Namibia's Land Redistribution Programme: a Case Study Of
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Namibia’s Land Redistribution Programme: A Case Study of Steinhausen (Okarukambe) Constituency in Omaheke Region Prisca Mandimika Student Number: 3114511 A mini-thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Master in Philosophy in Land and Agrarian Studies Institute for Poverty, Land and Agrarian Studies (PLAAS) Faculty of Economic and Management Sciences University of Western Cape (UWC) Supervisor: Professor Ruth Hall December 2020 http://etd.uwc.ac.za/ Declaration I declare that “Namibia’s Land Redistribution Programme: A Case Study of Steinhausen (Okarukambe) Constituency in Omaheke Region” is my own work. All other sources used or quoted have been indicated and acknowledged by means of complete references. This thesis has not been submitted for a degree at another university. Prisca Mandimika 9 December 2020 Signature http://etd.uwc.ac.za/ii Acknowledgements This study was completed with the guidance and support of Professor Ruth Hall whose work on land issues gave insight to my study. I equally recognise Carla Henry for all logistical and moral support and the GIZ and the Belgian Embassy for financial support. In addition, I am grateful to the Ministry of Land Reform in Namibia for authorisation and access to the study area and records. My colleagues, Ndeshihafela Nekundi, Gerson Aileka, Amalia Iithete, Marvin Sisamu and Mclesia Mbaisa, thank you for technical support and documentation. I am also indebted to Swithun, Paurai and Tanaka for technical and moral support. Lastly my profound appreciation to my father and grandfather who picked me up and reminded me of the perils of unfinished business, without whose support I would not have finished this study. http://etd.uwc.ac.za/iii Abstract As a means to assuage historical land inequities, resultant socio-economic disparities and poverty alleviation, the Namibian Government undertook to reform the land sector. Guided by the Constitution and the Resolutions of the 1991 Land Conference policy and legal framework, a fractured consensus is built on the rationale to redistribute land to a targeted group. Parallel to the reform agenda, systemic challenges to the resettlement process are growing amid questions on Government’s ability to respond to sustainable programme objectives embedded within land reforms. Literature coalesces on the issues of land-reform programmes having lost direction, being skewed in favour of a few, being biased towards commercial agriculture, and requiring review and re-configuration to be inclusive and to satisfy equity and poverty- alleviation concerns. This study seeks to understand who has been benefitting from land reform by analysing the processes and procedures of identifying beneficiaries prioritised for land allocation, and institutional structures for implementation, while analysing how they produce and reproduce class differentiation and the attendent livelihood trajectories. Using qualitative research conducted in one case study site (Okarukambe constituency) the views of the small- scale farmers who benefitted were solicited. Additionally, the experiences and views of institutions and officials involved in land allocation at regional and national levels are taken into account. Theoretically the study draws from the livelihoods approach to find out the different categories of the small-scale farmers who have benefitted. Reforming land ownership structures and tenure systems is complex and ever-evolving due to diverse rural communities and land needs, thus the study benefitted from Cousins’ (2011) class analytical perspectives on small-scale farming in framing and defining the farmers who benefitted. The categories described by Dorward et al. (2009) are also referenced when analysing the broad types of strategies pursued by the farmers who have benefitted and the impact land reform has had on their livelihoods. The study highlights a skewed land-allocation process and procedure in favour of well-resourced beneficiaries due to a flawed system which excludes the poor and objective of equitable access to land. The study indicates that access to land is not sufficient for sustainable livelihoods vis-a-vis the lack of post-settlement support. The conclusion urges the creation of a comprehensive, inclusive agrarian structure which contributes to equitable access to land. In the absence of this, implementing land reform would be in vain. Key Words: land reform, beneficiary selection, resettlement, livelihoods, selection criteria, poverty, small-scale farmers, land redistribution http://etd.uwc.ac.za/iv List of Acronyms and Abbreviations AALS .............Affirmative Action Loan Scheme ACLRA ..........Agricultural Commercial Land Reform Act ANC ...............African National Congress ECFU .............Emergency Commercial Farmers Union FAO................Food and Agriculture Organisation. FTLRP............Fast Track Land Reform programme GDP................Gross Domestic Product GTZ ................German Technical Cooperation ID ...................National Identification Document LAC................Legal Assistance Centre LADF .............Land Acquisition and Development Fund LRAC .............Land Reform Advisory Commission LSCF ..............Large Scale Commercial Farms MLR ..............Ministry of Land Reform NAU ...............Namibia Agricultural Union NEPRU ..........Namibian Economic Policy Review Unit NGOs .............Non-Governmental Organisation NNF................Namibia Nature Foundation NNFU .............Namibia National Farmers Union NPC ................National Planning Commission NSA................Namibia Statistics Agency NUST .............Namibia University of Science and Technology ODA ...............Official Development Assistance. PLAAS ...........Institute for Poverty Land and Agrarian Studies PLAS ..............Proactive Land Acquisition Strategy PTT ................Permanent Technical on Land Reform RoN ................Republic of Namibia RRC................Regional Resettlement Committee SARPN ...........Southern African Regional Poverty Network. SIDA ..............Swedish International Development Agency SLF ................Sustainable Livelihood Framework SLLDP ...........State Land Lease and Disposal Policy http://etd.uwc.ac.za/v SWAPO..........South West Africa People’s Organisation TA .................Traditional Authority http://etd.uwc.ac.za/vi Table of Contents Declaration................................................................................................................................ ii Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................ iii Abstract .................................................................................................................................... iv List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ..................................................................................... v Table of Contents ................................................................................................................... vii List of Figures ......................................................................................................................... xii Chapter 1: Introduction and Methodology ........................................................................... 1 1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Background and the Land-Ownership Structure in Namibia ................................... 1 1.3 The Dawn of Namibia’s new Land Policy .................................................................... 2 1.4 Statement of the Problem .............................................................................................. 3 1.5 Specific Objectives of the Study .................................................................................... 4 1.6 Rationale for Choice of the Study Area ....................................................................... 5 1.7 Research Methods .......................................................................................................... 5 1.8 Case Studies .................................................................................................................... 6 1.9 Key Informants ............................................................................................................... 6 1.10 Selection of Participants .............................................................................................. 7 1.11 Methods of Data Collection ......................................................................................... 7 1.11.1 Literature review...................................................................................................... 7 1.11.2 Field interviews ....................................................................................................... 7 1.11.3 Observation .............................................................................................................. 8 1.12 Data Analysis ................................................................................................................ 8 1.13 Ethics ............................................................................................................................. 8 1.14 Significance of the Study.............................................................................................. 8 1.15 Limitations of the Study .............................................................................................