Justicia Shipena
The introduction of a sugar tax in Namibia is back on the table.
This follows earlier government statements ruling it out.
In July last year, the then Finance and Public Enterprises Minister Iipumbu Shiimi said the government had no plans to introduce a sugar tax, even though it could bring in additional revenue.
He said a feasibility study was needed to assess its impact on sugary beverage retailers.
At the same time, the then director general of the National Planning Commission, Obeth Kandjoze, also said the government was not planning to introduce a sugar tax.
Despite those statements, the Ministry of Finance now says it is working on the sugar tax.
When approached by the Windhoek Observer, finance ministry spokesperson Wilson Shikoto said the ministry is working on it.
“We are still working on it. We are at an advanced stage,” Shikoto said.
The sugar tax aims to reduce the consumption of sweetened products by making them more expensive.
It targets items such as sugar, soft drinks, energy drinks, fruit juices, and chocolates, among many others.
The goal is to lower rates of obesity, diabetes, and other non-communicable diseases.
Nutrition and Food Security Alliance of Namibia’s (Nafsan) director, Ben Schernick, said his organisation has been engaging the Ministry of Finance for the past three years, along with the Ministry of Health and the World Health Organisation (WHO).
He said both the Ministry of Health and the WHO support the tax due to the serious health effects of high sugar consumption.
“The ministry of finance has been rather cautious and silent,” Schernick said.
He said that, despite the complex process of introducing a sugar-sweetened beverage tax, there is an easy, short-term solution.
“The removal of the VAT exemption for white and brown sugars – in place since 2011, meaning the Namibian government is actually incentivising the use and overuse of sugar, which we see as counterproductive to people’s health and the country’s economy,” he said.
Schernick added that there is clear medical evidence linking excessive sugar intake to higher risks of health issues such as diabetes, high blood pressure, strokes, and cancer.
“We believe it self-evident that removing sugar from the list of VAT-exempted items will also have a positive effect on less sugar being consumed (because it will then cost 15% more), making people live healthier as a positive side effect,” he said.
He said Nafsan and other stakeholders have developed the Nutrition-for-Health approach.
It aims to educate Namibians on malnutrition, proper nutrition, sugar addiction, and the benefits of reducing sugar intake.
He said the goal is to give households a choice—either spend more on the same sugary products or shift to healthier lifestyles.
“We should also realise and have honest conversations about how addictive sugar is. So if we find a sin tax for alcohol and cigarettes justified, why do we find it so difficult to stop incentivising sugar?” he asked.
He said revenue from the sugar tax could be used for nutrition programs, treatments for health conditions linked to overnutrition, and possibly to co-finance a universal basic income.
“The decision as to how to use these funds should ideally be taken in collaboration with stakeholders within the food and nutrition security space,” he said.
Schernick noted that they have not yet faced pushback from companies, though he expects this may become an issue later.
“Unless these companies have already started lobbying strongly behind the scenes, that could also be. However, the quick win here would be to remove the VAT exemption simply for white and brown sugar, as only essential food items and other consumer goods (like sanitary pads) should enjoy such exemptions.”
He stated that the state should not subsidise sugar consumption, given its known health risks.
According to the Obesity Evidence Hub, over 130 jurisdictions across nearly 120 countries and territories have introduced taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages.
In South Africa, a 10% tax on sugary drinks, excluding fruit juices, was introduced in 2018. It is known as the Health Promotion Levy.
