Erongo Governor Nathalia /Goagoses deserves credit for saying aloud what too many Namibians have been reluctant to confront: there is a growing danger that vulnerable communities can be manipulated, divided and ultimately exploited in the name of investment.
This is not an argument against investment. Namibia desperately needs investment. We need mines, green hydrogen, infrastructure, tourism, agriculture, energy and other productive industries capable of creating jobs and expanding the economy. But investment cannot become a licence to exploit the desperation of communities that have limited economic power, limited access to technical expertise and little capacity to negotiate on equal terms with wealthy corporations and investors.
That is the pertinent point /Goagoses has raised.
When valuable natural resources are discovered in or around a community, the people living there suddenly find themselves at the centre of enormous commercial interests. Investors arrive with consultants, lawyers, environmental specialists and sophisticated proposals. Communities are often expected to understand complex agreements, environmental assessments, land arrangements, benefit-sharing mechanisms and long-term economic implications.
The imbalance is obvious.
A community struggling with unemployment, inadequate housing, poor roads, limited water and few economic opportunities can easily be persuaded by promises of immediate benefits. A donation of a few thousand dollars, a few jobs or a sponsorship can appear significant when people have so little. Yet the underlying question remains: what is the community receiving in relation to the value being extracted from its environment?
That is why the Governor’s criticism of token donations deserves serious consideration.
Corporate social responsibility should not become a public-relations exercise in which an investor gives a community a modest donation, takes photographs, issues a press release and presents itself as a development partner. If a project is expected to generate substantial economic value from a community’s natural resources, then the benefits to that community should be meaningful, measurable and sustainable.
The Governor’s example of desalination infrastructure in a water-stressed area such as Dâures is instructive. Instead of asking what small contribution can be made to a community, investors and government should ask what lasting infrastructure can transform that community.
Water infrastructure. Schools. Housing. Clinics. Roads. Skills development. Local procurement. Enterprise development. Equity participation. Training. These are investments that can continue benefiting people long after a particular construction phase or mining operation has ended.
The issue of consultation is equally important.
Too often, consultation is treated as a box to be ticked rather than a process through which communities can genuinely influence decisions. A meeting is held, presentations are made, attendance registers are signed and the project proceeds. But consultation without meaningful influence can become little more than procedural theatre.
Communities must have the ability to ask difficult questions, reject unacceptable proposals, negotiate benefits and obtain independent advice where necessary.
And importantly, they must not be divided.
The Governor’s warning against investors exploiting divisions within indigenous communities goes to the heart of the matter. Where communities are fragmented, their bargaining power is weakened. Different groups can be approached separately, competing interests encouraged and disagreements amplified. One faction may support a project because it has been promised jobs; another may oppose it because of environmental or cultural concerns. Before long, the community is fighting itself while the investor remains focused on the commercial objective.
This is precisely why legitimate community structures and custodians of communal land must be part of the process.
It does not mean every traditional leader, conservancy committee or community representative should automatically have the final word. Nor should communities be romanticised as homogeneous groups without internal disagreements. They are not. But those disagreements must be resolved transparently and fairly, not manipulated for commercial advantage.
The same principle applies to conservation and other economic activities.
Jimmy Areseb’s contribution to the dialogue reinforces this. Namibia should not necessarily have to choose between conservation, mining, small-scale economic activity and new industries. With proper planning, environmental safeguards and coordination, different activities can coexist. But that requires people on the ground to have a voice in determining how their resources are used.
The Governor is also right to question excessive centralisation.
A government official sitting in Windhoek cannot always understand the daily realities of a conservancy, rural community or resource-rich area hundreds of kilometres away. Decentralisation, accompanied by proper accountability and capacity, could give regional authorities greater ability to respond to problems before they become crises.
But there is an even bigger issue here: ownership.
Namibia must move beyond an economic model where communities are treated primarily as beneficiaries of somebody else’s investment. Where possible, communities should become participants in the economic value generated from their resources.
That could mean equity, royalties, procurement opportunities, local enterprises, skills transfer or legally enforceable community-development commitments. The precise model will differ from project to project. What matters is that the relationship must move from charity to partnership.
This is particularly urgent as Namibia enters an era of potentially enormous investment in oil, gas, green hydrogen, critical minerals and other natural resources.
We cannot repeat the mistakes of resource-rich countries where communities remain poor while extraordinary wealth is extracted from their surroundings.
Investors are welcome. Capital is welcome. Technology and expertise are welcome.
But Namibia must also welcome a new principle: our communities are not obstacles to development, nor are they markets for corporate generosity. They are stakeholders.
/Goagoses has therefore done the country a service by putting the issue squarely on the table. The question is no longer whether Namibia needs investment. We do.
The question is whether we can attract that investment without allowing desperate communities to be divided, patronised or exploited.
That is a question Namibia must answer before the next billion-dollar project arrives, not after the money has already left.
