Land and Livelihoods in Namibia

Essays from the Economic Association of Namibia

1

Land and Livelihoods in Namibia
Essays from the Economic Association of Namibia

2018

Windhoek, Namibia

2

Land and Livelihoods in Namibia: Essays from the Economic Association of Namibia

First published in 2018 by Economic Association of Namibia (EAN)
www.ean.org.na
Email: info@ean.org.na
Tel. +264 81 1559775

Authors: Economic Association of Namibia
First published 2018
Copyright in text and images: Economic Association of Namibia
Design and layout: Gerhard Crafford, John Meinert Printing
Printed by John Meinert Printing
ISBN 978-99945-87-97-1

3

Preface
The Economic Association of Namibia (EAN) has published a great number of articles on issues
of economic importance in Namibia over a number of years. Many of the articles relate to mat-
ters concerned with land and livelihoods, which are issues that feature heavily in our debate and
discourse. This booklet reproduces those articles in a single volume, for ease of consumption and
reference.

For many years, the Association has espoused the benefits of focusing on policy interventions
that unshackle the potential of the Namibian people, catalysing this potential towards greater
development, building capacity and wealth, and ultimately breaking the chains of poverty and
inequality that continue to hamper far too many Namibians. Key interventions such as improv-
ing access to ownership of urban land (rather than providing houses); increasing land owner-
ship opportunities in communal areas; enhancing access to savings mechanisms; stimulating
cash-multipliers in rural societies; and strategic, evidence based, intervention and restitution on
communal and commercial land form but a few of the proposals tabled by the EAN.

Many of these proposals are now being given the consideration that they clearly deserve. The
EAN is proud of its contribution in making these and other proposals, as well as its track record
of sparking discourse and debate to improve the lives of Namibians, however challenging these
debates may be.

In this regard, the EAN regularly takes an independent and objective position on critical and
emotional issues, where such views are founded in research and evidence. However, at the same
time, the Association appreciates the human, often emotional, factors at play in decision making
and public opinion.

This booklet on Land and Livelihoods comes at an important time, as the Namibian economy
shows lacklustre performance at best, and as unemployment, inequality and poverty show unde-
sirable trends. The contents of this booklet provide extensive insight and recommendations on
policy interventions and options that can help lead Namibia out of these challenging times.

Some positions taken by the authors of the articles, all members or associates of the EAN, have
been challenged by commentators, politicians, and, of course, other economists. After all, as the
old joke goes, if you have two economists in a room, you are bound to have at least three opin-
ions. However, more and more, we see a movement towards these ideas and proposals as key
solutions to some of Namibias pervasive socio-economic challenges. In large part this is because
the articles in this booklet are all products of extensive thought and study into critical issues, and
often challenge conventional wisdom and views. This is indeed the aim of the Association, and
as ever, we trust that they will spark debate and discussion, ultimately helping to shape Namibias
policy environment for the betterment of the Namibian people.

Finally, it is a pleasure to acknowledge the long-term support provided to EAN by the Hanns
Seidel Foundation (HSF), Namibia Media Holdings (NMH) and The Namibian newspaper.

Rowland Brown, Chairman: Economic Association of Namibia
September 2018

4

5

Contents

Preface 3
URBAN LAND AND MIGRATION 7
Rural-urban migration a blessing in disguise 7
Urban migration: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly 8
Too Poor to Own Land 10
Namibias housing problem is not hard to address 11
Why do so many Namibians have to live in urban shacks? 12
Windhoek: A Tale of Two Cities 14
House prices not just expensive, but unaffordable 17
Would a Land Value Tax reduce the housing backlog? 17
Why is Namibia changing rapidly from a rural to an urban society? 18
Public spaces create business opportunities 20
How Manhattan solved its housing problem in the 1800s 21
Housing market moves to buyers market 23
Roads vs Streets: the Economic and Social Cost 24
INCOME AND INEQUALITY 26
The myth of the lazy poor 26
One small, but big aspect of the Basic Income Grant 27
The multiplier effect of Basic Income Grants 28
How about a Basic Nutrition Grant instead? 29
Is food security more important than cash security? 30
Perpetuating inequality on a daily basis 32
Most Namibian families cant own land! 33
Not the source, but the level of income matters 34
How do rural people save and invest traditionally? 35
What is the purpose of property rights? 36
The cost of bypasses 38
Transport services, jobs and motor cycles 39
RURAL LAND AND FARMING 40
Should tenure systems still govern land uses, or vice versa? 40
Capital or revenue: the use of land by wealthy, urban livestock owners 42
We will die communal 44
Strip the Emperors clothes: the façade of the rural 47
What is the purpose of livestock in Namibia? 48
Crop farming on communal land: maximising production or minimising risk? 49
The Business of Land Grabbing 51
What is land reform all about, or what could it be? 52

