The global demand for critical minerals has intensified as part of the clean energy transition in line with goals outlined in the Paris Agreement. The environmental costs of extracting and processing these minerals, however, are increasingly borne by mineral-rich but ecologically and socially vulnerable regions. The 2024 Guiding Principles on Critical Energy Transition Minerals establish a clear normative benchmark, stating that human rights must be at the core of all mineral value chains (Principle 1) and that the integrity of the planet, its environment, and biodiversity must be safeguarded (Principle 2).
Using the recent Kafue River spill in February 2025 in Zambia as a point of reflection, this piece asks whether emerging legal responses to mining disasters in Zambia, which primarily focus on compensating for human rights violations, are sufficient to address the full scale of environmental destruction caused by mining operations. Such responses follow the country’s Environmental Management Act, 2011, which recognises ‘every person in Zambia’s right to a clean and healthy environment’ under Section 4, and includes the right of access to the various elements of the environment for recreational, educational, health, spiritual, cultural and economic purposes. The framing of environmental harm is primarily done through an anthropocentric lens, focusing on human well-being. This is reflective of a broader trend across African legal systems, where environmental protection has historically centred around human interests. Uganda’s recent recognition of rights of nature (RoN) in Section 4 of its National Environment Act, 2019 marks a notable shift toward a more eco-centric approach, enabling nature to have the ‘right to exist, persist, maintain and revitalise’.
Therefore, I argue below that a similar recognition of RoN by Zambia may offer a complementary and durable foundation for protecting both ecosystems and the communities that depend on them.
A River Spill and Its Legal Ripples
On 18 February 2025, a tailings dam storing mining waste collapsed at the Sino-Metals Leach Zambia Limited (Sino-Metals) copper mine, releasing acidic effluents into tributaries of the Kafue River. The spill caused massive ecological disruption, including fish die-offs and wildlife death, crop damage, and sudden disruption in water supplies for residents of the city of Kitwe. The Kafue River, on the country’s Copperbelt, is one of the largest watercourses and provides drinking water and livelihoods to millions. The spill, which triggered widespread concern, prompted legal action by Panthera Ventures Limited, a private Zambian company, before the Lusaka High Court. The suit seeks orders to compel Sino-Metals to: (i) cease all operations that result in the discharge of pollutants, (ii) suspend activities at its tailings facility until repairs are completed, (iii) install air pollution control equipment to comply with air quality standards, and (iv) compensate farmers and property owners for losses suffered. Based on public reporting, the action appears to be grounded in Zambia’s environmental regulatory framework and tort principles, aiming to halt further harm and secure redress for affected communities. Thereafter, the Zambian Government has also shut down the Sino-Metals plant and issued an order for environmental restoration.
At first glance, this case follows previous instances of river pollution in the region, where an anthropocentric approach to legal recourse has been adopted. In 2019, nearly 2,000 Zambian claimants filed a case against Vedanta Resources before the UK High Court seeking compensation for pollution linked to the Nchanga copper mine. The UK Supreme Court ultimately affirmed a powerful precedent that parent companies could be held liable in their home jurisdictions for environmental harms committed abroad by their subsidiaries, on the basis of the duty of care owed by a parent company and liability for negligence. However, the Vedanta litigation was grounded in tort claims seeking compensation for damage to health and ability to farm, and did not engage with the concept of the environment or river as a legal subject of violation. Moreover, the case concluded with an out-of-court settlement without an admission of liability by Vedanta.
Similarly, in Nyasulu v Konkola Copper Mines and Others, the Lusaka High Court ordered Konkola Copper Mines (KCM) to pay US$2 million in damages to residents of Chingola district for discharging untreated toxic waste into the Mushishima River. This case, which was pursued locally under Zambian law, was also framed around harm to human health and livelihoods. It undermined ecological harm to the river, as distinct from human-centred claims for compensation.
