Namibia’s fishing industry is an important contributor to exports, employment, government revenue, food security and industrial activity. Yet an important question deserves renewed national attention: are the benefits generated by Namibia’s fisheries reaching citizens across all 14 regions in a sufficiently equitable and measurable manner?

This is not an attack on commercial fishing or a demand for identical quotas. It is a call to broaden Namibianisation so a national resource creates opportunities throughout the country while remaining sustainably managed.

Namibianisation has increased Namibian participation and ownership in fisheries and encouraged employment, onshore investment and value addition. But its success should not be measured only by the nationality of shareholders. A stronger test is whether workers, communities, young people, women, SMEs, taxpayers and regional economies are receiving meaningful benefits from access to Namibia’s marine resources.

Commercial fishing infrastructure is naturally concentrated in coastal centres such as Walvis Bay and Lüderitz. The solution is not to relocate marine operations artificially to inland regions. Rather, Namibia should build stronger economic linkages between coastal harvesting and inland participation through aquaculture, processing, cold storage, logistics, fish-feed production, research, training, marketing, finance and distribution.

Namibia does not need to divide hake, horse mackerel or other marine species equally among the 14 regions. Total allowable catches must continue to be based on scientific evidence and sustainability. What should be pursued is equitable benefit rather than identical allocation. Every region can participate in the fisheries economy without every region catching marine fish.

Regional councils should therefore have a greater developmental role. However, simply transferring fishing quotas to political structures could create quota broking, patronage or elite capture. A more responsible model would be professionally governed regional fisheries development companies, established where legally and economically feasible through appropriate public entities or public-private partnerships.

Such companies should hold regional economic interests for development rather than for individual politicians. Their boards should include fisheries specialists, economists, financial and legal professionals, business experts and independent members. Political representatives may provide oversight but should not control procurement or commercial operations.

The companies should be required to publish audited financial statements and disclose, in accordance with applicable law, beneficial ownership, major contracts, quota-related transactions, directors’ interests, executive remuneration and the use of public resources.

The economic objective should also shift from tonnenes harvested to value created per sustainably harvested tonne. Fish that is simply harvested and exported generates less domestic economic activity than fish that is landed, processed, packaged, transported, marketed and linked to Namibian businesses. Greater value addition can create employment, SME opportunities, skills, tax revenue and industrial capacity.

Fishing-right holders should therefore, where legally appropriate, be assessed on employment, domestic processing, onshore investment, local procurement, skills development, youth and women’s participation, SME development and regional economic contribution. Access to a national resource should generate measurable national value.

Better information is essential. Government should consider an annual Fisheries National Benefit and Regional Impact Report showing, as far as legally and commercially possible, fisheries-related employment, processing facilities, investment, Namibian ownership, local procurement, revenues, skills development, aquaculture, SMEs and community benefits by region. A 14-Region Fisheries Development Scorecard could then track progress. Such a scorecard should not demand identical activities. Every region should have at least one commercially viable fisheries or aquaculture value-chain initiative within a defined period, subject to feasibility, markets and environmental sustainability.

This would not mean that every region must have a fishing vessel or a large fish-processing factory. Coastal regions may focus on harvesting and processing, while inland regions may specialise in aquaculture, logistics, distribution, training, research or other viable activities. Regional development must therefore be economically feasible rather than politically uniform.

Existing fishing companies should also be part of the solution. Namibia should preserve their vessels, markets, technical knowledge and international relationships while creating transparent partnerships with regional enterprises. Appropriate external investment can contribute capital, technology and markets while meaningful Namibian participation and economic benefits remain protected.

A Regional Fisheries Benefit Fund could also be considered, subject to legal and fiscal feasibility. It could support aquaculture, training, youth and women’s enterprises, cold-chain infrastructure, processing and other regional projects. Distribution should use a transparent formula based on population, unemployment, poverty, development needs, infrastructure, fisheries potential and project viability – not simply an equal one-fourteenth division.

None of this should weaken fisheries conservation. Scientific management and total allowable catches must remain fundamental. Regional development cannot justify overfishing.

The central issue is therefore no longer simply who holds fishing rights. It is whether those rights produce sufficient employment, investment, processing, skills, entrepreneurship and regional development. Namibia does not need 14 identical fishing quotas; it needs 14 regions with meaningful, measurable and sustainable opportunities to participate in fisheries-related value creation.

Namibianisation should move from ownership to beneficiation, from beneficiation to value addition, and from value addition to inclusive regional development.

From the “why” to the “how”. The question is no longer simply who receives Namibia’s fishing quotas but how those quotas can become instruments of broader national and regional development.

This brings the debate to the next question: if Namibia accepts the need for more equitable regional beneficiation, what practical institutional and economic framework can make that objective possible?

It is not enough to identify geographical disparities or call for greater regional participation. Namibia must also consider how regional councils can participate responsibly, how fishing-related enterprises can be established, how value addition can be expanded beyond the coast, and how inland regions can participate through aquaculture, processing, logistics, research and other parts of the fisheries value chain.

Part Two, therefore, moves from the “why” to the “how”. Having established the case for more equitable regional beneficiation, the next article explores a possible 14-Region Fisheries Beneficiation Framework through which Namibia could turn the principle of equitable participation into practical economic opportunities while maintaining scientific sustainability, commercial viability, transparency and accountability.

*Absalom Kamutjemo is a resident of Epako, Gobabis.