Sustainable development requires a careful balance among environmental protection, social equity, and economic progress. Historically, however, these three pillars have not been treated as equally important. Policymakers often viewed them as independent rather than interconnected goals.
For many countries, the prevailing belief was that environmental integrity and social justice could only be pursued after achieving sufficient economic prosperity. In other words, a nation had to become wealthy before it could meaningfully address environmental protection and social equality.
Before the year 2000, national progress was largely measured through gross domestic product (GDP) growth. However, between 2000 and 2015, the United Nations introduced the Millennium Development Goals, which expanded the global development agenda.
These goals incorporated poverty reduction, health, education, and environmental sustainability as key measures of progress. From 2015 onward, the Sustainable Development Goals further deepened this approach, placing even greater emphasis on social and environmental dimensions of development. A major milestone in global climate policy came in 2015 with the signing of the Paris Agreement by both developed and developing countries.
Climate change, once considered a peripheral environmental issue, began to be understood as a central challenge with far-reaching consequences for economic growth, poverty, and inequality. It is now widely regarded as one of the most significant policy challenges of our time.
Recent trends in climate analysis underscore the scale of the problem. In 2023, the Network of Central Banks and Supervisors for Greening the Financial System projected that the economic costs of climate change could triple by 2050. Meanwhile, some experts warn that global GDP could contract by as much as 50% between 2070 and 2090 if robust mitigation measures are not implemented.
Keep Reading
- AfDB cuts Zim’s growth projections to 3.5%
- Russia-Ukraine war and the Zimbabwe daily bread
- AfDB cuts Zim’s growth projections to 3.5%
- COP26 a washout? Don’t lose hope – here’s why
Global temperatures are projected to rise by between 2.6°C and 3.1°C above pre-industrial levels by the end of this century. Such increases are expected to disrupt how and where people live, with growing consequences over time. Climate change produces both physical and transitional impacts. Physical impacts include extreme weather events such as droughts, heatwaves, floods, storms, and unusual cold spells. These events affect natural ecosystems, infrastructure, and human livelihoods.
Transitional impacts arise from efforts to shift away from high greenhouse gas (GHG) emission activities toward more sustainable alternatives. This includes adopting renewable energy and cleaner technologies in production. While necessary, these transitions are often costly. They can lead to the closure of traditional industries and job losses, even as new opportunities emerge in green sectors.
Transitional measures also include adaptation strategies such as constructing climate-resilient infrastructure, improving worker safety during extreme weather, and promoting recycling and energy efficiency.
Predicting the precise impacts of climate change remains extremely challenging. Physical and social systems are deeply interconnected, meaning that a single climatic event can trigger cascading effects. For example, a drought does not only result in poor harvests.
It can also lead to increased food imports, placing pressure on foreign exchange reserves; exacerbate gender inequality, as women and girls may need to travel longer distances to access water; and worsen educational outcomes, particularly for children from vulnerable households. Similarly, transitional impacts are difficult to quantify. Current models and methodologies struggle to fully capture the complexity of climate change.
There is growing recognition that these tools often underestimate the physical damages caused by climate change while overestimating the costs of transition, failing to account for the long-term benefits of mitigation and adaptation. In essence, the costs may be overstated, while the benefits are understated.
Zimbabwe is particularly vulnerable to climate change due to its economic structure and environmental conditions. The country is rich in biodiversity. Key sectors include agriculture, tourism, and mining. At the same time, parts of Zimbabwe already experience water stress, making it more susceptible to climate variability.
The physical impacts of climate change in Zimbabwe include rising temperatures, reduced water availability, declining agricultural productivity, and shifting farming regions. There is also an increased risk of water-borne and vector-borne diseases such as malaria, dengue fever, and yellow fever, as well as non-communicable diseases linked to heat stress.
Extreme weather events, including floods and veld fires, threaten infrastructure and livelihoods. Beyond these immediate effects, climate change disrupts social and ecological systems. It can lead to displacement, destruction of homes, reduced ecosystem services, and negative impacts on mental health and occupational safety. These challenges collectively reduce national productivity and economic stability.
Over the long term, climate change has likely constrained Zimbabwe’s economic growth. Evidence from neighbouring South Africa suggests that climate change reduced GDP per capita growth by approximately 11% between 1961 and 2010.
Given the similarities in economic dependence on ecosystem services, Zimbabwe is likely experiencing comparable effects.
Ecosystem services — such as clean water, food production, oxygen, and climate regulation — are fundamental to economic activity. Disruptions to these systems can propagate throughout the economy, affecting employment, government revenues, exports, and overall welfare. Climate change also exacerbates inequality. It disproportionately affects vulnerable populations who lack financial resources, social safety nets, or access to adaptive tools. For instance, poor households face greater difficulty recovering from climate-related shocks such as damaged homes, lost income, or health crises.
Women and girls are often more exposed due to traditional roles, such as collecting water during periods of scarcity. Additionally, climate change can worsen educational outcomes, reinforcing existing inequalities.
This creates a vicious cycle: weakened social and economic resilience increases vulnerability to climate change, while climate change further erodes resilience.
Zimbabwe also faces significant transition risks. The country’s economy relies heavily on industries that produce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, major power stations, such as those in Hwange, depend on coal for electricity generation.
Coal remains central to Zimbabwe’s energy supply, and planned projects suggest continued reliance in the near future.
However, global efforts to reduce emissions pose challenges. Policies such as the European Union’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) aim to impose costs on imports produced using carbon-intensive methods.
While these measures apply globally, Zimbabwe’s dependence on fossil fuels makes it particularly vulnerable.
As a result, Zimbabwe risks losing competitiveness in international markets. Carbon-intensive exports could face higher costs or reduced demand. In extreme cases, assets such as coal infrastructure may become “stranded” if global demand declines. This could lead to reduced productivity, lower export earnings, and slower economic growth.
Addressing climate change requires an integrated approach. Treating environmental, social, and economic goals separately has proven ineffective, as it ignores the synergies between them and increases overall costs. Coordinated policies that align these objectives are essential for maximising national benefits.
At the same time, Zimbabwe must ground its strategies in local realities. A rapid and poorly planned transition to renewable energy could be economically disruptive. Experiences in countries such as Germany and the United Kingdom show that fast transitions can lead to high electricity costs and industrial relocation, particularly when renewable technologies are still expensive or inconsistent.
For Zimbabwe, expanding access to electricity remains a priority, as many households still lack reliable power. In the short term, cheaper energy sources such as coal may play a role in supporting economic growth and improving access. Over time, as renewable technologies become more affordable and efficient, they can be gradually integrated into the energy mix. International frameworks also provide support for developing countries. The United Nations recognises the principle of “Special and Differentiated Treatment” (S&DT), which acknowledges that developing nations have historically contributed less to global emissions. As such, they are afforded greater flexibility in their development pathways and may receive leniency in emissions targets and trade-related measures.
Zimbabwean policymakers must actively engage in international negotiations to ensure that the country is not unfairly penalised for its development needs. This includes advocating for fair treatment under mechanisms such as CBAM and securing support for sustainable development initiatives.
Finally, revenues generated from affordable energy sources should be strategically invested in climate adaptation. This includes supporting communities affected by climate change, developing sustainable water systems, and promoting resilient agricultural practices. Training programmes for climate-smart farming and livestock management can further strengthen resilience.
At this stage, prioritising adaptation alongside gradual mitigation appears to be a pragmatic approach for Zimbabwe. Importantly, these efforts should not be viewed as separate from economic and social goals, but as integral components of a comprehensive development strategy.
Kevin Tutani is a political economy analyst- tutanikevin@gmail.com