawajai and Mono
villages. However, less than 20 percent of
households in Mono use the water pump,
suggesting low water table levels, or potential
damage to the pump. Larjor is dependent on the
water pump in Kinjor, and although one or two
households indicated using this, the distance
between the villages means the majority rely on
natural resources, as do households in Bayima and
Zolu. The quality of this water is likely to be poor
given the total reliance on streams for all household
activities, and the land disturbance and use of
mercury by artisanal miners.

8.4 Agriculture and Household

Nutrition Figure 9: Water Pump in Kinjor

Dependence on natural resources extends to a

large extent to food supply, although more so in agricultural villages than mining ones. Whilst farming is the
basis of livelihoods in many of the older villages, forming a whole year business and supplying the majority
of food supplies, a far lesser number of households in Kinjor and Larjor have access to farming land.
Households in mining villages more commonly purchase food either from surrounding farmers or from
Monrovia. Fields are cultivated on an annual basis, with a plot of land being cleared most years on a
rotational basis. Clearing land is an arduous process, often taking up to two months, using hired labour to cut
trees with a hand saw, before burning the secondary growth before preparing the cleared land for cultivation.
Table 8: Access to land and food plots
Access to Number of Fields
Food Plot
Land 1 2 3 4+
Bayima 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 100%
Jawajai 71% 71% 36% 21% 7% 7%
Jikandou 100% 100% 100% 0% 0% 0%

May 2012
Report No. 12898 vii
 NLGM SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Kinjor 20% 15% 13% 1% 1% 0%

Larjor 71% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Mono 58% 83% 42% 33% 8% 0%
Zolu 100% 50% 0% 50% 0% 0%
Total 38% 35% 22% 9% 2% 2%

Crops are grown for household consumption and as cash crops (sold to local mining villages). The most
common crop grown is the staple cassava, planted by approximately one quarter of households, followed by
rice and chilli pepper. Okra, yams, beans, greens and eggplant are grown by approximately 10 percent of
households and a few households also have crops such as bananas, pineapples, plantains, tomatoes,
potatoes and bitterballs. As
households are dependent on
their home-grown produce for the
majority of their food supply,
meals are often low in protein or
nutritional value; most households
eat two meals per day, although
six percent eat only one. A staple
of rice or cassava is usually
supplemented by an additional
four or five ingredients, the most
common being pepper, salt, and
cube. Meat is eaten in few
meals, and is usually sourced
from livestock kept by households,
predominantly chickens kept by
approximately 56 percent of
households. Locally caught fish
also form part of approximately 50
percent of households diets.
Figure 10: Chilli peppers for Sale in Kinjor
Natural resources such as wild
fruit, mushrooms and herbs may supplement meals. These are collected by individual households although
some individuals in Jawajai, Jikandou and Mono hunt wild animals to sell.
Table 9: Household Meal Ingredients

Percentage of Total
85% 72% 70% 59% 58% 44% 42% 41% 23% 15% 13% 10%
Meals Using Ingredient
Ingredient Bought 80% 98% 100% 92% 85% 99% 84% 90% 65% 67% 73% 93%
Ingredient Homegrown 20% 2% 0% 8% 15% 1% 16% 10% 35% 33% 27% 7%

Table 10: Household Consumption of Natural Resources

Fish Wild animals Herb Mushrooms Wild Fruit
Bayima 100% 100% 0% 100% 100%
Jawajai 43% 43% 7% 21% 0%

May 2012
Report No. 12898 viii
 NLGM SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Jikandou 100% 50% 50% 0% 50%

Kinjor 30% 6% 1% 2% 1%
Larjor 100% 14% 0% 0% 14%
Mono 75% 67% 0% 0% 0%
Zolu 50% 50% 50% 0% 0%
Total 44% 22% 4% 4% 3%

8.5 Health
Access restrictions to safe drinking water and insufficient fulfilment of nutritional requirements have a
significant influence on the health status of the local population. This is further exacerbated by the shortage
of medical facilities within the project area. There is a midwife in Kinjor who treats local women, and many
households buy medicine from Monrovia for self-medication. However, the nearest clinic on foot from Kinjor
is Kpeneje Clinic, established in August 2010, approximately 15km away and consequently too far for many
households without transport. The clinic deals mainly with malaria and STIs, and attends to approximately 75
patients each day. A larger clinic is based in Sinj, and is the closest by road. BMMC are also in the process
of constructing a clinic at the mine site, although availability of this facility to the local population is as yet
unknown.

Malaria is the most common illness, affecting at least one household member in 95 percent of households in
the last 12 months. Respiratory illnesses were also reported by 23 percent of households. Although malaria
is undoubtedly common, the distance to any clinic and lack of available transport suggests that many
households are unable to visit a doctor and obtain tests for illnesses, instead self-diagnosing and medicating
in times of poor health.
Table 11: Incidence of Illnesses in the Last 12 Months
Total
Illness Bayima Jawajai Jikandou Kinjor Larjor Mono Zolu
Population

TB 0% 10% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 2%
Malaria 100% 95% 100% 95% 100% 89% 100% 95%
Skin rash 100% 14% 0% 12% 17% 15% 0% 13%
Diarrhea 100% 29% 0% 10% 0% 7% 0% 12%
Bilharzia 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1%
Typhoid 0% 14% 0% 11% 17% 41% 0% 15%
Cholera 100% 14% 0% 11% 0% 7% 0% 11%
Respiratory
Illness 100% 14% 100% 15% 33% 33% 50% 23%

Food shortages were experienced by three quarters of the population in the last 12 months, predominantly
during the wet season from August to September, with figures rising in agricultural villages and falling slightly
amongst mining villages. The reasons for food shortages are three-fold; linked to agricultural crop cycles,
issues of access to goods, and inability to continue artisanal mining due to high water levels. Crops are
harvested on an annual basis in October and supplies expected to support households until the following
year. Consequently, households often experience food shortages in the final months before harvesting. All
surveyed households in Bayima, Jikandou and Zolu experienced a food shortage in the last 12 months and
indicated going to bed hungry the previous night. At least one member of each household was also
hospitalised in the last 12 months. These villages are entirely dependent on agricultural resources and have
no alternative support through cash income from artisanal mining or employment opportunities with BMMC
(see Table 15 below).

May 2012
Report No. 12898 ix
 NLGM SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Dependence on crop cultivation is

lower in Kinjor and Larjor, as
households generally rely on cash
income from artisanal mining and
employment at BMMC. As the village
with the highest levels of involvement in
these professions, Kinjor has the lowest
levels of food shortages or hunger.
Despite this, 68 percent of households
still experienced food shortages in the
last 12 months. Villages of Kinjor and
Larjor also had some of the highest
levels of mortality of children under the
age of 5. This is due to the difficulty of
artisanal mining during the wet season,
meaning disposable income is not as
readily available to purchase food
supplies.

