.png)
Mining remains a critical pillar of Zimbabwe’s economy, providing jobs, foreign currency, and local development. Yet beneath the sector’s economic contributions lie persistent environmental degradation and workplace hazards that continue to claim lives and threaten ecosystems, Mining Zimbabwe reports.
By Ryan Chigoche
Two institutions, the Environmental Management Agency (EMA) and the National Social Security Authority (NSSA), are mandated to safeguard the environment and protect workers, but evidence suggests both are falling short of expectations.
The Environmental Management Agency (EMA) plays a central regulatory role in Zimbabwe’s mining sector, mandated under the Environmental Management Act (Chapter 20:27) to approve Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) before projects commence, monitor compliance with environmental laws and rehabilitation plans, and enforce penalties for pollution, land degradation, and unsafe waste disposal.
Over the years, EMA has made notable strides, including increasing awareness and training on EIA procedures and rehabilitation obligations, regularly issuing fines and orders to halt operations for non-compliance, and leading campaigns to curb environmentally destructive practices such as riverbed gold mining and the misuse of cyanide.
However, significant gaps remain in EMA’s enforcement capacity. For all its legal authority, EMA is failing to prevent environmental abuse in Zimbabwe’s mining sector. Rivers in Manicaland and the Midlands continue to run brown with silt and toxic effluent, a stark reminder that polluters often find it cheaper to pay fines than to comply.
Civic groups and non-governmental organisations have repeatedly documented how mining-linked pollution persists despite EMA’s orders, also noting that communities are often forced into costly litigation because administrative remedies fail to halt environmental damage.
When one looks at the environmental catastrophe unfolding in the country today, EMA is needed now more than ever. Yet what is concerning is that the agency has largely disappeared from the frontline even as the crisis escalates. Could this be a lack of resources, or is it that EMA is not receiving the necessary support to execute its mandate without fear or favour? Evidence suggests it could be both.
In response, Farai Maguwu, the Director of the Centre for Natural Resource Governance (CNRG), told Mining Zimbabwe that both factors are at play, calling for political will to capacitate and protect the agency in carrying out its mandate.
“There is need to give them the political support. Governments need to support EMA in its execution of its mandate. But there are cases where EMA officials, if they try to hold mining companies accountable, they come up against corrupt politicians who protect their operations,” Maguwu said.
“We have heard of situations where EMA officials are transferred to rural outposts if they try to challenge some mining operations done by these corrupt politicians. So I think without the political will, EMA will remain in a comatose state. Before they act, they want to know who is the politician behind this project, who is the security official behind this project. That is why EMA is now struggling to execute its mandate. There is too much political interference and there is lack of interest to ensure that EMA is delivering its mandate,” Maguwu added.
Meanwhile, despite EMA’s legal authority, riverbed mining — technically banned — continues largely unabated, highlighting the limits of the agency’s oversight. Political interference and lack of institutional support mean that even when violations are detected, enforcement is often delayed, inconsistent, or symbolic. Without stronger penalties, proactive monitoring, and transparent follow-ups on Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) compliance, EMA’s efforts risk being reduced to regulatory theatre rather than meaningful protection of ecosystems.
This enforcement gap is evident in cases such as Bikita Minerals, one of Africa’s largest lithium mines, which in 2024 was fined just US$5,000 — the maximum allowable penalty under Zimbabwean law — for polluting the Matezva Dam.
Compared to the company’s US$500 million in exports that year, the fine is negligible, underscoring how weak penalties turn environmental compliance into a minor cost of doing business rather than a deterrent.
Balancing this, Batanai Mutasa, the Communications Officer at the Zimbabwe Environmental Law Organisation (ZELO) (formerly ZELA), highlighted the structural challenges facing EMA:
“While EMA demonstrates a presence on the ground through its management of the Environmental Impact Assessment process, issuance of certificates, and compliance monitoring, these efforts are critically hampered by inadequate resources. For this reason, ZELO consistently advocates for the national budget to allocate sufficient funding to enable EMA to effectively fulfil its mandate.”
He further emphasised the need to strengthen penalties to make them effective and deterrent to offenders.
“Furthermore, the penalties for non-compliance are usually not deterrent enough as offenders often view fines as merely a cost of business rather than an incentive for compliance. This fundamentally undermines EMA’s work. We therefore urgently call for a systematic review of penalties to ensure they are punitive and deter environmental violations by irresponsible mining operations,” Mutasa said.
The picture is equally troubling when it comes to worker safety. Despite its mandate, NSSA appears to have limited impact in reducing mining workplace fatalities. NSSA Acting CEO Dr. Charles Shava recently revealed that the sector records over 200 deaths annually — a figure he cautions may be understated by up to threefold.
While NSSA administers compensation through the Workers’ Compensation Scheme and has launched initiatives such as the Vision Zero campaign and mobile clinics offering health surveillance for miners, its approach remains largely reactive. Dr. Shava has acknowledged that NSSA lacks authority to prevent accidents, a responsibility resting with the Ministry of Mines.
Civil society organisations, including CNRG, have raised alarms over deteriorating occupational health and safety standards, calling for tougher penalties and even licence withdrawal for repeat offenders.
Together, EMA and NSSA are meant to act as the twin guardians of Zimbabwe’s mining sector, ensuring that economic gains do not come at the expense of the environment or human life.
Without stronger enforcement, higher penalties, proactive monitoring, and robust inter-agency collaboration, the country risks perpetuating a mining system that benefits profits while neglecting people and the planet. Zimbabwe cannot afford regulatory agencies that only respond after the damage is done.
