The country has talked about beneficiation and value addition for decades. What Namibia now needs is not another slogan, but a reimagined industrial policy that connects resources, finance, energy, trade, procurement, skills and markets into one national economic project.
There is a question Namibia needs to ask itself with considerably more honesty than it has done in the past: Are we actually serious about industrialisation?
For more than three decades, industrialisation has been one of those words that appears regularly in presidential speeches, national development plans, economic conferences, political manifestos and ministerial statements.
We speak about beneficiation.
We speak about value addition.
We speak about manufacturing.
We speak about local content.
We speak about economic diversification.
We speak about moving from being an exporter of raw materials to an exporter of finished products.
And yet, for all the speeches, Namibia remains overwhelmingly dependent on an economy in which minerals and other primary commodities occupy an outsized role.
The problem is not that Namibia has no industrial activity. There are manufacturers, processors, engineering companies, food producers, construction-material businesses, pharmaceutical initiatives, emerging green industries and other productive enterprises.
The problem is that these activities have not yet been assembled into the industrial economy Namibia has been promising itself since independence.
Indeed, the government’s own ministry of industries, mines and energy describes its vision as creating a dynamic and sustainable industrial-based economy deriving value from Namibia’s natural resources for the benefit of all Namibians.
That is an admirable ambition.
But it also raises the uncomfortable question: What has prevented us from getting there?
The unfinished promise of Vision 2030
In 2004, Namibia adopted Vision 2030, which envisaged the country becoming an industrialised nation by that year.
We are now four years away from 2030.
And even the language surrounding the deadline has changed.
The old ambition was to become an industrialised country.
The current language is increasingly about industrialisation, economic transformation, value addition and beneficiation.
There is nothing wrong with adapting policy.
But Namibia should not quietly move the goalposts without asking why the original objective was not achieved.
The former Development Bank of Namibia chief executive John Steytler and Economist has been associated with this question for years.
An earlier industrial policy aimed for manufacturing and services to account for about 80% of GDP over the long term, an indication of just how transformative Namibia once imagined its industrial agenda would be.
Two decades later, we are still discussing the fundamentals.
This should worry us.
Because industrialisation is not a luxury that Namibia can pursue once everything else is sorted out.
Industrialisation is how a country sorts things out.
A mining country cannot simply remain a mining country
Namibia’s mineral wealth is extraordinary.
Uranium.
Diamonds.
Copper.
Zinc.
Gold.
Lithium.
Manganese.
Rare earth elements.
And now oil and gas.
The country is also positioning itself around green hydrogen and green industrialisation. But extracting a mineral is only the beginning of the economic story.
The real question is what happens after extraction.
If Namibia digs up a mineral, ships it abroad and buys back a sophisticated product made from that mineral at many times the original value, then we have participated in the value chain without capturing enough of it.
That is the essence of beneficiation.
And this is precisely what President Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah has been arguing.
At Rössing Uranium, she said Namibia’s natural resources must become the foundation of an industrial and manufacturing base.
Her message was unusually direct: “It shall not be business as usual.” She described beneficiation as a catalyst for economic transformation and youth employment.
At the International Workers’ Day commemoration, she put the problem even more plainly.
“Namibia is blessed with abundant renewable and non-renewable resources, which we must seize through value-addition,” she said, warning that continuing to export raw materials without processing them leaves the country’s potential for employment and development unrealised.
This is the right diagnosis.
But diagnosis is not treatment.
Industrialisation cannot be the responsibility of one ministry
Here is where Namibia’s current institutional arrangement becomes interesting – and potentially problematic.
Until 2025, Namibia had a ministry of international relations and trade. The restructuring of its government separated those functions.
Today, industrial development sits within the ministry of industries, mines and energy, while international trade sits with the ministry of international relations and trade.
On paper, this can work.
In practice, however, industrial policy and trade policy are inseparable.
You cannot decide what Namibia should manufacture without knowing where those products will be sold.
You cannot develop export industries without trade negotiations.
You cannot protect infant industries without understanding tariff schedules.
You cannot negotiate market access without knowing what domestic producers are capable of supplying.
You cannot attract an investor to establish a factory without ensuring that the resulting products have access to regional and international markets.
