Online Reporter
Andile Tshuma, Features Writer
AT the height of the Covid-19 pandemic, Zimbabwe felt the rattle of the global alarm and understood something deeply: health emergencies do not always announce themselves in hospital wards. They may lurk in the shifting ecology between people, animal and nature. Against that backdrop, the launch of the National Public Health Institute (NPHI) in Bulawayo signals not just a new institution, but a pivot in how Zimbabwe sees health security. It is a moment when the fate of humans, livestock and the environment are intentionally woven into one surveillance and response architecture, the heart of the One Health approach.
At the official inception meeting, Health and Child Care Minister Dr Douglas Mombeshora stood before a gathering of national and provincial directors, researchers and partners and declared: “Establishing the Zimbabwe National Public Health Institute demonstrates foresight, leadership, and commitment to the health and security of our people. It signifies that we, as a nation, are not waiting for the next emergency; we are preparing, preventing and protecting.”
What that means in practical terms is a new platform where disease surveillance, laboratory systems, research and rapid response will converge under a single structure — the NPHI — designed to complement the work of the Ministry of Health and Child Care and pull together what was once scattered across multiple units. The institute is intended to improve co-ordination between central and provincial levels so that no public-health threat goes undetected or unmanaged.
This effort aligns Zimbabwe with continental ambitions. The Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention’s One Health programme outlines how health threats at the human-animal-environment interface require an integrated response — pointing out that zoonotic diseases, food-borne illness, antimicrobial resistance and climate-driven vector changes cannot be addressed in silos. Africa CDC states that a One Health approach is a “bedrock of health security” and essential to delivering effective disease surveillance, prevention and control across the continent.
Within Zimbabwe, the timing of this reform is critical. Disease threats are mounting. According to World Health Organisation country data, Zimbabwe’s most recent profile shows that major burdens include HIV/Aids, stroke, lower respiratory infections, ischaemic heart disease and diabetes mellitus.
Meanwhile, tuberculosis remains a challenge: in the 2023 WHO disease outlook for Zimbabwe, the estimated TB incidence in 2020 was 29 000 cases (181,3 per 100 000 people) with only about 55 percent of those diagnosed.
History shows that Zimbabwe’s weekly disease surveillance system (WDSS) has struggled in its early-warning role. A study of Makonde District in 2020 found that only 11 percent of health workers could correctly describe the system, only three percent had been trained in disease surveillance, 65 percent sent data on time, and only 46 percent of facilities used the data in meetings. The system was judged simple and acceptable, but unstable, untimely and not materially useful.
In that context, the NPHI’s promise is to turn fragmented data into actionable intelligence, to connect laboratory results, human‐health surveillance, animal health trends and environmental signals into one coherent architecture.
Dr Mombeshora noted: “The fund will also help operationalise the One Health approach, which brings together the Ministries of Health, Agriculture and Environment for a multi-sectoral response to health challenges.”
He added that the NPHI would link surveillance, laboratories and community health systems, “that linkage is what transforms data into action and saves lives.” Indeed, the European union (EU) has committed 4,2 million euros to support the institute’s establishment, a clear signal of partner confidence in Zimbabwe’s reform agenda.
Senior Public Health Advisor in the Office of the President and Cabinet, Dr Agnes Mahomva, described the launch of the institute as arriving at a critical juncture: “We have made great strides as a country, but our systems need to be more coherent.
The NPHI will turn our strategies and plans into measurable action, enabling us to detect, prevent, and respond to public-health threats more efficiently.”
But what does One Health mean in Zimbabwe? At its core, it means recognising that a cholera outbreak in a rural district, an anthrax spike among cattle, or the expansion of mosquito habitat due to a changing climate are all part of the same narrative.
According to a meta-analysis cited by Africa CDC, zoonotic disease outbreaks in Africa increased by 63 percent in the decade from 2012 to 2022, and some 85 percent of Public Health Emergencies of International Concern (PHEICs) are zoonotic.
In Zimbabwe’s rural areas, the interface is tangible. A farmer tending cattle at the edge of a communal grazing area might witness ticks moving from livestock to wildlife; water run-off from agricultural fields might carry pathogens into drinking sources; people, animals, and the environment are in constant interaction. A One Health-led approach means that when a veterinary officer records a spike in animal disease, that triggers collaboration with human health and environmental officers, all co-ordinated through the NPHI.
The institute’s design strengthens these linkages. Chief Director in the Ministry of Health and Child Care, Dr Raiva Simbi, emphasised that the NPHI “will not be a stand-alone entity but a co-ordinating mechanism that strengthens linkages within the health sector. It will also support capacity building, research and data management while working closely with institutions such as the University of Zimbabwe and the Zimbabwe College of Public Health Physicians.”
Training and capacity building are already underway. In May 2025, 16 veterinary epidemiologists from Zimbabwe participated in a national training in data analysis for animal disease surveillance, bio-informatics and risk assessment under the auspices of the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) FIRABioT project.