The current Sino-Metals case, like the KCM litigation, is being pursued domestically. While this may reflect confidence in Zambian courts, it also highlights the constrained options available when the alleged polluter is a state-owned enterprise from China. Unlike the United Kingdom, where foreign plaintiffs may access domestic courts to sue parent companies, China offers no known precedent or regulation for similar tort claims by foreign communities. China has reportedly sent a team of technical experts to assist with clean-up efforts, though this does not establish any legal liability. The absence of such a pathway effectively forecloses cross-border accountability and limits the legal recourses available to affected communities. The broad question is not only where meaningful legal recourse can be pursued, but also what kinds of harm the law is willing and able to recognize.
Green Energy, Extractive Costs and International Legal Response
As noted previously, the backdrop to this conflict is the intensifying global scramble for critical minerals essential for the green energy transition. As major economies transition toward low-carbon energy, the environmental externalities of resource extraction are increasingly concentrated in developing countries, resulting in ecological degradation, water contamination, and the displacement of communities.
International law increasingly recognizes the interconnection between human rights and environmental harm from extractive activities. For instance, the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, 2011 establish that businesses, including transnational corporations, have a responsibility to respect human rights. This includes incorporating human rights impact considerations within environmental and social impact assessments (Principle 18). Regionally, the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 1986, under Article 24, recognizes the right of peoples to a general satisfactory environment favourable to their development. In its landmark decision in SERAC v. Nigeria, the African Commission found Nigeria in violation of Article 24 for failing to prevent environmental harm resulting from oil extraction activities. The Commission has further clarified that multinational companies, given their significant influence and power, bear a heightened responsibility under the Charter. This includes a dual duty to prevent and remedy harms to human rights and the environment arising from their operations.
More recently, the UN Secretary General launched the Panel on Critical Minerals Energy Transition Minerals in 2024 and recommended the establishment of a Global Mining Legacy Fund to finance priority environmental and human rights remediation in high-risk relinquished or abandoned mining sites. Meanwhile, the proposed UN Treaty on Business and Human Rights seeks to address the accountability gap for transnational corporations involved in environmentally destructive activities, although negotiations remain slow and politically contested. Finally, the OECD has recognised the need to adopt a RoN approach in jurisdictions where mineral extraction and processing occur, as a means to protect the intrinsic value of nature beyond its utility for human uses. Additionally, a growing series of UN General Assembly resolutions under the Harmony with Nature initiative reflect an emerging consensus on Earth-centred governance.
Despite evolving standards in international law, including recognition of RoN by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, domestic legal responses in countries such as Zambia largely continue to treat nature through the lens of property rights. This raises an important question: how might the legal system evolve to recognise ecological harm not merely as damage to human interests, but as harm to nature itself?
Rivers as Rights-Holders: A Growing Jurisprudence
Sino-Metals has agreed to clean up the affected environment and compensate local communities. While this response addresses immediate damage, it also raises the question of whether stronger legal protections, such as the recognition of nature’s rights, are needed to prevent long-term ecological harm. One possible path forward, adopted in several jurisdictions, is to recognize nature as a rights-bearing entity entitled to protection and restoration under law rather than at the discretion of corporations. Countries have made attempts to adopt RoN and extend legal personhood to rivers. New Zealand has recognized RoN by granting legal personhood to the Whanganui River. A lower court in India issued a similar ruling for Ganges and Yamuna rivers, though this has been stayed by the Indian Supreme Court.
In the context of critical mineral extraction, recognizing RoN becomes particularly important. Mining often causes long-term ecological harm, by disrupting biodiversity and vegetation, degrading land by eroding the top soil, and deforestation, sometimes rendering full ecological restoration impossible. In this regard, adopting a RoN framework allows legal systems to address prolonged harms by recognising fundamental rights for nature outside human interests, thereby preventing damage from mining activities proactively. Zambia does not currently recognize such rights, although its Constitution and Environment Management Act, 2011, include environmental protections. Enforcement usually tends to focus on administrative compliance rather than ecological restoration or recognition of nature’s interests. This gap is especially relevant in light of proposals to expand mining into protected areas, such as the Kangaluwi open-pit copper mine in the Lower Zambezi National Park, which was rejected by the Zambia Environmental Management Authority after a long battle by environmental organisations.
