The Environmental Management Amendment Bill, 2026 (H.B. 5 of 2026) proposes a significant recalibration of Zimbabwe’s environmental regulatory framework. Gazetted for consideration by Parliament, the Bill would amend the Environmental Management Act [Chapter 20:27] to incorporate emerging international environmental principles, align the statutory framework more closely with constitutional environmental rights, strengthen the Environmental Management Agency’s (“EMA” or “the Agency”) enforcement mandate, and enhance protection of the environment for present and future generations.
The reforms are wide-ranging. They introduce new and amended statutory definitions, articulate principles of environmental law enforcement, establish a general environmental duty of care, restructure institutional governance, regulate environmental service professionals, expand civil and criminal enforcement tools, and broaden environmental and social impact assessment (“ESIA”) requirements.
For developers, industry, infrastructure sponsors, local authorities and environmental professionals, the Bill is therefore more than an institutional amendment. If enacted substantially in its present form, it would alter the compliance, project-development and enforcement landscape. This article considers the principal reforms and their practical significance. The Bill remains proposed legislation and may be amended during the parliamentary process.
A broader environmental and social regulatory vocabulary
Section 2 introduces several new or amended definitions. Of particular significance is the replacement of the traditional “environmental impact assessment” terminology with “environmental social management plan” and “environmental and social impact assessment” (ESIA). The change expressly brings the social effects of proposed projects within the assessment framework, alongside environmental impacts.
The definition of “environmental audit” is also revised to describe a systematic, documented and periodic process for assessing compliance with statutory and internal environmental requirements. This moves the concept towards continuing compliance verification rather than treating environmental assessment as a once-off project approval exercise.
The Bill further introduces “environmental service professionals”, covering specialised fields including environmental planning, ecology, pollution and waste management, hazardous substances and climate-change management. It also introduces “priority waste”, “sustainable development” and “small-scale projects”. References to radioactive material are removed from the definition of waste and related provisions of the Act.
New principles of environmental law enforcement
Section 4 would insert a new section 4A setting out principles governing enforcement of the Act. These include licensing activities with the greatest potential environmental impact, progressive rehabilitation by persons carrying on environmentally detrimental but otherwise lawful activities, the use of civil penalty orders against continuing detrimental conduct, and application of the “polluter pays” principle in cases of serious environmental damage.
The proposed framework points towards a more structured and graduated enforcement model: regulatory intervention is not confined to prosecution, but may combine licensing, rehabilitation, civil penalties and other flexible compliance mechanisms according to the nature and seriousness of the environmental risk.
A statutory duty of care towards the environment
The proposed section 4B introduces a general duty of care. A person engaged in an activity involving a real risk of harm to human health and safety, biodiversity or the environment would be required to take appropriate measures to prevent or minimise foreseeable harm.
The provision is significant because it couples preventive obligations with potential criminal and civil consequences. Where harm results in death, serious injury, extensive harm to biodiversity or serious harm to a vital public interest, liability may range from strict liability to liability based on intention or negligence, depending on the circumstances. A prosecution founded on strict liability requires a supporting affidavit from the EMA Director-General, while an accused person may seek reduction of the charge by establishing that the alleged harm was not as extensive as claimed.
The section would also confer civil standing on affected persons and the Agency to sue for breach of the duty, including by class action. Expert or Agency affidavits may constitute prima facie proof of the extent of the harm or public interest involved. The practical consequence is that environmental compliance risk may increasingly extend beyond regulator-facing exposure to direct civil claims by affected persons.
Restructuring EMA governance
The Bill proposes material changes to the governance architecture of environmental regulation. Section 5 would repeal sections 7 and 8 of the principal Act, which establish the National Environmental Council, and reassign its functions to EMA on the stated basis that the Council has not served a discernible purpose since inception.
