Namibia: Score Justification Summary

1.1.1a National plan for AMR priority pathogens

Score: 50

Namibia has a national antimicrobial resistance (AMR) action plan, but there is insufficient evidence that it covers surveillance, detection, and reporting. In its 2.3 Country progress with development of a national action plan on AMR, the Tracking AMR Country Self Assessment Survey (TrACSS) of Namibia mentions that the country has developed a national action plan on AMR in 2024 while demonstrated such a plan for 2022 and 2023, however, the TrACSS also indicates, in its 2.13, that the country has not established or starting the implementation of an Integrated Surveillance System for AMR in 2023 and 2024. ¹ The country has published the Namibian Antimicrobial Resistance National Action Plan in May 2017, however, the plan only covers objectives related to Surveillance but not Detection and Reporting. ² According to WHO Strategic Partnership Portal, Namibia has a "National AMR action plan approved by government that reflects Global Action Plan objectives, with a budgeted operational plan and monitoring arrangements." ³ According to Ministry of Health and Social Services (MoHSS)' Infection Prevention And Control Action Plan 2023/2024 – 2026/2027, on page 15, the MoHSS developed a National AMR Action Plan (NAAP) in 2017, with six key strategic objectives including surveillance, prevention, antimicrobial use, awareness, collaboration and communication, education and training; and research and development; no indication of detection and reporting covered in this plan was mentioned. ⁴ No evidence was identified via Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform and the media on whether National AMR Action Plan has details regarding surveillance, detection, and reporting. ⁵

1.1.1b Capacity of national lab/lab system to test for AMR priority pathogens

Score: 0

There is no publicly available evidence that Namibia has a national laboratory or laboratory system, with designated sentinel sites, which tests for priority antimicrobial resistant (AMR) pathogens. The Tracking AMR Country Self Assessment Survey (TrACSS) Namibia does not mention any reference lab in the country. ⁶ There is no evidence that the Ministry of Health and Social Services, The Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform and Namibia Institute of Pathology (NIP) has announced the names of priority AMR pathogens that the country's laboratory system has the capacity to test. ⁷⁸⁹

1.1.1c National environmental surveillance for AMR residues/organisms

Score: 0

There is no publicly available evidence indicating that the Namibian government carries out environmental detection or surveillance for antimicrobial-resistant (AMR) organisms or antimicrobial residues. The Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Tourism does not publish any related information on its official website. ¹⁰ Furthermore, there are no media reports or academic studies suggesting that the Ministry engages in such surveillance activities. The 2017 Joint External Evaluation (JEE) report for Namibia notes that “the development of a national multisectoral plan for AMR in Namibia has not even begun.” ¹¹ According to Namibia’s Tracking AMR Country Self-Assessment Survey (TrACSS), the country did not have, in 2022 and 2023, “a national assessment of risks for residues of antimicrobial compounds and antimicrobial resistant pathogens in the environment,” nor did it maintain a monitoring system for antimicrobial compounds, their residues, resistant bacteria, or antimicrobial resistance genes (ARGs) in water quality. However, the same report stated that such an assessment was in place in 2021. ¹² No public information is available on the websites of the Ministry of Health and Social Services or the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform to indicate that any such plan is under development or has been developed. ¹³¹⁴ Namibia’s Antimicrobial Resistance National Action Plan (May 2017) only outlined an objective to “develop a sampling strategy and testing standards for antimicrobial residue in water and food products” for the 2017/18 period, with no further evidence that government agencies have implemented related detection or surveillance activities. ¹⁵

1.1.2a National law(s) requiring prescription for antibiotic use (humans)

Score: 0

There is no evidence that Namibia has national legislation in place requiring prescriptions for antibiotic use for humans. According to section 2.8.1 of the Namibia Tracking AMR Country Self Assessment Survey (TrACSS), the country "has laws or regulations on prescription and sale of antimicrobials, for human use" in from 2019 to 2024. ¹⁶ However, it is unknown whether the country still has these laws or regulations being enforced as of 2025. A 2015 study published in South African Family Practice states that in Namibia "antibiotics are scheduled drugs and can therefore only be sold upon prescription by an authorised prescriber". The study says that this requirement exists under the Ministry of Health and Social Services' (MoHSS) National Medicines Policy. ¹⁷ However, this policy or related information is not shared via a public website by the MoHSS. ¹⁸ The Namibia Standard Treatment Guideline 2nd Edition 2021 does not provide clear or updated details on the enforcement of policies requiring prescriptions for antibiotic use in humans. ¹⁹ There is the "Medicines and Related Substances Control Act 13 of 2003" and subsequent regulations to the Act.²⁰²¹ However, they do not explicitly mention antibiotics.

1.1.2b National law(s) requiring prescription for antibiotic use (animals)

Score: 0

There is no evidence that Namibia has national legislation in place requiring prescriptions for antibiotic use for animals. According to the Tracking AMR Country Self Assessment Survey (TrACSS) of Namibia, the country "has laws or regulations on prescription and sale of antimicrobials for terrestrial animal use" in the years 2022, 2023 and 2024. ²² Section 4 on 'Prohibition on the administration of certain substances to certain animals' of the Prevention of Undesirable Residue in Meat Act, 1991 states that "(1) Except with the written approval of the Director and subject to such conditions as the Director may impose, no person shall administer or cause or permit to be administered any Group I substance to any prescribed animal." and "(2) No person shall administer or cause or permit to be administered any Group II substance to any prescribed animal". ²³ A 2017 news release from the World Health Organization (WHO) lauds Namibia as a model for veterinary antibiotic policy, and states that antibiotics are only administered to cattle with a prescription. The news release cites an unnamed 1991 law—presumably the Prevention of Undesirable Residue in Meat Act, 1991—as being responsible for strict Namibian policies on antibiotic use in the beef industry. ²⁴ However, the Prevention of Undesirable Residue in Meat Act, 1991 does not include any provisions regarding antibiotic use for animals. ²⁵

There is no public evidence of enforcement of the Namibian government of laws or regulations on prescription and sale of antimicrobials for terrestrial animal use was identified via the websites of the Ministry of Health and Social Services, the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform or the media. ²⁶²⁷

1.2.1a Laws/plans on zoonotic disease

Score: 100

There is sufficient evidence that Namibia has been developing national legislation, plans, or equivalent strategy documents for zoonotic disease prioritization, detection and reporting. According the the Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (Africa CDC), in June 2024, the Namibian government in partnership with Africa CDC officially launched The Tripartite One Health National Strategy 2024–2028. The strategy was developed by the Ministries of Health and Social Services, Environment, Forestry and Tourism, and Agriculture, Water and Land Reform in close collaboration with the University of Namibia, the United Nations Foods and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and the World Health Organization (WHO). The strategy is anchored on six thematic areas, among them are "reducing the risks from emerging and re-emerging zoonotic epidemics and pandemics" and "controlling and eliminating zoonotic". ²⁸ A 2024 Capacitating One Health in Eastern and Southern Africa (COHESA) report, on page 4, indicates that COHESA University of Namibia team members, representatives from MoHSS, Africa CDC, and prominent academics in the One Health (OH) field collaborated on developing a proactive advocacy strategy titled the ‘Framework of One Health Practices in Namibia Zoonotic Disease Prevention and Control 2024–2028.’ The purpose of this document is to strengthen One Health implementation in Namibia to enhance early prevention and control of zoonotic diseases. ²⁹ However, there is no evidence that this framework has been launched on the website of the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform, Ministry of Health and Social Services as well as through media sources. ³⁰³¹ The National Action Plan for Health Security (NAPHS 2021–2025) includes zoonotic disease as a component of the plan, which include zoonotic disease surveillance, detection, and response in "Objective 1 – To establish a system for the surveillance for priority zoonotic diseases by December 2024" and "Objective 2 To have a responsive Animal Health and Veterinary workforce by 2024". ³²

1.2.1b Laws/plans on zoonotic disease spillover from animals to humans

Score: 0

There is a lack of sufficient evidence indicating that Namibia has national legislation, plans, or equivalent strategic documents that address risk identification and reduction for zoonotic disease spillover from animals to humans. While there is some indication that Namibia may have a zoonotic disease plan, there is inadequate information available regarding its content to confirm whether it includes measures to prevent spillover events. According to the 2017 Joint External Evaluation (JEE) report for Namibia, “there is a national animal disease prevention plan for rabies, anthrax, brucellosis, and Rift Valley fever.” ³³ The same report also states that “a national policy to combat zoonoses is in place.” ³⁴ However, these policies are not published on the websites of the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform (MAWLR), its Directorate of Veterinary Services, the Ministry of Health and Social Services (MoHSS), or the Veterinary Association of Namibia. ³⁵³⁶³⁷ The World Organisation for Animal Health’s (OIE) Performance of Veterinary Services (PVS) evaluation report for Namibia, dated August 2008, does not reference any zoonotic disease plans. ³⁸ The Animal Health Act of 2011 outlines general regulations for managing diseased animals but does not address zoonoses. ³⁹ Additionally, the Tripartite One Health National Strategy 2024–2028 is not available publicly on MoHSS’s website or through other open sources. ⁴⁰ No such strategy or plan is mentioned in the 2024 report of the Capacitating One Health in Eastern and Southern Africa (COHESA) initiative. ⁴¹ Therefore, although the JEE refers to the existence of relevant plans or policies, they are not accessible for public review online.

1.2.1c Laws/plans for surveillance & control of multiple zoonotic pathogens

Score: 0

There is no publicly available evidence to establish that Namibia has national plans that account for both the surveillance and control of multiple zoonotic pathogens of public health concern. The 2017 Joint External Evaluation (JEE) report for Namibia states that “there is a national animal disease prevention plan for rabies, anthrax, brucellosis, and Rift Valley fever.” ⁴² It also notes that “a national policy to combat zoonoses is in place.” However, these documents are not publicly accessible on the websites of the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform (MAWLR), its Directorate of Veterinary Services, the Ministry of Health and Social Services (MoHSS), or the Veterinary Association of Namibia. ⁴³⁴⁴⁴⁵ The Performance of Veterinary Services (PVS) evaluation report by the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE), published in August 2008, does not provide any mention of plans related to zoonotic disease. ⁴⁶ The Animal Health Act of 2011 outlines general procedures for handling diseased animals but does not include any reference to zoonoses, nor does it detail a surveillance framework—except for assigning surveillance responsibilities to veterinary officials in the "General responsibilities of veterinary officials" section under the PART II. ADMINISTRATION. ⁴⁷ The Tripartite One Health National Strategy 2024–2028 is also not available for review on MoHSS’s website or through other open sources, making it unclear whether the strategy addresses surveillance and control of zoonotic pathogens. ⁴⁸ No mention of such a strategy was found in the 2024 report by the Capacitating One Health in Eastern and Southern Africa (COHESA) initiative either. ⁴⁹ The National Action Plan for Health Security (NAPHS 2021–2025) indicates that, as of 2020, Namibia did not have a functional zoonotic disease surveillance system across human and animal health sectors. It set a goal for such a system, including supporting legislation, to be in place and fully operational by 2025. ⁵⁰ However, there is no evidence confirming that this legislation has been enacted. Therefore, while the JEE notes the existence of relevant plans, their absence from public sources means it remains uncertain whether these plans comprehensively cover both surveillance and control aspects.

1.2.1d Cross-ministerial department/agency/unit for zoonotic disease

Score: 0

There is no publicly available evidence that there is a Namibian department, agency, or similar unit functioning as a multi-sectoral co-ordinating mechanism dedicated to zoonotic disease that functions across ministries. The 2017 Joint External Evaluation (JEE) report for Namibia describes the existence of established surveillance and reporting systems for zoonotic diseases but indicates that intersectoral information sharing, specifically between the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry (MAWF) and the Ministry of Health and Social Services (MoHSS), occurs only on an as-needed basis. ⁵¹ The JEE further recommends the development of “formal mechanisms for sharing information on zoonotic diseases and outbreaks between the animal, human and environment/wildlife sectors at national and regional levels,” which implies the absence of a central coordinating body. ⁵² No relevant policy information is currently available on the public websites of either MoHSS or the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform (MAWLR). ⁵³⁵⁴ The World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE)’s Performance of Veterinary Services (PVS) report for Namibia, issued in August 2008, does not reference any existing plans or institutional entities addressing zoonotic diseases. ⁵⁵ Similarly, the Animal Health Act of 2011 provides regulatory guidance for managing diseased animals generally, but does not specifically address zoonoses. ⁵⁶ According to the National Action Plan for Health Security (NAPHS 2020–2025), the MAWLR is identified as the primary ministry responsible for animal health, including zoonotic disease-related responsibilities, and is expected to co-chair implementation efforts alongside the MoHSS for objectives centered on animal health. ⁵⁷ There are no relevant findings in media reports or academic literature that suggest the existence of a cross-ministerial entity for zoonotic disease.

1.2.1e Presence of One Health strategic plan

Score: 0

Namibia launched its national Tripartite One Health Strategy in June 2024, a five-year plan to address health threats at the intersection of human, animal, and environmental health. ⁵⁸ The strategy, developed by the Ministries of Health, Agriculture, and Environment with partners like Africa CDC, aims to improve health systems, reduce zoonotic disease risks, control diseases, enhance food safety, combat antimicrobial resistance, and integrate environmental factors into health approaches. This initiative is driven by Namibia's experience with zoonotic outbreaks and climate change impacts, recognizing the 75% of emerging human pathogens that originate from animals. However, this document is not publicly available.

1.2.2a Surveillance/reporting mechanism for zoonotic disease for livestock owners

Score: 0

There is insufficient evidence to show that Namibia has a national mechanism for owners of livestock to conduct and report on disease surveillance to a central government agency. The World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE)’s Performance of Veterinary Services (PVS) evaluation report for Namibia, published in August 2008, notes that “farmers and private veterinarians contribute to the passive surveillance by completing an animal health questionnaire, and submitting samples when reportable animal health events are observed.” ⁵⁹ However, the report provides no further detail on this process or specifies which government agency is involved. The 2017 Joint External Evaluation (JEE) report for Namibia does not mention the existence of such a reporting system. ⁶⁰ Additionally, the websites of the Ministry of Health and Social Services and the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform do not provide any public information on processes for livestock owners to conduct disease surveillance. ⁶¹⁶² The Animal Health Act of 2011 outlines measures for animal disease control, such as movement restrictions, but does not elaborate on surveillance responsibilities beyond stating that veterinary officials are in charge as per the Article 6. General responsibilities under the PART II. ADMINISTRATION. ⁶³ Key documents—including the Integrated Disease Surveillance Manual Namibia 2014, the Tracking AMR Country Self Assessment Survey (TrACSS) of Namibia, the National Action Plan for Health Security (NAPHS 2020–2025), and the Risk-Based Animal Disease Surveillance Protocol 2024—contain no reference to a surveillance system designed for livestock owners. ^64656667 No supporting information was identified in media reports or academic literature.

1.2.2b Laws/regulations on data confidentiality to protect livestock owners

Score: 0

There is no publicly available evidence to confirm that Namibia has enacted laws or issued guidelines to protect the confidentiality of data generated through animal disease surveillance activities. The country's electronic animal disease surveillance platform, the Namibian Livestock Identification and Traceability System (NamLITS), does not provide any information on its public website regarding data confidentiality. ⁶⁸ Public websites of the Ministry of Health and Social Services and the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform also do not offer additional details about confidentiality protections in the surveillance process for livestock owners. ⁶⁹⁷⁰ Moreover, neither the OIE’s Performance of Veterinary Services (PVS) evaluation report from August 2008 nor the 2017 Joint External Evaluation (JEE) for Namibia addresses whether confidentiality of surveillance data is maintained. ⁷¹⁷² No relevant legal provisions were found in the FAOLEX legal database maintained by the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations or in the Government of Namibia’s online compilation of acts and policies. ⁷³⁷⁴ The Animal Health Act, 2011 makes only a passing reference to “veterinary officials” being responsible for disease surveillance in the "General responsibilities of veterinary officials" section under the PART II. ADMINISTRATION, and does not include any provisions on the management or confidentiality of the data involved. ⁷⁵ No relevant information has been identified in media reports or academic literature.

1.2.2c Wildlife zoonotic disease surveillance

Score: 0

There is evidence that Namibia conducts surveillance of zoonotic disease across poultry and livestock; however there is no publicly evidence that the coutry conducts surveillance of zoonotic disease in wildlife (e.g., wild animals, insects, other disease vectors). According to an article dated 30 April 2024 by the Namibia Agricultural Union (NAU), Notice 4 of 2024 from the Directorate of Veterinary Services (DVS), dated 21 February 2024, outlines the surveillance protocol followed in Namibia for any risk-based animal diseases. ⁷⁶ According to this notice, the Directorate of Veterinary Services (DVS) under the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform runs routine risk-based animal disease surveillance, focusing on notifiable zoonoses such as foot-and-mouth disease (FMD), Peste des Petits Ruminants (PPR), Rift Valley Fever (RVF), rabies, Newcastle disease, and avian influenza. The frequency of inspections (ranging from annually to quarterly) depends on region and disease risk, with heightened monitoring near disease-free zones or outbreak areas. ⁷⁷⁷⁸ The Notice does not mention anything related to surveillance conducted across disease in wildlife ⁷⁹.

