Zambia - Oakland Institute

BOX 11: ZAMBIA’S ENVIRONMENTAL
LEGISLATION
• Environmental Protection and Pollution
Control Act (1990)
• Water Pollution Control Regulations(Stat
#72 of 1993)
• Pesticides and Toxic Substances Regulations
(1994)(#20, 1994)
• Water Act (1996)
• Wildlife Act (1998): Enables Game
Management Areas (GMA)
International Agreements
• Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)
• Ramsar Convention on Wetlands
• UNF Convention on Climate Change
• African Convention on the Conservation of
Nature and Natural Resources
Game parks and wildlife viewing and hunting provides
an invaluable source of revenue for government and
local businesses alike. Generally speaking wildlife and
large-scale agriculture are not compatible. There are
many cases of conflict between elephants and farmers
(elephants destroy crops). In the short term, it should
be possible for large farms to avoid critical wildlife
habitat, but as more and more land is converted to
agriculture, this conflict will become unavoidable. The
lack of involvement of stakeholders and government
departments with mandates for environmental/wildlife
issues in combination with the reduction of regulations
could lead to a situation in which wildlife populations,
critical habitats, and protected areas will not be spared
the devastations associated with agricultural land
clearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in Zambia
is still largely in its infancy. While the EIAs that were
viewed were generally up to international standards, the
lack of transparency and consultation, and their limited
implementation restrict their use as a tool that could
lead to more sustainable agriculture developments in
Zambia.
As per the EIA regulations, full EIAs are to be completed
for any development that involves land clearance
for large-scale agriculture, introduction and use of
agrochemicals or crops new to Zambia, development
of resettlement schemes, irrigation schemes covering
an area >=50 ha, or aerial and ground spraying. No
definition of what constitutes large-scale agriculture
is available in the EIA regulations, but outgrower
schemes are not subject to EIAs. In addition, any food
processing plant involving more than 400 tons/year
are subject to a full EIA. Any investor who does not
comply with the EIA regulations (including undertaking
an activity without carrying out an EIA) is “liable, upon
conviction, to a fine not exceeding ZMK one hundred
thousand (USD 20) or to imprisonment for a period
not exceeding three years or to both.”
The end product is a letter of approval that outlines
binding terms and conditions (sometimes merely
mitigations identified in an EIA, sometimes with terms
and conditions added by ECZ). According to ECZ, noncompliance
with these terms and conditions results
in termination without notice. The determination of
non-compliance is based largely on inspections and
environmental audits. ECZ told the research team
that agricultural audits are very rare (focus is mainly
on mining), and that the ECZ hardly ever turns down
a project with significant adverse impacts, because
“there is always a mitigation or alternative available
that will allow the project to go ahead.” 159
Copies of the EIA are required to go to local government
and chiefs and all documents created in conjunction
with an assessment are to be publicly available. Yet
research could not find any indication that this happens
in practice. 160 . The research team was only able to
access certain assessments, that were made available
with permission from senior officials with ECZ and
no list of assessments that had been completed was
available.
One report suggests that only 15 percent of listed
agricultural projects had an EIA. 161 Despite ECZ claims
that social impacts such as displacement are assessed,
OI’s research found little evidence to show that they
are undertaken in any meaningful way. The tools are
in place for an effective EIA system but because of a
The Oakland Institute UNDERSTANDING LAND INVESTMENT DEALS IN AFRICA: ZAMBIA | 48