Namibia is one of the world’s leading uranium producers. It also has significant deposits of diamonds, gold, zinc, copper and rare earth elements. As these sectors evolve, there’s a need for geoscientists to communicate with the public as well as communities. Geoscientists study the Earth: its rocks, water, minerals and hazards. They include geologists, hydrogeologists, geochemists, petroleum geologists and palaeontologists, among others. In Namibia, they work in government bodies, mining and petroleum companies, and at universities, guiding everything from mineral exploration to groundwater management and land-use planning. Marina Joubert, a science communication specialist, and Josephine Uushona, a geoscientist, set out their findings based on research with geoscientists on how they engaged with the public, what they understood engagement to mean and what motivated or discouraged them from taking part.How are communities being affected by mining?Namibia is a vast, dry and sparsely populated country of about 3 million people. In recent years the resources sector has grown substantially. In 2022, Shell and TotalEnergies discovered sizeable offshore oil reserves. The same year also saw the country’s largest-ever find of rare earth elements. Namibia’s mineral resources and growing energy sector make geosciencean important contributor to national economic development, resourcemanagement and environmental sustainability. Geoscientists contribute tomineral exploration, groundwater management, land-use planning andinformed decision-making. As these activities increasingly intersect withcommunities and other stakeholders, effective public engagement becomesessential for promoting scientific understanding, building trust and encouraging meaningful dialogue about geoscience-related issues. We interviewed 13 geoscientists, aged 30 to 40, working in government,industry and universities, about how they see the public, what engagementmeans to them, and what motivates or holds them back. It is one of the first studies of how geoscientists in Africa view and practise public engagement.What gaps did you identify?The clearest finding was that Namibian geoscientists mostly see publicengagement as a one-way street: explaining and educating, rather thanlistening and exchanging ideas. Only two of the 13 geoscientists we spoke to defined engagement as a two-way process. Most assumed that the public simply lacked scientific knowledge. They believed filling this “knowledge gap” was a necessary first step before communities could meaningfully take part in decisions about mining or water resources.This contrasts with current science communication scholarship, whichshows that knowing more about something does not necessarily lead tosupport. Building trust requires meaningful and constructive dialoguebetween scientists and communities.Encouraging signs of change included eight respondents who saw benefitin engagement for scientists and communities, recognising that scientistscould learn from communities living in the areas they study.Separately, eight participants said the public should have a voice in policy decisions about mining and exploration, because these activities affected people’s daily lives.Some also had specific audiences in mind. Hydrogeologists namedfarmers, local authorities and municipalities; mining geoscientists pointed to investors, small-scale miners and farmers. One participant observed thatpublic-sector geoscientists tended to focus on public education, while those in the private sector mainly engaged to build trust in areas affected by exploration or mining.At the same time, all 13 participants said they felt confident engaging with the public, yet most acknowledged that they needed training to do itproperly. Their confidence came from their scientific expertise, not from any communication training.This was one of three contradictions we found. Participants also describedengagement as important and morally meaningful, yet reported indifferenceor a lack of support from colleagues. Although they said that scientistscould also learn from communities, the engagement goals they describedfocused almost entirely on educating the public.Many were nonetheless personally motivated.It is the responsibility of geoscientists to inform communities about the impact of mining on the environment, to present both sides of the story. If not us, who?Another wanted to inspire young people who “may not have encountered ageoscientist who looks like them”.We also found that public engagement wasn’t being rewarded ingeoscientists’ work environments. Most participants received no formalreward or recognition for it, although seven said it featured, at least to some extent, in their performance assessments. Institutional support was mostly limited to high-profile events such as World Water Day and mining expos.At least five said colleagues didn’t support their efforts, seeing engagement as falling outside their real job.Outreach was also rarely monitored or evaluated, so scientists had littleway of knowing whether their efforts worked.Our research also highlighted practical and historical barriers tocommunication efforts. Participants cited limited time and money,confidentiality restrictions, administrative burdens, and difficulty reaching remote areas.English dominated geoscience communication even though many affected communities speak other languages. These included Oshiwambo, Khoekhoegowab, Afrikaans, Otjiherero and Rukwangali.History matters too. Namibian geology developed within a colonial,extractive framework. Early expeditions relied on local guides to findminerals such as copper, yet Indigenous people were treated as people tobe controlled rather than as knowledge holders. That legacy has shapedmistrust of state institutions and technical expertise, especially incommunities affected by mining. Recognising that history can help geoscientists approach communities differently: with respect for local knowledge, a willingness to talk, and a commitment to earning trust.Why is public trust important?Where dialogue between experts and communities isn’t built, communities,projects and science tend to suffer. Trust matters for the science itself, too. Fieldwork often depends on access to private or communal land. As one participant put it:Public trust is essential for securing community cooperation and avoiding resistance during field data collection.But engagement driven mainly by the need for access can feel transactional to communities and undermine the very trust it is meant to build.One geoscientist argued that communities must have a say in decisions that directly affect them. They raised concerns surrounding uranium exploration in the Stampriet area, where groundwater resources are particularly important to local communities.The example illustrates why geoscientists consider public engagement essential in areas where geological activities may affect communities and natural resources. It highlights the importance of providing accessible scientific information, listening to community concerns and enabling informed participation in decisions relating to resource development.What needs to change?The starting point is to shift how geoscientists understand engagement. That means not just informing people, but listening to them, taking their concerns seriously and treating local knowledge as valuable.Institutional backing is the next critical step. We recommend that organisations such as the Geological Survey of Namibia and the National Commission on Research, Science and Technology introduce formal recognition schemes for public engagement, so it stops being seen as optional extra work that falls outside “real” science. Attaching a modest communication component to geoscience research funding would help, giving scientists both the incentive and the resources to do this properly.Training must be developed for Namibian conditions. It needs to be grounded in local languages, using channels people actually rely on, such as community radio, and treating listening as a core skill rather than an afterthought.Finally, geoscientists don’t have to do this alone. Mining companies already run community relations work through their social responsibility programmes, and civil society organisations working on land, water and environmental justice often have existing, trusted relationships with affected communities. Partnering with them, rather than working in isolation, could go a long way towards rebuilding the trust that Namibia’s resources boom is testing right now.Josephine Uushona, a geoscientist who works for the Geological Survey of Namibia, co-wrote this article.Marina Joubert does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.