appendix o cultural heritage impact...

Malingunde ESIA

APPENDIX O Cultural Heritage Impact Report

MALINGUNDE GRAPHITE PROJECT CULTURAL HERITAGE IMPACT REPORT FOR MALINGUNDE

GRAPHITE PROJECT IN MALINGUNDE, LILONGWE-MALAWI Issue Date: 2 April 2019 Revision No.: 2 Project No.: 282HIA Client: Sovereign Metals (Pty) Ltd PGS Project No: 282HIA

Malingunde Graphite Project

2 April 2019 Page ii

Declaration of Independence § I, Ilan Smeyatsky, declare that – § General declaration: § I act as the independent heritage practitioner in this application § I will perform the work relating to the application in an objective manner, even if this results in views

and findings that are not favourable to the applicant § I declare that there are no circumstances that may compromise my objectivity in performing such

work; § I have expertise in conducting heritage impact assessments, including knowledge of the Act,

Regulations and any guidelines that have relevance to the proposed activity; § I will comply with the Act, Regulations and all other applicable legislation; § I will take into account, to the extent possible, the matters listed in Section 29 of the Monuments and

Relics Act of 1990, when preparing the application and any report relating to the application; § I have no, and will not engage in, conflicting interests in the undertaking of the activity; § I undertake to disclose to the applicant and the competent authority all material information in my

possession that reasonably has or may have the potential of influencing any decision to be taken with respect to the application by the competent authority; and the objectivity of any report, plan or document to be prepared by myself for submission to the competent authority;

§ I will ensure that information containing all relevant facts in respect of the application is distributed or made available to interested and affected parties and the public and that participation by interested and affected parties is facilitated in such a manner that all interested and affected parties will be provided with a reasonable opportunity to participate and to provide comments on documents that are produced to support the application;

§ I will provide the competent authority with access to all information at my disposal regarding the application, whether such information is favourable to the applicant or not

§ All the particulars furnished by me in this form are true and correct; and § I will perform all other obligations as expected from a heritage practitioner in terms of the Malawi

Cultural Policy (2014) and the constitutions of my affiliated professional bodies;.

Disclosure of Vested Interest § I do not have and will not have any vested interest (either business, financial, personal or other) in

the proposed activity proceeding other than remuneration for work performed in terms of the Regulations;

HERITAGE CONSULTANT: PGS Heritage (Pty) Ltd CONTACT PERSON: Wouter Fourie Tel: +27 (0) 12 332 5305

Email: [email protected]

SIGNATURE: ______________________________


2 April 2019 Page iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT

Report Title CULTURAL HERITAGE IMPACT REPORT FOR MALINGUNDE GRAPHITE PROJECT IN MALINGUNDE, MALAWI

Control Name Signature Designation

Authors Wouter Fourie Principal Heritage Specialist

Oris Malijani Heritage Specialist

Ilan Smeyatsky Archaeologist

Reviewed Nanette Hattingh CLIENT: Sovereign Metals Limited CONTACT PERSON: Dr Julian Stephens Tel: +61 8 9322 6322 E-mail: [email protected]


2 April 2019 Page iv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report summarises the findings of the Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment (CHIA) carried out by PGS Heritage (Pty) Ltd (PGS) of South Africa at the Malingunde Graphite Project area located approximately 15 km southwest of Lilongwe, in the central region of Malawi. PGS was appointed by Sovereign Metals Limited (Sovereign) to undertake a CHIA as part of the Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) for the proposed Malingunde Graphite Project. The proposed graphite project covers an area of approximately 30 square kilometres. The study involved assessing the direct and indirect impacts of the proposed graphite mining project on archaeological and cultural heritage resources found in the project area. To carry out the task, the PGS Heritage research team first conducted desktop research, before embarking on a comprehensive site survey and community consultation meetings in the project area. The survey involved walking in transect at spaces of 15 -20 meters apart with intensive search in gullies and eroded paths to see if there was any deposition of artefacts. A total of 9 archaeological sites, 8 sacred traditional cultural meeting places, 9 burial grounds and 29 low significance archaeological find spots were identified during the field survey. Archaeological Sites Only archaeological sites at MGP1 and MGP3-5 will be directly impacted and mitigation measures as recommended in section 10.2.1 of this report must be implemented to minimise the project impact on the identified sites. Implementing these measures will not only contribute to the protection of the communities’ past and present cultural heritage but also to the project’s sustainable and responsible operation. Cultural heritage activities and sites Of the 8 sacred traditional cultural meeting places and 9 burial grounds identified only three churches (CHU001, CHU002 and CHU006) will be directly impacted. The relocation of churches will be negotiated and implemented as part of the resettlement action plan, however any suspension of the use of the forests for burial and as dambwe (although not planned as part of the Project) will have a significant influence of the social fabric and intangible heritage of the communities that will be relocated. By implementing a negotiated and mutually agreed upon access protocol that will enable communities to have open access to their forests and burial grounds for cultural ceremonies, negative impacts can be reduced and mitigated.


2 April 2019 Page v

Impact evaluation The impact evaluation concluded that direct impacts on archaeological sites (MGP1 and MGP3-5) and two church (CHU002 and CHU006) during construction will have a definite permanent negative impact on the three heritage resources identified above. The impact is calculated as having a high negative significance rating before the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures and post-mitigation is rates as having a low negative significance rating. Various heritage resources were identified that could experience indirect impacts during the operational phase of the project. Suggested mitigation in Section 10 of this report will reduce the pre-mitigation impact rating of high to a post-mitigation impact rating of moderate. This rating suggests a detailed community engagement process during resettlement to enable the continued use of culturally significant resources and sites during the operational phase of the project.

It is our considered opinion that with the implementation of a Cultural Heritage Management Plan (CHMP), none of the impacts on these heritage sites would prevent the continuation of the project.


2 April 2019 Page vi

TABLE OF CONTENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Project background 1

1.2 Proposed Project Area 2 1.3 Background of the Project Area 3 2 SCOPE OF WORK ................................................................................................................. 4

3 DEFINITION OF CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCES ..................................................... 4 4 LEGAL AND POLICY FRAMEWORK ................................................................................... 5

4.1 International Requirements 5 4.1.1 The International Finance Corporation 6 4.1.2 Equator Principles 7

5 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................... 9 5.1 Desktop research 9 5.2 Field Survey 9

5.3 Public Consultation 10 5.4 Determination of Site Significance and Values 10

5.5 Assumptions and Limitations 12 6 DESKTOP STUDY FINDINGS ............................................................................................. 12

6.1.1 Overview of Study Area and Surrounding Landscape 12 6.1.2 Previous Archaeological and Heritage Studies in and around the Study Area 13 6.1.3 Shrines and Sacred Sites 13

7 SENSITIVITY MAPPING PRIOR TO FIELDWORK ............................................................. 14 8 FIELD SURVEY ................................................................................................................... 17

8.1 Consultation Meetings with Local Communities 17 8.1.1 Settlement History 17 8.1.2 Intangible Heritage 18 8.1.3 Use of Forts (Chambers) 19 8.1.4 The construction history of homesteads 19 8.1.5 Graves 19

8.2 Results of the Field Survey 19

8.3 Identified Cultural Meeting Places (Bwalos) 21 8.4 Identified historical forts 28

8.5 Graves and burial grounds 31 8.6 Identified archaeological resources 39


2 April 2019 Page vii

8.7 Places of worship 48 9 IMPACT ASSESSMENT ...................................................................................................... 54

9.1 Direct Impact on Heritage Resources 54 9.2 Impact Evaluation 54

9.2.1 Construction Impacts 54 9.2.2 Operational Impacts 55

10 MITIGATION MEASURES ................................................................................................... 57 10.1 Introduction 57

10.2 Cultural Heritage Management Plan (CHMP) 58 10.2.1 Phase 1: Pre-Mine Development Data Collection 58 10.2.1.1 Laboratory Processing and Curation 58 10.2.2 Phase 2: Mitigation Plan for burial grounds and graves 59 10.2.2.1 Procedures and processes for grave relocation 59 10.2.3 Phase 3: Mitigation Plan During Mining Operations 60 10.2.3.1 Contractor Training and Awareness Program 60 10.2.3.2 Archaeological Monitoring of Land Transformation Activities 60 10.2.3.3 Salvage Excavations during Monitoring from Mechanically Excavated Trenches 62 10.2.3.4 Chance Find or “Unforeseen Discoveries” Procedures 62 10.2.3.5 Avoidance of Construction-related Impacts 62

11 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ........................................................................ 63 11.1 Archaeological Sites 64

11.2 Cultural heritage activities and sites 64 11.3 Impact evaluation 64 12 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................... 65

Tables Table 1: Sections of IFC Standards relevant to heritage resources and their management ........... 6 Table 2. Site prioritisation classification ........................................................................................ 11 Table 3: Landform type to heritage find matrix .............................................................................. 15 Table 4: Cultural Meeting Places .................................................................................................. 21 Table 5: Chambers (fortifications) ................................................................................................. 28 Table 6: Burial grounds and graves in the project area ................................................................ 31 Table 7: Archaeological resources ................................................................................................ 39 Table 8: Pre-mitigation impact rating of direct impacts on heritage resources ............................. 55 Table 9: Post-mitigation impact rating of direct impacts on heritage resources ............................ 55 Table 10: Pre-mitigation impact rating of indirect impacts on heritage resources during operation ...................................................................................................................................................... 56


2 April 2019 Page viii

Table 11: Post-mitigation impact rating of indirect impacts on heritage resources during operation ...................................................................................................................................................... 56 Figures Figure 1: Location of the Malingunde Graphite Project Area in Lilongwe, Malawi. ......................... 2 Figure 2: Showing the extent of the Malingunde graphite deposit. Source: sovereignmetals.com.au/projects/ ................................................................................................... 3 Figure 3: Heritage sensitivity mapping in study area during the scoping phase ........................... 16 Figure 4: Consultative meetings with the local community leaders ............................................... 17 Figure 6: View of BWAL001 in Kumalindi ..................................................................................... 21 Figure 7: View of large tree at BWAL002 in Kumalindi ................................................................. 22 Figure 8: View of BWAL003 east of main road in Kumalindi ......................................................... 23 Figure 9: View of BWAL004 in Kumalindi ..................................................................................... 24 Figure 10: View of BWAL005 in the Katawa village ...................................................................... 25 Figure 11: View of BWAL007 southern Ndumila ........................................................................... 26 Figure 12: View of BWAL008 eastern Ndumila ............................................................................. 27 Figure 13: View of the Kamchenga chamber at Ndumila .............................................................. 28 Figure 14: View of the Chindidye Historic Fort / Chamber ............................................................ 29 Figure 15: View of the Kumalindi Chamber ................................................................................... 30 Figure 16: View of the Kumalindi burial ground as part of the forested area to the left of the main road ............................................................................................................................................... 31 Figure 17: View of the Ndumila I burial ground from the east ....................................................... 32 Figure 18: View of headstones of the royal burial ground ............................................................. 33 Figure 19: View of the overgrown old burial ground ...................................................................... 34 Figure 20: Recent burial mounds in burial ground ........................................................................ 35 Figure 21: Headstone and dressing of Chief Chitimbe’s grave ..................................................... 36 Figure 22: View of the recent grave of Gogo Nkhungulo .............................................................. 37 Figure 23: Archaeological site in main road .................................................................................. 39 Figure 24: Remains of fragmented ceramics exposed in road ...................................................... 39 Figure 25: Iron slag exposed in road ............................................................................................. 40 Figure 26: Ceramics found in situ ................................................................................................. 41 Figure 27: Ceramics with cross hatching decoration on the rim ................................................... 41 Figure 28: Section of MGP3 exposed through erosion of foot paths ............................................ 42 Figure 29: Fragments of iron slag and tuyere pipe ....................................................................... 42 Figure 30: Broken ceramics in situ ................................................................................................ 42 Figure 31: General view of MGP 4 ................................................................................................ 43 Figure 32: Earlier Iron Age decoration motifs of crosshatching and wave lines ............................ 43 Figure 33: exposed pottery and slag found in erosion gullies of foot paths .................................. 44 Figure 34: Iron slag and bloom with decorated potsherds ............................................................ 44 Figure 35: Remains of smaller rectangular structure .................................................................... 45


