Namibia: Resettlement and Development The National Resettlement Programme as a means to effect change in Namibian sustainable development and capabilities.
Master Thesis International Development Studies November 2016 Word Count: 26,254
Joseph Lawrance 11211873
[email protected] Supervisor: Dr Robin Pistorius Second Reader: Dr Courtney Vegelin University of Amsterdam
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would first like to thank my supervisor, Robin Pistorius, for mentoring me through the process, assisting me through some of the more challenging phases of my fieldwork and helping me to coalesce all my disparate ideas and data into this thesis. I thank Courtney Vegelin for agreeing to be my second reader and taking the time to pore over this piece of work. I would next like to thank all of those in Namibia who helped me to piece together the gaps in my knowledge with their invaluable expertise. Their stories and experiences are what helped build the empirical knowledge, without them there would be no thesis. I am humbled by the generosity that so many of the people offered me and will be forever grateful for this. I only refrain from naming specific contributors for the sake of anonymity! Finally I would like to thank my friends, family and fellow IDS students for helping lift me from the unavoidable moments of despair that accompanied the protracted process of research, study and procrastination that ultimately led to the completion of this thesis. Joseph Lawrance Amsterdam November 2016
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................................................................................................................... 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................................................... 3 ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................................... 5 LIST OF ACRONYMS ........................................................................................................................... 6 LIST OF GRAPHICS ............................................................................................................................. 6 1. INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT ...................................................................................................... 7 1.1 INTRODUCTION TO THESIS ...................................................................................................... 7 1.2 THE HISTORY OF LAND OWNERSHIP IN NAMIBIA .......................................................................... 9 1.3 COMMUNAL LAND PROGRESS ............................................................................................... 10 1.4 COMMERCIAL LAND ............................................................................................................ 12 1.4.1 AFFIRMATIVE ACTION LOAN SCHEME .................................................................................... 13 1.4.2 NATIONAL RESETTLEMENT PROGRAMME ............................................................................... 13 1.5 SUMMARY OF LAND ISSUES ................................................................................................... 14 1.6 RESEARCH LOCATION .......................................................................................................... 15
1.7 OUTLINE OF THESIS ............................................................................................................. 16 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ........................................................................................................ 17 2.1 SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................ 17 2.2 THE CAPABILITIES APPROACH AND LAND REFORM ...................................................................... 19 2.3 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND CAPABILITIES .................................. 22 2.4 RESEARCH GAP AND PROBLEMATIZATION ................................................................................. 23
2.5 RESEARCH QUESTION .......................................................................................................... 24 3. RESEARCH DESIGN ................................................................................................................... 26 3.1 CONCEPTUAL SCHEME ......................................................................................................... 26 3.2 OPERATIONALIZATION OF MAJOR CONCEPTS ............................................................................. 27
3.3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND METHODS ............................................................................... 28 3.3.1 EPISTEMOLOGY AND ONTOLOGY .......................................................................................... 28 3.3.2 METHODOLOGY AND METHODS ........................................................................................... 30 3.3.3 UNITS OF ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................... 31 3.3.4 SAMPLING ....................................................................................................................... 31 3.3.5 DATA ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................ 32 3.3.6 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS .................................................................................................. 32 3.3.7 METHODOLOGICAL REVIEW ................................................................................................ 33 4. LAND, POVERTY AND INEQUALITY ................................................................................................ 36 3
4.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 36 4.2 THE PURPOSE OF LAND REFORM ............................................................................................ 37 4.3 ECONOMIC INEQUALITY ....................................................................................................... 39 4.4 POLITICAL INEQUALITY ......................................................................................................... 41 4.5 LAND REFORM AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................... 43 4.6 LAND REFORM AND CAPABILITIES ........................................................................................... 45
4.7 CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................... 48 5. ENVIRONMENT AND ECONOMICS ................................................................................................. 50 5.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 50 5.2 BUSH ENCROACHMENT AND CHARCOAL ................................................................................... 50 5.3 SHARED WATER RESOURCES AND DROUGHT ............................................................................. 52 5.4 PROPERTY RIGHTS AND FREEDOM .......................................................................................... 55
5.5 CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................... 57 6. ASPIRED DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................................ 59 6.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 59 6.2 CHANGES FOR GREATER SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT ................................................................. 59 6.2.1 SOCIAL EQUALITY .............................................................................................................. 59 6.2.2 ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY ................................................................................................. 61 6.2.3 ECOLOGICAL PROTECTION ................................................................................................... 62 6.3 CHANGES FOR IMPROVED CAPABILITIES .................................................................................... 64 6.3.1 ECONOMIC FACILITIES ........................................................................................................ 64 6.3.2 SOCIAL OPPORTUNITIES ...................................................................................................... 66 6.3.3 POLITICAL FREEDOM .......................................................................................................... 67
6.4 CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................... 68 7. CONCLUSION: THE FUTURE OF LAND REFORM ................................................................................. 70 7.1 INTRODUCTION: ANSWERING THE RESEARCH QUESTION .............................................................. 70 7.2 QUESTIONING THE NEED FOR LAND REFORM ............................................................................ 70 7.3 URBANISATION AND THE NEXT GENERATION ............................................................................. 71 7.4 KEY POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................... 72 7.5 FUTURE RESEARCH ............................................................................................................. 75
BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................................... 77 APPENDIX 1: LIST OF INTERVIEWEES .................................................................................................... 83 APPENDIX 2: INTERVIEW GUIDE ......................................................................................................... 84 4
ABSTRACT The existing academic research focuses on the policy implications of commercial land reform in the context of rural Namibia. Whilst this has given meaningful output regarding our understanding of the livelihoods of the beneficiaries of land reform, past research has tended not to assess the effectiveness of these policies at achieving development in line with contemporary development theory. Looking specifically at the ‘National Resettlement Programme’ and drawing upon the Namibian government’s position, this thesis takes the position that land reform should enhance ‘Sustainable Development’ within Namibian society. Additionally, through Sen.’s ‘Capabilities Approach’, the thesis also assesses the effects of land reform upon capability development. Conceptually both theories are used to explain phenomena that occur at two respective levels: the societal and the individual. The study uses a qualitative dataset built predominantly upon semi-‐structured interviews with resettlement beneficiaries and other key local actors. After collation the empirical data has been used to assess and discuss the perceived effects of the ‘National Resettlement Programme’ in achieving both sustainable development and enhancing capabilities. The principle aim of this study was to offer insight as to how the National Resettlement Programme might be improved in order to enhance both sustainable development and capabilities. This research indicates that whilst benefitting some people, the policy has also had a detrimental effect upon the rural economy and negatively impacts upon rural farmworkers. The study concludes by offering recommendations as to how the programme might be altered in order to improve capabilities and sustainable development in rural Namibia in the future, whilst also considering that Namibia is ultimately urbanising and that this might be a more relevant direction for policymakers to consider. Keywords: Capabilities Approach; Land Reform; Namibia; Rural; Sustainable Development.
5
LIST OF ACRONYMS AALS Affirmative Action Loan Scheme ACLRA Agricultural (Commercial) Land Reform Act 1995 AR Affirmative Repositioning CBNRM Community Based Natural Resource Management DRFN Desert Research Foundation Namibia FSP Farmer Support Programme FURS Farm Unit Resettlement Scheme GIZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit LAC Legal Assistance Centre MLR Ministry of Land Reform NAU Namibia Agricultural Union NECFU Namibia Emerging Commercial Farmers’ Union NGO Non-‐Governmental Organisation NNF Namibia Nature Foundation NNFU Namibia National Farmers Union NRP National Resettlement Programme SWAPO South West Africa People’s Organisation UvA University of Amsterdam LIST OF GRAPHICS Fig 1 Map of Namibia and locations of Khomas and Kunene Fig 2 Conceptual Scheme Fig 3 Diagram illustrating key conceptual dimensions Fig 4 Operationalization Table 6
1. INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT 1.1 INTRODUCTION TO THESIS Namibia seceded from South Africa and gained independence in March of 1990. It is often asserted that the war of independence was fought over land and when the SWAPO (South West Africa People’s Organisation) government finally came to power at the end of this conflict, it announced its intention to “transfer the land from those with too much of it to the landless majority” (Adams & Devitt, 1992:2). This has created a fusion of land with politics that is far more prevalent than in other nations and is a theme that is revisited throughout this thesis. Since independence the government has enacted various policies in order to make land transfer a reality. Namibian land can be subdivided into various different legal arrangements but the two most distinct are that of communal and commercial, each of which features its own sub-‐divisions. This thesis is principally concerned with the National Resettlement Programme and commercial land as there has been relatively little progress in reforming this type of ownership, which still makes up 43 per cent of Namibia’s total land area and is still owned by around 4500, predominantly white, farmers (Brown & Bird, 2011:4).
Namibia is a relatively young nation but it still bears the scars of its colonial past and long
period of history under South African apartheid rule. Namibia became part of the German Empire in the 19th Century and this commenced a long period of disenfranchisement for the black majority population, which included the genocide of the Herero people by German forces between 1904 and 1907 (Melber, 2005:135). In 1915 the country was annexed by the Union of South Africa during the Great War and became South West Africa, which was the de facto fifth province of South Africa and as such the laws of apartheid and white rule were thrust upon the land (Rust, 2015:21). The war for independence culminated in victory for the SWAPO; an organisation that upon independence reflected a more socialist ideology than they would later implement. The political consensus of the global community at the time favoured neoliberal decentralisation and as such, land reforms were born within this framework (Gargallo, 2010:157; Jänis, 2014:187). Furthermore, the terms of independence ensured that those with office were constitutionally entitled to retain their position (Herbstein, 1993:54). These factors, along with another constitutional requirement, “just compensation” (Kuambi, 2004:29), have assisted with stability but made mass land reform difficult to justly enact. The land distribution still reflects the ‘separate development’ of the past with the majority of the southern half of the country being dominated by white commercial farmers, and the 7
northern half by communal conservancies occupied by black or indigenous inhabitants (Melber, 2005:138). The skewed land distribution leaves many ethnic groups in Namibia perceived as dispossessed and disadvantaged, and land ownership is dominated by relative elites: less than 10 per cent of people own 80 per cent of commercial farmland (Kaumbi, 2004:28). Even after numerous policies and frameworks, 75 per cent of that commercial farmland is still owned by white farmers, some 25 years after independence (Werner, 2015:5). The position of this thesis is that any reform to land ownership should improve the equitable distribution of wealth without marginalising any sector of Namibia’s rural community. Current landowners must be convinced that land reform will contribute towards achieving sustainable economic growth, peace and stability (Kaumbi, 2004:30) as it must be remembered that ‘the minority who might have land now also see Namibia as their country’ (Werner & Kruger, 2007:8). Additionally overhauling the system may threaten that very peace and stability which will negatively impact the farmworkers more severely than the farm owners. The land ownership situation is likely to be a contributing factor to Namibia’s persistently high Gini Coefficient of 0.59 (Phiri & Odhiando, 2015:11) indicating that high inequality is still a pertinent issue post apartheid. Furthermore, rural poverty remains higher than urban with 37 per cent of rural Namibians assessed to be poor and plagued by high levels of unemployment (2015:13). The thesis will look in great depth at the relationship with land and the persistence of inequality from a qualitative perspective in order to better understand its continuance despite the biggest structural barriers having already dissipated with the change in regime. As previously mentioned, the focus in this thesis is commercial land reform, specifically that which has occurred under the National Resettlement Programme (NRP). The NRP will be evaluated as a means of effecting both Sustainable Development (at a societal level) and Capabilities (at a more individualistic level). The thesis takes a juridical approach to understanding ‘Sustainable Development’ as it is used frequently in government policy. Individual capabilities will be viewed from a Senian perspective1 utilising an adapted form of his ‘Capabilities Approach’ as a tool to best encapsulate how this policy ought to improve the lives of disadvantaged Namibians. The lack of access to land and property rights created a clear inference to several of Sen’s supposed ‘unfreedoms’ (see section 2.2); therefore it has been used extensively as a method for assessing and interpreting the outcomes of the NRP. 1
Sen (1999) posited the notion that development is both a means and ends to freedom through his ‘five freedoms’ (See para. 2.2). In this model, through enhanced capabilities (i.e. the capabilities approach), individuals can achieve this development.
8
The position from which I approach this thesis is that without more equitable access to resources then sustainable development and the capabilities of the disadvantaged Namibians cannot be realised. Prior to conducting this research I asserted that the imbalanced ownership of land is a barrier to development itself and that land ownership still disproportionately reflects the dominance of one group in society. Over the course of the research, this assertion was challenged and the final conclusion better reflects the complexities surrounding the reality and its relationship to the politics of land in Namibia. For the sake of assessment, I have engaged with this by answering the research question ‘How is the National Resettlement Programme perceived as a strategy in achieving sustainable development and increasing the capabilities of disadvantaged Namibians?’ in order to subsequently make deductions about the success of the programme. The conclusion of the thesis suggests that the National Resettlement Programme may, in fact, hinder some aspects of development based on the data that was gathered in this study.
1.2 THE HISTORY OF LAND OWNERSHIP IN NAMIBIA Namibia’s present is still largely shaped by its colonial past. The dichotomy of the land is no exception; at independence, the majority of land was either held in private commercial farms (44 per cent) or communal conservancies (43 per cent) with the remainder forming National Parks (about 13 per cent) (Adams & Devitt, 1992:2) and little has since changed regarding ownership. Broadly speaking, the land can be divided on a north-‐south basis with the majority of commercial farms being in the south and central regions. This is largely a colonial vestige: the land in the north was designated as “black homelands” by the Apartheid government, while the land in the south remained dominated by white farmers (Brown & Bird, 2011:4). Furthermore, the land was physically delineated by the “red line” towards the north, which constitutes fencing, designed to prevent the spread of diseases from Angola and Zambia from migrating animals to local livestock (Adams & Devitt, 1992:5). Most land is pastoral with only around eight per cent suitable for commercial dry cropping due to low rainfall in much of Namibia (Melber, 2005:137).
The apartheid system and the “separate development” that accompanied it led to the
purchasing of farms in order to create separate “homelands”, racially polarising ownership across Namibia (Adams & Devitt, 1992:5). The land had already been colonised prior to South African rule and the current Namibian government inherited this ownership system upon independence (Herbstein, 1993:54; Melber, 2005:135). At independence, it was negotiated that ownership rights be constitutionally protected by the new Namibian government and as such the status quo has been difficult to alter. A host of laws, frameworks and schemes have been put in place by the 9
Namibian government2 in order to combat the disparity of ownership in Namibia, however, it is suggested that only 25% of total freehold land has been transferred to previously disadvantaged Namibians (Werner, 2015:6). Where successful reallocation of commercial land occurred, it is often asserted that the beneficiaries are middle class Namibians, either a part of or close to the political elite (Melber, 2005:137), which has a detrimental effect on the validity of the programme (see section 4.4).
Progress of land reform has been slow, in part due to the ‘willing-‐buyer, willing-‐seller’
principle, which ensures that selling farmers are content with the price they receive before selling (Werner, 2015:6). The Namibian government has first refusal on the land but farmers are not bound by their offer (Werner & Kruger, 2007:27). Furthermore, when emerging farmers are able to gain commercial land, they, like their white counterparts, struggle with its lack of productivity, partly due to the difference between different environments in Namibia. In the case of white farmers, Melber (2005: 139) states that it is not uncommon for farming to represent a ‘lifestyle choice’ of the urban elite who subsidise unproductive land using other income. 1.3 COMMUNAL LAND PROGRESS The principle focus of this thesis is commercial land reform, however communal policy progress is also considered key to development and this section gives an overview of this. Upon independence, external forces that influenced the policy decisions of the Namibian government included the international market-‐driven reform agenda that manifested as ‘tourism for development’ strategies, alongside the international conservation movement (Gargallo, 2010:157). In the case of Namibia, the two have had a synergistic effect in that tourism has helped to fund conservation because wildlife forms the main attraction for that tourism (Johannesen & Skonhoft, 2004:209). As a result of the decrease in wildlife destruction on privately-‐owned land, the Namibian government sought to increase local ownership of wildlife on communal land and under the National Conservation Amendment Act 1996 the ‘communal conservancy’ came into existence (Boudreaux, 2010:5). This particular arrangement has proved successful in increasing sustainability and the capabilities of local beneficiaries. 2
The land reform programme in Namibia has four main components. These are: Redistributive land reform; The Affirmative Action Loan Scheme; Development of unutilised communal land; and Tenure reform in communal areas. The policy and legal framework guiding land reform consists of the following: The Constitution of the Republic of Namibia; Vision 2030; Agricultural (Commercial) Land Reform Act, 1995; National Resettlement Policy, 2001; National Land Policy, 1998; Communal Land Reform Act, 2002 (Werner & Kruger, 2007:12).
10
These ‘community based natural resource management’ (CBNRM) schemes work by
devolving land management rights to communities that have applied for conservancy status. Much like with resettlement land, the government still owns the land, however, communities are entrusted as stewards over the resources and in return are entitled to 100 per cent of the profits that arise from the wildlife (Brown & Bird, 2011:13). In keeping, with the neoliberal spirit of the age in which they were conceived, this allows clear monetary value to be placed on wildlife and a tangible incentive for it to be maintained (Novelli & Hellwig, 2011:210). As of 2010, there were 59 conservancies in Namibia since the first one was opened in 1997 (Brown & Bird, 2011:5) and the dramatic decline in post-‐independence poaching has been attributed to CBNRM schemes (Kahler et al., 2012:179). The empowering of local inhabitants creates a beneficial relationship with the surrounding biodiversity (2012:179) and a vested interest to protect local wildlife (Kahler & Gore, 2015:50). Conservation NGOs provide some funding but it is hoped that tourism will allow conservancies to become self-‐sufficient (Boudreaux, 2010:10). Tourism is notionally supported by the Namibian government as a means to development (Lacey & Ilcan, 2015:41) and enhances conservation and empowerment by giving wildlife and tourism rights to residents (2015:48). This has enabled local communities to earn sustainable income from tourism that incentivises protecting the environment (Novelli & Hellwig, 2011:210). Whilst tourism is promoted by various government policies in order to create wealth in traditionally poorer regions of Namibia (2011:212), as a development strategy, it is fundamentally underpinned by a neoliberal ideology that advocates for free trade, foreign investment and economic growth (Janis, 2014:186). Additionally, Douglas and Alie (2014:275) noted that the lack of diversity in economic revenue streams leaves local development vulnerable to external shocks through the fickle nature of the industry, which can suffer from bad press or wider economic crashes. Furthermore, Knutsen (2003:582) points out that the capacity for private enterprise to extract the wealth earned in Namibia is always greater so long as investment is foreign, while local entrepreneurs, on the other hand, are more likely to reinvest money earned locally. Therefore, this model could potentially empower foreign elites if applied to commercial land, something the government have been keen to prevent through foreign ownership restrictions (Werner, 2010:20). Ultimately, whilst pragmatic, the tendency of the tourism industry is to commoditise wildlife, culture and landscapes as merely tourist attractions in order to bring in foreign capital (Jänis, 2014:186). Jepson and Canney (2003:271) argue that this places overemphasis on economic rationalism at the expense of values-‐led conservation. Nonetheless the process does seem to be effective: poaching has fallen (Muntifering et al., 2015:4) and the main source of wildlife 11
destruction is now attributed to human-‐wildlife conflict, as animals can still be killed if they pose a threat to human life or livestock under Namibian law (Rust, 2016:1)3. Furthermore, as Brown and Bird have shown (2011:5), the revenue generated under the scheme is paid back into the conservancy with dividends being awarded to local inhabitants. The allocation of the money is decided at local level with traditional authorities being afforded the means to govern such decisions themselves increasing local agency and ultimately local capabilities with a positive effect on development (Boudreaux, 2010:15). 1.4 COMMERCIAL LAND As previously stated in section 1.1, 43 per cent of the land, most of which is in the south and centre of the country is designated as commercial (Brown & Bird, 2011:4) and is used primarily for livestock pastor due to the arid nature of the land. In the far south the principal livestock is sheep or goat and in more central areas of Namibia, cattle are most common (Adams & Devitt, 1992:5). The land is grouped into very large farms, which is a necessary reality of the low rainfall that contributes to the low productivity of the land. This has had a large effect on land reform policies particularly with regard to SWAPO’s original intention of breaking up large farms into smaller ones, which has proved less feasible than expected (Werner & Kruger, 2007:7) 4 . As such, it partially explains why land has remained concentrated with so few people.