6

7

URBAN LAND AND MIGRATION

Rural-urban migration a blessing in disguise
By Klaus Schade, published by NMH as an EAN Business 7 contribution, 8 March 2017

Namibias urban population increased from 28
percent of the total population in 1991 to 47
percent in 2015 and is expected to rise further
to 60 percent in 2030. This trend is not unique
for Namibia, but can be observed in developing
countries across the world. The visible signs of
this trend are among others the mushrooming
informal settlements at the outskirts of towns.
Rural-urban migration is often perceived as being
negative, because of these shacks.

However, there are a number of positive aspects
to it as well. Providing basic services such as
education and health facilities, water & sewerage,
electricity, communication and transport is less
costly in densely populated areas than in rural
areas with a dispersed population. In addition
to easier access to these services for the urban
population, other government services such as
civil registration, business registration, drivers
licenses, etc. are more accessible to the urban than
the rural population.

One other important aspect is often overlooked.
While rural unemployment was lower than urban
until 2012, this has changed. Since 2013, the
urban unemployment rate dropped below rural
unemployment at an increasing margin. Major
public and private sector construction activities
since then suggest that the trend has continued
until recently when the construction boom came
to an end. The regions that experienced the high-
est population growth rates between 1991 and
2011, namely the Erongo and Khomas regions,
were the regions with the lowest (Khomas) and
third lowest (Erongo) unemployment rate in
2014. Although average per-capita consumption
in both regions increased below national average,
the Khomas region remained the region with the
highest per-capita consumption followed by the
Erongo region. It can be assumed that the high
per-capita consumption conceals strong differ-
ences between the consumption of the poor and
rich.

This brief snapshot, however, suggests that
administrative and industrial centres have the ca-
pacity to absorb migrants, integrate them into the
formal or informal labour market and create
income and wealth. Although policies are needed
to develop rural areas in order to address poverty
and to raise the standard of living, these policies
will not stop rural-urban migration. In order to
manage the consequences of migration better, we
need to develop medium- to long-term strategies
in line with the population projections to provide
the necessary infrastructure such as housing,
transport, water, electricity, health and education
facilities. The timely provision of infrastructure can
mitigate the negative consequences of migration, such
as poor housing conditions and hygienic standards,
lack of safety and lack of basic services. Last, but not
least, we need policies that incentivise domestic and
foreign direct investment and job creation in order to
provide rural migrants with opportunities to improve
their standard of living and live a meaningful life.

8

Urban migration: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
By Martin Mendelsohn, Published in The Namibian, 14 September 2018

Over 50% of the world is urbanised. Namibia is
just under that, although we are fast approaching
this landmark. All conventional wisdom shows
that urbanisation is highly correlated with many
development indicators, such as education,
wealth, and health. However, there is a fear that a
flood of urban migration will result in huge stress
on infrastructure and services. Dread and the
need to keep rural people out, leads to stigmatiza-
tion, which is detrimental to us as a nation. But,
do we really understand what supporting urban
migration may or may not mean for Namibia?
Lets consider the repercussions of allowing, dis-
couraging or facilitating urban migration.

The first scenario: continuing along the current
path: Given present trends, the urban influx will
not stop. Soon, the number of informal urban
houses will equal the formal houses and then
outnumber them. Thus, most Namibians living
in urban areas will soon be living on land they do
not own, with no, or minimal services. There are
several good reasons why allowing migration to
continue in this manner would be a terrible thing.

The cost of providing minimal services will con-
tinue to increase without a reciprocal inflow into
local authority revenues. Thus, less money will be
available for all urban priorities.