2 April 2019 Page ix

Figure 36: Undecorated ceramics with lip ..................................................................................... 45 Figure 37: View of MGP 8 ............................................................................................................. 46 Figure 38: Fragments of rim .......................................................................................................... 46 Figure 39: Exposed deposit of iron slag and pottery ..................................................................... 47 Figure 40: In situ slag and pottery ................................................................................................. 47 Figure 41:CHU001 and CHU002 .................................................................................................. 49 Figure 42: CHU03 and CHU004 ................................................................................................... 49 Figure 43: CHU005 and CHU006 ................................................................................................. 49 Figure 44: CHU007 ....................................................................................................................... 49 Figure 45 :Track log recordings from the fieldwork ....................................................................... 50 Figure 46: Heritage sites identified during field survey ................................................................. 51 Figure 47: Heritage sites identified during field survey – north eastern section of study area ...... 52 Figure 48: Heritage sites identified during field survey – southern section of study area ............. 53 APPENDICES Appendix A - Malingunde Impact Assessment Framework


2 April 2019 Page 1

1 INTRODUCTION

PGS Heritage (Pty) Ltd (PGS) has been contracted by Sovereign Metals Limited (Sovereign) to carry out an Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment (ACHIA) as part of an Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) for the Malingunde Graphite Project (the Project) in Malawi. PGS collaborated with Archaeo-Heritage Consults of Malawi and officials from the Malawi Department of Antiquities to undertake this ACHIA in a landscape to be affected by graphite mining activities in the Malingunde area.

1.1 Project background

Sovereign is proposing the establishment of a graphite mine at Malingunde, 15km southwest of Lilongwe, the capital city of Malawi. (See Figure 1). The Malingunde graphite deposit is hosted within a weathered, soft saprolite (clay) material. The deposit is located on the Lilongwe plain which is underlain by a paragneiss basement rock package containing extensive graphite units. This area has a largely preserved, deep tropical weathering profile containing significant thicknesses of saprolite – very soft, graphite bearing, clay-rich oxide material that is formed from intensive weathering of the original bedrock1. An economic scoping study undertaken by Sovereign demonstrated the potential for the Project to support a low capital and operating cost mine with an annual graphite concentrate production of approximately 44,000 tons over an initial mine life of 17 years2. The Malingunde graphite deposit is large and of high grade, with visually coarse and big flakes of graphite identified throughout the landscape during exploration. It is estimated that potentially several thousands of kilometres of cumulative strike length of saprolite-hosted graphite mineralisation are deposited in the area. The Project will involve open pit mining and processing of graphite ore within close proximity to the open pits. The mining will be undertaken in shallow open pits, with maximum depths of 25m and maximum widths of approximately Once excavated, the ore will be transported to the processing plant. The processed product will be transported by road to Kanengo train station and thereafter to the port of Nacala in Mozambique for export. Additional infrastructure to support the mining operation is likely to include: tailing storage facility (TSF) where waste materials are deposited; low grade stockpile; ore processing plant; internal site and haul roads; raw water storage dam, process water storage dam, site water management infrastructure and dirty water storage dams; workshops to service and maintain 1 Sovereign Metals Limited, Malingunde project overview, http://sovereignmetals.com.au/projects/ accessed on 4th December 2017 2 Sovereign Metals Limited, 2017


2 April 2019 Page 2

mining fleet and light vehicles; and administration buildings, offices, ablution facilities and crib rooms. All infrastructures will be located within the project area.

Figure 1: Location of the Malingunde Graphite Project Area in Lilongwe, Malawi.

Source: sovereignmetals.com.au/projects/

1.2 Proposed Project Area

The Malingunde Graphite project is located 15 km Southwest of Malawi’s capital city, Lilongwe. The graphite mineral ore covers an area of approximately 30 km2 in the vicinity of the Kumalindi and Ndumila villages in the Lilongwe plains. The project area is bordered by the Kamuzu Dam 2 and Lilongwe River to the south and southeast and the villages of Ndumila and Mbonekela stretching northwards from the Lilongwe river towards Ndumila village situated some 1.5km north of the river. The Malingunde main road (S124) traverse the study area from the northeast towards the Dzalanyama Forest Reserve 10km to the south west of the study area. The project area is characterised by vast tracks of cultivated farmland utilised for subsistence farming. See Figure 1 and Figure 2 below.


2 April 2019 Page 3

Figure 2: Showing the extent of the Malingunde graphite deposit. Source: sovereignmetals.com.au/projects/

1.3 Background of the Project Area

The central region of Malawi, in which the Lilongwe district is located, is one of the culturally richest regions in the country that have yielded rare and important cultural heritage resources. This is due to its vast plains and perennial rivers that drained the area, thereby creating a conducive environment for human and animal habitation. The archaeological records for the area have documented human evolution from the earlier to late Stone Age and also from early to late Iron Age. Slave trade and its abolition legacy are also embedded in the area. Studies through collaborative research projects sponsored by UNESCO and the Department of Antiquities have led to the discovery of rock paintings, and Stone Age and Iron Age sites. One notable discovery is Chongoni Rock Art World Heritage Site, which is situated on the same plains of the central region about 85 kilometres from the project area.


2 April 2019 Page 4

Renowned archaeologists like Mr. Keith Robinson and Dr. Gadi Gomezulu have conducted vast research in the plains that have yielded Stone Age to Iron Age materials, such as flake, pottery, beads and tuyere3 pipes.

2 SCOPE OF WORK

The scope of work for archaeological and cultural heritage study include: § Undertake a CHIA which complies with the International Finance Corporation (IFC) and

UNESCO standards; § Describe the existing environment associated with the proposed development in terms of

its heritage, and archaeology, as well as the sensitivity of the surrounding areas to any change;

§ Describe the likely scope, scale and significance of heritage, and archaeological impacts associated with the construction. This should include reference to primary, secondary and/or cumulative impacts;

§ Recommend mitigation measures that should be implemented during mining to avoid/reduce the significance of the identified construction-related impacts;

§ Confirm if there are any outright fatal flaws to the establishment of the proposed development from a heritage and archaeological perspective.

3 DEFINITION OF CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCES

Consistent with national and international heritage laws, it is the mandate of Malawi through the Department of Culture through the divisions of Antiquities and Museums, to protect its irreplaceable cultural heritage and guide the developer to avoid or mitigate adverse impacts on cultural heritage in the course of development activities. A CHIA is required for developments such as this project, in compliance with the laws of Malawi as provided for in the Monuments and Relics Act of 1991 and Malawi’s Cultural Policy of 2014. This Act and the policy define cultural heritage in its tangible and intangible forms. Tangible cultural heritage comprises the physical cultural heritage resources both movable and immovable including but not limited to the following: -

§ places, buildings, structures of cultural significance; § places and objects to which oral traditions are attached or which are associated with a

living heritage such as ethnographic art and objects; § historical settlements, townscapes, and sites of significance relating to the history of

slavery; § landscapes and natural features of cultural significance;

3 a tube or pipe usually made with clay, through which air is blown into a furnace or hearth. Air or oxygen is injected into a hearth under pressure from bellows or a blowing engine or other devices.


2 April 2019 Page 5

§ geological sites of scientific or cultural importance; § archaeological and palaeontological sites and objects; § graves and burial grounds.

Intangible cultural heritage is the type of heritage that is manifested in the following:

§ oral traditions and expressions, § performing arts; § social practices, rituals, and festive events; § knowledge and practices concerning nature and the universe; § traditional craftsmanship and skills transmitted from generation to generation.

4 LEGAL AND POLICY FRAMEWORK

Before any land altering development activity is undertaken, a Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment is required by the laws of Malawi. The Monuments and Relics Act of 1990 provides statutory protection against the threat of development on declared monuments, historical buildings and archaeological, paleontological, geological, anthropological, ethnological and other heritage sites to enable their preservation for posterity and socio economic development. Section 29 of the Monuments and Relics Act of 1991 (Cap. 29:01 Laws of Malawi) reads:

1) A person in charge of any survey, excavation, exploration, construction or new development shall, at the earliest stages of planning for such activities, give notice to the Minister to enable, where necessary, rescue archaeology to be carried out (…)

2) (…) the cost of such work shall … be borne by the person in charge of any survey, excavation, exploration, construction or other development.

The Malawi Cultural Policy (2014) and the Antiquities Policy (2012) also provide statutory and legal mandate of ensuring that Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment4 is conducted before embarking on large scale land altering development projects.

4.1 International Requirements

The regulatory aspects dealt with above relate solely to Malawian laws and regulations and would usually be the only requirements for an application for a Mining Licence. However, it may be that international financing is required, and the Project would also need to comply with the requirements of the IFC Performance Standards (2012) and the Equator Principles observed by most large international financial institutions. Summaries of these requirements are set out below.

4 Note that the reference to HIA in this document is seen as equivalent to Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment


2 April 2019 Page 6

4.1.1 The International Finance Corporation

The IFC Performance Standards are an international benchmark for identifying and managing environmental and social risk and have been adopted by many organisations as a key component of their environmental and social risk management. The IFC’s environmental, health, and safety (EHS) guidelines provide technical guidelines with general and industry-specific examples of good international industry practice to meet IFC’s Performance Standards. In many countries, the scope and intent of the IFC performance standards (PS) is addressed or partially addressed in the country’s environmental and social regulatory framework. The IFC Performance Standards encompass eight topics of which PS7 and PS8 have direct relevance to heritage resources:

i. PS 1 - Environmental and Social Assessment and Management System; ii. PS 2 - Labour and Working Conditions; iii. PS 3 - Pollution Prevention and Abatement; iv. PS 4 - Community Health, Safety and Security; v. PS 5 - Land Acquisition and Involuntary Resettlement; vi. PS 6 - Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Natural Resource Management; vii. PS 7 - Indigenous Peoples; viii. PS 8 - Cultural Heritage

Table 1 provides a listing of the relevant sections pertaining to cultural heritage. Table 1: Sections of IFC Standards relevant to heritage resources and their management

GUIDELINE RELEVANT CHAPTER DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUIREMENT

IFC Performance Standards

PS 5 – Paragraph 3 Minimization and avoidance of impacts from project related activities.

