The debate over informal trade in Dorado Park, and the wider question of informal markets across Namibia, requires a level of honesty that is often missing from public discourse.
On the one hand, informal trading is an essential part of the Namibian economy. Thousands of people depend on selling food, clothing, household goods and other products to survive. For many, informal trading is not a lifestyle choice but a response to unemployment, poverty and the absence of sufficient formal economic opportunities.
On the other hand, the existence of poverty cannot mean the suspension of public health, environmental standards, urban planning or basic order.
Namibia must be able to hold both truths at the same time.
The concern about the deteriorating appearance of some informal trading areas across the country is therefore not necessarily an attack on informal traders. It is a legitimate question about whether local authorities and national government have failed both traders and the public by allowing informal trading spaces to develop without sufficient planning, infrastructure, regulation and enforcement.
The number one rule of any area where food is prepared or sold should be hygiene.
Yet, in many informal trading areas, hygiene appears to have become an afterthought. There are markets where traders operate without adequate access to clean water, proper waste disposal, toilets, drainage or reliable systems for dealing with food waste. Makeshift structures are erected without any apparent uniformity or consideration for safety, sanitation or the surrounding environment.
The result is often a contradiction. People who are trying to earn an honest living are placed in environments that may expose them and their customers to unacceptable health risks.
This is not simply an aesthetic issue.
An informal market does not have to look like a shopping mall. It does not need expensive buildings, polished floors or elaborate architecture. But it must be clean, safe and properly managed. A market can be informal without being filthy. It can be affordable without being chaotic. It can be modest without becoming an eyesore.
The failure to make this distinction has created an unfortunate situation in which the public debate often becomes polarised. Those who raise concerns about the condition of some informal markets are accused of being anti-poor. Those who defend informal traders sometimes appear to suggest that any attempt to impose standards is an attack on livelihoods.
Both positions are wrong.
The poor deserve dignity. And dignity includes access to clean, safe and properly managed places in which to earn a living.
A food vendor should not be expected to sell meals next to overflowing rubbish bins, stagnant water or open sewage. Nor should a customer be expected to choose between supporting a small trader and protecting their own health.
The responsibility for this situation cannot be placed entirely on traders.
Local authorities have a duty to plan and manage urban spaces. If a municipality allows hundreds of traders to operate in an area, it must provide the basic infrastructure necessary for that activity. It cannot simply issue permits, collect fees or tolerate informal trade and then complain when the environment becomes unmanageable.
Equally, traders have responsibilities. A trading permit should not be regarded as a permanent exemption from the law. Vendors must comply with hygiene regulations, dispose of waste responsibly, maintain their structures and respect the public environment.
There must also be consequences for non-compliance.
The absence of enforcement is ultimately unfair to those traders who do follow the rules. A vendor who invests time and money in maintaining a clean stall should not be placed at a competitive disadvantage against someone who dumps waste indiscriminately or operates in unsafe conditions.
The same principle applies to the structures themselves. Informal does not mean anything goes.
There is a need for a national conversation about the design and management of informal markets. Namibia should not be forced to choose between informal trading and orderly cities. Other countries have demonstrated that informal markets can be vibrant, attractive and economically productive while still retaining their informal character.
The solution may include standardised, low-cost stalls; designated trading areas; access to water and sanitation; regular waste collection; proper drainage; food safety inspections; and transparent, affordable licensing systems.
Authorities should also consider involving traders in the design of these spaces. A market designed without the input of those who work there is unlikely to succeed. Trader associations should have a voice, but they must also accept collective responsibility for the cleanliness and reputation of their markets.
The response to the current situation must therefore not be arbitrary crackdowns or sudden bans.
If authorities believe a market is unsafe or unsanitary, they must explain why, provide reasonable notice, engage affected traders and offer practical alternatives where possible. Enforcement must be lawful, consistent and applied fairly.
But consultation cannot become an excuse for permanent inaction.
Namibia’s informal economy is too important to be left to neglect. Informal traders deserve better than makeshift spaces without water, sanitation and protection. Consumers deserve better than markets where hygiene is uncertain. Cities deserve better than unmanaged trading areas that gradually deteriorate into public health and environmental problems.
The central question is not whether informal trading should exist. It must exist.
The question is whether Namibia is prepared to govern it properly.
The answer should be yes.
A country that takes its informal economy seriously must also take the conditions under which informal traders work seriously. There is no dignity in allowing people to trade in unhealthy conditions. There is no empowerment in permitting a market to deteriorate until the only solution appears to be eviction.
The time has come for a more mature approach: protect livelihoods, but enforce standards. Support informal traders, but demand responsibility. Provide infrastructure, but insist on cleanliness.
Informal trade may be informal.
Governance cannot be.
