I write to express my deep concerns regarding the impact of developmental cooperation and research collaborations between Namibia and European countries, particularly Germany.
These partnerships, while often presented as beneficial, have systematically compromised Namibia’s economic freedom and independence. If we are truly committed to decolonising these collaborations and foreign aid structures, a fundamental shift is necessary.
I write not only out of frustration at seeing my country in its current state despite its abundant resources, which are often in the hands of a few, but also from my lived experience as a scholar who has participated in these projects.
During my studies in Germany, I encountered numerous injustices. Additionally, colleagues, friends, and relatives working within these partnerships have shared similar experiences of exploitation and discrimination.
This letter is inspired by the wisdom of our late Founding President Sam Nujoma, who firmly opposed injustice and fought for true liberation. As a youthful Namibian scholar privileged to study these issues in depth, I feel obligated to share these views in the hope they will be taken seriously.
During my PhD research titled ‘Indigenous Knowledge for Sustainable Livelihoods: Evaluating Non-Timber Forest Product Value Chains for San Communities in Northern Namibia’, I analysed the commercialisation of non-timber forest products (NTFPs) based on indigenous knowledge.
This trade is often promoted as a way to enhance income and livelihood opportunities for indigenous communities, including through initiatives by the German development agency GIZ. However, the reality is that the vast majority of the profits generated from these products at a global level are captured by European companies — mainly in Germany, France, and Spain — as well as by Namibian exporters, who, historically and in 2021, were all German-Namibians or white individuals.
This leads to severe income disparities and unfair compensation for the indigenous producers.
For instance, San community members endure harsh and dangerous conditions, sometimes spending weeks sustainably harvesting Devil’s Claw — a task that exposes them to life-threatening encounters with wild animals, including venomous snakes. Despite these risks and the gruelling labour involved, they earn almost nothing.
In 2021, individual San harvesters received an average of only N$1 538, which amounted to just 4% of the total value of the dried materials they traded.
Meanwhile, a small group of five white exporters captured 17%, while European companies took an overwhelming 79% of the total value of the same raw materials. At the time, the global commercialisation of Namibia’s Devil’s Claw exports was estimated to be worth more than US$143 million annually, with only a minimal portion captured within Namibia.
These injustices have persisted since colonial times and continue today, despite the long-standing involvement of BioTrade and Access and Benefit-Sharing (ABS) regulations — initiatives (since 1994) supported and funded by the German Development Agency. Yet, no significant improvement has been made in the livelihoods of indigenous harvesters, despite repeated praise for these interventions.
As a scholar who has studied in Germany and worked on about two of GIZ projects, I have observed how exploitative these German-led initiatives are. In many ways, they continue colonial-era practices — only now, they operate through intellectual, strategic, and systematic means rather than physical oppression.
On the surface, these projects appear to support Namibia’s fight against poverty. However, the bulk of the resources invested in them ultimately benefit German personnel and, to a lesser extent, German Namibians. A handful of Namibian government officials, who likely benefit corruptly, remain silent about these injustices.
Consider, for example, the significant financial investments made by the German government through collaborative research and GIZ development projects, including funding allocated for Nama and Ovaherero genocide reparations.
A critical analysis should be conducted to determine how much of these funds truly reach affected communities or even national institutions, as opposed to being captured by German stakeholders. In research, I have often questioned why certain issues remain heavily studied, with the same findings repeated by the same (German) researchers.
It becomes evident that some problems are economically exploited through research proposals aimed at securing more funding — our struggles are monetised, while so-called development projects serve as a façade to justify ongoing resource extraction and personnel financing.
If Namibia is to truly liberate itself from these exploitative structures, we must take decisive action. First, we must significantly reduce or entirely sever reliance on development aid and collaborative research as forms of support from Germany. GIZ’s involvement in critical national sectors, such as the Ministry of Environment, Forestry, and Tourism, should be reconsidered, and if deemed necessary, it should operate under strict regulations like any other foreign agency.
Secondly, our universities must critically assess the true costs of accepting collaborative research projects. While these partnerships bring minimal financial benefits, they also may result in a significant loss of Namibia’s intellectual property rights, allowing Western scholars to extract and control our knowledge systems while offering little in return.
If I were the president of this country, I would put projects like green hydrogen on hold to conduct a thorough assessment of whether Namibia is truly benefiting or if we are merely witnessing yet another exploitation at the expense of our communities’ livelihoods.
In summary, the decolonisation of development partnerships, foreign aid, and research collaborations is not just necessary — it is urgent.
*Ndapewa Fenny Nakanyete: The views expressed in this article are entirely my own and do not represent or reflect those of my employer.