PS 5 – Paragraph 10 (Community Engagement) (2012).

Engagement with affected communities and the disclosure of relevant information of the relocation process.

PS 5 – Paragraph 20 Respecting the social and cultural institutions of the displaced persons and any host communities.

PS 8 – Paragraph 9 (Consultation) (2012).

The need for consultation with affected communities to identify cultural heritage of importance and involve affected communities and involve the relevant national or local regulatory authorities in the decision-making processes.

PS 8 – Paragraph 12 (Removal of Non-Replicable Cultural Heritage) (2012).

The removal of cultural heritage must only be considered when no other alternative is available.

The IFC’s Performance Standards offer a framework for understanding and managing environmental and social risks for high profile, complex, international or potentially high impact projects. The financial institution is required to verify, as part of its environmental and social due


2 April 2019 Page 7

diligence process, that the commercial client/investee complies with the IFC Performance Standards. To do so, the financial institution needs to be knowledgeable about the environmental and social laws of the country in which it operates and compare these regulatory requirements against those of the IFC Performance Standards to identify gaps. A good understanding of both sets of requirements, as well as potential gaps, ensures that the financial institution will effectively identify and assess the key environmental and social risks and impacts that might be associated with a financial transaction. If non-compliances with the IFC Performance Standards are identified, and depending on the severity of the issue, the financial institution can require the commercial client/investee to develop a corrective action plan for addressing the issue within a reasonable timeframe and stipulate this as a condition of the financial transaction with the commercial client/investee. The IFC Performance Standards help the IFC and its clients to manage and improve their environmental and social performance through an outcomes-based approach and provide a solid base from which clients may increase the sustainability of their business operations. The desired outcomes are described in the objectives of each Performance Standard, followed by specific requirements to help clients achieve these outcomes through means that are appropriate to the nature and scale of the project and commensurate with the level of environmental and social risks (likelihood of harm) and impacts.

4.1.2 Equator Principles

The Equator Principles (EP) is a risk management framework, adopted by financial institutions, for determining, assessing and managing environmental and social risk in projects and is primarily intended to provide a minimum standard for due diligence to support responsible risk decision-making. The EP apply globally, to all industry sectors and to four financial products –

1) Project Finance Advisory Services; 2) Project Finance; 3) Project-Related Corporate Loans; and 4) Bridge Loans.

The EP consist of 10 Principles, outlined below:

i. Principle 1: Review and Categorisation When a Project is proposed for financing, the EPFI will, as part of its internal environmental and social review and due diligence, categorise it based on the magnitude of its potential


2 April 2019 Page 8

environmental and social risks and impacts. Such screening is based on the environmental and social categorisation process of the IFC. Using categorisation, the EPFI’s environmental and social due diligence is commensurate with the nature, scale and stage of the Project, and with the level of environmental and social risks and impacts.

ii. Principle 2: Environmental and Social Assessment Base on the categories from EP 1, all Category A and Category B Projects, will require the client to conduct an assessment process to address, to the EPFI’s satisfaction, the relevant environmental and social risks and impacts of the proposed Project.

iii. Principle 3: Applicable Environmental and Social Standards The Assessment process should, in the first instance, address compliance with relevant host country laws, regulations and permits that pertain to environmental and social issues.

iv. Principle 4: Environmental and Social Management System and Equator Principles Action Plan

For all Category A and Category B Projects, the EPFI will require the client to develop or maintain an Environmental and Social Management System (ESMS). Further, an ESMP will be prepared by the client to address issues raised in the Assessment process and incorporate actions required to comply with the applicable standards.

v. Principle 5: Stakeholder Engagement For all Category A and Category B Projects, the EPFI will require the client to demonstrate effective stakeholder engagements as an ongoing process in a structured and culturally appropriate manner with affected communities and, where relevant, other stakeholders For Projects with potentially significant adverse impacts on affected communities, the client will conduct an informed consultation and participation process. The engagement process should be free from external manipulation, interference, coercion and intimidation.

vi. Principle 6: Grievance Mechanism For all Category A and, as appropriate, Category B Projects, the EPFI will require the client, as part of the ESMS, to establish a grievance mechanism designed to receive and facilitate resolution of concerns and grievances about the Project’s environmental and social performance. The grievance mechanism will seek to resolve concerns promptly, using an understandable and transparent consultative process that is culturally appropriate, readily accessible, at no cost, and without retribution to the party that originated the issue or concern.

vii. Principle 7: Independent Review: Project Finance For all Category A and, as appropriate, Category B Projects an independent environmental and social consultant, not directly associated with the client, will carry out an independent review of the Assessment Documentation including the ESMPs, the ESMS, and the stakeholder engagements process documentation in order to assist the EPFI's due diligence, and assess EPEP compliance.

viii. Principle 8: Covenants


2 April 2019 Page 9

An important strength of the Equator Principles is the incorporation of covenants linked to compliance. For all Projects, the client will covenant the financing documentation to comply with all relevant host country environmental and social laws, regulations and permits in all material respects.

ix. Principle 9: Independent Monitoring and Reporting Project Finance To assess Project compliance with the Equator Principles and ensure ongoing monitoring and reporting after Financial Close and over the life of the loan, the EPFI will, for all Category A and, as appropriate, Category B Projects, require the appointment of an Independent Environmental and Social Consultant, or require that the client retain qualified and experienced external experts to verify its monitoring information which would be shared with the EPFI.

x. Principle 10: Reporting and Transparency Client Reporting Requirements The following client reporting requirements are in addition to the disclosure requirements in Principle 5.

For all Category A and, as appropriate, Category B Projects: The client will ensure that, at a minimum, a summary of the ESIA is accessible and available online.

5 METHODOLOGY

5.1 Desktop research

For the initial identification of archaeological sites, the research team consulted the Antiquities National Site Register and other published works. An examination was undertaken of documentary records comprising reports, articles, maps, photos, the national inventory of archaeological, historical and cultural sites that have already been recorded in the proposed project area.

5.2 Field Survey

A field survey was conducted from 4 -15th June 2018. It consisted of a transect walk of five experienced archaeological surveyors and one local community member spaced between 15-20m apart. The survey intended to cover the project affected area and a buffer zone of approximately 10m. The survey involved systematic screening of the surface area, natural gullies cut by rivers and rivulets, eroded pedestrian pathways, cultivated fields, bare premises around peoples’ homes and the road edges. In some of these areas, cultural artefacts such as pottery sherds and iron slag were observed and recorded. The locations of the identified sites were recorded with a handheld GPS. The baseline survey area was however limited to the area that will be directly affected by the graphite mining project. However, the efficacy was hampered at times by poor visibility as a result of dense vegetation covering the gardens. Given time constraints, no subsurface testing was done at this stage.


2 April 2019 Page 10

5.3 Public Consultation

Public consultation consisted of focus group interviews with community members to source their views. Among the people consulted were the traditional leaders, local village elders, land owners and some community members who were randomly selected. The consultation mainly focused on determining the significance that community members attach to the cultural heritage sites in the project area. As a result of these consultation meetings, the team was able to get information regarding burial grounds and archaeological sites located within the project area and the value the local communities attach to them. The identification of the sacred traditional meeting places was also a result of these consultation meetings.

5.4 Determination of Site Significance and Values

In order to define the mitigation measures of the sites located within and/or in the proximity of the project area, the threatened cultural heritage sites need to be classified according to their importance and the required appropriate intervention. The following categories were used for the cultural heritage resources identified in this study (each category is associated with specific mitigation measures to be taken):

§ Low Priority Site: No further treatment. § Medium Priority Site: Mapping of the site and controlled sampling required. Further

monitoring during construction to ascertain final priority/importance. § High Priority Site: Further treatment warranted. This can include but not limited to

a. No-go or relocate development activity position; b. Preserve site, or c. Extensive data collection and mapping of the site; and Preserve site.

The prioritisation of a site is not a definite measure of its scientific importance but rather a temporary classification regarding potential and further treatment requirements. In this regard, some high priority sites may well be re-evaluated as non-important after further study. The criteria used to define the value of a site are multiple and complex. However, regarding the area’s archaeological sites the aim is to understand both the history of the region and the way of life of past populations. In this context the criteria used were as follows:

§ Age of the finds; § Density and/or a variety of the finds; § Context of the finds; § Social significance of the finds; § Precursory archaeological knowledge of the area.



a) Age is a self-explanatory criterion: the older a site is, the more important it is. This is

because old sites are rare and finding one is an opportunity to understand the distant past of an area. Most often, sites more than 15,000 years old (Early or Middle Stone Age) are found during major construction works (dams, roads, mines, and pipelines) because they are buried deep underground.

b) To be considered important, a site must also present a high density and/or variety of artefacts. Isolated finds are very difficult to interpret since a representative sample of the material is needed in order to be able to understand the activities carried out at the site by prehistoric peoples. Density of scatter (dispersed scatter) has been divided as follows:

a. Low - <10 per 50 m2 b. Medium - 10-50 per 50 m2 c. High - >50 per 50 m2

c) Artefacts must also be in primary context (i.e., as the prehistoric people left them) in order to be exploitable from a scientific standpoint. If natural erosion or anthropological phenomena have disturbed a site too heavily, the association and position of artefacts cannot be interpreted. Most of the time a site is discovered because part of it is unearthed by erosion or digging; archaeological interventions will, therefore, focus on the part of the site that is still undisturbed.

d) Recent sites (graves/tombstones, monuments, sacred shrines) can be of high social significance (i.e., be "sacred") to local populations and, in that case, should not be damaged by activities unless proper compensation is negotiated. In this regard, burial sites or any other sites considered as sacred by local communities are always classified as ‘High Priority Sites that must not be lost at all costs.

e) Prior archaeological knowledge of the area where a site is found is also an important criterion. Medium Priority sites could eventually be re-classified as High Priority sites if no High Priority sites are discovered in a region that was previously unexplored.

When taken together, a preliminary site prioritisation classification has been developed as shown in Table 2 below.