More importantly though, are the immediate
concerns for those living without access to land.
Generally discussed in terms of poverty, health,
and education, it would be better if we thought
of human lives. The lifespan of someone living
informally is shorter than that of someone living
formally. This is because there is no access to

clean running water, a toilet, shower, adequate
protection from the elements, and security, all
of which affects the span of a life. In this envi-
ronment, the spread of disease is hastened, and
lifespans are shortened. By denying people oppor-
tunities to create decent housing for themselves
through denying them access to land, we choose
to shorten their lives, we implicitly allow them
to die. Continuing this status quo is unacceptable.

The second scenario: What if we discouraged
urban migration by strengthening rural devel-
opment instead? Much Namibian development
policy is already focused on the rural and this is
not inherently bad. But our rural areas are dry,
soils unproductive, and distances to markets far.
Across our continent, people living rurally are
worse off than urban dwellers, and Namibias
rural areas are at a comparative disadvantage to
most of the continent. Can we realistically expect
that rural Namibians would have a good quality
of life?

Rural development is also more costly than ur-
ban. Supplies need to be transported and people
travel further to access goods or services so, time
and cost are increased. Qualified, motivated staff
who want to live and work outside of urban areas
are also harder to find.

Continuing a focus on rural development is not
cost effective. It keeps many Namibians poor,
contributes little economically, and peoples lives
are much harder than they could be otherwise.
We should not ignore rural development, but our
prime focus should fall where the benefits of our
interventions will be greatest, in urban areas.

9

The third scenario: What would happen if we
resolved to embark upon a policy of urbanization
- to provide all current migrants living informally
as well as all new urban migrants with a piece
of land? Financially this is feasible. Most unde-
veloped urban land owned by local authorities
is free and currently without value. To provide a
minimally serviced erf costs about N$50,000. Giv-
en that our defence budget was around six billion
Namibian dollars this year, spending half of this
would provide 60,000 erven serviced with water,
electricity and sewage. As a result, an extra 60,000
families would have access to water, electricity
and sewage. Or, 204,000 Namibians would have
lives significantly better than they have today. At
this rate, every (current) urban Namibian house
now without legal access to land and opportunity
could gain a piece of land in just 3 years.

But would the free provision of erven not incite
a flood of urban migration? This may happen,
but it is not known for certain. People will only
move with the hope of improving their lives. By
saying that land should not be provided to stop
the influx of people, we are admittedly actively
trying to keep people poor if it wasnt better
they wouldnt want to come. This sounds like
Apartheid.

City dwellers fear of being swamped by rural
Namibians causes them to forget that urban
population growth, coupled with provision of
land would be good economically, socially, and
environmentally. Economically, things happen
in cities. There are many opportunities to start
businesses and to build wealth almost all inno-
vation occurs in urban areas. New tenured land

will decrease property and rent prices and create
wealth overall a rent bill will do the same but
destroy wealth. People who previously had noth-
ing would have an important capital asset. As they
improve their land, its value will increase further.
At present, the land that they live on (and do not
own) has negligible value. It cannot be sold or
used as collateral. But most importantly, there is
very little reason to spend money to improve land
that one does not own! Not only does building
a brick structure and investing in long-term
improvements add financial value, it improves
quality of life and lifespan. The beneficial effects
of urban living are further enhanced through
increased access to social services at a reduced
cost per person. Such services are also within
easy reach and can accommodate many more
people. The economy is also strengthened more
when a dollar is spent in an urban area, where it
jumps quickly from hand to hand. This benefits
each person along the way, creating more jobs.
The result is increased taxes, which lead to the
provision of better services to people and more
economic growth. In every way, urban life allows
incremental gains.

Last, but not least, there are environmental
benefits. Having people move to urban areas frees
productive land, allowing it to be farmed more
efficiently or used for conservation or tourism
(which is increasingly valuable).

The provision of urban land is quite possibly the
most cost-effective, dignified, easiest, and best
long-term solution to economic, social, and envi-
ronmental development we have in Namibia. This
should be our priority.

10

Too Poor to Own Land
By Martin Mendelsohn, Published by NMH as an EAN Business 7 contribution, 31 May 2017

North Central Namibia is interesting, and
exciting for so many reasons. For me the best is
driving through the informal clusters of small
colourful cuca shops, flats, brick-makers, restau-
rants, tailors and more.