Neither the August 2008 OIE PVS evaluation nor the Joint External Evaluation report (JEE) for Namibia, published in 2017, describe wildlife surveillance activities. ⁸⁰⁸¹ The latter only notes the need for greater coordination between the wildlife sector and other sectors, and notes that the Ministry of Environment and Tourism (now the Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Tourism) collaborates with the Directorate of Veterinary Services (DVS) to manage diseases in wildlife. ⁸² Neither the MoHSS, the MAWLR, the DVS, nor the Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Tourism (MEFT) shares additional information via public websites about zoonotic disease surveillance in wildlife. ^83848586 The Animal Health Act, 2011, describes the regulations for dealing with diseased animals in general, but does not discuss wildlife at all, nor define surveillance mechanisms (other than to briefly designate "veterinary officials" as being responsible for surveillance). ⁸⁷

While no national wildlife disease surveillance system is publicly documented, sentinel surveillance does occur. For instance, the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) of Germany has funded the “One Health approach towards control of rabies and transboundary animal diseases (OHRT)” project since 2022 to support the Namibian Directorate for Veterinary Services in the implementation of its national elimination of dog-mediated human rabies programme. This Project also aims at strengthening animal health systems in the Northern Communal Area (NCA), in particular through supporting Foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) and Peste des petits ruminants (PPR) surveillance and movement control in the NCA of Namibia. ⁸⁸⁸⁹

1.2.3a Annual reporting to OIE on zoonotic disease incidence

Score: 100

There is publicly available evidence of a mechanism for reporting notifiable diseases to The World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH). According to a local media outlet The Namibian article dated 1 February 2025, in the Namibia Agricultural Union’s latest newsletter of 31 January 2025, the Directorate of Veterinary Services (DVS) requires all livestock producers to submit an Animal Health Declaration every six months. This is a legal obligation tied to disease monitoring and export certification protocols. The union states that self-declaration data is used for disease control, trend tracking, and mandatory reporting to the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH).⁹⁰ The Livestock and Livestock Products Board of Namibia (Nammic) published the Animal Health Declaration and Fanmeat Form and the Animal Health Declaration Guidance Notes on its website. ⁹¹⁹²

In July 2024, WOAH published Namibia’s self-declaration of a bovine tuberculosis‑free zone, formally recognizing the area south of the veterinary cordon fence. Namibia had submitted a detailed dossier demonstrating surveillance, prevention and control measures. This included mandatory reporting of bovine tuberculosis (bTB) to WOAH, consistent with its status as a notifiable disease under Namibian law. Dr Anja Boshoff-De Witt, executive of meat standards at the Livestock and Livestock Products Board (LLPB), confirmed Namibia is regularly up to date with six-monthly and annual reports submitted to WOAH, and has a documented history of prompt reporting of any WOAH-listed disease. ⁹³

1.2.4a Number of veterinarians per 100,000 people

Score: 16.67

1.2.4b Number of veterinary para-professionals per 100,000 people

Score: 10.71

1.2.5a Inclusion of private sector in national plan/law on zoonotic disease

Score: 0

There is insufficient publicly available evidence to determine whether Namibia’s zoonotic disease plans include provisions for engaging the private sector in the control or response to zoonoses. The Joint External Evaluation (JEE) report for Namibia, published in 2017, indicates that “there is a national animal disease prevention plan for rabies, anthrax, brucellosis, and Rift Valley fever,” and also states that “a national policy to combat zoonoses is in place.” ⁹⁴ However, these documents are not currently accessible through public websites of the Ministry of Health and Social Services or the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform. ⁹⁵⁹⁶ The Organisation for Animal Health’s (OIE) Performance of Veterinary Services (PVS) evaluation report for Namibia, dated August 2008, does not provide specific information on zoonotic disease plans. It does note, however, that Namibia’s animal health management systems, including the Namibian Livestock Identification and Traceability System (NamLITS), benefit from strong partnerships with the private sector. ⁹⁷ The National Action Plan for Health Security (NAPHS 2021–2025) mentions that the Government of Namibia aims to collaborate with a range of stakeholders, including government sectors, UN agencies, international organizations, partners, civil society, and the private sector, to support implementation of the NAPHS. ⁹⁸ However, it does not specifically mention any mechanisms focused on zoonotic diseases. As such, while references to zoonotic disease plans exist, these are not publicly available for verification. No supporting evidence has been found in academic literature or media coverage.

1.3.1a Updated national records of especially dangerous pathogen/toxin inventories

Score: 0

There is no evidence that Namibia has in place a record, updated within the past five years, that includes details of facilities and inventory management within those facilities. The Joint External Evaluation report (JEE) for Namibia, published in 2017, states that work with dangerous pathogens is rare in Namibia, and "there is no strategic national laboratory plan for biosafety and biosecurity in place". ⁹⁹ Neither the Ministry of Health and Social Services, the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform, its Directorate of Veterinary Services, the Namibia Institute of Pathology (NIP—a state-owned enterprise that runs laboratories for human health in Namibia), the Ministry of Education, Innovation, Youth, Sport, Arts & Culture, nor the Ministry of Defence and Veteran Affairs shares a list of such facilities or other relevant information via public websites. ^{100101102103104105} Namibia acceded to the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) in 2023, but no Confidence Building Measures (CBM) reports submitted by Namibia are available on the eCBM platform. ¹⁰⁶ The VERTIC (Verification Research Training and Information Centre) Biological Weapons Convention Legislation Database does not list any relevant legislation. ¹⁰⁷

1.3.1b Biosecurity laws on facility security for especially dangerous pathogens

Score: 0

There is no publicly available evidence that Namibia has in place legislation or regulations related to biosecurity which address requirements such as physical containment, operation practices, failure reporting systems or cyber security of facilities in which especially dangerous pathogens and toxins are stored or processed. As noted in the Joint External Evaluation report (JEE) for Namibia, published in 2017, "while there is specific legislation on biosafety addressing only genetically modified organisms, there is not yet legislation specifically addressing both biosafety and biosecurity for pathogens of human, animals and agriculture sources". ¹⁰⁸ Confirming this, the Biosafety Act, 2006 deals only with genetically modified organisms, and does not deal with biosecurity as it relates to dangerous pathogens. ¹⁰⁹ No other relevant law is listed for Namibia in the VERTIC (Verification Research Training and Information Centre) Biological Weapons Convention Legislation Database, the FAOLEX database of the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, or in the Government of Namibia's online list of acts and policies. ^110111112 Neither the Ministry of Health and Social Services, the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform, its Directorate of Veterinary Services, the Namibia Institute of Pathology (NIP—a state-owned enterprise that runs laboratories for human health in Namibia), the Ministry of Education, Innovation, Youth, Sport, Arts & Culture, nor the Ministry of Defence and Veteran Affairs shares a list of such facilities or other relevant information via public websites. ^{113114115116117} Namibia acceded to the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) in 2023, but no Confidence Building Measures (CBM) reports submitted by Namibia are available on the eCBM platform. ¹¹⁸ The National Action Plan for Health Security (NAPHS 2021-2025) does not mention anything pertinent. ¹¹⁹

1.3.1c Agency for enforcement of biosecurity laws/regulations

Score: 0

There is no publicly available evidence of an established agency (or agencies) responsible for the enforcement of biosecurity legislation and regulations. As noted by the Joint External Evaluation report (JEE) for Namibia, published in 2017, "while there is specific legislation on biosafety addressing only genetically modified organisms, there is not yet legislation specifically addressing both biosafety and biosecurity for pathogens of human, animals and agriculture sources". ¹²⁰ Confirming this, the Biosafety Act, 2006 deals only with genetically modified organisms, and does not deal with biosecurity as it relates to dangerous pathogens. ¹²¹ No other relevant law is listed for Namibia in the VERTIC (Verification Research Training and Information Centre) Biological Weapons Convention Legislation Database, the FAOLEX database of the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, or in the Government of Namibia's online list of acts and policies. ^122123124 Neither the Ministry of Health and Social Services, the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform, the Namibia Institute of Pathology (NIP), and the Ministry of Defence & Veterans Affairs do not provide any relevant information through their official websites. ^{125126127128129} No media articles or academic publications with relevant findings were identified. Namibia acceded to the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) in 2023, but no Confidence Building Measures (CBM) reports submitted by Namibia are available on the eCBM platform. ¹³⁰

1.3.1d Consolidation of especially dangerous pathogens into minimum # of facilities

Score: 0

There is no publicly available evidence indicating that Namibia has undertaken consolidation of inventories containing especially dangerous pathogens and toxins into a limited number of facilities, nor that that the country has such inventories. There is no mention of facilities for the management of dangerous pathogens and toxins on the websites of the Ministry of Health and Social Services (MoHSS) or the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform (MAWLR). ¹³¹¹³² The Joint External Evaluation report (JEE) for Namibia, published in 2017, states that work with dangerous pathogens is rare in Namibia, and "there is no strategic national laboratory plan for biosafety and biosecurity in place". ¹³³ Neither the MoHSS, the MAWLR, its Directorate of Veterinary Services, the Namibia Institute of Pathology (NIP—a state-owned enterprise that runs laboratories for human health in Namibia), Ministry of Education, Innovation, Youth, Sport, Arts & Culture, nor the Ministry of Defence & Veterans Affairs shares a list of such facilities or other relevant information via public websites. ^{134135136137138139} No media articles or academic publications with relevant findings were identified. Namibia acceded to the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) in 2023, but no Confidence Building Measures (CBM) reports submitted by Namibia are available on the eCBM platform. ¹⁴⁰ The VERTIC (Verification Research Training and Information Centre) Biological Weapons Convention Legislation Database does not list any relevant legislation. ¹⁴¹

1.3.1e Capacity to conduct tests for anthrax/Ebola without culturing live pathogens

Score: 100

There is publicly available evidence indicating that Namibia has the capacity to perform Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR)-based diagnostic testing for Ebola. On page 33, the Joint External Evaluation (JEE) report for Namibia, published in 2017, notes that the Central Veterinary Laboratory, operated by the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry (MAWF), now known as the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform (MAWLR), provides diagnostic services for anthrax in the veterinary sector, although it is not specified whether these services involve PCR testing. However, the JEE explicitly states, on page 33 and 34, that "essential diagnostic capacities in the country's laboratories include … molecular diagnostics (polymerase chain reaction)" for Ebola. ¹⁴² Beyond this, there is limited public evidence from Namibian government sources regarding such testing. The Central Veterinary Laboratory does not have a public website, and neither the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform (MAWLR) nor its Directorate of Veterinary Services shares related information online. ¹⁴³ The Namibia Institute of Pathology also does not publish any relevant details on its website. ¹⁴⁴ Similarly, the Ministry of Defence & Veterans Affairs does not make such information publicly available. ¹⁴⁵

1.3.2a Biosecurity training using a standardised, required approach

Score: 0

There is no public evidence that Namibia requires biosecurity training, using a standardized, required approach, such as through a common curriculum or a train-the-trainer programme, for personnel working in facilities housing or working with especially dangerous pathogens, toxins, or biological materials with pandemic potential. According to a media article dated 26 April 2023 by the University of Namibia News Forum Online, Namibia has at least one high-containment facility that handles especially dangerous pathogens and potentially pandemic-capable biological materials, which is the Biosafety Level 3 (BSL 3) Laboratory at the University of Namibia (UNAM) inaugurated in April 2023. The lab is capable of handling pathogens associated with diseases like COVID-19, tuberculosis, rabies, and avian influenza. ¹⁴⁶ While another report suggested that Namibia had only a single BSL‑3-capable lab before the UNAM facility, details on name or licensing were not specified. ¹⁴⁷ However, there is no mention of a standardized, required approach in these articles or elsewhere online.

There is no mention of required biosecurity training, using a standardized, required approach on the websites of the Ministry of Health and Social Services (MoHSS) or the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform (MAWLR). ¹⁴⁸¹⁴⁹ The Joint External Evaluation report (JEE) for Namibia, published in 2017, states that work with dangerous pathogens is rare in Namibia, and "there is no strategic national laboratory plan for biosafety and biosecurity in place". ¹⁵⁰ Neither the Directorate of Veterinary Services, the Namibia Institute of Pathology (NIP—a state-owned enterprise that runs laboratories for human health in Namibia), the Ministry of Education, Innovation, Youth, Sport, Arts & Culture, nor the Ministry of Defence & Veterans Affairs shares other relevant information via public websites. ^151152153154 There is no evidence of media reports or academic studies with additional relevant information. Namibia acceded to the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) in 2023, but no Confidence Building Measures (CBM) reports submitted by Namibia are available on the eCBM platform. ¹⁵⁵ The VERTIC (Verification Research Training and Information Centre) Biological Weapons Convention Legislation Database does not list any relevant legislation. ¹⁵⁶

1.3.3a Personnel checks for permission to access to especially dangerous pathogens

Score: 0

There is no publicly available evidence indicating that regulations or licensing requirements in Namibia mandate drug testing, background checks, or psychological or mental fitness evaluations for security and other personnel who have access to especially dangerous pathogens, toxins, or biological materials with pandemic potential. It is also unclear whether Namibia possesses facilities capable of housing such materials, or if such facilities exist, whether they are operational. The websites of the Ministry of Health and Social Services (MoHSS) and the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform (MAWLR) do not mention any facilities designated for the management of dangerous pathogens or toxins. ¹⁵⁷¹⁵⁸ The Joint External Evaluation (JEE) report for Namibia, published in 2017, notes that work involving dangerous pathogens is uncommon in the country and that "there is no strategic national laboratory plan for biosafety and biosecurity in place." ¹⁵⁹ In addition, neither the MoHSS, the MAWLR, the Namibia Institute of Pathology, the Ministry of Education, Innovation, Youth, Sport, Arts & Culture, nor the Ministry of Defence & Veterans Affairs provides further relevant information through public websites. ^{160161162163164} No relevant academic studies or media reports have been identified. Although Namibia acceded to the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) in 2023, no Confidence Building Measures (CBM) reports submitted by Namibia are available on the eCBM platform. ¹⁶⁵ The VERTIC (Verification Research Training and Information Centre) Biological Weapons Convention Legislation Database does not list any pertinent legislation for Namibia. ¹⁶⁶ The Ministry of Health and Social Services’ Infection Prevention and Control Guidelines, 3rd Edition (2023), does not contain any relevant guidelines. ¹⁶⁷

1.3.4a National transport regulations for Category A and B infectious substances

Score: 0

There is no publicly accessible information on national regulations in Namibia governing the safe and secure transport of infectious substances (Categories A and B). None of the institutions, including the Ministry of Health and Social Services, the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform, the Ministry of Works and Transport, the Ministry of Defence & Veterans Affairs, the Ministry of Education, Innovation, Youth, Sport, Arts & Culture, or the Namibia Institute of Pathology, provide relevant details on their public websites. ^{168169170171172173} The 1997 Regulations Relating to the Health and Safety of Employees at Work, issued under the Labour Act, 1992, address hazardous substances in general and state that these should be transported "in accordance with the recommendations on the transport of hazardous substances or dangerous goods made by the United Nations". ¹⁷⁴ However, these regulations do not provide specific guidance on the transport of infectious substances. The Joint External Evaluation (JEE) report, published in 2017, notes that "training has been conducted for biosafety" in laboratories in Namibia, including training in "the shipping and transport of regulated biological materials". It also commends the specimen transportation system at the Namibia Institute of Pathology (NIP). ¹⁷⁵ Nevertheless, no details about these practices are available via public websites maintained by the aforementioned entities. No academic studies or media reports with additional relevant information have been identified. Namibia acceded to the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) in 2023, but no Confidence Building Measures (CBM) reports submitted by Namibia are available on the eCBM platform. ¹⁷⁶ The VERTIC (Verification Research Training and Information Centre) Biological Weapons Convention Legislation Database does not list any relevant legislation. ¹⁷⁷ The Ministry of Health and Social Services’ Infection Prevention and Control Guidelines, 3rd Edition (2023), does not contain any relevant guidelines. ¹⁷⁸

1.3.5a Laws/regulations on cross-border transfer and end-user screening

Score: 0

There is no publicly available evidence of any national legislation, regulation, or official guidance in Namibia that governs the cross-border transfer or end-user screening of especially dangerous pathogens, toxins, or pathogens with pandemic potential. The 1997 Regulations Relating to the Health and Safety of Employees at Work, issued under the Labour Act, 1992, provide general guidance on the transportation of hazardous substances, stating, for example, that such substances should be transported "in accordance with the recommendations on the transport of hazardous substances or dangerous goods made by the United Nations". ¹⁷⁹ However, these regulations do not specifically address pathogens or their cross-border movement. Additionally, Namibian laws that address cross-border activities, such as the Import and Export Control Act, 1994, the Namibian Ports Authority Act, 1994, and the Customs and Excise Act, 1998, do not include provisions related to the transfer of pathogens or toxins. ^180181182 No evidence of more recent legislation addressing this topic has been found. Public websites of the Ministry of Health and Social Services, the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform, the Ministry of Industrialisation & Trade, the Ministry of Defence & Veterans Affairs, and the Ministry of Education, Innovation, Youth, Sport, Arts & Culture do not offer any relevant information. ^{183184185186187} There is also no publicly available information from academic studies or media sources on this issue. Namibia acceded to the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) in 2023, but no Confidence Building Measures (CBM) reports submitted by Namibia are available on the eCBM platform. ¹⁸⁸ The VERTIC Biological Weapons Convention Legislation Database does not list any relevant Namibian legislation. ¹⁸⁹ The Ministry of Health and Social Services’ Infection Prevention and Control Guidelines, 3rd Edition (2023), does not contain any relevant guidelines. ¹⁹⁰

1.4.1a Biosafety laws/regulations

Score: 0

There is no publicly available evidence of national biosafety legislation or regulations in Namibia, aside from the Biosafety Act, 2006, which applies to genetically modified organisms and does not address biosecurity concerns related to dangerous pathogens or toxins. ¹⁹¹ As noted in the Joint External Evaluation (JEE) report for Namibia, published in 2017, “while there is specific legislation on biosafety addressing only genetically modified organisms, there is not yet legislation specifically addressing both biosafety and biosecurity for pathogens of human, animal and agricultural sources.” ¹⁹² No additional relevant legislation is listed for Namibia in the VERTIC (Verification Research, Training and Information Centre) Biological Weapons Convention Legislation Database, the FAOLEX legal database of the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, or the Namibia Legal Assistance Centre’s list of acts and policies. ^193194195 There is no relevant information publicly shared by the Ministry of Health and Social Services, the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform, the Namibia Institute of Pathology (NIP), the Ministry of Education, Innovation, Youth, Sport, Arts & Culture, or the Ministry of Defence & Veterans Affairs. ^{196197198199200} No relevant academic studies or media reports were identified. Namibia acceded to the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) in 2023, but no Confidence Building Measures (CBM) reports submitted by Namibia are available on the eCBM platform. ²⁰¹ The National Action Plan for Health Security (NAPHS 2021–2025) noted that as of 2020, Namibia did not have legislation on biosafety and biosecurity in place, and included the development of such legislation as a target between 2021 and 2025. ²⁰² However, no public evidence of progress toward this goal has been found.

