Abstract
Zimbabwe’s Environmental Management Act has provisions promoting the conduct of environmental impact assessment (EIA) prior to project implementation to protect the environment and environmental rights. Using data collection methods inspired by phenomenological study, this paper discusses if EIA processes by a gold mining company had mainstreamed or marooned ‘access rights’ which are the cornerstone of environmental democracy. While the Zimbabwe’s EIA policy is applauded for covertly mainstreaming environmental democracy, research findings suggest that there exist gaps in the policy framework, policy and practice in promoting comprehensive environmental democracy. EIA processes are done to fulfil legal obligations but with little motivation to protect community interests as participation is symbolic. It is recommended to redesign EIA policy and embed broader attributes of environmental democracy such as locals’ participation in all EIA stages and inclusion of experts on community issues in the EIA review panel to promote fairness, inclusivity, transparency during EIA. 
 
 <p> </p><p><strong> Article visualizations:</strong></p><p><img src="/-counters-/edu_01/781/a.php" alt="Hit counter" /></p>
Highlights
Zimbabwe’s legal framework is applauded for adopting in environmental impact assessment (EIA) processes, principle 10 of the Earth Summit that calls for open, transparent, inclusive environmental decision making and provisions on environmental rights and their judicial enforcement as envisioned by the Aarhus Convention
While the legal framework calls for democratic processes and meaningful participation of locals in environmental decision making processes, there seems to be gaps in the policy framework, policy and practice if comprehensive environmental democracy is to be fully achieved through EIA
Findings from this study shows that EIA processes had not fully opened the democratic space as evidenced by locals’ resistance to allow the project to start fully fledged mineral exploitation, four years after the company had been certified by relevant government departments
Summary
Global and regional mining companies have been heavily investing in the mining of precious minerals in some of the developing countries such as Zimbabwe in the face of the country’s fragile economic recovery after a decade long recession (Zimbabwe Environmental Law Association (ZELA) 2010; Mathende and Nhapi 2017). The mining sector has a known history of poor environmental protection though with a few “flagship” mining projects where resource extraction has proceeded in harmony with the environment (Taruvinga et al 2016). Mining by its nature is known to be environmentally destructive which translates to negative social and economic impacts on local communities (ZELA 2010). The environmental footprint of mining is increasing in rural areas where poor communities interact with mining operations thereby making mining’s environmental consequences a cause of concern (Antoci et al 2019). Community participation in environmental decision making can be made a reality if ‘access rights’ or civil based instruments (CBIs) (participation in decision making, access to information and justice) are mainstreamed in environmental management tools like EIA
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
