Namibia: Resettlement and Development

5 downloads 0 Views 22MB Size Report
Namibian government's position, this thesis takes the position that land reform ..... Republic of Namibia; Vision 2030; Agricultural (Commercial) Land Reform Act, ...
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