Table 2. Site prioritisation classification

Old Age Primary Context High Artefact Density or Variety

High Social Significance

Priority

Yes Yes Yes Yes High Yes Yes Yes No High No Yes Yes Yes High Yes Yes No No Medium No No No Yes Medium No Yes No Yes Medium No No Yes No Low



As no excavations were carried out, it was difficult to make any preliminary interpretations on age ranges of the identified sites. Furthermore, the pottery found on the surface showed considerable signs of wear and erosion. This has made it difficult to identify characteristic decoration types, representative of distinct periods. The criteria of 'Age of Finds' is therefore difficult to apply in this stage of the study. However, the other two criteria, 'Primary Context' and 'High Artefact Density or Variety' have been useful to determine whether an archaeological site can be classified as High, Medium or Low Priority. An identified traditional gathering places (bwalos) and the burial grounds was categorised as High Priority because of their social-cultural significance to the local people.

5.5 Assumptions and Limitations

Not detracting in any way from the comprehensiveness of the fieldwork undertaken, it must be realised that the heritage resources located during the fieldwork do not necessarily represent all the possible heritage resources present within the area. Various factors account for this, including the subterranean nature of some archaeological sites and the current dense vegetation cover. As such, should any heritage features and/or objects not included in the present inventory be located or observed, a heritage specialist must immediately be contacted. Such observed or located heritage features and/or objects may not be disturbed or removed in any way until such time that the heritage specialist has been able to make an assessment as to the significance of the site (or material) in question. This applies to graves and cemeteries as well. If any graves or burial places are located during the development, the procedures and requirements pertaining to graves and burials will apply as set out below.

6 DESKTOP STUDY FINDINGS

6.1.1 Overview of Study Area and Surrounding Landscape

The central region of Malawi is one of the regions with known historic habitation that have yielded rare and important pre-historic, historic and cultural heritage resources. Although little archaeological and historical research has been done within the region, there are some well-known significant heritage sites of archaeological and cultural importance to the local people (Cole-King, 1973). Some of these sites have been excavated and results of the findings have been published (Robinson, 1970). Some of the heritage sites within the proposed graphite mining area include shrines and sacred sites, graves and undocumented archaeological sites.



6.1.2 Previous Archaeological and Heritage Studies in and around the Study Area

Not much archaeological and heritage studies research has been done in the Project area. However, there is much potential to find evidence of human habitation because of the long history of human settlement in the area. All archaeological and cultural heritage sites which were identified will have a level of significance since little archaeological research has been done in the Project area.

6.1.3 Shrines and Sacred Sites

Msinja Sacred Cultural Landscape and Shrine The most notable cultural feature in the Malingunde area is the living and vibrant Msinja cultural landscape with deep roots in the traditions of the local people who live within and around it. The Msinja cultural landscape and the associated traditional religious shrine is dated to as early as the 13th century when the Chewa arrived in this part of Africa (Nthara, 1973). Msinja was a religious city which functioned as a centre of national worship for the Chewa people. It was the site of the great Rain Shrine of the Chewa tribe where sacrifices were offered for rain-making and thanks-giving during heavy harvest. (Rangeley, 1952) The original sacred site was located on top of Dzalanyama, in the Kaphirintiya hills. On the site, there is a sacred forest in which there is a rock with imprints on it, and it is believed by the Chewa to be the footprints of the first man and woman (McFarren, 1986). The stretch of land from the hills of Kaphirintiya to the lowland on the Malawian side (eastern side of the hill) is referred to as Msinja because it is alleged that when the first Chewa people arrived in the area, they heard the sound of pounding of mortars, kusinja, but they could not see any people. The proto-Chewa shrine at Kaphirintiya was managed by a woman priestess with the title of ‘Makewana’, the mother of all people (Nthara, 1973). The priestess was of the Banda clan and was not allowed to be married since she was considered to be the wife of ‘Chisumphi’ (the priest or God head). The role of Makewana was to mediate between Chisumphi and the Chewa nation, directing prayers to their deity (Chisumphi) (Van Breugel, 2001). Makewana also acted as a secular authority in all matters, apart from religious aspects, before the arrival of the Phiri Clan who invaded the Chewa and took over the secular authority of the land (Rangeley, 1952). However, she was assisted by a male priest called ‘Kamundi Mbewe’ who was also her protector and 'Tsang’oma', the drum beater, who used to call people to the shrine and a number of young girls called ‘Matsano’ who have not reached puberty stage. All people who were involved in the affairs of the shrine used to wear black clothes. Carlos Wiese, a German official in the Portuguese service described the shrine at Msinja as the “Mecca of the Maravi”. This was because all the Chewa chiefs from Zambezi in Mozambique, Lwangwa in Zambia, to Kasungu in Malawi, Lake Malawi and beyond, made their annual



pilgrimages to Msinja to pray for rains and posterity in their homes. Msinja was a very popular and busy city. In 1830, Gamito, a Portuguese traveller, noticed some commercial activity taking place at Msinja. It is also reported that David Livingstone visited Msinjas in 1867 (The Nation, 2017). Scholars such as W.H.J. Rangeley (1952), Samuel Nthara (1973), Mathew Schoffeleers (1978), William Emmet McFarren (1986) and J.W.M. van Breugel (2001) have provided comprehensive accounts of the history, and the events that took place at Msinja. Msinja city was well designed. At the centre was the temple where sacrifices were offered. The sacred temple was served by various functionaries. Five officials, who included Makewana, formed the nucleus of Msinja city, (Schoffeleers, 1999). They lived at the centre of the city very close to the temple. Other functionaries lived in 11 villages that surrounded the city. These villages were similar to what we now call locations or residential areas (Rangeley, 1952). The Nyau Sacred Cult and Dambwes Since the original and predominant population living in this proposed mining project area is the Chewa, they are commonly referred to as Nyau societies. The Nyau is a secret and sacred cult, involving the ritual dance practiced among the Chewa people in Malawi. These people keep their dancing costumes in sacred places called dambwes (forest patches which also act as meeting places of the Nyau secret societies). This tradition has been included on the UNESCO Representative List as a masterpiece of intangible cultural heritage under the 2003 Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention, and thus it has a global significance. There is the likelihood of finding these Dambwes in the project area.

7 SENSITIVITY MAPPING PRIOR TO FIELDWORK

A spatial and landscape analysis of the study area was conducted through the analysis of historical and topocadastral maps as well as aerial photography. The aim was to identify landscape forms, natural features and structures that potentially have heritage significance or have associated features and structures that have heritage significance prior to fieldwork. After the analysis of the historical topocadastral maps, available aerial photographs were reviewed, and analysis undertaken. The aim was to identify man-made structures, as well as landforms that can possibly be associated with settlement patterns of historical people. These landforms will guide the focussed fieldwork and assist in the identification of potential heritage resources. Attention was given to make a distinction between man-made watering holes and natural occurring watering holes, as the latter often have associated heritage resources. The analysis of the studies conducted in the area assisted in the development of landform type to heritage find matrix as presented in Table 3.



Table 3: Landform type to heritage find matrix

LANDFORM TYPE HERITAGE TYPE

Crest and foot hills Later Stone Age (LSA) and Middle Stone Age (MSA) scatters, Late Iron Age (LIA) settlements

Crest of small hills Small LSA sites – scatters of stone artefacts, pottery and beads

Ridges and drainage lines LSA sites, LIA settlements

Forested areas LIA sites, sacred sites

Figure 3 illustrates the findings of the sensitivity analysis with the main features for investigation being drainage lines, villages and forested areas.



Figure 3: Heritage sensitivity mapping in study area during the scoping phase



8 FIELD SURVEY

This section describes the findings of the fieldwork completed by the cultural heritage team.

8.1 Consultation Meetings with Local Communities

The discussions with local communities were aimed at understanding the settlement history of the area, the intangible heritage of the area including traditional knowledge systems, know-how in arts and crafts and other traditional cultural practices (Figure 4). Further discussions focused on understanding the construction history of the dwellings and issues of grave exhumation and relocation.

Figure 4: Consultative meetings with the local community leaders

8.1.1 Settlement History

It was revealed that the Chewa people migrated to Malawi from Zaire (now Democratic Republic of the Congo) in the 16th century. Community leaders explained that the Chewa people have been nomadic throughout history. They claimed that their history can be traced from Sudan before they settled in Zaire. They said the leader of the Chewa people during the migration from Zaire to Malawi was named Kalonga. Kalonga founded the Maravi Empire in Malawi and established his headquarters in a place called Mankhamba in Dedza district. He later decided to extend his influence by acquiring more land for his subjects. In order to achieve this, he dispatched a number of his matrilineal relatives to establish settlements in various parts of Malawi. On the settlement history of Malingunde area, the elders failed to explain exactly when they settled in the area but provided more information that their ancestors were attracted by the environment of the area in terms of closeness to water sources and good fertile land for cultivation. They also narrated that before settling in the Malingunde region, they migrated from Dowa area, but failed to provide the exact time they settled in the area. They further explained that those people who settled



in Msinja area were the Ngonis and those who settled in the villages within Malingunde project area were the Chewas, hence often they used to fight and the Chewa people used to hide in the earthen constructed forts for their protection against the Ngonis. However, in a meeting held in the Chitsulo area, one of the elders said that they arrived at Malingunde while performing a 'Gule wa Mkulu'5 sacred dance. He explained that missionaries were unhappy with 'Gule wa Mkulu' and they asked the Traditional Authority (TA Masula) to relocate elsewhere, which is why they found themselves in the Malingunde area. In this meeting, one of the elders agreed that the Chewas migrated from Mpezeni in Zaire and they first settled at Ndumila. He said they arrived at Ndumila in 1901.

8.1.2 Intangible Heritage

Other than understanding the settlement history of the area from the local elder’s perspectives, further inquiry focused on understanding the intangible heritage of the area including traditional knowledge systems and other traditional cultural practices. One of the elders reiterated that the Chewa people are known for their masks and their secret societies, called Nyau, as well as their agricultural gardening techniques. They also said that in the past they used to offer sacrifices in form of food and drinks to the spirits of the ancestors in times of calamities like drought, diseases, and hunger, and also for thanks-giving in times of plenty harvests. They pointed out that one of the sacred ritual sites was at Msinja particularly in places called Mbale, Chioza, and Chidula where there is a tree known as Mwabvi where the actual sacrificial ritual used to take place. But they said this is outside the project area. In a second meeting, one of the elders said that their ancestors used to go to Bunda Hill to offer sacrifices to their gods asking for rains. They also mentioned some additional traditional dances commonly practiced in the area. This included Chimtali, Chiterera and Gule wa Mkulu. Chisamba, a ritual ceremony performed during funerals is also common in this area. For young girls who have reached adulthood/puberty, Thimbwidza, an initiation traditional practice is usually performed to these young girls. In the second meeting, they elaborated on when Gule wa Mkulu is usually performed. They said it is performed when one member of the local community members who does not have a church is dead; when any oldest person is dead; occasions when they are erecting a tombstone, and sometimes when custodians of the bwalos would like to be entertained.