Furthermore, in addition to shortages of

locally grown crops and disposable
income, during the height of the wet
season, access between and out of all
villages is difficult and sometimes
impossible. One female interviewee in
Figure 11: Household Experiencing Food Shortages
Jikandou explained that during these
months, children of her village stay with
friends or relatives in Kinjor in order to attend school as they cannot make the 45 minute journey. Similarly,
she cannot travel to Kinjor or further afield to purchase additional food to supplement her own cultivated
resources. The availability of imported goods and food in Kinjor, often from Monrovia, is also limited due to
access restrictions on the dirt road joining Daniels Town.
Table 12: Hospitalisation, Death and Hunger in the Last 12 Months
Adult Child Child under Hungry last Food
Hospitalised
Death Death age 5 Night Shortage
Bayima 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100%
Jawajai 50% 43% 50% 36% 79% 86%
Jikandou 100% 50% 0% 0% 100% 100%
Kinjor 72% 5% 12% 11% 64% 68%
Larjor 71% 0% 29% 29% 71% 71%
Mono 75% 8% 8% 8% 67% 75%
Zolu 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100%
Total
72% 11% 15% 13% 69% 74%
Population

May 2012
Report No. 12898 x
 NLGM SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT

8.6 Education
Despite government and NGO efforts to improve primary education across Liberia, access to educational
facilities remains a challenge in the rural project area. Financial support of infrastructure, basic teaching
resources, and teachers salaries are limited. BMMC have been financing two teachers salaries in Kinjor,
allowing a small primary school to operate.
This school is a rudimentary structure
teaching approximately 150 pupils from
Kinjor, Larjor and Jikandou in two
classrooms. Another 30 children ranging
between 4 and 12 years of age are also
taught by a teacher in Jawajai village
community hall.

Approximately 68 percent of the population

aged 5 18 years are in school,
predominantly at primary level. However,
the distance from many of the more
remote, agricultural villages to educational
facilities means primary school attendance
is often low. Children not in school remain
Figure 12: Primary School in Kinjor
at the homestead assisting with household
tasks. In addition, a reported 2 percent of
children in Kinjor are involved in artisanal mining. The distance from villages surrounding the project area to
secondary education in Sinje means only 7 percent of children attend school beyond primary level.
Table 13: Education Status of Population Aged 5 - 18 Years
Bayima Jawajai Jikandou Kinjor Larjor Mono Zolu Total

Total: Students 33% 76% 33% 69% 40% 80% 50% 68%

Some primary 33% 76% 33% 69% 40% 80% 50% 56%
Completed primary 0% 14% 0% 3% 10% 0% 0% 4%
Some secondary 0% 7% 33% 4% 0% 10% 0% 7%
Completed secondary 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 1%

Total: Non-Students 67% 24% 67% 31% 60% 20% 50% 32%

Educational attainment for population over 18 years of age is low; 53 percent of adults have no education
and only 10 percent have completed secondary school. Educational attainment amongst adults is also
dependent on the proximity of households to schools, with differences between mining and agricultural
villages again being reflected.
Table 14: Educational Attainment of Population Over 18 Years
Some Completed Some Completed Further
None
Primary Primary Secondary Secondary Education
Bayima 75% 0% 0% 0% 25% 0%
Jawajai 78% 4% 4% 10% 4% 0%
Jikandou 38% 13% 0% 38% 13% 0%
Kinjor 48% 20% 5% 16% 10% 1%
Larjor 44% 24% 4% 4% 24% 0%
Mono 51% 15% 2% 15% 15% 2%

May 2012
Report No. 12898 xi
 NLGM SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Zolu 83% 17% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Total
53% 17% 4% 15% 10% 1%
Population

8.7 Livelihood Strategies

Educational limitations restricts the potential for the local population to occupy employment positions.
However, although opportunities with BMMC are predominantly informal, temporary labour roles, confined to
exploration and development of the camp, these have had a significant impact on the local area, as seen
from the demographic differences between villages, and levels of health, nutrition, education and service
delivery. Approximately three percent of the population has formal employment and a further 18 percent are
informally employed. Employment levels, both formal and informal, are highest in Kinjor, where 27 percent of
the population over the age of 18 are employed, most commonly as casual labourers, security and masonry
personnel.
Table 15: Employment Status of Population Over 18 Years
Total
Bayima Jawajai Jikandou Kinjor Larjor Mono Zolu
Population

Student 0% 2% 0% 7% 8% 18% 0% 8%
Self employed 50% 27% 100% 10% 0% 43% 67% 21%
Artisanal miner 0% 2% 0% 21% 64% 0% 0% 16%
Employed 0% 2% 0% 3% 0% 3% 0% 3%
Informal employment 50% 8% 0% 24% 8% 5% 0% 18%
Unemployed 0% 6% 0% 5% 0% 3% 0% 4%
Home/not seeking work 0% 39% 0% 27% 16% 30% 33% 27%
Disabled 0% 14% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2%
Unknown 0% 0% 0% 3% 4% 0% 0% 2%

In comparison, 16 percent of the total population over the age of 18 are engaged in artisanal mining,
predominantly in Kinjor and Larjor, and 21 percent are self-employed. Remaining households are largely
dependent on subsistence agriculture and small businesses developed around the sale of produce.

May 2012
Report No. 12898 xii
 NLGM SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT

8.7.1 Artisanal Mining

Artisanal miners usually work daily and in groups, with license
owners employing a number of diggers. Although
predominantly a male activity, 20 percent of miners in Kinjor
and Larjor are female. Women generally assist by pouring
water at the stage when the gravel is jigged and during gravel
washing, or by preparing food for male miners. Two types of
mining are undertaken; mining in sandy areas, whereby a wet
paste is created before washing in which stones taken out of
diggings are sifted, using flotation to identify gold; and mining
in the rock clay river, breaking rock to about 4-5m deep and
washing the diggings with the aid of a pump. Rock produces
better quality gold than sand, although this requires more
strenuous effort. Miners may find 1.2 1.5g of gold during a
days work, sold at approximately $50 per gram.

Miners commonly
have issues with
inadequate tools and
equipment,
unavailability of credit
and difficult working Figure 13: Female Artisanal Miner
conditions. As one
interviewed diamond miner stated, mining is not easy, you must
first find the diamonds before you make money. Safety standards
are often unclear to miners and diggers, and many are prone to
occupational hazards as they work around breeding grounds of
malaria mosquitoes, (95 percent of households in the study area
indicated having malaria in the last 12 months), and drink unclean
water directly from mined rivers4. The necessary sale and market
of mercury used in artisanal mining also poses a health risk to
women who were observed handling the metal with bare hands in
their households.