And you cannot promote Namibian exports abroad while the domestic economy remains unable to produce at competitive scale.
So why are industrial policy and international trade policy sitting in different institutional homes?
The answer need not be to merge ministries again.
But it does require one industrialisation command structure.
There should be an inter-ministerial industrialisation council chaired at the highest political level, bringing together industries, international trade, finance, mines, energy, agriculture, fisheries, works, higher education, NIPDB and the private sector.
Industrialisation should not be a ministry’s programme.
It should be a national economic project.
The ministry itself is telling us what the problem is
Interestingly, the government appears to recognise the institutional and policy challenge
The ministry of industries, mines and energy has initiated a review of Namibia’s Industrial Policy and its implementation strategy.
That is potentially one of the most important economic policy exercises currently underway.
And it should not become another report that is launched, applauded and shelved.
The ministry itself says its Industrial Development Directorate is responsible for developing and coordinating industrial policy, identifying resource-based industrial opportunities, supporting MSMEs, facilitating industrial infrastructure and promoting manufacturing and diversification.
This is precisely the right mandate.
But Namibia needs to ask whether the institutional machinery has been sufficiently powerful, financed and coordinated to deliver it.
Because industrialisation does not happen simply because there is an Industrial Development Directorate.
We need to stop confusing beneficiation with industrialisation
There is another conceptual problem.
Namibia sometimes talks about beneficiation as though building one processing plant constitutes industrialisation.
It does not.
A refinery can be beneficial.
A cutting and polishing factory can be beneficial.
A mineral-processing plant can be beneficial.
But industrialisation is much bigger.
It is about building an ecosystem.
If Namibia produces manganese, for example, the industrial question is not merely whether manganese can be processed locally.
It is whether Namibia can develop companies that provide machinery, engineering, chemicals, maintenance, transport, logistics, laboratory services, software, professional services, packaging and downstream manufacturing around that industry.
The mine should become an industrial anchor.
The same applies to uranium, oil and gas, fishing, agriculture and green hydrogen.
That is the industrialisation Namibia should be pursuing.
Oil could either industrialise Namibia or expose our failure
The discovery of oil makes this discussion urgent.
Namibia is expected to become an oil producer, potentially by the end of the decade.
The easy option is to export crude.
The harder option is to use oil and gas to create an industrial ecosystem.
President Nandi-Ndaitwah has repeatedly indicated that Namibia wants the latter.
At the Namibia International Energy Conference, she spoke of local content, technology transfer, skills development, downstream capacity and infrastructure such as a refinery.
She described value addition and beneficiation as central to the country’s energy strategy.
That is precisely the thinking Namibia needs.
The oil industry should not simply create a handful of highly paid jobs and enormous export receipts while Namibian businesses remain spectators.
It should create fabrication companies.
Marine services.
Engineering firms.
Chemical industries.
Industrial maintenance companies.
Specialised logistics.
Environmental services.
Data and technology businesses.
Training institutions.
Research centres.
Financial services.
Manufacturing.
And eventually, downstream energy products.
If the oil boom arrives and Namibia simply becomes a better-paid raw-material exporter, then we will have missed perhaps the greatest industrial opportunity since independence.
Energy is the industrialisation policy
There is another reason the current ministry of industries, mines and energy arrangement is potentially powerful.
Energy determines industrial competitiveness.
Factories cannot operate reliably without electricity.
Mining cannot expand without power.
Cold storage cannot function without electricity.
Data centres cannot operate without electricity.
Green hydrogen cannot exist without vast quantities of renewable energy.
Industrialisation therefore requires Namibia to think about energy not simply as a utility but as an industrial input.
The ministry itself recognises that reliable and affordable energy supply is required to support industrial development.
This is where Namibia’s renewable-energy potential becomes economically significant.
Cheap, reliable energy could become one of Namibia’s greatest competitive advantages.
But “green” alone is not enough.
The objective must be cheap green energy feeding productive industries.
If we produce cheap renewable electricity only to export electrons, hydrogen or green molecules, while Namibian factories continue to struggle with high production costs, we will once again have missed the industrial opportunity.
John Steytler’s warning is worth remembering
Business and economic voices have been making this argument for years.
