Namibia country report

the major issues identified in section 6.2.1 concerning cultivation were that (a) people whohardly ever worked in the communal garden claimed part of the harvest, and (b) those whoworked in the garden never received any cash from the sale of the produce. Disputes thatarose in connection with the communal gardens not only posed an economic threat to theschemes, but also impacted negatively on the social fabric of the resettled communities.With the support of a livelihood support programme in Drimiopsis and Skoonheid, theseconcerns were addressed by replacing the communal gardens with individual plots forcultivation. Although these plots were very small, many beneficiaries regarded them as apositive step towards improving their living conditions. For the first time since the inceptionof the two schemes in Omaheke, beneficiaries who engage in gardening will be able to seefinancial returns for their labours. Whether or not the individualised gardening model willindeed improve living conditions on these schemes remains to be seen.The permanent shortage of cash on the group resettlement schemes made it impossiblefor most beneficiaries to improve their livelihoods beyond a basic minimum – in monetaryterms probably below the national poverty datum line. The cash shortage placed manybeneficiaries in a downward spiral of poverty. Many pensioners, for example, appear tohave been continuously indebted to local shops: their pensions did not suffice to buy foodfor a whole month, so they obtained food on credit, paid off the debt when the next pensioncame in, spent the rest on other basic necessities, had no money left for more food and sobought on credit again, thereby perpetuating the ceaseless cycle.In other cases, the need to generate income by going out to work impacted negatively onagricultural output. Some beneficiaries were caught in a situation where, having planted afew crops, they could not look after them as they had to leave the scheme to do piece workto obtain cash for food, so the crops wilted or died.The absence of cash created a perception among group scheme beneficiaries that lifeon commercial farms was better than on group resettlement schemes. John’s wife, forexample, stated that people on commercial farms had an income, a constant supply of food,tractors and cars which they could use whenever needed, and no problems with water.She said that they were “fat on the farm”, whereas at Drimiopsis they “suffer and struggletoo much”. It was only because her husband got sick that he stopped working. They movedto Drimiopsis to live on their own and make a living for themselves, but life was not goodthere. It would have been much better if they had their own cattle post, as Drimiopsis was“too urban”. In the evenings young people threw stones at them and their goats were stolenout of their corrals. They felt that if they could live slightly apart from the other settlers,things would change and the future would be bright. Yet, despite these difficulties, they felt athome in the community and saw Drimiopsis to be “our place”.It would be erroneous to interpret the perceptions of John and his wife as singing thepraises of agricultural employment. Their comparison between commercial farms andgroup resettlement schemes points instead to a serious structural problem in the manner inwhich group resettlement has been conceptualised and implemented. A minimum level ofLivelihoods after Section Land Reform: B ● 6. Group Namibia Resettlement country report Schemes (2010) ● 163