The green economy meets the built environment: What Zimbabwe’s 2026 budget really means for sustainable development

By Dr Mike Juru

 

Zimbabwe’s 2026 National Budget and the Mid-Term Budget Review should not be viewed as separate fiscal statements.

 

The National Budget established Government’s economic direction, while the Mid-Term Review measures how far that vision has progressed.

 

Read together, they offer an important insight into the country’s commitment to sustainable development and, more importantly, whether Zimbabwe is beginning to build not just more infrastructure, but better infrastructure.

 

For the built environment, this distinction matters.

 

Buildings account for substantial energy consumption, water use and infrastructure investment. Every fiscal decision affecting transport, housing, energy, water and urban development ultimately influences how Zimbabwe’s cities grow and how competitive its economy becomes.

 

The real question, therefore, is not whether Government is spending on infrastructure, but whether that investment is creating assets that will remain productive, resilient and efficient for decades to come.

 

The encouraging news is that both fiscal statements demonstrate policy continuity. Infrastructure remains central to Government’s development strategy, with continued investment in roads, housing, water systems, electricity and public facilities.

 

Macroeconomic stability has also improved, creating a more predictable environment for long-term property investment. Lower inflation, greater exchange-rate stability and continued infrastructure spending provide stronger foundations for developers, investors and financial institutions.

 

However, stability alone does not guarantee transformation.

 

The budgets confirm that Zimbabwe is investing in infrastructure, but they stop short of establishing a comprehensive framework for sustainable infrastructure. There is an important difference between constructing more buildings and constructing buildings that are energy efficient, climate resilient, affordable to operate and capable of delivering long-term economic value.

 

This distinction is becoming increasingly important internationally. Investors no longer assess countries solely on economic growth or tax incentives. Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) performance, infrastructure resilience, energy security and climate adaptation increasingly influence investment decisions.

 

Sustainable buildings are therefore no longer viewed simply as environmental projects; they are recognised as stronger-performing economic assets capable of reducing operating costs, improving productivity and protecting long-term investment returns.

 

Zimbabwe’s fiscal direction acknowledges many of these principles but has yet to translate them into a coordinated green building strategy. While climate resilience and infrastructure development receive growing attention, there are still limited fiscal incentives encouraging developers to invest in energy-efficient buildings, renewable energy integration, water conservation or deep building retrofits.

 

In many cases, sustainability remains an aspiration rather than a measurable market requirement.

 

This represents one of the greatest missed opportunities emerging from the 2026 Budget framework.

 

Government is the country’s largest property developer through schools, hospitals, offices, housing and other public infrastructure.

 

Every public project presents an opportunity to demonstrate sustainable design, resource efficiency and climate resilience.

 

By embedding minimum environmental performance standards into public procurement, Government could stimulate demand for green construction materials, professional expertise and innovative technologies across the entire industry. Instead, the current approach continues to emphasise infrastructure delivery without placing equal emphasis on infrastructure performance.

 

The proposed Infrastructure Development Fund presents another important opportunity. Zimbabwe requires significant long-term capital to modernise national infrastructure, and the creation of dedicated financing mechanisms is therefore a positive development. However, financing infrastructure is not necessarily the same as financing sustainable infrastructure. Unless environmental performance, energy efficiency and climate resilience become explicit investment criteria, the Fund risks supporting conventional projects rather than accelerating Zimbabwe’s transition towards a green economy.

 

The opportunities for the private sector are equally significant.

 

Commercial property owners are under growing pressure to reduce operating costs while maintaining competitive rental levels.

 

Energy-efficient buildings, intelligent building management systems, solar energy and water-saving technologies are becoming commercial advantages rather than environmental luxuries. Industrial developments that improve energy security and resource efficiency are likely to attract greater investor interest, while residential developments that reduce household operating costs will become increasingly attractive in an environment where affordability extends beyond the purchase price of a home.

 

Professional service providers also stand to benefit. Architects, engineers, valuers, property managers, environmental consultants and financial institutions will encounter increasing demand for expertise in ESG reporting, lifecycle costing, climate-risk assessment, energy auditing and sustainable asset management.

 

Likewise, financial institutions have an opportunity to develop green mortgages, sustainability-linked loans and specialised financing products capable of supporting environmentally responsible developments while reducing long-term investment risk.

 

Yet opportunities alone will not guarantee success.

 

Zimbabwe continues to face structural challenges that could slow the transition towards a greener built environment. Municipal capacity remains inconsistent, planning approvals often experience delays and ageing infrastructure continues to constrain development in many urban centres.

 

Equally, the construction industry frequently evaluates projects according to initial capital cost rather than lifecycle performance, discouraging investment in technologies that reduce operating costs over the life of a building.

 

Sustainability also remains spread across multiple institutions without a single, integrated policy framework that aligns building regulations, planning legislation, environmental management and fiscal incentives.

 

These challenges do not diminish the progress reflected in the two budgets, but they do highlight the work that remains.

 

The next phase of policy reform should move beyond broad commitments towards measurable implementation. Fiscal incentives should encourage high-performance buildings. Public procurement should require minimum sustainability standards.

 

Financial institutions should expand green finance, while municipalities should strengthen planning systems and climate resilience.

 

Equally important, the private sector must stop treating sustainability as an optional feature and begin recognising it as an essential component of long-term competitiveness.

 

Ultimately, the greatest achievement of the 2026 National Budget and the Mid-Term Review is that they position sustainability closer to the centre of Zimbabwe’s economic agenda than at any point in recent years. Their greatest weakness is that they stop short of creating the policy architecture required to convert that vision into a fully functioning green building market.

 

Zimbabwe has therefore reached an important crossroads. It can continue measuring success by the quantity of infrastructure delivered, or it can begin measuring success by the quality, resilience and long-term performance of the assets it creates.

 

The latter approach will not only strengthen the built environment but also improve national competitiveness, attract investment and position sustainability as a driver of economic growth rather than simply an environmental ambition.

 

That is the opportunity now before Government, investors and the built environment profession, and it is one that should not be allowed to pass.

 

Dr Juru is a recognised and accomplished business leader who is the current Chairman of the Green Building Council Zimbabwe and CEO of Integrated Properties. His previous National leadership roles include Chairman of Institute of Directors Zimbabwe, President of Real Estate Institute of Zimbabwe, Chairman of the Valuers Council of Zimbabwe, inaugural Chairman of REITs Association, Vice President ZNCC. He has sat on several Boards in private and public sector. He leads passionately the transformation of Zimbabwe’s built environment to sustainability.