By Aldridge Dzvene
Zimbabwe’s drive towards inclusive economic transformation is increasingly bringing rural infrastructure into focus as a productive investment capable of creating businesses, expanding agricultural output and connecting underserved communities to wider markets, with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) calling for stronger partnerships to extend reliable energy, water and connectivity to the country’s villages, growth points and rural economic corridors.
In his article, “The Last Mile Is Good Business: Smart Infrastructure for Every Place in Zimbabwe,” UNDP Resident Representative Dr. Ayodele Odusola advances an economic argument that challenges the conventional treatment of rural infrastructure as primarily a social expenditure. Evidence from the Hakwata solar mini-grid in Chipinge and Gororo Irrigation Scheme in Chivi demonstrates how infrastructure can become the foundation for enterprise development, commercial agriculture, improved public services and stronger household incomes.
The significance of this approach lies in its connection between infrastructure provision and productive economic activity. Electricity, water and connectivity do more than improve living conditions. When properly designed and maintained, they lower operating barriers for businesses, enable farmers to produce beyond the limitations of rainfall, improve the delivery of essential services and create conditions for rural communities to participate more meaningfully in the national economy.
For Zimbabwe, where economic opportunities and infrastructure investment have historically been unevenly distributed between urban centres and remote communities, the question is no longer simply how to extend services to underserved areas. It is how to ensure that infrastructure generates sufficient economic activity to sustain local businesses, improve incomes and support long-term development.
The Hakwata solar mini-grid offers a practical illustration of this relationship. The 200-kilowatt installation in Chipinge supplies 85 households, 18 businesses, a school, a clinic and three community boreholes. Its significance extends beyond household electrification because it provides an energy platform on which several economic and social activities can operate simultaneously.
Among the clearest examples is Isaiah Mlambo Mahlathini, who returned from South Africa to establish a carpentry business in his home community. His experience illustrates how reliable electricity can influence decisions about where people live, invest their skills and establish livelihoods. Instead of viewing rural areas solely as places from which people must migrate in search of opportunity, infrastructure investment can help create conditions under which economic activity becomes viable closer to home.
This is an important consideration for Zimbabwe’s employment and enterprise development agenda. Small businesses frequently face multiple barriers, including unreliable power, high operating costs, limited access to equipment and restricted markets. In rural areas, these challenges can be compounded by long distances to suppliers and customers. Reliable electricity cannot eliminate every obstacle, but it can remove a major constraint and allow entrepreneurs to operate equipment, improve productivity and offer services that would otherwise be difficult to sustain.
The wider economic value of the Hakwata installation also lies in its shared infrastructure model. By supplying homes, businesses, public institutions and water facilities through one energy system, the project supports several interconnected activities rather than a single beneficiary. Electricity for a clinic can improve service delivery, while power for a school can support learning and administrative functions. Energy for businesses can stimulate production, and electricity for boreholes can strengthen access to water for households and productive use.
Such interconnected benefits are important when assessing the economic return on rural infrastructure. A project may not generate all its value through direct electricity sales. Some of its returns emerge through business activity, better access to essential services, improved productivity and the reduced costs associated with unreliable or inadequate infrastructure. Investment appraisal must therefore consider both the project’s financial sustainability and its wider economic and social benefits.
However, the presence of infrastructure alone does not guarantee that these benefits will materialise at scale. The Hakwata model’s long-term performance will depend on effective maintenance, appropriate tariffs, technical capacity, reliable equipment and sufficient demand from households and enterprises. The community must also be able to use the available electricity productively, with businesses having access to skills, finance, equipment and customers. These considerations determine whether an infrastructure installation becomes a durable economic asset rather than a facility whose potential remains underutilised.
Agriculture provides another compelling case for treating rural infrastructure as an investment in production. At Gororo Irrigation Scheme in Chivi, 72 farming families have harvested more than 68 tonnes of produce across three production cycles, generating over US$64,000 in revenue, according to the figures highlighted in the programme’s reporting.
The results demonstrate the potential of combining water infrastructure, energy and organised farming to reduce dependence on increasingly uncertain rainfall. In drought-prone areas, irrigation can help farmers plan production around market demand rather than relying exclusively on seasonal precipitation. This can support more consistent supply, improve the utilisation of agricultural land and provide households with an additional source of income.
The commercial implications extend beyond the farm. Regular production creates demand for transport, packaging, storage, processing and marketing services. As output increases, opportunities can emerge for traders and other enterprises that connect rural producers to larger markets. Irrigation can therefore help establish a wider chain of economic activity, provided that production is matched with market access and commercially viable arrangements.
The revenue generated at Gororo is a useful indicator of the scheme’s productive potential, but it should not be confused with net profit or household income. The full economic assessment would need to account for the costs of seeds, fertilisers, labour, irrigation, maintenance, transport and marketing, as well as the distribution of proceeds among participating families. Establishing these details would help determine the scheme’s profitability and identify the conditions required for replication elsewhere.
This distinction matters because sustainable rural development depends on more than harvesting larger volumes of produce. Farmers must be able to sell at viable prices, manage production costs, meet quality requirements and retain enough income to reinvest in the next production cycle. Infrastructure becomes commercially transformative when it enables a reliable and profitable enterprise, not merely when it increases physical output.