Challenges faced by the Liberian artisanal mining community have

been highlighted in communications from miners and their
Figure 14: Child Assisting with Artisanal dependents to the government in efforts to alleviate poverty and
Mining improve environmental and health conditions.5
Table 16: Artisanal Mining
Total Gender Number of Employees Frequency of
Percentage Distribution Mining
Number
of
of 5 or
Households Male Female None 1 to 5 Daily Weekly
Persons more
Jawajai 7% 4 50% 50% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0%
Kinjor 46% 182 79% 21% 14% 82% 4% 96% 4%
Larjor 86% 15 80% 20% 0% 83% 17% 67% 33%

4
Poverty and Social Impact Assessment and Strategy Formulation on Artisanal Diamond Mining Reform in Liberia, March 2008

5
Alluvial Mining in Liberia: the case of poor regulations, lack of investment, disorganization, ignorance, abused labour and resources, January 2009

May 2012
Report No. 12898 xiii
 NLGM SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Figure 15: Artisanal Mining near Kinjor I

May 2012
Report No. 12898 xiv
 NLGM SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT

8.7.2 Small Businesses

In addition to artisanal mining and subsistence agriculture, half of surveyed households run some form of
small business. These include the sale of vegetables or fish (both locally caught and transported from the
coast), oil, spices, tinned, non-perishable, and household goods. There are also two bakeries and two bars
in Kinjor, and one household has recently bought a refrigerator and sells chilled water. Products such as
evaporated milk are popular and are divided into very small plastic pouches for individual sale, highlighting
poverty levels amongst the community. One lady was also observed dividing mercury into minute globules
for resale.
Table 17: Ownership of Businesses
Location of Business Frequency of Business
Village Own business
Home Local premises Each day Days in week
Bayima 50% 100% 0% 100% 0%
Jawajai 29% 100% 0% 100% 0%
Kinjor 55% 96% 4% 98% 2%
Larjor 57% 100% 0% 75% 25%
Mono 50% 83% 17% 83% 17%
Zolu 50% 100% 0% 100% 0%
Total 50% 48% 2% 48% 2%

Figure 17: Small Businesses in Kinjor

May 2012
Report No. 12898 2
 NLGM SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT

8.8 Income and Expenditure

Income for the total population is most commonly derived through home enterprises, casual employment,
crops and livestock, and artisanal mining. Although only 12 percent of the population benefit, income from
formal wage employment is the highest, with employees earning between US$83 and US$234 per month.
Artisanal miners also report relatively high incomes; between US$146 and US$211 per month. However, as
with casual employment, income from artisanal mining is variable depending on finds. A study undertaken in
2008 found most miners to have very unstable income patterns, earning an average of LD$4000 (US$66)
per month6, considerably lower
than incomes reported by miners
in Kinjor. Long term miners have
often been unable to save or
reinvest despite occasional finds
and basic expenses are always
necessary for tools and workers
food. Figures for average monthly
income from home enterprises
and crops and livestock vary from
US$2 to over US200 per month
suggesting some inconsistency
between incomes reported.

The average household records a

monthly expenditure of US$331,
however this figure varies
considerably between villages,
from US$49 and US$76 in Bayima
and Jikandou to US$381 in
Jawajai and US$581 in Kinjor.
These figures are considerably
higher than average incomes
recorded. Food and medical
expenses are the most common,
representing two of the most
frequent expenditure items
alongside food and personal
items, school and clothing. Figure 18: Main Source of Income

Table 18: Three Most Frequent

Expenditure Items
Bayima Jawajai Jikandou Kinjor Larjor Mono Zolu Total
Food/personal 100% 86% 50% 95% 86% 100% 100% 93%
Transport 100% 36% 0% 20% 0% 33% 50% 24%
School 0% 43% 0% 49% 57% 75% 0% 48%
Clothes 0% 21% 0% 45% 29% 50% 100% 42%
Energy 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 1%
Telephone 0% 0% 50% 1% 0% 0% 0% 2%
Medical 100% 57% 50% 66% 57% 33% 50% 59%
Furniture 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1%

6
Poverty and Social Impact Assessment and Strategy Formulation on Artisanal Diamond Mining Reform in Liberia, March 2008

May 2012
Report No. 12898 3
 NLGM SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Bayima Jawajai Jikandou Kinjor Larjor Mono Zolu Total

Rental 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Crops 0% 14% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 3%
Livestock 0% 0% 0% 2% 14% 0% 0% 2%
New buildings 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% 0% 0% 3%
Church 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 8% 0% 2%

8.9 Belief Systems and Sacred Sites

Population in the area is divided between
Christian and Islam faith. Kinjor has a church
and a mosque, whilst other surrounding villages
have one or the other. Although these religions
preside, households in the agricultural villages
also retain more traditional, animistic values. On
visiting Jikandou, we were informed that most of
the residents were at a funeral sacrifice to
commemorate a death in the village. Sacrifice of
chickens or sheep is common at death, and
occurs to celebrate a new birth, a new house or
to bless a field at the beginning of the
agricultural season. A female interviewee in
Jikandou explained that each year the village
also sacrifices a sheep or chicken for the Figure 19: Church in Kinjor
ancestors on 14th January. Households in
Jawajai made reference to two sacred sites; a
waterfall and a cotton tree close to the village.

The majority of households in agricultural

villages have graves close to or within the
boundaries of their homestead. In comparison,
only one quarter of household in Kinjor and
Larjor indicated having graves, in one of the two
cemeteries in the village. Only one graveyard
was visited during the site visit in April 2011, an
uncleared forest area, with graves simply
demarcated with two sticks if at all. There is no
obvious pathway through from the village, nor Figure 20: Mosque in Kinjor
any definitive boundaries, indicating infrequent
usage of the area. The chief of Kinjor described the burial of a recently deceased man as without ceremony;
he did not know the name or family of the man, highlighting the transient nature of many living in mining
villages.

9.0 SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT PREDICTION AND EVALUATION

The aim of this section is to identify the potential socio-economic impacts that are likely to arise as a result of
the proposed project.

9.1 Impact Assessment Methodology

The impact assessment was done according to the following methodology:

May 2012
Report No. 12898 4
 NLGM SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Direction of an impact may be positive, neutral or negative with respect to the particular impact
(e.g., a habitat gain for a key species would be classed as positive, whereas a habitat loss would be
considered negative).

Magnitude is a measure of the degree of change in a measurement or analysis (e.g., the area of
pasture, or the concentration of a metal in water compared to the water quality guideline value for the
metal), and is classified as none/negligible, low, moderate or high. The categorization of the impact
magnitude may be based on a set of criteria (e.g. health risk levels, ecological concepts and/or
professional judgment) pertinent to each of the discipline areas and key questions analysed. The
specialist study must attempt to quantify the magnitude and outline the rationale used. Appropriate,
widely-recognised standards are used as a measure of the level of impact.

Duration refers to the length of time over which an environmental impact may occur: i.e. transient
(less than 1 year), short-term (0 to 5 years), medium term (5 to 15 years), long-term (greater than 15
years with impact ceasing after closure of the project) or permanent.

Scale/Geographic extent refers to the area that could be affected by the impact and is classified as
site, local, regional, national, or international.

Probability of occurrence is a description of the probability of the impact actually occurring as either
improbable (less than 5% chance), low probability (5% to 40% chance), medium probability (40 % to
60 % chance), highly probable (most likely, 60% to 90% chance) or definite (impact will definitely
occur).