Werner and Kruger (2007:25) also argue that the outcome of commercial land ownership is
often to maintain low wages, even where redistribution of land has occurred. The inequality gap and income disparity is significant for development as residents are held in high levels of poverty in a country that is otherwise considered as middle income (Riehl et al., 2015:3). Furthermore, there are risks associated with disproportionate land ownership that can only be redressed by land reform, as can be seen in Zimbabwe’s violent upheavals in response to perceived inaction (Kaumbi, 2004:30). These high levels of inequality undermine inclusivity in development and could impact upon stability. Linking property rights to rural capabilities is key to the premise of the study and will be covered in greater depth in section 2.2.
The principle two components, which ultimately impact upon the redistribution of land,
are the National Resettlement Programme (NRP) and the Affirmative Action Loan Scheme (AALS). These two schemes are covered in greater depth below. 3
In chapter 5, I cover how human wildlife conflict is less of a problem within a commercial context and how other ecological threats exist in lieu. 4 The problem of having a small amount of land is covered in greater depth in section 4.3 and is revisited on several occasions in this thesis.
12
1.4.1 Affirmative Action Loan Scheme Whilst the Affirmative Action Loan Scheme is intended to be complementary to the National Resettlement Programme (Sherbourne, 2004:2), the AALS is actually the principle scheme for resettlement in terms of outright resettlement numbers, i.e. the majority of farmers that have been resettled, have done so through this scheme, almost twice as many farms have been transferred in this way (Werner, 2015:6). Offered through the parastatal5 Agribank organisation, the scheme is essentially a mortgage that provides ‘landless’ Namibians an asset base with which they can purchase land and invest in their future business (2015:4). The loans were created in 1991 and were designed in such a way that would encourage repayment signalling the much more market-‐based approach that this scheme represents in comparison to the National Resettlement Programme (Sherbourne, 2004:2). Currently, 96 per cent of land that has been offered to the Ministry of Land Reform has been granted a waiver meaning that it can be sold via the AALS scheme on the open market (Werner, 2015:6), which has created a great deal of land transfer through this system. Where, the National Resettlement Programme is based on “bureaucracy” the AALS is described as being based on “land rights” (Sherbourne, 2004:2) indicating that it is favoured amongst many locals as a means of encouraging land transfer.
The scheme is intended for communal farmers whose herds have outgrown their land to
be able to move onto a commercial farm and continue to grow their business (2004:2). However, in 2004, the Ministry of Agriculture stated that of 544 AALS farmers, 199 had defaulted on payments (2004:7), in part due to the AALS model requiring that farmers maintain full production (Odendaal, 2005:10). The difficulties of transposing farmers who are used to a communal style of farming into a commercial style are clear. The business acumen required to do so is different and, equally significantly, the commercial regions are much drier than the communal regions, thus requiring a different approach to agriculture, something which Agribank does not consider when granting loans (2005:10). 1.4.2 National Resettlement Programme The National Resettlement Programme entails the acquisition of land under the ‘willing-‐seller, willing-‐buyer’ principle by the Ministry of Land Reform, which is then parcelled and given to landless Namibians. The NRP has multiple social purposes, it is intended to redress societal 5
Parastatal is a term, often used in an African context, which refers to an organisation with some affiliation to the state.
13
imbalances, bring self-‐sufficiency and bring beneficiaries into the mainstream economy (Odendaal, 2005:8). In order to redress this societal imbalance, it is accepted that production is secondary to redistribution in the short term (Sherbourne, 2004:8), which in comparison to the AALS, gives the NRP a far less market-‐orientated agenda. The social benefits are the main justification for the programme which costs the government approximately N$1 million per farm purchased (Harring & Odendaal, 2007:8) which goes some way to explaining why, as mentioned in section 1.4.1, 96 per cent of farms offered to the Ministry of Land Reform are granted a waiver. The programme has been criticised to some extent because of the skewed preference towards well-‐connected applicants, with 74 per cent of beneficiaries estimated to be Windhoek government workers (Werner, 2015:13). As a programme, it is further criticised for failing to successfully deliver sustainable growth to the poor because its property rights are unclear (Sherbourne, 2004:8), especially with regard to the subleasing of land (Werner, 2010:18). The government still own the land and merely lease it to the beneficiaries on a 99-‐year lease (Sherbourne, 2004:2), which serves to limit how the land can be used as well as to confuse the responsibilities of maintenance of the land (Werner, 2010:19)6. Given the high volume of applicants, which in 2005, stood at a backlog of 230,000 applicants (Odendaal, 2005:8), the early manifestations of the NRP focused on mass ‘group resettlements’ which entailed fitting as many people as possible into large farms that were divided into small scale units that could provide self-‐sustenance for a family and nothing more. However, since then the Farm Unit Resettlement Scheme (FURS) has come to replace group resettlements meaning that farmers now receive a minimum allocation of land depending on the area in which they live (Werner & Odendaal, 2010:25). This has made the emphasis far more on replicating commercial farming models rather than small scale self-‐sustenance but was necessary due to the limitations imposed by the Namibian climate; in essence Namibian commercial farms are large because the land is dry (Werner, 2015:7). 1.5 SUMMARY OF LAND ISSUES It is important to understand the variation in different types of land and the implications for each of these types of ownership for rural development; each type of land ownership fosters a different agricultural culture, has different limitations and has experienced different degrees of success. To this end it is difficult to directly compare each of them, particularly when trying to compare 6
The problems highlighted in this paragraph are explored in depth in chapter 6 and their solutions form the basis of the recommendations in section 7.4.
14
communal to commercial structures. Therefore this thesis focuses solely on commercial land with the bulk of analysis concerned only with the National Resettlement Programme, as this programme has garnered significantly more criticism than the AALS. 1.6 RESEARCH LOCATION
Figure 1 Map of Namibia and Locations of Khomas and Kunene
My research took place principally in the areas of Khomas and Southern Kunene; Windhoek, the capital city is located within Khomas and the regional town of Outjo was my base during my time in Kunene. These areas were selected because of the prevalence of commercial pastoral farming (Adams & Devitt, 1992:5) and access to resettled farmers was readily acquired after initial interviews took place in Windhoek. Furthermore, Kunene features a prominent group resettlement farm7, which allowed me to assess this form of resettlement project in greater depth. These areas have limited presence of indigenous groups; all of the areas of study were south of the communal areas of Namibia and therefore the designated ‘homelands’ that tend to have more of an association with indigenous designations (Brown & Bird, 2011:4). Geographically, Namibia is very large and specific farm locations are often great distances from urbanisation, 7
The name of which is being withheld in order to preserve the anonymity of some of the interviewees.
15
however most of the farms that were visited were clustered either around Windhoek or Outjo. See Figure 1 for the location of these two regions.
The government made English the official language at independence though fewer than
20,000 people spoke it as a mother tongue (Herbstein, 1993:55). Within the area I visited, Afrikaans was traditionally the lingua franca as, unlike in South Africa, it was less associated as a tongue of the oppressor (1993:55). The foremost language of government is English but those without secondary education are likely to have been taught exclusively in their mother tongue with English taught as a subject rather than as the median of instruction. English is only the sole median of instruction from secondary school onwards (Ninnes, 2011:17). However, Afrikaans persists to be the language of farming meaning that farmworkers are especially likely to communicate in Afrikaans when dealing with European Namibians, while speaking a native Namibian language amongst their family. The main logistical challenge that I faced was the size of the area and the relative sparseness of the population. 1.7 OUTLINE OF THESIS This thesis is divided into seven chapters. The thesis has started by drawing the reader’s attention to some of the historical background that is most pertinent to the relevance of land reform in Namibian politics and has continued to outline some of the key policy programmes that have been implemented to enact this reform. Chapter two defines the theory that I have deemed most relevant for Namibian land reform and justified this from a juridical perspective or from a wider relevance within development theory. Chapter three then conceptualises and operationalizes this theory so that it fits within the contextual frame of Namibian land reform before going on to outline the research methodology and the description of the qualitative methods that were used for this study. Chapters four and five are used to present the key findings and analyse the relevance of the data against the theory in order to answer the pertinent sub-‐questions. Chapter six continues along the same vein, using the data to address sub-‐questions but additionally offers policy recommendations that could be enacted in order to improve the land reform policy of the Namibian government. Chapter seven concludes the thesis by offering an overall take on the effectiveness of the policy and offers an alternative set of recommendations based on this assessment, concluding with potential directions for future research.
16
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK Building on from the contextual overview of the current situation in Namibia, I have decided to interpret land reform as a problem along two conceptual cleavages: ‘Sustainable Development’ and ‘Capabilities’. I will first define ‘Sustainable Development’ and then analyse how it impacts upon land reform policies. I will then use the Senian ‘capabilities approach’ to argue that well executed land reform itself could be the means to development and not just the ends. The former has been selected principally due to its adoption as an outcome of government policy while the latter because my interpretation of the failure of Namibian property rights drew clear parallels with what Sen would have described as an ‘unfreedom’. I have implicitly interpreted sustainable development as having an effect more broadly at the societal level while capabilities has more grounding in the individual level, that being said, both have the propensity to influence each other (see section 3.1 for conceptual relationships). 2.1 SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT In 1987 the Brundtland commission and the subsequent UN summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 brought the notion of ‘Sustainable Development’ into mainstream development discourse (Zaccai, 2012:80). Since then sustainable development has become a much used and widely defined concept that is often critiqued based on the ease with which it can be appropriated to suit; as a term, it means something different to everyone who has used it (Ratner, 2004:52). It suggests an “intentional and conscious control of the relationship between society and nature” (Garcia, 2000:229). However, much like “society and nature”, ‘sustainable’ and ‘development’ can often represent a contradiction in terms and are utilised by both developers and environmentalists in order to achieve their objectives (Ratner, 2004:52). Many definitions place sustainable development within a three pillars approach. As a concept it incorporates economic, social and environmental dimensions (Zaccai, 2012:80) or as the political promotion of the simultaneous goals of economic growth that is socially just while protecting the environment (Garcia, 2000:241). In the context of rural Namibia, Vision 2030 was launched in 2004 as a document that “spells out the country's development programmes and strategies to achieve its national objectives” (Vision 2030:2004). Vision 2030’s preface describes “sustainable development” as “the cornerstone” upon which it is based and uses the UN’s own description (WCED, 1987) of sustainable development as “development that meets the needs of the present without limiting the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Vision 2030, 2004). The fact that sustainable development forms a cornerstone of Namibia’s overarching development strategy is 17
why it will be used as a guiding theory for this research. The Namibian government has selected eight interrelated themes, which form the basis for their vision of sustainability8. In relation to private land reform, the two themes that I use to guide my definition of sustainable development are ‘inequality and social welfare’ and ‘natural resources and environment’ (2004:22). Both of these themes interrelate with the social and environmental aspects of sustainable development. Additionally, they shall both be considered against their economic effects. Therefore, the definition of sustainable development that shall be used in the context of this research is: development that engenders social equality and fosters ecological responsibility whilst being economically sustainable. Ratner (2004:58) analyses sustainable development theories through three different approaches to operationalization: the technical, the ethical and the dialogical. So in practice, the technical aspect would manifest as policy, ethical would represent the social and ecological consensus required in the context of the environment, but the dialogical would place the emphasis on social actors and would take the position that whilst ethical and technical consensus is desirable, it cannot be grounded in objective truth (2004:62). Therefore the dialogue between social actors is key to understanding sustainable development. In the context of Namibia, I therefore argue that understanding the dialogue that frames the positions of rural actors in predominantly commercially owned areas is important to furthering our knowledge of progress (or lack thereof) on the issue of reform because it is these actors that are most exposed to the outcomes of land reform policies. Analysing sustainable development along the cleavage of the values of dialogue approach has the potential to highlight where difficulty in development lies (2004:64). From an economic perspective, dialogue, in the context of communal land, could involve engaging with local communities to decide how to spend dividends that are gained from productive land usage such as tourism (Brown & Bird, 2011:10). By its nature, communally managed land is better structured to engender dialogue than its commercial equivalent. But commercial land still features social actors (owners, workers, families etc.) and my position is that dialogue is still required to achieve the reform that will ultimately enhance their development. Whilst by no means overt, the very fact that negotiating land reform upon this sort of ontological basis could result in an alternative policy approach is a reason for the government to avoid such an approach. As will be discussed in 8
Inequality and Social Welfare; Peace and Political Stability; Human Resources Development and Institutional Capacity Building; Macro-‐economic issues; Population, Health and Development; Natural Resources Sector and Environment; Knowledge, Information and Technology; and Factors of the External Environment (Vision 2030, 2004:22).
18
section 2.2, legitimising property ownership is a function of government that legitimises its own right to govern (Sikor & Lund, 2009:1). Drawing upon my definition of sustainable development, I will develop each dimension9 separately. Firstly social equality is concerned with the ability for an individual or group to live within an equitable standard of living where all citizens are able to “realise their full potential” (Vision 2030, 2004:40)10. Secondly, as there is growing recognition that the world’s ecosystems provide society with a wide range of ecological ‘services’ that are crucial to both human wellbeing and sustainable development (Loreau, 2010:51), it is contextualised through the scope of how land management is prioritised and principally concerns land and water resources11. Finally, the economic sustainability of local livelihoods is conceived as either commercial success or self-‐ reliance success depending on the resources available. A limitation to land reform in Namibia is that farming is sometimes an unprofitable lifestyle choice (Melber, 2005:139). In sum, my assertion is that all three dimensions of sustainable development are difficult to achieve without reforms, particularly with regard to the social equality that is enabled by greater access to economic resources. Superficially, it could be argued that land reform need not affect ownership, perhaps just the societal structures that persist to exclude, or perhaps just the organisation of economic and labour models that currently do not maximise the productivity of the land. In the next section, I will better analyse whether ownership itself is a barrier to capabilities and therefore development. 2.2 THE CAPABILITIES APPROACH AND LAND REFORM If we consider that property concerns the rights and obligations with respect to goods that are regarded as valuable (Benda-‐Beckmann et al., 2006:2) then the opportunity and capabilities to access or own property become intrinsically linked with being able to use the resources of property. In the case of rural Namibia, just 4500 separate freeholders hold rights to 43 per cent of land (Brown & Bird, 2011:4) and thus are able to monopolise the accompanying resources. This arguably restricts the ability to utilise the resources adequately on the part of the non-‐landowning inhabitants; therefore, the right to property is part of a larger picture of access to resources (Sikor & Lund, 2009:2). Issues of access are joined with questions of land and authority as the pursuit 9
Social Equality; Ecological Protection; Economic Sustainability. This also relates to the individual level conception because the means by which an individual is capable of achieving their full potential is concerned with their capabilities and opportunities (Sen, 1999:39), which in this instance is about the ability to benefit from the land (see section 2.3). 11 The environmental implications are elaborated on in chapter 5. 10
19
over control of natural resources unavoidably leads to competition with authority (2009:3). From the government’s perspective, it is their recognition of property rights that embolden their authority and their authority that guarantees property rights (2009:2). This understanding helps to explain why progress in land reform has proven to be so difficult in the case of Namibia’s private land. The legitimacy of the government could be jeopardised if it altered ownership rights without the perceived authority to do so. Property rights, therefore, embody the right to use the resources of the land and the upholding of them enshrines the legitimacy of the government.
The requirement for access to property can be seen through Senian concepts regarding the
ability to use resources that are directly required to secure livelihood (Forsyth, 2008:759). Sen’s work encapsulated the five freedoms12 that he described as essential to capabilities, which are to be both the “ends and the means” of development (Sen, 1999:31). With regard to Namibian land reform, whilst there are systemic issues of political reinforcement of existing property rights, these are not necessarily the roots of the ‘unfreedom’. Nonetheless, the one party dominance of Namibia threatens the democratic plurality13 required to enshrine economic freedom (1999:52). Ultimately, land reform has consistently failed to develop the population with regard to their economic facilities and social opportunities; neither of which are apart from political freedom in the form of democratic plurality. These three concepts will, therefore, form the dimensions I will use to analyse property rights.
Economic facilities refer to “the opportunities that individuals respectively enjoy to utilize
economic resources for the purpose of consumption, production or exchange” (Sen, 1999:39). The right to access resource-‐rich land is essential for enabling economic facilitation in rural Namibia where the rural economy is driven by agriculture and activities pertaining to wildlife (Riehl et al., 2015:3). Namibia’s uneven development is highlighted by its relatively high income but low life expectancy, indicative of a country where inequality is rife (Sen, 1999:46). Furthermore, economic facilities regarding access to property could also be defined by the availability of Namibia’s rural poor to raise the required capital to access land. Without well-‐financed schemes that protect and empower the poor then the mechanisms of governance through which land is bought and sold will continue to prolong economic exclusion. This is all the more poignant as loan schemes can require payments beyond what the land can provide as it is often sold at a higher market price than would be expected for its yield (Werner & Kruger, 2007:25). 12
Political freedoms; economic facilities; social opportunities; transparency guarantees; protective security (Sen, 1999:10) 13 The lack of democratic plurality is engaged with principally in sections 4.6 and 6.3.3.
20
Given that “economic unfreedom can breed social unfreedom, just as social or political
unfreedom can also foster economic unfreedom” (Sen, 1999:8), which means that the concepts do not exist in isolation from each other. Social opportunities are as much a product as they are a cause of economic unfreedom. Access to capital is as much a failure to provide social opportunity, as it is to economically facilitate the capabilities of poor Namibians. Furthermore, many do not have the resources to farm even where the land is available (Werner & Kruger, 2007:6). Resettled farmers are mostly unsupported and lack the necessary management skills in order to thrive in the arid environment; only an estimated ten per cent are thought to be a part of any form of farmers’ organisation (2007:30). Improved access to additional training and support would represent better social opportunities pertaining directly to the economic facilitation of maximising the use of the land. Where these social opportunities are enabled then, as has been seen elsewhere, the dependency on the land engenders the local knowledge needed to prioritise farming and thus augment productivity (van der Ploeg, 2010:5). Therefore, by enabling social opportunities through ownership enabling economic facilities there is potential to increase productivity on the land as well as improving the access that rural Namibians have to resources. Furthermore, if the land is more productive then more people could also benefit from that access than is currently the case, but this hinges on adequate social opportunity provision. Although governance and ownership can be seen as a self-‐reinforcing duality, this has the potential to preclude Namibia from fully embracing political freedom. Whilst a democracy, Namibia’s SWAPO government have triumphed in every election since independence and it is largely unchallenged by Namibia’s other political parties (Phiri & Odhiambo, 2015:10). From a Senian perspective, the relative lack of democratic plurality could itself represent an unfreedom because democracy is seen as necessary to safeguard economic freedom (Sen, 1999:52). In the context of land reform, where resettlement has occurred, some groups are prioritised over others. The policy of the government is officially that all Namibians are indigenous, with the de facto exception of the San14 who have been offered leniency with regard to this stance (Gargallo, 2010:159) as their land rights were eroded before even the arrival of European colonists (Herbstein, 1993:54). Nonetheless the policy of not fully recognising indigenous rights15 has left many groups disadvantaged within Namibia adding to concern that the SWAPO are favouring the Ovambo majority (Gargallo, 2010:170) bringing into question the political freedoms that should be 14
The National Resettlement Policy 1997 prioritised the San along with former soldiers, those returning from exile, the displaced or disabled by war, the landless and those from overcrowded communal areas (Gargallo, 2010:159). 15 Namibia has never ratified any international treaty to observe indigenous rights (Gargallo, 2010:166).
