Green transition, Namibia's way
I am a daughter of liberation politics, from a generation in Namibia that inherited political freedom while confronting exclusion and inequality. Our Founding President, Dr Sam Nujoma, often reminded us that independence was only the beginning of a longer journey. That journey lives on in Namibia's Vision 2030, the Harambee Prosperity Plans and the Sixth National Development Plan (NDP6).
Long before green hydrogen, transition finance or net-zero commitments, African leaders such as Nkrumah wrestled with how nations could build prosperity grounded in dignity and self-determination after colonialism. As the world debates sustainable development beyond 2030, many Africans ask: transition from what, and to what? For Europe, the green transition is understandably framed through decarbonisation, energy security and industrial competitiveness. For Namibia and much of Africa, it remains a transition from exclusion to participation, and from resources to prosperity. The destination of net zero may be shared, but history determines where each country begins.
The green transition unfolds in a world shaped by inequality and uneven institutional development. We must recognise the development deficit, the unequal educational, industrial and institutional foundations that shape how countries participate in the transition.
Amid geopolitical fragmentation and constrained public finance, the question is not whether countries transition, but whether the transition narrows or deepens global inequalities. Namibia can leapfrog older development pathways by building green industries from the outset. Doing so requires narrowing the development deficit while pursuing economic transformation and decarbonisation. This requires measuring carbon and capability; investing in institutions and ecosystems alongside infrastructure; and recognising that countries need different pathways, resources and time horizons.
Green hydrogen presents a rare opportunity because its infrastructure, skills and industrial ecosystems must be built where the resource exists. For countries such as Namibia, this enables development to be done differently. At Hyphen, our socio-economic development approach reflects this. The challenge is not whether development outcomes should be embedded in projects, but how they should be designed in countries with a development deficit. A practical example: the shortage of green skills is global; what differs is the institutional capacity to respond. Economists Acemoglu and Robinson argue that prosperity depends not only on resources but on institutions that educate people, mobilise capital, build industries and expand opportunity. This means investing beyond project cycles in ecosystems that link government, education, finance, industry and labour markets, while investing in trainers as well as trainees so capability endures beyond construction.
Germany's post-war recovery and Norway's management of resource wealth show that prosperity rests on decades of investment in education, vocational systems, industrial capability and effective institutions. For Namibia, sustainable development is not simply a climate agenda with social benefits attached; it is a development and justice agenda that must also solve climate. Success will not be measured by the molecules we export, but by whether we narrow the development deficit we inherited and expand opportunity across generations.
If we are serious about a global transition, then sustainable development, climate finance and transition frameworks must account for the development deficit: in how success is measured, risks are shared and institutional capability is financed. That means climate finance and industrial partnerships should reduce emissions while building the skills ecosystems, industrial capacity, standards and public institutions that enable countries to participate fully in the transition. The destination may be shared, but the journey to net zero, and the resources required to complete it, are not.
