Namibia country report

The tight financial position of some beneficiaries meant that they could do no more thanmaintain the infrastructure erected by the previous farm owners. Capital investments weremade only if they were inescapable.Many beneficiaries suggested that AALS farmers should have access to additional loansto help them with infrastructure repairs. Another option proposed was that rather thanadvance capital for repairs, Agribank could send its field workers to repair infrastructure andsimultaneously provide infrastructural inputs, including training on infrastructure repairand maintenance, and then charge the costs of these services to the farmers’ loan accounts.According to the farmer who made this proposal, beneficiaries can apply to Agribank for anadditional loan, but only after 10 years, and the decision as to whether or not to grant theloan would depend on how the applicant had fared with repaying the initial loan.Beneficiaries with sufficient collateral had obtained loans from commercial banks to buyvehicles and cover the costs of infrastructure maintenance and/or replacement. Some hadused a commercial bank loan also to pay their children’s school fees. A few had resorted toinformal lending. Several part-time farmers had borrowed amounts as high as N$260 000to N$300 000 from relatives for purchasing livestock. Full-time farmers borrowed muchsmaller amounts from commercial banks and relatives.4.2.6 DroughtRegular drought is the single most serious threat to livestock farming in both Hardap andOmaheke. Despite drought being a constant threat in Hardap, less than 10% of the AALSrespondents there singled it out as a major problem. A possible reason for this is that theimmediate focus of respondents there was on water infrastructure which is easier to managethan drought. However, the qualitative interviews left no doubt that drought was a majorissue for all AALS farmers in both regions. Many did state that they had suffered majorlivestock losses as a result of drought.In Hardap, a number of farmers said that it was difficult to get into full production as droughtreduced their land’s carrying capacity. Although drought presents the single biggest shockto livelihoods in Hardap, unseasonal weather conditions cause big losses from time to time.In October 2007, a late frost with accompanying heavy rain occurred in both Hardap andKaras. Some AALS farmers in Mariental District reported heavy losses of small stock, andfarmers in the Bethanie area in Karas reportedly lost as many as 2 000 sheep.To minimise the negative impact of drought on livestock, production systems should bedesigned to enable farmers to manage drought better. Such systems would include, amongother things, systems of flexible and rotational grazing. In theory, large-scale commercialfarms with their internal camps facilitate rotational grazing, and evidence suggests thatmany AALS farmers are practising rotational grazing. Other drought mitigation strategiesemployed by AALS farmers have been hiring grazing if available and purchasing feed fortheir livestock.70 ● Livelihoods after land reform: Namibia country report (2010)