1.4.1b Agency for enforcement of biosafety laws/regulations

Score: 0

There is no publicly available evidence of national biosafety legislations and/or regulations in Namibia (except for the Biosafety Act, 2006, which deals only with genetically modified organisms), nor of any specific established agency responsible for enforcing such measures. ²⁰³ As noted in the Joint External Evaluation (JEE) report for Namibia, published in 2017, “while there is specific legislation on biosafety addressing only genetically modified organisms, there is not yet legislation specifically addressing both biosafety and biosecurity for pathogens of human, animal and agricultural sources.” ²⁰⁴ No additional relevant legislation is listed for Namibia in the VERTIC (Verification Research, Training and Information Centre) Biological Weapons Convention Legislation Database, the FAOLEX legal database of the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, or the Namibia Legal Assistance Centre’s list of acts and policies. ^205206207 There is no relevant information publicly shared by the Ministry of Health and Social Services, the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform, the Namibia Institute of Pathology (NIP), the Ministry of Education, Innovation, Youth, Sport, Arts & Culture, or the Ministry of Defence & Veterans Affairs. ^{208209210211212} No relevant academic studies or media reports were identified. Namibia acceded to the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) in 2023, but no Confidence Building Measures (CBM) reports submitted by Namibia are available on the eCBM platform. ²¹³ The National Action Plan for Health Security (NAPHS 2021–2025) identifies, under Objective 1 of the “Biosafety and Biosecurity” section, the goal of establishing a functional inter ministerial task force to develop an integrated biosafety and biosecurity system by December 2025. ²¹⁴ However, no publicly available evidence of the formation or operation of such a task force could be identified.

1.4.2a Biosafety training using a standardised, required approach

Score: 0

There is no public evidence that Namibia requires biosafety training, using a standardized, required approach, such as through a common curriculum or a train-the-trainer programme, for personnel working in facilities housing or working with especially dangerous pathogens, toxins, or biological materials with pandemic potential. According to a media article dated 26 April 2023 by the University of Namibia News Forum Online, Namibia has at least one high-containment facility that handles especially dangerous pathogens and potentially pandemic-capable biological materials, which is the Biosafety Level 3 (BSL 3) Laboratory at the University of Namibia (UNAM) inaugurated in April 2023. The lab is capable of handling pathogens associated with diseases like COVID-19, tuberculosis, rabies, and avian influenza. ²¹⁵ While another report suggested that Namibia had only a single BSL‑3-capable lab before the UNAM facility, details on name or licensing were not specified. ²¹⁶ However, there is no mention of a standardized, required approach in these articles or elsewhere online.

There is no mention of required biosafety training, using a standardized, required approach on the websites of the Ministry of Health and Social Services (MoHSS) or the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform (MAWLR). ²¹⁷²¹⁸ The Joint External Evaluation report (JEE) for Namibia, published in 2017, states that work with dangerous pathogens is rare in Namibia, and "there is no strategic national laboratory plan for biosafety and biosecurity in place". ²¹⁹ Neither the Directorate of Veterinary Services, the Namibia Institute of Pathology (NIP—a state-owned enterprise that runs laboratories for human health in Namibia), the Ministry of Education, Innovation, Youth, Sport, Arts & Culture, nor the Ministry of Defence & Veterans Affairs shares other relevant information via public websites. ^220221222223 There is no evidence of media reports or academic studies with additional relevant information. Namibia acceded to the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) in 2023, but no Confidence Building Measures (CBM) reports submitted by Namibia are available on the eCBM platform. ²²⁴ The VERTIC (Verification Research Training and Information Centre) Biological Weapons Convention Legislation Database does not list any relevant legislation. ²²⁵

1.5.1a Evidence of national assessment of dual-use research

Score: 0

There is no publicly available evidence that Namibia has conducted any assessment to determine whether dual use research is being carried out, including research involving especially dangerous pathogens or toxins. None of the institutions, including the Ministry of Health and Social Services, the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform, the Namibia Institute of Pathology (NIP), the Ministry of Education, Innovation, Youth, Sport, Arts & Culture, or the Ministry of Defence & Veterans Affairs, share relevant information via public websites. ^{226227228229230} The Joint External Evaluation (JEE) report for Namibia, published in 2017, notes that work involving dangerous pathogens is rare in the country and states that “there is no strategic national laboratory plan for biosafety and biosecurity in place.” The report does not mention any assessment of dual use research. ²³¹ There is also no evidence from media reports or academic studies offering further relevant information. Namibia acceded to the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) in 2023, but no Confidence Building Measures (CBM) reports from Namibia are available on the eCBM platform. ²³² The National Commission on Research, Science and Technology likewise does not provide any related information through a publicly accessible website. ²³³

1.5.1b National law/regulation on oversight of dual-use research

Score: 0

There is no publicly available evidence of a national policy requiring oversight of dual use research. None of the institutions, including the Ministry of Health and Social Services, the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform, the Namibia Institute of Pathology (NIP), the Ministry of Education, Innovation, Youth, Sport, Arts & Culture, or the Ministry of Defence & Veterans Affairs, share relevant information via public websites. ^{234235236237238} The Joint External Evaluation (JEE) report for Namibia, published in 2017, indicates that activities involving dangerous pathogens are uncommon in the country, and that "there is no strategic national laboratory plan for biosafety and biosecurity in place." The report also makes no reference to any regulations concerning dual use research. ²³⁹ Additionally, none of the Namibian laws listed in the VERTIC Biological Weapons Convention Legislation Database address dual use research. ²⁴⁰ There is also no evidence from media reports or academic studies offering further relevant information. Namibia acceded to the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) in 2023, but no Confidence Building Measures (CBM) reports from Namibia are available on the eCBM platform. ²⁴¹ The National Commission on Research, Science and Technology likewise does not provide any related information through a publicly accessible website. ²⁴²

1.5.1c Existence of agency responsible for oversight of dual-use research

Score: 0

There is no publicly available evidence of a Namibian agency specifically responsible for oversight of research with especially dangerous pathogens, pathogens with pandemic potential, or other dual-use research. None of the institutions, including the Ministry of Health and Social Services, the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform, the Namibia Institute of Pathology (NIP), the Ministry of Education, Innovation, Youth, Sport, Arts & Culture, or the Ministry of Defence & Veterans Affairs, share relevant information via public websites. ^{243244245246247} The Joint External Evaluation (JEE) report for Namibia, published in 2017, indicates that activities involving dangerous pathogens are uncommon in the country, and that "there is no strategic national laboratory plan for biosafety and biosecurity in place." The report also makes no reference to any regulations concerning dual use research. ²⁴⁸ Additionally, none of the Namibian laws listed in the VERTIC Biological Weapons Convention Legislation Database address dual use research. ²⁴⁹ There is also no evidence from media reports or academic studies offering further relevant information. Namibia acceded to the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) in 2023, but no Confidence Building Measures (CBM) reports from Namibia are available on the eCBM platform. ²⁵⁰ The National Commission on Research, Science and Technology likewise does not provide any related information through a publicly accessible website. ²⁵¹

1.5.2a Requirement to screen synthesised DNA against list prior to sale

Score: 0

There is no publicly available evidence of any national legislation, regulation, policy, or other official guidance in Namibia requiring the screening of synthesized DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) prior to its sale. None of the institutions, including the Ministry of Health and Social Services, the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform, the Namibia Institute of Pathology, the Ministry of Education, Innovation, Youth, Sport, Arts & Culture, or the Ministry of Works and Transport, and the National Commission on Research, Science and Technology, share relevant information on their public websites. ^{252253254255256257} The Joint External Evaluation (JEE) report for Namibia, published in 2017, notes that work involving dangerous pathogens is rare in the country and states that "there is no strategic national laboratory plan for biosafety and biosecurity in place." It does not suggest that Namibian laboratories have DNA synthesis capabilities or that regulations exist governing its sale. ²⁵⁸ No relevant legislation is listed for Namibia in the VERTIC (Verification Research, Training and Information Center) Biological Weapons Convention Legislation Database, the FAOLEX database of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, or the Namibia Legal Assistance Centre. ^259260261 There is also no evidence of related media coverage or academic research. Namibia acceded to the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) in 2023, but no Confidence Building Measures (CBM) reports submitted by Namibia are available on the eCBM platform. ²⁶²

1.6.1a Immunization rate for humans (measles/MCV2)

Score: 0

1.6.1b Availability of vaccination figures for livestock (FMD) through OIE database

Score: 0

There is no publicly available data on official foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) vaccination figures for livestock in Namibia in the OIE database, on its FMD-specific webpage, or through the WOAH/FAO Reference Laboratory Network for Foot-and-Mouth Disease. ^263264265

1.6.1c Equitablenature of national immunization strategy/plan

Score: 0

There is no publicly available that Namibia has a national immunization strategy/plan, not to mention whether the strategy/plan include a plan to ensure equitable distribution or strategies specifically aimed at overcoming socioeconomic inequalities, geography, cultural/linguistic differences and/or gender barriers to vaccination. In August 2022, Namibia launched the National Integrated Vaccination Campaign, a two-week effort (8–19 August) offering measles, rubella, and other routine vaccines for children, COVID-19 vaccines for those 12 and older, and supplements for pregnant women. However, it does not constitute a full national immunization strategy or plan. ²⁶⁶ The National Deployment and Vaccination Plan for COVID-19 Vaccines, published in February 2021, includes vaccination schedules and delivery strategies in chapter 6 and chapter 11, though only briefly. ²⁶⁷ There is no mention of a national health immunization plan/strategy on the websites of the Ministry of Health and Social Services (MoHSS) or the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform (MAWLR). ²⁶⁸²⁶⁹ The Joint External Evaluation report (JEE) for Namibia, published in 2017, states that "the Public and Environmental Health Act 2015 provides a legislative framework for vaccination activities in human health in the country". ²⁷⁰ However, the Act does not include any mention of a national immunization strategy/plan. ²⁷¹ Neither the Namibia Institute of Pathology (NIP—a state-owned enterprise that runs laboratories for human health in Namibia), the Ministry of Education, Innovation, Youth, Sport, Arts & Culture, nor the Ministry of Defence & Veterans Affairs shares other relevant information via public websites. ^272273274 There is no evidence of media reports or academic studies with additional relevant information. Namibia acceded to the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) in 2023, but no Confidence Building Measures (CBM) reports submitted by Namibia are available on the eCBM platform. ²⁷⁵ The VERTIC (Verification Research Training and Information Centre) Biological Weapons Convention Legislation Database does not list any relevant legislation. ²⁷⁶

In October 2025, the Ministry of Health and Social Services (MoHSS) launched a comprehensive five-year national strategy called the Reproductive, Maternal, Newborn, Adolescent Health, and Nutrition Strategy (RMNCAH&N) covering 2025/2026 to 2029/2030. The strategy aims to accelerate progress in reducing maternal, newborn, child, and adolescent deaths and strengthen healthcare systems nationwide. One of the strategy's key priorities is to expand immunization coverage. However, there is no evidence of a detailed immunization plan as the MNCAH&N document is not yet available for assessment. ²⁷⁷

1.6.1d Vaccine hesitancy and build public trust coverage in vaccines in national immunization strategy/plans

Score: 0

There is no publicly available that Namibia has a national immunization strategy/plan, not to mention whether the strategy/plan include a plan to ensure equitable distribution or strategies specifically aimed at overcoming socioeconomic inequalities, geography, cultural/linguistic differences and/or gender barriers to vaccination. In August 2022, Namibia launched the National Integrated Vaccination Campaign, a two-week effort (8–19 August) offering measles, rubella, and other routine vaccines for children, COVID-19 vaccines for those 12 and older, and supplements for pregnant women. However, it does not constitute a full national immunization strategy or plan. ²⁷⁸ The National Deployment and Vaccination Plan for COVID-19 Vaccines, published in February 2021, includes vaccination schedules and delivery strategies in chapter 6 and chapter 11, though only briefly. ²⁷⁹ There is no mention of a national health immunization plan/strategy on the websites of the Ministry of Health and Social Services (MoHSS) or the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform (MAWLR). ²⁸⁰²⁸¹ The Joint External Evaluation report (JEE) for Namibia, published in 2017, states that "the Public and Environmental Health Act 2015 provides a legislative framework for vaccination activities in human health in the country". ²⁸² However, the Act does not include any mention of a national immunization strategy/plan. ²⁸³ Neither the Namibia Institute of Pathology (NIP—a state-owned enterprise that runs laboratories for human health in Namibia), the Ministry of Education, Innovation, Youth, Sport, Arts & Culture, nor the Ministry of Defence & Veterans Affairs shares other relevant information via public websites. ^284285286 There is no evidence of media reports or academic studies with additional relevant information. Namibia acceded to the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) in 2023, but no Confidence Building Measures (CBM) reports submitted by Namibia are available on the eCBM platform. ²⁸⁷ The VERTIC (Verification Research Training and Information Centre) Biological Weapons Convention Legislation Database does not list any relevant legislation. ²⁸⁸

1.6.1e National advisory group for immunization strategy/plan

Score: 100

There is a national advisory group that provides technical guidance and advice on the immunization strategy/plan to government. According to the World Health Organization's National Immunization Advisory Mechanism, the Namibian Immunization Technical Advisory Group (NITAG) is available in the country since 2023. ²⁸⁹ There is public evidence on the World Health Organization Namibia Facebook page that the inaugural training of the Namibia Immunization Technical Advisory Group (NITAG) took place in April 2023. ²⁹⁰ There is no mention of a national immunization strategy/plan for influenza on the websites of the Ministry of Health and Social Services (MoHSS), the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform (MAWLR), the Namibia Institute of Pathology (NIP—a state-owned enterprise that runs laboratories for human health in Namibia). ^291292293

1.6.1f Presence of an immunization programme for influenza

Score: 0

There is no publicly available evidence that Namibia has an immunization programme for influenza. The World Health Organization's vaccination schedule page for influenza does not list any schedule for Namibia. ²⁹⁴ There is no mention of an immunization programme for influenza on the websites of the Ministry of Health and Social Services (MoHSS), the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform (MAWLR), the Namibia Institute of Pathology (NIP—a state-owned enterprise that runs laboratories for human health in Namibia), the Ministry of Education, Innovation, Youth, Sport, Arts & Culture, nor the Ministry of Defence & Veterans Affairs as well as in the Joint External Evaluation report (JEE) for Namibia published in 2017 or the National Action Plan for Health Security (NAPHS 2020-2025). ^{295296297298299300301} There is no evidence of media reports or academic studies with additional relevant information.

1.7.1a Strategy/plan for resilience of health system

Score: 50

There is evidence that Namibia has a plan/strategy, but there is insufficient evidence that it includes considerations that specifically address the threat of infectious diseases. According to a 24 June 2024 article by the Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (Africa CDC), the Tripartite One Health National Strategy (2024–2028), launched in June 2024, is anchored on six thematic areas, which include integrating the Environment in One Health. ³⁰² However, there is insufficient evidence that it includes considerations that specifically address the threat of infectious diseases. There is no relevant information identified in the websites of Ministry of Health and Social Services (MoHSS), the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform (MAWLR), the Namibia Institute of Pathology (NIP—a state-owned enterprise that runs laboratories for human health in Namibia), and the Ministry of Environment, Forestry & Tourism. ^303304305306

2.1.1a Capacity of national lab system to conduct 5 or more WHO core tests

Score: 50

There is publicly available evidence indicating that Namibia’s national laboratory system can perform at least five of the ten core diagnostic tests defined by the World Health Organization (WHO), though specific tests are not fully identified. The 2017 Joint External Evaluation (JEE), on page 34, awarded Namibia a score of “4” for the D.1.1 indicator “laboratory testing for detection of priority diseases,” which means the country can conduct at least five of these WHO core tests. The JEE, on page 33, confirms that Namibian labs perform microscopy for tuberculosis, rapid malaria tests, and HIV diagnostics. It also reports laboratory capacity for diseases such as Ebola, yellow fever, measles, rubella, and syphilis, though it does not clarify which of these are officially classified as core tests. The report notes that polio testing is conducted outside the country and omits any mention of influenza or typhoid testing.³⁰⁷ Neither the Ministry of Health and Social Services nor the Namibia Institute of Pathology publishes further technical details on their websites. ³⁰⁸³⁰⁹ The National Action Plan for Health Security (2020–2025), on page 32, includes an objective for five laboratories to support Integrated Disease Surveillance and Response (IDSR) by December 2024, but it does not specify which diseases are included in the IDSR priority list. ³¹⁰

2.1.1b Plan to conduct testing during a public health emergency

Score: 50

There is evidence that Namibia has a public health emergency preparedness plan, but there is insufficient publicly available information to determine whether it addresses testing for novel pathogens, scaling laboratory capacity, or establishing testing targets. In March 2025, the World Health Organization (WHO) reported that the Ministry of Health and Social Services (MoHSS), with WHO support, launched the National Multi-Hazard Emergencies Preparedness and Response Plan (NMHEPRP) and the Handbook for Public Health Emergency Operations Centres (PHEOC). The NMHEPRP is intended to strengthen Namibia’s coordination and response capabilities through a comprehensive emergency management framework, while the PHEOC Handbook offers guidance for managing and operating public health emergency operations centers. ³¹¹ The National Multi-Hazard Health Emergencies Preparedness and Response Plan 2024, in its plan for Investigation/Risk assessment on page 19, states that the plan includes research that "allowing for testing new laboratory techniques, identifying new pathogens, looking at unusual risk factors and identifying hypotheses for clinical and therapeutic research". However, it does not mention plans related to scaling capacity or goals for testing. ³¹² Neither the PHEOC Handbook nor any relevant information is available via public websites of the MoHSS, the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform, the Namibia Institute of Pathology, the National Commission on Research, Science and Technology. ^313314315316

2.1.2a Existence of an accredited national lab serving as a reference facility

Score: 0

There is no publicly available evidence that Namibia has a national public health reference laboratory. The Joint External Evaluation (JEE) report for Namibia, published in 2017, explicitly states that the country lacks a national public health reference facility. ³¹⁷ While the JEE notes that the Central Veterinary Laboratory holds a high level of accreditation and the Namibia Institute of Pathology (NIP) is accredited under ISO 15189, neither institution currently functions as a reference laboratory. No relevant information is shared through the public websites of the Ministry of Health and Social Services, the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform, the or NIP. ^318319320 In 2020, the Ministry of Health and Social Services (MoHSS) and the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) initiated a twinning project aimed at establishing a Namibia Institute of Public Health (NIPH), but no evidence of such an institution can be found in publicly accessible sources. ³²¹ Additionally, the International Association of National Public Health Institutes (IANPHI) lists the MoHSS as Namibia’s public health institute but does not name a specific institute. ³²² Although the Tracking AMR Country Self-Assessment Survey (TrACSS) refers to a “National Bacteriology Reference Laboratory,” no information confirming its existence or accreditation could be found on the websites of the MoHSS, NIP, MAWLR, or elsewhere online. ³²³