Zimbabwe’s wider agricultural development agenda can benefit from this integrated approach. Irrigation schemes require dependable water sources and energy, but they also need agronomic support, access to agricultural inputs, extension services, market information and links to buyers. Where production is intended for export, compliance with quality standards, traceability and delivery schedules becomes equally important. Investment in the infrastructure must therefore be accompanied by investment in the systems that convert production into sustainable income.
The experiences in Hakwata and Gororo also point to the importance of coordination between Government, development partners, communities and the private sector. Infrastructure projects often involve substantial upfront costs, while their benefits emerge over time. Public investment and development finance can help address gaps that make commercially important rural projects difficult to finance through private capital alone. Community participation can strengthen ownership, while private businesses can contribute technical expertise, operating models and links to markets.
The challenge is to develop financing arrangements that match the characteristics of each project. Some facilities may require public funding because their principal benefits are social, while others may support revenue-generating activities capable of attracting private investment. Blended financing, in which public or development funding helps address specific risks, may be appropriate for certain projects, but it requires transparent agreements, clear allocation of responsibilities and credible arrangements for long-term operation.
This is where the last-mile infrastructure argument becomes a question of economic planning. Extending services to a village or growth point should be accompanied by an assessment of the economic activities that infrastructure can support, the likely demand for those services and the institutions required to sustain them. Energy provision, irrigation development, road access, digital connectivity and market facilities should reinforce one another wherever possible.
Connectivity is particularly important because physical infrastructure increasingly depends on access to information and markets. Farmers need timely information about prices, weather and production methods, while small businesses require ways to reach customers, suppliers and financial services. Digital connectivity can help reduce information barriers, although its value depends on affordability, digital skills, network reliability and the availability of services relevant to rural users.
The broader policy implication is that rural infrastructure should be planned around economic corridors and productive clusters rather than isolated installations alone. Where a growth point has reliable power, water, transport access and connectivity, it can potentially support agro-processing, retail, repair services, storage facilities and other enterprises that serve surrounding communities. Such development can help distribute economic activity more widely while bringing services closer to rural populations.
Nevertheless, infrastructure-led rural transformation must be measured against concrete outcomes. The number of connections installed or hectares brought under irrigation provides useful information, but it does not reveal the full effect on household earnings, jobs, business survival or local production. Monitoring should therefore track whether enterprises expand, whether farmers achieve sustained net returns, whether services remain operational and whether communities can afford to use the infrastructure over time.
Maintenance is especially important. Rural infrastructure can lose its economic value when equipment breaks down, replacement parts are unavailable or no institution has the resources and responsibility to manage repairs. Long-term planning must incorporate maintenance budgets, technical training, local management arrangements and mechanisms for collecting and reinvesting revenue where appropriate. These elements should be designed into projects from the outset rather than treated as problems to resolve after commissioning.
The development partnership behind these initiatives also carries lessons for the financing of Zimbabwe’s wider infrastructure needs. The Hakwata mini-grid was developed through cooperation involving the Government of Zimbabwe, the United Kingdom and UNDP, with the Rural Electrification Fund and relevant public institutions contributing to implementation. Such partnerships can help mobilise finance and technical capacity, but their long-term success depends on national and community ownership, clear responsibilities and the ability to sustain services beyond the initial funding period.
For Government, the priority is to create a predictable environment in which rural infrastructure aligns with national development priorities and attracts appropriate forms of investment. For development partners, the task is to support projects that build lasting local capacity rather than leaving communities dependent on external assistance. For the private sector, the opportunity lies in identifying viable businesses that can emerge around improved infrastructure, from agricultural processing to energy services and rural logistics.
Communities themselves must remain active participants in identifying priorities and managing assets. Infrastructure is more likely to respond to local needs when residents, farmers and business owners have a meaningful role in planning and oversight. Their participation can also help identify barriers that may be overlooked by centralised planning, including affordability, access for vulnerable groups and the practical requirements of local enterprises.
Dr. Odusola’s central proposition is therefore broader than the extension of basic services. It is a call to recognise rural communities as productive participants in Zimbabwe’s economic transformation and to invest in the systems that allow their skills, land, enterprises and resources to generate greater value. Hakwata shows how energy can support entrepreneurship and essential services, while Gororo demonstrates how irrigation can help rural households participate in commercial agriculture.
The next stage is to establish how such successes can be replicated without losing sight of local conditions, operating costs and financial sustainability. That requires careful project selection, reliable data, coordinated planning and financing models that distinguish between social benefits and commercial returns. It also requires an understanding that no single infrastructure project can overcome all the constraints facing rural economies.
Zimbabwe’s last-mile infrastructure agenda will ultimately be judged by whether it changes the economic choices available to people outside major urban centres. If reliable power enables a carpenter to build a viable business, if irrigation allows farming families to generate consistent revenue, and if connectivity links rural producers to new customers, infrastructure begins to function as a platform for economic participation rather than simply a measure of service coverage.
The strategic opportunity is to make these outcomes repeatable. Extending smart infrastructure to villages, growth points and rural corridors can broaden the country’s productive base, but the returns will depend on connecting investment to enterprise development, market access, maintenance and accountable implementation. The central lesson from Hakwata and Gororo is that the last mile is not the end of the economic journey. Properly planned, it can be where new businesses begin, agricultural value chains expand and Zimbabwe’s development gains reach communities that have too often remained beyond the main centres of economic activity.