21
enjoyed equally by all Namibians. Moreover, framing this debate within a white-‐black dichotomy is simplistic and there are elements within the black establishment that have benefited from displaced minority groups as much as the traditional white elite. Nonetheless, the popularity of the SWAPO for bringing independence carries political currency in Namibia but not recognising the disenfranchisement of Namibia’s rural poor has the potential to undermine this. In sum, the capabilities afforded from land reform have the ability to provide individual Namibians with improved access to economic facilities but this hinges on the availability of social opportunities and the ability of economic facilities to enhance these opportunities. The SWAPO is democratically elected and Namibia is one of the most democratic states in Africa16 (Kekic, 2007:4) but political unfreedom is, however, made possible by the lack of democratic plurality in Namibia’s party system as parties are partially segregated along ethnic lines (Gargallo, 2010:170), leading to a demise in plurality due to the dominance of the Ovambo. Sen’s capabilities approach identifies that each individual capability reinforces another (Sen, 1999:11) and as such all should be implemented in order for Namibian development to be better realised. 2.3 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND CAPABILITIES As is stated in section 2.1, there is a clear connection between the two different theories and the distinction of individual and societal development that I have created is somewhat theoretical. Clearly the reality is that societies are comprised of individuals and as such it is unsurprising that the effect of improving capabilities has implications for sustainable development and vice versa. This is particularly apparent with the social aspects and the economic aspects of the two theories. By enhancing social opportunities it is evident that greater social equality can be created between different individuals bringing about societal change. Furthermore by improving the economic facilities at the individual level, economic sustainability will also be enhanced, in so much as everyone is able to benefit more equitably. These relationships are visualised on figure 3 (section 3.1) and influence much of the thesis. Political freedom safeguards all other freedoms (Sen, 1999:52) and capabilities and thus encompasses all aspects of this model. However, as is outlined in section 3.2, the concepts are related but distinct and the variables that influence them are presented in figure 4 signalling that the implications of the policy manifest in different ways at different levels, either societal or individual. 16
The Economist Intelligence’s Units index of democracy rated Namibia as the 3rd most democratic country in mainland Africa and the 59th best of all countries (out of 167) classifying it as a ‘flawed democracy’ (Kekic, 2007:4).
22
2.4 RESEARCH GAP AND PROBLEMATIZATION European Researchers have tended to focus on communal land reform and its unique conservancy model with regard to Namibian land ownership. Within Namibia, various institutes and organisations conduct high quality research concerning commercial land reform, however few do so while considering wider development theory. Furthermore, when conducting the research and reviewing the literature, it became apparent that there appears to be something of an epistemic community working within this particularly sub-‐topic. While there is an extensive amount of high quality research conducted, much of this is conducted by only a handful of specialists. From my perspective, the high levels of persistent inequality underline the need for reform within Namibia in order to bring redress for the approximate 28 per cent of the rural population that could still be considered as living in poverty (Werner & Kruger, 2007:5). This study, therefore, engages with those who encounter the effects of commercial land reform on a daily basis, trying to best understand its relationship with wider development theory and advise how to reposition land reform so that it might better fit the theory, whilst still considering its relative successes that might inform the theory. The government have outlined their commitment to sustainable development, however, despite this, there is very little literature that engages with sustainable development and commercial land reform in Namibia. I am confident that for this particular issue the relevance is valid and that this study brings something new to our understanding of Namibian land reform as a means to enact sustainable development. Interpreting property rights through the lens of capabilities has the potential to yield more of an alternate approach to the policy-‐document focused research to date and thus to academia. In the case of Namibia, it is clear that the restriction of land ownership encompasses a wider restriction of capabilities and so within a Senian analysis this could be a new interpretation of property disenfranchisement in Namibia. Whilst the initial assertion of my research held that agricultural land ownership restricted capabilities, the thesis shows that the capabilities are infringed in other ways. The generalizability of the research is likely to be specific to a Namibian context, and is contextual to the National Resettlement Programme of Namibia. However aspects of the findings could well inform other nations, as this kind of skewed land ownership is not uncommon in post-‐colonial societies and finding a mutually agreeable method of tackling inequality without compromising societal harmony is desirable elsewhere. Even outside of colonial and capitalist paradigms, it could be said that conflict over access to resources is intrinsic to human development and so shall always be relevant within development studies (Bryant, 1992:23). 23
Ultimately, the social relevance of this research has been the underpinning reason to pursue it. Namibia has been independent now for 26 years and in that time a great deal of progress has been made. It is all too easy to be critical of the government for policies that have been slow to alter the situation. The politics of land reform demand faster progress but lessons have been learnt from Zimbabwe’s sobering experience (Adams & Devitt, 1992:2) and there is little sense in destroying peace for an idealised outcome. Namibian literature can often be summarised by the assertion that “the question is about race: black Namibians should own more of Namibia’s commercial farmland. In reality everything else – agricultural output, the treatment of farm workers, poverty reduction, environmental sustainability – is very much secondary” (Sherbourne, 2004:1), and whilst I do not reject this, this thesis looks beyond this issue to try and advocate for a less emotive kind of societal and individual development. This approach has led to findings that complement but vary from the pre-‐existing literature. 2.5 RESEARCH QUESTION The research question features five sub-‐questions. The overall research question is intended to assess the perceived success of National Resettlement Programme in achieving its purpose. Each sub question was intended, therefore, to measure perceptions that contribute to the overall question. In turn, SQ1 and SQ2 seek to explore how existing ownership may present barriers to social equality and to capabilities (see chapter 4), SQ3 analyses ecological importance compared to economic importance and covers two dimensions of sustainable development (see chapter 5) while SQ4 and SQ5 explore perceptions on shortcomings of the policies which allow for critique of their actual implementation (see chapter 6). It should be noted that all of the questions address the politics behind the answers; land and politics are so intertwined in Namibia that dissecting them separately can be misleading. The questions relate directly to the concepts as outlined at the base of the conceptual scheme (section 3.1) As a point of reference, ‘disadvantaged Namibians’ refers to those who were landless prior to independence. Concerned ‘actors’ will be covered later in Units of Analysis (section 3.3.3). ‘Beneficiaries’ concerns who benefit from the land reform policies, i.e. those who gain land and their employees. Research Question How is the National Resettlement Programme perceived as a strategy in achieving sustainable development and increasing the capabilities of disadvantaged Namibians? 24
Sub-‐questions Firstly, I assess the perceptions of how actors consider the existing ownership and reform situation with regard to commercial agricultural land and how this affects the distribution of wealth more widely in Namibian society. This addresses various conceptual dimensions but engages principally with the social and economic issues of sustainable development. The question is framed as: SQ1: How are existing ownership structures and reform policies perceived by actors with regard to achieving a more socially equitable distribution of wealth? Secondly, I look to assess how actors perceive the effects of current land ownership and reforms in relation to individual capabilities. This question engages with all three dimensions of capabilities from the perspective of interviewees and relevant secondary sources, and is worded as: SQ2: What effect are current commercial ownership structures and reform policies having on the perceived capabilities of disadvantaged Namibians? The third question explores the ecological component of sustainable development and its relationship with local economics and is framed as: SQ3: How is ecological management enacted in order to maintain economic sustainability? Sub-‐question four builds upon the previous three questions and focuses much more closely on how the National Resettlement Programme might be used to change the current situation of ownership and reform in order to draw conclusions that could inform policy direction. The question is constructed as: SQ4: How do actors perceive land reform policies might be better enacted in order to achieve improved sustainable development and capabilities? Finally, the fifth question, which is essentially an extension of the fourth, explicitly seeks to address who should actually benefit from land reform according to relevant actors, as there is a lack of clarity surrounding this at present (Harring & Odendaal, 2007:11). The question is therefore: SQ5: Who do actors feel should be the main beneficiaries of land reform policy? The overall research question is answered in chapter seven as a conclusion that is constructed from of all these sub-‐questions.
25
3. RESEARCH DESIGN
3.1 CONCEPTUAL SCHEME Figure 2 depicts the Conceptual Scheme. It describes the progress from the current land ownership situation to sustainable development and the increased capabilities of previously disadvantaged Namibians inline with my theoretical framework. As was outlined in chapter one, the Affirmative Action Loan Scheme does form part of the commercial land reform strategy, however it has been omitted from this model as the focus of this study principally concerns the National Resettlement Programme. As indicated sustainable development occurs at a societal level, both national and community based, increased capabilities is more individualistic. That being said, neither exist in a vacuum and increasing the capabilities of individuals will also have a societal inference as well (see section 2.3 for a more on this).
Exis%ng(Established( Land(Ownership(
Commercial( Land(Reform(( ReseElement( Prog.((NRP)(
Societal( Level(
Group( ReseElement(
Farm(Unit( ReseElement(
Sustainable( Development(
Social(( Equality(
Economic( Sustainability(
Individual( Level(
Increased( Capabili%es(
Ecological( Protec%on(
Economic( Facili%es(
Social( Opportuni%es(
Poli%cal( Freedom(
Figure 2 Conceptual Scheme
Figure 3 (below) relates to section 2.3 and demonstrates how the relationships between the key concepts interact. Whilst the concepts exist at two societal levels they reinforce each other with ‘political freedom’ constituting an overarching concept that safeguards all the other freedoms and 26
concepts through enhanced democracy according to Sen (1999:52). ‘Social equality’, ‘social opportunities’ and ‘economic facilities’ are related as ‘economic facilities’ help build the other two. The relationship between ‘economic facilities and economic sustainability’ is natural as ‘economic sustainability’ implies prolonged economic facilitation. Finally ‘ecological protection’ is closely related to ‘economic sustainability’ as within agriculture ecology underpins the output and therefore the rural economy.
Social(Equality(
Poli%cal(Freedom(
Social( Opportuni%es( Economic( Facili%es(
Economic( Sustainability( Ecological(Protec%on(
Figure 3 Diagram illustrating connection between key conceptual dimensions
3.2 OPERATIONALIZATION OF MAJOR CONCEPTS Figure 4 depicts the operationalization of the major concepts from the conceptual scheme. I have chosen to operationalize Sustainable Development, Capabilities and Commercial Land Reform (National Resettlement Programme) in order to try and establish the perceived effects of these practices. Perception is judged on an opinionated basis, in that each individual will be left to interpret their own understanding and feelings of the variables and indicators in question, which will feed into my subjectivist epistemological stance. My interpretation of both types of land reform found under the NRP is that they should both be assessed in the same manner in order to establish the differing benefits of the schemes and analyse them equally against the two theories. Each sub-‐question (section 2.5) covers each aspect of this table, either directly or indirectly. 27
Concepts)
Dimensions)
Variables) Ownership+
Social+Equality+
Background+of+owner+ EducaAon+gap+
Sustainable+Development+
Water+management+ Ecological+ProtecAon+ Management+of+Land+
Indicators) Land+owned+ Perceived+ability+to+receive+land+ Ethnic+group+ Previous/other+employment+ Ease+of+access+ Perceived+barriers+ Government+involvement?+ PreEexisAng+infrastructure?+ Overgrazing+AJtude+ DeEbushing+techniques+ Infrastructure+investment+
Economically+Sustainable+
FURS+vs.+group+successes+
InteracAon+with+training+programmes+ Access+to+capital+
Access+to+employment+ Wealth+and+income+
Economic+FaciliAes+
Access+to+capital+
CapabiliAes+
Displaced+farmworkers+ Barriers+to+employment+ Effect+of+reseRlement+ Property+status+ Employable+skills+Available+funding+ Barriers+to+Access+ Employable+skills+
Social+OpportuniAes+
Access+to+training+
PoliAcal+parAcipaAon+ PoliAcal+Freedom+ PoliAcal+RepresentaAon+ MoAvaAons+for+ownership+ Group+ReseRlement+
Agricultural+experience+ Quality+of+land+and+ Infrastructure+
Commercial+Land+Reform+ (NaAonal+ReseRlement+ Programme)+
MoAvaAons+for+ownership+ Farm+Unit+ReseRlement+ Scheme+
Agricultural+experience+ Quality+of+land+and+ infrastructure+
Pre+and+post+reseRlement+ opportuniAes+ VoAng+frequency+ Engagement+in+poliAcs+ Party+Supported+ PercepAon+of+government+ Limits+to+aspiraAons+ Contacts+and+affiliaAons+ Previous+Employment+ Knowledge+of+farming+ Size+of+farm+ PreEexisAng+Infrastructure+ Limits+to+aspiraAons+ Contacts+and+affiliaAons+ Previous+Employment+ Knowledge+of+farming+ Size+of+farm+ PreEexisAng+Infrastructure+
Figure 4 Operationalization Table
3.3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND METHODS 3.3.1 Epistemology and Ontology The aim of this research is to establish the causes that have led to the failure of land reform policies in the commercial farming sector in order to find improvements that might enhance the realities of inequality and poverty in the affected areas of rural Namibia. The position that this research adopts is that whilst there may be a single reality, multiple interpretations can be 28
adopted. As a result of this understanding of a single reality through various interpretations, I am taking the position of critical realism throughout the empirical chapters of this thesis in order to interpret my data. Critical realism defines our ability to know reality as “imperfect” and that it must be subjected to a “wide critical response” (Cohen & Crabtree, 2006). From this critical realist approach, the supposition is that an entity can exist independent to our knowledge of it, though that does not necessarily mean it does (Fleetwood, 2005:198). To pragmatically relate this to my research, it could be argued that there are very real barriers to land reform that have defied policymakers understanding of them, yet to unearth these real barriers we must understand them through the prism of differing critical responses. Objective reality exists through the subjectivism of human understanding. The knowledge of actors, and in this case, stakeholders, should be considered as tacit: they may understand the effect but not the cause of their reality (2005:198). By interpreting a multitude of individual analyses of effects, it is intended that the research can better inform the reality of the policy, and it is an approach that complements the dialogical interpretation to which I refer in section 2.1. Ultimately, critical realism is most appropriate because each actor has a different interpretation on the reality of the National Resettlement Programme, which makes declaring a single reality very difficult, I can only hope to understand this reality through these multiple interpretations.
This approach lends itself to a transactional and subjectivist epistemology (Cohen &
Crabtree, 2006). Given the emphasis that this research places on dialogue, that which is investigated will be intrinsically linked with the values of the investigator, which challenges the distinction between ontology and epistemology because what can be known is linked closely to the participating subjects as well as the investigator (Guba & Lincoln, 1994:110). From the position of this research, reality can therefore only be interpreted through a subjective understanding that is influenced by my position as researcher, it is therefore vital to effectively triangulate in order to establish a broad basis of subjective ideas that move closer to realising and understanding reality. This was achieved by maximising the amount of interviewees with whom I could speak. Reflexive challenges for this research included minimising the effects of my own bias and understanding when and how they may have influenced the outcome of the research, especially with regard to the consideration of my findings. Additionally, I needed to be critically aware of how my position as a researcher can alter the subjective understanding of my participants. As I have alluded to in section 2.4, race is considered a big issue with regard to Namibian land reform and I have maintained an awareness that my background is very difference to those with whom I 29
spoke. Pragmatically though, it was difficult to assess how many subjects constituted sufficient triangulation. Furthermore, gaining access to all concerned stakeholders was problematic logistically due to the size and sparsely populated reality of Namibia however respondents were very open to divulging information even when I considered it to be politically sensitive 3.3.2 Methodology and Methods Given the transactional epistemology that I chose to adopt, the study naturally leant towards a qualitative dialogue based methodology. The dialogue between researcher and subject was, therefore, dialectical in nature in order to transform ignorance and historical misapprehensions into a more informed consciousness that was better able to understand how structures can be altered in order to effect change (Guba & Lincoln, 1994:110). In the context of the intended outcome of this research, it was presupposed that the historical and current policies, which have created the structures that impede land reform, can only be transformed if the consciousness that informs understanding is better understood. To this end, triangulating a multitude of dialogues is the means that informs our understanding of policy effects. Due to the short amount of time that was available, I used a convergent design which allowed me to conduct research simultaneously and opportunistically before analysing the data (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011:77).
Observations. The aim of my observations was to record the unremarkable and mundane
aspects of life on which interviewees would not necessarily comment. They were about “knowing people” rather than “knowing about people” (Green & Thorogood, 2004:132). The principle means of these observations was concerned with observing the behaviours of interactions between rural community workers and other actors as well as observing the general functioning of Namibian agricultural life. As a research technique, it was not wholly intended to inform the analysis of my research question, more a tool with which to learn more about the local stakeholders in order to better relate to them and to better inform my understanding of interviewee responses, i.e. ‘knowing the people’.
Semi-‐Structured interviews. Due to the dialogical methodological nature of this research,
the interviews that I conducted were semi-‐structured. This gave the interviewee the leeway necessary to deviate from my interview guide (see appendix 2) in order to allow them to pursue subjects of their own choosing (Bryman, 2012:471). The rationale behind this choice came from the transactional epistemology I adopted. Whilst I wanted to focus on land reform policies, the reality should not have been influenced, solely, by my understanding of the concept. As my understanding of the research topic grew, the interview guide I used was adapted in order to 30
advance the paradigm of the discussion beyond my initial line of questioning. My original intention was to conduct follow up interviews with participants but this proved unfeasible. Nonetheless, some interviewees were revisited and observation notes were made that are, in part, based upon informal dialogue with these interviewees. Interviewees can be grouped into distinct actors and stakeholders as NGO workers, government representatives, union representatives, emerging farmers and in the case of one interviewee as a ‘private actor’ who is often contracted by the government to work in agricultural development but otherwise is works for an agricultural business (see appendix 1 for a list of interviewees). Furthermore, within these categories the majority were also agricultural landowners in addition. My original intention was to conduct focus group discussions as well, however due to some of the previously noted logistical problems this proved unfeasible. Some interviews were however conducted with multiple participants in lieu of fully-‐fledged focus groups. 3.3.3 Units of Analysis My intended units of analysis are perception based: (1) perceived access to employment in settlements surrounded by commercial land, (2) perceived effect of commercial enterprise on local environment, (3) perception of land reform policies to enable capabilities and opportunities (4) perceptions of ability to access land reform schemes and (5) perceived community interactions in areas of commercial land ownership. The respondents I interviewed were: (1) emerging farmers working commercial farmland, (2) those seeking to benefit from the scheme (3) farming union representatives (4) those concerned with policy creation and delivery and (5) not for profit workers seeking to enhance agricultural development (see appendix 1). 3.3.4 Sampling In order to discover the effects of policies on those who live in rural areas of Namibia, purposive sampling was used so that I could concentrate on those actually affected by land reform policy. For the sake of feasibility and the limited access in such a widely dispersed area I elected to use a snowball sampling strategy specifically. Participants were selected based on their relevance to the research questions and then I relied on those participants to further suggest others who might have been of interest or who have shared their experience (Bryman, 2012:424) and were willing to talk to me. As a strategy, it acted as a convenient tool in broadening the scope of the research (2012:428), because whilst I could make suppositions as to who is likely to be affected by land 31
reform policy and purposively sample accordingly, my epistemological stance allowed for transactional interaction, which enabled participants to steer the study through their broader understanding of the implications of their reality: in essence they were better placed to guide me to relevant stakeholders.
