Staff Reporter
Harare—A decision by the Environmental Management Agency (EMA) to approve a commercial “eco-tourism” development on the Monavale Wetland in Harare has triggered formal appeals to government, reigniting scrutiny over how environmental laws are being applied in Zimbabwe’s capital.
The approval concerns the Ramsar-recognised wetland and has drawn sharp criticism from conservation groups and residents, who argue it sets a dangerous precedent for the protection of urban wetlands amid increasing development pressure.
The appeals now rest with the minister of Environment, Climate and Wildlife, who has the power to uphold or overturn the Environmental Impact Assessment certificate under licence number L10000127049.
At the centre of the dispute is the EIA certificate issued on 26 September 2025 to Milblue Investments (Private) Limited for a large-scale commercial project within Monavale Wetland.
Milblue Investments is involved in large-scale development projects, including retail and infrastructure initiatives
On 17 December 2025, the Conservation Society of Monavale (COSMO) Trust, George Makings and the Harare Wetlands Trust (HWT) lodged two separate formal appeals with the Minister of Environment, Climate and Wildlife under section 130(1) of the Environmental Management Act, seeking to have the certificate set aside.
Zimbabwe is a signatory to the Ramsar Convention on wetlands of international importance.
It has designated the Monavale wetland as a Ramsar site, recognising it for its ecological value and obligating its conservation.
Environmental groups argue that development within a Ramsar site raises serious legal and policy concerns, particularly in an urban context where wetlands play a critical role in water security and flood control.
Milblue Investments is cited in both appeals as the developer that obtained the EIA certificate.
The appeals do not disclose the company’s shareholding structure but describe it as the proponent of a commercial eco-tourism project.
The COSMO Trust petition identifies the City of Harare as the owner of the land, which it says leased the site to Milblue Investments, placing the local authority at the centre of the land transaction enabling the proposed development.
According COSMO Trust, the project includes a golf course, restaurant, administration building, spa and gym facilities.
Both appeals allege that proper procedure was not followed in the issuance of the EIA certificate.
HWT states that it did not receive formal notification from the EMA director general regarding the issuance of the EIA certificate, despite being an interested stakeholder.
The COSMO Trust appeal alleges that the certificate was issued on the basis of a flawed EIA report.
Both appeals name EMA, its director general, Milblue Investments and the City of Harare as respondents.
The COSMO petition insists that the EIA report is contradictory, indicating that some structures would be located outside the wetland while site plans show them inside it.
It further alleges that the report fails to clearly describe the nature and exact locations of project components, including the golf course, spa and gym, or how these will be constructed.
It also challenges the failure of the EIA report to provide reasons for selecting Monavale as the project site and justify the need for another golf course when others already exist nearby.
The appellants argue that the EIA failed to adequately assess hydrology, flooding and downstream impacts, despite Monavale’s role in feeding the Marimba River and Lake Chivero.
One section of the COSMO Trust appeal notes that the proposed development encroaches into approximately 1.6 hectares of a restored portion of the wetland that has been managed for more than two decades by the organisation and BirdLife Zimbabwe.
The complaint also warns of the risk to biodiversity, including interference with the movement of fauna such as the African clawless otter, an International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) red-listed species known to breed at the river confluence within the wetland.
The appellants say they are prepared to pursue further legal remedies if the minister dismisses their petitions.