2.1.2b External quality assurance of a national lab serving as a reference facility

Score: 0

There is no publicly available evidence to confirm that there is a national laboratory that serves as a reference facility for Namibia. The Joint External Evaluation (JEE) report for Namibia, published in 2017, states that the country does not have a national public health reference laboratory. ³²⁴ Additionally, the International Association of National Public Health Institutes (IANPHI) lists the MoHSS as Namibia’s public health institute but does not name a specific institute. ³²⁵ The Namibia Tracking AMR Country Self-Assessment Survey (TrACSS) reports that national EQA is mandatory and/or implemented across all bacteriology laboratories, including a facility referred to as the National Bacteriology Reference Laboratory. However, no publicly available information confirming the existence of such a laboratory could be found on the websites of the Ministry of Health and Social Services (MoHSS), the Namibia Institute of Pathology (NIP), the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform (MAWLR), or any other online source. ^326327328329

2.2.1a Nationwide specimen transport system

Score: 100

There is publicly available evidence indicating that Namibia maintains a nationwide specimen transport system. According to Section D.1.2 'Specimen referral and transport system section' of the Joint External Evaluation (JEE) report published in 2017, the Namibia Institute of Pathology (NIP), a state-owned entity overseeing human health laboratories, has a functioning transport network for specimens, supported by a courier and backup system to ensure timely delivery. The report also notes that the veterinary laboratory system has an effective mechanism for moving samples from peripheral to national facilities. Namibia received a score of 4 from the JEE for its specimen referral and transport system, meaning that specimens can be transported from at least 80% of intermediate-level or district facilities to national laboratories for advanced diagnostics. ³³⁰ However, no details about specimen transport are available on the public websites of the Ministry of Health and Social Services, the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform or the Namibia Institute of Pathology. ^331332333 The Namibia Tracking AMR Country Self Assessment Survey (TrACSS) and the National Action Plan for Health Security (NAPHS 2020-2025) also do not address specimen transport. ³³⁴³³⁵

2.2.2a Plan to rapidly authorize/license laboratories to scale-up testing during an outbreak

Score: 0

There is no evidence that Namibia has a plan in place to rapidly authorize or license laboratories to supplement the capacity of the national public health laboratory system to scale-up testing during an outbreak. The National Health Emergency Preparedness and Response Plan (NHEPRP) 2024 and National Action Plan for Health Security (NAPHS 2021-2025) do not contain provisions for rapidly authorizing or licensing laboratories. ³³⁶³³⁷ There is no relevant information shared via a public website by the the MoHSS, the MAWLR, its Directorate of Veterinary Services, the NIP (a state-owned enterprise that runs laboratories for human health in Namibia), or the Office of the Prime Minister (including its Department of Disaster Management). ^{338339340341342}

2.3.1a Evidence of ongoing event-based and indicator-based surveillance and analysis

Score: 50

There is publicly available evidence that Namibia is conducting ongoing event- and indicator-based surveillance, however there is no evidence any data data from these is being analyzed on a daily basis. According to the 2017 Joint External Evaluation (JEE) report for Namibia, "Namibia has in place an indicator-based and syndrome surveillance system which also includes sentinel surveillance. This forms part of the public health surveillance system and has the capacity to detect, confirm and respond to communicable and non-communicable disease threats. In animal health, there is also an event-based surveillance component which involves farmers and veterinary field officers in reporting events related to animal health." ³⁴³ According to the Strategic Partnership for Health Security (SPH) 2020 assessment, Namibia scored 80% capacity for Indicator‑ and Event‑based surveillance. ³⁴⁴ In early 2025, Namibia officially launched its national Event‑Based Surveillance Guidelines. ³⁴⁵ Event-based and indicator-based surveillance system in the country is also mentioned in the section 3.1. Surveillance and Early Warning Systems of the National Multi-Hazard Health Emergencies Preparedness and Response Plan 2024. ³⁴⁶ Though there is evidence that the country is conducting event-based and indicator-based surveillance, no evidence that such surveillance and analysis for notifiable and novel infectious diseases is available on the websites of Ministry of Health and Social Services (MoHSS), the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform (MAWLR), or the Namibia Institute of Pathology. ^347348349

2.3.1b Evidence of a mechanism (such as IHR focal point) for reporting notifiable diseases to the WHO within the set timeline

Score: 100

There is publicly available evidence that Namibia has an operational mechanism for reporting notifiable diseases to the World Health Organization (WHO). The Joint External Evaluation (JEE) report for Namibia, published in 2017, states that the country has several laws and policies supporting the implementation of the International Health Regulations (IHR 2005), and that a national IHR focal point has been designated for communication with the WHO. ³⁵⁰ However, no additional evidence of a specific mechanism for reporting notifiable diseases to the WHO was found through the public websites of the Ministry of Health and Social Services, the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform, the Namibia Institute of Pathology, or other online sources. ^351352353

2.3.2a Electronic national and sub-national reporting surveillance system

Score: 0

There is no publicly available evidence that the Namibian government operates an electronic reporting surveillance system at both the national and the sub-national level. According to a Facebook post of the Ministry of Health and Social Services (MoHSS) in November 2024, MoHSS, in partnership with WHO, is transitioning from paper-based disease reporting to a real-time electronic integrated Disease Surveillance and Response (eIDSR) platform which will streamline reporting for faster, more accurate responses to priority diseases. ³⁵⁴ According to an article dated 25 October 2024 by the WHO, from 14–16 October 2024, Namibia’s Ministry of Health and Social Services held a national training for 20 trainers on the eSURV Companion App, a mobile health tool designed to strengthen national surveillance. The app is expected to be officially launched by March 2025 to enhance disease monitoring and supervision across all districts in the country. ³⁵⁵ There is no evidence found through the websites of the Ministry of Health and Social Services, the World Health Organization or media articles that the eSURV Companion App has been launched by July 2025. ³⁵⁶³⁵⁷

2.3.2b Collection of ongoing/real-time lab data by electronic surveillance system

Score: 0

There is no publicly available evidence that the country maintains a electronic reporting surveillance system that collects ongoing or real-time laboratory data, and this data can be disaggregated and analysed by age, ethnicity. According to Namibia's National Action Plan for Health Security (NAPHS 2021–2025), the country operates a robust real-time surveillance system. This includes indicator-based and syndromic surveillance, alongside some event-based surveillance, all under the Integrated Disease Surveillance and Response (IDSR) strategy, which also encompasses zoonotic disease monitoring. ³⁵⁸ Similarly, the 2017 Joint External Evaluation (JEE) report states that Namibia has "a strong real-time surveillance system". Nonetheless, the country received a score of 2 on indicator D.2.2 of the JEE, which refers to the development stage of an interoperable, interconnected electronic real-time reporting system for public health or veterinary surveillance. A score below 4 suggests that real-time data sharing is not yet possible, although it does not necessarily reflect limitations in real-time data collection. The report also notes that web-based laboratory results are shared promptly within Namibia. ³⁵⁹ The Namibian Livestock Identification and Traceability System (NamLITS), the nation’s electronic animal disease surveillance platform, does not reference laboratory data reporting. ³⁶⁰ Furthermore, neither the Ministry of Health and Social Services, the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform, nor the Namibia Institute of Pathology provides public information confirming that their surveillance systems support real-time laboratory data collection. ^361362363

2.3.3a National wastewater surveillance programme or initiative

Score: 100

There is evidence of a wastewater surveillance programme at a national level in Namibia.

In October 2025, Namibia’s routine environmental surveillance system detected poliovirus type 2 in a wastewater sample collected at the Ndama sewage pond in Rundu, Kavango East Region. Although no child had developed paralysis, laboratory analysis confirmed that the virus was genetically linked to strains circulating in neighbouring Angola, signaling the risk of cross border transmission.³⁶⁴

In 2021, to increase the sensitivity of surveillance, WHO supported the Namibian Ministry of Health and Social Services in partnership with town councils in establishing environmental surveillance. Four sites – Windhoek, Oshakati, Engela and Rundu – were identified. Samples are collected on a weekly basis from sewerage ponds and send for testing to determine if there are any vaccine derived polio viruses circulating.³⁶⁵

2.4.1a Common usage of electronic health records

Score: 50

There is evidence that Electronic health records are used but no evidence that they are commonly in use. The National eHealth Strategy for 2021–2025, released in December 2020, in its Section 3. The Future State of eHealth, outlines various advantages of electronic health records (EHRs) and describes how their use can help address both current and future healthcare challenges in Namibia. It also notes that, as of 2018, Namibia had 95% mobile broadband coverage and a high rate of mobile cellular subscriptions. With the country's ongoing efforts to expand mobile internet access, increase smart device ownership, and upgrade networks from 2G to 3G and 4G, the use of EHRs is expected to enhance healthcare delivery and help manage costs nationwide. However, the report does not provide any indication of how widely EHRs are actually used in the country. ³⁶⁶ While it seems that some hospitals have adopted EHRs, the extent of their use remains unclear due to limited and outdated information. In 2011, local media reported that the Ministry of Health and Social Services (MoHSS; previously known as the Ministry of Health) had launched the Integrated Health Care Information Management System (IHCIMS), aiming to transition major hospitals in Windhoek to a paperless system. ³⁶⁷ The MoHSS website does not mention IHCIMS. ³⁶⁸ The MoHSS Strategic Plan for 2017/2018–2021/2022 aimed for 100% adoption of electronic health systems in all hospitals by 2021/22, but reported that only 10% of hospitals had such systems in place as of 2017/18, which indicates limited use of EHRs at the time. ³⁶⁹ No information is available on whether the 2021/22 target was achieved. Neither the Namibia Institute of Pathology nor the National Action Plan for Health Security (NAPHS 2021–2025) contains references to EHRs. ³⁷⁰³⁷¹ No additional insights are available from media coverage or academic literature.

2.4.1b Public health system access to individual electronic health records

Score: 0

There is no publicly available evidence to confirm that Namibia's national public health system has access to electronic health records of individuals in the country. The National eHealth Strategy for 2021–2025, released in December 2020, in its Section 3. The Future State of eHealth, outlines various advantages of electronic health records (EHRs) and describes how their use can help address both current and future healthcare challenges in Namibia. It also notes that, as of 2018, Namibia had 95% mobile broadband coverage and a high rate of mobile cellular subscriptions. With the country's ongoing efforts to expand mobile internet access, increase smart device ownership, and upgrade networks from 2G to 3G and 4G, the use of EHRs is expected to enhance healthcare delivery and help manage costs nationwide. However, the report does not provide any indication of how widely EHRs are actually used in the country. ³⁷² While it seems that some hospitals have adopted EHRs, the extent of their use remains unclear due to limited and outdated information. In 2011, local media reported that the Ministry of Health and Social Services (MoHSS; previously known as the Ministry of Health) had launched the Integrated Health Care Information Management System (IHCIMS), aiming to transition major hospitals in Windhoek to a paperless system. ³⁷³ The MoHSS website does not mention IHCIMS. ³⁷⁴ The MoHSS Strategic Plan for 2017/2018–2021/2022 aimed for 100% adoption of electronic health systems in all hospitals by 2021/22, but reported that only 10% of hospitals had such systems in place as of 2017/18, which indicates limited use of EHRs at the time. ³⁷⁵ No information is available on whether the 2021/22 target was achieved. Neither the Namibia Institute of Pathology nor the National Action Plan for Health Security (NAPHS 2021–2025) contains references to EHRs. ³⁷⁶³⁷⁷ No additional insights are available from media coverage or academic literature.

2.4.1c Existence of data standards for health record data comparability

Score: 100

There is publicly available evidence to confirm that patient health data used by Namibia's national public health system is comparable or adheres to consistent standards. The National eHealth Strategy for 2021–2025, released in December 2020, includes a SWOT analysis on standards and interoperability (Table 5, page 10). Under strengths it states, "Data standards are in use including ICD 11 and ICD 10 for mortality coding, HL7, and HL7 FIHR ." ³⁷⁸
In 2011, local media reported that the Ministry of Health and Social Services (MoHSS; previously known as the Ministry of Health) had launched the Integrated Health Care Information Management System (IHCIMS), aiming to transition major hospitals in Windhoek to a paperless system. ³⁷⁹ The MoHSS website does not mention IHCIMS. ³⁸⁰ The MoHSS Strategic Plan for 2017/2018–2021/2022 aimed for 100% adoption of electronic health systems in all hospitals by 2021/22, but reported that only 10% of hospitals had such systems in place as of 2017/18, which indicates limited use of EHRs at the time. ³⁸¹ No information is available on whether the 2021/22 target was achieved. Neither the Namibia Institute of Pathology nor the National Action Plan for Health Security (NAPHS 2021–2025) contains references to EHRs. ³⁸²³⁸³ According to the 2017 academic study "The Status of Integration of Health Information Systems in Namibia," 67 health information systems were identified within the Namibian public health sector. Among these, three systems—DHIS2, Epidemic Info (EPI INFO), and eHealth—are integrated for patient health records management and are overseen by the Ministry of Health and Social Services’ Directorate of Health Information Systems and Research (HRD). However, the study does not address whether data standards are in place to ensure comparability across these systems. ³⁸⁴ No additional insights are available from media coverage or academic literature.

2.4.2a Data sharing mechanisms

Score: 0

There is no publicly available evidence to confirm that mechanisms exist for data sharing between relevant ministries responsible for animal, human, and wildlife disease surveillance in Namibia. According to the 2017 Joint External Evaluation (JEE) report, while both the human health and animal health sectors maintain strong individual surveillance systems, they operate in isolation and are not integrated. Although the JEE indicates that integration plans were being developed at the time, there is no indication that these have been implemented since the report's release. ³⁸⁵ Furthermore, no references to data-sharing mechanisms are found on the publicly accessible websites of the Ministry of Health and Social Services (MoHSS), the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform (MAWLR), the Namibia Institute of Pathology (NIP), or the Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Tourism (MEFT).^386387388389 Similarly, the 2008 Performance of Veterinary Services (PVS) report by the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) does not mention data sharing, and no additional relevant documentation is available on the websites of either the OIE or the World Health Organization (WHO). ^390391392 The National Action Plan for Health Security (NAPHS 2021–2025), published in 2020, also notes the absence of evidence for close collaboration between the Ministries of Health and Agriculture in managing infectious diseases, including avian influenza with pandemic potential. While the plan outlines a strategy to “integrate reporting between ministries by facilitating interfaces among systems already in place, and using common communication channels,” with the goal of establishing an interoperable system by December 2025, no publicly available information confirms whether such a system has been developed or implemented. ³⁹³ There is no evidence from media coverage or academic publications on this issue.

2.4.3a Availability of de-identified health surveillance data on disease outbreaks

Score: 0

There is no publicly available evidence that Namibia makes de-identified health surveillance data on disease outbreaks publicly available on government websites. The MoHSS has shared data on infectious disease in the past, for example, the Namibia Tuberculosis Disease Prevalence Survey Report 2019 or daily updates of COVID-19 in June and July, 2022. ^394395396 However, such reporting does not appear to occur through a systematic and regularly updated outlet for outbreak data. Neither the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform or the Namibia Institute of Pathology shares relevant information via a public website. ³⁹⁷³⁹⁸

2.4.4a Confidentiality legislation/regulations for identifiable health information

Score: 0

There is no publicly available evidence that Namibia has laws or guidelines that safeguard the confidentiality of health information for individuals, such as that generated through health surveillance activities. The Ministry of Health and Social Services does not share relevant information via a public website. ³⁹⁹ The Joint External Evaluation report (JEE) for Namibia, published in 2017, does not discuss the confidentiality of health data. ⁴⁰⁰ The Namibian Constitution protects privacy as stated under under Article 13, but makes exceptions for the "protection of health", so it is unclear whether this protection would extend to health data. ⁴⁰¹ There is no mention of health data confidentiality in the Communications Act, 2009, and a 2015 report from Privacy International states that the Act "includes little or no safeguards to protect the right to privacy and the confidentiality of users' data and information". ⁴⁰²⁴⁰³ No other relevant laws are listed for Namibia in the FAOLEX database of the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, or in the Namibia Legal Assistance Centre. ⁴⁰⁴⁴⁰⁵

2.4.4b Inclusion of cyber protections in health data confidentiality law/regulation

Score: 0

There is no evidence that Namibia has laws or guidelines that safeguard the confidentiality of health information for individuals, such as that generated through health surveillance activities, include mention of protections from cyber attacks (e.g., ransomware). The Ministry of Health and Social Services does not share relevant information via a public website. ⁴⁰⁶ The Joint External Evaluation report (JEE) for Namibia, published in 2017, does not discuss the confidentiality of health data. ⁴⁰⁷ The Namibian Constitution protects privacy, but makes exceptions for the "protection of health", so it is unclear whether this protection would extend to health data. ⁴⁰⁸ There is no mention of health data confidentiality in the Communications Act, 2009, and a 2015 report from Privacy International states that the Act "includes little or no safeguards to protect the right to privacy and the confidentiality of users' data and information". ⁴⁰⁹⁴¹⁰ No other relevant laws are listed for Namibia in the FAOLEX database of the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, or in the Namibia Legal Assistance Centre's list of current laws in force in Namibia (Updated On 26 March 2025). ⁴¹¹⁴¹²

2.4.5a Cooperative commitments or agreements within regions

Score: 0

There is little publicly available evidence that the Government of Namibia has made a formal commitment to share surveillance data with other countries during a public health emergency. Namibia is a State Party to the International Health Regulations (IHR, 2005), which means the government has made a formal commitment to share surveillance data and promptly notify the World Health Organization (WHO) of public health events that may constitute a public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC). ⁴¹³ This legally binding framework necessitates the sharing of surveillance data with the WHO but does not specify provisions to share with other countries.

