Namibia’s National Land Resettlement Programme: Two Steps Forward or One Step Back? (Part 2)

DR TUHAFENI DASILVA HISHITELWA WRITES:Fourth, governance determines public confidence. Transparent selection criteria, published allocation decisions, enforceable rules against subleasing and timely resolution of disputes are essential. The revised policy’s pathway from leasehold to possible freehold ownership may strengthen incentives to invest, but only if performance standards are clear and applied fairly. Without credible monitoring data on farm output, household income and land condition, the country cannot know whether resettlement is generating durable benefits.Press coverage cited in the discussion of transparency and fairness in resettlement land allocation.Concerns about fairness are reinforced by reports that some allocated resettlement farms remain unoccupied while long-standing local applicants continue to wait. In the ||Kharas Region, for example, local stakeholders have alleged that farming units were awarded to beneficiaries from other regions who did not take possession, despite applications from residents who were ready to use the land. Although such claims require formal verification, they highlight why allocation decisions should be publicly explained, consistently assessed against published criteria and followed by effective occupancy and land-use monitoring. Fairness depends not only on who receives land, but also on whether the selection process is transparent and the allocated land is put to its intended productive use.Katjiuanjo’s Four-Year DisplacementDonald Tuarimbara Katjiuanjo, a livestock farmer in the Kalahari Constituency of the Omaheke Region, has reportedly grazed his animals in national road corridors for four years following an unresolved dispute over a family farm. He says he approached the relevant authorities seeking land but remained without a secure grazing area. During this period, his small-stock herd reportedly declined from about 330 animals to roughly 200, with some livestock killed by vehicles. Katjiuanjo has warned that cattle and small stock roaming beside a busy route endanger motorists, truck drivers, herders and the animals themselves, and he has appealed to the Government for a safe place to keep his livestock. The Omaheke governor acknowledged that his office was aware of the case but noted that Katjiuanjo was one of many farmers seeking grazing land and advised him to apply through the formal resettlement process.This case, among others, illustrates a gap between formal eligibility and timely relief. A standard application process may protect consistency, yet prolonged exposure to road corridors can erode a farmer’s productive assets before an allocation decision is reached and can create a wider public-safety hazard. Katjiuanjo’s experience therefore strengthens the argument for transparent waiting lists, clear reasons for decisions, emergency grazing arrangements and priority mechanisms for applicants facing verified displacement or immediate safety risks. It also raises a practical fairness question: whether applicants with urgent, documented need receive an adequate response while some resettlement farms reportedly remain idle or underused.A more realistic approach?The government should set measurable annual targets: Publish hectares acquired, units allocated, infrastructure rehabilitated and beneficiaries supported. Set clear selection transparent strategy in place. If what is achieved cannot be measured, then it did not happen.Fund the whole settlement package: budget for water, fencing, training, extension services, start-up finance and market access, not land purchase alone. Emerging farmers do not have access to finance, let alone market, an inclusion of this starter-pack package will be helpful.Match land to purpose: Use separate models for emerging commercial farmers, communal producers, generational farm workers and highly vulnerable households. These needs to be separated and clearly advertised and allocated separately.Use transparent selection and oversight: disclose criteria, regional allocations and reasons for awards, while providing a credible appeal process.Measure outcomes: track production, income, employment, loan performance and environmental condition over time. If a lack of performance is detected, the programme should make provisions for terminations through a clear and transparent process. Make mentors available to guide the new farmers for at least the first 3 years.Build climate resilience: prioritize water security, drought planning, appropriate stocking rates and diversified livelihoods.CONCLUSIONNamibia’s National Resettlement Programme is realistic as a long-term, targeted instrument of land reform, but unrealistic if presented as a rapid or stand-alone solution to landlessness, poverty and historical inequality. The revised policy contains sensible reforms, yet its success depends on sustained financing, competent administration and serious post-settlement support. The true test is not how many farms are handed over, but whether beneficiaries gain secure tenure, productive livelihoods and resilience. If the government links redistribution to transparent governance, adequate investment and measurable results, the programme can make steady contributions to justice and rural development. If those conditions are absent, it will remain politically important but economically fragile.* Dr Tuhafeni DaSilva Hishitelwa holds a PhD in Management Strategy and is a renown strategist, Farmer and a Researcher. He writes in his personal capacity. He can be reached on hishitelwat.dasilva@gmail.com.

Namibia’s National Land Resettlement Programme: Two Steps Forward or One Step Back? (Part 2)

Kommentaar

Republikein 2026-11-10

Meld asseblief aan om kommentaar te lewer

Namibia’s National Land Resettlement Programme: Two Steps Forward or One Step Back? (Part 2)

Kommentaar

Republikein 2026-11-10

Meld asseblief aan om kommentaar te lewer

Intekening vereis om toegang tot inhoud te kry. ×

MELD AAN

Advertensie

Intekening vereis om toegang tot inhoud te kry.