Namibia country report

to improve her standard of living by settling on the farm Danel in Omaheke. She believedthat she would be able to expand her cattle farming activity to a level that would enable herto sell milk to the neighbouring school as well as start a vegetable garden. But none of herplans materialised. The grazing on the farm was plentiful but of poor quality. Her livestockwere dying from unknown causes and the soil for vegetable gardening was poor.A few beneficiaries applied for resettlement because they were no longer able to keep theirlivestock on the commercial farm where they worked, but they did not want to farm oncommunal land. Some commercial farmers allowed their farm workers to keep a limitednumber of animals on the farm as part of their remuneration. When the number of animalsexceeded the maximum allowed, the worker either had to sell or transfer the animals to acommunal area. Some commercial farmers charged grazing fees.For Herman, a former farm worker, paying grazing fees was not an option as he still hadchildren in school and could not afford to pay both school and grazing fees. To do so, hewould have had to sell his livestock. Although he had been working for the same employerfor 12 years, he decided to leave instead of paying grazing fees, and applied for resettlementat Skoonheid.Like Maria, some other FURS beneficiaries regarded resettlement as a means to build uptheir live stock farming operations, albeit not necessarily to a large-scale commerciallevel. Jakob, a 32-year-old man who worked as a labourer for a FURS beneficiary indicatedthat he wanted to apply for resettlement on his own piece of land. He was working on theresettlement farm Rosenhof but had some cattle on a cattle post which his brother in lawrented from a beneficiary on the resettlement farm Danel. Jakob wanted his own piece ofland because it was impossible to farm in the village from which he hailed in the Epukirocommunal area. In the event of being resettled, he would put his livestock and that of otherfamily members on the farm, hire somebody to look after it and continue to earn cashthrough farm labour. This was necessary to preclude his having to sell his livestock toobtain cash to buy farm inputs such as medicines. His aim was to have around 100 cattle.All he needed to improve his livelihood was his own piece of land, even if it was only onecamp. He did not think that he would ever use his cash to buy a car because a donkey-cartsufficed to fulfil his transport needs.For several beneficiaries, resettlement meant obtaining a piece of land on which to retire.Many former farm workers regarded this as a more attractive option for retirement than acommunal area. Daniel and his wife Rosa were 73 and 70 years old respectively. They didnot apply to be resettled at Mara but the Hardap Regional Governor allocated them a placethere in 2000. Daniel was born on a commercial farm in the region where he became afarm labourer. He and Rosa married on that farm. He then worked on several other farmsin the region. In 1990 they moved to a commercial farm in Rehoboth District. In 2000 thecommunity there were told that they had to move out. The Regional Governor and theRegional Resettlement Committee of the Hardap Regional Council decided in October 2000that the community would be resettled at Mara. Although Daniel and Rosa had cultivated asmall piece of land at Mara, they primarily wanted some land to retire on “in peace”.Livelihoods Section after B ● Land 5. Farm Reform: Unit Resettlement Namibia country Scheme report (FURS) (2010) ● 91