Namibia country report

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The National Resettlement Policy provides that a number of government ministries shouldcarry a responsibility for co-ordinating action plans in a particular area to ensure thatsectoral partners in government and NGOs are involved with these plans (MLRR 2001a:10). For example, the MLR’s main responsibility is to finance the resettlement programme,while the MAWF is responsible for, among other things, training resettlement beneficiariesthrough its Directorate of Extension Services. However, discussions with beneficiariesand ministry officials in Hardap and Omaheke revealed that a lack of co-ordination andcommunication between these two ministries has often hindered the implementation ofagricultural training programmes for resettlement beneficiaries.Over the years, the MLR has contracted NGOs and donor organisations which offer a widevariety of one-week courses designed to provide knowledge and skills to semi-skilled andunskilled employees and rural communities. For resettlement communities, however, skillstraining has often entailed just a one-off session on basic skills, and there is no data availablefor assessing the effectiveness of these. In addition, the MAWF extension services appear toprioritise the training and service needs of communal farmers, and contract out to privatecontractors the provision of technical services to resettlement projects. This clearly showsthat despite the government’s pledge to empower beneficiaries to become self-sufficient,the beneficiaries have to rely on external services to resolve what is often a minor problem.Beneficiaries at the group schemes of Bernafey, Westfalen, Skoonheid and Drimiopsis statedthat the MLR does not allow them to repair broken equipment themselves, but rather appointsa technical team to undertake repairs, which usually involves hiring private contractors.Land reform support service systems need to be strengthened, or established where theydo not exist. This requires a sound information base and a thorough analysis of agriculturalsupport services, and effective promotion activities for land reform support delivery.Of particular importance will be the linking of the various information sources and theactual exchange of information within the key government institutions and their regionalstructures. This applies mainly to the MLR, the MAWF and Ministry of Environment andTourism, but also to the applicable non-governmental institutions.8.9 Improving infrastructureFinancial co-operation between the government, donor organisations, the NGO sectorand the private sector should be directed to support the development of infrastructurerelating to land reform. Of particular importance will be the poverty-reducing effectsof the infrastructure investments, and broadening and diversifying the scope for ruralproduction. Through the infrastructure provided as well as the promotion of alternativeincome-generating options, resettlement communities will be able to take advantageof new opportunities and comparative benefits based on different resource endowments.Land reform beneficiaries need assistance with appropriate infrastructure in their effortsto generate sustainable increases in production in both the crop and livestock farming subsectors.176 ● Livelihoods after land reform: Namibia country report (2010)
Many resettlement projects are located far from big towns or trade centres. Resettlementbeneficiaries complain that they rarely know what goes on in the rest of the country becausethey do not receive daily newspapers, television or radio reports. This isolation negativelyinfluences the economic activities of most resettlement project communities. For one thing,it makes the marketing of products very difficult, not least due to a general lack of accessto transport. This lack also makes it difficult for beneficiaries to get in touch with familyand visit other communities. Most beneficiaries also complained about the lack of publictransportation to and from the resettlement projects. But again, poor transportation is aproblem throughout rural Namibia.Whatever measures are taken to improve infrastructure on the resettlement projects mustinclude measures to improve communication and transportation infrastructure. In thisregard, it is well worth considering the option of locating resettlement projects closer to bigtowns and trade centres, which would make communications and transportation mucheasier and cheaper, as well as make the projects more attractive and more efficient on thewhole.Satellite view,Drimiopsis,17 November 2002.Livelihoods after Land Reform: Section Namibia B ● 8. country Policy Implications report (2010) ● 177