According to the National Action Plan for Health Security (NAPHS) 2020–2025, Namibia’s International Health Regulations National Focal Point (IHR NFP) functions as a national center responsible for overseeing IHR-related activities. This includes coordinating and facilitating communication and information sharing between Namibian ministries, the World Health Organization (WHO), and other countries' IHR NFPs to ensure timely and effective public health communication. The NAPHS report also notes that the Namibian IHR NFP was formally established in 2016 within the Ministry of Health and Social Services (MoHSS). However, according to the earlier Five-Year Plan of Action for the Implementation of the IHR (2005) in Namibia (2012–2016), the NFP was previously designated as an individual rather than an institutional center. Namibia has also established a One Health Platform, which is tasked with operating before, during, and after public health events and emergencies. Among its responsibilities is the notification of and initiation of cooperation with event management authorities in neighboring countries in cases involving cross-border effects. ⁴¹⁴ Despite these institutional frameworks, no public evidence was found via the websites of the Ministry of Health and Social Services, Namibia Institute of Pathology (NIP) Limited or other open sources to confirm a specific national commitment to share surveillance data during public health emergencies with other countries. ⁴¹⁵⁴¹⁶

2.5.1a National support to conduct contact tracing in the event of a public health emergency

Score: 0

There is no publicly available evidence that Namibia has a national system in place to provide support at the sub-national level (e.g. training, metrics standardization and/or financial resources) to conduct contact tracing in the event of a public health emergency. There is no relevant information shared via the public websites of the Ministry of Health and Social Services (MoHSS) and the Namibia Institute of Pathology (NIP). ⁴¹⁷⁴¹⁸ The National Disaster Risk Management Plan (2011) does not mention contact tracing. ⁴¹⁹ Although regulations issued in response to the COVID-19 pandemic under the Public Health and Environmental Act (2015) emphasize the importance of contact tracing and outline certain procedural elements, for instance, requiring that an “authorized person must establish the names of persons who were or might have been in contact with a confirmed case in line with the contact tracing protocols and standard operating procedures”, this guidance does not constitute a national framework for sub-national support. ⁴²⁰ Similarly, the Public Health COVID-19 General Regulations (Government Notice No. 91 of 2021) include provisions on contact tracing, but these do not reflect a national framework for sub-national support.⁴²¹

2.5.1b Provision of wraparound services to enable self-isolation/quarantine as recommended

Score: 0

There is no publicly available evidence that Namibia provides wraparound services to enable infected people and their contacts to self-isolate or quarantine as recommended, particularly economic support (paycheck, job security) and medical attention. The Joint External Evaluation report (JEE), published in 2017, states that responses to national public health emergencies are prepared for "according to the 2013 revised National Health Emergency Preparedness and Response Plan (NHEPRP)". But the JEE notes that the NHEPRP "has yet to be fully implemented, and lacks a comprehensive One Health approach". ⁴²² Further, this plan is not made available via a public website by the Ministry of Health and Social Services (MoHSS) or another Namibian government website. ⁴²³ There are no provisions or contents related to support for those self-isolating in the National Action Plan for Health Security (NAPHS 2021-2025), nor the Namibia Tracking AMR Country Self Assessment Survey (TrACSS). ⁴²⁴⁴²⁵ Publicly available documents describing Namibia's response to the COVID-19 pandemic do not contain wrap-around plans for supporting those self-isolating. ⁴²⁶⁴²⁷ However, regulations issued in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, under the Public Health and Environment Act of 2015, do stipulate that, for "Namibian citizens who are unable to pay for the cost of quarantine as required by these regulations may request for assistance from the State, in the form and manner determined in the directives". These benefits appear to be limited to the COVID-19 response, and it is unclear what guarantees they include. ⁴²⁸

2.5.2a Strategy for tracing and quarantining international travelers

Score: 0

There is no evidence that Namibia has a joint plan or cooperative agreement between the public health system and border control authorities to identify suspected and potential cases in international travelers and trace and quarantine their contacts in the event of a public health emergency–whether for an ongoing or future public health emergency. The Joint External Evaluation report (JEE), published in 2017, states that responses to national public health emergencies are prepared for "according to the 2013 revised National Health Emergency Preparedness and Response Plan (NHEPRP)". But the JEE notes that the NHEPRP "has yet to be fully implemented, and lacks a comprehensive One Health approach". ⁴²⁹ Further, this plan is not made available via a public website by the Ministry of Health and Social Services (MoHSS) or another Namibian government website. ⁴³⁰ Thus, it is not possible to ascertain whether the NHEPRP contains information regarding the existence of such a joint plan or cooperative agreement. There is no evidence of a joint plan or agreement between the public health system and border control authorities to identify suspected and potential cases in international travelers in the National Action Plan for Health Security (NAPHS 2021-2025), nor the Namibia Tracking AMR Country Self Assessment Survey (TrACSS). ⁴³¹⁴³² Publicly available documents describing Namibia's response to the COVID-19 pandemic do not indicate agreements between the public health system and border authorities. ⁴³³⁴³⁴

2.6.1a Access to field epidemiology training program in country and/or abroad

Score: 100

An applied epidemiology training programme is available in Namibia. Since 2012, Training Programs in Epidemiology and Public Health Interventions Network (TEPHINET) has helped run Namibia Field Epidemiology and Laboratory Training Program (NamFELTP), with support from the US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and in collaboration with the Ministry of Health and Social Services (MoHSS). ⁴³⁵ The MoHSS does not share additional information about NamFELTP via a public website. ⁴³⁶ Neither the MoHSS nor APHENET mentions other epidemiology training programmes in Namibia. ⁴³⁷⁴³⁸ The Joint External Evaluation report (JEE) for Namibia, published in 2017, also states that a field epidemiology training programme is available in Namibia, but does not name the programme. ⁴³⁹ The National Action Plan for Health Security (NAPHS 2020-2025) also confirms the existence of the FELTP in the country. ⁴⁴⁰

2.6.1b Existence of field epidemiology training for animal health professionals

Score: 100

There is publicly available evidence that at least one field epidemiology training programme in Namibia is explicitly inclusive of animal health professionals. The Joint External Evaluation (JEE) report for Namibia, published in 2017 notes, on page 11, that a field epidemiology training program (FETP) is available in the country, and on page 21, that two veterinary officers have participated in it. ⁴⁴¹ However, the JEE does not specify the name of the FETP. ⁴⁴² Since 2012, the Training Programs in Epidemiology and Public Health Interventions Network (TEPHINET) has been involved in supporting the Namibia Field Epidemiology and Laboratory Training Program (NamFELTP), in partnership with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Ministry of Health and Social Services (MoHSS). ⁴⁴³ TEPHINET is a global network of FETPs operating in over 100 countries, with a mission to standardize training, enhance learning, provide mentorship, and promote knowledge exchange. ⁴⁴⁴ According to TEPHINET, the NamFELTP includes participation from animal health professionals: the program trains a multidisciplinary team consisting of medical doctors, nurses, veterinarians, laboratory scientists, and environmental health practitioners. Its goals are to build public health capacity, strengthen national responses to health issues and emergencies, and enhance surveillance and analytical capabilities. ⁴⁴⁵

2.6.2a Evidence of at least 1 trained field epidemiologist per 200,000 people

Score: 100

There is public evidence that the country has at least 1 trained field epidemiologist per 200,000 people. According to the Namibia Field Epidemiology and Laboratory Training Program page on the Training Programs in Epidemiology and Public Health Interventions Network (TEPHINET) website, Namibia has 199 graduates from the NamFELTP. ⁴⁴⁶ Based on the Namibia Statistics Agency reported population of 3,022,401, this equates to approximately one field epidemiologist per 15,186 residents. ⁴⁴⁷ This ratio indicates that Namibia meets the benchmark of at least one trained field epidemiologist per 200,000 people.

3.1.1a National emergency response plan for diseases with pandemic potential

Score: 100

There is publicly available evidence that Namibia has an overarching national public health emergency response plan in place which addresses planning for multiple communicable diseases with epidemic or pandemic potential. In March 2025, the World Health Organization (WHO) reported that the Ministry of Health and Social Services (MoHSS), with WHO support, launched the National Multi-Hazard Emergencies Preparedness and Response Plan (NMHEPRP) and the Handbook for Public Health Emergency Operations Centres (PHEOC). The NMHEPRP is intended to strengthen Namibia’s coordination and response capabilities through a comprehensive emergency management framework, while the PHEOC Handbook offers guidance for managing and operating public health emergency operations centers. ⁴⁴⁸ The NMHEPRP includes plans for communicable diseases with the inclusion of the role of the National Institute for Communicable Diseases (NICD) in managing disease outbreak such as the Vaccine Derived Poliovirus Type 2 (VDPV2), as presented on page 40. ⁴⁴⁹

There is evidence that the NMHEPRP is supported through external funding and technical partnerships, notably with the World Health Organization (WHO), the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), and the Pandemic Fund. WHO played a leading role in the development, launch, and dissemination of the plan, including supporting training platforms and digital tools like the Digital Learning Platform (DLP) handed over at launch. This partnership signals both technical and resource backing from WHO. ⁴⁵⁰ Robert Koch Institute (RKI) supported the development of the Public Health Emergency Operations Centre (PHEOC) Handbook, issued alongside the NMHEPRP, indicating a collaborative resource commitment from the German public health agency. ⁴⁵¹ According to a media article dated March 2025, it was announced that additional resources had been mobilised through the Pandemic Fund multi-country project to support Namibia’s Public Health Emergency Operations Centre (PHEOC).⁴⁵²

3.1.1b National public health emergency response plan published in past 3 years

Score: 100

There is evidence that the overarching plan has it been updated in the last 3 years. The National Multi-Hazard Health Emergency Preparedness & Response Plan (2025 edition) was launched in early to mid‑2025. This plan replaces earlier 2003 and 2013 versions. ⁴⁵³

3.1.1c One health principles by covering multiple threat types

Score: 100

There is public evidence that Namibia has a public health emergency preparedness plan that covers multiple threat types, e.g. antimicrobial resistance, zoonotic disease spillover, biological accidents or deliberate acts. In March 2025, the World Health Organization (WHO) reported that the Ministry of Health and Social Services (MoHSS), with WHO support, launched the National Multi-Hazard Emergencies Preparedness and Response Plan (NMHEPRP) and the Handbook for Public Health Emergency Operations Centres (PHEOC). The NMHEPRP is intended to strengthen Namibia’s coordination and response capabilities through a comprehensive emergency management framework, while the PHEOC Handbook offers guidance for managing and operating public health emergency operations centers. ⁴⁵⁴ The NMHEPRP includes plans for Key hazards Prioritized for Contigency in its 2.3.2 section on page 8, including Cholera, COVID-19, Ebola, Rabies, Crimean Congo, Haemorrhagic Fever, Novel Influenza-like illinesses, Bacterial Meningitis, Structural Fires, Medical and Industrial Radioisotopes, Road Traffic Accidents, River Flooding and Earthquakes. ⁴⁵⁵

3.1.1d Vulnerable populations in national public health emergency response plan

Score: 0

There is public evidence that Namibia has a public health emergency preparedness plan; however, there is no publicly available information indicating that the plan includes a specific focus on health equity or mechanisms for identifying and addressing the needs of vulnerable populations. In March 2025, the World Health Organization (WHO) reported that the Ministry of Health and Social Services (MoHSS), with WHO support, launched the National Multi-Hazard Emergencies Preparedness and Response Plan (NMHEPRP) and the Handbook for Public Health Emergency Operations Centres (PHEOC). The NMHEPRP aims to strengthen Namibia’s coordination and response capacity through a comprehensive emergency management framework, while the PHEOC Handbook provides operational guidance for managing public health emergencies. ⁴⁵⁶

Although the NMHEPRP includes references to the importance of protecting vulnerable populations—for example, emphasizing the need to prevent sexual exploitation, abuse, and harassment (PSEAH), promote gender equity and human rights (GEHR), and ensure fair access to assistance and decision-making—it does not outline a concrete mechanism for identifying or addressing the needs of these populations. Statements such as "recognizing and addressing the different needs of people during health emergencies, especially those who are more vulnerable" and "all efforts should be made to protect both responders and vulnerable populations from sexual harassment and gender-based violence" reflect a general commitment, but fall short of establishing a defined implementation framework. There is no mention of health equity in this plan. ⁴⁵⁷

Neither the PHEOC Handbook nor any relevant information is available via public websites of the MoHSS, the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform, the Namibia Institute of Pathology, the National Commission on Research, Science and Technology. ^458459460461

3.1.2a Mechanism to engage private sector in outbreak preparedness/response

Score: 0

There is evidence that Namibia has a public health emergency preparedness plan; however, there is no publicly available information indicating that the plan has a specific mechanism(s) for engaging with the private sector to assist with outbreak emergency preparedness and response. In March 2025, the World Health Organization (WHO) reported that the Ministry of Health and Social Services (MoHSS), with WHO support, launched the National Multi-Hazard Emergencies Preparedness and Response Plan (NMHEPRP) and the Handbook for Public Health Emergency Operations Centres (PHEOC). The NMHEPRP aims to strengthen Namibia’s coordination and response capacity through a comprehensive emergency management framework, while the PHEOC Handbook provides operational guidance for managing public health emergencies. ⁴⁶² The NMHEPRP does not include information that there is a specific mechanism for engaging with the private sector to assist with outbreak emergency preparedness and response. ⁴⁶³ Neither the PHEOC Handbook nor any relevant information is available via public websites of the MoHSS, the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform, the Namibia Institute of Pathology, the National Commission on Research, Science and Technology. ^464465466467

3.1.3a Policy/plan/guidelines in place to implement non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs)

Score: 0

There is no evidence that Namibia has a policy, plan, or guidelines in place to implement non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) during an epidemic or pandemic. There is only evidence of regulations in response to one disease, COVID-19. Regulations issued in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, under the Public Health and Environment Act of 2015's Part 2. Covid-19 Restrictive Measures, require mask wearing, prohibit gatherings of more than 50 people (with exceptions, such as for school), and place other responsibilities on business owners and the heads of institutions to take measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19. ⁴⁶⁸ However, there is not enough publicly shared information to show that these NPIs were adopted as part of a broader plan for epidemics. The National Multi-Hazard Health Emergencies Preparedness and Response Plan 2024 does not mention anything related to non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs). ⁴⁶⁹ Nothing relevant is shared via a public website by the Ministry of Health and Social Services (MoHSS), the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform, its Directorate of Veterinary Services, the Namibia Institute of Pathology (NIP—a state-owned enterprise that runs laboratories for human health in Namibia), or the Directorate Disaster Risk Management in the Office of the Prime Minister. ^{470471472473474} The National Disaster Risk Management Plan of 2011 does not include plans for NPIs. ⁴⁷⁵

3.2.1a Completion of biological-focused IHR exercise with the WHO in past year

Score: 0

There is no publicly available evidence that the country has activated their national emergency response plan for an infectious disease outbreak in the past year (2024-2025) and that the country has completed a national-level biological threat-focused exercise (either with WHO or separately) in the past year (2024-2025). There is no relevant information shared via the public websites of the Ministry of Health and Social Services, the Directorate Disaster Risk Management in the Office of the Prime Minister, the World Health Organization (WHO)'s Simulation Exercises, the WHO Namibia country profile, the WHO Regional Office for Africa website, or the Namibia's country profile on the WHO's Strategic Partnership for Health Security and Emergency Preparedness (SPH) Portal. ^{476477478479480481} There is no evidence of an after action review in the past year for Namibia listed by the WHO. ⁴⁸² There is no evidence of relevant media reports or academic studies.

3.2.1b Evidence of bio-focused exercise to identify gaps/best practices

Score: 0

There is no publicly available evidence that Namibia has, in the past year, identified a list of gaps and best practices in response either to an infectious disease or a biological-threat focused exercise, nor that the country has developed a plan to improve response capabilities. There is no evidence of an after action review in the past year for Namibia listed by the World Health Organization (WHO). ⁴⁸³ There is no additional relevant information shared via the public websites of the Ministry of Health and Social Services, the Directorate Disaster Risk Management in the Office of the Prime Minister, the World Health Organization (WHO)'s Simulation Exercises, the WHO Namibia country profile, the WHO Regional Office for Africa website, or the Namibia's country profile on the WHO's Strategic Partnership for Health Security and Emergency Preparedness (SPH) Portal. ^{484485486487488}

3.2.2a Evidence of national-level biological threat-focused exercise that includes private sector

Score: 0

There is no publicly available evidence that Namibia has, in the past year, undergone a national-level biological threat-focused exercise, let alone such an exercise that has included private sector representatives. There is no relevant information shared via the public websites of the Ministry of Health and Social Services, the Directorate Disaster Risk Management in the Office of the Prime Minister, the World Health Organization (WHO)'s Simulation Exercises, the WHO Namibia country profile, the WHO Regional Office for Africa website, or the Namibia's country profile on the WHO's Strategic Partnership for Health Security and Emergency Preparedness (SPH) Portal. ^{489490491492493494} There is no evidence of relevant media reports or academic studies.