Impact significance was rated by the specialists using the scoring system shown in the box below.

(Refer to Figure 21 below).

Magnitude Duration Scale Probability

10 Very high/ dont 5 Permanent 5 International 5 Definite/dont know
know
8 High 4 Long-term (impact 4 National 4 Highly probable
ceases after
closure of activity)
6 Moderate 3 Medium-term (5 to 3 Regional 3 Medium probability
15 years)
4 Low 2 Short-term (0 to 5 2 Local 2 Low probability
years)
2 Minor 1 Transient 1 Site only 1 Improbable
1 None 0 None
Maximum SP is 100 points
SP>75 High environmental significance
SP 30 to 75 Moderate environmental significance
SP<30 Low environmental significance
Figure 21: Scoring System for Assessment of Significance

After ranking these factors for each impact, the significance of the two aspects, occurrence and severity, was
assessed using the following formula:

SP (significance points) = (magnitude + duration + scale) x probability

May 2012
Report No. 12898 5
 NLGM SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT

The maximum value is 100 significance points (SP). The potential environmental impacts were then rated as
of High (SP >71), Moderate (SP 41 70) or Low (SP <40) significance, both with and without mitigation
measures on the following basis:
SP >75 Indicates high environmental Where it would influence the decision regardless of
significance any possible mitigation. An impact which could
influence the decision about whether or not to
proceed with the project.
SP 30 - 75 Indicates moderate environmental Where it could have an influence on the decision
significance unless it is mitigated. An impact or benefit which is
sufficiently important to require management. Of
moderate significance - could influence the decisions
about the project if left unmanaged.
SP <30 Indicates low environmental Where it will not have an influence on the decision.
significance Impacts with little real effect and which should not
have an influence on or require modification of the
project design or alternative mitigation.
+ Positive impact An impact that is likely to result in positive
consequences / effects.

9.2 Project Phases

For the purposes of this impact assessment, the NLGM Project timeframe has been subdivided into three
phases, as follows:

Construction Phase;
Operational Phase; and
Decommissioning and Closure Phase.

9.3 Construction Phase Impact Assessment

BMMC proposes to initiate the construction phase of the project in the third or fourth quarter of 2013. The
duration of the construction phase will be approximately 12 months.

From a socio-economic perspective, Table 19 summarises the potential impacts that are related to the
construction phase of the proposed project, and provides a significance rating for each impact before and
after mitigation.
Table 19: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for the proposed NLGM Project Construction
Phase

ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE
Potential Socio-Economic Impact
(Construction Phase: NLGM Project)
Before mitigation After mitigation
M D S P Total SP M D S P Total SP
Physical displacement impacting built
structures and sites of religious 10 5 1 5 80 H 2 5 1 5 40 M
significance.

May 2012
Report No. 12898 6
 NLGM SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE
Potential Socio-Economic Impact
(Construction Phase: NLGM Project)
Before mitigation After mitigation
M D S P Total SP M D S P Total SP
Economic displacement impacting
agricultural land and natural resources, 10 5 2 5 85 H 2 5 1 5 40 M
and artisanal mining opportunities
Loss of sense of place 6 5 2 5 65 M 2 4 2 3 24 L
Creation of employment opportunities 4 2 2 4 32 L 6 4 2 5 60 M
Impacts to water levels and water
6 5 2 5 65 M 2 4 2 3 24 L
quality
Noise and dust pollution related to
6 4 2 5 60 M 2 4 2 3 24 L
construction excavations
Access restrictions to services and
8 5 2 4 60 M 2 5 2 2 18 L
developments
Population influx resulting in social
tensions and an increase in sexually 6 4 2 4 48 M 2 2 2 2 12 L
transmitted diseases, notably HIV/AIDS
Potential for conflict 6 2 2 3 30 M 2 2 2 2 12 L
Increase in traffic and safety hazards 6 4 2 4 48 M 2 4 2 3 24 L
Increase in business opportunities in
6 4 2 3 36 M 6 5 2 5 65 M
local services

The following sections describe the potential impacts associated with the construction phase of the NLGM
Project, as summarised in the table above.

Direct impacts anticipated during this phase include the following:

Physical displacement impacting structures and sites of religious significance;

Economic displacement impacting agricultural land and natural resources, and artisanal mining
opportunities;

Loss of sense of place;

Creation of employment opportunities;

Impacts to water levels and water quality; and

Noise and dust pollution related to construction excavations.

Indirect impacts during construction include the following:

Access restrictions to services and developments;

Population influx resulting in social tensions and an increase in sexually transmitted diseases, notably
HIV/AIDS;

May 2012
Report No. 12898 7
 NLGM SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Potential for conflict;

Increase in traffic and safety hazards; and

Increase in business opportunities in local services.

9.3.1 Physical Displacement

Baseline data collected in March 2011 indicated that a total of 201 households will be physically displaced in
Kinjor and Larjor. Additional affected community infrastructure includes the primary school, religious
buildings (three in total), the cemetery, the community meeting place and two water pumps. This number is
expected to increase as a number of unfinished structures were noted in Kinjor and construction activities
are continuous. Digby Wells Environmental (Digby Wells) from South Africa and Earthcons Inc. from Liberia
have been retained by Aureus to develop a comprehensive Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) for the
proposed NLGM. Their initial studies undertaken in late 2011 and subsequent progress report of April / May
2012 indicate that the Project will require the physical resettlement of approximately 323 households. In
addition, a third village, Jikandou, may be impacted by displacement, should the required project stream
diversion significantly impact the village.

Physical displacement requires a separate resettlement plan (IFC PS5) that must take cognisance of the
mining-based livelihoods, social networks and the wider community structures. Furthermore, many
households may already have been displaced due to the civil war and are therefore vulnerable to impacts of
further displacement. The development of alternative livelihood strategies should be the preferred mitigation
measure, maximising all possibilities for involvement in employment. Although many of these positions will
be skilled positions, the establishment of appropriate training and skills development at an early stage will
allow local community members to benefit from such opportunities, for instance through an increase in the
wage-earning population, indirectly increasing the demand for goods and services, potentially providing local
business the opportunity to supply in this demand thus developing the local economy.

9.3.2 Economic Displacement

The proposed project area is known to be privately owned by the MDA. Customary land users engaged in
crop cultivation will also experience economic displacement, affecting economic trees, food and cash crops.
This may extend to displacement relating to changing natural resource availability, indirectly impacting
subsistence livelihoods and traditional household structures. Reliance on natural resources has been noted
throughout the baseline. Impacts on natural water resources, potentially affecting both the quality and
quantity of water resources in some areas may affect fish that constitute a large proportion of households
daily diets. Disturbances to the area may impact the potential for hunting wild animals, providing both
household sustenance and a source of income.

Additionally, the project will incur economic displacement through the loss of artisanal mining opportunities.
This will have a significant impact on household income and livelihoods, especially for households in Kinjor
and Larjor. The importance of artisanal mining in local communities has been highlighted in the baseline.
Artisanal mining provides an essential income source for almost half of households in Kinjor and Larjor,
supporting the cash economy in these villages and the associated services Kinjor has to offer to surrounding
communities.

