A recent article, which ran under the headline, Government whips errant Chinese miners once again brought to the fore the discussion about the impact of Chinese investments in Zimbabwe.
The article stated that authorities had “cracked the whip on some Chinese companies suspected of fuelling environmental damage in Hurungwe through alluvial mining along Sanyati River”.
According to the article, one of the companies was operating on the Hurungwe side while the other had started clearing land on the Kariba rural side.
An officer of the Environment Management Agency (Ema) confirmed the developments.
Coming against the backdrop of the polarising debate about Chinese investments, recently accentuated by a report by the Centre for Natural Resource Governance, which profiled mining companies from the Asian giant, the above-mentioned story is instructive in ways that may otherwise escape stakeholders.
There have been various concerns and narratives about Chinese investments, that give the impression of an intractable war of competing interests in Zimbabwe.
China is Zimbabwe's biggest investor, a role that has been made more pronounced and important following the imposition of sanctions by Western countries at the turn of the millenium leading to widespread economic ruin and suffering.
The country's risk profile has prevented or discouraged other countries and businesses to invest and do business with Zimbabwe - something that has been subject of intense debate over the years.
Without question, Zimbabwe has had to rely on China at its most critical times, under the dark pall of sanctions as well during the Covid-19 pandemic when the Asian giant provided critical life-saving drugs and equipment, which it otherwise it may not have been given by Western countries or global health system.
There are many stakeholders who believe that Zimbabwe and Zimbabweans ought to be a little more grateful to the Chinese.
However, others believe that Zimbabwean authorities have not done enough to protect the national interest, and have given way too much by seemingly allowing the Chinese "to do what they want" in the country.
Moreso, corruption and patronage practices have created the impression that the investors are “untouchable”, while benefiting elites at the expense of the country, particularly communities and workers who are left with nowhere to turn for redress, which could potentially trigger lawlessness in the future if they take matters into their own hands.
A more sincere debate about the impact of Chinese investments, should address the fundamentals — which are somewhere in between the two polar ends of the discussion.
Zimbabwe and China need each other, not least that they are “traditional friends” that forged a relationship through political alliance of liberation parties nearly 70 years ago. Changes in the global system are only, and can only bring them closer together.
The question of economic cooperation in much changed circumstances has become the central question, with China - the world second largest economy - expected to "play fair" with its less developed counterpart, which has abundant mineral and other natural resources.
Could the situation be handled better than it has been? The answer is, yes!
This forms the crux of this submission: Zimbabwe has the imperative of balancing its national interests with the legitimate expectations and demands of its economically demanding partner.
This entails putting in place a strong regulatory framework and updating and enforcing the law and regulations guiding investment as well as other aspects such as immigration.
The intervention by EMA referenced above, demonstrates what can, and should be done: if the laws and regulations are in place, they should be enforced.
Chinese stakeholders in Zimbabwe have told this writer that Chinese companies do not have trouble complying with the law and seeing "errant" companies and individuals being brought to book.
Instead, they welcome that, in the same way they encourage high quality investments and operations, which act as good ambassadors of the country.
In 2022, the Chamber of Chinese Enterprises in Zimbabwe, a grouping of nearly 100 large and medium scale businesses issued a nine-point statement that spelt out the guidelines for Chinese companies to be good corporate citizens.
At the same time, the body cooperated with efforts that sought to flush out individuals and companies that were giving China a bad name, which led to a Mutare-based quarrying company, which had courted controversy for operations that could endanger the environment and community.
Chinese businesses and stakeholders worry about claims and expectations that are made of them, which in some cases are neither legal nor feasible.
An example of this, are claims that the Chinese do not carry out certain community investments, compared to previous investors in the pre-sanctions period extending to pre-Independence era.
It has been pointed out several times that former investors such as Rio Tinto and Anglo-America left schools and towns following their investments, something that observers claim is different with new Chinese investors.
The issue, though, is that Zimbabwe does not have laws and regulations that define corporate social responsibility programmes or investments.
The high cost of doing business in Zimbabwe already limit what can be done by investors in going out of their way to hand free lunches.
Regardless, Chinese companies have embarked on some of the biggest CSR initiatives in areas such as health, education, infrastructure, water and sanitation.
Chinese businessmen and women have at the same time become the biggest philanthropists in the country.
One stakeholder told this writer that Zimbabwe needs to perform due diligence regarding new investors, and to scrutinise their capacity before issuing licenses, while authorities must check the compliance with laws and regulations.
The “original sin”, it appears, is allowing non-suitable entities and individuals into business operations, endangering and complicating communities and national interests.
Corruption has become pervasive from government offices to traditional leaders whereby a few individual benefit while communities get nothing, at the cost of destruction of the biophysical and social environments.
Zimbabwean authorities need to put in place and implement measures that ensure benefits accrue to both the country and investors in an equitable fashion. Failure to do so is an indictictnent on the country and its governance mechanisms.
Raising standards in exctractive, industrial and beneficiation processes should also see the country manage impact of investments, including through requirements on technologies and processes that minimise negative impact.
China itself has more advanced technologies for mining and mineral beneficiation, for example, and these.could be harnessed for use locally.
Local stakeholders should rethink their priorities.
Economic realities demand that the country should benefit from its God-given resources, and reserve some for posterity.
This essentially, does not come from merely admiring beautiful mountains and landscapes that contain million years' worth of resources.
Something must be some to mine minerals in a sustainable manner and benefit the whole economy.
It may be stated without fear or favour that some of Zimbabwe's laws and regulation, which tend to be partial investors, were made during, and to massively benefit, the colonial era and have not been updted to ensure benefit to communities. Ironically, certain gaps and lacunae have been exploited by current investors.
The challenge is thus on authorities to act in the national interest and responsibly so; banishing corruption and greed and maximising common benefit, value and public good.
There is also need to engage and educate communities and investors about building fruitful relations ensuring win-win outcomes and shared benefits.
There is also need to treat investors equally, and particularly not profile certain groups.
If Zimbabwe is to benefit from foreign investments, it has to resolve inevitable contradictions and conundrums that attend to the developments, and this goes beyond focusing on the Chinese only.