Namibia country report

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 9: Age and gender distributions of FURS household headsAge distribution Omaheke Hardap20-59 years 5 42% 13 65%60 years and older 7 58% 7 35%Total 12 20Gender distribution 8 males, 4 females 18 males, 2 femalesIn Hardap, 35% of the FURS farmers were older than the official retirement age of 60, whilein Omaheke more than 50% were older than 60. The 2003/04 PTT survey (ibid.) found 30%of beneficiaries to be older than 60.These figures, and those produced by the PTT (2005a and 2005b), indicate that youngerpeople are severely underrepresented in land redistribution. The reasons for this are not clear.One explanation may be that younger people are not interested in agricultural productionand hence do not bother to apply for resettlement. A less likely alternative explanationcould be that younger people have been less successful than older people in applying forresettlement.A closer look at the age profiles of all members of FURS households in Hardap and Omahekereveals that people beyond retirement age were more prominently represented on FURSfarms than in these regions on the whole. The age profiles are presented in Table 10 below.In Hardap, the number of pre-school children on FURS farms was much lower than in theregion as a whole. In both regions the number of people in the economically active agegroup (15-59 years) was higher than the regional average. One household in Omaheke hadno member in the economically active age group but only members under 14 and over 60years of age.Table 10: Age distribution of FURS household members by region – Omaheke and HardapAge group(years)Omaheke*FURS Omaheke(N=68)Hardap*FURS Hardap(N=88)0-5 15% 13% 13% 4%6-14 26% 16% 23% 14%15-59 51% 55% 55% 66%60+ 8% 16% 9% 16%*Source: Omaheke Regional Poverty Profile, 2006; Hardap Regional Poverty Profile, 2006It is interesting that in the FURS sample in Hardap, the percentage of very young childrenwas comparatively low. As mentioned earlier, it is common for parents in town to send theirchildren to reside on farms with family, but in Hardap, with very long distances betweentowns and the FURS farms, this phenomenon is possibly less frequent than elsewhere,especially in respect of infants and toddlers.Most of the household heads interviewed in both regions were male, as Table 11 reflects.The PTT study conducted in 2003/04 found a gender distribution of 72% male and 28%female (ibid.).86 ● Livelihoods after land reform: Namibia country report (2010)
Table 11: Gender distribution of FURS household headsGender Hardap Omaheke TotalMale 18 8 26 (81%)Female 2 4 6 (19%)Total 20 12 32 (100%)The levels of formal education among FURS farmers was very low. In Omaheke, 8 outof 12 or two thirds of the sampled farmers had no formal education, and only one hadcompleted primary school. The low levels of formal education might have contributed to thepoor economic performances of FURS farmers in Omaheke. In Hardap, only one farmer hadcompleted tertiary education. Table 12 summarises the situation in both regions regardingformal education.Many beneficiaries explained that they were not able to advance their formal educationbecause their parents could not afford to keep them in school. Although this was not statedexplicitly, it is reasonable to assume that one factor contributing to this state of affairswas that the parents of most beneficiaries had lived and worked on commercial farms:not only were their wages low, but logistical problems such as a lack of proper schoolingfacilities and a lack of transport may well have had a significantly negative impact on theirchildren’s schooling.No FURS farmer sampled in either region had received formal agricultural training.Table 12: Education levels of FURS household headsOmaheke HardapNo formal education 8 4Some primary schooling 3 5Primary school completed 1 5Some secondary schooling 5Tertiary education 1Total 12 20The education levels of other members of beneficiary households were not much higher. InOmaheke only two households had family members who had completed secondary school,and five had members with some secondary schooling. In three Omaheke households,completion of primary school was the highest level of education attained, and in twohouseholds the highest level was some primary schooling.Looking at the levels of education of all 68 household members in the 12 households inOmaheke, the picture in Figure 1 on the next page emerged. More than 44% of all householdmembers had no formal education, while more than 19% had some secondary schoolingand less than 3% had completed secondary school.Livelihoods Section after B ● Land 5. Farm Reform: Unit Resettlement Namibia country Scheme report (FURS) (2010) ● 87
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 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 184 and 185:
The National Resettlement Policy pr
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?