5 The Gule wa Mkulu is both a secret cult and a ritual dance performed by people wearing character masks or disguised as animals, who represent the world of the spirits. This ritual performance, which is aimed at preserving traditional values, is practiced among the Chewa people on various occasions. https://www.southworld.net/malawi-gule-wamkulu-dance-of-the-spirits/



8.1.3 Use of Forts (Chambers)

They also mentioned about the earthen-constructed mounds (forts) locally known as Chambers which according to oral history were used as hiding places during tribal conflicts between the Ngonis and Chewa tribal groups. They said their well-known best Chamber is called Kamchenga which was used soon after arriving from Dowa district. The other chamber mentioned is called Chindidye which was also used as a hide-out during conflicts and it was protected by magic. The consultants also inquired on whether the village is growing since last time they settled. In response, one of the local chiefs said the village is growing due to increase in population. And that also explains why they have many chiefs in the Malingunde area. They said some people from the area have migrated to Lilongwe city because of urbanization.

8.1.4 The construction history of homesteads

Further discussions focused on understanding the construction history of the dwellings. They mentioned that long-time ago their dwelling places were constructed by using poles and grasses, then plastered them with mud. After some years, they started using burnt and unburnt bricks. However, on the second meeting, one of the elders said they used to build rounded thatched log houses mortared with mud and they had to dig around it and put big poles to protect the house from wild animals. The elders also mentioned that some community members are skilled in making clay pots, drums, and mats.

8.1.5 Graves

The matter of the possible relocation of burial ground and graves was discussed, however minimal feedback was received from the interviewees, as they did not entertain the possibility of grave relocation. Many elders were sceptical about the idea of exhumation and relocation of their burial grounds.

8.2 Results of the Field Survey

A total of 9 archaeological sites, 8 sacred traditional cultural meeting places, 9 burial grounds and 29 low significance archaeological find spots were identified during the field survey. Dense vegetation cover and inaccessibility of certain sections made total coverage of the project area difficult and can result in some heritage resource to be undiscovered. Moreover, no subsurface testing was done at this baseline stage. More sites may thus lie below the 30 cm plough zone and may remain unexposed.



The 29 archaeological find spots indicated on the maps (Figure 45 to Figure 47) as green numbers constitute low density scatters of ceramics or iron slag with a low heritage significance.



8.3 Identified Cultural Meeting Places (Bwalos)

Table 4: Cultural Meeting Places Site

number Lat

(UTM WGS85 Zone 36S)

Lon Description Heritage Significance

BWAL001 Kumalindi I Bwalo

0571365 8437081 This is a cultural heritage place where Gule wa Mkulu, a sacred traditional dance, is performed during different occasions. This cultural meeting place is under the chieftaincy of Kumalindi Wafupi6 under Group Village Headman Chitsulo. It covers an area of approximately 30m x 30m. The area has high socio-cultural significance to the local communities around it as it preserves and safeguards the intangible heritage of the Chewa culture.

High

Figure 5: View of BWAL001 in Kumalindi

6 Chieftaincy names provided by field guide provided by village headman Chitsulo



Site number

Lat (UTM WGS85 Zone 36S)


BWAL002 Kumalindi II Bwalo

0571337 E 8437226 N This is another bwalo (cultural meeting place) where Gule wa Mkulu, a sacred traditional dance, is performed during different occasions. This cultural meeting place is under the chieftaincy of Kumalindi Watali under Group Village Headman Chitsulo. It is situated adjacent to bwalo of Kumalindi Wafupi about 150m apart and it covers an area of approximately 40m x 40m. The area also has high socio-cultural significance to the local communities around it as it preserves and safeguards the intangible heritage of the Chewa culture.

High

Figure 6: View of large tree at BWAL002 in Kumalindi



Site number



BWAL003 Kumalindi III Bwalo

0571337 8437226 This is another bwalo (cultural meeting place) where Gule wa Mkulu is performed, and other social gatherings take place for different cultural activities. This cultural meeting place is under the chieftaincy of Kumalindi Wapadilawo under Group Village Headman Chitsulo. It is approximately 30m x 30m. The area also has high socio-cultural significance to the local communities around it as it preserves and safeguards the intangible heritage of the Chewa culture.

High

Figure 7: View of BWAL003 east of main road in Kumalindi



Site number



BWAL004 Chitsulo Bwalo

0571649 8437186 This is another bwalo (cultural meeting place) where Gule wa Mkulu is performed, and other social gatherings take place for different cultural activities. This cultural meeting place is under the chieftaincy of Group Village Headman Chitsulo. It is approximately 30m x 20m. The area also has high socio-cultural significance to the local communities around it as it preserves and safeguards the intangible heritage of the Chewa culture.

High

Figure 8: View of BWAL004 in Kumalindi



Site number



BWAL005 Katawa Bwalo

0571625 8437031 This is another bwalo (cultural meeting place) where Gule wa Mkulu is performed, and other social gatherings take place for different cultural activities. This cultural meeting place is under the chieftaincy of Katawa, under Group Village Headman Chitsulo. It is approximately 30m x 20m in size. The area also has high socio-cultural significance to the local communities around it as it preserves and safeguards the intangible heritage of the Chewa culture.

High

Figure 9: View of BWAL005 in the Katawa village



Site number



BWAL006 Kamkuwe Bwalo

0571657 8437438 This is a relatively new bwalo (cultural meeting place) where Gule wa Mkulu is performed, and other social gatherings take place for different cultural activities. This cultural meeting place is under the chieftaincy of Kamkuwe, Group Village headman Chitsulo. It is approximately 30m x 40m in size. The area also has high socio-cultural significance to the local communities around it as it preserves and safeguards the intangible heritage of the Chewa culture. However, the area is outside the project area.

High

BWAL007 Chikalima Bwalo

0572167 8435114 This is a relatively new bwalo (cultural meeting place) where Gule wa Mkulu is performed, and other social gatherings take place for different cultural activities. This cultural meeting place is under the chieftaincy of Kumalindi. It is approximately 20m x 30m in size. The area also has high socio-cultural significance to the local communities around it as it preserves and safeguards the intangible heritage of the Chewa culture. However, the area is outside the project area.

High

Figure 10: View of BWAL007 southern Ndumila



Site number



BWAL008 Pingeni Bwalo

0572167 8435114 This is a relatively new bwalo (cultural meeting place) where Gule wa Mkulu is performed, and other social gatherings take place for different cultural activities. This meeting cultural place is used by the following villages: Ndumila, Pingeni and Chikhosi. The area also has high socio-cultural significance to the local communities around it as it preserves and safeguards the intangible heritage of the Chewa culture.

High

Figure 11: View of BWAL008 eastern Ndumila



8.4 Identified historical forts

Table 5: Chambers (fortifications) Site

number Lat

(UTM WGS85 Zone 36S) Lon Description Heritage Significance

Kamchenga Historic Fort / Chamber

0574142 8434709 This historic fort is located in the north-eastern side of Ndumila I Village. This is where the Chewa cultural tribe used to hide during tribal wars with other tribal groupings who used to invade the area.

High

Figure 12: View of the Kamchenga chamber at Ndumila



Site number



Chindidye Historic Fort / Chamber

0574142 8434709 A historic fort located east of Ndumila Mosque. Its earthen wall mounts were intact in some areas. It had approximately a radius of about 90m-100m. According to one of the local guides, cultivation inside the fort was prohibited as any form of excavation yields human bones. To preserve the integrity of the area, the communities consider the fort as a graveyard and anyone going there without the Chief's consent is regarded as a trespasser. The presence of archaeological sites and the fort in the area confirms the assumption that humans once occupied the area in the past. Considering the shallow written history of the country, where much of its information is obtained from such resources, the area provides a rare opportunity to unearth the treasures of the nation. The sites are likely to provide valuable scientific and historical knowledge to the nation.

High

Figure 13: View of the Chindidye Historic Fort / Chamber



Site number



Kumalindi Historic Fort / Chamber

0574142 8434709 This historic fort is located in the north-eastern side of Ndumila I Village. This is where the Chewa cultural tribe used to hide during tribal wars with other tribal groupings who used to invade the area.

High

Figure 14: View of the Kumalindi Chamber



8.5 Graves and burial grounds

Graves are regarded as protected monuments under the laws of Malawi as provided for in the Monuments and Relics Act of 1991. Part 1 section 2(c) of the Act, defines “Monument” as ‘…any grave, tumulus, cairn, place of interment, pit, dwelling, trench, excavation, working, rock, rock-shelter, madden, mound, cave, grotto, rock sculpture, rock painting and wall painting’.

Table 6: Burial grounds and graves in the project area Site

number Lat


Kumalindi Burial Ground

571541 843710 It is located within Kumalindi village and approximately 350m x 200m in size High

Figure 15: View of the Kumalindi burial ground as part of the forested area to the left of the main road



Site number



Kubale Burial Ground

571755 843591 It is located between Kubale Village and Mbonekera village and is approximately 200m x 100m in size

High

Ndumila 1 Burial Ground

572043 843520 Located within Ndumila 1 village and is approximately 200m x 120 m in size. High

Figure 16: View of the Ndumila I burial ground from the east



Site number



Ndumila Chiefs Burial Ground

572043 843520 Located about 15m away, adjacent to Ndumila 1 graveyard on the north-eastern side. It is approximately 15m x 20 m and it is reserved for chiefs in the village.

High

Figure 17: View of headstones of the royal burial ground



Site number



Ndumila Old Burial Ground

572010 843540 Located about 30m southwest of Ndumila 1 graves. Approximately 70m x 50m in size. It has been abandoned and communities have stopped burying people in this location a long time ago. It used to be utilised by the villages of Mkasa, Apingeni, Ndumila 1 Chikalima and Chikhosi

High

Figure 18: View of the overgrown old burial ground



Site number



Mbonekera Burial Ground

572148 843554 Located within Mbonekera village. It is approximately 300m x 250m in size High

Figure 19: Recent burial mounds in burial ground



Site number



Chief Chitimbe Grave

572050 843542 Burial place of Chief Chitimbe, one of early settler chiefs of the land. It is situated along the road that connects Chaniya village to Ndumila village within Biliati village.

High

Figure 20: Headstone and dressing of Chief Chitimbe’s grave



Site number



Gogo Nkhungulo Grave

571170 843682 Burial place of Gogo Nkhungulo, one of the villagers who opted to be buried near his plot. Located within Kumalindi village

High

Figure 21: View of the recent grave of Gogo Nkhungulo



Site number



Chanika Village burial ground

571457 8435425 Grave yard utilised by Chanika village. Approximately 200m x 200m in size. High

MAL042 Burial Ground

571836 843558 Old burial ground some 300 meters northwest of the old Ndumila cemetery. Approximately 20m x 20m in size.

High



8.6 Identified archaeological resources

Table 7: Archaeological resources Site

number Lat


MGP 1

0571136 8436601 An Iron Age site located along the Malingunde main road (S124), with embedded pottery mostly weathered. Some iron slags and Nkope7 potsherds with comb dragging, incisions and comb stamping were recorded at the site. This site was recommended for further sub-surface investigations.