3.3.1a Existence of Emergency Operations Center (EOC)

Score: 100

There is evidence that the country has in place an Emergency Operations Center (EOC). According to an article date 2023 by published by the WHO, Namibia has a Public Health Emergency Operations Center (PHEOC) that "serves as a hub for coordinating the preparation for and response" to public health emergencies (PHEs). The PHEOC brings together multisectoral and multidisciplinary experts to coordinate emergency management efforts in a structured manner using the Incident Management System (IMS). ⁴⁹⁵ In March 2025, the World Health Organization (WHO) reported that the Ministry of Health and Social Services (MoHSS), with WHO support, launched the National Multi-Hazard Emergencies Preparedness and Response Plan (NMHEPRP) and the Handbook for Public Health Emergency Operations Centres (PHEOC). The NMHEPRP is intended to strengthen Namibia’s coordination and response capabilities through a comprehensive emergency management framework, while the PHEOC Handbook offers guidance for managing and operating public health emergency operations centers. Robert Koch Institute (RKI) supported the development of the Public Health Emergency Operations Centre (PHEOC) Handbook, issued alongside the NMHEPRP. ⁴⁹⁶ According to a media article dated March 2025, it was announced that additional resources had been mobilised through the Pandemic Fund multi-country project to support Namibia’s Public Health Emergency Operations Centre (PHEOC).⁴⁹⁷

3.3.1b Requirement for EOC to conduct/evidence EOC conducts at least annual drills

Score: 0

There is no publicly available evidence that Namibia’s Public Health Emergency Operations Centre (PHEOC) is required to conduct a drill for a public health emergency scenario at least once per year or is there evidence that they conduct a drill at least once per year. Namibia’s PHEOC Handbook, officially handed over in March 2025 as per media reports, provides standardized operational procedures and guidance on training and exercises for preparedness, however, the Handbook is not publicly available on the websites of the Ministry of Health and Social Services (MoHSS), the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform (MAWLR), the Namibia Institute of Pathology (NIP). ^498499500501

3.3.1c EOC activation within 120 minutes of identification of emergency/scenario

Score: 0

There is no publicly available evidence to show that the Namibian Emergency Operations Center (EOC) has conducted within the last year a coordinated emergency response or emergency response exercise activated within 120 minutes of the identification of the public health emergency/scenario. There is no evidence found in the website of the Ministry of Health and Social Services, Namibia Institute of Pathology (NIP), National Commission on Research, Science and Technology or any other resources online. ^502503504

3.4.1a Joint exercise/procedures for potential deliberate biological events

Score: 0

There is no publicly evidence that Namibia's public health, animal health, the private sector and national security authorities have carried out an exercise to respond to a potential deliberate biological event (i.e., bioterrorism attack), nor are there publicly available standard operating procedures, guidelines, or agreements between those entities regarding such events. The Joint External Evaluation report (JEE) for Namibia, published in 2017, repeatedly notes the lack of exercises to test Namibia's public health emergency readiness in general (though it does not specifically mention deliberate biological events. While the JEE notes that several ministries have established MOUs with security agencies, the report does not comment on the nature of these MOUs. Further, it notes a general lack of integration and shared exercises between security agencies and public health bodies. ⁵⁰⁵ Neither the Ministry of Health and Social Services, the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform, its Directorate of Veterinary Services, the Namibia Institute of Pathology (NIP—a state-owned enterprise that runs laboratories for human health in Namibia), the Office of the Prime Minister (including its Directorate of Disaster Management), nor the Ministry of Defence & Veteran Affairs shares relevant information via public websites. ^{506507508509510511} The 2011 Disaster Risk Management Plan does not describe coordination with security agencies, or share other relevant information. ⁵¹² There is no evidence of media reports or academic studies with additional relevant information.

3.5.1a Risk communication plan for specific use during a public health emergency

Score: 0

There is no publicly available evidence that the public health emergency response plan includes a dedicated section outlining a risk communication plan specifically designed for use during a public health emergency. While the National Multi-Hazard Emergencies Preparedness and Response Plan (NMHEPRP) mentions the activation of the Public Health Emergency Rapid Response Team (PHERRT), which is responsible for carrying out risk communication activities, and includes a "Risk Communication and Community Engagement (RCCE)" component which refers more broadly to processes for engaging and communicating with at-risk communities or those whose behaviors may increase their vulnerability during a health emergency. However, the NMHEPRP does not contain a clearly defined or detailed risk communication plan specifically tailored for emergency scenarios.⁵¹³ A 2023 WHO report notes that Namibia’s Risk Communication and Community Engagement (RCCE) Pillar builds on COVID-19 lessons to strengthen risk communication capacity for future health emergencies. Supported by WHO and the CDC, the Ministry of Health and Social Services trained 33 regional coordinators to enhance RCCE systems, with a key goal of improving timely, accurate, and context-specific emergency communication.⁵¹⁴ No additional supporting evidence was found on the websites of the Ministry of Health and Social Services or the Namibia Institute of Pathology (NIP) Limited or elsewhere online. ⁵¹⁵⁵¹⁶

3.5.1b Inclusion of different population & sector needs in risk communication plan

Score: 0

There is no publicly available evidence that the national public health emergency response plan includes a dedicated section outlining a risk communication strategy, let alone one that addresses how messages will be tailored to reach populations and sectors with varying communication needs. While the National Multi-Hazard Emergencies Preparedness and Response Plan (NMHEPRP) identifies several sources of signals to be used during emergencies, such as hotlines, SMS, social media platforms (e.g., Facebook, Twitter/X, blogs, WhatsApp), and media scanning through traditional and digital outlets (e.g., newspapers, TV, radio, and online content), it does not specify how communication efforts will be adapted to reach diverse audiences, such as those with different language needs, geographic locations, levels of media access, or those considered vulnerable or hard to reach. ⁵¹⁷ There is no relevant information was found on the websites of the Ministry of Health and Social Services (MoHSS) or the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform (MAWLR), the Directorate of Veterinary Services, the Namibia Institute of Pathology (NIP—a state-owned enterprise that runs laboratories for human health in Namibia), or the Ministry of Education, Innovation, Youth, Sport, Arts & Culture. ^{518519520521522}

3.5.1c Designation of a specific government spokesperson during a public health emergency

Score: 0

There is no publicly available evidence that the national public health emergency response plan includes a dedicated section outlining a risk communication plan, let alone one that designates a specific position within the government to serve as the primary spokesperson to the public during a public health emergency. The National Multi-Hazard Emergencies Preparedness and Response Plan (NMHEPRP) does not mention anything related to appointing a position to serve as a spokesperson or representative during public health emergencies. ⁵²³

3.5.2a Government use of media platforms to share info on public health emergencies

Score: 100

There is public evidence that Namibia’s Ministry of Health and Social Services (MoHSS) has actively used online media channels, including social media and official statements, over the past year to communicate about public health issues and counter misinformation. The MoHSS has regularly posted updates on its official Facebook page, warning about the dangers of misinformation and urging Namibians to verify health information from credible sources. For example, in a post on 11 June 2025, Minister of Health and Social Services Dr. Esperance Luvindao stated, “we must not allow misinformation, especially from unverified social media sources, to endanger lives.” ⁵²⁴ The MoHSS maintains an active presence, with new content posted on a near-weekly basis. ⁵²⁵

3.5.2b Evidence that senior leaders have shared mis/disinformation on infectious diseases

Score: 100

There is no evidence that senior leaders (president or ministers) have shared misinformation or disinformation on infectious diseases in the past two years. Verified X accounts associated the Office of the Prime Minister and the Namibian Presidency do not show any evidence suggesting such misinformation sharing. ⁵²⁶⁵²⁷ There is no evidence of such sharing of misinformation in major news outlets. ⁵²⁸⁵²⁹

3.6.1a Percentage of households with Internet

Score: 78.04

3.6.2a Mobile-cellular telephone subscriptions per 100 inhabitants

Score: 47.42

3.6.3a Gender gap in access to a mobile phone (percentage points)

Score: 100

3.6.4a Gender gap in access to the Internet (percentage points)

Score: 100

3.7.1a Restrictions on export/import of medical goods due to an infectious disease outbreak

Score: 100

There is no publicly available evidence indicating that Namibia implemented restrictions on the export or import of medical goods, such as medicines, oxygen, PPE, or other medical supplies, during an infectious disease outbreak in 2024–2025. There is no relevant information shared via a public website by the Ministry of Health and Social Services, the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform, its Directorate of Veterinary Services, or the Facebook page of the Ministry of International Relations and Cooperation (the Namibian equivalent of a foreign affairs ministry) which does not own a website. ^530531532533

3.7.1b Restrictions on movement and/or exports/imports due to disease outbreak

Score: 0

There is evidence that in the past year, the country implemented restrictions on export/import of non-medical goods (e.g. food, textiles, etc) due to an infectious disease outbreak but there is no evidence that they are based on scientific evidence. In January 2025, the The Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform (MAWLR) announced an immediate ban on the importation and transit of maize, maize products, palm, and palm products from South Africa’s Free State, North-East, and Mpumalanga provinces. due to plant diseases, including bud rot (Phytophthora palmivora) and the new maize disease, Goss bacterial wilt and leaf blight spread (Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. nebraskensis). ⁵³⁴ In early 2025, Namibia reinstituted restrictions on the import of bovine semen and embryos from South Africa due to foot-and-mouth disease outbreaks in KwaZulu‑Natal since 2021. ⁵³⁵ In May 2025, the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform partially lifted its ban on the import and in-transit movement of live poultry, poultry meat and poultry products from Brazil. The ban was initially imposed due to outbreaks of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) in the region. ⁵³⁶ There is no evidence that these interventions were based on international recommendations or a structured decision mechanism involving specific scientific evidence, expert input and guidelines/policies.

3.7.2a Evidence of travel ban due to an infectious disease outbreak

Score: 100

There is no publicly available evidence to confirm that in 2024-2025, Namibia implemented inbound or outbound travel restrictions due to an infectious disease outbreak could be found in a search of news media outlets, and on the websites of the Ministry of Health and Social Services, the Office of the Prime Minister, or Ministry of Home Affairs, Immigration, Safety and Security (MHAISS). ^537538539

3.7.2b Risk-based approach to international travel-related measures

Score: 0

There is no publicly available evidence indicating that Namibia has adopted risk-based approach to international travel-related measures found Ministry of Health and Social Services, Office of the Prime Minister, Ministry of Home Affairs, Immigration, Safety and Security. ^540541542

4.1.1a Doctors per 100,000 people

Score: 7.85

4.1.1b Nurses and midwives per 100,000 people

Score: 45.39

4.1.1c Updated health workforce strategy to address human resource shortfalls

Score: 0

There is no publicly available evidence that the country has a health workforce strategy in place (which has been updated in the past five years) to identify fields where there is an insufficient workforce and strategies to address these shortcomings. The most updated Namibia's health workforce strategy is the National Human Resources for Health Strategic Plan 2020 – 2030 which was published by the Ministry of Health & Social Sciences in September 2019. ⁵⁴³ There is no relevant information was found on the websites of the Ministry of Health and Social Services (MoHSS) or the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform (MAWLR), the Directorate of Veterinary Services, the Namibia Institute of Pathology (NIP—a state-owned enterprise that runs laboratories for human health in Namibia), or the Ministry of Education, Innovation, Youth, Sport, Arts & Culture. ^{544545546547548}

4.1.1d Health system capacity for essential health services

Score: 0

There is no publicly available evidence that Namibia has sufficient capacity within the health system to deliver essential health services. The Joint External Evaluation of IHR Core Capacities for Namibia scores the country a 1 for the measure, the lowest measure possible. The JEE says that although Namibia is a member of AFENET and TEPHINET, the country has limited personnel to facilitate efficient deployment and these personnel need further evaluation by competency tier. There are no legal or regulatory processes and logistical plans for rapid cross-border deployment and receipt of public health and medical personnel during emergencies. There is no national plan nor SOPs for deployment of health personnel during an emergency. In order to meet the capacity requirements (once a national deployment plan has been drafted), Namibia needs to hold exercises and simulations that demonstrate decision making and protocol steps for sending or receiving health personnel from other countries during a public health emergency. ⁵⁴⁹

There is no relevant information in the public website of Ministry of Health and Social Services, National Action Plan for Health Security (NAPHS 2020-2025), Tracking AMR Country Self Assessment Survey (TrACSS), Namibia profile in the WHO’s Mid Term Results Report 2024 – 2025, Namibia's country profile on WHO's website, or elsewhere online. ^{550551552553554}

4.1.1e Essential health services continuity plan for public health emergencies

Score: 0

There is no publicly available evidence that Namibia has a dedicated plan to ensure the continuity of essential health services during a public health emergency. The National Multi-Hazard Health Emergencies Preparedness and Response Plan (2024) acknowledges the importance of maintaining such services, stating “It is important to anticipate and mitigate the disruptions of essential health services to avoid excess morbidity and mortality from routine health problems. Deliberate measures must be in place to ensure the continuation of essential health services across the country during a health emergency.” However, no specific plan or detailed framework for ensuring the continuity of essential health services was found within this document or on the website of the Ministry of Health and Social Services. ⁵⁵⁵⁵⁵⁶

4.1.2a Hospital beds per 100,000 people

Score: 71.28

4.1.2b In-country capacity to isolate patients with highly communicable diseases

Score: 100

There is evidence that Namibia has the capacity to isolate patients with highly communicable diseases in a patient isolation facility located within the country. In December 2024, Namibia inaugurated its first Negative Pressure Mobile Isolation Facility at Outapi District Hospital, funded by the U.S. Government through the OHDCACA programme. The 30-bed, high-tech facility enhances the country’s ability to manage infectious diseases and public health emergencies, offering quarantine, clinical, and specialized treatment services.

4.1.2c Demonstrated capacity / evidence of plan to expand isolation capacity

Score: 0

There is no publicly available evidence that Namibia has expanded its isolation capacity or developed, updated, or tested a plan to do so in response to an infectious disease outbreak within the past two years. No relevant information was found on the websites of the Ministry of Health and Social Services (MoHSS), the Namibia Institute of Pathology (NIP), or in the National Action Plan for Health Security (NAPHS 2020–2025) and National Multi-Hazard Health Emergencies Preparedness and Response Plan, 2024. ^557558559560 A 2025 media article quoted Ben Nangombe, Executive Director of MoHSS, who stated in reference to the Human Metapneumovirus (HMPV) outbreak in northern China: “We have learnt a very good lesson from the Covid-19 pandemic. We have put in place and strengthened our public health surveillance of outbreaks. We have strengthened our isolation capacity should it become necessary that people who may be affected need to be isolated.” However, no specific details were provided regarding how the country’s isolation capacity has been expanded, developed, updated, or tested. ⁵⁶¹

4.2.1a National procurement protocol for the acquisition of routine laboratory/medical supplies

Score: 0

Namibia has national procurement protocols that can be utilized by the Ministry of Health and Social Services (MoHSS) and the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform (MAWLR); however, there is no evidence that these protocols specifically cover the acquisition of laboratory and medical supplies.

In Namibia, the Public Procurement Act, 2015 serves as the overarching legislation governing procurement across all ministries. ⁵⁶² While the MoHSS maintains its own procurement portal, the procurement plan and related documents are not publicly accessible. ⁵⁶³ Nevertheless, the MoHSS remains subject to the same legal procurement framework established by the Public Procurement Act, 2015, as are all other ministries. ⁵⁶⁴ The Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform's Annual Procurement Plan for the Financial Year 2025–2026 does not indicate whether such a protocol exists. ⁵⁶⁵ The Joint External Evaluation (JEE) report, published in 2017, does not provide any further relevant information. ⁵⁶⁶ Additionally, no pertinent information is available on the public websites of the MoHSS, MAWLR, or the Namibia Institute of Pathology (NIP). ^567568569

4.2.2a Stockpile of medical supplies for national use during a public health emergency

Score: 33.33

There is evidence that Namibia has a stockpile of medical supplies for national use during a public health emergency but there is limited evidence about what the stockpile contains and there is no plan to ensure equitable distribution. On page 44 of the National Multi-Hazard Health Emergencies Preparedness and Response Plan 2024, the functions of the Public Health Emergency Management Committee (PHEMCs) were listed, one of which is to "ensure emergency stockpiles within the district/regional/national are procured, monitored and updated regularly"; however, there is no evidence about what the stockpile contains. ⁵⁷⁰ Under the section 3.4.2.5.3 POLICY STATEMENTS, the National Public Health Laboratory – POLICY report states that all laboratories in the National Public Health Laboratory System (NPHLS) "shall implement systems to ensure adequate and uninterrupted supply of essential commodities". Under the section 3.3. Core Values, the report mentions Equity as a core value, specifically "Laboratory resources and services are distributed equitably throughout the country" while no specific plan was indicated to ensure equitable distribution. It does not mention anything about what the stockpile contains, neither. ⁵⁷¹

4.2.2b Stockpile of laboratory supplies for national use during a public health emergency

Score: 50

There is evidence that Namibia has a stockpile of laboratory supplies for national use during a public health emergency but there is limited evidence about what the stockpile contains. On page 44 of the National Multi-Hazard Health Emergencies Preparedness and Response Plan 2024, the functions of the Public Health Emergency Management Committee (PHEMCs) were listed, one of which is to "ensure emergency stockpiles within the district/regional/national are procured, monitored and updated regularly"; however, there is no evidence about what the stockpile contains. ⁵⁷² Under the section 3.4.2.5.3 POLICY STATEMENTS, the National Public Health Laboratory – POLICY report states that all laboratories in the National Public Health Laboratory System (NPHLS) "shall implement systems to ensure adequate and uninterrupted supply of essential commodities". However, the report does not mention anything about what the stockpile contains. ⁵⁷³

4.2.2c Annual review of national stockpile to ensure sufficient supply

Score: 0

There is no evidence that Namibia conducts or requires an annual review of the national stockpile to ensure the supply is sufficient for a public health emergency. Neither the Joint External Evaluation report (JEE) for Namibia 2017, nor the National Multi-Hazard Health Emergencies Preparedness and Response Plan 2024 includes information regarding an annual review of the national stockpile.⁵⁷⁴⁵⁷⁵ Neither the Ministry of Health and Social Services; the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform (MAWLR), its Directorate of Veterinary Services; the Namibia Institute of Pathology (NIP—a state-owned enterprise that runs laboratories for human health in Namibia); the Directorate Disaster Risk Management in the Office of the Prime Minister; nor the ministry of Defence & Veteran Affairs shares relevant information via a public website. ^{576577578579580581582} There is no mention of stockpiles of medical supplies in the 2011 Disaster Risk Management Plan. ⁵⁸³ There is no evidence of media reports or academic studies with additional relevant information.