Economic displacement requires a separate resettlement plan (IFC PS5) as outlined in Section 9.3.1 above.

9.3.3 Creation of Employment Opportunities

It can be expected that opportunities will be available for unskilled and semi-skilled employment of the local
population during the construction. Skilled workers will necessarily be brought in from elsewhere in Liberia or
other countries. Early management and planning during the construction phase will mean that opportunities
for skills development and training may also be available during construction activities.

May 2012
Report No. 12898 8
 NLGM SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT

9.3.4 Loss of Sense of Place

Although directly affected communities are dependent on artisanal mining and employment from BMMC,
others in the surrounding area depend on subsistence agriculture for survival. The development of an
opencast mine and associated infrastructure and consequent displacement will therefore pose considerable
change to the landscape, resulting in a loss of sense of place to local communities.

9.3.5 Impacts to Water Quantity and Quality

The diversion of the Marvoe Creek and water use requirements of project activities may affect water supply
to downstream villages, specifically Jikandou, who rely entirely on natural water resources for domestic and
agricultural purposes. The RAP has indicated that further studies need to be undertaken to determine the
extent of impact on livelihoods of households in Jikandou and possible displacement of households. The
quality of this water may also be affected by pollutants from both the TSF and waste dump, creating a health
risk to the resident population. The diversion will require the construction of a dam nearby the process plant.
This may increase upstream water levels in the villages of Jawajai and Kandama, contributing to flooding
potential and access restrictions during the wet season.

9.3.6 Noise and Dust Pollution

Construction vehicles and excavations will increase ambient noise and decrease air quality through dust.
Noise and dust will lead to increased irritation especially in the directly affected communities, which may
cause social distress, reaction against the project, and possible health impacts. Noise and air quality studies
are included in the full ESIA and associated impacts need to refer to the social environment.

9.3.7 Access Restrictions to Services and Developments

Kinjor currently acts as a hub for surrounding rural villages, providing a variety of services such as
educational facilities and market opportunities to sell and purchase food and general supplies. Resettlement
of this hub will increase the distance households from other villages need to travel to access such services.

Initial findings of the RAP indicate that four resettlement sites have been identified, with the preferred
resettlement site of displaced households being in the vicinity of the Weagea River along the Daniels Town
road (approximately 4km south, south-east of NLGM).However, final site selection and associated
consultation still needs to be undertaken. Should the communitys preferred site option of Weagea River be
selected, the village of Jawajei (dependent on Kinjor) which would not require resettlement, would then be
between 8 10km walk away from the village and services. Mining activities would be situated between the
villages further restricting access.

9.3.8 Population Influx

An external workforce is likely to be brought into the area where employment positions cannot be filled
locally. The creation of employment opportunities may also result in a population influx into the area in
search of possible opportunities, contributing to existing ongoing population expansion in Kinjor.
Construction teams that are constituted from people not from the project area have potential to create social
tensions and cause disruption. Large labour contingents require appropriate security measures to protect
neighbouring communities from social exploitation and petty crime. Construction teams equally face social
integration challenges that need to be appropriately managed. An increase in exploitative sexual behaviour
and the associated risk of sexually transmitted diseases are likely to occur, especially given the current lack
of medical knowledge and facilities.

9.3.9 Conflict Potential

The displacement of artisanal mining and the livelihood base of a large proportion of the community has the
potential to create conflict in the project area should alternative livelihood strategies not be in place. The
International Labour Organisation (ILO) has noted that violent clashes may occur when artisanal miners are
forced to relocate. Furthermore, armed conflict is not uncommon in mining disputes, especially in countries
with a history of conflict. A report in 2002 contends that land-use conflicts between large mining companies
and the local community have largely been due to poor communication, failure of companies to live up to

May 2012
Report No. 12898 9
 NLGM SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT

commitments, and unexpected yet preventable environmental accidents7. Early management of disputes,
proactive community engagement and the development of a Livelihood Restoration Plan (LRP) to address
the possibility of the project influencing the dynamics of conflict8 are essential to maintaining good
relationships and avoiding disputes.

9.3.10 Increase in Traffic and Safety Hazards

Construction activities will lead to a significant increase in vehicular traffic. The recently constructed access
route from Daniels Town to site is currently a secondary road, as are routes around the site. Increased traffic
will lead to deterioration of these access routes and the creation of dust. Households have indicated that
roads become impassable during the wet season, especially during the months of August and September.
The new access route to site passes by a number of recently established villages, usually busy with
pedestrians and small business operations. These areas are presently unprotected.

9.3.11 Increase in Business Opportunities

An influx of population into the project area, including contracted construction teams, will increase the
demand for goods and services. Increases in income-earning opportunities will also increase spending
potential, providing opportunities for supply of such services, indirectly increasing the overall wealth of the
area.

9.4 Operational Phase Impact Assessment

BMMC estimates that the operational life of the project will be approximately 8 years. (The operational phase
is likely to be initiated in the 1st quarter of 2014 and will be completed in the 4th quarter of 2021).

From a socio-economic perspective, Table 20 summarises the potential impacts that are related to the
operational phase of the proposed project, and provides a significance rating for each impact before and
after mitigation.
Table 20: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for the proposed NLGM Project Operational
Phase
ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE
Potential Socio-Economic
Impact (Operations Phase: Before mitigation After mitigation
NLGM Project)
M D S P Total SP M D S P Total SP
Creation of employment
6 4 2 4 48 M 8 4 2 5 70 H
opportunities
Noise and dust pollution 6 4 2 5 60 M 2 4 2 3 24 L
Health and safety impacts 6 4 2 5 60 M 2 4 2 3 24 L
Improved services and
6 4 2 3 36 M 8 5 2 5 75 H
community development potential

The following sections describe the potential impacts associated with the operational phase of the NLGM
Project, as summarised in the table above.

Impacts anticipated during this phase include:

Employment opportunities;

Environmentally intrinsic impacts including noise and air quality;

7
J.S. Andrew. Potential Application of Mediation to Land Use Conflicts in Small-Scale Mining. Journal of Cleaner Production. Vol. 11 Issue 2. March 2003
8
Outcome of a compliance audit of Anvil Mining Congo, SARL 5054 in response to the logistical support provided by Anvil to the DRC armed forces when the town of Kilwa, 50km
away from Dikulushi was taken over by a small rebel group. CAO : Democratic Republic of Congo / Anvil Mining Congo / SARL01 / World Bank President Request. http://www.cao-
ombudsman.org/cases/case_detail.aspx?id=94

May 2012
Report No. 12898 10
 NLGM SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Health and safety impacts, including an increase in sexually transmitted diseases, notably HIV/AIDS;
and

Improved services and community development potential.

9.4.1 Creation of Employment Opportunities

During operations it is estimated that approximately 300 personnel will be employed. With sufficient training
during the construction phase, a proportion of these personnel can be sourced from local communities.
Increased employment will improve household income levels and livelihoods and is likely to increase the
number of small businesses in operation, creating new enterprise opportunities.