It was anticipated that each interviewee would be able to guide me in the direction of
other respondents, however some did not and others to more than one. An added benefit of snowball sampling is that it can inform how the social networks of local stakeholders exist (2012:424), which in some cases allowed me to conduct interviews with more than one participant and gave me a broader understanding of how community structures and even political interactions were formed. 3.3.5 Data Analysis As the data was collected along a convergent design, it was vitally important that I continued to transcribe as I conducted the research in order to maintain direction. Whilst qualitative research is not a linear process, adequate planning was needed to maintain this convergent simultaneity (Boeije, 2010:89). Once the research was completed and fully transcribed, it was coded using Atlas.ti. The primary purpose of coding was to determine which elements in the research are the dominant ones and which are less important gradually disconnecting the codes from the raw data (2010:109-‐111). Naturally, because the interviews had been structured around the concepts that arose out of my theoretical framework, there was very little deviation from the themes that I expected to discuss post-‐analysis. Atlas.ti was also useful because it allowed me to better organise quotes in order to quickly access them and insert into the empirical chapters. Although I had an approximate idea of the realities of life that have been affected by policies in rural Namibia, this process enabled me to better interpret how each of these subjective realities related to both my theory and my understanding of policy implications. This informed the conclusions that I ultimately made regarding the policies. 3.3.6 Ethical Considerations I conducted this research under the guise of the Kantian maxim: “people should never be used merely as a means to someone else’s ends” (Guillemin & Gillam, 2004:271). Given the overt nature of the research, I was able to fully inform and gain consent from participants at every stage of the research (Bryman, 2012:135). Despite inherent bias, my position on the issue remained as neutral as possible throughout and I only really began to shape my conclusions once analysis 32
commenced. Whilst my intentions have been to inform policy throughout this entire project, I did not have a specific agenda to follow and as such I reassured participants of this prior to asking for consent. They were also informed of my association with UvA and that there is no formal institutional position over the subject matter.
I fully explained the relevance of my research to land reform policy and the effects it has
had on sustainable development and capabilities, elaborating on what those were, where appropriate, to each of the participants. Informed consent was sought before commencing any interview or observation and no pressure was ever exerted onto individuals who were reluctant to answer. Each participant was given an option to withdraw if they so wished but fortunately none wanted to do so. All information divulged has been treated in a confidential manner and precautions have been made to ensure anonymity. Participants were also free to choose if they would prefer not to be recorded and a handful opted not to be.
The potential sensitivity of the topic regarding both race and employment relations added
all the more imperative to keep anonymities hidden, which has resulted in exact locations being kept deliberately vague. Every effort has been made to inform all participants of the findings. 3.3.7 Methodological Review The framework with which I am structuring this methodological review is drawn heavily from Bryman (2008). This research was conducted in an exclusively qualitative manner and as such will be reviewed not in terms of reliability and validity but rather against trustworthiness and authenticity. This is due to the ineffectiveness of reliability and validity as suitable metrics by which to measure this study, given, for instance, the inability to replicate a small scale, anonymous, snowball sampled study such as this. Therefore within this study, it is presupposed that there is no feasible way of stating that there is one single account of social reality (Bryman, 2008:377). Trustworthiness and authenticity offer a wider framework with which to review this research. Trustworthiness As outlined in Bryman (2008), trustworthiness is subdivided into four different parameters, as follows, which are used to assess this research.
33
Credibility. In order to better establish the credibility of the research given the myriad interpretations of social reality that can occur efforts were made to establish some degree of respondent validation. Where possible transcriptions were submitted to respondents in order to minimise misunderstandings, all of which met the approval of the interviewees. Furthermore at the end of every interview, an off the record conversation was held during which the researcher would offer thoughts about the initial interpretation of the data in order to clarify any misinterpretations that may have taken place with regard to the respondent’s answers. This allowed me to establish a more accurate understanding of the interviewee’s position and prevented me from solidifying an unintended perception after the interview had taken place. Some interviewees were better known than others and observations were conducted with them present, as such there was a better understanding of their responses due to the stronger prior relationship.
Transferability. As previously alluded to, external reliability is a difficult measure for this
kind of study to succeed against. Rather, this study is anchored in the contextual uniqueness of the social reality of the time, place and people who were interviewed. Depth rather than breadth was prioritised for pragmatic reasons, notably the sparse population and scale of the land being covered in Namibia. As such, respondents were limited but thoroughly interviewed, lending well to an in depth understanding of individual perceptions and interpretations. Therefore for transferability, the study is difficult to replicate but can be compared for similarities to findings in similar studies of this or another region concerning land reform practices.
Dependability. Throughout the research, full transcriptions, observation notes and a field
diary were maintained in order to assist in the creation of more dependable data, greater transparency surrounding how the data was formed and understanding of why certain research decisions were favoured over others. Nonetheless, ethical considerations mean that some of this data is restricted especially surrounding topics that might be construed as dissentious against the government.
Confirmability. The position that was adopted before and throughout this research was
that of critical realism. As such the reflection on confirmability is that no research can be completely detached of all inherent bias from the researcher. However, there is variation in this across different interviews that were conducted where respondent answers in part agreed with pre-‐conceived concepts of my understanding. Nonetheless, care was taken not to channel respondents into answering in a manner that conformed to these ideas through the persistent use
34
of open ended questions that allowed respondents a great deal of freedom to take these semi-‐ structured interviews in a direction that they felt more appropriate. Authenticity Assessing the research against criteria of authenticity enables it to be viewed against the wider political impact that the research has the potential to influence (Bryman, 2008:379).
Fairness. The scale of Namibia, the sparse nature of its rural population, the limitations in
funding and in time all, in part, detract from the size of the potential dataset of all research in this country. As such, people representing a wide cross section of actors and stakeholders were selected in order to give as varied a perspective and as much fairness as possible with the limited ability to have large amounts of respondents.
Ontological and educative authenticity. Whether or not the research ultimately will assist
with enhancing the ability of affected stakeholders and actors to better understand the problems that this policy brings is difficult to say. Where greater levels of interaction were shared with participants, levels of understanding of the wider context of policy problems were discussed and perhaps awareness of this research might have helped to enhance their viewpoint.
Catalytic and tactical authenticity. Given that this research is heavily intertwined with the
policy that is designed to support land reform in Namibia, the ultimate intent is to inspire a renewed understanding of policy problems from an alternate perspective, however it is unlikely to have enabled change from below, in a tactical sense, given the barriers to change that are discussed in this thesis.
35
4. LAND, POVERTY AND INEQUALITY
4.1 INTRODUCTION Throughout this chapter I intend to address the first of my two sub questions (SQ1) ‘How are existing ownership structures and reform policies perceived by actors with regard to achieving a more socially equitable distribution of wealth’ and (SQ2) ‘what effect are current commercial ownership structures and reform policies having on the perceived capabilities of disadvantaged Namibians?’ This chapter will, therefore, concentrate on the effects that existing ownership is having on the distribution of wealth and whether or not it is acting as a barrier to the capabilities of disadvantaged Namibians. Land and politics are so closely linked in Namibia, the cultural importance and significance of land ownership is ingrained into the psyche of Namibians (see section 1.1). Attitudes surrounding farming are partly represented by statements like these made by a farmer and a local NGO worker: “Everything comes from the land or the soil, whatever you buy comes from there. It is for yourself or for your community or your country.” [F1] “There is more of a necessity of land in Namibia and less of a euro-‐centric view about it. Here, the idea of land is as an idea of opportunity. If you have land then you can feed and sustain yourself.” [N1] The importance of land to the people is so much so that it is an issue that must be engaged with in the Namibian political realm. The war of independence was fought over this land (Adams & Devitt, 1992:2), the national character and identity was forged in part by the notion of dispossession by South Africa and, before that, Germany. Much of the rhetoric of revolution that was fed to the people throughout the war of independence concerned dispossession. However, as Odendaal (2005a:6) remarks the government are bound by principles of reconciliation rather than seizure and for some this has meant that progress has been too slow with regard to the transfer of this much-‐desired land. Since independence land has been redistributed as a trickle rather than a flood. Knowledge of Zimbabwean economic collapse has shored up the principle of ‘willing-‐seller, willing-‐buyer’ over the possibility of large-‐scale expropriations (Harring & Odendaal, 2007:14). However, Zimbabwe’s ungovernable situation represents what can happen if the ‘have-‐nots’ are 36
not provided for according to the former President (Odendaal, 2005a:7), and currently slow reform still sees 75 per cent of landowners as the same minority, and crucially colour, as they were pre-‐independence (Werner, 2015:5). The ruling SWAPO party has an unassailable majority, nonetheless the legitimacy of the state according to some hinges upon its ability to redistribute land amongst the people of Namibia (Harring & Odendaal, 2007:15). Ultimately, the perception of ownership and land distribution is vital in the cognition of politics in Namibia. It is both an issue of social inequality and societal development. There is however, a secondary issue at play, that of the development of those formerly disadvantaged Namibians who have now joined the landed, how have they benefited from the endowment of land they were promised by revolutionary politics? Throughout the course of this chapter and thesis, there are two distinct interpretations of how land reform policies and ownership interact with the people of Namibia. The current, and intended, outcomes of ownership reform will be analysed at a societal, macro level as a means of achieving sustainable development, in line with the policy of the government of Namibia (see section 2.1). At the individual, micro level, I will look more critically at assessing the realities for their effect on capabilities (see section 2.2). These models, as outlined in chapter two, are used throughout, and I have academically assumed them to be universal standards of improvement of the lives of the affected individuals. 4.2 THE PURPOSE OF LAND REFORM In the contextual background of this thesis, I made reference (section 1.4.2) to the notion that the redress of inequality, certainly with regards to the National Resettlement Programme, was central to the purpose of land reform within Namibia, but exactly which inequality is being redressed is less clear. The disparity in commercial land ownership remains large; in 2015 only 25 per cent of commercial farms had been transferred from pre-‐independence ownership (Werner, 2015:5). Whilst it is easy to assume that the issue is economic imbalance, the effective symbolism of white domination over the land is possibly a bigger problem for the electorate. The independence war was fought over control of the land and so politically, overseeing the redistribution of land to the black majority is the ends, whether or not this actually assists the country’s poor or whether or not it is economically successful is somewhat secondary to just having more black people own land. As this farming support mentor suggests, resettlement is a political endeavour, not economic:
37
“[If] you leave [the farmers] be they are supporters. What is the interest of the government to have successful resettlement farmers? Is it in their interest to get this few extra 0.00% GDP, is it worthwhile?” [N6]. This is perhaps why, as a means of tackling inequality, land reform, in whichever form, has not been as successful as was intended. Political support is perhaps a greater objective than meaningful reform. Whilst the supposed intention of the NRP is to redress societal imbalances, bring self-‐ sufficiency and bring farmers into the mainstream economy (Odendaal, 2005a:8), one of the assessed failures of the act that brought it into law17 was to define the purpose of land reform or the intended beneficiaries concisely (Harring & Odendaal, 2007:10). The perceptions within Namibia, of those to whom I spoke, were mixed depending on the type of resettlement that was being discussed, either the group resettlements or the FURS. The earlier group resettlement schemes that were adopted were perceived, by both a local union representative and a locally active Christian NGO, as being fraught with problems: “[This] was a locally highlighted area because of many problems, the biggest one would be the people struggling to make a living for themselves and we had many crimes done to the neighbours, slaughtering of game and sometimes even cattle, which made it an area of bad press, the media took it as a sign that resettlement is not working.” [N5] “They do not understand [farming], they have just come in to the area and they are not following practices or what we should do.” [U2] According to one locally contracted agricultural adviser (P1) many of the farms on mass resettled areas are small-‐scale lots, “camps18 of 200 ha”, that are not well suited to the “arid environment” of Namibia, but larger pieces of land have also been distributed, with the widely held belief that people close to the party benefit from these (Sherbourne, 2004:9). The perceived failure of group farming led to a paradigm shift to FURS19 and away from giving land to those with few resources towards those with more experience and more assets; the strategy of only focusing on the 17
the Agricultural (Commercial) Land Reform Act 1995 In this instance, ‘camp’ refers to the divisions within farm units, often these pre-‐date the resettlement purchases. 19 the Farm Unit Resettlement Scheme (see section 1.4.2) 18
38
landless poor came to be seen as unwise (Werner & Odendaal, 2010:13). Whilst this is sensible from an economic or productivity perspective, it arguably contradicts the egalitarian ideals that underpinned the purpose of land reform policy in the first place. Sherbourne (2004:8) argues that there is little sense in merely replacing the rural white economic middle class with a largely urban black middle class as it negates the purpose of land reform. The face of ownership may have changed in the intended direction but this does not address inequality and when considering the displaced farmworkers, who are some of the most vulnerable in society (Harring & Odendaal, 2007:28), one could argue that this type of resettlement actually has a detrimental impact on society. To summarise, there is some evidence to suggest that the National Resettlement Policy is a device to encourage popular support rather than economic gain, i.e. through the dividing up of farms into uneconomical units as well as the current de facto tendency to reward the already relatively wealthy. This negates from the purpose of social reform as was originally intended (see section 1.4.2) by offering a model that is not only difficult to sustain economically but also to justify if detached from the issue of race20. Next, I explain the relationship of economic inequality and the current reform and ownership system. 4.3 ECONOMIC INEQUALITY As has previously been stated in section 1.1, the white minority disproportionately owns commercial farmland and the lifestyle that commercial farm owners enjoy is often considerably higher than that of the black communal farmers that make up about half of the country’s total population (Werner, 2015:5). This situation was created by Namibia’s past overtly racist policies, which in conjunction with an economic reliance on mining over labour, is a key factor in Namibia’s status as having one of the highest Gini coefficients of any country (Werner & Odendaal, 2010:9). Moreover, the NRP has often not redressed this inequality in the way that was originally intended by the government. In 1982, the Apartheid Government had concluded that farm profits were too small for farmers to maintain an acceptable standard of living, which the Namibian government backed up in 1994, stating that 40 per cent of farms were not economically viable based on their carrying capacity (2010:21). Prior to independence, farmers were offered subsidies in order to maintain an “acceptable” standard of living, however these are not offered by the current government, meaning that it is now a supposed “myth” that farming is a great source of wealth 20
I caveat this with the acknowledgement that as a European researcher, it is difficult for me to assess the importance of race in this context because my own lived experience is far removed from those concerned with the effects of this policy.
39
(Odendaal, 2005a:5) although farmers can earn an above average income. Nowadays, a resettled farmer could have to move hundreds of miles away from his or her origin and be expected to work unknown land without these subsidies whilst becoming established (Harring & Odendaal, 2007:24). This leads to a difficulty when establishing a base from which to build a commercial business and presents a large barrier to redressing rural inequality. The policy of rehoming large amounts of truly impoverished people in group resettlement schemes led to what observers described as “rural slums”, which deterred future applicants (2007:25). This programme offered the already poor, little more than the opportunity to build a “corrugated iron hut” on some rural land (2007:23). As noted in section 4.2, the image of “rural slums” and impoverished farmers persists amongst those who live and work in rural Namibia, as such, the MLR has moved towards FURS, which mandates a minimum of between 1,000 and 3,000 ha depending on which area of Namibia the farm is situated21 (Werner & Odendaal, 2010:25). A nuanced area of land reform that is not immediately obvious when first researching the policy is the difficulty of establishing a viable commercial farm. The initial problem with group resettlement schemes was that it was a principle that was built on a model that simply did not apply to the aridity of Namibia’s rural landscape. As was briefly covered in section 4.2 and put forward by an agricultural sector advisor, the SWAPO government was staffed by “capable officials” but not by “farming professionals” (P1). Furthermore many of these officials had devised this policy in the 70s and 80s in Eastern Europe, such was the nature of SWAPO’s ties to the Soviet Union (P1). Within their understanding of high rainfall, a small piece of land could allow someone to be self-‐sufficient but “come to Namibia, which is the driest country in sub-‐Saharan Africa and try to put that model into work here, in this arid environment, [then] you are doing people a dis-‐favour by settling them [on small holdings]” [P1]. Therefore this mass resettlement policy did not lend to rebalancing inequality and has left many dependent upon government drought aid and technical assistance (Odendaal, 2005:9) failing to empower the poor and landless of Namibia to be self-‐reliant (2005:18). Understandably, this was ditched as a method of resettlement in favour of FURS. FURS is premised on the concept of a viable “economic unit” as understood by the apartheid regime (Werner & Odendaal, 2010:28), 21
As a general rule, the farther south one is resettled the larger the farm he or she will be given.
40
however due to the large land requirements far fewer people can benefit, 15 across the whole of Khomas for example according N6, who also states that beneficiaries still require several years to become economically viable. N6 also argued that subsidies were not necessary and in many cases farmers can be commercially successful and live a middle-‐class life with such a piece of land so long as they have the expertise and also the capital to do so. He explained that with a “diverse stock” on a 2,000 ha piece of land then one can expect to earn around “12,500 NAD per month”, which is comparable to a “government official” (N6). Based on the brief observation put forward above by P1, one might assert that, when one looks at the mass resettlement schemes such as the one I visited in Kunene, poverty is entrenched by virtue of the lack of productivity achievable on the allotment-‐sized units. With FURS, the problem is not that the units are economically unviable; it is that they are large and as such there are fewer of them so fewer people can benefit. As a means of redressing inequality both are flawed. Economic and racial inequality tend to converge within Namibian discourse, I will now attempt to explore the inequality that accompanies Namibian politics. 4.4 POLITICAL INEQUALITY At first appearance, the racial divide in Namibian politics is less obvious than the wealth divide. Namibia has a diversity of cultural and tribal groups but the SWAPO party dominate governance and its membership is dominated by one ethnic group: the Ovambo, a people that originate from the Northern region of Ovamboland (Melber, 2005:139). Unique to Namibia, when the land was colonised, the majority of dispossession occurred on quite marginal land which heavily affected the Herero, Nama and Damara people and left the Ovambo, who lived in the more fertile North, largely intact (Werner & Odendaal, 2010:14). Throughout the war for independence the SWAPO movement championed the struggle against South Africa and upon independence the Ovambo were therefore the predominant shapers of the new Namibia. Because they had suffered less under apartheid and were the largest ethnic group, they are now in a dominant position politically. I observed a perception among neutral actors within Namibia, that the SWAPO are inclined to give favourable benefits to those affiliated with the party regarding land resettlement, “[recipients] are generally SWAPO supporters but not SWAPO radicals”, according to N3. However this view is not necessarily fair on the party, who have also gone to great lengths to ensure other
41
ethnic groups such as the San are treated fairly, even at the expense of the Ovambo22. A former government official, who was Ovambo and had held elected office, stated that: “[The San] need a place where they can come together and practice their way of life. The government understood them, and decided to buy farms for them. Those are commercial farms and are bordering the game park23.” [G1] It could also be argued that the loose criteria required to render someone eligible for resettlement leaves a lot of scope for the wealthy to enjoy the fruits of this programme every bit as much as the poor. Because all previously disadvantaged Namibians, irrespective of income, qualify there has been something of an elite capture of resettlement with 74 per cent being Windhoek government staff (Werner, 2015:13). That so many middle class officials have benefitted suggests that inequality is not at the forefront of the government’s consideration further detracting from the notion that it is a means of alleviating poverty. Arguably, the wealthier elements of society are favoured now because of their enhanced ability to access start-‐up capital and attain the original self-‐sufficiency desired by the government (Werner & Odendaal, 2010:13). This is a commonly held perception that was articulated by a union leader and a legal assistance advisor: “[If] you lease and you pay rent for 99 years and if you give [land to] someone who is a former farmworker then that person may end up in debt. That is why they favour the people with higher employment criteria like the doctors”. [U2] “Without connections that get you money it is difficult.” [N3] So are we to accept that the politically connected should be the main beneficiaries of land reform? This is arguably a serious systemic flaw that detracts from the purpose of the scheme and naturally brings in accusations of corruption. With regard to AALS, the New Era newspaper has reported collusion and corruption (Harring & Odendaal, 2007:21), and additionally the FURS 22
In a discussion with F3 and F4, who were the Ovambo daughters of a farmer who had been forced to leave his resettled land to make way for another beneficiary, it was unveiled (after our interview) that the new beneficiary was a San tribal leader who was receiving this land in addition to already having received an alternate piece of land. This in part emphasises the government’s desire to assist the San people. 23 The game park in question is Etosha National Park in Kunene.