4.2.3a Plan/agreement to produce/procure medical supplies during a public health emergency

Score: 0

There is no publicly available evidence that Namibia has a plan or agreement in place to leverage domestic manufacturing capacity for the production of medical supplies—including medical equipment, personal protective equipment (PPE), or medical countermeasures—for national use during a public health emergency, nor to procure or expedite such supplies through points of entry. According to the Joint External Evaluation (JEE) report for Namibia, published in 2017, "there is no emergency medical stockpile." Furthermore, "there are no formalized plans or procedures with customs or regulatory authorities to facilitate the rapid importation and use of [medical countermeasures] during an emergency." ⁵⁸⁴

A local media source reports that the Public Procurement Act 15 of 2015 serves as the legislative framework for acquiring goods and services in the public health sector. ⁵⁸⁵ Although the Act includes a provision for “Emergency procurement,” it does not reference any plan or mechanism for the domestic manufacture, procurement, or expedited importation of such supplies. ⁵⁸⁶ The Ministry of Finance’s Strengthening Health Procurement for Impact, published in 2021, likewise does not mention any relevant agreements or plans. ⁵⁸⁷

Neither the Ministry of Health and Social Services, the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform (MAWLR), the Namibia Institute of Pathology (NIP), the Directorate of Disaster Risk Management in the Office of the Prime Minister, Ministry of Finance's Department of Procurement Policy Unit (PPU), nor the Ministry of Defence & Veterans Affairs shares relevant information via a public website. ^{588589590591592593594} There is no mention of relevant plans or agreements in the 2011 Disaster Risk Management Plan. ⁵⁹⁵ There is no evidence of media reports or academic studies with additional relevant information. There is no public evidence of agreements with manufacturers or distributors. There is no evidence that Namibia has generated a relevant plan in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, though the World Health Organization has coordinate the donation of medical supplies such as personal protective equipment. ⁵⁹⁶

4.2.3b Plan/agreement to produce/procure lab supplies during a public health emergency

Score: 0

There is no publicly available evidence of a plan or agreement to leverage public and/or private sector domestic (including regional) manufacturing capacity to produce laboratory supplies, to procure such supplies, or to expedite their clearance through points of entry for national use during a public health emergency. There is no mention of relevant plans or agreements in the National Action Plan for Health Security (NAPHS 2020-2025), National Multi-Hazard Health Emergencies Preparedness and Response Plan (2024) or the 2011 Disaster Risk Management Plan. ^597598599 Neither the Ministry of Health and Social Services, the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform, its Directorate of Veterinary Services, the Namibia Institute of Pathology (NIP—a state-owned enterprise that runs laboratories for human health in Namibia), the Ministry of Defence & Veteran Affairs, nor the Directorate Disaster Risk Management in the Office of the Prime Minister shares relevant information via a public website. ^{600601602603604605} There is no evidence of media reports or academic studies with additional relevant information.

4.2.3c Mechanism emergency logistics and supply chain management

Score: 0

There is no publicly available evidence that Namibia has an established system or mechanism at the national and subnational levels for emergency logistics and supply chain management. Furthermore, there is no indication that such a system—if it exists—is exercised, reviewed, evaluated, or updated regularly, or that it includes provisions for specific considerations such as cold chain management for vaccines, or covers the public and private sectors.

According to the Joint External Evaluation (JEE) report for Namibia, published in 2017, “there is no emergency medical stockpile.” In addition, “there are no formalized plans or procedures with customs or regulatory authorities to facilitate the rapid importation and use of [medical countermeasures] during an emergency.” (The JEE does not specifically mention medical supplies.) ⁶⁰⁶

A local media report indicates that the Public Procurement Act 15 of 2015 serves as the legal framework for procuring goods and services in the public health sector. ⁶⁰⁷ Although the Act contains a section on “Emergency procurement,” it does not reference any system or mechanism for managing emergency logistics and supply chains at either the national or subnational level. ⁶⁰⁸ Similarly, the Ministry of Finance’s Strengthening Health Procurement for Impact, published in 2021, contains no references to relevant systems or mechanisms. ⁶⁰⁹

No relevant information was found on the public websites of the Ministry of Health and Social Services, the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform (MAWLR), the Namibia Institute of Pathology (NIP), the Directorate of Disaster Risk Management in the Office of the Prime Minister, the Ministry of Finance’s Department of Procurement Policy Unit (PPU), or the Ministry of Defence. ^{610611612613614615616} The 2011 Disaster Risk Management Plan also does not mention any relevant systems or agreements. ⁶¹⁷ There are no media reports or academic studies providing additional relevant information, and no public evidence of agreements with manufacturers or distributors. There is also no evidence that Namibia developed a specific plan in response to the COVID-19 pandemic related to emergency logistics and supply chain management, although the World Health Organization coordinated donations of medical supplies such as personal protective equipment. ⁶¹⁸ The National Multi-Hazard Health Emergencies Preparedness and Response Plan, published in 2024, includes a brief reference to “Supply Chain Management,” stating that “Logistics provides the technical expertise, tools, methods and means in the areas of health emergency logistics including: medical facilities & equipment, adequate oxygen supply, cold chain management, WASH supplies and laboratory activity support.” However, it does not confirm the existence of any supporting system or mechanism. ⁶¹⁹

4.3.1a Plan/program/guidelines for dispensing MCMs during a public health emergency

Score: 0

There is no evidence that a plan, programme, or guidelines in place for dispensing medical countermeasures (MCMs) for national use during a public health emergency. According to the Joint External Evaluation report (JEE) for Namibia, published in 2017, "there are no formalized plans or procedures with customs or regulatory authorities to facilitate the rapid importation and use of MCM during an emergency". Further, the country is "not prepared for outbreaks" and "does not meet any of the capacity indicators" for medical countermeasure deployment. ⁶²⁰ The National Action Plan for Health Security (NAPHS 2020-2025) states a strategic action of developing a national plan for deploying Medical Counter Measures (MCM) by March 2023; however, there is no public evidence that this plan is available by July 2025. ⁶²¹ Neither the Ministry of Health and Social Services, the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform, its Directorate of Veterinary Services, the Namibia Institute of Pathology (NIP—a state-owned enterprise that runs laboratories for human health in Namibia), the Ministry of Defence & Veteran Affairs, nor the Directorate Disaster Risk Management in the Office of the Prime Minister shares relevant information via a public website. ^{622623624625626627} There is no mention of plans for dispensing of MCMs in the 2011 National Disaster Risk Management Plan. ⁶²⁸ There is no evidence of media reports or academic studies with additional relevant information.

4.3.2a Plan to receive foreign health personnel during a public health emergency

Score: 0

There is no publicly available evidence of a public plan in place to facilitate workforce surge in an emergency in Namibia. Neither the National Multi-Hazard Health Emergencies Preparedness and Response Plan, 2024, the National Action Plan for Health Security (NAPHS 2021-2025), the 2022 Health Care Workforce Status Report, nor the websites of the Ministry of Health and Social Services, the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform (MAWLR), the Namibia Institute of Pathology (NIP), the Directorate of Disaster Risk Management in the Office of the Prime Minister, mentions any existence of such plan. ^{629630631632633634635}

4.3.2b Plan to facilitate workforce surge in an emergency

Score: 0

There is no public plan in place to receive health personnel from other countries to respond to a public health emergency. According to the Joint External Evaluation report (JEE) for Namibia, published in 2017, "there are no legal or regulatory processes and logistical plans for rapid cross-border deployment and receipt of public health and medical personnel during emergencies". ⁶³⁶ There is no mention of such a mechanism or plan in the 2011 National Disaster Management Plan, the National Multi-Hazard Health Emergencies Preparedness and Response Plan 2024 or the National Action Plan for Health Security (NAPHS 2020-2025). ^637638639 Neither the Ministry of Health and Social Services, the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform, its Directorate of Veterinary Services, the Namibia Institute of Pathology (NIP—a state-owned enterprise that runs laboratories for human health in Namibia), the Ministry of Defence & Veteran Affairs, nor the Directorate Disaster Risk Management in the Office of the Prime Minister shares relevant information via a public website. ^{640641642643644645} There is no evidence of media reports or academic studies with additional relevant information.

4.3.2c Plan to redeploy existing health personnel within the country

Score: 0

There is no publicly available evidence that a public plan is in place to redeploy existing health personnel within the country, either geographical or role redeployment. Neither the National Multi-Hazard Health Emergencies Preparedness and Response Plan, 2024, the National Action Plan for Health Security (NAPHS 2021-2025), the 2022 Health Care Workforce Status Report, nor the websites of the Ministry of Health and Social Services, the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform (MAWLR), the Namibia Institute of Pathology (NIP), the Directorate of Disaster Risk Management in the Office of the Prime Minister, mentions any existence of such plan. ^{646647648649650651652}

4.4.1a Constitutional guarantee of citizens’ right to medical care

Score: 0

Namibia’s Constitution does not explicitly guarantee citizens’ right to medical care. According to a paper published by the Regional Network on Equity in Health in East and Southern Africa (EQUINET) in 2010, there is no express provision on the right to health in the Constitution of Namibia. ⁶⁵³ However, Article 95, under the "Principles of State Policy," outlines the state’s duty to promote public health. It calls for policies that ensure equality of opportunity, protect vulnerable groups such as workers and children, and improve public health through consistent planning to raise nutrition and living standards. While these provisions reflect a commitment to health, they are non-enforceable guiding principles rather than legally binding rights. ⁶⁵⁴

4.4.1b Access to skilled birth attendants (% of population)

Score: 82.35

4.4.1c Out-of-pocket health expenditures per capita, PPP (current international $)

Score: 90.02

4.4.1d Coverage of essential health services through universal health coverage

Score: 75

4.4.1e Total population pushed below a relative poverty line by household health expenditure (60% of media daily per capita consumption or income)

Score: 97.85

4.4.1f Rate of mortality amenable to health care

Score: 50.48

4.4.2a Guaranteed paid sick leave

Score: 100

Workers in Namibia are guaranteed paid sick leave by law. The articles 24-(1) and (2) of the Labour Act 11 of 2007 includes provisions for paid sick leave, typically 30 days within a three-year cycle for employees working five days a week, and 36 days for those working six days a week. This sick leave is available for both physical and mental health problems as the Act defines “sick leave” only as time off when the employee is “unable to work due to incapacity”. ⁶⁵⁵

4.4.3a Government prioritisation of care for healthcare workers during response

Score: 0

There is no publicly available evidence that Namibia has issued legislation, a policy, or a public statement committing to provide prioritized healthcare services to healthcare workers who become sick as a result of responding to a public health emergency. There is no mention of such plan in the Labour Act 11 of 2007, the Public and Environmental Health Act, 2015 or on the websites of the Ministry of Health and Social Services and the Ministry of Justice and Labour Relations. ^656657658659

4.5.1a Existence of system for communication during a public health emergency

Score: 0

There is no publicly available evidence that Namibia has a system in place for public health officials and healthcare workers to communicate during a public health emergency. The National Multi-Hazard Health Emergencies Preparedness and Response Plan 2024 only mentions a communication plan, which is the Risk Communication and Community Engagement (RCCE) which mandates processes and approaches to engage and communicate with communities who are at risk, or whose practices put them at risk of negative impacts emanating from a health emergency. ⁶⁶⁰ The National Action Plan for Health Security (NAPHS 2020-2025) states strategic actions and milestones that by the end of 2021, a risk communication committee/platform and risk communication strategy in place. ⁶⁶¹ However, such plan is not available on the website of the Ministry of Health and Social Services or elsewhere to assess whether it includes information regarding a system in place for public health officials and healthcare workers to communicate during a public health emergency. ⁶⁶² The 2011 Disaster Risk Management Plan does not detail communications plan, let alone a plan specifically intended for use during a public health emergency. ⁶⁶³ The Disaster Risk Management Act, 2012 does not include such a plan, aside from mandating strategic communication for risk management, without any greater detail on how this should be done. ⁶⁶⁴ Neither the Ministry of Health and Social Services, the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform, its Directorate of Veterinary Services, the Namibia Institute of Pathology (NIP—a state-owned enterprise that runs laboratories for human health in Namibia), nor the Directorate Disaster Risk Management in the Office of the Prime Minister shares relevant information via a public website. ^{665666667668669} There is no evidence of media reports or academic studies with additional relevant information.

4.5.1b Inclusion of public and private sector in healthcare communication system

Score: 0

There is no publicly available evidence that there is a system in place for public health officials and healthcare workers to communicate during an emergency in Namibia, let alone such a system that encompasses both the public and private sector. The Joint External Evaluation (JEE) report for Namibia, published in 2017, does not reference any such system. The JEE notes that responses to national public health emergencies are guided by the 2013 revised National Health Emergency Preparedness and Response Plan (NHEPRP). ⁶⁷⁰ However, this plan is not publicly available on the Ministry of Health and Social Services (MoHSS) website. ⁶⁷¹ The National Multi-Hazard Health Emergencies Preparedness and Response Plan (2024) does not mention the existence of a communication system for use during public health emergencies. ⁶⁷² The National Action Plan for Health Security (NAPHS 2021–2025) outlines a goal “to establish a risk communication system to efficiently and effectively respond to public health emergencies by December 2025,” but there is no evidence that such a system existed as of June 2025. The NAPHS also does not specify whether the intended system is to include both the public and private sectors. ⁶⁷³ A 2023 WHO article states that during the COVID-19 pandemic, Namibia established a Risk Communication and Community Engagement Pillar under the incident management system; however, public sources provide no information to determine whether this effort included both the public and private sectors. ⁶⁷⁴ Another WHO article from 2024 notes that Namibia is developing a risk communication plan as part of its preparedness efforts for mpox, but it does not mention any specific communication system. ⁶⁷⁵ Neither the Ministry of Health and Social Services, the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform, the Namibia Institute of Pathology (NIP), nor the Office of the Prime Minister (including its Directorate of Disaster Management) shares relevant information via a public website. ^{676677678679680}

4.6.1a Evidence of national public health system monitoring and tracking of HCAIs

Score: 0

There is no publicly available evidence that the national public health system in Namibia is monitoring or tracking the number of healthcare-associated infections (HCAIs) occurring in healthcare facilities. Objective 4 of the Infection Prevention and Control Action Plan 2023/2024 – 2026/2027 aims to "Improve surveillance, monitoring, and reporting" of HCAIs and includes activities such as developing processes for the analysis and reporting of HCAI data. However, there is no indication that this objective is supported by any concrete plan or evidence of active monitoring or tracking of HCAI cases. ⁶⁸¹ No additional related evidence was found on the websites of the Ministry of Health and Social Services, the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform, or the Namibia Institute of Pathology (NIP). ^682683684

4.6.1b Infection prevention and control programme

Score: 100

There is evidence of an infection prevention and control programme in place nationally in Namibia. In October 2023, the Ministry of Health and Social Services (MoHSS) published the Infection Prevention and Control Action Plan 2023/2024 – 2026/2027 that aims to have a healthcare system that is free from healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) and other infections through well coordinated IPC practices that promote safety for patients, healthcare personnel, and the community. ⁶⁸⁵

4.6.1c National plan to ensure a safe environment in health facilities

Score: 100

There is publicly available evidence that Namibia has a national plan to ensure a safe environment in health facilities. The Ministry of Health and Social Services’ Infection Prevention and Control Guidelines (3rd Edition, 2023) include Chapter 12: IPC and the Built Environment, which focuses on maintaining a clean and hygienic environment to support infection prevention and control (IPC) practices and reduce healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) and antimicrobial resistance (AMR). ⁶⁸⁶

4.7.1a Requirement for ethical review before beginning a clinical trial

Score: 100

There is evidence that Namibia has a national requirement for ethical review (e.g., from an ethics committee or via Institutional Review Board approval) before beginning a clinical trial. Namibia has a national requirement for ethical review before beginning a clinical trials; however, it is difficult to assess the precise requirements based on publicly available information. An undated Harvard University T.F. Chan School of Public Health webpage also makes reference to the existence of a Biomedical Research Ethical Committee in Namibia, and notes the existence of Namibia's Research Management Policy, a 2003 document, along with Ministry of Health and Social Services (MoHSS) guidelines on clinical trials. ⁶⁸⁷ Such documents, including the Research Management Policy, are not available in full on public website of the Namibian government (or elsewhere) so it is not possible to confirm their contents. However, other sources also point to the existence of ethical controls for clinical trials. For example, the Ministry of Health and Human Services' Hospital Standards and Criteria, a 2018 document, states that if a hospital wishes to initiate a clinical trial, "a committee or other mechanism must be established to monitor and control all such activities"; and those individuals responsible for oversight should be "familiar" with the Declaration of Helsinki and the International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects. ⁶⁸⁸ However, no evidence of relevant committees—national or otherwise—can be found on Namibian government websites. Several laws that might be expected to govern clinical trials make no mention of them or of their ethical review. These include the Allied Health Professions Act, 2004; Medical and Dental Act, 2004; the Pharmacy Act, 2004; and the Medicines and Related Substances Control Act, 2003. ^689690691692 Other policy documents also do not provide relevant information. These include the MoHSS Strategic Plan for 2017/2018-2021/2022; and the 2010 Ethical Guidelines for Health Professionals, published by the Health Professions Councils of Namibia. ⁶⁹³⁶⁹⁴ Neither the MoHSS, the NIP, the Ministry of Education, Innovation, Youth, Sport, Arts & Culture, nor the Health Professions Councils of Namibia shares relevant information via a public website. ^695696697698

4.7.1b Expedited approval for clinical trials of unregistered MCMs during epidemics

Score: 0

There is no publicly available evidence of an expedited process for approving clinical trials for unregistered medical countermeasures or mutual recognition of clinical trial results taking place elsewhere to treat ongoing pandemics or epidemics. There is no relevant mention in the National Action Plan for Health Security (NAPHS 2021-2025), Tracking AMR Country Self Assessment Survey (TrACSS), Infection Prevention and Control Action Plan 2023/2024 – 2026/2027 or the National Multi-Hazard Health Emergencies Preparedness and Response Plan, 2024. ^699700701702 Neither the Ministry of Health and Social Services, the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform, the Namibia Institute of Pathology, nor the Namibia Medicines Regulatory Council shares additional relevant information via public websites. ^703704705706 There is no evidence of media reports or academic studies with additional relevant information. There is no evidence that Namibia has released new guidelines for MCM clinical trials in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. ⁷⁰⁷

4.7.2a Existence of agency responsible for approving new human MCMs

Score: 100

Namibia has a government agency responsible for approving new medical countermeasures, including medicines, medical devices, pharmaceutical products and scheduled substances, for humans. This agency is the Namibia Medicines Regulatory Council (NMRC). ⁷⁰⁸ Under the Section 2. Continuation of Council, and its powers and functions of the Medicines and Related Substances Control Act, 2003, a function of the Namibia Medicines Regulatory Council is stated as to "register medicines and any other thing that is required or prescribed to be registered". Although the Act makes references to "medicines", "medical devices", "pharmaceutical products" and "scheduled substances". ⁷⁰⁹

4.7.2b Expedited approval for human MCMs during public health emergencies

Score: 0

There is no publicly available evidence of an expedited process for approving medical countermeasures (MCM) for human use or recognition of approval decisions taking place elsewhere during public health emergencies. According to the Joint External Evaluation (JEE) report for Namibia, published in 2017, Namibia has limited capacity for medical countermeasures (MCM), and there are no formalized plans or procedures with customs or regulatory authorities to facilitate the rapid importation and use of MCM during an emergency. ⁷¹⁰ There is no relevant mention in the National Action Plan for Health Security (NAPHS 2021-2025), Tracking AMR Country Self Assessment Survey (TrACSS), Infection Prevention and Control Action Plan 2023/2024 – 2026/2027 or the National Multi-Hazard Health Emergencies Preparedness and Response Plan, 2024. ^711712713714 Neither the Ministry of Health and Social Services, the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform, the Namibia Institute of Pathology, nor the Namibia Medicines Regulatory Council shares additional relevant information via public websites. ^715716717718 There is no evidence of media reports or academic studies with additional relevant information. There is no evidence that Namibia has released new guidelines for expedited process for approving MCM for human use or recognition of approval decisions taking place elsewhere in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. ⁷¹⁹

5.1.1a Submission of IHR reports to the WHO in past year

Score: 100

Namibia has submitted an IHR Self-Assessment Annual Report (SPAR) to the WHO for the last calendar year, with the latest submission in 2024.⁷²⁰

5.1.2a Existence of specific risk reduction strategies for epidemics and pandemics

Score: 0

Pandemics are not integrated into Namibia's national risk reduction strategy, and there is no standalone national disaster risk reduction strategy for pandemics in the country. The 2011 Disaster Risk Management Plan makes only brief reference to epidemics and pandemics, framing them as secondary effects resulting from other natural disasters such as droughts, fires, and floods. It does not comprehensively address pandemic risks. ⁷²¹ The 2024 National Multi-Hazard Health Emergencies Preparedness and Response Plan contains no references to pandemics. ⁷²² Furthermore, no relevant information has been found on the public websites of the Ministry of Health and Social Services (MoHSS), the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform, the Namibia Institute of Pathology (NIP), the Directorate of Disaster Risk Management under the Office of the Prime Minister, or any other public sources. ^723724725726 On 19 June 2024, the Namibian government, in partnership with the Africa CDC, launched a five-year One Health strategy to address interconnected health threats affecting humans, animals, and the environment. The plan focuses on six thematic areas – one of which is reducing risks from emerging and re-emerging zoonotic epidemics and pandemics. However, this core area only addresses zoonotic epidemics and pandemics. ⁷²⁷

5.2.1a Existence of public health emergency agreements with regional neighbors

Score: 50

There is evidence that Namibia has cross-border agreements as part of a regional group, with regards to public health emergencies, but there is evidence of gaps in implementation.

