Namibia country report

e accommodated by the National Resettlement Programme and rather have to apply foran AALS loan to buy a farm. For the linear progression model to work, resettlement shouldenable farmers to accumulate livestock to a level exceeding the 150 LSU threshold so thatthey can qualify for an AALS loan for buying a large commercial farm.In reality, this cannot happen. In the first place, the recommended minimum farm size inOmaheke, i.e. 1 000 ha, makes it impossible to keep more than 70 LSU given a carryingcapacity of 15 ha per LSU. This is less than half of the 150 LSU required for an AALS loan.Livestock owners with herd sizes ranging from 70 to 150 LSU are thus not catered for in theNational Resettlement Programme.Moreover, the model’s rigidity holds back resettlement beneficiaries who have succeeded inaccumulating livestock. Some resettlement farmers, including some part-time farmers, havemanaged to gradually but steadily increase their herd sizes due to successful investmentin their farming operations, but the relatively small land allocations prevent any furtheraccumulation and thus effectively place a ceiling on their progress as farmers.An example of a farmer in this position was Matthias at Rosenhof in Omaheke, who combinedfarming with a transport business. His land allocation was too small to accommodate hisgrowing livestock numbers, and in effect, resettlement prevented any further accumulationand even forced him to downsize. Although his livestock numbers far exceeded his camps’carrying capacity, they amounted to only about two thirds of the 150 LSU required for anAALS loan. He thought that a farm of 3 km 2 would be appropriate for him; it would enablehim to keep rather than sell his cattle continuously (“kort kort”). His current allocation madefurther accumulation impossible and thus would keep him at the same level as a farmer.Regardless of size limitations, Solomon, a part-time resettlement farmer in Hardap, viewedhis resettlement as his first step towards large-scale commercial farming. Born in 1966, hegrew up in a farming environment. He obtained technical diplomas in electrical engineering,and worked for a large mine for several years and since 1995 for the Ministry of Works.His love of farming motivated him to invest a lot of money in his resettlement farm. Hisambition was to become the owner of a large-scale commercial farm, and he was confidentthat by 2011/12 he would be able to buy a large farm. He aimed to have at least 1 000small stock and 100 large stock by that time. Although this amount was far too high for hisallocated portion of 1 200 ha, he intended to negotiate with his neighbour to graze someof his livestock on the latter’s portion against a small payment. Solomon was aware thatthis would be against the law, but he believed it was unjust that he wanted to expand whilehis neighbour, who was alone on his portion with only 80 goats on 4 camps, had sparegrazing capacity.At the other end of the spectrum were beneficiaries with less livestock than they had whenthey started farming on resettlement land. Much of the land occupied by this category ofbeneficiary was underutilised. Apart from drought, cash-flow problems contributed to asituation where they had to sell livestock, and even breeding stock, to generate income.This suggests that they did not have cash reserves to cover day-to-day living expenses andLivelihoods Section after B ● Land 5. Farm Reform: Unit Resettlement Namibia country Scheme report (FURS) (2010) ● 121