MEPA’s technical committee says the Mulalo fertiliser project has addressed key environmental concerns, but final approval now rests with the authority’s board as Parliament orders a site inspection amid calls to fast-track local fertiliser production.

NEWS | Parliament | Industry | Edwin Mauluka

The fate of the Mulalo Granular Fertiliser Production Factory now rests with the Malawi Environment Protection Authority (MEPA) board after the project’s developers addressed environmental and technical concerns that had delayed its approval.

Minister of Natural Resources Patricia Wiskes told the National Assembly on Thursday that MEPA’s Technical Committee was satisfied the company had resolved the principal issues raised during its May 2026 review of the project’s Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA).

“Following the review, the Technical Committee of the MEPA Board met on 22 June 2026 and was satisfied that the principal environmental and technical concerns previously raised had been adequately addressed,” Wiskes said.

“The committee therefore referred the matter to the MEPA Board for consideration in accordance with the law.”

MEPA, which falls under the Ministry of Natural Resources, is responsible for issuing environmental clearance required for industrial manufacturing projects.

Wiskes delivered the ministerial statement a day after Speaker of the National Assembly Sameer Suleman directed the parliamentary committees on Agriculture, Trade and Investment, and Natural Resources to jointly inspect the proposed project site and report back to Parliament within seven days.

The project, owned by Malawian entrepreneur Napoleon Dzombe, has attracted public attention following delays in securing the environmental clearance required before production can begin.

Why the licence was delayed

Wiskes rejected claims that government had deliberately delayed the project, saying the hold-up resulted from the developer’s failure to submit a revised ESIA addressing environmental and public safety concerns identified during MEPA’s preliminary review.

She said the authority processed submissions within the timelines prescribed by law whenever the required documentation was received.

However, between July 2025 and March 2026, the developer did not submit responses addressing the issues raised by regulators.

“Without a revised submission, the authority could not legally proceed with the statutory technical review because there simply was no report before it for assessment,” Wiskes said.

The proposed manufacturing process involves hazardous materials and industrial by-products, including acid residues, contaminated sludge, phosphogypsum and industrial wastewater.

According to the minister, MEPA initially identified shortcomings in hazardous waste and wastewater management, occupational health and safety measures, project design, stakeholder consultations and land ownership documentation.

“The preliminary ESIA report did not adequately demonstrate how these hazardous materials would be quantified, treated, stored, transported, monitored or safely disposed of,” she said.

“It also lacked adequate emergency response measures for chemical spills and industrial accidents.”

The technical review also raised concerns over the handling of phosphogypsum, a highly acidic by-product that may contain heavy metals and naturally occurring radioactive materials.

Wiskes warned that inadequate management of such waste could expose nearby communities to serious environmental and public health risks.

“The technical advice before my ministry indicates that improper management of such hazardous chemical waste could result in contamination capable of causing cancer, kidney and liver damage, and reproductive disorders,” she said.

She stressed that compliance with the Environmental Management Act is mandatory for all developments, regardless of their economic significance.

“Environmental clearance is not a political decision. It is a legal and technical process undertaken by an independent regulator whose responsibility is to ensure that development proceeds without compromising public health, environmental sustainability and the rights and livelihoods of surrounding communities,” Wiskes said.

She added that environmental regulation was “not intended to frustrate investment” but to ensure development proceeds safely and responsibly.

The minister also pledged her ministry’s full cooperation with the parliamentary committee tasked with inspecting the project.

“We welcome the decision and stand ready to co-operate fully by providing all documentation, correspondence, timelines and technical information that the committee may require,” she said.

Parliament pushes for local fertiliser production

The issue was first raised in Parliament on Wednesday when Lilongwe Likuni MP Kelvin Mphande asked Agriculture Minister Roza Mbilizi why the government had not issued a licence to the investor despite Malawi’s dependence on imported fertiliser.

“The investor will employ more Malawians, pay taxes and the fertiliser will be cheaper,” Mphande said.

Responding, Mbilizi also attributed the delay to the developer’s failure to meet environmental and regulatory requirements.

She said although MEPA issued comments on the initial ESIA in July 2025, the revised report was only submitted in March 2026 — about nine months later and only after certification had been declined by the Malawi Bureau of Standards and the Smallholder Fertiliser Revolving Fund of Malawi because environmental clearance had not been obtained.

“The documented timeline clearly demonstrates that MEPA processed all submissions within the prescribed timelines and that significant delays arose from factors outside the authority’s control,” Mbilizi said.

She reaffirmed the government’s commitment to supporting local fertiliser manufacturing, describing it as critical to improving food security.

“The production of fertiliser will indeed advance our agenda in making sure that we have food security in this country,” she said.

Speaker urges support for investor

As debate continued, Speaker Sameer Suleman criticised what he described as bureaucratic obstacles that continue to frustrate investment.

“I’m talking from an informed view. I chaired the Agriculture Committee for six years and I know the agriculture sector in and out. Fertiliser is not a luxury. As government, we should have our own plant,” Suleman said.

While acknowledging that the investor may have fallen short of some regulatory requirements, Suleman argued that the government should assist rather than hinder the process.

“Maybe, being the first time, the investor needed guidance and government assistance,” he said.

He subsequently ruled that the three parliamentary committees should inspect the project within a week and report their findings to the House.

“This is not about politics. We need to go there and understand because this is a big investment. We need this factory to be up and running,” Suleman said.

He also urged politicians to avoid politicising the issue, warning that doing so could undermine investor confidence.

—

Also Read: Malawi’s broken system is blocking fertilizer production and healthcare reform