Namibia is a member of the African Field Epidemiology Network (AFENET) and the Training Programs in Epidemiology and Public Health Interventions Network (TEPHINET). According to Joint External Evaluation report (JEE) for Namibia's page 41, published in 2017, both AFENET and TEPHINET have as part of their mandate to coordinate the rapid cross-border transfer of personnel in public health emergencies. ⁷²⁸ However, on the same page, the JEE also notes that "although Namibia is a member of AFENET and TEPHINET, the country has limited personnel to facilitate efficient deployment and these personnel need further evaluation by competency tier". The JEE goes on to state that "there are no legal or regulatory processes and logistical plans for rapid cross-border deployment and receipt of public health and medical personnel during emergencies". ⁷²⁹ Relatedly, the JEE assigns Namibia a score of only 1 for the indicators "System is in place for sending and receiving medical countermeasures during a public health emergency" and "System is in place for sending and receiving health personnel during a public health emergency". These scores indicate that "no national deployment plan has been drafted" for either category of cross-border cooperation. ⁷³⁰⁷³¹

Further, despite the JEE's assertion about AFENET and TEPHINET's roles during emergencies, neither of these organizations shares information via a public website that reveal the depth of commitment to cross-border activities that membership in them entails. ⁷³²⁷³³ No other relevant information is provided via a public website by the Ministry of Health and Social Services or the Directorate Disaster Risk Management in the Office of the Prime Minister. ⁷³⁴⁷³⁵ A WHO article reports that health experts from Namibia and Angola met in Ondangwa on 7 November for a four-day discussion to enhance cross-border cooperation on disease prevention and control. The collaboration, initiated in 2007, addressed issues such as malnutrition, immunization, COVID-19, HIV, TB, and other diseases. However, the article does not mention any formal agreements, MoUs, or protocols signed between the two countries. ⁷³⁶

Namibia has signed in 1999 the Southern African Development Community (SADC) Protocol on Health that includes several health-related issues, including public health emergencies. Some evidence of gaps in implementation of the Protocol were found. The Protocol calls for cooperation among all signatory members in the realm of health related issues, including public health emergencies, such as facilitation of mechanisms across member states and promotion of laboratory research across borders. ⁷³⁷

5.2.1b Existence of animal health emergency agreements with regional neighbors

Score: 100

There is evidence that Namibia has a cross-border agreement, protocol, or MOU with neighboring countries, or as part of a regional group, with regards to animal health emergencies. Namibia, as a member of the Southern African Development Community (SADC), is part of an MoU between SADC and the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH). The agreement outlines cooperation in several areas, including animal health, with a focus on transboundary diseases, zoonoses, and emerging infectious diseases.⁷³⁸

There is no mention of such an agreement shared via public websites by the Ministry of Health and Social Services, the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform, or the Directorate of Disaster Risk Management in the Office of the Prime Minister. ^739740741742 No relevant information is shared via a public website by the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO), or the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE). ⁷⁴³⁷⁴⁴ There is no evidence of media reports or academic studies with additional relevant information.

5.3.1a Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention status

Score: 100

Namibia has signed and ratified the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC). On the 10 February 2022, the Republic of Namibia submitted its instrument of accession to the Biological Weapon Convention to the Government of United Kingdom as one of the depository Governments. ⁷⁴⁵ Namibia deposited its instrument of ratification with the United Kingdom, one of the Convention’s three depositaries, on 25 February 2022. ⁷⁴⁶

5.3.1b Submission of CBMs to the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention

Score: 100

According to the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC)'s Confidence-Building Measures (CBM) submission records, Namibia has submitted one CBM report to date, in the year 2025. ⁷⁴⁷

5.3.1c Submission of UNSCR 1540 reports

Score: 100

According to the Biological Weapons Convention National Implementation Measures Database, Namibia has submitted national reports to the 1540 Committee in 2004 and 2006. ⁷⁴⁸

5.3.1d Extent of UNSCR 1540 implementation on public health emergencies

Score: 25

5.3.2a Membership in global health security and/or biological weapons agreements

Score: 0

Namibia is not a member of the Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction (GP), the Australia Group (AG), nor the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI). ^749750751

5.4.1a Completion and publication of JEE (or GHSA pilot external assessment) report

Score: 0

Namibia has not completed a Joint External Evaluation (JEE) or precursor external evaluation (e.g., GHSA pilot external assessment) and published a full public report in the last five years. The latest JEE report completed by the country was published in 2017. ⁷⁵² According to an article dated May 2025 by WHO, Namibia embarks on a journey to conduct the Second Joint External Evaluation and the second JEE is planned for October 2025. ⁷⁵³

5.4.2a Completion and publication of PVS report (past five years)

Score: 0

Namibia has not completed and published a Performance of Veterinary Services (PVS) assessment in the last five years. According to the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH), the country has published a PVS Evaluation (initial) in 2008. ⁷⁵⁴

5.4.2b Completion and publication of PVS gap analysis (past five years)

Score: 0

Namibia has not completed and published a Performance of Veterinary Services (PVS) gap analysis in the last five years. According to the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH), the country has published a PVS Gap-Analysis in 2010. ⁷⁵⁵

5.5.1a Evidence of allocated national funds to improve capacity to address epidemic threats

Score: 0

There is no evidence that Namibia has allocated national funds to improve capacity to address epidemic threats within the past three years. There is no mention of such a fund/budget in National Multi-Hazard Health Emergencies Preparedness and Response Plan 2024, the National Action Plan for Health Security (NAPHS 2020-2025), the Country Cooperation Strategy III 2018-2022 for Namibia published by the World Health Organisation (WHO), or the Ministry of Health and Human Services Strategic Plan for 2017/2018-2021/2022. ^756757758 No relevant information was identified on the websites of the Ministry of Health and Social Services, the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform, or the Directorate of Disaster Risk Management in the Office of the Prime Minister. ^759760761762

5.5.2a National budget to address gaps identified in JEE, NAPHS or GHSA roadmap

Score: 0

There is no publicly available evidence that the Joint External Evaluation (JEE) report, National Action Plan for Health Security (NAPHS), and/or national GHSA roadmap allocate or describe specific funding from the national budget (covering a time-period either in the future or within the past five years) to address the identified gaps. The National Action Plan for Health Security (NAPHS 2020-2025) includes a section outlining activity cost estimates and a summary of cost categorization by JEE thematic areas (Prevent, Detect, Respond, Other IHR-related hazards, and Points of Entry); however, it does not provide actual funding details or budgetary allocations for closing the identified gaps. ⁷⁶³ Similarly, the JEE report does not include relevant financial information. ⁷⁶⁴ There is also no evidence that a national GHSA roadmap exists for the country.

5.5.2b National budget to address gaps identified in PVS assessment or gap analysis

Score: 0

The Namibia's Performance of Veterinary Services (PVS) assessment does not allocate or describe specific funding from the national budget to address the identified gaps. ⁷⁶⁵ The Namibia's PVS gap analysis report is not available in the website of the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH). ⁷⁶⁶

5.5.3a Emergency public financing during a public health emergency

Score: 100

There is a publicly identified special emergency public financing mechanism and funds which Namibia can access in the face of a public health emergency. Namibia is a member of the African Public Health Emergency Fund (APHEF), which mobilizes "financial resources and "disburse them for interventions against priority disease outbreaks and other public health emergencies in Member States". The fund is financed by contributions from member states and from external donors. APHEF covers requests and proposals for assistance from member countries during outbreaks and public health emergencies. ⁷⁶⁷ It should be noted the World Health Organization has reported in July 2025 that the total contributions of contributions of Member States to APHEF during the period 2018–2024 is USD 15 million ⁷⁶⁸ Namibia is not among the countries eligible to borrow from the World Bank's International Development Association (IDA). ⁷⁶⁹ Since it is not qualified to borrow from the IDA, and all countries that qualify for credits from the IDA are eligible to access World Bank's Pandemic Emergency Financing Facility (PEF) funds, Namibia is not eligible to access funds from the PEF. ⁷⁷⁰ There is no other publicly available evidence that Namibia has a dedicated national reserve fund. The Ministry of Health and Social Services does not share relevant information via a public website. ⁷⁷¹ There is no evidence of media reports or academic studies with additional relevant information.

5.5.4a Commitments to improve domestic or foreign capacity for epidemic threats

Score: 0

There is no evidence that senior Namibian leaders have, in the last three years (2022-2025), made a public commitment either to improve Namibia's own domestic capacity to address epidemic threats by expanding financing or requesting support to improve capacity; or support other countries to improve capacity to address epidemic threats by providing financing or support. There is no mention of such a commitment in the Integrated Country Strategy published by the U.S. Department of State on 31 May 2023, the Country Cooperation Strategy III 2018-2022 for Namibia published by the World Health Organisation (WHO), or the Ministry of Health and Human Services Strategic Plan for 2017/2018-2021/2022. ^772773774 There is no evidence in international news media or from United Nations or WHO press releases that Namibian leaders have made a request for such funding in the last three years. The public websites of the Office of the President and the Office of the Prime Minister do not contain any relevant information. ⁷⁷⁵⁷⁷⁶ There is no relevant information shared via the Twitter accounts of the prime minister and president. ⁷⁷⁷⁷⁷⁸

5.5.4b Investments to improve domestic or foreign capacity for epidemic threats

Score: 100

There is publicly available evidence that Namibia received financing or technical support from donors to improve the country’s domestic capacity to address epidemic threats. In October 2024, The Pandemic Fund announced its second round of grants to enhance pandemic preparedness in 50 countries. Namibia was among a group of Southern African countries that jointly submitted a proposal titled “Strengthening One Health Disease Surveillance and Response in Southern Africa – A Strategy Against Climate-Driven Disease Outbreaks.” ⁷⁷⁹ According to the Fund, its Governing Board has allocated two rounds of grant funding totaling USD 885 million, that has helped catalyze an additional USD 6 billion for a total of 47 projects covering 75 countries. These investments seek to strengthen disease surveillance and early warning, laboratory systems, and health workforce. ⁷⁸⁰ However, there is no evidence of the specific amount of grants Namibia has received from these rounds of funding can be found online.

There is no publicly available evidence that Namibia provided other countries with financing or technical support to improve capacity to address epidemic threats within the last three years.

5.5.4c Evidence that the country has fulfilled its full WHO contribution within the past two years

Score: 100

There is public evidence that Namibia fully met its assessed contributions to the World Health Organization (WHO) for 2024. According to the WHO’s Status of Collection of Assessed Contributions, including Member States in arrears in the payment of their contributions to an extent that would justify invoking Article 7 of the Constitution (dated 7 May 2024), Annex 1 shows that, as of 31 December 2023, Namibia had no arrears in its assessed contributions. ⁷⁸¹ No other assessed contributions reports are available on the WHO website.⁷⁸²

5.6.1a Sharing of genetic/biological data and materials beyond influenza

Score: 0

There is no publicly available plan or policy for sharing genetic data, epidemiological data, clinical specimens, or isolated specimens (biological materials) with international organisations and/or other countries that goes beyond influenza. There is no mention of such data sharing on the publicly available websites of the Ministry of Health and Social Services (MoHSS), the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform (MAWLR), its Directorate of Veterinary Services, or the Namibia Institute of Pathology (NIP—a state-owned enterprise that runs laboratories for human health in Namibia). ^783784785786 Through its membership in the African Public Health Network (APHN), the government of Namibia presumably shares health data. ⁷⁸⁷ However, APHN does not share via a public website information on such data sharing. There is no mention in news media of such data sharing. There is no mention of data sharing during public health emergencies in the Country Cooperation Strategy III 2018-2022 for Namibia published by the World Health Organisation (WHO), or the MoHSS Strategic Plan for 2017/2018-2021/2022. ⁷⁸⁸⁷⁸⁹ There is no evidence of such a plan in media, academic studies, or other external documentation.

5.6.1b Evidence of non-compliance with sample sharing element of PIP framework

Score: 100

There is no public evidence that Namibia has not shared samples in accordance with the Pandemic Influenza Preparedness (PIP) framework in the past two years. Publicly available PIP's reports between 2023 and 2025, including the Six-month progress report for the period of 1 January– 30 June 2024 published on 17 October 2024, the Partnership Contribution High-Level Implementation Plan III 2024-2030 published on 19 June 2024, and the Partnership Contribution High-Level Implementation Plan III 2024–2030: At a Glance published on 16 July 2023, do not include any relevant information. ^790791792 There is no evidence of such a plan in media, academic studies, or other external documentation.

5.6.1c Evidence of non-sharing of pandemic pathogen samples during an outbreak

Score: 100

There is no public evidence that the country has not shared pandemic pathogen samples during an outbreak in the past two years between 2023 and 2025. Instead, according to a media article dated 9 June 2025, in June 2025, Namibia joined three other WHO Member States in calling for fair and equitable benefit-sharing from the use of Mpox and COVID-19 pathogens and genetic sequence data, in line with WHO recommendations under the amended 2005 International Health Regulations. ⁷⁹³ There is no reference to sharing pandemic pathogen data on the Ministry of Health and Social Services website, and there have not been any reports of Namibia not sharing samples in either national and international media. ⁷⁹⁴ Likewise, there is no relevant information shared via the World Health Organization (WHO) International Health Regulations Strategic Partnership Portal; in the WHO Namibia country profile; in the WHO Regional Office for Africa website; the WHO COVID-19 dashboard for Namibia; or the WHO Namibia News site. ^{795796797798799} There is no relevant information shared via the World Health Organization (WHO) Disease Outbreak News website. ⁸⁰⁰

6.1.1a Policy formation

Score: 50

6.1.1b Quality of bureaucracy

Score: 50

6.1.1c Excessive bureaucracy/red tape

Score: 50

6.1.1d Vested interests/cronyism

Score: 50

6.1.1e Corruption

Score: 49

6.1.1f Accountability of public officials

Score: 50

6.1.1g Human rights risk

Score: 50

6.1.2a Orderly transfers of power

Score: 50

6.1.3a Risk of social unrest

Score: 50

6.1.4a Risk of terrorism

Score: 100

6.1.4b Level of illicit arms flows within the country

Score: 100

6.1.4c Risk of organized criminal activity

Score: 75

6.1.5a Presence or risk of armed conflict

Score: 100

6.1.6a Government territorial control

Score: 100

6.1.7a International tensions

Score: 75

6.2.1a Adult literacy rate (15+ years old, both sexes)

Score: 92.86

6.2.2a UNDP Gender Inequality Index score

Score: 52.16

6.2.3a Poverty gap at $1.90 a day (2011 PPP) (%)

Score: 82.82

6.2.3b Share of employment in the informal sector

Score: 0

6.2.3c Coverage of social insurance programs (% of population)

Score: 33.33

6.2.4a Public confidence in government

Score: 50

6.2.5a Robust, open, diverse local media and reporting

Score: 100

6.2.6a Gini coefficient

Score: 40.9

6.3.1a Adequacy of road network

Score: 50

6.3.2a Adequacy of airports

Score: 75

6.3.3a Adequacy of power network

Score: 25

6.4.1a Urban population (% of total population)

Score: 46.64

6.4.2a Change in forest area (percentage points)

Score: 66.14

6.4.3a Natural disaster risk

Score: 0

6.5.1a Total life expectancy (years)

Score: 58.62

6.5.1b NCD mortality rate

Score: 75.19

6.5.1c Population aged 65+

Score: 85.09

6.5.1d Tobacco use (% of adults)

Score: 47.53

6.5.1e Level of adult obesity (%)

Score: 43.28

6.5.1f Age-standardised prevalence of mental health disorders (per 100 000 people)

Score: 69.34

6.5.2a Access to potable water

Score: 86.98

6.5.2b Access to at least basic sanitation facilities

Score: 38.91

6.5.2c Percentage of health-care facilities with no access to any electricity supply

Score: 0

6.5.3a Domestic general government health expenditure per capita (PPP)

Score: 36.63

6.5.4a Trust medical and health advice from the government

Score: 50

6.5.4b Trust medical and health advice from medical workers

Score: 100