High

Figure 22: Archaeological site in main road

Figure 23: Remains of fragmented ceramics exposed in road

7 Nkope pottery refers to a type of pottery with specific pot profiles, decoration motifs and layouts. Nkope pottery is related to the Urewe tradition of the easern stream migration of the Bantu tribes from Central Africa (circa AD 300-400) - Huffman, T.N., 2007. Handbook to the Iron Age. University of KwaZulu-Natal Press.



Site number



Figure 24: Iron slag exposed in

road

MGP 2

0572162 8436167 An Iron Age site covering some 20 square meters in a maize field. The cultural artefacts recorded included decorated Nkope pottery with rims. Pottery densities are generally low (<10/m2). The pottery is highly fragmented as a result of cultivation. This is a possible late 19th century to early 20th-century settlement. This site was recommended for further sub-surface investigations if impacted in future

Medium



Site number



Figure 25: Ceramics found in situ

Figure 26: Ceramics with cross hatching decoration on the rim

MGP 3

0572028 8436348 An Iron Age Site located in a highly disturbed maize field with scatters of thick decorated and undecorated pottery mostly eroded, >10/m2 in an area approximately 70m x 30m. A few Mkhudzi8 potsherds with comb dragging, incisions and comb stamping around the rims were recorded. Various pieces of iron slag and fragments of tuyere pipe were identified.

High

8 Pottery type related to Nkope pottery



Site number



Figure 27: Section of MGP3 exposed through erosion of foot paths

Figure 28: Fragments of iron slag and tuyere

pipe

Figure 29: Broken ceramics in situ



Site number



MGP 4

0571731 8436164 An Iron Age site located in a highly disturbed cultivated land. Pottery densities are generally low (<5/m2). Some pottery was decorated while some undecorated and highly fragmented as a result of cultivation. The site is linked with MGP 5 where large amounts of decorated ceramics and indications of iron smelting are present.

High

Figure 30: General view of MGP 4

Figure 31: Earlier Iron Age decoration motifs of crosshatching and wave lines



Site number



MGP 5

0571804 8436183 An Iron Age Site located in a highly disturbed maize field with clusters of iron slugs, daga9 and thick decorated and undecorated pottery which is mostly eroded, >10/m2 over an area of approximately 30m x 30m. A few potsherds with comb dragging, incisions and comb stamping around the rims was observed. Indications are that the site is a possible smelting site, as pieces of iron slag and bloom and clay pipe (tuyere) remains of furnace bellows were found. The site is probably an extension of MGP 4. This site was recommended for further sub-surface investigations.

High

Figure 32: exposed pottery and slag found in erosion gullies of foot paths

Figure 33: Iron slag and bloom with decorated potsherds

9 A puddled clay used to plaster the walls and floors of houses in the Iron Age settlements of sub-Saharan Africa. https://archaeologywordsmith.com



Site number



MGP 6

0572923 8435286 An Iron Age Site covering some 40 x 30m in a cultivated maize field. Some unidentified pottery with rims were recorded at the site with pottery densities of <10/m2). Pottery samples were collected for further analysis. This site was recommended for further sub-surface investigations if impacted in future

Medium

Figure 34: Remains of smaller rectangular structure

Figure 35: Undecorated ceramics with lip



Site number



MGP 7 0572694 8435059 An historic and Iron Age site located in a maize field with scatters of undecorated pottery with intact rims, >10/m2 over an area approximately 20m x 30m. Some remains of Tuyere pipes was recorded on the site.

Low

MGP 8

0572652 8435328 The site is from the Iron Age, located in a maize field southwest of the village. It shows a presence of undecorated pottery sherds spread over an 8m radius. This site was recommended for further sub-surface investigations if impacted in future

Medium

Figure 36: View of MGP 8

Figure 37: Fragments of rim



Site number



MGP 9

0572208 8435072 An Iron Age site covering approximately 50 x 50 m2 in a maize field. Decorated and undecorated pottery with rims were recorded. Iron slags were also observed at this archaeological site. Pottery densities were generally low (<10/m2). This site was recommended for further sub-surface investigations if impacted in future

Medium

MGP 10 (MAL21)

0572208 8435072 The site is characterised by a thick deposit of iron slag and bloom, mixed with fragments of pottery and ash. The site is slightly disturbed by farming activity that created a cutting in the deposit. However, the deposit of approximately 1 m in depth is still in primary context and can yield extensive data if documented. This site was recommended for further sub-surface investigations if impacted in future

High

Figure 38: Exposed deposit of iron slag and pottery

Figure 39: In situ slag and pottery



8.7 Places of worship

During the survey 7 places of worship were identified consisting of 6 churches and one mosque.

Name Type Congregation X (UTM WGS85 Zone 36S)

Y

CHU001 Church Pentecostal Holiness Ndumila Church 572410 843536

CHU002 Church St Johns Chindidye Catholic Church 572348 843583

CHU003 Mosque Ndumila Masjid 572510 843561

CHU004 Church Jehova Witness - Chanika 571294 843557

CHU005 Church Pentecostal Assemblies of Malawi 571677 843712

CHU006 Church Ndumila CCAP Church 572323 8435361

CHU007 Church Baptist Church 571359 8436854



Figure 40:CHU001 and CHU002

Figure 41: CHU03 and CHU004

Figure 42: CHU005 and CHU006

Figure 43: CHU007



Figure 44 :Track log recordings from the fieldwork



Figure 45: Heritage sites identified during field survey



Figure 46: Heritage sites identified during field survey – north eastern section of study area



Figure 47: Heritage sites identified during field survey – southern section of study area



9 IMPACT ASSESSMENT

9.1 Direct Impact on Heritage Resources

The graphite mining will have destructive and irreversible effects on some of the archaeological and other cultural heritage sites identified in the project area. The land transformation activities during the development of access roads, clearing of the landscape for the development of mining facilities, and mining operations is likely to directly and indirectly impact on the historical and archaeological sites, burial grounds and other sacred places like communal gathering places (bwalos), and other intangible cultural values found within the project area. Accidental or intentional disturbance to burial grounds, sacred spaces, and other significant heritage features will have detrimental effects on the local communities which value this heritage highly. The assessment of the possible impacts on cultural heritage resources are done through an impact assessment framework (Appendix A) which enables the quantification and formalisation of these impacts. The impact evaluation considers direct as well as indirect impacts on cultural heritage resources related to the project.

9.2 Impact Evaluation

The cultural heritage resources within the Malingunde graphite project area are at risk of being damaged through direct impacts, especially the direct loss of archaeological sites due to permanent removal from their original setting as a result of open cast graphite mining. Those impacts would be immediate and permanent if no management or mitigation measures are implemented. Damage to burial grounds and sacred communal gathering places would affect the local communities if no adequate rituals and reburial ceremonies are carried out in consultation with the local communities.

9.2.1 Construction Impacts

During construction, the establishment of roads and other infrastructure will have an impact on some heritage resources. Evaluation of the proposed project layout indicates that direct impacts are foreseen on the archaeological sites MGP1 and MGP3-5, church CHU002 and CHU006. The impact of construction will have a definite permanent negative impact on the three heritage resources identified above. The impact is calculated as having a high negative significance rating (Table 8) before the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures and post-mitigation is rates as having a low negative significance rating (Table 9).



Table 8: Pre-mitigation impact rating of direct impacts on heritage resources Impact Impact

direction Magnitude Extent Duration Probability Consequence Significance

Rating Moderate Site-

specific Permanent / Unknown

Almost Certain /

Don't Know

Disturbance of archaeological sites

- 6 1 5 5 12 High

High Site-specific

Permanent / Unknown

Almost Certain /

Don't Know

Impact on church -CHU002

- 6 1 5 5 12 High

Table 9: Post-mitigation impact rating of direct impacts on heritage resources

Impact Impact direction

Magnitude Extent Duration Probability Consequence Significance Rating

Low Site-specific

Short-term

Almost Certain /

Don't Know

Disturbance of archaeological sites

- 4 1 2 5 7 Low

Impact on church

- 4 1 2 5 7 Low

9.2.2 Operational Impacts

Heritage resources within 150 metres from the mining infrastructure that could be indirectly impacted during the operational phase includes the following:

§ Burial grounds o Grave of Gogo Nkhunulo o Mbonekera burial ground and forest o Ndumila 1 burial ground o The grave of Chief Chitimbe o Kubale burial ground

§ Churches o CHU001 – potentially relocated 10 years after mining has commenced

§ Bwalos o BWAL008 o BWAL007

§ Kamchenga Chamber



Indirect impacts may be experience in the event of any exclusion zones prohibiting cultural activities such as the sites of churches, burial grounds, ceremonial places (bwalo) and the dambwe (sacred forest areas) of Mbonekera and Ndumila I. However, it is unlikely that access to any of these sites would be prohibited and activities would be allowed to continue with the consent of the proponent, although access would need to be managed to avoid potential safety incidents at nearby infrastructure and open pits. The relocation of churches will be negotiated and implemented as part of the resettlement action plan, however any suspension of the use of the forests for burial and as dambwe (although not planned as part of the Project) will have a significant influence of the social fabric and intangible heritage of the communities that will be relocated. Implementing a negotiated and mutually agreed upon access protocol that will enable communities to have open access to their forests and burial grounds for cultural ceremonies, will reduce the pre-mitigation rating (Table 10) of high to a post-mitigation impact rating (Table 11) to moderate This rating suggests a detailed community engagement process during resettlement to enable the continued use of culturally significant resources and sites during the operational phase of the project. Table 10: Pre-mitigation impact rating of indirect impacts on heritage resources during operation



High Local Long-term

Almost Certain /

Don't Know

Impact on heritage resources and activities

- 8 2 4 5 14 High

Table 11: Post-mitigation impact rating of indirect impacts on heritage resources during operation



Low Local Long-term

Highly Likely

Impact on heritage resources and activities

- 4 2 4 4 10 Moderate



10 MITIGATION MEASURES

10.1 Introduction

Mitigation measures, in the form of a cultural heritage management plan, are necessary in order to avoid or limit adverse impacts of the project. The World Bank’s Operational Policy 4.11 on Physical Cultural Resources states that “as an integral part of the ESIA process, the borrower develops a physical cultural resources management plan that includes measures for avoiding or mitigating any adverse impacts on physical cultural resources, provisions for managing chance finds, any necessary measures for strengthening institutional capacity, and a monitoring system to track the progress of these activities”. According to OP 4.11, this management plan needs to be consistent with the country’s overall policy framework and national legislation and needs to take into account institutional capabilities with regard to physical cultural resources. Concerning the institutional capabilities of managing physical cultural resources, it is important to mention that Malawi has limited financial resources to implement holistic cultural heritage management projects. The fact that considerable number of archaeological sites have been discovered and many more sites may be buried underneath the surface, constitutes an important finding of this study, indicating the high probability that sites buried underneath the surface will be revealed once land-transformation activities commence. The project’s cultural heritage management plan, therefore, needs to address these issues accordingly. Among others, the plan will have to include the following:

§ Comply with national legislation concerning heritage protection; § Identify appropriate mitigation measures that take into account the area’s considerable

number of archaeological resources and the ones that may be buried underneath the surface;

§ Provide training in cultural heritage management and undertake possible research programs in a region;

§ Implement internationally recognised practices for the protection of cultural heritage resources.

