Namibia country report

5.2 Production systems and output types /‘productivity’The agricultural histories of FURS beneficiaries are similar in many respects to those ofAALS farmers. To a large extent, their production systems in Omaheke and Hardap reflectthe different agro-ecological conditions of the two regions. Like their AALS counterparts,FURS beneficiaries in Hardap primarily practised extensive small-stock farming, whileextensive cattle farming predominated in Omaheke, but all of them kept small or largestock in addition to their primary livestock herds.The path of FURS farmers in accumulating livestock was similar to that of AALS farmers.Some accumulated small numbers of livestock while working on a commercial farm. Theykept as much as the farmer allowed them to keep on the farm and either sold off the excessanimals or sent them to communal areas to be looked after by a trusted person. Otherbeneficiaries were employees in urban areas who used some of their earnings to purchaselivestock which they kept in a communal area. It was noted in section 5.1.1 of this reportthat compared to those in Omaheke, a higher proportion of beneficiaries in Hardap hadfarmed in one way or another on commercial farms.5.2.1 Farm sizes and tenureMany beneficiaries did not know the exact size of the land allocated to them. This was partlydue to none of the beneficiaries having any official documents specifying the size of theirallocation and their rights regarding that land.As readers will recall, the Land Reform Advisory Commission (LRAC) recommended that theminimum sizes of land allocations should be 1 000 ha in the central, eastern and northernregions, and 3 000 ha in the southern half of the country. Regardless of their farm size, mostbeneficiaries in the sample in both regions had 2 to 6 camps. Maria on the farm Danel inOmaheke, for example, received 6 camps which amounted to approximately 800 ha. All ofthe camps were fenced, but she did not have her own borehole and therefore obtained waterfor own consumption and for her livestock from a borehole on her neighbour’s portion ofland. Lazarus in Omaheke ended up with 3 camps amounting to approximately 800 ha,on which he grazed 50 cattle and 50-55 goats. In Hardap, 95% of the beneficiaries sampledwere allocated more than one camp, but the poor condition of the fences meant that theyhad little control over grazing. Many FURS farms were thus very similar to communal areasin terms of access to and control over grazing.Although none of the FURS beneficiaries sampled had any formal lease agreement with thegovernment, tenure insecurity was not a major issue for most and did not appear to impactnegatively on production systems and agricultural outputs. Eight respondents (two thirds)in Omaheke stated that they felt secure on their land, while five stated that they had officiallease agreements with the government. Only three (25%) stated that they had enough landon which to farm, while the remaining nine said that they did not have enough land. Eight94 ● Livelihoods after land reform: Namibia country report (2010)