Sections 6 to 11 revise the composition and governance of the Environmental Management Board to align it with the Public Entities Corporate Governance Act [Chapter 10:33] and constitutional gender-balance requirements. The Minister would be required to strive for gender parity and fair regional representation. The proposed Board would include environmental specialists as well as expertise in information and communication technology, human resources, law and accounting, together with a traditional leader nominated through the Chiefs’ Council.
Board members would serve terms of up to four years, renewable once, subject to an aggregate maximum of eight years. The Bill also regulates resignation, vacation of office and filling of vacancies; provides for chairperson and vice-chairperson positions to be held by persons of opposite gender; and removes the existing power to co-opt additional Board members.
Appointment and tenure of the Director-General
Section 12 similarly aligns the appointment and tenure of EMA’s Director-General with the Public Entities Corporate Governance Act. The Board, in consultation with the Minister and with presidential approval, would appoint the Director-General for a term not exceeding five years, renewable once, subject to an aggregate maximum of ten years’ service.
Professionalisation of environmental services
Section 13 would insert a new section 35A establishing mandatory registration of environmental service professionals. Once the relevant regulations are in force, only registered professionals would be permitted to provide services requiring expertise under the Act. Practising, or purporting to practise, without registration would constitute an offence.
The Minister would prescribe registration criteria after consultation with relevant professional bodies and institutions of higher learning, as well as bodies including the Engineering Council, Health Professions Authority and Zimbabwe Council for Higher Education. EMA would maintain the register. Registration would generally be individual, although a corporate entity could apply to register its members or employees as a group.
Registration would expire on 31 December of the third year following registration and require renewal. The Director-General could refuse, cancel or suspend registration for specified reasons, including false or misleading information, persistent non-compliance with the Act, or conviction for offences involving fraud, forgery, money laundering, bribery or corruption, subject to the prescribed restoration procedures and a right of appeal to the Administrative Court.
Section 39 would reinforce this regime by empowering the Minister to regulate the conduct and standards of environmental service professionals. Taken together, the provisions point towards the professionalisation of environmental services along lines already familiar in regulated professions such as law, accounting and engineering.
Civil penalty orders and stronger sanctions
A central feature of the Bill is the wider use of civil penalty orders alongside criminal sanctions. Proposed section 37A would empower EMA to issue civil penalty orders for specified infringements, with the substituted Second Schedule governing service, computation and enforcement. The regime includes default fines, cumulative daily penalties for continuing non-compliance and an opportunity for an alleged defaulter to show cause why an order should not have been issued.
Section 14 would also remove the existing three-week limit on closure orders for non-compliance, allowing an order to remain in force until EMA is satisfied that compliance has been achieved. Failure to comply with a closure or inspector’s order would become a distinct offence carrying increased penalties. Comparable civil penalty mechanisms are extended to water pollution and effluent discharge, air-emissions licensing and littering.
Responding to imminent and actual environmental harm
Section 15 would insert section 37B, establishing a structured process where an inspector suspects significant harm to human health, biodiversity or the environment. The inspector may issue a written “preliminary finding” quantifying the alleged harm. The affected person is then afforded 48 hours to respond, followed by a mechanism through which the inspector and that person may agree on a civil penalty order or non-prosecution agreement.
If agreement is not reached, the inspector may proceed by criminal complaint or civil penalty order, depending on the nature of the harm. Read with the general duty of care and expanded civil penalty regime, the provision is designed to give EMA more immediate and practical tools for responding to environmental harm as it occurs, while introducing a structured opportunity for engagement before escalation in appropriate cases.
Institutional consolidation of enforcement functions
Section 16 would repeal the provisions establishing the Standards and Enforcement Committee and transfer its functions to EMA. Section 19 makes consequential amendments across provisions dealing with air quality, waste, hazardous waste and noxious smells, replacing references to the Committee with references to the Agency. The overall effect is to consolidate enforcement responsibility more directly within EMA.