This signals that the institutional focus is not just on building structures but on strengthening the human platforms that drive them.
Part of the challenge the NPHI inherits is structural fragmentation. Zimbabwe’s disease surveillance architecture has worked, but with limitations. Over the years, the WDSS relied on manual reporting from rural clinics that often lacked functional telecommunication; in 2010, only 8.8 percent of rural health facilities had a functional fixed-line telephone, and only 11,3 percent had a functional VHF radio.
The NPHI will be expected to draw those old networks together and upgrade them in line with modern realities — mobile data, digital dashboards and integrated platforms.
As Zimbabwe operationalises the NPHI, the context of global health dynamics matters. The Food and Agriculture Organisation emphasises that human, animal, plant and environmental health are closely linked and interdependent. Africa CDC’s new zoonotic disease prevention and control strategy (2025-2029) sets practical goals: enhance surveillance, strengthen healthcare systems, promote research, innovation and foster cross-border collaboration.
For Zimbabwe, being aligned with continental frameworks matters. It means access to technical partnerships, research networks and regional intelligence. It means Zimbabwe is not alone in building its health architecture; it is part of a regional shift towards national institutions driving disease intelligence and prevention rather than reacting after the fact.
However, turning structure into impact will depend on addressing real-world challenges. Workforce capacity remains a pressing concern: training health workers, surveillance officers, veterinarians and environmental scientists to operate in multi-sectoral teams is not a quick fix. Funding sustainability remains uncertain. The initial EU investment is welcome but sustaining the institute will require domestic commitment and continued partner engagement. Data interoperability, laboratory networks, rural-reach and community engagement all remain hurdles.
One surveillance study in Zimbabwe found that while the system was simple and acceptable, only 31 percent of health workers sent timely data, and 46 percent of workers used data in meetings — showing that the biggest gaps were operational rather than theoretical.
Another tangible risk is the increasing threat of climate-driven vector changes. Zimbabwe has seen an uptick in malaria cases recently with data showing that malaria deaths had tripled in 2025 compared to the previous year, owing to funding cuts and supply disruptions.
While this is a broader health system challenge, it underscores the kinds of dynamic threats the NPHI must grapple with: rapid escalation, cross-sector drivers, and complex responses.
And data on Zimbabwe’s broader health burden remains sobering. According to WHO data, Zimbabwe’s adult diabetes prevalence is relatively low at 1.5 percent (about 106 500 adults for a total adult population of 8 306 700) though the challenge of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) is growing.
These figures help explain the strategic importance of the NPHI: it is not just about acute outbreaks, but about building a system that can handle chronic, epidemic-prone and emerging threats together; human, animal and environment. At village level, this means the farmworker, the local health clinic, the wildlife ranger, the water-point monitor and the provincial health director all feed into a network whose intelligence is aggregated, analysed and acted upon.
One Health also means the environment must be factored in. Poor sanitation, waste management, mining pollution, deforestation and changing land use all feed into disease dynamics. For Zimbabwe, repeated cholera outbreaks are a painful reminder: the WHO reported that environmental health workers, together with the Ministry of Health and Child Care, had achieved a significant decline in cholera cases in 2024 through expanded and decentralised response activities — but warned that “our work is far from over.”
For rural Zimbabwe, this is not academic. In communal farming areas such as Gwanda, Mwenezi, or Nkayi, livestock and humans often share water sources, fodder and grazing land; vector habitats change with climate; and when a livestock disease emerges, it may signal a human event. The NPHI’s promise is to link those dots.
But country voices emphasise that local ownership must power the system. At the NPHI launch, Dr Mombeshora urged provincial medical directors, city health departments and national agencies to “lend their full support… Your engagement will be the lifeblood of this institution as we translate national strategy into practical results across all provinces and cities.” The success of the institute, he said, depends on the lifeblood of local implementation.
So how will we measure success? Zimbabwe’s ambition can be tracked in several ways: faster detection to response timelines for zoonotic threats, increased data linkage across animal, human and environmental health sectors, improved laboratory sample sharing, expansion of surveillance coverage, growth in cross-sectoral research output, fewer outbreaks escalating into national emergencies; stronger community-based response networks; and ultimately better health outcomes and economic resilience.
The NPHI therefore becomes more than just a new organisational entity. It represents a philosophical shift: recognising that health is a shared ecosystem, that a country’s resilience rests on its ability to see across species and landscapes, to anticipate rather than simply react. It places Zimbabwe within a new generation of African nations building national health intelligence systems rooted in integration, locality and preparedness.
As Dr Mombeshora put it: “We are not waiting for the next emergency. We are building a resilient, coordinated system that can prevent the next outbreak before it starts.” If the NPHI succeeds, this will no longer be a slogan; it will become an everyday reality for Zimbabwe’s communities, health workers, farmers and environmental stewards alike.
In the coming months and years, the challenge will be implementation, funding, coordination and sustainability. But the launch of the NPHI and the embrace of the One Health approach signal that Zimbabwe is not just planning for the future, it is building it.