Steytler has argued that SMEs must become an engine of Namibia’s economy, with stronger manufacturing capacity ultimately linked to the country’s industrialisation ambitions.
That is an important point because industrialisation is often imagined as giant factories owned by multinational corporations.
It should not be.
Namibia needs multinational investors.
But it also needs Namibian industrialists.
The country needs people who own factories.
People who manufacture equipment.
People who process agricultural products.
People who make building materials.
People who produce pharmaceuticals.
People who manufacture components for mines.
People who build technology businesses.
People who export.
The ministry of industries, mines and energy already operates equipment-aid and group-purchasing schemes for MSMEs and provides assistance for feasibility studies and industrial infrastructure.
But the scale of ambition needs to change.
The objective should be to deliberately create 100, 200 or 500 serious Namibian industrial companies over the next decade.
Not thousands of survivalist businesses.
Industrial companies.
Businesses with factories.
Employees.
Export contracts.
Technology.
Intellectual property.
Balance sheets.
And the ability to compete outside Namibia.
Government procurement should become an industrial weapon
One of the biggest industrial policy tools Namibia already possesses is government procurement.
The government is one of the country’s largest buyers.
It buys food.
Furniture.
Uniforms.
Vehicles.
Construction materials.
Medical supplies.
IT equipment.
Pharmaceuticals.
Engineering services.
Infrastructure.
If the government buys everything from the cheapest international supplier, it may save money on an individual tender.
But it can simultaneously destroy the possibility of building domestic production capacity.
That is why local procurement policy matters.
President Nandi-Ndaitwah’s recent programme on youth unemployment identifies effective implementation of procurement and local content, as well as agro-based value chains and value addition, among the key recommendations for addressing youth unemployment.
This is exactly where industrial policy and procurement should meet.
The government should establish clear, measurable domestic-production targets.
Not protection forever.
Not cronyism.
Not politically connected tenderpreneurs.
But strategic market creation.
If Namibia wants a pharmaceutical industry, the government must create predictable demand.
If Namibia wants food processing, public institutions should procure locally produced food where it meets standards.
If Namibia wants engineering companies, mining and energy projects should contain meaningful local procurement obligations.
If Namibia wants furniture manufacturers, public procurement should support local producers capable of meeting quality and price requirements.
Industrialisation needs customers.
The government can help create the first customers.
Trade should become the export arm of industrial policy
This is why the ministry of international relations and trade becomes so important.
The ministry’s mandate includes trade and investment promotion.
But trade promotion should not mean simply putting Namibian businesses on planes and taking them to international expos.
It should begin with a question:
What does Namibia want to sell to the world?
Then the trade ministry should work backwards.
Which markets need it?
What tariffs apply?
What standards are required?
What logistics are needed?
What trade agreements can help?
What diplomatic relationships can unlock?
What financing is available?
What production capacity must Namibia build?
That is industrial diplomacy.
Namibia has an enormous potential advantage through SADC and the African Continental Free Trade Area.
The domestic market of three million people is small.
But the Namibian market does not have to be the market for Namibian industry.
Namibia should be the production base for a much larger African market.
The Chinese lesson
President Nandi-Ndaitwah’s recent state visit to China offers another opportunity to think differently.
China and Namibia have deepened cooperation around green minerals, infrastructure and economic development, with both sides emphasising local processing, technology transfer and skills development.
The relationship should therefore not be judged only by how much Chinese capital enters Namibia.
The better question is:
How much productive capacity remains in Namibia after the Chinese investor leaves?
How many Namibian engineers were trained?
How many Namibian suppliers were developed?
How many Namibian companies entered the supply chain?
How much technology was transferred?
How much processing happens here?
How many products are manufactured here?
How many Namibian companies become exporters?
That is the language of industrialisation.
We need an industrialisation bargain
Namibia should now develop what might be called an Industrialisation Compact between the government and business.
Government provides:
Infrastructure.
Affordable and reliable energy.
Industrial land.
Development finance.
Targeted incentives.
Skills development.
Strategic procurement.
Trade access.
Policy certainty.
Business provides:
Investment.
Technology.
Training.
Productivity.
Exports.
Jobs.
Local supply chains.
And both sides agree on measurable targets.
