Policy Analysis Report final ( English Version)
Web Admin1. Background
Tanzania’s mining sector continues to expand, contributing 9.1% to the national GDP, with gold accounting for 82% of total mineral production. Within this landscape, Artisanal and Small‑Scale Gold Mining (ASGM) plays a central role. Reserved exclusively for Tanzanian citizens, ASGM:
- Directly employs 1.2 million people, representing 90% of the mining workforce
- Engages 7.2 million more indirectly
- Contributes 35% of national gold production
- Provides critical income for rural communities, especially women and youth
Despite its importance, ASGM is often informal, under‑regulated, and associated with environmental degradation, mercury pollution, child labor, and unsafe working conditions. An estimated 10,000 children work in mining operations, and 12–24 tons of mercury are released annually into the environment.
The government has introduced strategies and action plans to formalize and regulate the sector, yet significant legal and institutional gaps persist—particularly between the EMA and the Mining Act.
2. Social and Environmental Impacts of ASGM
Mercury use remains one of the most pressing environmental and public health challenges in ASGM. Mercury exposure affects miners, nearby communities, and ecosystems through:
- Airborne mercury vapors during amalgam burning
- Contaminated water sources
- Soil degradation and deforestation
- Bioaccumulation in fish and livestock
Women and children are disproportionately affected due to their roles in ore processing, water collection, and domestic responsibilities near mining sites. Children’s underdeveloped immune systems make them especially vulnerable to mercury poisoning.
Despite existing regulations, weak enforcement and fragmented legal frameworks allow harmful practices to continue.
3. Objectives of the Policy Paper
Main Objective
To examine the misalignment between the Environmental Management Act (EMA) and the Mining Act in regulating environmental management in ASGM.
Specific Objectives
- Identify regulatory discrepancies between the EMA and the Mining Act
- Assess environmental and social impacts resulting from these gaps
- Recommend policy measures to harmonize the two laws and improve environmental outcomes
4. Regulatory Frameworks Governing ASGM
ASGM is governed primarily by:
- The Environmental Management Act (EMA)
- The Mining Act and its Regulations
4.1 The Environmental Management Act (EMA)
EMA provides a comprehensive environmental governance framework grounded in:
- The precautionary principle
- Public participation
- The polluter‑pays principle
Key EMA requirements include:
- Mandatory Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) for all mining activities
- EIAs conducted only by certified experts
- Oversight and monitoring by the National Environment Management Council (NEMC)
- Enforcement of mercury management standards
4.2 The Mining Act of 2010
The Mining Act governs licensing and operational compliance. It requires:
- Submission of an Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) for Primary Mining License (PML) applications
- Oversight by the Mining Commission
- Collaboration with Local Government Authorities (LGAs)
However, the Mining Act does not establish a standalone environmental regime; instead, it references EMA for environmental guidance.
This dual‑system creates confusion and weakens enforcement.
5. The EIA vs. EPP Conundrum
The most significant regulatory conflict lies in the differing environmental compliance tools:
| EMA Requirement | Mining Act Requirement |
|---|---|
| Mandatory EIA for all mining activities | Mandatory EPP for small‑scale mining |
| Enforced by NEMC | Enforced by Mining Commission |
| Comprehensive assessment | Simplified mitigation plan |
This misalignment results in:
- Confusion among miners
- Weak enforcement
- Overlapping mandates between NEMC and the Mining Commission
- Unregulated mercury use
- Increased environmental degradation
NEMC cannot effectively enforce compliance when miners rely solely on EPPs, which fall outside EMA’s legal framework.
6. The Role and Limitations of Local Government Authorities (LGAs)
LGAs are expected to support mercury management under the 2020 Mercury Regulations. However:
- Their mandate is unclear
- They lack authority to regulate ASGM directly
- They are financially responsible for cleaning contaminated sites when polluters cannot be identified
This contradicts the polluter‑pays principle and places an unfair burden on local taxpayers.
Additionally, mercury inventory data shows:
- Only 5.8 tons of mercury were officially registered in 2023/24
- Yet 24.4 tons were used in ASGM
- Meaning 76.3% of mercury use is unregistered and unmonitored
This undermines national efforts to control mercury pollution.
7. Conflicting EPP Submission Timelines
Another regulatory inconsistency arises from:
- The Mining Act requiring EPP submission during license application
- The Mining Regulations requiring EPP submission after license issuance but before operations begin
This contradiction:
- Confuses miners
- Complicates enforcement
- Weakens environmental safeguards
Clear, harmonized timelines are urgently needed.
8. NEMC’s Audit Limitations
NEMC audits are designed for EIA compliance—not EPPs. As a result:
- Many ASGM sites fall outside NEMC’s effective oversight
- Environmental risks go unmonitored
- Mercury contamination and land degradation persist
A more flexible audit system is required to cover both EIAs and EPPs.
9. Conclusion
Tanzania’s ASGM sector is economically vital but environmentally vulnerable. The misalignment between the EMA and the Mining Act creates:
- Confusion among miners
- Weak enforcement
- Overlapping institutional mandates
- Unregulated mercury use
- Environmental degradation
- Health risks for women, children, and entire communities
Without harmonized legislation and stronger institutional coordination, ASGM will continue to operate in a regulatory grey zone that undermines sustainability and public health.
10. Policy Recommendations
I. Harmonize Environmental Legislation
Amend both the EMA and the Mining Act to clearly define roles, responsibilities, and compliance tools (EIA vs. EPP).
II. Strengthen NEMC’s Role in ASGM
Expand NEMC’s mandate to include oversight of EPPs and create ASGM‑focused units.
III. Introduce a Comprehensive EIA Framework for ASGM
Develop EIA guidelines tailored specifically to small‑scale mining operations.
IV. Implement a Clear Licensing Process
Clarify when and how EPPs should be submitted, ensuring environmental safeguards are integrated early.