Hazardous substances and priority waste
Sections 22 to 24 introduce or strengthen criminal sanctions for discharging hazardous chemicals, materials or oils into the environment and for manufacturing, importing, exporting, transporting, storing or selling hazardous substances without a licence. The Bill’s memorandum records that some amendments are intended to address provisions in the existing Act that prohibit conduct without prescribing a corresponding sanction.
Section 26 would introduce a new section 84 empowering the Minister, by public notice, to designate waste streams presenting an increased threat to human health or the environment as “priority waste”, with regulations governing their classification, handling and disposal.
A materially broader ESIA regime
The proposed changes to Part XII are likely to be particularly important for project sponsors and developers. Sections 28 and 29 would require an organisation to notify EMA and undertake a fresh ESIA where an already approved project is materially expanded.
Section 30 would broaden the required content of an ESIA report to include evidence of adequate and meaningful consultation with affected persons, detailed pollution-abatement and waste-management designs, environmental modelling studies, a decommissioning plan and, where relevant, a resettlement and compensation action plan for displaced persons.
Section 31 would require developers to retain the ESIA report and certificate on site for inspection. More significantly, failure to implement mitigation measures contained in an approved ESIA could give rise to civil liability, and affected persons would have a right to sue for resulting loss.
Section 41 correspondingly expands the First Schedule of projects requiring an ESIA. The additional categories include solar and wind power generation, telecommunications infrastructure, projects affecting sensitive ecosystems, medical facilities and shopping malls. For infrastructure and energy projects in particular, environmental and social compliance would therefore need to be integrated into project structuring, due diligence, financing and implementation from an early stage.
Non-suspensive appeals, corporate liability and non-prosecution agreements
Section 36 provides that an appeal against an inspector’s decision would not suspend that decision pending determination of the appeal. This is commercially significant: an affected business may remain subject to the operative regulatory decision while pursuing its challenge.
Section 38 would introduce section 139A, applying the corporate-liability provisions of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] to offences under the Environmental Management Act. A new section 139B would formally provide for non-prosecution agreements between EMA, the Prosecutor-General and an offender in exchange for agreed remediation and reparation measures.
Expanded regulation-making powers and transitional arrangements
Section 39 broadens the Minister’s regulation-making powers under section 140. These would include model by-laws for adoption by local authorities, developed in consultation with the Minister responsible for local government, and regulations governing the conduct and standards of environmental service professionals.The Bill also contains transitional protections. Existing regulations, permits, licences and approvals granted under the current Act would continue after the amendments take effect, while EMA and its existing committees would continue in existence subject to the institutional changes introduced by the Bill.
What should businesses and developers be watching?
The cumulative effect of the Bill is a shift towards more structured, preventive and graduated environmental regulation. If enacted in its current form, the practical areas requiring particular attention would include: broader ESIA scoping and stakeholder consultation; implementation and retention of approved mitigation documentation; environmental risk management throughout a project’s lifecycle; exposure to civil penalties and continuing closure orders; corporate liability for environmental offences; professional registration requirements for environmental advisers; and the possibility of direct civil claims by affected persons.
For boards, investors, lenders and project sponsors, environmental compliance would accordingly need to be treated not simply as a permitting issue but as part of project governance, risk allocation, transaction due diligence and continuing operational compliance.
The Environmental Management Amendment Bill, 2026 has not yet become law. It must proceed through the ordinary legislative process, including debate and possible amendment in the National Assembly and Senate, before presidential assent. Members of the public, industry bodies and other interested parties therefore retain an opportunity to participate in the legislative process, including through parliamentary portfolio committee hearings.
If enacted substantially in its present form, however, the Bill would represent an important development in Zimbabwe’s environmental regulatory framework. It combines strengthened criminal sanctions with civil penalty mechanisms, formalised non-prosecution agreements, a broader ESIA regime, professional regulation and an express environmental duty of care. Developers, industry, local authorities and environmental professionals should therefore follow the legislative process closely and begin considering how their existing compliance, project-development and governance frameworks may need to respond.
--
Read the original publication at Muvingi Mugadza