While not perfect, tenure arrangements allow
people to create these clusters of enterprise. Trad-
ers have enough security and confidence to build
their businesses. Owners invest in their enterpris-
es; growing them from tin into formal structures,
and adding value to the local and national econ-
omy. Property is informally titled but permanent,
protected.

Fast forward to modern Windhoek (and other
formal towns) and informal is forbidden. You
might say that it is good that there is no room for
informal chaos or scruffy businesses in Wind-
hoek. But cumbersome (and very old) red tape,
obsessions with unrealistic standards, and the
need to supply costly services before tenure all
slow land provision and drive up its prices. These
are the tools we use for development but they
keep the poor, poor. They stop those living infor-
mally from building better lives for themselves.

We can learn from the North by giving indi-
viduals a piece of land where they can build an
enterprise, build a home, and build a life. All this
can be started without individual water, sewerage,
electricity or even a proper road.

Just 4 pegs are needed to mark where each
property starts and ends, this gives everyone big
reason to add and create value. Perhaps people
arent given the best services straight away, but
their lives today are better than yesterday. The
other stuff will come later, what they have today is
something, yesterday they had nothing.

People move to towns for services and to create
wealth. The city should be giving them a chance
to do this, to benefit themselves, the city and the
country. Giving individuals the right to proper-
ty (a basic human right) today will solve more
problems in the long run than not doing so now,
because from today wealth that will grow in
future will be created.

If we wait another 10 or 15 years informal num-
bers will rise even more, no value will be created,
and the city will be trying to support an even
greater poor population that has been excluded
from the opportunity to create wealth for them-
selves. Give every resident a piece of land and the
opportunity to make Namibia a rich country&
for everyone.

11

Namibias housing problem is not hard to address
By Rowland Brown, published by NMH as an EAN Business 7 contribution

Namibia has fewer houses than families, with
roughly 25% of our population still living in
improvised housing. This basic fact forms the
cause of enormous consternation, frustration and
suffering in the country. The root cause of this
problem is simple: we have been woefully inade-
quate in our provision of serviced land, particu-
larly in and around Windhoek. This undersupply
has driven the shortage of housing, which has
in turn resulted in the major price increases to
which we have been witnesses over recent years.
The consequences of these shortages are exten-
sive, complicated and at times, dire - but their
cause is simple.

The undersupply of serviced land stems from one
key factor: we have entrenched monopolies in
the supply of serviced land in urban areas. The
various municipalities are exclusively responsible
for deciding what land gets serviced and when. As
is often the case with monopolies, a perverse in-
centive exists for these institutions to undersupply
the market, as this drives prices up, and as a result
we get exactly what one expects from a monopoly
bad service at a high price.

Addressing this issue is simple, however. By
removing the monopoly over servicing land, a
competitive market would both increase its avail-
ability, and reduce its price. This simple approach
would take the weight of addressing the issue off
Governments shoulders, and would also likely
reduce the time it takes to address the shortfall.
Moreover, for less than 3% of the national budget
expenditure over a 10-year period, every Na-
mibian could be given a piece of serviced land
on which to build. In my mind, this would be
the most effective development activity Namibia
could undertake, helping the people to build a
capital asset for themselves, reducing poverty now
as well as intergenerational poverty, reducing in-
equality and addressing many social, educational
and sanitation issues all at once.

12

Why do so many Namibians have to live in urban shacks?
By John Mendelsohn, published by NMH as a Market Watch contribution, 3 August 2018

Namibia had roughly 10,500 urban shacks in
1991. By the end of 2018, there will be about
150,000 of them, with approximately 15,000
shacks being added each year. At that rate of
growth, there will be more urban shacks than all
formal urban houses and all rural houses by 2025.
That is just eight years from now.

This enormous growth is due to the influx of ur-
ban migrants, but migration itself isnt a problem.
Nor should it be thought of as one. The problem
is rather that central and local government have
done little to accommodate people moving to
towns. Since independence government and
NGO housing programmes have only managed to
provide an average of 1,100 plots of land in towns
per year (some of these have included houses).
This is less than 8% of the average annual growth
of urban shacks. Why has so little been done to
accommodate urban migration?

At least part of the failure to act stems from
assumptions and ignorance about a variety of as-
pects of land, housing and society. First, much of
our thinking about housing is clouded by misun-
derstandings on why rural people move to town.
We are surprised by the scale of urban migration,
often assuming that migrants would be better off
staying at home in rural areas.