9.4.2 Noise and Dust Pollution

It is likely that the operations phase will result in an increase ambient noise and decrease air quality through
dust, potentially impacting the health and quality of life of local communities. Impacts relating to noise and
air quality will be included in specialist assessments submitted as part of the full ESIA report.

9.4.3 Health and Safety Impacts

Health and safety issues will impact on local populations throughout the operational phase. Increases in
traffic, potential dust and water pollution and emissions from the processing plant may negatively impact
health levels. Furthermore, increases in levels of traffic close to pedestrian areas and blasting activities may
cause physical injury. The lack of nearby health facilities may increase risks from such impacts. Lack of
healthcare facilities will also increase the risks of an increase HIV/AIDS given likely population influx and
movement.

9.4.4 Improved Services and Community Development Potential

To date, BMMC have constructed water pumps in local villages, provided financial assistance to the local
school, and are in the process of constructing a clinic. The project may provide opportunities for continued
improvements in basic infrastructure and community development, especially in the support or provision of
education, health care and basic services, and in providing opportunities for skills development. Such
development will need to take into consideration the projects impact on access to services from all villages,
planning development to benefit the entire community with the traditional area of jurisdiction.

9.5 Decommissioning and Closure Phase Impact Assessment

st th
The decommissioning and closure phase will likely take place between the 1 quarter of 2022 and the 4
quarter of 2022 (i.e. over 12 months).
From a socio-economic perspective, Table 21 summarises the potential impacts that are related to the
closure and decommissioning phase of the proposed project.
Table 21: Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix for the proposed NLGM Project
Decommissioning and Closure Phase
ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE
Potential Socio-Economic Impact After mitigation
(Decommissioning and Closure Before mitigation
Phase: NLGM Project) M D S P Total SP M D S P Total SP
Reduction in employment opportunities
and associated decline in economic 8 5 2 5 75 H 2 5 2 5 45 M
activities
Noise and dust impacts 6 2 2 5 50 M 2 2 2 3 18 L
Water quality and quantity impacts 6 4 2 5 60 M 2 2 2 3 18 L
Change in economic benefits from minig
8 5 2 5 75 H 2 5 2 5 45 M
to subsistence agriculture

May 2012
Report No. 12898 11
 NLGM SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT

The following section describes the potential impacts associated with the decommissioning and closure
phase, as summarised in the table above.

The decommissioning and closure phase of the mine will involve completion of the backfilling of the opencast
pits (which will have been ongoing throughout operations). The surface infrastructure in the mining area will
be dismantled and removed and the area rehabilitated. The main objective is to rehabilitate the area back to
its pre-mining land use and restore its suitability for agriculture.

It is recommended that a detailed rehabilitation plan is developed prior to construction and a detailed closure
plan developed prior to regulatory approval.

Potential impacts associated with the Decommissioning Phase may include the following:

A temporary increase in employment opportunities followed by a decrease:

Mine closure would result in the loss of an estimated 300 direct jobs, as well as associated indirect
employment and business enterprises dependent on mining operations and the increased population.
The reduction in economic activities will be particularly significant as current income-generation is
largely dependent on artisanal mining which will no longer be a possibility following decommissioning
and closure;

Noise and dust impacts associated with decommissioning activities;

Impacts to the quality and quantity of water resources surrounding the project area:

The diversion of the Marvoe Creek will be permanent. Mitigation measures to address changes in water
quality and quantity, especially for residents of Jikandou village, therefore need to be sustainable, long-
term solutions that take into account potentially water impacts following closure of operations; and

Change in economic benefits from mining to subsistence agriculture.

It is assumed that impacts will be fully assessed and options explored to mitigate these impacts during the
Mine Closure Plan.

10.0 STATEMENT OF THE DEGREE OF IRREVERSIBLE DAMAGE

The project area is currently dominated by artisanal mining activities, present for over 40 years. These
activities provide the main source of income to a large percentage of the local population. Should the project
go ahead, opportunities for artisanal mining will no longer be available, reducing the income earning potential
for many households. This will be an irreversible impact of the project as artisanal mining will no longer be
possible following closure.

However, it is proposed that mitigation measures include the provision of employment opportunities to
economically displaced artisanal miners where possible, providing an alternative source of income for the life
of the project. Furthermore, it is recommended that skills development and training schemes be available to
ensure that individuals possess the skills to continue employment elsewhere following mine closure. Analysis
of possible alternative livelihood strategies, and associated support of the implementation of training
schemes and support of enterprise development programmes will further ensure that households are not
economically disadvantaged by the project. Monitoring of employment opportunities available to former
artisanal mining communities, training and development schemes throughout the life of the project will
ensure that this irreversible impact is correctly managed.

11.0 RESIDUAL IMPACTS

For the purposes of this assessment, residual impacts are those that remain significant following the
application of mitigation measures.

May 2012
Report No. 12898 12
 NLGM SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT

The majority of impacts identified during the impact assessment can be reduced to low significance following
the implementation of mitigation measures. However, impacts of physical and economic displacement
remain of moderate significance, even with mitigation, due to their permanent nature. As such, monitoring
and management measures should extend throughout the life of the project in order to ensure that the
quality of life of displaced persons is equal to or better than prior to displacement.

12.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

The cumulative impact assessment considers the project within the context of other similar land uses, in the
local study area and greater regional context.

The NLGM project will be the first mining development and industry in the area. As such, cumulative impacts
of the project are expected to be limited. However, it is important to note that additional prospecting areas
exist within the license area, to the north and east of the New Liberty project site. These areas, specifically
Ndablama, 40km north east of the project site, are home to artisanal mining communities. Developments
should therefore take cognisance of potential displacement and reduced opportunities for artisanal mining,
an economic activity supporting a large proportion of households, on a wider scale through the development
and management of alternative livelihood strategies and skills development programmes. This will be in
addition to the resettlement of the directly affected villages of Larjor and Kinjor and possible resettlement of
Jikandou.

13.0 RECOMMENDED MITIGATION/MANAGEMENT MEASURES

Based on the potential socio-economic impacts identified in Section 8, the following section describes the
associated mitigation measures that BMMC/Aureus is required to implement, aimed at reducing potential
negative environmental and social impacts and enhancing potential positive environmental and social
impacts.

13.1 Construction Phase Mitigation Measures

Table 22 presents the mitigation measures that have been identified for the construction phase of the
project, based on the potential impacts identified and assessed in the previous section.

