The fines issued by the Environmental Management Agency (EMA) to deter mining companies from committing environmental violations are proving to be ineffective. Despite these fines, environmental offences continue unabated, suggesting that a taxation-based approach could be more successful in discouraging companies from environmental degradation, Mining Zimbabwe reports.
By Rudairo Mapuranga
Speaking at a strategic dialogue meeting in Kadoma, organised by the Zimbabwe Environmental Law Association (ZELA) and ActionAid Zimbabwe, consultant and University of Zimbabwe lecturer Dr. James Tsabora said EMA’s approach to fining companies for environmental violations has been largely ineffective. He highlighted the flaws of the current system. He recounted a specific case where EMA tried to hold a mining company accountable for violations, only for the company to refuse to even open its gate.
“The fine was about 10,000 RTGS, and one individual from the company paid it out of pocket,” Tsabora explained. He further elaborated that fines, particularly in cases involving corporations, are rarely effective deterrents. “A fine requires investigation, proof, and legal proceedings, all of which can be easily circumvented by companies with good lawyers. Criminal sanctions don’t work because companies are more likely to take the matter to court, where the process can drag on for years. In the meantime, they continue their operations with little consequence.”
Tsabora also suggested that taxation would be a more effective approach, stating that taxes will ensure companies are compliant.
“Taxes, unlike fines, directly impact a company’s finances in a meaningful way. Let’s focus on using the punishment approach through taxation, rather than relying on legal proceedings, which are often drawn out and ineffective,” he said.
Dr. Tracy Maguse, an environmental law expert, echoed similar sentiments, arguing that the fines issued by EMA are far too low to act as a real deterrent.
She pointed out that, in addition to EMA, the criminal justice system is supposed to back up environmental protection efforts, but even criminal sanctions fail to make a significant impact.
“These fines are simply turned into a cost of doing business. For example, level 1 fines range from $30 to $100, which is insignificant for someone causing environmental damage. The fines do not match the severity of the offence, and companies continue to violate environmental regulations without fear of serious repercussions,” Dr. Maguse said.
Dr. Maguse also believes that taxation would be a more efficient solution than a criminal approach because companies cannot be jailed.
“Criminal sanctions don’t work on companies because we can’t arrest a company and send it to jail. The process of building a case docket is lengthy and requires multiple stakeholders, some of whom may not have the capacity to create a strong enough case. Taxation, on the other hand, could be a more direct and impactful tool in curbing environmental damage,” she said.
Phanuel Mangisi from EMA also highlighted the problems with relying on the legal system to enforce EMA’s fines.
Mangisi noted that companies are often willing to pay multiple fines daily, knowing that the penalties are not severe enough to affect their operations significantly.
“When EMA issues a ticket and the violation continues, the case is supposed to go to court for prosecution. But the process is slow. At times, it can take three to four years for a case to be resolved, and during that time, the damage continues,” Mangisi explained.
He also noted that fines issued by EMA, particularly at higher levels, are often greater than the penalties issued by the courts. This encourages companies to choose the court route, where they face lesser penalties.
“The current system is flawed because people opt to go to court, knowing that they will face lower penalties,” he said.
Mangisi suggested the establishment of environmental courts as a potential solution.
“In these courts, offenders would understand the value of environmental offences, and judgments would reflect the seriousness of their actions,” Mangisi said.
Gorden Tonde Chibanda, an expert on taxation and environmental law, presented data to support the idea that taxation could be more effective than fines. He referenced the UK’s use of a health tax to reduce smoking rates.
“More than 50% of people in the UK used to smoke 50 years ago, but when they introduced a health tax, smoking rates declined significantly,” Chibanda said.
He also pointed to the example of Delta Corporation, a beverage company in Zimbabwe. “Due to taxation, Delta has reduced the size of its beverage packaging from 500ml to 440ml. No one had to directly enforce this; taxation made it financially beneficial for the company to reduce packaging size.”
Chibanda emphasized that tax laws could be a more cost-effective solution for controlling pollution.
“Setting up structures to enforce environmental laws is expensive. But with taxation, it’s less costly, and businesses feel the impact more directly. Taxes often achieve what enforcement cannot,” he said.