At this early stage, a number of mitigation measures are recommended, which comply with national legislation and internationally recognised practices concerning heritage protection. The relevant government authorities responsible for the protection and management of cultural heritage resources in Malawi should be directly involved in the implementation of the project’s cultural heritage management plan.



10.2 Cultural Heritage Management Plan (CHMP)

The Project’s CHMP will need to focus on three distinct phases: § Phase 1: Pre-Mine Development Data Collection § Phase 2: Mitigation Plan for Burial grounds § Phase 3: Mitigation Plan During Construction

10.2.1 Phase 1: Pre-Mine Development Data Collection

The archaeological sites of MGP1 and MGP3-5 require subsurface probing (test pitting at intervals) to adequately assess their significance and integrity. Shovel test pits or augers will be used to excavate small holes to a depth of approximately 1 meter below the surface during surface survey activities. The purpose of these excavations will be to rapidly verify the horizontal and vertical extent of a site’s cultural properties and its scientific importance. If sites are found that can be categorised as of high priority they should undergo controlled archaeological rescue excavations. The main purposes of rescue excavations are to:

§ Determine the depth of cultural deposits; § Determine the presence/absence of various kinds of artefacts, charcoal, structural remains,

and human remains; § Delineate further site boundaries; § Delineate further site age; § Collect special samples (radiocarbon, slag, pollen etc.).

A total of two months for archaeological excavations is recommended. MGP1 and MGP3-5 should be excavated by hand, using trowels, hand mattocks, shovels, etc. All soils should be screened with sieves. During the course of the excavations, artefacts such as pottery, chipped stone and iron slags should be collected for further analysis. Soil samples may be collected for later processing for extraction of datable carbon or to assist in the identification of various stratigraphic levels. Complete and accurate notes of field procedures and results should be maintained, and excavations documented with photographs, maps, profiles, and plan drawings.

10.2.1.1 Laboratory Processing and Curation

Laboratory analysis is an interpretive step in an archaeological investigation. While on-site evaluation collects data, laboratory processing and analysis summarises these data and allows meaningful statements regarding the site. Laboratory processing usually includes washing, sorting, cataloguing, and tabulation of collected materials. These may be considered preliminary steps to analysis. All artefacts and copies of all site forms, notes, reports, photographs, and maps generated from the identification, management, and analysis of cultural properties will be deposited at the Department of Museums and Monuments.



10.2.2 Phase 2: Mitigation Plan for burial grounds and graves

As part of the resettlement action plan a negotiated and mutually agreed upon access protocol needs to be negotiated, that will enable communities to have open access to their forests and burial grounds for cultural ceremonies. In the event that burial grounds or graves cannot be avoided the following procedures and processes for the relocation of such graves must be followed.

10.2.2.1 Procedures and processes for grave relocation

In the event that individual graves need to be relocated, there are specific laws in Malawi that regulate the exhumation and relocation of graves that would need to be adhered to. These include the Public Health Act (1968) and Monuments and Relics Act (1991). Exhumation and relocation of graves are done by the Department of Museums and Monuments. The Antiquities Policy (2012) provides guidelines and procedures that need to be followed when relocating graves. The following are the step-by-step process that needs to be followed:

§ Obtain authority / permit to have the grave exhumed and relocated. § Locate family members or next of kin of the deceased. If family members and or next of kin

cannot be located, a notice of intent must be submitted to the Traditional Authority with copies to District Commissioner where the grave is located.

§ Conduct detailed research and surveys in order to establish the history of the graves, detailed head-count of the graves (date of birth, religion and cause of and death), and family background.

§ Give adequate notice before the exhumation and reburial of the remains. § Establish new grave site before exhuming the remains.

Provision to compensate for disturbances to graves and or sacred meeting places should be in form of assistance in relocation, in-kind compensation, and/or cash, as appropriate in accordance with international standards and national laws. Payment of compensation, if necessary, will also include purchase of items needed for ceremonies and to relocate graves and sacred items, where this need is substantiated. In planning for relocation, it is important to consult with community members as well as regulatory bodies over issues such as:

§ how the material should be handled; § who should be involved or present during the relocation processes; § what, if any, ceremonies should be performed and who should perform these; § where should the features be relocated to; and § how they should be managed in their new location.



10.2.3 Phase 3: Mitigation Plan During Mining Operations

The following is recommended during mining operations: § Develop contractor training and awareness program; § An initial one- or two-month period of selective archaeological monitoring of surface

clearing and trenching activities in mining areas where poor surface visibility was experienced during the survey and/or there is a high probability for cultural resources buried below the surface;

§ Assessment of identified archaeological resources and artefacts recovered during land transformation activities;

§ Implementing of further archaeological excavation where above finds are deemed to be of high significance;

§ Once the initial period of archaeological monitoring and salvage excavations is over, the project will apply a Chance Find Procedures protocol. Personnel from the Malawi Department of Museums and Monuments should decide about necessary management measures.

§ No open pit mining to take place on weekends (Sat & Sun) which would potentially minimise impact on church activities.

10.2.3.1 Contractor Training and Awareness Program

As part of the overall CHMP, contractors and subcontractors should be sensitised on the presence of an archaeological monitoring team during land-clearance and mechanical excavation activities. They should also be given training on the identification of artefactual materials and bones, which might be found in the project area and procedures for reporting the discovery to supervisory personnel. Any artefacts discovered should be considered the property of the Malawi Government and after recording, analysis, and cataloguing prepared for curation at Malawi National Museums.

10.2.3.2 Archaeological Monitoring of Land Transformation Activities

Recognising archaeological features poses a great challenge to the untrained eye, hence the importance of engaging a professional team of cultural heritage specialists to carry out an initial one to two months period of archaeological monitoring prior to disturbance of any new areas. The following list provides an indication of the types of remains that might be uncovered during land-transformation activities:

§ Burial Places: They often have negligible surface visibility and can be encountered in many locations. Human bones, in an archaeological context, are normally light brown to dark brown, and are often easily distinguishable from surrounding sediments. In contrast to most of the animal bones that would be present in a deposit, human bones are usually intact. However, many human burials can be incomplete or contain scattered, partially



decayed bones that fragment easily. Also present may be funerary objects associated with the burial. All burial sites must be reported immediately and avoided until permission has been granted.

§ Archaeological Deposits: Archaeological deposits can be darker than surrounding sediments and can be distinguished from natural soils by the following attributes, individually or in combination: black soil, patches of reddish brown or yellow-brown fire stained (oxidized) sediments, scatters or concentrations of archaeological material such as pottery, stone tools, metal implements and slag. Monitoring land-clearing activities will assist in determining if deeply buried subsurface deposits are present within the project area. Monitoring is defined as active observation of earth-moving or other work that could adversely affect cultural resources within the project area and includes, as warranted by circumstances: observation, data recording, data recovery, archaeological excavation, photography, laboratory analysis and cataloguing, ancillary special studies, and production of a written report that meets current professional archaeological standards. Such monitoring activities are conducted by qualified heritage personnel. During surface clearing, trenching, etc. large volumes of soil will be excavated, and may result in the identification of:

o Buried sites with no surface component, and earlier occupation periods of sites which have a surface manifestation.

o Monitoring, by appropriately qualified heritage specialists, may occur to achieve several objectives:

o To ensure that a site is avoided (including checking to ensure the boundaries of a site are properly fenced or marked) and/or not inadvertently damaged if it is buried;

o During and just after surface clearing activities to collect surface artefacts and record features uncovered during clearing, and during earthmoving activities (grading, trenching) to assess if buried sites are present.

If potentially important cultural materials are encountered during mining operations, work should be halted in the area until the project archaeologist evaluates the find. If the project archaeologist determines that the discovery is important, appropriate salvage excavations should be formulated and implemented. The site supervisor, foreman, or similar onsite authority should be informed of the archaeological monitor's presence and authority to halt and/or relocate construction work. The supervisor should inform all construction personnel of the archaeological monitor's role. The monitor will follow excavations and construction as closely as conditions require, making all reasonable efforts for safety and non-interference with construction. An initial one or two months of archaeological monitoring period (or until excavations have reached the maximum depth at which important remains could be expected to occur) is suggested.



10.2.3.3 Salvage Excavations during Monitoring from Mechanically Excavated Trenches

During the course of the project, it is anticipated that sites may be discovered during surface clearing and other land transformation activities deemed as a high priority. Under controlled circumstances, data collection during excavation can provide important information concerning a site. Examination of the pit excavation profile often reveals a range of features, which may not be obvious in smaller excavation units. Cleaning and examination of the excavation profile can reveal buried sites, features (e.g., hearths, pits), and concentrations of artefacts. Based on the type of artefacts and features found, samples of artefacts, and soils may be removed for further analysis and processing; detailed photographs should be made, and profile drawings completed. Sites deemed as of high priority should be tagged and any land-clearing activity needs should continue at a neighbouring area to allow the archaeological monitoring team enough time to salvage-excavate the discovered features. This activity requires that the individuals performing such work be experienced in salvage excavations.

10.2.3.4 Chance Find or “Unforeseen Discoveries” Procedures

Considering the considerable volume of soil that will be excavated, the project will have to apply ‘Chance Finds Procedures’, which set out what is to be done when cultural heritage objects are unexpectedly uncovered during operational activities, especially during the absence of an archaeological monitoring team. The following procedures have to be followed:

§ Work should be stopped in the vicinity of the find at once (very often work can be continued at another part of the project to avoid costly delays).

§ Notify the accountable operations manager or relevant authority. The find should be treated as a cultural heritage incident and reported.

§ Notify the Malawi Department of Museums and Monuments in the case of any archaeological or palaeontological finds.

§ Use heritage experts and relevant community members to assess the significance of the find, and report it if required by law.

§ Decide on the appropriate way to manage the find in consultation with the relevant community groups and/or archaeologists. Resume work if permitted and agreed.