Page 2 and 3:
© Land, Environment and Developmen
Page 4:
Leading the Fieldis a publication o
Page 8 and 9:
AcknowledgementsThe three-and-a-hal
Page 17 and 18:
2 LAND REFORM ANDPOVERTY: NATIONALP
Page 19 and 20:
Poverty in Omaheke.Poverty in Harda
Page 21:
the concern was expressed that “i
Page 24 and 25:
As will be discussed below, a numbe
Page 28 and 29:
from Germany in 1907 (Werner forthc
Page 31:
2.4 Land reform and rural developme
Page 34 and 35:
The Agricultural (Commercial) Land
Page 38 and 39:
Policy (RoN 1998: 1). What defined
Page 40:
The determination of a viable unit
Page 44 and 45:
Cabinet Minister who argued that th
Page 47 and 48:
in Hardap criticised government for
Page 49 and 50:
A farm in Hardap - enforcing privat
Page 51 and 52:
The process from land acquisition t
Page 53 and 54:
Herero traditional leaders ascribed
Page 55 and 56:
Table 5: Institutions involved in l
Page 59 and 60:
3 REGIONAL CONTEXTS3.1 HardapSpanni
Page 61 and 62:
Namibia as a whole has declined ste
Page 63:
Plowing for crop cultivation at Sko
Page 69:
Bernard bought a farm through the A
Page 72 and 73:
All of the AALS farmers surveyed in
Page 74 and 75:
Marketing channels for weaners in O
Page 78 and 79:
The tight financial position of som
Page 80 and 81:
4.3 Typology of livelihood strategi
Page 82 and 83:
he had about 600 in 2008. In additi
Page 84 and 85:
The second stage of the ‘cyclical
Page 86 and 87:
did not offer alternative land, but
Page 88 and 89:
4.4.4 The ‘broekskeur en vasbyt
Page 91:
in town is too fast and one is not
Page 94 and 95:
Table 9: Age and gender distributio
Page 96 and 97:
Figure 1: Education levels in FURS
Page 98 and 99:
Only two beneficiaries in the whole
Page 100:
5.1.3 Settlers’ relationship with
Page 103 and 104:
stated that they would be able to f
Page 105 and 106:
cows of all three farmers were serv
Page 108 and 109:
Table 19: Gross incomes of FURS liv
Page 110 and 111:
stock theft there. The closest poli
Page 112 and 113:
5.2.5 MarketingTable 21 summarises
Page 114 and 115:
the remainder of the year, goats ar
Page 116 and 117:
5.2.7 SkillsAlthough many FURS bene
Page 118:
The most common crops grown were ma
Page 121:
5.5 Livelihood trajectoriesBased on
Page 124 and 125:
Previously a part-time farmer in a
Page 126:
of the allocated unit, but the numb
Page 129 and 130:
e accommodated by the National Rese
Page 131 and 132:
6 GROUPRESETTLEMENTSCHEMESOfficiall
Page 134 and 135: Low levels of education further lim
Page 136: William did not really want to farm
Page 139 and 140: age, they decided that he had worke
Page 141 and 142: which was too far away to visit as
Page 144 and 145: Expenses for the group scheme farme
Page 146 and 147: phoned the MLR in Gobabis to send a
Page 148 and 149: they never learnt to save. They sho
Page 150 and 151: idea was to grow crops and sell the
Page 152: At Bernafey, 7 beneficiaries involv
Page 156 and 157: Housing at BernafeyHousing at Drimi
Page 158 and 159: 6.3.2 Other livelihood strategiesBe
Page 161 and 162: 6.3.2.3 Piece workWork on other far
Page 163 and 164: A shop at Drimiopsisshop as a livel
Page 165 and 166: When Alfons settled at Skoonheid in
Page 167 and 168: Farm workerLoses job / unemployedBe
Page 169 and 170: there. Instead, the MLRR advised hi
Page 171 and 172: the major issues identified in sect
Page 173 and 174: LaLR fieldwork at Bernafey.LaLR stu
Page 175 and 176: such external support was available
Page 177 and 178: formal lease agreement. Many people
Page 179: communal areas at minimal costs for
Page 182 and 183: study sample also complained about
Page 186: REFERENCESAbrahams, K. 1982. “The
Page 189 and 190: Namibia Agricultural Union. 2003. A
Page 191 and 192: Livelihoods after Land Reform: Nami
show all

Namibia country report

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?