42
scheme now also seems to be lending itself to similar advantages being given through possible political favouritism often stemming from a person’s role in “opposing the apartheid regime” according to N6. Often farms are desired for no reason beyond the fact that “owning a farm is an attractive status symbol” in Namibia’s agrarian society (Harring & Odendaal, 2007:21). By allowing such an all-‐encompassing selection criteria, the system can be abused. Practically all beneficiaries, whether in need or not, will have been resettled legally because of the wide-‐ranging parameters: “The only requirements are that they be Namibian, 18 years or older, disadvantaged, landless and they must have livestock.” [U1] Bearing in mind that the owning of livestock is common in Namibia due to family connections to communal land, it is likely that most people fulfil these criteria, with even city-‐dwellers still “associated to ancestral land” in the Northern communal areas, according to N1. The questions of inequality feed into the purpose of land reform for sustainable development, given that social equality is a key component of this; sustainable development is therefore discussed in greater depth in the next section. 4.5 LAND REFORM AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT This section will focus predominantly on the economic and social aspects of sustainable development rather than ecological, which will be covered in depth in chapter five. As was covered in the previous two sections, as a method of tackling social equality, the policy has some perceived flaws. Furthermore, farmworkers are invariably big losers when any land resettlement occurs. In 2007, there were 37,000 farmworkers employed on commercial farms each averaging five dependents. In total this equates to around a tenth of Namibia’s population (Harring & Odendaal, 2007:27). When a new owner takes control of a farm these workers tend to be displaced and replaced with their own people who will have no choice but to work for less. The MLR stipulates self-‐sufficiency should be achieved by the fourth year under the NRP but virtually all are still dependent on food, drought aid and technical assistance at this point (Odendaal, 2005:9). To achieve comparable levels of economic output to established commercial farmers, it takes new farmers up to “ten years approximately” according to the first resettled farmer with whom I spoke (F1). As a result of this, new farms pay less and employ fewer people, with the knock-‐on effect being that the previous farmworkers are forced into slum dwellings on 43
the periphery of a nearby town or city, often with no skillset beyond farming, meaning that they struggle to find new employment (Harring & Odendaal, 2007:28). I witnessed this during my first observation session (O1) where “Jimmy” the farmworker was due imminently to be evicted despite knowing nothing other than farming. Furthermore, the language of farming is still often Afrikaans and he was unable to speak English, hampering his ability to find alternate employment (O1). The effect of resettlement can be worsened by economics. Because output is lower, the like for like replacement of workers is also lower; according to N6 worker families present a “burden” to the new owners and their position is precarious as a farm may be split between several resettled owners. The economics of commercial farming also have a marked effect on productivity. Whilst originally resettlement projects were notable for overgrazing and exceeding carrying capacity, the FURS scheme leans the other way as I observed during my second observation session (O2). Farmers are unable to place enough livestock on their land in order to maximise productivity and economic output, this in turn makes it more difficult to invest in the maintenance of their farm and compounds the effect of not turning a large enough profit, which was also visible during the second observation I undertook (O2). In conjunction with the current harsh weather conditions and effective meat trade blockade with South Africa (Kaira, 2014), the lack of resilience is currently being tested to its limits; an NGO worker whose organisation specialises in the desert climate of Namibia stated that, “their businesses often need diversification of what they do. [Farmers] are over reliant on cattle and own more than the land can support”. [N2]
The policy of land reform therefore struggles to meet the intended purpose of the
identified aspects of sustainable development that were sought by the Namibian government with regard to reversing economic and social inequality. Negative effects on sustainable development have potentially been minimalized because of the relatively small reach of the NRP; only around one per cent of land per year is resettled through the MLR (Harring & Odendaal, 2007:29). As such its impact has been drawn out over the past two decades rather than hitting all at once. However with the lack of resilience of a lot of farms, issues beyond their control such as the climate or the economy could see many farmers struggling to maintain their businesses in the coming years. I will next discuss the interaction with the NRP and present reform with capabilities. 44
4.6 LAND REFORM AND CAPABILITIES A key aspect of this thesis is assessing how land reform has improved capabilities, which within my conceptual scheme is an improvement that focuses principally on the individual level. Over the course of the research I met farmers who have definitely benefitted from this scheme but there was still a sense that this was not lifting people out of poverty and not reducing inequality in a reliable way, whether that is because they received inadequate land or infrastructure, did not have the expertise to successfully manage a commercial farming unit or because they lacked the capital to do so. In this section each aspect of my concept of capabilities will be assessed in turn: economic facilities, social opportunities and political freedom. In terms of economic facilities, farmworkers remain among some of the poorest and most vulnerable wage earners in Namibia (Odendaal, 2005:14). The precarious nature of their employment was highlighted at the beginning of SWAPO rule when labour laws, intended to help workers, were met with mass unemployment as employers refused to pay such large salaries to staff, as was indicated by G1: “[B]efore independence so many people worked at farms. After independence they were told by the bosses to get out. It is when the labour law came in […] Many went to urban areas and began staying in informal settlements and these are the people who are landless.” [G1] This loss of employment greatly increased the amount of informal dwellings that existed around urban areas as rural labourers headed to cities to find gainful employment, often without the skills necessary to do so (Harring & Odendaal, 2007:28). This kind of outcome has continued with resettlement programmes, effectively farm workers are removed for around an equal number of resettled farmers and the process thus represents a zero sum gain with inexperience replacing experience for the sake of the NRP (2007:27). Furthermore the economic facilities afforded to new occupants mean that investment in the farm is limited. Where someone is a dedicated farmer, then they often lack the requisite capital to establish a strong commercial operation, i.e. they cannot invest in cattle or infrastructure or even adequate feeding supplements and their businesses, therefore, do not match the levels of success of the previous established owners (see U1 below). Werner (2015:14) states that the poor need more assets than they have in order to be productive. This problem of capital was brought up by multiple interviewees but was most stressed by a national union leader who told me that, 45
“[the] problem is capital, there is also a need for farmers to identify that this is a business, how they will go about making a living […] if you have been resettled then you need more capital to get the stock up to scratch.” [U1] In Namibian society a farm is seen as an attractive status symbol (Harring & Odendaal, 2007:21) and so it is possible that where occupants can afford extra investment because of a second income, they are more likely to invest less time and money because they do not see their possession as anything beyond a hobby. The following statements from union leaders and NGO workers support this assertion: “[I]t is just for a hobby […] he is farming but he is not doing practices exactly. He is hiring someone to do this for him.” [U2] “Those with money who live in town may farm for recreation so do not need to make them profitable.” [N1] That being said, dedicated farmers tend to succeed given enough time, though a great deal of hardship must be endured to get there, which could possibly be alleviated if they had access to better economic facilities. One of the reasons that these farmers struggle to generate capital is because of the way their land is owned, in a non-‐transferable 99-‐year lease format which forbids the transfer of ownership meaning that they cannot take a loan out against their land and therefore struggle to borrow the invaluable start-‐up capital needed to invest in their farm (Werner, 2010:9). According to N6, the government have responded to this by creating a basic standard of infrastructure before transferring land to a new occupant, overseen by Farmer Support Programme inspectors, but this is very much a “minimum to function” rather than an ideal; “we make sure the water is working but then it is up to you” (N6). Social opportunities vary a great deal, the more established emerging farmers are capable of providing a middle class lifestyle for their family and of all the people I spoke to in this position, many had children in either professional positions or in tertiary education at that point. On the other had, the position of displaced farmworkers is precarious, often they do not speak English as observed (during O1 and O2) and so struggle to find other work once displaced. Furthermore the bureaucracy of government decisions can worsen things for some potential beneficiaries as well as mask what their actual motives are when assigning resettlement. The example to which I refer is 46
the case of two of my interviewees who were moved initially into the wrong camp, permitted to spend a decade establishing it, only to be moved a few kilometres away to the correct camp in order to allow another beneficiary access to their farm (F3 and F4). The inflexible approach that the government adopts firmly hinders social opportunities in instances such as this. The following is one of the statements given to describe this: “[A]pparently we were resettled in the wrong camp but for this whole 11 years they didn’t say anything […] I specifically ask [the minister] what about our infrastructure? He didn’t care, they didn’t care about everything we do or did.” [F3] Political freedom is a little disconnected from the other two issues but is still relevant in the context of land reform. Namibia scores highly in terms of democratic openness when compared to other African countries (see section 2.2), nonetheless the political landscape, beyond free press or free elections, is limited. For instance, public gatherings of more than twenty must be reported beforehand (Hubbard, 2003:2), constraining the organisation of a protest without prior consent from the authorities. Whilst elections are free, Namibia lacks parliamentary plurality given the dominance of SWAPO in Namibian politics; President Hage Geingob won power in 2014 with 87 per cent of the vote (BBC, 2014). There is nothing to suggest that this is not a legitimate victory and is more indicative of the lack of opposition in Namibia rather than its suppression. Namibians to whom I spoke had a favourable perception of the government even where criticism was expressed. These criticisms tended to focus on the more bureaucratic aspects and faith in SWAPO is somewhat predicated on the fact that they are not the colonial government of old, with a pertinent quote being that “if we do not vote for the SWAPO then the white man will return” (N3) which was the sentiment of a relative of one of the legal aid workers with whom I spoke. That same interviewee went on to outline that the younger generation however do not feel quite so much compulsion to vote for them and “will want results from the government” (N3). N1 explained that the “more educated youth” have started “something that is new to Namibia”, namely protests against the government over the lack of housing in place for them under the Affirmative Repositioning movement. I assess that as a simple product of no longer living under apartheid, the younger black generation are more likely to be university educated and this infers a greater propensity to challenge the government whose next generation of leaders, as expressed by N3, will not be veterans of the war for independence “as the older folk die who remember this” (N3) and the credibility it grants. Questions of inequality may become more mainstream and 47
demands for better societal protection may well lead to the formation of a new opposition or perhaps a schism within the party. Tensions are already becoming visible and even while I was conducting this research it was announced that members of the Affirmative Repositioning movement were to be “flushed out” of the SWAPO party (Muranganda, 2016) signalling that there will be some political uncertainty in the coming years. 4.7 CONCLUSION This chapter has attempted to explore the relationship between land reform and various aspects of my conceptual scheme in order to inform an answer to the first two of my sub-‐questions.
SQ1 asked ‘How are existing ownership structures and reform policies perceived by actors
with regard to achieving a more socially equitable distribution of wealth?’ The perception that I would say was most prevalent from my data was that people, from across all backgrounds, were unified in their belief that the status quo was unfair. Every actor with whom I spoke, agreed that the white domination of land ownership in Namibia represents an injustice inherited from the colonial past. However there was limited consensus on how to best enact land reform and the causes behind its slow delivery. Some, such as G1, assert that it is delayed by a reluctance to sell on the part of white farmers, but the data indicates that actually there is more of a reluctance to buy on the part of the MLR (see section 1.4.1), with 96 per cent of those who offer to sell in receipt of waivers from the MLR (Werner, 2015:6). The status quo may well represent an injustice however it seems that it is something of a political distraction from wider problems concerning inequality in Namibia. As was argued by N6 (see section 4.2), commercial farming represents only a small percentage of Namibia’s GDP, and so the economic losses felt by a messy reform system are offset by the popular gains that the SWAPO accrue from championing the policy. SQ2 asked ‘what effect are current commercial ownership structures and reform policies having on the perceived capabilities of disadvantaged Namibians?’ The capabilities of disadvantaged Namibians have a contradictory relationship with commercial land ownership. In all, farmworkers and their families benefit from the commercial output of the most productive farms and their quality of life diminishes when land reform measures displace them (see section 4.6). As stated by N6, new owners tend to employ fewer workers and house fewer families24 but more owners have access to the farms. As it stands, my data suggests25 that beneficiaries tend to be less disadvantaged to begin with and as such those losing out offset the gains being made by 24
This is covered in greater depth in section 6.2.1 See section 4.4 where N3 and U2 articulate that connections and status often lead to successful resettlement.
25
48
resettlement. However, those who have been resettled through large group resettlement schemes are seldom having their capabilities enhanced. According to N5 and U2 (see section 4.2), they are wanting of economic support, lack self-‐sufficiency and have few social opportunities to improve. This raises doubt as to whether they are fulfilling the social opportunities and economic facility criteria which Sen put forward.
49
5. ENVIRONMENT AND ECONOMICS
5.1 INTRODUCTION This second empirical chapter addresses the third sub-‐question (SQ3), ‘how is ecological management enacted in order to maintain economic sustainability?’ In keeping with the conceptual scheme (section 3.1), the focus of this chapter is predominantly concerned with societal level actions that are related to sustainable development and its three dimensions.
As noted in the chapter one, Namibia is home to a great selection of biodiversity, with
large fauna contributing to a rise in wildlife tourism, which in turn has seen a rise in wildlife stock and research surrounding this topic (Lindsey et al., 2013:42). Consequently, Namibia’s burgeoning tourist industry is geared towards capitalising on the country’s ability to offer safari and game hunting experiences and these have become a source of non-‐traditional income for some established farmers (Werner & Odendaal, 2010:21). However, the relationship with commercial farmers and what can be termed loosely as ‘ecology’ is somewhat different. The management of commercial farmland is as much about preservation of grazing lands as it is with human-‐wildlife conflict and in a country as arid as Namibia, the lack of water presents relatively harsh conditions in which to conduct an economically viable farming operation on a subsistence basis let alone when striving for commercial profitability. Ultimately this chapter will seek to engage with the difficulties faced by actors with regard to the management of their resource base.
This chapter will draw mostly on the sustainable development component of my
theoretical framework (section 2.1) and as such will scrutinise how policy impacts at the societal rather than individual level, with the intention of drawing conclusions about the success of sustainable development as an ambition. 5.2 BUSH ENCROACHMENT AND CHARCOAL Much of the land that is used for commercial farming has been used in this way for generations meaning that the environmental threats from large predatory species are not as problematic as might be imagined. In terms of predators, the most common perceived threats in the areas I visited were from jackals, as stated by F2 and N6. Cheetah are also of concern, but like jackal, the impact of these predators in the areas where I conducted research was sufficiently mitigated by the use of large species of guard dog, some of which are made available for free by locally operating NGOs such as the Cheetah Conservation Fund (CCF, 2014). Nonetheless, human wildlife
50
conflict is a very real problem in other areas of Namibia and should not be overlooked but the perception I came across is generally that, “[i]rresponsible farmers lose a lot of animals and it is their responsibility to protect [them] through better management to prevent wildlife contact” [U1], indicating that the perceived onus is on the farmer to better manage their herd rather than damage the local ecosystem by killing predators.
