Namibia country report

Dilapidated water infrastructure at Mara resettlement farm, Hardap.Dilapidated and/or non-existent farm infrastructure also impacted negatively on agriculturalproduction. Close to half of the respondents in both regions singled out water as their mainproblem and stated emphatically that every beneficiary should have his/her own waterpoint. None of them considered shared water points with shared costs and responsibility tobe a preferred system for water supply. Specific issues raised with regard to water includeddecrepit infrastructure and a lack of capital to repair or replace it, and not having enoughwater points. Two respondents expressed their need for support to obtain diesel which theyregarded as too expensive.The general picture on FURS farms was that the majority of beneficiaries lacked financialmeans to repair water infrastructure. In situations where water sources were shared, thisexacerbated conflict, as in the case of Maria in Omaheke whose story was related in section5.1.4 of this report (p. 93).In some instances, beneficiaries had invested their own money to get basic infrastructureoperational again. Matthias, for example, not only maintained his camp fences but alsodemolished the old decrepit kraal and built a new one. In addition he built a permanenthouse as well as a corrugated-iron house, despite having no documented proof of securityand his allocation being to small.Livelihoods Section after B ● Land 5. Farm Reform: Unit Resettlement Namibia country Scheme report (FURS) (2010) ● 103