EDITORIAL
For decades, Namibia’s political speeches and policy documents have been filled with promises of economic emancipation.
Slogans such as “Growth at Home” and “Vision 2030” have presented the vision of a modern, self-sustaining economy.
Yet a walk through any major supermarket in Windhoek tells a different story. From bottled water and packaged chicken to wooden toothpicks, imported goods dominate many everyday consumer markets.
This raises a fundamental question: if Namibia is serious about industrialisation, why does it still rely so heavily on other countries for basic consumer goods?
The latest trade statistics from the Namibia Statistics Agency point to a persistent trade imbalance. For the first eight months of 2026, Namibia’s trade deficit widened to N$29.6 billion, with imports exceeding exports despite strong mineral earnings. In August alone, the deficit stood at N$3.9 billion.
Namibia spent N$53.4 million importing chicken in August. This is difficult to reconcile with the country’s ambitions to expand domestic production and create jobs.
Chicken is one of the most accessible sources of protein for many Namibians. Local producers, including Namib Poultry Industries, have expanded domestic slaughtering capacity. Yet the country continues to import frozen poultry from Brazil, the United States, Poland and South Africa.
The problem extends beyond poultry. Recent agronomy and horticulture assessments indicate that up to 96% of the fruit consumed in Namibia is imported.
A country that struggles to supply its own basic food requirements remains vulnerable to international price shocks, supply chain disruptions and currency fluctuations. It also misses opportunities to create jobs across farming, processing, packaging and distribution.
The situation becomes even more troubling when one considers products such as bottled water and toothpicks. These are not sophisticated industrial products that require advanced technology or highly complex manufacturing systems. They represent opportunities to build local production capacity, support entrepreneurs and develop small-scale industries.
Yet foreign brands dominate many retail and hospitality markets, while local entrepreneurs face barriers such as limited access to capital, specialised machinery and high transport costs. Small businesses also struggle to compete with established importers and large wholesalers.
This exposes the gap between Namibia’s industrialisation ambitions and the realities facing local enterprises. It is not enough to encourage entrepreneurship in policy documents while businesses struggle to secure the financing, equipment and market access needed to produce competitively.
Industrialisation does not begin only with automobile assembly plants, pharmaceutical factories or other high-tech industries. It also begins with products that Namibians use every day. Building capacity to produce bottled water, poultry products, fruit, toothpicks and packaging materials may appear modest, but these industries can support wider manufacturing and create opportunities for small businesses.
The economic cost of import dependence is particularly serious in a country struggling with high unemployment. Every product that could be made locally but is instead imported represents a potential opportunity for domestic investment, production and employment.
Local poultry production, for example, requires more than slaughtering facilities. It creates demand for animal feed, hatcheries, transport, packaging and distribution. Commercial fruit production can support irrigation, storage, processing and retail supply chains. Even basic manufacturing can create technical and logistical jobs.
When Namibia spends heavily on imported consumer goods, it supports production and employment elsewhere while domestic businesses struggle to grow. An economy that exports raw minerals but imports many of its everyday products risks remaining dependent on external producers, with limited opportunities to spread economic benefits across the population.
Reversing this trend requires more than another industrialisation strategy. It requires practical measures that make local production viable and competitive.
The government should use public procurement to support Namibian-produced goods where local supply is available and meets the required standards. Schools, hospitals and other public institutions can provide reliable markets for domestic producers. Financial institutions should also be encouraged to offer affordable, long-term financing to businesses investing in manufacturing, processing and packaging.
Existing measures, including the Poultry Market Share Promotion Scheme, show that targeted intervention can be used to encourage local production. Similar efforts should be considered in other sectors where domestic producers have the capacity to supply the market.
However, local production must also be competitive in price, quality and reliability. Industrialisation cannot succeed through slogans or protection alone. It requires investment, skills, efficient infrastructure and policies that help businesses grow without placing an unnecessary burden on consumers.
Ultimately, “Made in Namibia” must become more than a slogan used during trade fairs and political speeches. It must reflect a genuine shift towards producing more of what the country consumes.
Namibia cannot claim meaningful progress towards economic independence while relying so heavily on imports for basic goods that could be produced locally. The country must turn its industrialisation ambitions into measurable results, support domestic enterprises and create the conditions for local industries to thrive.
Otherwise, Namibia risks remaining a consumer economy that exports its wealth but imports too much of its future.
COMMENTS