A less spectacular but more pressing environmental issue is that of so-‐called ‘bush encroachment’, which is best described as “the invasion and/or thickening of aggressive, undesired woody species resulting in an imbalance of the grass [to] bush ratio, a decrease in biodiversity, a decrease in carrying capacity and concomitant economic losses” (de Klerk, 2004:222). As a phenomenon, bush encroachment can have a draining effect on the productivity of a farm, as indicated by the above quote, because it leads to a decrease in carrying capacity meaning that the farm can keep fewer livestock and therefore lower profits. Some estimates indicate that this loss has led to a 60 per cent decline in commercial production over the past 40 years (Moore, 2010). This in turn has a knock-‐on effect to those dependent on the farm for their work and their livelihood by the subsequent loss of economic output. There are numerous means of combating bush encroachment that vary in labour intensity and in cost, with aerial chemical application being the “most expensive” but also bringing the greatest yields in useable land once completed, according to P1. As a cheaper and more accessible alternative, it has been suggested, “that charcoal production be used as a means to offset the cost of de-‐bushing as well as actively contribute to de-‐bushing in Namibian agricultural land” (de Klerk, 2004:250). I came across a number of farmers who were carrying out charcoal production in the Kunene area, both to manage the bush but also to supplement their incomes. Economically this method can be beneficial to the local economy as otherwise out of work, casual labourers are brought in to carry out this labour intensive production with workers paid on a “what he produces” basis, as stated by N6. N6, who is a senior mentor in the Farming Support Programme, went on to criticise the practice of charcoal production as a form of bush management. He argued that the “thicket”, which is the most problematic aspect of bush, is not suitable for charcoal production and the trees that are felled instead actually “enhance the nutrient cycle and control the other bushes” indicating that charcoal production tends to worsen bush encroachment when carried out and should not be seen as a simple and cheap solution to this problem. 51
The problem of bush encroachment is manageable but given the amount of grassland that is lost to it then it should be taken as a serious ecological issue. Rangeland management is crucial to this problem and an adequate understanding of grassland preservation ought to be better transferred to prospective commercial farmers. The connection between bush encroachment and incorrect farming practices is outlined below: “[W]rong practices over the years in commercial farms on perennial grasses, [such as] overgrazing, meaning not allowing rangeland to fully recover. Perennial grasses, droughts come in and in a drought situation you lose your perennial grasses that are weak because of continuous overgrazing. When you lose them you get bush encroachment, the rapid transformation leads to a loss of moisture from the soil into the air and is huge.” [P1] As is covered in section 5.3, increasing drought is accompanying this bush encroachment and possibly exacerbating it. It is evident that problems pertaining to this type of ecology do not exist apart from each other; problems in one area can also have effects elsewhere. In relation to my concept of Sustainable Development, bush encroachment represents a clear ecological problem that if not adequately managed has the potential to worsen, further damaging the savannah ecosystem on which livestock production depends. Shrinking livestock production leads to a decline in economic sustainability and therefore the sustainability of all resettlement farms that are affected by this issue, which in turn hinders the issue of social equity that ideally would be addressed by redistributing the land in the first instance. More established farmers are in a more advantageous position to counter bush encroachment as mitigating its effects are resource and capital intensive (de Klerk, 2004:250). However, dividends of doing so can see “kilogram production increase from 8 kg to 25 kg per hectare”, according to P1, and is evidently worth the investment, providing the capital to do so is available. Bush encroachment is an ecological issue that affects all farmers but it is an example of how having access to more capital enables the wealthy to further widen the inequality gap and increase their production over smaller, emerging farmers. 5.3 SHARED WATER RESOURCES AND DROUGHT Bush encroachment is a problem that is affecting all farms but can be managed by each farmer separately as is seen fit, although each farmer’s ability to do so is heavily dependent on his or her
52
access to capital. On the other hand, water management represents a different problem that is affecting Namibia’s rural economy and livelihoods. Over the course of this research, the Namibian government declared a state of emergency in the face of Namibia’s worse drought in “more than 25 years”, which, as a crisis, affects people beyond rural areas with inhabitants of Windhoek and other urban areas also starting to feel the effects (Grobbler, 2016). Furthermore, crop failures have led to 600,000 of Namibians poorest being reliant upon some form of food aid with drought and bush encroachment combining to damage food production across Namibia (Schlechter, 2016). As was stated by an NGO worker who specialised in managing food provision in the more arid areas of Namibia, “farming practices need to better reflect the limited water, cattle are very inefficient for low water areas [and] the northwest in particular is suffering a lot from this drought. It could quite possibly be disastrous in that area” [N2]. This is a problem that will soon begin to transcend food production, some 82 per cent of horticulture stock is imported (Odendaal, 2005b:5), and as such water itself will become a more pressing concern. Economic productivity will become an issue too as farmers are “forced to sell cattle at a reduced price to other farmers or slaughter some of their stock” (N2) or risk them dying from a lack of water, according to N2. The government understandably sees land for grazing and cultivation as well as clean water as fundamental necessities (Werner & Odendaal, 2010:10), but will need to steadily prioritise drinking water over the others if this crisis worsens. This is a multifaceted problem that cannot merely be dealt with in terms of economic measures. Whilst clearly those at the bottom of the economic ladder will be the hardest hit from any resource shortage such as this, Namibia’s agricultural industry, whether emerging or established, commercial or communal, is wholly dependent on water in order to survive. With the economic sustainability of vast swathes of Namibia’s economy also dependent on limited water it is unsurprising that the government is now issuing calls for “unity” among farmers (Smit, 2016). The problems with this current drought serve to highlight some of the underlying issues with current land reform policy. Farms are often divided into several grazing areas known as ‘camps’. When the MLR purchases a farm for resettlement under the FURS scheme it often divides the land into different farm units, which also leads to the partitioning of resources, as was seen in detail at the farm I visited during my first detailed observation (O1). One farm unit may contain all
53
of the crucial infrastructure including accommodation and the solar pumps that supply water to the entirety of the now sub-‐divided farm, which was outlined by G1, “if a farm is divided into 3 or 4 parts then some units will not have water provision and some will” [G1]. The problem arises because there is now the situation where some beneficiaries, who “cannot do it individually”, become reliant on their neighbours to ensure water can be pumped to their reservoirs, according to P1, who goes on to explain that what would have been centralised decisions about farm management are decentralised amongst different farmers who may not cooperate with each other. Farmers are thus encouraged to form so-‐called “grazing committees” which function well when under the supervision of the FSP but struggle without it (P1). As he explains, “the moment that the money for the project went out, then it discontinued because there is somebody from this land, another from that cultural background all on the same farm.” [P1] Whilst the sharing of water resources is emphasised in the lease agreement, it is often unclear who is responsible for maintaining expensive pumping equipment, both between tenants or whether the government is responsible (Falk et al., 2016:97). Resettled farmers are therefore at a disadvantage from the outset in not having complete control of the resources required to maintain their own business, leaving them in a precarious position. Co-‐operation between farmers is required but it is difficult to mandate and failure can lead to losses in livestock production. Given that resettled farmers own the land on the basis of a 99-‐year lease (Sherbourne, 2004:2), which is not transferable, a key question surrounding investment into resettlement farms arises, with larger infrastructural costs being seen as the responsibility of the government and “lower level maintenance” of the resettled farmer, according to both U1 and F5. N6 expanded on this view explaining that that “we have a 99-‐year lease agreement but it is the government’s land so they have to maintain the fences and the water” [N6].
54
However such is the frequency that this problem arises and the large cost of installing solar pumps to the government, this problem often gets overlooked by the government forcing farmers to invest themselves, as was the case with F1, which again highlights the issue of access to capital. As argued by Werner (2010:18), without secure land tenure rights the farmer is often unable, or unwilling, to secure business loans in order to make this investment possible due to land not being accepted as collateral. The issue of these shared resources and dependency on the government, especially in times of crisis hinder the ability of recipients to achieve the government’s desire for farmers to be self-‐sufficient within four years (Odendaal, 2005:9) and indicates that it may not be possible for farmers to ever truly be in such a position. This brings into question the state’s fundamental necessity in overseeing and regulating agriculture in order to ensure that it is sustainable within the defined parameters of sustainable development in this thesis. Water management is an ecological resource that needs to be regulated as much as wildlife, especially as it becomes an increasingly scant resource, likely worsened by climate change (Werner & Odendaal, 2010:35). In order to ensure economic output and social equity is maintained in these conditions then the state is likely to bear the responsibility. As was just seen by the argument put forward by Werner (2010:18) relating to tenure rights, the next section will explore in greater depth how property rights relate to resource management in the context of sustainable development. 5.4 PROPERTY RIGHTS AND FREEDOM Prior to colonial rule, Namibian land management systems were well adapted to the arid conditions with colonial freehold titles bounding farms and thus enabling overgrazing as well as problematizing water shortages (Werner & Odendaal, 2010:18). It is this adoption of a European style system that is not designed for the chronic water shortages that are endemic to the desert landscape of rural Namibia that is a large part of the problem. Understandably, given the damage that could be caused to stability by overhauling the current system, and the legitimacy that the state can draw from enforcing property rights (Sikor & Lund, 2009:2) things are unlikely to change. Namibia has a functioning capitalist economy and the abandonment of capitalist principles of property rights could have wide ranging economic repercussions for Namibia, comparable to Zimbabwe’s current problems (Adams & Devitt, 1992:2). Therefore the Namibian government is in a precarious position of having to make an ill-‐suited European land tenure system work in this
55
environment, while achieving racial balance in the most economically acceptable way (Sherbourne, 2004:1).
This is an issue that transcends current land reform policy and brings into question the
prevalence of the Western model of capitalist property ownership as being an adequate structure on which to base a rural economy that is seemingly limited by it. The government has broadly adhered to the same ownership structures that existed under the colonial regime and exist elsewhere. However, the NRP does alter this somewhat, as is mentioned in the section 5.3, land is held under a 99-‐year lease agreement that does not cede the power of transfer to the beneficiary as the government remains the de jure owner. And whilst Article 16 of the constitution suggests that unless disruptive to others, the landowner is free to use his property in a manner that pleases him (Narib, 2003:6), the reality is not always the case.
Harring and Odendaal (2007:25) state that there is a host of restrictions placed upon
resettled farmers with regard to their ownership of this land, they are unable to transfer the land by selling or subleasing; and it is unclear whether or not land can be inherited. There are also restrictions on how the land can be used, for instance, infrastructure changes need to be approved by the government (Falk et al., 2016:98). And whilst wildlife tourism is observably expanding on some established commercial farms, the government prohibit NRP land from being used for purposes other than agriculture (Werner, 2010:19) and apply a narrow definition of “small-‐scale farming” which limits what is suitable and explains why so much available land is waived (Werner & Odendaal, 2010:22). Furthermore, there are restrictions on subleasing camps or allowing others to keep their herd on a resettled farmer’s property (Werner, 2010:18). As a result, many farmers who have received land under the FURS scheme, who have herds that are too small to fully utilise their land, are unable to sublease to other farmers, who may have grassland damaged by drought and are in desperate need of extra land. This issue was expressed by N6 (below) in addition to being observed during O2. “[W]hile we can’t farm because we don’t have enough livestock […] there is some farmer with his herd in the western part with hardly any rain” [N6]. The problem therefore becomes about which of overgrazing or underutilisation of land are worse. Because land cannot be sublet without ministerial approval, land is used disproportionately across rural areas with some idling and some overgrazed. N6 viewed the bureaucracy that created this situation as a “barrier to development”. As a result of this, subletting occurs informally and 56
offers few legal protections in these arrangements leading to exploitation (Werner, 2010:19). According to U2, the MLR is not equipped or not willing to police land so those willing to break the rules are often unpunished. Finally, given that land cannot be transferred or sublet, underused land may just remain as such. Despite the huge waiting lists that exist according to F5 and was evidenced by F3’s inability to acquire land of her own (see section 6.2.1), much land remains idle, as there is no incentive to surrender land that has been transferred under a 99-‐year lease regardless of whether or not it is intended to be used. 5.5 CONCLUSION In this chapter I set out to answer the sub-‐question ‘how is ecological management enacted in order to maintain economic sustainability?’
Sustainable development is a policy that I have placed theoretically to concern societal
rather than individual development. It can be argued that the state has a role to play in how sustainable development is shaped, which is something that is recognised by the Namibian government setting out the nation’s development strategy in Vision 2030 (Vision 2030:2004). Nonetheless the dialogical interactions between actors also shape the policy, especially given the necessity of resettlement beneficiaries to cooperate with their neighbours and share resources. This need to cooperate creates friction between the management of shared ecological resources and the drive to run a growth orientated commercial enterprise. Through the FURS scheme and also within group resettlement farms, resources are shared between different beneficiaries with very limited governance overarching the different actors. Each farmer is looking to expand his or her business and therefore maximise their use of resources while minimising their outgoings. Schemes such as the Farmer’s Support Programme go some way to mitigating the friction that arises as neighbours compete but the FSP has no real authority. Interaction between farmers often needs outside governance as according to Odendaal (2005b:9) recipients often do not manage their land efficiently and await decisions by government officials who do not visit regularly enough to make informed decisions.
Ecological problems are further exacerbated beyond issues of cooperation as well. The
unclear model of land ownership (i.e. the 99-‐year lease) and subsequent loss of access to capital that ensues means that resettled farmers struggle to invest in the ecological maintenance of their farms. This could worsen bush encroachment or cause water reservoirs to run dry, compounding the ability of farmers to raise capital as livestock are lost.
57
There are no clear solutions to these problems but defining more clearly the
responsibilities of the government and the tenant would help. Furthermore the government would also have to then maintain its responsibilities as well as ensure that farmers were held to account when they infringed upon their requirements. In so doing, there would be a clearer channel to rectify grievances between farmers as well as more robust support systems for infrastructural problems and hopefully greater freedom to generate capital to invest into their farms. This is expanded on further in section 7.4 where policy recommendations are advised.
58
6. ASPIRED DEVELOPMENT 6.1 INTRODUCTION Throughout this empirical chapter I intend to address my final two sub-‐questions: (SQ4) ‘How do actors perceive land reform policies might be better enacted in order to achieve improved sustainable development and capabilities’ and (SQ5) ‘who do actors feel should be the main beneficiaries of land reform policy?’
The purpose of this chapter is principally to understand how the National Resettlement
Programme might be improved through the perceptions of those most affected by reform. Nonetheless the fact that my interpretation of their desires will inevitably instil inherent bias into this chapter is unavoidable, however it should be considered that this thesis is written from a critical realist perspective with the researcher as an transactional observer. In chapters 4 and 5 I assessed the policy as a means of delivering reform in its current format, and in section 4.2 I questioned whether or not the policy could, indeed, achieve sustainable development at all. Nonetheless in this chapter I will assume that the ideal outcomes of land reform are, as I have defined, sustainable development at the societal level and capabilities at the individual level. As such this chapter will weigh up whether or not the outcome of land reform can both enhance the lives of those most in need in a sustainable manner while maintaining the “peace and stability” that is synonymous with the rhetoric of the SWAPO according to two of my interviewees (N3 and N6). In this section I use the conceptual dimensions that are clearly outlined in the conceptual scheme (section 3.1) and build upon these using many of the variables that are defined in the operationalization table (section 3.2). 6.2 CHANGES FOR GREATER SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT This section focuses on the three dimensions of sustainable development as defined in the theoretical framework: social equality, economic sustainability and ecological protection (see section 2.1). In turn the most pertinent problems with these policies are defined by and potential solutions based upon the perceptions of respondents. Additionally relevant literature has been included in order to factually enhance the opinions of respondents. 6.2.1 Social Equality Social equality should be seen as being about re-‐orientating land reform so the impoverished have more access thus targeting beneficiaries more succinctly. This section addresses SQ5 in that better 59
targeted beneficiaries could form an aspect of an enhanced land reform policy. A view that seems to be held by some current iteration of the policy is that beneficiaries are not the most disadvantaged Namibians (see section 4.4). Often they appear to be middle class bringing into question the original altruistic desires of the government who first implemented the policy (Werner & Odendaal, 2010:12). This has partly come about because of the perceived shortcomings of land reform in the early 2000s, i.e. that it was creating “rural slums” rather than creating a rejuvenated, self-‐sufficient and viable “middle class of agriculturalists” as was the desired intent (2010:16). The policy became about maximising beneficiaries without damaging the viability of the farm (2010:26). Farms were being mismanaged for a variety of reasons; inexperience and poor management skills are cited alongside cultural differences between Western and African outlooks, as N6 puts it, “the average African mentality is deep rooted where enough is enough and too much is a sin” [N6]. As such the NRP has evolved into a policy directed at the more commercially minded middle classes. Furthermore, the selection of beneficiaries is contentious as there are no income criteria so many wealthy, well-‐connected people have been able to benefit according to Werner & Odendaal (2010:37). The lack of transparency with regard to how beneficiaries are selected creates confusion and mistrust surrounding the policy and makes it difficult to understand who has been rejected and on what grounds. It is often the case that people apply time and again over the course of many years with little understanding of why they are rejected, “[E]very year I try to apply for resettlement farms. But I do not know what the problem is that I cannot go through […] they didn’t give any reason. But I don’t know even what is the problem but I will not stop because they are saying many people are applying.” [F3] Therefore the policy could benefit from greater clarity surrounding selection criteria so that applicants better understood whether or not they would be successful. N6 argues that those who already work the land suffer from the displacement effect that occurs when worker families are discarded after resettlement has occurred. This displacement has a compounding effect because farmers often support a wider network of individuals through remittances. He stated that, 60
“If you come to poverty and job creation […] you had more or less per 1000 ha, one worker family, so 5 worker families [per 5000 ha], they take care usually of ten each, not on the farm but with the social network. Now you have 55 people who benefit from this highly productive production unit. Now you have cut the same farm into three pieces and who is the beneficiaries, the family becomes a burden. They employ usually one worker with half the salary of the old worker.” [N6] Currently this serves to undermine gains in the redress of inequality that the programme offers and therefore the social equality aspects of the policy. By not considering those who are displaced by this programme then social inequality is not fully addressed. The policy also contradicts the work of van der Ploeg (2010:5), which is outlined in section 2.2, in that the farmers who intimately know the land are best placed to work it. 6.2.2 Economic Sustainability The system is not well designed for the semi arid nature of Namibia but it has been honed to work over time, as articulated by N5 (below). “As you know in a dry country, even if you are very smart and you have a very low standard of living, you will battle to make it on that piece of land.” [N5] The system of land rights that are in place are European in origin and not well suited to the continual drought that is faced by Namibia’s harsh climate (see section 5.4). Traditional Namibian pastures were not restricted by boundaries and had the ability to use the land in a more holistic manner moving as the water and grazing might dictate (Werner & Odendaal, 2010:18). Nonetheless, farming on the commercial model is achievable in the current “European” fashion, but has been made to work by inhabitants rather than being the best-‐suited structure for the land. It fits within Namibia’s model of government, which is statist in keeping with the conventional Westphalian nation-‐state model. The state recognises land rights and the citizens observe the authority of the state in return (Lund & Sikor, 2009:1) making governance simple and conventional. A farmer’s commercial farming experience is obviously paramount to his ability to manage a farm successfully. Another common observation is that farming subsidies have been dramatically reduced since the end of apartheid (Odendaal, 2005:5), which has had the subsequent effect of making commercial farming less lucrative but not to the extent that it is 61
completely unprofitable; well-‐run farms are still viable businesses according to N6 (see section 4.3).
The government has already moved away from ‘group resettlement’ as a concept in favour
of FURS, as step towards increasing the economic viability of a resettled farmer, however there are many people still living in ‘group resettlement’ areas (see section 1.4.2). The continuance of group resettlement areas means that the government do still bear some responsibility for their progress, as explained by N5: “Obviously, worldwide, resources are on a lot of pressure effectively to be utilised to produce something. It is not just good enough to place people there and let them sit there and not even be able to help other people.” [N5] Furthermore, the Ministry of Land Reform or its sister organisations should consider that self-‐ sufficiency is an unlikely prospect for these farms and look towards another model of farming in order to allow those resettled here to prosper, with the challenge explained accordingly: “[The government] want us to wean off the people so they can look after themselves which we don’t really see being easy to do.” [N5] Were it not for the actions of NGOs and Christian aid organisations such as the one that N5 represents then it is likely that inhabitants off this group resettlement project would have received no outside support. According to N5 and U1, there is ultimately very little economic sustainability in the land they have, they are disconnected from local infrastructure (roads and markets etc.), and therefore are unable to succeed with this land. The government could therefore be seen as having an obligation to preserve the welfare of the 50 or so families in this scheme and similar ones across Namibia.
6.2.3 Ecological Protection Human wildlife conflict is an issue that causes the depletion of large, especially predatory, fauna in much of Namibia (Rust & Marker, 2013:45), however for areas that have been farmed by Europeans, conflicts with predators are minimal, most animals that would otherwise be in need of protection are few in number due to years of sustained hunting according to F2. Nonetheless schemes to protect cheetahs and leopards are supported by NGOs (CCF, 2014), and should they be 62
forced to discontinue then the mantle of this could be expected to fall to the government. Currently the government operate a permit system for the hunting of game to landowners that are designed to maintain wildlife stocks for edible game (Lindsey et al., 2013:42). Permitting resettled landowners to operate wildlife tourism ventures would monetise the value of wildlife and would see game numbers and ecological protection increase based on previous evidence (Boudreaux, 2010:4)26. Another ecological problem facing Namibia is overgrazing. It is an issue that has a multitude of implications, it feeds back into the economic sustainability of a plot, overgrazing can mean that land takes up to “ten years to regenerate” according to N5. The MLR already imposes regulations on how many livestock units can be kept on each farm, but farmers are inclined to ignore these regulations for alternate business reasons, as expressed by F5, “the problem is that I want to grow, if I decrease my livestock how can I grow?” [F5]. Nonetheless, better enforcement of current restrictions, combined with a sensible approach to subleasing land to enhance economic facilities, would alter the attitude towards overgrazing and actually improve the ecological sustainability of farms into the future. N5 expresses his belief that improved supervision would be beneficial for this problem, “I am emphasising that people have to be evaluated, you get good people on farms that can really with a bit of mentorship make it.” [N5] The issue of water provision is something that the government does to some extent bear responsibility for but it is unclear who is fundamentally responsible for the infrastructure. When the government assigns a farm to a resettled farmer, the farm is inspected for basic infrastructure as was seen during observation one [O1]. It is the government’s responsibility to maintain bore holes for water but it is also the farmer’s responsibility to keep the infrastructure serviceable and the relatively informal process is outlined below by G1: “So we cannot really just wait for the government to come and repair a gate. Things I can understand like the borehole. The borehole is expensive, if you have to drill it and equip it might be up to 300,000 NAD […] the government is assisting but it is not enough.” [G1] 26
See section 1.3 to see how this has been effective in communal areas of Namibia too.
