The Environmental Management Agency (EMA) has clarified that small-scale miners cannot be exempted from obtaining solid waste disposal licences, stating that the regulatory framework is designed to protect the environment and public health, regardless of the operator’s size, Mining Zimbabwe can report.
By Rudairo Mapuranga
This position was outlined by Phanuel Kudakwashe Mangisi, the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Ecosystems Protection Manager at EMA, in response to concerns raised by small-scale miners who feel the levies are unfairly applied. He clarified that environmental compliance is not a one-size-fits-all model but is also not optional. For small-scale miners, the path lies not in seeking exclusion from the regulatory system, but in engaging with it to ensure the fees are proportionate while still upholding their responsibility to manage mining waste safely.
The miners had argued that their business model differs from large-scale mining operations. They pointed out that they do not have slimes dams, often reprocess leached sands through methods like Carbon-in-Pulp (CIP), or sell the material. They questioned why they are charged at the same rate category as large-scale miners and suggested that their existing Hazardous Substance Licence should suffice.
In a firm response, Mangisi clarified a fundamental distinction in the licensing regime. “Hazardous substances licences and solid waste disposal licences are different licences,” he stated. This means that paying for one does not cover the responsibilities of the other, as they regulate distinct aspects of a mining operation.
Addressing the core concern about cost, Mangisi explained that the licensing system already has a built-in mechanism to differentiate between small and large operators: the volume of waste discharged.
“The solid waste disposal licences have a volume of discharge factor that will make a difference between small scale and large scale,” he said. “The figures are the same without factoring volume, but then when billing, we factor volume, so that is where the differences will come.”
This means that while small and large-scale miners might appear in the same category on a fee structure table, the final bill a small-scale miner pays will be significantly lower because it is calculated based on their actual, smaller waste output. “The volume of discharge factor is a significant factor that makes difference,” Mangisi emphasised.
The EMA manager underscored the necessity of monitoring all mining activities, highlighting the inherent environmental risks. “These are statutory fees, and there is a need for monitoring their activities,” he said. “Mining operations that produce waste, and also with some using chemicals, surely they need licensing and monitoring.”
This position reinforces the agency’s mandate to ensure that all sectors of the mining industry, which is a known polluter, operate within the confines of the law to minimise environmental degradation.
On the miners’ plea for a full exemption, Mangisi was unequivocal. “Exemption, I don’t think, is in the best interest of the environment and people,” he stated.
However, he did leave the door open for engagement on the issue of cost. Instead of seeking an exemption, which would remove regulatory oversight, he advised miners to pursue a different course of action. He suggested that miners could “lobby for fees reduction with justification,” indicating that a structured dialogue with the regulator, backed by credible data on their financial models and waste volumes, is the appropriate path forward.