May 2012
Report No. 12898 13
No.
SIA Reference and
Legal Requirement
Potential Impact
Aspect/Managemen
t Objective (of
Activity, Service or
Product)
Impact Significance
Before Mitigation
Impact Significance
After Mitigation
Mitigation
Measure(s)
Timing, frequency
and duration of
mitigation
measures
Responsible
Person/Party
Key Performance
Indicators (KPIs)
No.
SIA Reference and
Legal Requirement
Potential Impact
Aspect/Managemen
t Objective (of
Activity, Service or
Product)
Impact Significance
Before Mitigation
Impact Significance
After Mitigation
Mitigation
Measure(s)
Timing, frequency
and duration of
mitigation
measures
Responsible
Person/Party
Key Performance
Indicators (KPIs)
No.
SIA Reference and
Legal Requirement
Potential Impact
Aspect/Managemen
t Objective (of
Activity, Service or
Product)
Impact Significance
Before Mitigation
Impact Significance
After Mitigation
Mitigation
Measure(s)
Timing, frequency
and duration of
mitigation
measures
Responsible
Person/Party
Key Performance
Indicators (KPIs)
No.
SIA Reference and
Legal Requirement
Potential Impact
Aspect/Managemen
t Objective (of
Activity, Service or
Product)
Impact Significance
Before Mitigation
Impact Significance
After Mitigation
Mitigation
Measure(s)
Timing, frequency
and duration of
mitigation
measures
Responsible
Person/Party
Key Performance
Indicators (KPIs)
No.
SIA Reference and
Legal Requirement
Potential Impact
Aspect/Managemen
t Objective (of
Activity, Service or
Product)
Impact Significance
Before Mitigation
Impact Significance
After Mitigation
Mitigation
Measure(s)
Timing, frequency
and duration of
mitigation
measures
Responsible
Person/Party
Key Performance
Indicators (KPIs)
No.
SIA Reference and
Legal Requirement
Potential Impact
Aspect/Managemen
t Objective (of
Activity, Service or
Product)
Impact Significance
Before Mitigation
Impact Significance
After Mitigation
Mitigation
Measure(s)
Timing, frequency
and duration of
mitigation
measures
Responsible
Person/Party
Key Performance
Indicators (KPIs)
 NLGM SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT

13.2 Operational Phase Mitigation Measures

Table 23 describes the mitigation measures that have been identified for the operational phase of the
project.

May 2012
Report No. 12898 20
No.
SIA Reference and
Legal
Requirement
Potential Impact
Aspect/Manageme
nt Objective (of
Activity, Service
or Product)
Impact
Significance
Before Mitigation
Impact
Significance After
Mitigation
Mitigation
Measure(s)
Timing, frequency
and duration of
mitigation
measures
Responsible
Person/Party
Key Performance
Indicators (KPIs)
No.
SIA Reference and
Legal
Requirement
Potential Impact
Aspect/Manageme
nt Objective (of
Activity, Service
or Product)
Impact
Significance
Before Mitigation
Impact
Significance After
Mitigation
Mitigation
Measure(s)
Timing, frequency
and duration of
mitigation
measures
Responsible
Person/Party
Key Performance
Indicators (KPIs)
 NLGM SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT

13.3 Decommissioning and Closure Phase Mitigation Measures

Error! Reference source not found. describes the mitigation measures that have been identified for the
decommissioning and closure phase NLGM Project.

May 2012
Report No. 12898 23
No.
SIA Reference and
Legal Requirement
Potential Impact
Aspect/Management
Objective (of Activity,
Service or Product)
Impact Significance
Before Mitigation
Impact Significance
After Mitigation
Mitigation Measure(s)
Timing, frequency
and duration of
mitigation measures
Responsible
Person/Party
Key Performance
Indicators (KPIs)
 NLGM SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT

13.4 Cost estimate for mitigation

Table 25 provides a high level cost for implementing the mitigation measures identified in section

Table 25: Cost estimate for implementing the socio-economic related mitigation measures
Cost Estimate (US$) Cost Estimate (US$)
Mitigation Measure Frequency
per month per year
Once off costs
Development of plan
Resettlement Action Plan In process (Digby Wells)
(once off)
Livelihood Restoration Development of plan
N/A 125,000
Plan (once off)
Community Development
Development of plan
Plan (including health N/A 35,000
(once off)
development plan)
Development of plan
Health and Safety Plan N/A 30,000
(once off)
Dispute prevention and Development of plan
N/A 12,000
management plan (once off)

TOTAL (once off costs) 202,000

TOTAL with 25% contingency 252,500
Ongoing monthly costs
Quarterly reviews in 1st
Resettlement Action Plan 2 years then annual for 3,000 12,000
further 3 years
Quarterly monitoring
during 1st year, half-
Livelihood Restoration
yearly during 2nd year, 3,000 36,000
Plan
annually for further 3
years
Development
2,000 25,000
Community Development implementation
Plan (including health Annual review of plan for
development plan) life of mine including 4,000 4,000
closure review
Community Development Full time salary for life of
3,000 36,000
Officer mine
Community Liaison Full time salary for life of
3,000 36,000
Officer mine
Local labour desk, Prior to construction and
establishment and record operations phase then 350 4,200
keeping throughout life of mine
Monthly training during
construction and prior to
5,000 60,000
closure based on 100
Skills development trainees
programmes
Ongoing annual training
during operations based 1,000 10,000
on 100 trainees

May 2012
Report No. 12898
 NLGM SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Cost Estimate (US$) Cost Estimate (US$)

Mitigation Measure Frequency
per month per year
Quarterly monitoring and
Health and Safety Plan reporting throughout life 1,000 4,000
of mine
Dispute prevention and Annual monitoring
1,000 1,000
management plan throughout life of mine

TOTAL (ongoing costs) 26,350 228,200

TOTAL with 25% contingency 32,938 285,250

14.0 SOCIO-ECONOMIC MONITORING PROGRAMME

The monitoring programme below will need to commence in the construction phase, continuing into
operations, and throughout the life of mine.
Table 26: Socio-Economic Monitoring Programme
Source Monitoring Locations Parameters Frequency
Quality of life of Quarterly reviews in 1st
Resettlement Action Plan Resettlement sites households, 2 years then annual for
commitments in RAP further 3 years
Quarterly monitoring
during 1st year, half-
Livelihood Restoration
Resettlement sites Commitments in plan. yearly during 2nd year,
Plan
annually for further 3
years
Commitments in plan,
Community Development construction and Annual monitoring
Local communities
Plan operation of throughout life of mine
developments
Quarterly monitoring and
Local communities, site Health and safety
Health and Safety Plan reporting throughout life
operations incidents
of mine
Dispute prevention and Conflicts, stakeholder Annual monitoring
Local communities
management plan engagement throughout life of mine

15.0 CONCLUSION
The proposed New Liberty development will be the first gold mine in Liberia, and the first industrial
development in the project area. New economic activities such as this project have the potential to assist
with the developmental challenges that much of rural Liberia is faced with, providing employment and skills
development to Liberian nationals and contributing to the social, economic and institutional development of
communities. The benefits of employment opportunities and disposable income in the local project area have
been noted in the baseline, as levels of health, nutrition, education and service delivery are higher in the
towns of Kinjor and Larjor, exposed to such opportunities, than in surrounding rural agricultural villages.
Additional employment and associated indirect economic benefits will maintain and improve the quality of life
of these communities. Continued investment in the project area will also support much-needed development.
The compilation of a Community Development Plan taking into account all villages within the traditional area
of jurisdiction will allow for planning and management of sustainable development.