63
Clearly, water is essential to farming and therefore the farmer must act in order to ensure its provision in a timely manner, however, maintaining highly expensive water pump systems is beyond the financial reach of most farmers who therefore stay dependent upon the government, undermining the principle of self-‐sufficiency. The government therefore needs to develop a more efficient support system that assists farmers on technical issues, potentially accepting that self-‐ sufficiency might be beyond the reach of many, which was outlined by N5 (see section 6.2.2). Laying out precisely who has contractual responsibility for what would also be an essential aspect of this policy change in order to encourage the ecological protection of resources. Proactive water management could become ever more necessary, as drought becomes more of an issue in Namibia. 6.3 CHANGES FOR IMPROVED CAPABILITIES Unlike ‘sustainable development’, improved ‘capabilities’ as a concept is not explicitly set out as the intention of the Namibian government. Capabilities as set out by Sen is being used as a model to interpret the effects of the land reform policy that is being implemented by the Namibian government, with three out of five of Sen’s original capabilities being identified as most relevant to the land reform programme (see section 2.2). When conducting the research, themes pertinent to capabilities were discussed during interviews and this section represents the deductions that can be drawn from the perceptions of interviewees that would see capabilities improve through more effective land reform. The key conceptual distinction between the two theories in this thesis are the level at which they affect the Namibian citizenry; in the case of ‘capabilities’ the effect is on the individual livelihoods and how they are improved by land reform policies. 6.3.1 Economic Facilities This section focuses principally on the access to capital that beneficiaries are lacking, essentially encompassing ones ability to raise funds in order to invest in agriculture. It has further implications for the social equality aspects faced by farmworkers particularly those who lose their job as a direct result of farms struggling to function with restricted investment. The difficulties that have been faced by resettled Namibians have caused the government to adapt the resettlement scheme to focus on larger farming units rather than group resettlement (section 1.4.2). This models the farms more closely on the commercial enterprises that were cannibalised in order to create the units that are apportioned to individual beneficiaries. A side effect of this is the 64
displacement of farmworkers and therefore the loss of their employment (see section 6.2.1). The emerging farmers that are created from resettlement often lack the necessary capital to invest in their fledgling businesses, and farms take around a decade before becoming profitable (as outlined by F1 in section 4.5), hindering employment recovery in that area throughout that time.
According to Werner (2010:21), the restriction on capital stems from the inadequate
tenure with which land is held. It is difficult for farmers to secure the substantial loans required in order to purchase livestock or install infrastructure without being able to use their primary asset, the land, as collateral to hold it against (2010:19) hindering their economic freedom. The government already operates a parastatal bank in order to support investment in agriculture, the Agribank, but access to capital still seemingly poses a big problem for emerging farmers, as emphasised by U1 (see section 4.6). The reform of land tenure could also go beyond loans, as was noted in section 5.4, the inability of emerging farmers to sublet space on “their” land prevents a valuable income stream from reaching them for future investment, impedes expansion for farmers who have more livestock than they do grazing and leaves land wastefully idling. The effect of underutilised land is negative to the rural economy and prevents additional labour from being hired, hindering the employment opportunities of low skilled farmworkers. Limited access to investment capital has a negative effect upon the growth of the businesses that emerging farmers are trying to operate. The government’s reluctance to confer ownership rights onto beneficiaries prevents farmers from profiting on the government’s investment but without the ability to transfer ownership, it is difficult for a loan to be held against the land (Werner, 2010:18). Moreover, subleasing land is another obvious method of generating extra capital but this can only be done with ministerial consent and is very discretionary as shown by N6’s quote: “[She] can utilise, best case scenario 30% of the farm while on the other farm you have grazing you cannot utilise, it is simply impossible so I say we can sublease half of the farm for somebody for a year […] he will not approve any sublease despite it has been designated that you can sublease under certain criteria but the ministers signs off.” [N6] Allowing farmers to sublease land under concrete conditions is an alternative to the current system, which either leaves land idling, or forces farmers to sublet illegally. With the ability to generate increased capital then economic facilities would be enhanced. Furthermore, the stronger
65
the rural economy the more farmworkers can be employed, which relates closely to redressing the social inequalities as mentioned in section 6.2.1. 6.3.2 Social Opportunities The economic sustainability of the NRP is dependent on resettled farmers having the expertise to manage their farms, not just by virtue of being competent agriculturalists, but also by understanding the commercial aspects of farming too. Schemes are offered to newly resettled farmers that provide training but they are not obligatory, according to N6. Furthermore, the MLR takes a relatively non-‐interventionist view towards resettled farmers and allows them to fail or succeed on their own merits. Whilst this may fit the desire of self-‐sufficiency that the government advocates (Odendaal, 2005:9), a high quantity of farmers are perceived as not self-‐sufficient (see below quote) which places a continued burden upon the state and has a negative effect upon the economy. In reference to a group resettlement farm I visited, N5 lamented the skill deficiency of many of his farmers. “There are people who are not even up to the ability to be a good farmer that now have the responsibility of their own farm, and I would say that is about 90% of this group of people.” [N5] With such a high rate of people requiring extra assistance, it could be argued that social opportunities are lacking. Those living on group resettlements are predominantly not those who have a secure second income. Ideally they should be dependent on the land but they are dependent principally on other forms of support that come in from outside. The obvious solution is to increase training and education in relation to farming but there are issues with this too. “[The resettled farmers] do not understand it, they have just come in to the area and they are not following practices of what we should do. There were a lot of trainings since that time of the Spanish. They have got 100 persons able to train. But even with that they have nothing in their mind to farm.” [U2] Furthermore a local mentor from the Farmer Support Programme [N6] disclosed that one of his main issues was the lack of uptake in his services. He offered mentoring support to newly resettled farmers, mostly under FURS, but noted that people were often reluctant to be coached or trained: 66
“[I]nterestingly enough, of the new beneficiaries who receive the farmland, reportedly very few make use of the support programme, the mentors.” [N6] Being granted a farm is something that many Namibians seek and giving land to people who do not necessarily invest in it harms the rural economy and the social opportunities of those who miss out. Resettlement is an expensive endeavour, costing approximately N$1 million per family (Harring & Odendaal, 2007:8), which comes in addition to the economic costs for the state in providing infrastructural support after resettlement has taken place, as outlined by G1 (see section 6.2.3). This high cost sees only a few resettled and some Namibians are disaffected with the land wastage that is going on especially given the quantities of people who are landless and waiting to be given resettlement, as expressed by F3 and U2: “They are wasting our time. People like me, which is staying at the farm and grew up there. Now what would I do compared to those people at the farm which are not doing anything. They are wasting my time and even wasting the government’s land, that is what I am thinking.” [F3] “People are speaking out and complaining about people who are doing nothing with government land and making income.” [U2] Training support and monitoring of land usage are possible means with which these problems could be rectified however both would be expensive and the government would need to make a clear policy decision on how best this could be enacted in order to assist the capability development of beneficiaries. 6.3.3 Political Freedom Within Namibia, SWAPO and the government are closely related entities. The SWAPO party has been the party of government since independence was granted with an unassailable majority being earned at each election since (ECN, 2015). Whilst I have seen no question that the elections have not been fair, the lack of plurality within the system, I would consider to be a limitation of Namibia’s democracy. It is worth noting that Namibia is a relatively young democracy, with many citizens present at its founding and so it is perhaps to be expected that political plurality is not fully developed, however one of the first political movements is gaining ground in Namibia, the 67
Affirmative Repositioning movement has been founded “to claim land for the next generation of Namibians” according to N1. Given that land is such a contentious issue within political discourse in Namibia, it was not surprising that the first movement would be geared towards this, albeit urban rather than rural, as N3 stated.
The SWAPO’s dismissal (see section 4.6) of Affirmative Repositioning suggests a reluctance
to address the criticisms that the movement has levied upon the party and therefore the government. The Namibian constitution enshrines free speech and the right to assembly as well as explicitly encouraging debate (Hubbard, 2003:1), however the police have enormous discretion to limit public protest (2003:3) and therefore visual displays of criticism of the government. The lack of protest and the lack of meaningful opposition prevent scrutiny of government policies that would otherwise enhance their development. N3 describes the democratic deficit, as he perceives it below. “The more educated youth will want results from the government but as it stands many people don’t see their right as voting more than once every five years […] The election structure is not representative, they vote for the party rather than individual MPs. So say the party wins a 60% majority then the party leader will appoint the MPs. The MPs then just tow the line to keep their jobs rather than defend the rights of local areas.” [N3]
The reduction of democratic participation to merely voting every few years in conjunction
with the appointment system gives a great deal of power and free reign to the government and limits scrutiny of all kinds. Within the Senian model that I outline in section 2.2, I have asserted that this lack of democratic accountability is effectively a form of individual ‘unfreedom’. According to Sen democracy is a safeguard to individual freedoms (1999:52), and whilst at present the pretence of maintaining “peace and stability” has been largely unchallenged, a crisis in Namibia could prove difficult for Namibia’s democratic institutions. As evidenced by the formation of Affirmative Repositioning, the problem of land and housing is becoming a major issue for young Namibians, who have greater expectations of the obligations of the state. The inference is that land reform may need to be adapted to suit the demands of this movement. 6.4 CONCLUSION This chapter sets out to answer SQ4 and SQ5 by assessing the main criticism that interviewees expressed to me regarding their concerns for the National Resettlement Programme. The purpose 68
of this was to inform how the policy might be better enacted in order to enhance the key concept of sustainable development and capabilities, which I outlined in chapter 2. Ultimately, this chapter provides the bulk of the argumentation for the policy recommendations that I have made in section 7.4. SQ4 is concerned with ‘how’ might the NRP be improved and the answer to this has been drawn by understanding the key criticisms that people have, which were often expressed by multiple actors, both formally and informally over the course of this research and generally adhere to other literature. To summarise how it might be improved in a short and simplistic statement, I would suggest that it would best be reformed to better emphasise the importance of the displaced farmworkers who lose out. This would help to prevent the loss of capabilities that is felt by this poorly represented group. This leads into SQ5 and the problem of ‘who’ should benefit. SQ5 relates to the ‘whom’ of who should benefit from land reform and can be answered more simply as being those who are genuinely disadvantaged. When the original criteria were outlined, almost any black Namibian could qualify as being disadvantaged from the effects of colonialism, however, a quarter of a century later, Namibian society has stratified in different ways and a new black middle class has emerged, who are gradually tending to dominate the land reform beneficiary system (see sections 4.4 and 6.2.1 for argumentation). As Sherbourne (2004:8) argues, those with incomes are more likely to be successful which negates the purpose. In order to minimise the institutionalisation of privilege it is wise to devise a new strategy of selection of beneficiaries, given the broad criteria that are currently in place (see section 4.4), which Harring and Odendaal (2007:11) argue includes essentially every black Namibian.
69
7. CONCLUSION: THE FUTURE OF LAND REFORM
7.1 INTRODUCTION: ANSWERING THE RESEARCH QUESTION RQ: How is the National Resettlement Programme perceived as a strategy in achieving sustainable development and increasing the capabilities of disadvantaged Namibians? Unsurprisingly there are mixed perceptions of the land reform strategies that the government has adopted in Namibia. Those who have benefitted from the NRP scheme perceive it as a positive improver of their own relative poverty, clearly enhancing their capabilities. However, capabilities is an individual level improvement and how much this has improved is very much related to localised factors concerning the quality of the land and, of course, the viability of the land as a plausible unit to be farmed. Small landholders on group resettlements are more impoverished than those who have benefitted from more sizeable parcels of land under FURS (section 4.3) implying that the policy is relativistic depending on who you are and what land was given to you. Individual capabilities, on the whole, have probably improved for many of the beneficiaries of the National Resettlement Programme, despite those on group resettlements perhaps experiencing more poverty. At the societal level, at the level of sustainable development, the level at which the government wishes to improve, the National Resettlement Programme has significant flaws. Perceptions vary but the NRP is perceived as a modest step towards addressing societal injustice. I introduced the idea that land and politics are closely linked at the outset of this thesis in section 1.1 and made reference to this notion several times throughout the thesis, however it would be perhaps more accurate to state that land and history are closely linked. By this, I mean that the policy, merely only had to succeed in addressing the racial imbalance created by apartheid to be viewed as a success, because it was, after all, change for the better. As I allude to in section 4.2, if race is removed from the equation, then the NRP does not address any obvious societal inequalities; one middle class replaces another. But aside from this historical basis, it is not clear that the NRP is achieving the sort of development demanded in the 21st century. 7.2 QUESTIONING THE NEED FOR LAND REFORM The Namibian government is looking to urbanise its population, Vision 2030 emphasises the need for urban development and the government seeks to urbanise 75 per cent of the population (Werner, 2015:14). With that in mind, the perpetuation of a land reform policy that is relatively expensive and helps relatively few is, for me, questionable. The perception of owning land as 70
being an attractive status symbol in Namibian society (Harring & Odendaal, 2007:21) is from the traditional past of the country and detracts from the desire of the government to focus on urban modernisation. The fact that land ownership is desirable, the fact that so few people benefit leads me to conclude that this policy is poorly suited to meet the developmental demands of Namibia in the future. The prospect of alleviating poverty is fleeting, as an economic strategy it does little to enhance the rural economy, and perhaps even worsens it (see sections 6.2.2 and 6.3.1). Beneficiaries often do not make the most of the land that is given to them for a variety of reasons and the displaced match the resettled almost one for one, negating the overall purpose of the policy (2007:27) as an equality creator. It is largely accepted that commercial farming is not the lucrative money generator it is perceived to be (Odendaal, 2005:6). At best farmers can expect to receive a middle class income comparable to a government official, according to N6, but only if they are resourced to do so in the beginning. In section 2.2 I link access to property with capabilities, however through the scrutiny of this policy in this thesis, I now question how that access should best be interpreted, and simply giving people land is not an enhancer of capabilities. Access to resources would be better facilitated by giving people access to things they need (see section 7.3).
Nonetheless, the history of colonialism, the land grabbing and dispossession that took
place is something that is important to the people of Namibia. However, the intent of the government is to maintain stability (Harring & Odendaal, 2007:14) and the reticence to implement expropriation against white owners, coupled with the peace that persists in Namibia suggests that the issue of race is not as severe as one might expect it to be. In section 2.4 I referred to a quote by Sherbourne (2004:1) which frames race as more important than anything else, however I disagree that this is the problem that it once was in Namibia, and that if development is the goal, addressing economic inequality is a more pressing problem as indicated by the Gini coefficient (section 1.1), which is something that the NRP is not convincingly doing at present. 7.3 URBANISATION AND THE NEXT GENERATION It is telling that one of the first political movements concerned with land reform that has been born against SWAPO is principally concerned with urban land reform. The next generation do not see themselves in a rural setting; urban opportunities are sought as they are across the developing world. That is not to say that addressing the inequality of ownership should not be done in a rural context, however the NRP diverts resources away from the issues that are faced by those people who live in informal settlements in the urban and peri-‐urban areas of Namibia, implying that the 71
relatively successful AALS programme (section 1.4.1) may well be better suited to continue alone. Focusing on house building or further legitimising the situation of informal occupants could be a greater step towards development and the enhancement of the capabilities of many young Namibians. The Affirmative Repositioning movement and the desire of the government to urbanise the country are actually in agreement with each other’s objectives. Whilst their slogan is “we want land” (according to N1), essentially the movement is about housing and is predominantly Windhoek orientated. Given that this is the government’s desire too, a concerted effort to offer more social housing and better regulate the land on which informal housing already exists should be prioritised. This could represent the access to resources to which I referred in section 7.2.
At present the economy is established in such a way that people who were once
dependent upon the rural economy for work are unable to secure long-‐term employment due to their lack of relevant skills (Harring & Odendaal, 2007:28). The fallout of this is forcing people into informal settlements surrounding towns, thus living in precarious positions. If the government seeks urbanisation, they have a population that seems willing to comply, and a population that would benefit from social housing with rates of informal settlements growing (Tjitemisa, 2013). Furthermore, regularising land tenure, currently taking place under the GIZ’s guidance, according to N4 whose department is embedded within the Ministry of Land Reform’s headquarters, gives people greater security on the land on which their home is standing. These areas are effectively townships and with greater security in their situation, gradual investment into permanent settlements will occur, ultimately improving the standard of living of the inhabitants, especially of those in the next generation who have greater aspirations and expect more than occupants currently do. 7.4 KEY POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS The following is a list of key policy amendments and reforms to the NRP that can be deduced from my data, particularly with reference to sections 6.2 to 6.3. The recommendations are inherently subjective and non-‐exhaustive. Furthermore they assume that the overall outcome of the policy should be to enhance the two concepts that I have invoked throughout this thesis, based upon government policy and wider development theory. As such, the recommendations have to be taken in context with the thesis as a whole. 1. Social Equality (see 6.2.1 for argumentation): 72
[a] Increased clarity and specificity regarding selected beneficiaries. [b] Introduction of a minimum criteria requiring beneficiaries be disadvantaged in the context of contemporary Namibian standards. These recommendations are based on the evidence that the criteria for selecting applicants are so wide ranging that they incorporate almost all black Namibians (Harring & Odendaal, 2007:11). Having a more narrow set of criteria would reduce the amount of applications that are made and put less pressure on government agencies to achieve reform. Furthermore, transparency would reduce the amount of land that goes to less disadvantaged but better connected applicants. 2. Economic Sustainability (see 6.2.2): [a] Continued focus upon the more viable FURS model of resettlement. [b] Increased government supervision of resettlement projects, underwriting NGO commitments should they withdraw. [c] Intensive infrastructural investment in group areas and prioritising improvement of current projects over investment in new resettlement farms. These three recommendations advise that the government place more effort into monitoring how farms are managed. At present farms are still owned by the government and so the burden of responsibility can reasonably remain with them with regard to infrastructure. Furthermore while land is in high demand, the government should bear some responsibility to those who do not receive land, through ensuring that those who have are using it responsibly. Before expanding to new farms the government could consider consolidating the infrastructure of current ones. 3. Ecological Protection (see 6.2.3): [a] Where suitable, the granting of permission to landowners to diversify business into wildlife tourism. [b] Enforcement and inspection of land usage with a view to minimising the practice of overgrazing. [c] Permit subleasing in order to assist farmers who need extra carrying capacities. [d] Create a clear delineation of responsibility surrounding water infrastructure between government and landholder with government providing capital to repair if not taking direct responsibility. 73
The first of these recommendations is based on the increase in wildlife numbers that accompanies placing monetary value on wild animals (Novelli & Hellwig, 2011:210) and merely extends a practice that already works in other parts of Namibia whilst allowing farmers to diversify their income streams. Overgrazing is a problem that depletes the land for many years as it can lead to increased bush encroachment (section 5.1) and as such reduces ecological sustainability and economic output. Subleasing would be a viable method of doing this without increased intrusion, as it would enable farmers with more livestock to lease land from farmers with less. Finally the shared resources that are distributed when resettlement occurs need to have clearer responsibility attached to them (section 5.3). 4. Economic Facilities (see 6.3.1): [a] Enact a reform of land tenure to better enable its use as collateral when acquiring loans. [b] Permit subleasing to allow farmers to use excess land in order to raise capital [see 3c]. [c] Contractual protection of the rights of incumbent farmworkers upon transfer of land. Changing the ownership structure in a way that legally allows transfer so that land can be used to raise capital would greatly improve the economic facilities of resettled farmers and allow them to better invest in infrastructural improvement (section 4.6). The precarious nature of farm work in Namibia sees those most skilled lose out from a policy that is intended to improve rural development and their position should be legally considered when resettlement occurs as their loss means that resettlement represents a zero sum gain (Harring & Odendaal, 2007:27). 5. Social Opportunities (see 6.3.2): [a] Enforce obligatory training before and after resettlement to enhance knowledge. [b] Create a formal qualification structure for that training to be delivered along. [c] Improve position of peri-‐urban and urban informal settlements. Many people who gain land do not see the advantages of learning how to improve it. Whilst I have recommended that training be mandated, it would be far better to understand why the free services available are not used, as described by N6 and as was disclosed to me by F527 (see 27
“I cannot remember which year, once I took the training and from there until now I don’t.” [F5]
74
section 6.3.2). Receiving the land in the first place could be seen as a social opportunity but to maximise this then recipients need to better understand how to manage it. Finally, improving the legitimacy of housing for people on the periphery of urban areas would enhance the social opportunities of many more people than land reform currently reached. 6. Political Freedom (see 6.3.3): [a] Encourage and engage with political opposition in order to adapt ailing policies on basis of open feedback and criticism. My last point is one that is difficult to enact however enabling a movement such as Affirmative Repositioning to exist and greater democratic freedoms to persist would serve to enhance all other capabilities within society according to Sen as democracy represents a safeguard (1999:52), which is visualised through figure 3 (section 3.1). 7.5 FUTURE RESEARCH With regard to land reform and the National Resettlement Programme, a key area of research that would better inform the analysis of the policy and its effects would be to collate quantitative data on the farms. It was difficult to gain access to centralised records that pinpoint exactly where the farms are and data surrounding the economic output of farms is not readily available, if it exists at all. With this data, a more informed and quantifiable judgement could be made as to the success of the NRP, which could strengthen arguments for or against the programme. It is quite simply unclear, how much money each farm produces right now.