This would also make Namibia’s investment policy more sophisticated.
We should stop measuring success primarily by how many billions of dollars of foreign investment have been announced.
The better question is what those billions produce.
A $1 billion investment that creates a few hundred jobs and exports raw material may be less transformative than a $300 million investment that creates a manufacturing ecosystem employing thousands and developing hundreds of local suppliers.
Industrialisation cannot be everywhere
A reimagined policy must also be realistic.
Namibia cannot manufacture everything.
We should not attempt to compete with China in mass-produced consumer electronics.
We should not manufacture products simply because we can.
We need to identify areas where Namibia has resource advantages, energy advantages, geographic advantages or market advantages.
These could include:
- mineral beneficiation and metals;
- uranium-related services and processing;
- oil and gas services;
- green iron and green steel;
- green hydrogen derivatives;
- renewable-energy equipment and services;
- food processing;
- meat and leather;
- fisheries processing;
- pharmaceuticals and medical consumables;
- construction materials;
- chemicals;
- logistics and maritime services;
- specialised mining equipment and engineering;
- digital services and technology.
The country has already demonstrated that this is possible.
The HyIron Oshivela project, for example, represents precisely the kind of value-addition ambition Namibia should be pursuing: using renewable energy and local resources to produce industrial products rather than simply exporting raw material.
And the emerging sulphuric-acid industry demonstrates another principle: once Namibia develops enough mineral processing, industries that previously seemed unrelated suddenly become economically viable.
That is what an industrial ecosystem looks like.
One industry creates another.
This time, let the policy be different
Namibia is now reviewing its Industrial Policy.
That is an opportunity that should not be wasted.
The country does not need another glossy document filled with noble objectives.
It needs an industrial policy that answers brutally practical questions.
What will Namibia manufacture?
For whom?
At what cost?
With what energy?
Using which raw materials?
Financed by whom?
Using which skills?
Transported through which corridor?
Sold into which market?
And how many Namibians will own part of the value chain?
The answers should be measurable.
If Namibia says it wants beneficiation, give the country a target.
If we want manufacturing, measure manufacturing’s contribution to GDP.
If we want exports, measure manufactured exports.
If we want local ownership, measure local procurement and local equity.
If we want jobs, measure industrial jobs.
If we want technology transfer, measure the number of Namibians trained and companies upgraded.
And if the targets are not met, the government should be prepared to admit that the policy is failing.
The time for speeches is over
President Nandi-Ndaitwah has repeatedly said that Namibia cannot continue exporting raw materials while importing the products made from them.
The NDP6 has placed economic diversification, structural transformation and high-value production at the centre of the country’s development strategy.
Even the private sector and development-finance community are increasingly framing industrialisation around infrastructure, energy, entrepreneurship, development finance and regional markets.
The pieces are therefore on the table.
What has been missing is the architecture.
Namibia does not need to abandon mining.
It needs to industrialise because of mining.
It does not need to abandon agriculture.
It needs to industrialise through agriculture.
It does not need to fear oil.
It needs to use oil and gas as a bridge to industrial capability.
It does not need to choose between green energy and industrialisation.
It should use green energy as one of the foundations of a new industrial economy.
And it does not need to choose between foreign investors and Namibian businesses.
It needs foreign investors to help create Namibian businesses capable of standing on their own.
That is the difference between an economy that has resources and an economy that turns resources into prosperity.
Namibia has spent 36 years talking about industrialisation.
Now the country is reviewing its Industrial Policy.
This is the moment to be honest.
If the same policy produces the same results, changing the document will achieve very little.
What Namibia needs is not merely a new Industrial Policy.
It needs a new industrialisation philosophy.
One that treats mines as the beginning of value chains rather than the end.
One that treats energy as an industrial input rather than merely a utility.
One that treats procurement as an instrument of economic development.
One that treats trade diplomacy as an extension of industrial policy.
One that treats Namibian entrepreneurs as industrial partners rather than beneficiaries of small-business programmes.
And one that measures success not by how many conferences we hold or how many memoranda we sign, but by a much simpler question:
What does Namibia actually make?
Because countries become industrialised when they make things that the world wants to buy.
And Namibia has spent long enough talking about becoming that country. It is time to start making it.
