Namibia country report

units can have a net farm income of over N$20 per hectare (personal communication withstudy group leaders in Omaheke). Net farm income includes costs that are excluded fromdirect allocable costs, i.e. it includes costs of maintaining farm infrastructure, water supply,vehicles, etc., but excludes the costs of purchasing the farm or renting land.The FURS respondents in Hardap farmed on an approximate total area of 44 760 ha. Thecattle, goats and sheep jointly utilised 21 105 ha, taking into consideration that the carryingcapacity was much lower in this arid region; it was thought to be 25 ha per LSU. Horsesand donkeys utilised an additional 1 500 ha. The total number of livestock in the Hardapsample thus utilised 22 605 ha or 50% of the total possible carrying capacity. Includinglivestock lost and livestock slaughtered for own consumption in Hardap brings the totalarea utilised to 3 510 ha or 58% of the carrying capacity. Gross income on the respondents’farmland was N$156 215 or N$3,50 per hectare.These figures suggest that resettlement land in Hardap was more intensely utilised than theland in Omaheke if measured by income generated per hectare. This is surprising in view ofthe fact that Hardap poses more challenges due to its aridity and high levels of stock loss.The data and analysis suggests that there were two broad categories of FURS beneficiariesin both regions. They were distinguished mainly by their asset base and seemingly differentproduction objectives. For beneficiaries with large herds of livestock, agricultural outputwas important. In both regions this group included part-time farmers who had access tooff-farm income streams through employment. For the second group, being those owningonly small numbers of livestock, agricultural productivity was not necessarily the mainreason for applying for resettlement. This group’s investment in infrastructure was kept toa minimum and most income was spent on consumables.Several households in both regions had access to off-farm income. In Omaheke, apart from11 households with pensioners, there were 5 households with individuals earning a salaryfrom formal employment. Their incomes were modest, ranging from less than N$1 000 permonth in three cases to N$2 200 earned by a tailor. Another earned N$2 000 per month forwoodwork. Respondents said that the money earned from off-farm activities was used intheir respective orders of priority to pay for food, household goods, travel, fuel, school fees,farming implements, more livestock, medical services, seed, building materials and repairs,and to help relatives and repay loans. A few respondents managed to use some income toboost their savings.5.2.4 Constraints on productivityMany beneficiaries identified stock theft and loss to predators as major factors that reducedfarm productivity and output. Matthias in Omaheke stated that if his herd produced 40lambs in a year, 15 to 25 would be lost to either thieves or predators (mainly jackals). InMariental District in Hardap, Jeremiah suffered big losses due to stock theft, his camp beingsituated next to a district road that connects some of the major towns in the region. Thebeneficiaries in the district did not have much confidence in the police’s ability to investigateLivelihoods Section after B ● Land 5. Farm Reform: Unit Resettlement Namibia country Scheme report (FURS) (2010) ● 101