As was mentioned by one of my respondents (N6 in section 6.3.2), uptake on mentoring
programmes is limited, few of the farmers seek the free advice that is offered by the Farmer Support Programme and as such it is likely there is an attitudinal reason behind this. Qualitative research into these reasons would help understand why sections of emerging farmers do not seek to capitalise on the training that is being offered to them. From my research, I would suggest that this is an issue that concerns personal pride and the rejection that their farm as merely a commercial enterprise to build upon, however a study of this would certainly help inform the FSP so that they can reach and enhance the farming competencies of more emerging farmers. Finally, there is an interesting demographic represented in Namibia and strong “peace and stability” despite Namibia’s lamentable Gini coefficient. It would be interesting to study the Affirmative Repositioning movement, assessing the politics of change amongst Namibia’s youth. 75
The dominance of one party is unlikely to persist within the confines of a democratic constitution. Namibia’s youth increasingly have access to higher education and will begin to question the lack of plurality in their democracy evermore. They are already starting to oppose the SWAPO through demanding access to housing and at present the government have not responded positively to them. However Namibia may experience a great deal more social movements in the near future, studying the political culture of a youth in a one-‐party monopoly could be of interest and inform the emergence of plurality in other settings too.
76
BIBLIOGRAPHY Adams, M. and Devitt, P. (1992) Grappling with Land Reform in Pastoral Namibia, Overseas Development Institute, available at: https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-‐ assets/publications-‐opinion-‐files/5383.pdf [accessed 15 May 16] BBC (2014) Namibian presidential election won by Swapo's Hage Geingob, BBC News, available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-‐africa-‐30285987 [accessed 01 Oct 16] Benda-‐Beckmann, F., Benda-‐Beckmann, K. and Wiber, M. (2006) Changing Properties of Property, Berghan, New York, Oxford Boeije, H. (2010) Analysis in Qualitative Research, Los Angeles, Sage Boudreaux, K. (2010) Community conservation in Namibia: Devolution as a tool for the legal empowerment of the poor, Working Paper No. 10-‐64, Mercatus Center, George Mason University Brown, J. and Bird, N. (2011) Sustainable natural resource management in Namibia, Overseas Development Institute, available at: https://www.odi.org/publications/5185-‐namibia-‐ environmental-‐management-‐wildlife-‐conservation-‐development-‐progress [accessed 15 May 16] Bryant, R. (1992) Political Ecology: An emerging research agenda and third-‐world studies, Political Geography, 11(1), 12-‐36 Bryman, A. (2008) Social Research Methods, 3rd edition, Oxford University Press Bryman, A. (2012) Social Research Methods, 4th edition, Oxford University Press CCF (2014), Livestock Dogs, Cheetah Conservation Fund [online], available at: http://cheetah.org/site/wp-‐content/uploads/2014/02/FactLSGD_FINAL.pdf [accessed 19 Oct 16] Cohen, D. and Crabtree, B. (2006) Qualitative Research Guidelines Project, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, available at: http://www.qualres.org/HomeCrit-‐3517.html [accessed 09 Jun 16] Creswell, J. and Plano Clark, V. (2011) Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research, Ch. 3 Choosing a Mixed Methods Design, 53-‐107, London, Sage De Klerk, J. (2004) Bush Encroachment in Namibia, Ministry of Environment and Tourism, Government of Namibia, available at: http://www.the-‐eis.com/data/literature/ Bush%20Encoachment%20in%20Namibia_deKlerk2004_1.pdf [accessed 01 Sep 16] Douglas, L. and Alie, K. (2014) High-‐value natural resources: linking wildlife conservation to international conflict, insecurity, and development concerns, Biological Conservation, 171, 270-‐ 277 77
ECN (2015) Election results from previous years, Electoral Commission of Namibia [online], available at: http://www.ecn.na/results?p_p_id=110_INSTANCE_nrzCMLdmHB37&p_p_l ifecycle=0&p_p_state=normal&p_p_mode=view&p_p_col_id=_118_INSTANCE_EKKcWjF4wiAR__c olumn-‐2&p_p_col_pos=1&p_p_col_count=2 [accessed 19 Oct 16] Falk, T., Lohmann, D. and Azebaze, N. (2016) Congruence of appropriation and provision in collective water provision in Central Namibia, International Journal of the Commons, 10(1), 71-‐118 Forsyth, T. (2008) Political ecology and the epistemology of social justice, Geoforum, 39, 756-‐764 Fleetwood, S. (2005) Ontology in Organization and Management Studies: A Critical Realist Perspective, Sage Journals, 12(2), 197–222 Garcia, E. (2000) Self-‐organizing complexity, conscious purpose and ‘Sustainable Development’, Environment and Global Modernity, Sage Studies in International Sociology, 50 Gargallo, E. (2010) Beyond black and white: ethnicity and land reform in Namibia, Politique Africaine, 4, 120, 153-‐173 Green, J. and Thorogood, N. (2004) Qualitative Methods for Health Research, Ch. 6 Observational Methods, 1st Edition, London, Sage Grobbler, J. (2016) 'Extreme measures are needed': Namibia's battle with drought comes to its cities, The Guardian (online), Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-‐ business/2016/jul/13/namibia-‐drought-‐coca-‐cola-‐meat-‐construction-‐industry-‐water-‐crisis-‐climate-‐ change [accessed 01 Oct 16] Guba, E. and Lincoln, Y. (1994) Competing paradigms in qualitative research, in NK Denzin and YS Lincoln (eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research, 105-‐117, Thousand Oaks, California, Sage Guillemin, M. and Gillam, L. (2004) Ethics, reflexivity and “ethically important moments” in research, Qualitative Inquiry, 10(2), 261-‐280 Harring, S. and Odendaal, W. (2007) “No Resettlement Available”, an assessment of the expropriation principle and its impact on land reform in Namibia, Legal Assistance Centre, Available at: http://www.lac.org.na/projects/lead/Pdf/exprorep.pdf [accessed 28 Jun 16] Herbstein, D. (2004) Namibia: Jobs and Land, Africa Report, 38(4), 52-‐55, ProQuest Information and Learning Company Hubbard, D. (2003) Namibia: land of the free? Police and public gatherings, Legal Assistance Centre, Available at: http://www.lac.org.na/projects/grap/Pdf/dvfree.pdf [accessed 28 Jun 16] Jänis, J. (2014) Political economy of the Namibian tourism sector: addressing post-‐apartheid inequality through increasing indigenous ownership, Review of African Political Economy, 41:140, 185-‐200 78
Jepson, P. and Canney, S. (2003) Values-‐Led Conservation, Global Ecology & Biogeography, 12, 271-‐274 Johannesen, A. and Skonhoft, A. (2005) Tourism, poaching and wildlife conservation: what can integrated conservation and development projects accomplish, Resource and Energy Economics, 27, 208-‐226 Kahler, J. and Gore, M. (2015) Local perceptions of risk associated with poaching of wildlife implicated in human-‐wildlife conflicts in Namibia, Biological Conservation, 189, 49–58 Kahler, J., Roloff, G. and Gore, M. (2012) Poaching risks in community-‐based natural resource management, Conservation Biology, 27(1), 177-‐186 Kaira, C. (2014) SA sets 'Mad Cow' export conditions, The Namibian (online), Available at: http://www.namibian.com.na/index.php?id=123248&page=archive-‐read [accessed 01 Oct 16] Kaumbi, U. (2004) Namibia: The land is ours!, New African, 28-‐30, IC Publications Kekic, L. (2007) The Economist Intelligence Unit’s index of democracy, The World in 2007, The Economist (online), available at: http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/DEMOCRACY_INDEX_ 2007_v3.pdf [accessed 07 Jun 16] Knutsen, H. (2003) Black entrepreneurs, local embeddedness and regional economic development in Northern Namibia, The Journal of Modern African Studies, 41(4), 555-‐586 Lacey, A. and Ilcan, S. (2015) Tourism for development and the new global aid regime, Global Social Policy, 15(1), 40-‐60 Lindsey, P., Havemann, R., Lines, R., Price, A., Retief, T., Rhebergen, T., van der Waal, C. and Romañach, S. (2013) Benefits of wildlife-‐based land uses on private lands in Namibia and limitations affecting their development, Fauna & Flora International, Oryx, 47(1), 41–53 Loreau, M. (2010) Linking biodiversity and ecosystems: towards a unifying ecological theory, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society B, 365, 49-‐60 Melber, H. (2005) Land & Politics in Namibia, Review of African Political Economy, 32(103), Imperialism and African Social Formations, 135-‐142 Moore, K. (2010) Converting Bush Encroachment Problem into Clean Energy, Bush Encroachment, available at: http://www.bushencroachment.com/namibian-‐solution.html [accessed 01 Oct 16] Muntifering, J., Linklater, W., Clark, S., !Uri-‐≠Khob, S., Kasaon, J., /Uiseb, K., du Preez, P., Kasaona, K., Beytell, P., Ketji, J., Hambo, B., Brown, M., Thouless, C., Jacobs, S. and Knight, A. (2015) Harnessing values to save the rhinoceros: insights from Namibia, Fauna & Flora International, Oryx 79
Muraranganda, E. (2016) AR sympathisers will be ‘flushed out of Swapo’, New Era (online), available at: https://www.newera.com.na/2016/07/07/ar-‐sympathisers-‐flushed-‐swapo/ [accessed 01 Oct 16] Narib, G. (2003) Is there an absolute right to private ownership of commercial land in Namibia?, Legal Assistance Centre, available at: http://www.lac.org.na/projects/lead/Pdf/ privateownership.pdf [accessed 28 Jun 16] Ninnes, P. (2011) Improving quality and equity in education in Namibia: a trend and gap analysis, UNICEF, available at: http://www.unicef.org/namibia/UNICEF_2011_Ninnes_Trends_and_Gaps_ final_combined .pdf [accessed 09 Jun 16] Novelli, M. and Hellwig, A. (2011) The UN Millennium Development Goals, tourism and development: the tour operators' perspective, Current Issues in Tourism, 14(3), 205-‐220 Odendaal, W. (2005a) Our Land We Farm: an analysis of the commercial agricultural land reform process, Legal Assistance Centre, Available at: http://www.lac.org.na/projects/lead/Pdf/ landwefarm.pdf [accessed 28 Jun 16] Odendaal, W. (2005b) Confiscation or compensation? An analysis of the Namibian Commercial Agricultural Land Reform Process, Legal Assistance Centre, Available at: http://www.lac.org.na/projects/lead/Pdf/odendaal.pdf [accessed 28 Jun 16] Phiri, M. and Odhiambo, O. (2015) Namibia 2015, African Economic Outlook, AfDB, OECD, UNDP, available at: http://www.africaneconomicoutlook.org/sites/default/files/content-‐ pdf/AEO2015_EN.pdf [accessed 15 May 16] Ratner, B. (2004) “Sustainability” as a dialogue of values: challenges to the sociology of development, Sociological Inquiry, 74(1), 50-‐69 Riehl, B., Zerriffi, H. and Naidoo, R. (2015) Effects of Community-‐Based Natural Resource Management on Household Welfare in Namibia, PLOS ONE, available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/ PMC4429124/pdf/pone.0125531.pdf [accessed 15 May 16] Rust, N. (2015) Understanding the human dimensions of coexistence between carnivores and people: A case study in Namibia, Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology, available at: https://kar.kent.ac.uk/53866/1/58NRust%20PhD%20final%202015%20human%20dimensions%20 of%20carnivore%20coexistence%20in%20Namibia.pdf [accessed 15 May 16] Rust, N. (2016) Can stakeholders agree on how to reduce human-‐carnivore conflict on Namibian livestock farms? A novel Q-‐methodology and Delphi exercise, Fauna & Flora International, Oryx Rust, N. and Marker, L. (2013) Attitudes towards predators and conservancies among Namibian farmers, Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 18(6), 463-‐468 80
Schlechter, D. (2016) NAU president calls for calm as agri sector faces tough tests, New Era (online), Available at: https://www.newera.com.na/2016/08/15/nau-‐president-‐calls-‐calm-‐agri-‐ sector-‐faces-‐tough-‐tests/ [accessed 01 Oct 16] Sen, A. (1999) Development as freedom, Anchor Books, New York Sherbourne, R. (2004) Rethinking Land Reform in Namibia: Any room for economics?, Institute for Public Policy Research, Available at: http://www.ippr.org.na/sites/default/files/Opinion13.pdf [accessed 28 Jun 16] Sikor, T. and Lund, C. (2009) Access and Property: A question of power and authority, Development and Change, 40(1), 1-‐22 Smit, E. (2016) Govt urges unity among farmers, Namibian Sun (online), Available at: https://www.namibiansun.com/news/govt-‐urges-‐unity-‐among-‐farmers/ [accessed 18 Oct 16] Tjitemisa, K. (2013) 30% of Windhoekers live in informal settlements, New Era (online), Available at: https://www.newera.com.na/2013/11/28/30-‐windhoekers-‐live-‐informal-‐settlements/ [accessed 18 Oct 16] Van der Ploeg, J.D. (2010) ‘The peasantries of the twenty-‐first century: the commoditisation debate revisited’, Journal of Peasant Studies, 37(1): 1-‐30 Vision 2030 (2004) Vision 2030, Government of Namibia, available at: http://www.gov.na/vision-‐ 2030 [accessed 30 May 16] WCED (1987) Our Common Future Chapter 2: Towards Sustainable Development, UN Documents World Commission on Environment and Development, available at: http://www.un-‐ documents.net/ocf-‐02.htm [accessed 19 May 16] Werner, W. (2010) Missed opportunities and fuzzy logic: a review of the proposed land reform bill, Institute for Public Policy Research, available at: http://www.ippr.org.na/sites/default/files/IPPR% 20Brieinf%20Paper%20No%2051%20-‐%20Land%20Bill%20paper-‐final.pdf [accessed 28 Jun 16] Werner, W. (2015) 25 years of land reform, Integrated land Management Institute, available at: http://ir.polytechnic.edu.na/bitstream/handle/10628/533/Werner.%202015.%2025%20Years%20 of%20Land%20Reform.%20Working%20paper1%20ILMI%20(final).pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y [accessed 27 June 16] Werner, W. and Kruger, B. (2007) Redistributive land reform and poverty reduction in Namibia, Department for International Development, available at: http://r4d.dfid.gov.uk/PDF/Outputs/ ESRC_DFID/60332_ Namibia_Country_Paper.pdf [accessed 14 May 16]
81
Werner, W. and Odendaal, W. (2010) Livelihoods after land reform: Namibia country report, Legal Assistance Centre, Available at: http://www.lac.org.na/projects/lead/Pdf/livelihoods_report_a.pdf [accessed 28 Jun 16] Zaccai, E. (2012) Over two decades in pursuit of sustainable development: influence, transformations, limits, Environmental Development, 1, 79-‐90
82
APPENDIX 1 – LIST OF INTERVIEWEES For reasons of confidentiality, a simple nomenclature has been adopted to differentiate between comments from different stakeholders: • NGO and Not for Profit Actors (N) • Union representatives (U) • Farmers (F) • Government Actors (G) • Private Actors (P) – This category constitutes the sole actor with whom I spoke that was privately employed but contracted to advise farmers on behalf of the government. # N1 N2 N3 N4 N5 N6 U1 U2 F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 G1 P1 O1 O2
Interviewee NGO & Not For Profit actors Namibia Nature Foundation Desert Research Foundation of Namibia Legal Assistance Centre GIZ Amos Farmer Support Programme Union Representatives Namibia Emerging Commercial Farmers Union Kunene Emerging Farmers Association Resettlement Farmers Farmer One Farmer Two Farmer Three Farmer Four Farmer Five Government Official One Private Actors Agra ProVision Observations 60km South of Hosea Kutako Airport 60km West of Windhoek City
N.B. Names have been withheld in order to protect anonymity.
83
Sex F M M M M M F M M M F F M M M
Age 40s 37 50s 30s 50s 50s 50s 52 60s 50s 20s 20s 40s 50s 50s
Date 24 Jun 16 27 Jun 16 27 Jun 16 01 Jul 16 07 Jul 16 12 Jul 16 24 Jun 16 07 Jul 16 06 Jul 16 06 Jul 16 07 Jul 16 07 Jul 16 07 Jul 16 07 Jul 16 11 Jul 16 14 Jul 16 17 Jul 16
Location Windhoek Windhoek Windhoek Windhoek Outjo Windhoek Windhoek Outjo Outjo Outjo Outjo Outjo Outjo Outjo Windhoek Khomas Khomas
APPENDIX 2 – INTERVIEW GUIDE All interviews were conducted in a semi-‐structured manner and additional questions were generally asked on top of those that were originally planned, however the following constituted the basis of all interviews carried out over the course of the research. Questions were divided so as to pertain to either sustainable development or capabilities. Questions were asked non-‐ sequentially in order to maintain as best as possible, a rhythm within the interview. Sustainable Development •
Could you describe how land ownership has affected equality?
•
What is the desire to own farmland?
•
How difficult do you think it is to benefit from a land reform scheme?
•
What are the aspirations that you have for your family?
•
Could you describe your own educational background and explain how you think education has changed since independence?
•
How much of a threat is wildlife? How often do you interact with it?
•
Could you talk about the main ecological problems that you face, e.g. water access or grassland depletion?
•
How do you maintain these ecosystems?
•
Which type of livestock do you own?
•
Do you have any other sources of income on top of this livestock?
Capabilities •
How many people do you employ and how did you go about recruiting them?
•
What is your perception of how land reform has helped with poverty?
•
Can someone with nothing expect to benefit from the land?
•
What access to training is offered?
•
What is your own personal background with farming, how did you learn how to farm?
•
What are the main hindrances to accessing capital? How much of a restriction is this?
•
What are your perception of the SWAPO and the government?
N.B. This guide is not exhaustive and questions were added and dropped as was relevant to whom was being interviewed. 84