Legal developments in Colombia and Ecuador offer important insights for recognizing RoN in direct response to the environmental destruction caused by extractive industries, which could inform Zambia’s approach. Colombia’s Constitutional Court recognized the Atrato River as a legal subject with rights. The case arose from severe environmental degradation caused by illegal gold mining, which harmed biodiversity and local communities. The Court acknowledged the river’s intrinsic value and shifted legal reasoning from a purely human-centred framework to one grounded in ecological relationships. Ecuador undertook a similar shift through its 2008 Constitution, which recognized RoN in response to the long-standing ecological damage from extractive operations in the Amazon. This framework was later invoked by the Constitutional Court in 2021 to halt mining activities in the Los Cedros forest.
The Limits and Promise of Going Beyond Compensation
The Sino-Metals case presents an opportunity for Zambia to revisit existing doctrinal boundaries by recognising ecological destruction of the Kafue River independently of harm caused to the health and livelihoods of communities, that go beyond orders for immediate restoration and clean-up. However, achieving this within a legal framework which operates in an anthropocentric frame leaves little room for considering ecological harms that are not in relation to human beings.
At the same time, these developments also exist within a broader geopolitical context. Given the prominent role of Chinese firms in Zambia’s mining sector and their involvement in its development, questions of accountability for environmental harm can intersect with the dynamics of international relations. Since February 2025, China formalized plans to fund Zambia’s railway re-development project, provided emergency food assistance; and signed a technological cooperation grant agreement, highlighting deepening infrastructure and investment ties.
The current anthropogenic environmental regime in Zambia enables harm to the environment, as long as people are compensated for damage arising from it. By contrast, a recognition of RoN can usher a systemic shift that aligns the well-being of nature with that of human beings, in relation to mining activities. This would imply that nature becomes a stakeholder in mining activities, necessitating a process that values its existence and sustenance.
Critical Minerals, Environmental Harm and the Unspoken Rights of Nature: The Kafue River Spill in Zambia
Written by Malavika RaoThe global demand for critical minerals has intensified as part of the clean energy transition in line with goals outlined in the Paris Agreement. The environmental costs of extracting and processing these minerals, however, are increasingly borne by mineral-rich but ecologically and socially vulnerable regions. The 2024 Guiding Principles on Critical Energy Transition Minerals establish a clear normative benchmark, stating that human rights must be at the core of all mineral value chains (Principle 1) and that the integrity of the planet, its environment, and biodiversity must be safeguarded (Principle 2).
Using the recent Kafue River spill in February 2025 in Zambia as a point of reflection, this piece asks whether emerging legal responses to mining disasters in Zambia, which primarily focus on compensating for human rights violations, are sufficient to address the full scale of environmental destruction caused by mining operations. Such responses follow the country’s Environmental Management Act, 2011, which recognises ‘every person in Zambia’s right to a clean and healthy environment’ under Section 4, and includes the right of access to the various elements of the environment for recreational, educational, health, spiritual, cultural and economic purposes. The framing of environmental harm is primarily done through an anthropocentric lens, focusing on human well-being. This is reflective of a broader trend across African legal systems, where environmental protection has historically centred around human interests. Uganda’s recent recognition of rights of nature (RoN) in Section 4 of its National Environment Act, 2019 marks a notable shift toward a more eco-centric approach, enabling nature to have the ‘right to exist, persist, maintain and revitalise’.
Therefore, I argue below that a similar recognition of RoN by Zambia may offer a complementary and durable foundation for protecting both ecosystems and the communities that depend on them.
A River Spill and Its Legal Ripples
On 18 February 2025, a tailings dam storing mining waste collapsed at the Sino-Metals Leach Zambia Limited (Sino-Metals) copper mine, releasing acidic effluents into tributaries of the Kafue River. The spill caused massive ecological disruption, including fish die-offs and wildlife death, crop damage, and sudden disruption in water supplies for residents of the city of Kitwe. The Kafue River, on the country’s Copperbelt, is one of the largest watercourses and provides drinking water and livelihoods to millions. The spill, which triggered widespread concern, prompted legal action by Panthera Ventures Limited, a private Zambian company, before the Lusaka High Court. The suit seeks orders to compel Sino-Metals to: (i) cease all operations that result in the discharge of pollutants, (ii) suspend activities at its tailings facility until repairs are completed, (iii) install air pollution control equipment to comply with air quality standards, and (iv) compensate farmers and property owners for losses suffered. Based on public reporting, the action appears to be grounded in Zambia’s environmental regulatory framework and tort principles, aiming to halt further harm and secure redress for affected communities. Thereafter, the Zambian Government has also shut down the Sino-Metals plant and issued an order for environmental restoration.
At first glance, this case follows previous instances of river pollution in the region, where an anthropocentric approach to legal recourse has been adopted. In 2019, nearly 2,000 Zambian claimants filed a case against Vedanta Resources before the UK High Court seeking compensation for pollution linked to the Nchanga copper mine. The UK Supreme Court ultimately affirmed a powerful precedent that parent companies could be held liable in their home jurisdictions for environmental harms committed abroad by their subsidiaries, on the basis of the duty of care owed by a parent company and liability for negligence. However, the Vedanta litigation was grounded in tort claims seeking compensation for damage to health and ability to farm, and did not engage with the concept of the environment or river as a legal subject of violation. Moreover, the case concluded with an out-of-court settlement without an admission of liability by Vedanta.
Similarly, in Nyasulu v Konkola Copper Mines and Others, the Lusaka High Court ordered Konkola Copper Mines (KCM) to pay US$2 million in damages to residents of Chingola district for discharging untreated toxic waste into the Mushishima River. This case, which was pursued locally under Zambian law, was also framed around harm to human health and livelihoods. It undermined ecological harm to the river, as distinct from human-centred claims for compensation.
The current Sino-Metals case, like the KCM litigation, is being pursued domestically. While this may reflect confidence in Zambian courts, it also highlights the constrained options available when the alleged polluter is a state-owned enterprise from China. Unlike the United Kingdom, where foreign plaintiffs may access domestic courts to sue parent companies, China offers no known precedent or regulation for similar tort claims by foreign communities. China has reportedly sent a team of technical experts to assist with clean-up efforts, though this does not establish any legal liability. The absence of such a pathway effectively forecloses cross-border accountability and limits the legal recourses available to affected communities. The broad question is not only where meaningful legal recourse can be pursued, but also what kinds of harm the law is willing and able to recognize.
Green Energy, Extractive Costs and International Legal Response
As noted previously, the backdrop to this conflict is the intensifying global scramble for critical minerals essential for the green energy transition. As major economies transition toward low-carbon energy, the environmental externalities of resource extraction are increasingly concentrated in developing countries, resulting in ecological degradation, water contamination, and the displacement of communities.
International law increasingly recognizes the interconnection between human rights and environmental harm from extractive activities. For instance, the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, 2011 establish that businesses, including transnational corporations, have a responsibility to respect human rights. This includes incorporating human rights impact considerations within environmental and social impact assessments (Principle 18). Regionally, the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 1986, under Article 24, recognizes the right of peoples to a general satisfactory environment favourable to their development. In its landmark decision in SERAC v. Nigeria, the African Commission found Nigeria in violation of Article 24 for failing to prevent environmental harm resulting from oil extraction activities. The Commission has further clarified that multinational companies, given their significant influence and power, bear a heightened responsibility under the Charter. This includes a dual duty to prevent and remedy harms to human rights and the environment arising from their operations.
More recently, the UN Secretary General launched the Panel on Critical Minerals Energy Transition Minerals in 2024 and recommended the establishment of a Global Mining Legacy Fund to finance priority environmental and human rights remediation in high-risk relinquished or abandoned mining sites. Meanwhile, the proposed UN Treaty on Business and Human Rights seeks to address the accountability gap for transnational corporations involved in environmentally destructive activities, although negotiations remain slow and politically contested. Finally, the OECD has recognised the need to adopt a RoN approach in jurisdictions where mineral extraction and processing occur, as a means to protect the intrinsic value of nature beyond its utility for human uses. Additionally, a growing series of UN General Assembly resolutions under the Harmony with Nature initiative reflect an emerging consensus on Earth-centred governance.
Despite evolving standards in international law, including recognition of RoN by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, domestic legal responses in countries such as Zambia largely continue to treat nature through the lens of property rights. This raises an important question: how might the legal system evolve to recognise ecological harm not merely as damage to human interests, but as harm to nature itself?
Rivers as Rights-Holders: A Growing Jurisprudence
Sino-Metals has agreed to clean up the affected environment and compensate local communities. While this response addresses immediate damage, it also raises the question of whether stronger legal protections, such as the recognition of nature’s rights, are needed to prevent long-term ecological harm. One possible path forward, adopted in several jurisdictions, is to recognize nature as a rights-bearing entity entitled to protection and restoration under law rather than at the discretion of corporations. Countries have made attempts to adopt RoN and extend legal personhood to rivers. New Zealand has recognized RoN by granting legal personhood to the Whanganui River. A lower court in India issued a similar ruling for Ganges and Yamuna rivers, though this has been stayed by the Indian Supreme Court.
In the context of critical mineral extraction, recognizing RoN becomes particularly important. Mining often causes long-term ecological harm, by disrupting biodiversity and vegetation, degrading land by eroding the top soil, and deforestation, sometimes rendering full ecological restoration impossible. In this regard, adopting a RoN framework allows legal systems to address prolonged harms by recognising fundamental rights for nature outside human interests, thereby preventing damage from mining activities proactively. Zambia does not currently recognize such rights, although its Constitution and Environment Management Act, 2011, include environmental protections. Enforcement usually tends to focus on administrative compliance rather than ecological restoration or recognition of nature’s interests. This gap is especially relevant in light of proposals to expand mining into protected areas, such as the Kangaluwi open-pit copper mine in the Lower Zambezi National Park, which was rejected by the Zambia Environmental Management Authority after a long battle by environmental organisations.
Legal developments in Colombia and Ecuador offer important insights for recognizing RoN in direct response to the environmental destruction caused by extractive industries, which could inform Zambia’s approach. Colombia’s Constitutional Court recognized the Atrato River as a legal subject with rights. The case arose from severe environmental degradation caused by illegal gold mining, which harmed biodiversity and local communities. The Court acknowledged the river’s intrinsic value and shifted legal reasoning from a purely human-centred framework to one grounded in ecological relationships. Ecuador undertook a similar shift through its 2008 Constitution, which recognized RoN in response to the long-standing ecological damage from extractive operations in the Amazon. This framework was later invoked by the Constitutional Court in 2021 to halt mining activities in the Los Cedros forest.
The Limits and Promise of Going Beyond Compensation
The Sino-Metals case presents an opportunity for Zambia to revisit existing doctrinal boundaries by recognising ecological destruction of the Kafue River independently of harm caused to the health and livelihoods of communities, that go beyond orders for immediate restoration and clean-up. However, achieving this within a legal framework which operates in an anthropocentric frame leaves little room for considering ecological harms that are not in relation to human beings.
At the same time, these developments also exist within a broader geopolitical context. Given the prominent role of Chinese firms in Zambia’s mining sector and their involvement in its development, questions of accountability for environmental harm can intersect with the dynamics of international relations. Since February 2025, China formalized plans to fund Zambia’s railway re-development project, provided emergency food assistance; and signed a technological cooperation grant agreement, highlighting deepening infrastructure and investment ties.
The current anthropogenic environmental regime in Zambia enables harm to the environment, as long as people are compensated for damage arising from it. By contrast, a recognition of RoN can usher a systemic shift that aligns the well-being of nature with that of human beings, in relation to mining activities. This would imply that nature becomes a stakeholder in mining activities, necessitating a process that values its existence and sustenance.
Share this:
Related
Categories
Tags
Leave a Comment
Comments