Namibia country report

8 Policy ImplicationsThe purpose of this chapter is to reflect on some of the findings of this LaLR study in orderto determine ways in which the Namibian land reform programme could be redesigned tofacilitate more effective land use and economic growth. It should be stated at the outsetthat the agro-ecological conditions in different parts of the country, the low densities ofsettlement that flow from these conditions and the concomitant long distances betweenresettlement farms and urban service centres pose serious challenges to commercial smallscalefarming. More specifically, options for alternative and complimentary livelihoodsoutside the conventional extensive livestock farming model are limited.8.1 Models for resettlementAn important point that emerged from this study is that in principle, the FURS and AALSmodels of extensive livestock farming on individually owned pieces of land have satisfiedthe interests of a significant proportion of Namibia’s previously disadvantaged population.A major advantage of this model is that it enabled livestock owners on communal landto leave the communal production system to farm on their own piece of land instead. Thishad concrete benefits for these farmers, such as improved control over their livestock,which enabled them to improve breeding methods and reduce stock loss due to theft anduncontrolled roaming.Although the majority of the interviewees were satisfied with the redistributive land reformprocess, there is reason to believe that the prevailing land reform models in Namibia arelimited and restrictive in terms of the activities that beneficiaries can undertake. Withthe possible exception of a few group resettlement schemes, the models cater for extensivelivestock farming only, on either a small scale (i.e. the FURS route) or a large scale (theAALS route). For resettlement purposes, the MLR assesses land offered to it primarily withregard to its suitability for extensive livestock ranching. AALS farmers select their ownland for acquisition.The findings of this study suggest that the prevailing model for resettlement is too narrowand not well matched with the needs, aspirations and expectations of many beneficiaries,particularly those who have few assets. Current land reform thinking assumes that everypotential beneficiary intends to become a small-scale or large-scale farmer, but this studyhas found that their needs, aspirations and expectations are more differentiated than iscommonly acknowledged in the public discourse on land reform and resettlement.One key finding is that many beneficiaries valued access to resettlement land not primarilybecause they intended to farm commercially, but rather because resettlement on state landgave them a permanent and secure home, notwithstanding the fact that none of them had a168 ● Livelihoods after land reform: Namibia country report (2010)