Namibia cannot eat its scenery.
That may sound deliberately provocative, particularly in a country that has rightly built an international reputation for protecting its wildlife, landscapes and biodiversity. But it is an important reality as Namibia attempts to transform its economy, attract investment and create meaningful employment for a rapidly growing population.
Conservation is essential. But conservation cannot become a blanket veto against economic development.
National Planning Commission Director-General Dr Kaire Mbuende was therefore right to challenge the false choice between environmental protection and development. Namibia should not have to choose between protecting its natural heritage and building an economy capable of providing livelihoods for its people.
The question is not whether Namibia should develop. It must.
The question is how we develop, where we develop and what price we are prepared to pay for development.
This distinction is particularly important as Namibia positions itself for major investments in mining, green hydrogen, renewable energy, tourism and other emerging industries.
All of these activities carry environmental consequences. Some will inevitably take place in areas where sensitive ecosystems, wildlife and human economic interests overlap.
That does not mean development should automatically be stopped.
Nor does it mean environmental concerns should be ignored.
The dispute in the Kunene Region provides a useful illustration of the complexity involved.
Mining claim holder Timoteus Mashuna is embroiled in a dispute with communal conservancies, including Doro !Nawas and Uibasen Twyfelfontein, over mining activities in an area that is also important for conservation and tourism.
The conservancies have legitimate concerns about the potential impact of blasting and mining on endangered black rhinos and the tourism economy built around the area’s natural environment.
Those concerns deserve serious consideration.
Namibia cannot protect its wildlife on paper while allowing activities that ultimately destroy the very ecosystems upon which its conservation and tourism industries depend.
But there is an equally dangerous proposition: that once an area has been designated for conservation or tourism, all other forms of economic activity should effectively be excluded indefinitely.
That cannot be the basis of national economic policy either.
A mining claim cannot be treated as a licence to destroy an ecosystem. But a conservation designation should not automatically become a licence to exclude other Namibians from economic opportunity.
This is where government must earn its keep.
The state has a responsibility to establish clear, predictable and scientifically defensible rules that determine where development is permissible, where mitigation is required and where development must simply be prohibited.
Environmental impact assessments must therefore be more than bureaucratic paperwork. They must provide credible scientific answers about the consequences of proposed projects.
At the same time, environmental regulation must not become an instrument for protecting entrenched commercial interests from competition.
The investigation by the Namibian Competition Commission into alleged exclusive arrangements between conservancies and private tourism operators raises precisely this concern.
Conservation must benefit communities, but community empowerment cannot mean creating private economic fiefdoms where particular operators effectively control access to commercial opportunities.
The same principle applies to mining.
Namibia needs investment. It needs entrepreneurs. It needs tourism operators. It needs mining companies. It needs renewable-energy developers. And, above all, it needs Namibians to participate meaningfully in these opportunities.
That requires a regulatory framework that is simultaneously tough enough to protect the environment and fair enough to encourage investment and competition.
This is particularly urgent given Namibia’s green-transition ambitions.
Mbuende correctly argued that the green transition must extend beyond energy and ultimately become an industrial and employment transition.
This is an important distinction.
Namibia should not aspire merely to become a producer of green energy or a supplier of raw materials to industries elsewhere. The ambition must be to use our natural resources to build industries here, create jobs here and develop skills here.
Green hydrogen, for example, should not simply mean exporting electrons, molecules or commodities while Namibians remain spectators.
The same principle should apply to mining.
If Namibia is going to extract uranium, lithium, rare earths, oil, gas or other resources, the national conversation must increasingly move beyond extraction towards value addition, processing, manufacturing and local ownership.
But none of this gives industry a free pass.
The Strategic Environmental and Social Assessments being undertaken in the country’s green hydrogen valleys are therefore encouraging. Properly conducted, such assessments can provide a broader picture of cumulative environmental and social impacts rather than evaluating projects in isolation.
This is the kind of strategic planning Namibia desperately needs.
We should know before development begins which areas are environmentally too sensitive, which areas can accommodate responsible development and which areas require mitigation.
And when government says yes to a project, that approval must come with enforceable conditions.
Developers must be held accountable for rehabilitation, environmental monitoring and community commitments. Those who fail to comply must face meaningful consequences.
But government must also be prepared to say yes.
Too often in Namibia, development debates become trapped between two extremes: those who regard almost every investment proposal as inherently good and those who regard almost every environmental concern as sufficient reason to stop it.
Neither position serves the national interest.
Namibia’s natural environment is an economic asset. But so are its people.
The rhino is valuable. So is the young Namibian who needs a job.
The desert is valuable. So is the entrepreneur who wants to establish a business.
Tourism is valuable. So is mining.
Conservation is valuable. So is industrialisation.
Our responsibility is not to choose one over the other, but to build a system capable of accommodating legitimate interests without sacrificing the national interest.
That requires competent institutions, transparent decision-making, independent science and politicians willing to make difficult decisions.
It also requires something Namibia has often lacked: long-term planning.
We cannot keep dealing with development conflicts one court case, one environmental assessment and one political intervention at a time.
The country needs a coherent land-use and economic-development framework that tells investors, communities, conservationists and citizens where the boundaries are.
If an ecosystem is too fragile for development, we must have the courage to protect it.
If development can safely proceed, we must have the courage to allow it.
And if development can proceed only after mitigation, then those conditions must be enforced without fear or favour.
The false choice is not between conservation and development.
The real choice is between responsible development and irresponsible development.
Namibia needs the former.
We must protect the natural heritage that belongs to future generations. But we must also build an economy that gives today’s generation a future.
Conservation should protect Namibia’s future.
It must not become Namibia’s development veto.
