MPs demand answers on ethanol blending

ZIMBABWE'S mandatory ethanol-blending policy has come under renewed scrutiny in Parliament, with lawmakers questioning whether motorists are getting value from a fuel component they say costs more than imported petrol.

The debate exposed a divide between the Government's environmental and legal justification for mandatory blending and concerns from legislators over the economic impact on consumers.

Chinhoyi MP Engineer Leslie Mhangwa questioned the origins of the policy, saying lawmakers had raised concerns when mandatory blending was first introduced and presented evidence suggesting the approach was impractical.

"We had the same conversation with the government when this policy was first introduced, and we presented evidence showing that what the government wanted to do was not practical," Mhangwa said.

He questioned whether the Government had adopted the policy without sufficient research because other countries were pursuing similar approaches, only to reconsider it after public complaints.

The cost of ethanol then became a central issue, with Mbizo MP Corban Madzivanyika telling Parliament that locally produced ethanol costs about US$1.10 per litre, while petrol could be imported at a lower price.

"How is this practical, and how does this benefit Zimbabweans?" Madzivanyika asked.

Leader of Government Business in Parliament Ziyambi Ziyambi said the Government had never claimed that ethanol blending would make fuel cheaper.

"I never said fuel would be cheaper because we have blended it with ethanol," Ziyambi said.

He said the policy was primarily aimed at environmental protection.

"I said we are blending our petrol because we want to go green and protect the environment."

Ziyambi also clarified that he had not claimed blending would reduce fuel taxes or lower the price motorists pay at the pump.

Madzivanyika, however, returned to the issue of consumer benefit, questioning how motorists benefited from an environmental policy when the ethanol component was allegedly more expensive than petrol.

"So, if we are going green by blending petrol with ethanol, how does that benefit the public when ethanol is more expensive than petrol?" he asked.

Ziyambi responded that mandatory blending was provided for under Zimbabwean law.

"The laws of this country say that we blend our petrol, and it is as simple as that," he said.

Zimbabwe's mandatory blending programme dates back to 2013, when the Government introduced the blending of anhydrous ethanol with unleaded petrol. The initial blend was set at 10 percent, with the ratio subsequently adjusted depending on ethanol availability.

The regulations were tightened in 2024 through Statutory Instrument 150 of 2024, which amended the mandatory blending rules and required imported unleaded petrol to be blended with anhydrous ethanol.

The Zimbabwe Energy Regulatory Authority has since enforced the requirement, with all imported unleaded petrol subject to the blending mandate.

The Government has previously cited several objectives for the policy, including promoting domestic ethanol production, reducing reliance on imported petroleum products, conserving foreign currency and supporting environmental protection.

However, the parliamentary debate focused on whether those broader objectives justify the cost to motorists.

Mhangwa questioned whether adequate research had been conducted before the policy was introduced, while Madzivanyika challenged the economic rationale for requiring motorists to use ethanol when cheaper petrol could allegedly be imported.

The exchange highlighted a fundamental question over the policy: whether compliance with a legal and environmental objective is sufficient justification when consumers are concerned about the cost of the fuel they are required to purchase.

While the Government maintains that ethanol blending is necessary to support its environmental objectives and comply with existing regulations, lawmakers are demanding a clearer explanation of the direct economic benefits to Zimbabweans.