Namibia country report

asset accumulation has to take place for beneficiaries to become self-sustaining producerswho no longer depend on government and other external inputs, and this accumulation hasnot materialised in close to 20 years since the schemes were established.Nonetheless, the vast majority of beneficiaries on group schemes, especially in Omaheke,were grateful that government had given them a secure place to stay. The importance ofthis was well articulated by Karolina at Drimiopsis who said that the government “het onsopgetel” (picked us up) by providing the land as well as houses which keep them properlysheltered from the rain. If the government had not devised such a plan, she did not knowwhat would have happened to them. They could now go out and look for work if need be. Asecure home at Drimiopsis or Skoonheid gives them protection especially where disputesarise with farmers, e.g. over remuneration, since these are homes to which they can returnwithout fear of having to roam around, homeless and desperate, in search of more work.Does all this imply that the group resettlement model should be discarded altogether? Thesimple answer is no. The primary reason for considering the continued implementation ofgroup resettlement – albeit in a very different form – is social rather than economic. Foras long as rural people face losing their place of residence and having no alternative placeof residence on account of becoming unemployed, government should offer a land-basedwelfare model to assist them. Arguably, the group resettlement schemes have performedthis function all along. With a different production model, the beneficiaries of a restructuredgroup resettlement approach would stand a better chance of producing food.What this research has shown is that many poor people opted for resettlement not becausethey wanted to climb the economic ladder and become successful commercial farmers,but because, primarily, they needed a secure place of residence (see also von Wietersheim2008). This raises the question of the needs and aspirations of the rural poor, including farmworkers. No systematic attempts have been made to determine these. Such an investigationis very likely to establish that many of the applicable people are not interested in obtaininga 1 200 ha piece of land on which they are expected to engage in farming as a business.For those who do not aspire to this, group resettlement offers a solution in so far as itprovides basic services and access to a small piece of land on which to keep some livestockand grow a few vegetables.Related to the question of needs and aspirations are the questions of how the failure (orsuccess) of group resettlement is defined and assessed, and whose standards are beingapplied. It is indisputable that the monetised agricultural outputs of group resettlementschemes in the study regions have been less than when the farms were farmed by a whitecommercial farmer, even though the state has invested large amounts of money in thoseschemes, including for proper housing and other infrastructure. But can it justifiably be saidthat these schemes have failed, considering that close to 150 people in Omaheke alone areofficially receiving some basic social services and have the opportunity to raise livestockand/or grow small amounts of food, where previously only a fraction of that number weresupported on the same land? The answer depends on the objectives of land reform andresettlement, and ultimately, perhaps, on the perceptions of the beneficiaries themselves.164 ● Livelihoods after land reform: Namibia country report (2010)