The Copperbelt Province of Zambia, historically the backbone of the nation’s economy, is grappling with an environmental crisis that underscores the cost of mining-dependent development on the environment. On 18th February 2025, a catastrophic contamination of water bodies occurred at Sino Metals’ tailings dam in Chambishi, releasing more than 50 million litres of acidic effluent into the Mwambashi River. The spill flowed through the Kafue River and farmland, poisoning fish, livestock and damaging aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Nearly 500,000 households in Kitwe were cut off from water supply, and the long-term ecological impacts remain uncertain but are expected to be severe.

This week’s Monday opinion examines this incident to highlight systemic failures in natural resource governance, inadequate environmental safeguards by mine operators, and weak enforcement by regulatory bodies like the Zambia Environmental Management Agency (ZEMA).

A Legacy of Environmental Degradation

People living in the mining towns of the Copperbelt can attest to the irreversible scars left by decades of mining. The once-thriving natural landscapes have been replaced by a barren wasteland of gaping pits, eroded hills of mining waste, and toxic tailings dams that continue to leach pollutants into the environment long after operations have ceased. The region’s rivers, once reliable sources of clean water, are now tainted by a mixture of industrial effluents, threatening both human and ecological health.

This degradation is not just a consequence of past neglect but an ongoing crisis. Mining companies routinely sidestep environmental safeguards during active operations, dumping untreated waste into water bodies and failing to implement adequate pollution control measures. Even Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs), meant to ensure responsible mining, are often reduced to bureaucratic formalities rather than enforceable commitments. Once the ore is depleted and profits exhausted, companies often walk away without restoring the land.

Regulatory Failures or Cooperate Negligence?

The February 18th contamination incident raises serious concerns about both the enforcement of Zambia’s environmental laws and corporate negligence among mine operators. This disaster exemplifies how large-scale, licensed mining operations can be responsible for severe environmental damage. Sino Metals had a clear legal and ethical obligation to prevent pollution, yet it failed to invest in well-engineered structures that meet international safety and environmental standards. This reflects a corporate culture that prioritises short-term profits over long-term sustainability.

However, this pattern of corporate negligence is to an extent enabled by critical flaws within Zambia’s environmental legislation. The country relies on two main laws governing water pollution, the Water Resources Management Act (WRMA), specifically addressing water resource management and the Environmental Management Act (EMA), focusing on broader environmental safeguards. However, the disparity in penalty provisions between these Acts creates exploitable loopholes. Section 32 of the EMA No. 12 of 2011 prohibits the discharge of contaminants without a license and prescribes a maximum fine of K280,000 or up to seven years in prison. In contrast, Section 48 of the WRMA imposes a far lower penalty of K40,000 or one year of imprisonment. This inconsistency allows companies to evade more stringent consequences. There is an urgent need to harmonise these legal provisions and ensure that environmental violations attract clear and consistent penalties.

However, even the strongest laws are ineffective without proper enforcement. ZEMA, responsible for ensuring compliance with environmental regulations, lacks the capacity for proactive oversight. Ideally, ZEMA should maintain a permanent presence in high-risk ecological areas like the Copperbelt to conduct real-time monitoring. Yet, the agency currently operates in only five out of Zambia’s 116 districts. Chronic underfunding further worsens this challenge as evidenced in the 2025 National Budget, where a mere 0.7 percent was allocated to environmental protection. Without adequate resources, ZEMA remains largely reactive, intervening only after environmental damage has occurred.

Impacts on Communities and Livelihoods

Beyond regulatory failures, the real cost of this disaster is borne by communities that rely on these water sources for their daily survival. Livelihoods dependent on agriculture have been severely impacted by soil and water pollution, particularly for farmers already struggling to recover from last year’s drought. While Sino Metals has pledged to support rehabilitation efforts and compensate affected communities, such commitments follow the usual response to such disasters that focus on immediate relief without addressing the long-term ecological and socio-economic consequences. When the investor winds up operations, it is the local populations that are left to grapple with the persistent effects of environmental degradation.

This event should serve as a wake-up call for policymakers and mining companies. The government must move beyond reactive responses and implement robust environmental safeguards that compel mining companies to take responsibility for their ecological footprint. In next week’s Monday opinion, we will explore specific remedial actions that can be implemented to prevent future disasters.

About the Author

Dr. Matildah Kaliba is a Research Associate at CTPD, Lecturer, and Researcher at the University of Zambia, Department of Development Studies, with a PhD in Development Studies from the University of Zambia and a Master of Philosophy in Development Studies specialising in Geography from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology