Flowing through the waters of the once-mighty Kafue River – a source of drinking water and livelihood for millions of Zambians – is poison.
Since the start of the year, four copper mining companies operating in the Southern African nation, including one British and three Chinese firms, have been accused of releasing toxic mining waste into the Kafue River’s watershed in one of the country’s worst environmental disasters.
The most devastating spill occurred on February 18, when the tailings dam holding mining waste from Chinese company Sino-Metals Leach Zambia burst its walls and released 50 million litres of acidic effluent into the river.
The pollution killed fish, burned maize and groundnut crops and led to the deaths of livestock, wiping out livelihoods and deepening the plight of struggling farmers. In the days following the spill, the water supply to the nearby town of Kitwe was shut down.
The spills have sparked outrage across Zambia at a time when the government is planning to quadruple production of copper – a mineral critical to the energy transition – to three million tonnes a year by 2031 to capture a share of the boom driven by rising demand for electric vehicles worldwide.
Copper mining is a cornerstone of the Zambian economy. In recent years, the government has sought to woo international investors to develop its resources, with Chinese companies making some of the biggest investments in its mining sector.
“A pattern of gross corporate negligence”
Environmental advocates have accused the companies of reckless mining practices that prioritised profits over safety, and a systemic failure of the government to protect both people and the environment.
“The environmental impact of this pollution is catastrophic,” said Raymond Mutale, Transparency International Zambia’s acting executive director. “Residents are witnessing their livelihoods being washed away with the toxic water, and yet those responsible continue to operate with impunity.”
Environment minister Collins Nzovu described Sino-Metals’ acid spill as “a serious environmental disaster that could have been avoided if proper safety measures were in place”.
He announced that a multi-agency task force will investigate the spill, assess damages and enforce penalties. “We will ensure that those responsible face the full force of the law, and we are reviewing current environmental regulations to prevent future occurrences,” he said.
Ending poverty and gangs: How Zambia seeks to cash in on the global drive for EVs
A coalition of environmental justice organisations has called on the government to prosecute the Chinese companies for environmental crimes. The coalition decried a “pattern of gross corporate negligence and inadequacies in environmental compliance, oversight and enforcement” and called for urgent reforms of the mining sector.
“Should mining expand within the current status quo and modus operandi, citizens and the environment are at risk of widespread disasters such as those recently reported,” it warned in a joint statement.
The Kafue River turns toxic
When the dam holding Sino-Metals’ mining waste (known as tailings) collapsed, Nsama Musonda Kearns, executive director of the Care for Nature Zambia NGO, rushed to the spill site. She described “a devastating sight” and “people in shock” as the murky acidic waters flooded homes in the nearby Kalusale area.
“People unknowingly drank contaminated water and ate affected maize. Now many are suffering from headaches, coughs, diarrhea, muscle cramps and even sores on their legs,” she told Climate Home News. The community fears having to find alternative farm land to survive, she added.
Around 60% of Zambia’s population of 20 million people depend on the Kafue River for irrigation, fishing and industrial use. The river, which is a major tributary of the Zambezi – one of Africa’s longest-flowing rivers – supplies drinking water for five million people, including to its capital Lusaka.
Structural flaws at the Sino-Metals tailings dam
The Engineering Institution of Zambia (EIZ), the body which regulates engineering practices in the country, dispatched a team of senior engineers to investigate the dam’s collapse.
A preliminary investigation revealed flaws in the dam’s design, approval and operational processes, the institution’s president Wesley Kaluba told Climate Home.
“The team also observed cracks, uncompacted walls and inconsistent wall thickness, which raises concerns about the integrity of the structure,” Kaluba said, adding that there was “insufficient evidence” to confirm whether the infrastructure was operated by qualified and licensed engineers.
Kaluba warned that any EIZ members found to have contributed to the incident will face disciplinary action in line with the institution’s code of conduct.
Sino-Metals has apologised for the environmental disaster and the harm caused to local communities and committed to remedy the situation by cleaning up the river and helping restore people’s livelihoods. Mining activity remains suspended.
Profits over environmental safety
Unfortunately, the acid spill at the Sino-Metals mine is not an isolated incident.
In January, a toxic spill at the Mimbula Mine, owned by British company Moxico Resources, contaminated nearby water sources. Local residents reported severe water pollution, with rivers turning a reddish-brown colour and emanating a strong chemical odour.
“The Mimbula spill is yet another example of how mining companies prioritise profits over environmental safety,” said environmental lawyer Gloria Mulenga. “Without stricter enforcement, these disasters will continue to endanger lives and livelihoods.”
Moxico Resources did not respond to a request for comment.
Elsewhere in Copperbelt Province, the director of a mine operated by Rongxing Investments was arrested this month after the Chinese company reportedly ignored a government order to halt its activities following the death of a worker, who allegedly fell into a pool of acid, and extensive acid spillage into a local stream.
Further south, in the district of Mumbwa, the Chinese-owned Ozone Mine has also been accused of discharging chemical waste into local water bodies. Farmers in the area reported unusual crop failures and increased cases of waterborne diseases among children.
“We cannot continue to tolerate this level of recklessness. These mines are poisoning our land and our future,” said Mumbwa resident and community leader, Beatrice Nkulungwe. At the time of publication, regulatory agencies had not taken action against the mine.
Regulatory agencies need sharper teeth
Acid leaks from mining waste are not new in Zambia. Mining companies have previously been accused of cutting corners to maximise output and accountability for disasters has been slow to follow.
A 2017 compliance audit by the Office of the Auditor General raised concerns about the monitoring of mining concessions, but Mutale, of Transparency International, told Climate Home little had changed since then.
Instead, the government’s plan to ramp up copper production has made the situation “even worse due to increased mining projects”, he said.
Mutale said government agencies responsible for the sector’s environmental oversight were too poorly resourced to effectively monitor mining activities and under pressure to approve projects.
“To cure perceived bureaucracy, Zambia Environmental Management Agency has had to fast-track environmental permitting, further weakening oversight,” he added. “If the government is serious about increasing mining production, it must also invest in regulatory agencies to ensure compliance and protect our environment.”
Human rights must be “at the core” of mining for transition minerals, UN panel says
Bobson Sikaala, CEO of African Rivers, an organisation dedicated to protecting water bodies on the continent, warned that weak enforcement of environmental regulations had created an atmosphere of impunity in the mining sector.
“Polluters often face minimal penalties, allowing them to continue their operations without meaningful consequences,” he said.
African Rivers called on the Zambian government to form a cross-sector task force to handle compensation for affected communities, and to mandate climate-sensitive mining practices.
“The government must give these laws sharp teeth to bite. We cannot afford to have regulations that look good on paper but fail in reality,” Sikaala added.
Main image: Farmers Nelson Banda and Elizabeth Bwalya stand in a field of maize burnt by the acid spill in Kalusale, about 20 kilometres from the Sino-Metals Leach Zambia mine
The post “Catastrophic” acid spills at copper mines test Zambia’s plans to boost production appeared first on Climate Home News.
“Catastrophic” acid spills at copper mines test Zambia’s plans to boost production
Scientists have vowed to keep working on the next flagship set of reports for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), after a political row over the timeline for their release saw its latest session suspended on Friday evening without agreement.
During the weekend, government officials and scientists alike expressed disappointment over the inability to reach a compromise before some delegates from developing countries and small island states had to leave the week-long meeting in Ethiopia to catch flights home.
The disagreement – which has persisted since early 2024 – turns on whether the three key parts of the AR7 assessment should all be published before the conclusion of the UN’s next Global Stocktake of global climate action, which is due to be completed in late 2028.
The IPCC issued a statement after the close of the session, saying that “key agenda items” – the timelines for the three AR7 reports, as well as the IPCC budget – remain open and under discussion. It said the IPCC’s plenary session and its deliberations on the pending agenda “will resume at the earliest opportunity”, giving no further details of when.
IPCC Chair Jim Skea told delegates in closing remarks that recent months had been some of the most turbulent for the climate science panel and that, if there were stronger words than “profound disappointment” he would use them, according to a summary published by the Earth Negotiators Bulletin (ENB). IPCC discussions happen behind closed doors.
IPCC scientists remained committed
In an open letter, issued on Monday, a group of nearly 120 scientists – from a total of 664 AR7 authors – said they “stand committed to continue working to deliver the AR7 reports in a manner that is rigorous, timely and inclusive, in line with our mandate to be policy-relevant”.
“An assessment that arrives after the decisions it is meant to inform cannot serve its purpose,” they emphasised. “The second Global Stocktake in 2028 is such a decision point, and the world should not have to face it without the IPCCʼs latest assessment.”
Europe, small islands and the least developed countries, plus many Latin American and developed nations, want the IPCC to meet this deadline, arguing that the findings from the UN climate science body are irreplaceable in the UN climate policy-making process.
However, around a dozen developing countries plus Russia have argued that the reports should come later in order to allow for greater research input from the Global South – something that, in their view, would make the findings fairer. They also claim that a shorter timeline would put excessive pressure on experts.
-
Who shapes climate science? The equity question facing the IPCC
Early completion of the next global climate science assessment reports risks excluding research from the Global South, which is key to ensuring the findings are fair -
Governments that support climate science must stand firm against naysayers
The IPCC is meeting to decide the timing of its next major report, as some countries try to delay it and weaken the case for faster emissions cuts
The most vocal of this group at last week’s meeting were India and Saudi Arabia, according to the ENB summary and a developed country diplomat. Critics see this push for a longer timeline as an excuse to deprive government decision-makers of the latest science and ease pressure on emerging economies to raise their ambition, particularly on cutting emissions.
Commenting on last week’s meeting, France’s ambassador for climate negotiations Benoît Faraco said a broad coalition of developed and developing countries from all five continents, “united in their support for science and the timeline proposed by scientists”, had withstood pressure “from a few countries” seeking to slow down the process of adopting the IPCC reports.
He added that France would not back down and would “continue to fight tirelessly for science, protect the integrity of information, and convince our partners that without the best available scientific data, we will be less effective in tackling climate change and protecting our populations”.
Inclusivity proposal stalled
In a bid to unlock a solution for the AR7 timeline, countries discussed ways to improve the inclusivity of the IPCC’s work. One option put on the table was for the IPCC to expand its funding for delegates from developing countries to attend some or all of its sessions from one to two participants, according to the ENB summary and a delegate speaking to Climate Home News.
That would increase the costs for the IPCC to complete AR7 by up to a quarter, according to an assessment shared by the secretariat. The panel’s budget is under severe strain and its officials have warned that, without additional voluntary contributions, it risks running out of money before it can deliver on this assessment cycle.
Climate Home News understands that some of the IPCC’s traditional donors – which mainly include European countries, Japan and Australia – indicated a willingness to support funding for an additional developing country participant. But without an agreement over the budget or the timeline for the reports, that option was ultimately not adopted.
‘Disappointed and worried’
The three reports are managed by working groups that collate and draw overall findings from the latest scientific studies and data on the physical effects of global warming around the world, how to adapt to it, and pathways for cutting planet-heating emissions in order to meet the temperature goals of the Paris Agreement.
Winston Chow, an urban climate professor at Singapore Management University who co-chairs Working Group II on adaptation, wrote in a LinkedIn post that he was “disappointed and worried” for the IPCC authors who have worked “extraordinarily hard” to assess the relevant climate science over the past two years.
He said he shared their concern that “the rigour, time and goodwill they’ve invested are now being put at risk by the Panel’s stalemate”.
As science comes under attack at UN talks, climate movement splits over how to respond
For Working Group II, a meeting for 250 experts writing that report is scheduled for January 2027, followed by the approval of a special report on cities and climate change in Singapore next March.
But because the IPCC’s budget has not been confirmed due to uncertainty about the AR7 schedule, travel support for those researchers is at risk, wrote Chow. “If they cannot participate, our assessments will lose vital expertise, perspectives and scientific breadth, and the collective effort of our authors will be undermined,” he warned.
Scientific work continues
Despite the political holdups, he – together with French climate scientist Robert Vautard, co-chair of Working Group 1 – agreed with IPCC head Skea who told the IPCC’s closing session on Friday: “The engine room of the IPCC is working, and it’s healthy.”
Vautard commented in a separate post on LinkedIn after it ended: “The boat is at full steam.” Working groups I and II are due to start revising the first drafts of their reports, while Working Group III on reducing emissions is finalising its first draft which will be out soon, he wrote.
“The most exciting two years of the cycle are ahead, for the authors. The momentum in the engine room is here and now. Trust the engine room!” he added.
The IPCC and some scientists report that progress has been made towards achieving an equitable balance of authors from the Global North and the Global South.
The group of researchers who signed the open letter on Monday noted that “inclusivity is at the heart of how we work”, with author teams bringing together experts from developed and developing countries with diverse backgrounds and at different stages of their careers.
Plea to overcome political differences
The signatories include several scientists from some of the countries opposed to the alignment of all IPCC reports with the Global Stocktake.
“We are committed to an assessment in which the knowledge, experience and priorities of every region are fully reflected, a commitment we share with the leadership of the IPCC.
Equity is built into how our assessment is being drafted,” they added.
They appealed to governments that make up the IPCC “to overcome their political differences and work together as we do as a global scientific community, so that we can deliver the IPCC reports the world needs to hear”.
In a statement published on Monday, IPCC chair Skea said reaching consensus on the schedule for the reports is “vital”. He added that the assessments provide authoritative scientific evidence to inform national climate policies, strengthen adaptation and resilience and support access to climate finance, as well as helping communicate the scale of the climate crisis and the urgency of efforts to tackle it.
The post IPCC scientists vow to press on with climate reports despite political deadlock appeared first on Climate Home News.
IPCC scientists vow to press on with climate reports despite political deadlock
An Lambrechts is a biodiversity politics expert at Greenpeace International with extensive experience in biodiversity-related multilateral negotiations. She is the head of the Greenpeace delegation at the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) COP17 happening in Yerevan, Armenia.
In 2022, COP15 delivered the landmark Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030. With COP17 starting in Yerevan, we are now halfway to the deadline, and according to the first Global Review of progress, countries are not on track to meet the biodiversity targets, and implementation must accelerate fast.
One of the main findings of the Global Review is that funding falls far short of the scale needed to halt and reverse nature loss. But the crisis facing the world’s biodiversity is not an absolute scarcity of capital – it is a profound public policy distortion.
The global economy currently spends roughly $30 destroying nature for every single dollar invested in its protection. According to a report from the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, a staggering $2.4 trillion is spent in public subsidies for fossil fuels, agriculture and water use, while global investment in biodiversity conservation and restoration stands at a mere $220 billion.
Countries urged to ramp up “insufficient” nature policies at COP17
Yet, discussions about how to close the biodiversity finance gap continue to claim that salvation lies in mobilising private capital, scaling offsets and “derisking” investments in nature. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of both the nature of ecological stewardship and of the global financial architecture.
Biodiversity conservation is not a speculative investment portfolio – it is the foundation of human survival. The health of our planet is a non-monetisable, non-excludable public good. Expecting profit-seeking private capital to protect nature perpetuates the structural drivers of ecosystem destruction in the first place.
But if private market mechanisms cannot save biodiversity, where will the necessary public resources come from?
Money going to the wrong places
The answer lies in recovering the vast public wealth currently drained by cross-border tax abuse, financial secrecy and corporate impunity. Finance and environment ministers meeting in Yerevan must give a strong political signal that, to avert ecological breakdown, countries need to take swift action to reform global tax rules, eliminate harmful public subsidies and cancel unsustainable sovereign debts for the public revenues to end up where they belong.
Extractive sectors such as industrial agriculture, fishing, timber and mining continue business-as-usual, often heavily subsidised by public treasuries, while voluntary carbon and biodiversity offset markets pose a serious risk to nature conservation. Offset schemes have delivered only a negligible fraction of the funding needed to preserve ecosystems, allowing industries to continue with their destructive business-as-usual practices.
-
Global deforestation slowed in 2025 but Brazil’s election could undo “fragile” gains
Countries remain 70% off track to meet a goal to end deforestation by 2030, as progress in Latin America offset by failures in Africa -
Brazil confident new rainforest fund will reach $10bn donor milestone
Brazil’s environment minister said the Tropical Forest Forever Facility has raised billions in record time – which he hopes will convince more investors
In advanced economies, public funding often actively undermines biodiversity. In Europe, over €5.3 billion in public subsidies is funnelled annually into intensive forest biomass harvesting under renewable energy directives, degrading primary forest ecosystems and undermining long-term climate resilience. Pleading with private investors to fill a “finance gap” while pouring billions into ecological destruction is an exercise in futility.