Online Reporter
Toothpicks, cotton buds, chewing gum, eyebrows, eyelashes, wigs, tissue paper and other “nothings” amount to something when one considers their hefty weighting on the country’s import bill.
Zimbabwe spends more than US$200 million annually importing tissue paper. Between 2021 and 2025, we spent US$43,6 million importing beauty makeup and skincare products and US$20 million on toothpaste and related dental products, US$22 million on eyebrows and eyelashes, US$8,5 million on human hair and wigs, US$3,2 million on bath salts and nearly US$2 million each on sunscreen and shower gels.
In total, the economy imports an estimated US$4,5 billion worth of goods yearly that local industries can manufacture. For a country striving to reindustrialise, create jobs and preserve scarce foreign currency, continuing to spend billions of dollars on products that can be produced domestically is economically unsustainable.
Every dollar spent importing such goods represents an opportunity lost for local factories, workers, suppliers and entrepreneurs.
We, however, must note that import substitution is not about closing the economy from foreign products or discouraging trade. It is about ensuring that Zimbabwe produces locally what it can competitively manufacture while reserving foreign currency for strategic imports such as machinery, technology, specialised equipment and raw materials that are not available domestically.
The continued importation of products such as tissue paper and pharmaceuticals, despite the country’s capacity to manufacture them, highlights the need for a stronger policy framework. Foreign currency remains one of Zimbabwe’s most constrained resources. Reducing unnecessary imports would help ease pressure on reserves, improve the balance of payments and strengthen economic resilience.
As we reported yesterday, the proposed Local Content Act has the potential to stimulate investment across manufacturing value chains. Increased local production would create employment opportunities, support small and medium-sized enterprises and encourage technology transfer. It would also deepen linkages between agriculture, mining and manufacturing, helping to build a more diversified economy.
That will enable the economy to save US$4,5 billion, which is being spent on goods that the local industry can produce.
However, legislation alone will not be enough. Local producers must be competitive in terms of price, quality and reliability. Businesses will require access to affordable financing, modern machinery, stable power supplies and efficient transport infrastructure. Without addressing these constraints, import restrictions could result in shortages or higher prices for consumers.
The Government’s approach should therefore strike a careful balance between protecting local industry and promoting competitiveness. Incentives for compliant companies, investment in industrial capacity and transparent implementation of local content requirements will be critical.
If properly executed, the Local Content Act could become a cornerstone of Zimbabwe’s industrialisation agenda, helping transform the country from a net importer of consumer goods into a producer capable of meeting domestic demand and competing in regional markets.