May 2012
Report No. 12898
 NLGM SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT

The most significant negative impact of the project is the physical and economic displacement of
approximately 300 households in Kinjor and Larjor. This includes the displacement of artisanal mining
opportunities, sustaining the livelihoods of a large proportion of households. A Resettlement Action Plan
(RAP) is currently being developed to mitigate this impact. This plan should include compensation for
structures and loss of assets and support with moving to a new location and establishing a homestead. The
development of alternative livelihood strategies should be the preferred mitigation measure, maximising all
possibilities for involvement in employment opportunities available. A Livelihood Restoration Plan should be
developed to ensure households are not left worse off following displacement. Ongoing management and
monitoring, including effective community engagement, and open, transparent communication will assist in
avoiding potential conflict or tensions relating to such displacement, building trust and maintaining
relationships throughout the life of the project.

16.0 QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE

Mr. Frank Snijder Divisional Leader, Social Sustainability Division
Frank Snijder is the divisional leader for social sustainability at Golder Associates Africa, managing a team of
social practitioners. His professional experience spans more than 20 years across various sectors. Frank
has worked in many rural communities across South Africa and in Swaziland, Lesotho, Democratic Republic
of Congo, Zambia, Ghana, Tanzania/Zanzibar and Liberia where he worked on projects ranging from rural
small-holder irrigation development projects (dealing with sensitivities around land-use rights, rearrangement
of landholding, the inclusion of project displaced people as development beneficiaries and the inclusion of
women) to participatory research projects determining attitudes and perceptions.

His technical expertise includes social assessments and the social facilitation of project implementation
processes; formal research using various qualitative and quantitative techniques; and resettlement planning
activities including the establishment of appropriate institutional structures to manage the development and
implementation of resettlement action plans. He has trained numerous field research teams in social
research techniques and has on several field trips been hosted by villagers as participant observer. Frank
also worked on municipal revenue management projects in the South African municipal environment with a
specific focus on data management and data integrity audits. Many impact assessment projects have been
completed in compliance with international standards and guidelines e.g. World Bank and Equator
Principles.

Frank holds a Masters degree in Anthropology and a Master degree in Business Leadership.

Mrs. Alex Armitage Social Researcher

Alex joined Golder Associates (Pty) Ltd Africa in September 2009 as a Social Researcher after completing
her degree in Social Anthropology, specialising in medical practices and modernization in Zambia. Alexs key
roles involve conducting field research and socio-economic surveys, the management and analysis of data,
undertaking stakeholder engagement and communication processes, and compiling Social Impact
Assessment (SIA) and Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) reports in line with country and international
guidelines and legislation.

She has worked on SIA and RAP projects in the mining sector, for mine expansions, mine water reclamation
projects, linear pipeline and ropeway projects, as well as internationally funded development projects
emphasising social development and corporate social responsibility initiatives. These have been based in
South Africa, Zambia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Tanzania, Togo, Liberia, Central African Republic and
Mozambique. Her knowledge of French allows diversity on project teams and contributes to projects based
in French-speaking Africa. She has previously worked as a volunteer French teacher in northern Zambia and
as a community peer educator in the UK, expanding her communication and community interaction skills.

Mrs. Alet Fell Social Researcher

Alet Fell is employed by Golder Associates Ghana Ltd as social researcher. She has experience in a wide
variety of subjects within the social research arena. Alet holds a Social Science honours degree in
environmental management and analysis from the University of Pretoria. Her project experience ranges from

May 2012
Report No. 12898
 NLGM SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT

resettlement planning. livelihoods analysis, public participation, baseline socio-economic analyses to reviews
of Social and Labour Plans for the mining industry and the implementation of Social and Labour Plans.
Although based in Ghana, Alet forms part of the Social Sustainability Division of Golder Associates Africa.

Alex Armitage Frank Snijder

Social Researcher Social Sustainability Lead

AA/FS

Reg. No. 2002/007104/07

Directors: FR Sutherland, AM van Niekerk, SAP Brown, L Greyling

Golder, Golder Associates and the GA globe design are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation.

May 2012
Report No. 12898
 NLGM SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT

APPENDIX A
Document Limitations

May 2012
Report No. 12898
 NLGM SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT

DOCUMENT LIMITATIONS
This Document has been provided by Golder Associates Africa Pty Ltd (Golder) subject to the following
limitations:

i) This Document has been prepared for the particular purpose outlined in Golders proposal and no
responsibility is accepted for the use of this Document, in whole or in part, in other contexts or for any
other purpose.

ii) The scope and the period of Golders Services are as described in Golders proposal, and are subject to
restrictions and limitations. Golder did not perform a complete assessment of all possible conditions or
circumstances that may exist at the site referenced in the Document. If a service is not expressly
indicated, do not assume it has been provided. If a matter is not addressed, do not assume that any
determination has been made by Golder in regards to it.

iii) Conditions may exist which were undetectable given the limited nature of the enquiry Golder was
retained to undertake with respect to the site. Variations in conditions may occur between investigatory
locations, and there may be special conditions pertaining to the site which have not been revealed by
the investigation and which have not therefore been taken into account in the Document. Accordingly,
additional studies and actions may be required.

iv) In addition, it is recognised that the passage of time affects the information and assessment provided in
this Document. Golders opinions are based upon information that existed at the time of the production
of the Document. It is understood that the Services provided allowed Golder to form no more than an
opinion of the actual conditions of the site at the time the site was visited and cannot be used to assess
the effect of any subsequent changes in the quality of the site, or its surroundings, or any laws or
regulations.

v) Any assessments made in this Document are based on the conditions indicated from published sources
and the investigation described. No warranty is included, either express or implied, that the actual
conditions will conform exactly to the assessments contained in this Document.

vi) Where data supplied by the client or other external sources, including previous site investigation data,
have been used, it has been assumed that the information is correct unless otherwise stated. No
responsibility is accepted by Golder for incomplete or inaccurate data supplied by others.

vii) The Client acknowledges that Golder may have retained sub-consultants affiliated with Golder to
provide Services for the benefit of Golder. Golder will be fully responsible to the Client for the Services
and work done by all of its sub-consultants and subcontractors. The Client agrees that it will only assert
claims against and seek to recover losses, damages or other liabilities from Golder and not Golders
affiliated companies. To the maximum extent allowed by law, the Client acknowledges and agrees it will
not have any legal recourse, and waives any expense, loss, claim, demand, or cause of action, against
Golders affiliated companies, and their employees, officers and directors.

viii) This Document is provided for sole use by the Client and is confidential to it and its professional
advisers. No responsibility whatsoever for the contents of this Document will be accepted to any person
other than the Client. Any use which a third party makes of this Document, or any reliance on or
decisions to be made based on it, is the responsibility of such third parties. Golder accepts no
responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions
based on this Document.

GOLDER ASSOCIATES AFRICA (PTY) LTD

May 2012
Report No. 12898