10.2.3.5 Avoidance of Construction-related Impacts

A number of methods may be implemented to avoid direct impacts to a cultural resource. Depending on the type of resource, implementation of one or more of the following methods may be recommended. Avoidance of important sites is generally the preferred option since potential direct site impacts are completely averted (for example on graves, the preferred option is avoidance). If a heritage site cannot be avoided, then steps are generally implemented to reduce



direct impacts. Depending on the context, avoidance, relocation, intentional site burial or data recovery may be appropriate. Avoidance is one of the primary methods to mitigate direct impacts to important cultural resources. In the case of this project, avoidance of impacts can often be most easily accomplished by moving the project component, to the outside of the boundaries of the cultural heritage resource. This recommendation is consistent with the IFC’s Performance Standard 8 on critical cultural heritage, which states that “the client should not remove, significantly alter, or damage critical cultural heritage. In exceptional circumstances when impacts on critical cultural heritage are unavoidable, the client will use a process of Informed Consultation and Participation (ICP) of the Affected Communities as described in Performance Standard 1 and which uses a good faith negotiation process that results in a documented outcome. The client will retain external experts to assist in the assessment and protection of critical cultural heritage”. In addition, the proponent will need to meet the following requirements concerning critical cultural heritage:

§ Comply with defined national or local cultural heritage regulations or the protected area management plans;

§ Consult the protected area sponsors and managers, local communities and other key stakeholders on the proposed project; and

§ Implement additional programs, as appropriate, to promote and enhance the conservation aims of the protected area.

11 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

The findings of the CHIA have revealed that the Malingunde graphite project area is endowed with cultural heritage resources. The archaeological materials recorded indicates that its occupational history might go as far back as the Iron Age period, but no detailed information is yet known that allows the broader public to appreciate this part of Malawi’s historical and cultural wealth. The Government of Malawi has indeed a big opportunity to contribute to saving some of the Malingunde area’s history and heritage that risks destruction by the graphite mining development. The following management measures are recommended for handling the archaeological resources: A total of 9 archaeological sites, 8 sacred traditional cultural meeting places, 9 burial grounds and 29 low significance archaeological find spots were identified during the field survey.



11.1 Archaeological Sites

Only archaeological sites at MGP1 and MGP3-5 will be directly impacted and mitigation measures as recommended in section 10.2.1 or this report must be implemented to minimise the project impact on the identified sites. Implementing these measures will not only contribute to the protection of the communities’ past and present cultural heritage but also to the project’s sustainable and responsible operation.

11.2 Cultural heritage activities and sites

Of the 8 sacred traditional cultural meeting places and 9 burial grounds identified only three churches (CHU001, CHU002, CHU006) will be directly impacted. The relocation of churches will be negotiated and implemented as part of the resettlement action plan, however the suspension of the use of the forests for burial and as dambwe will have a significant influence of the social fabric and intangible heritage of the communities that will be relocated. By implementing a negotiated and mutually agreed upon access protocol that will enable communities to have open access to their forests and burial grounds for cultural ceremonies negative impacts can be reduced and mitigated.

11.3 Impact evaluation

The impact evaluation concluded that direct impacts on archaeological sites (MGP1 and MGP3-5) and two churches (CHU002 and CHU006) during construction will have a definite permanent negative impact on the three heritage resources identified above. The impact is calculated as having a high negative significance rating before the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures and post-mitigation is rates as having a low negative significance rating. Various heritage resources were identified that could experience indirect impacts during the operational phase of the project. Suggested mitigation in Section 10 of this report will reduce the pre-mitigation impact rating of high to a post-mitigation impact rating of moderate. This rating suggests a detailed community engagement process during resettlement to enable the continued use of culturally significant resources and sites during the operational phase of the project.

It is our considered opinion that with the implementation of the CHMP, none of the impacts on these heritage sites would prevent the continuation of the project.



12 REFERENCES

Breugel, J. v. (2001). Chewa Traditional Religion. Publisher Christian Literature Association in Malawi. Cole-King, P. (1973). Kukumba Mbiri mu Malawi. A Summary of Archaeological Research to March 1973. Lilongwe: Malawi Department of Antiquities. Government of Malawi. 1991. Monuments and Relics Act, 1991 Huffman, T.N., 2007. Handbook to the Iron Age. University of KwaZulu-Natal Press. International Finance Corporation. 2012. Performance Standards on Environmental & Social Sustainability. McFarren, W. (1986). History in the Land of Flames: The Maravi States of Pre-colonial Malawi. Berkeley: University of California. Nthara, S. (1973). The history of the Chewa: with 5 maps. Stuttgart: Steiner. Rangeley, W. (1952). Makewana – the Mother of All People. Nyasaland Journal No. 2, 31-50. Robinson, K. (1970). he Iron Age of the Southern Lake Area of Malawi. Lilongwe: Malawi Department of Antiquities. Schoffeleers, J.M., 1999. The Chisumphi and Mbona cult in Malawi. Guardians of the land: Essays on Central African territorial cults. Gwelo: Mambo Press. (Original work first published in 1978). Sovereign Metals Limited. (2017, December 5). Malingunde project overview. Retrieved from Sovereign Metals Limited: http://sovereignmetals.com.au/projects/ The Nation. (2017, December 5). Msinja, Malawi's Ancient City (I). Retrieved from The Nation more than just news: http://mwnation.com/msinja-malawi%E2%80%99s-ancient-city-i/ Wood, B. ed., 2011. Wiley-Blackwell encyclopaedia of human evolution. John Wiley & Sons.



Appendix A

Malingunde Impact Assessment Framework

The impact assessment consists of: Impact definition:

§ The definition statement (description) should include the activity (source of impact), predicted change, receptor as well as whether the impact is direct, indirect or cumulative.

§ Impact evaluation: Impacts are evaluated according to the methodology provided, often using judgement and values as much as science-based criteria and standards.

The impact assessment methodology requires that each potential impact identified is clearly described including the following:

§ Extent (spatial scale) - will the impact affect the national, regional or local environment or only that of the site?

§ Duration (temporal scale) - how long will the impact last? § Magnitude (severity) - will the impact be of high, moderate or low severity? § Probability (likelihood of occurrence) - how likely is it that the impact may occur?

To determine the environmental significance (importance) of each identified potential impact, a numerical value has been assigned to each of the above criteria (Table 1). The following formula is used to calculate the environmental consequence of each impact: Consequence = Duration + Extent + Magnitude

Table A 1. Consequence Criteria

Description Criteria Score

Dura

tion

Permanent / Unknown Impact or change will remain permanently. 5

Long-term Impact remains for longer than 10 years; Impact will still occur in the closure phase, but will not remain permanently. 4

Medium-term Impact duration is 5-10 years. 3

Short-term Impact duration is < 5 years. 2

Transient Very short duration. 1

Exte

nt

National / Unknown

Affects the resources of the country; impact experienced nation-wide. 4

Regional/District Affects the resources of the region or district. 3

Local Affects the area surrounding the Project and nearby villages. 2

Site-specific Localised; confined within the mining licence area. 1

Mag

nitu

de Very High /

Unknown Extreme effect – where natural, cultural or social functions or processes permanently cease. 10



High Severe effect – where natural, cultural or social functions are altered to the extent that they temporarily cease. 8

Moderate Moderate effect – the affected environment is altered but natural, cultural or social functions continue, albeit in a modified way. 6

Low Minimal effect – affects the environment in such way that natural, cultural or social functions and processes are not affected. 4

Negligible Minimal or negligible effect. 2

The consequence of an environmental is rated based on the calculated value as per Table 2 below:

Table A 2. Consequence Scale

Level Environmental Community & Government Rating

Very High Severe long term environmental impact which extends to regional or national level. Extensive clean-up required after incidents. Rehabilitation efforts proven to be unsuccessful. Severe breach of Government regulations or non-compliance with likely suspension of operations

Extreme impact on community. High number of concern, complaints or interest from local community. Health effects resulting in multiple disabling illnesses among employees and community.

17 - 19

High Major environmental impact. Impact may extend beyond the lease boundary. Significant clean-up effort required using site and external resources. Ongoing or recurring breach of regulations and standards. Rehabilitation difficult or unlikely to be successful.

Major impact on community. Increasing rate of complaints, repeated complaints from the same area (clustering). Evidence of health impacts resulting in irreversible community and worker illnesses.

14 - 16

Moderate Moderate environmental impact confined within the lease boundary. Medium term (typically within a month) clean-up. Multiple repeat exceedances of regulatory requirement. Rehabilitation and closure of moderate difficulty.

Moderate impact on community. Regular rate of concerns or complaints, repeated complaints from the same area (clustering). Reversible health effect resulting from acute, short term exposure or progressive chronic condition, infectious disease.

11 - 13

Low Low environmental impact contained within area impacted by operations. Short term (typically within a week) clean-up. Single repeat exceedance of regulatory requirement related to low impact activity. Single exceedance of regulatory requirement for high impact activity.

Low impact on community. Small numbers of sporadic complaints. Reversible health effect of some concern, medical treatment required.

8 - 10

Very Low No or very low environmental impact confined to a small area within the area impacted by operations. Clean-up undertaken within a few hours. Single exceedance of regulatory requirement (e.g. licence, permit or consent condition; legislation or regulation) related to low impact activity.

No or very low impact on community. Isolated complaint. No health impact.

4 - 7



Table A 3: Likelihood / Probability of Impact Occurring

Description Criteria Score

Prob

abili

ty

Almost Certain / Don't Know

The impact is expected to occur; Consequence is likely to be of a high frequency; > 90% chance. 5

Highly Likely The impact will probably occur or has occurred elsewhere before; Likely occurrence/consequence within a 12 month period; > 50% chance of occurrence in this period.

4

Likely The impact will occur under certain circumstances; Likely occurrence/consequence within a 12 month period; Approx. 30 - 50% chance of occurrence this period.

3

Unlikely The impact could occur under certain circumstances; Consequence could occur within a one to five year timeframe; < 30% chance of occurrence in this period.

2

Rare Consequence may occur in exceptional circumstances; Consequence has rarely occurred in the industry and is not expected in the life of the project; < 5% chance of occurrence.

1

The risk assessment matrix in Figure 1 is used to determine the overall significance of environmental and social impacts, based on the overall consequence and probability of each impact. The assessment approach considers the impact prior to any potential management controls or mitigation measures, and then assesses the residual impact following the implementation of controls and mitigation strategies. The significance rating is based on the criteria provided in Table A 3 and Table A 4. Table A 4 Significance Analysis from the Consequence vs Likelihood Assessment.



Table A 6. Interpretation of Significance Analysis Significance of the

Residual Impact Implications for Project

Positive Impacts Negative Impacts Very low

significance

Negligible effects Negligible effects

Low significance Some benefits Acceptable effect

Moderate

significance

Appreciable improvements to, or

will sustain, existing resources

Effect is serious enough to cause

concern. Changes to project design

should be considered.

High significance Very substantial improvement to

existing resources

Unacceptable effect. The project

should not proceed unless the design is

changed so that the significance of this

impact is reduced to acceptable levels.

Very high

significance

Extremely beneficial and enduring

effect.

An automatic fatal flaw. The project

should not proceed unless the design is

changed so that this impact is

eliminated or its significance is reduced

to acceptable levels.

appendix o cultural heritage impact...

Documents