Our assumptions are driven by a poor under-
standing of the limited productivity of Namibias
rural environment, and just how hard it is to eke
out a living from farm produce. Food self-suffi-
ciency may sometimes be possible in communal
areas, but cash needs must be met from off-farm
sources, such as pensions, local retail, business,
and remittances. This is why most people move
to towns to make a better living for themselves
and to send money home to family members who
remain in the village.

Needs for cash incomes are also underestimated.
Clothes, modern medicines, access to transport
services, mobile phones, cosmetics, et cetera all
require cash. All Namibians now compete in this
cash-based consumer society but living rurally
makes this near impossible. Small wonder that

urban life is increasingly attractive, as discussed
in the essay on page 18.

To the misconceptions that rural life is attractive
to the poor, have been added assumptions by our
political leadership that Namibias economy and
future is rooted in agriculture. Much development
policy has thus fixated on rural development and
farm production, leaving very little on job crea-
tion or on urban development. Namibia would
gain much if our politicians understood soil fertil-
ity, crop yields, carrying capacity, drought, input
costs, market access or other factors that affect the
productive potential of rural areas.

Second is the problem of prejudice. We who are
privileged are unsettled by the many lower-class
arrivals from communal areas. We fear more
crime, poverty, social unrest, environmental deg-
radation and littering. We are told these people
dont belong in towns, that they are simple people,
with negligible needs for income or cash security.
Racial divides have been replaced by class divi-
sions, which are flagrantly demonstrated by the
contrasts between informal and formal housing
areas in many Namibian towns.

Third, many observers have almost no idea of the
scale of migration and the expansion of shacks.
Demand for housing is often said to have out-
stripped its supply, implying that demand has
grown in some unnatural, unexpected way. Subse-
quently, demand is cast as the antisocial problem,
a view strengthened by our discomfort with de-
mand being driven by lower class migrants from
communal areas. If there were less prejudice and
more understanding of the reasons for urbanisa-
tion, much more would be done to increase the
supply of properties.

Fourth, our knowledge of life in informal set-
tlements is limited and we often make negative
assumptions about their nature. On the one hand,
there is much to dismay us, but there is also
much to appreciate. Here is the energy, enterprise
and spirit of community often quite lacking in
formal urban areas. It is also a fallacy to assume
that poverty and environmental degradation in

13

informal settlements is greater than in rural areas.
The difference is that squalor is concentrated and
visible in informal settlements, whereas it is dis-
persed and harder to recognise in impoverished
rural areas.

Rural environmental degradation is also easier on
the eye, for instance when we focus on fields of
green crops but fail to note that fields have been
cleared by deforesting natural areas.

Fifth, local authorities deliberately limit the sup-
ply of land that would be affordable to most urban
migrants because larger profits can be generated
by regulating the supply of land. Thus, priority is
given to selling land for middle to lower income
housing. This is also much more profitable to the
land and housing developers and others who ob-
tain lucrative commissions and kick-backs from
the developments. Most poor shack-dwellers have
therefore been left landless. In a less profiteer-
ing environment, local authorities could instead
provide land first and services later, thus giving
people a formal base from where they can begin
to be an active part of the formal economy.

Sixth and finally discussion is concentrated on
the problem of housing and migration. That there
are challenges is obvious, but migration should be
viewed positively particularly in Namibia.

It provides opportunities to reduce poverty, to
foster entrepreneurship and small businesses, to
provide better services more efficiently to larger
congregations of people, and to provide property
which brings investment openings, security, con-
fidence and better access to collateral.

When people own property, they become home
owners, and they also become new tax and rate
payers. In short, urban areas offer Namibia the
best chances of reducing her poverty and growing
her wealth.

Urban migrants vote with their feet, and hun-
dreds of thousands have cast their votes over the
years. Many more are coming. Perhaps we should
listen and respond to the voters who will soon
otherwise occupy more shacks than other houses
in our democracy!

©Raison

14

Windhoek: A Tale of Two Cities
By Martin Mendelsohn, published in The Namibian, 28 September 2018

One may think of Windhoek as a city, but there
are two distinct cities within it. Each has their
own administrations, and functions very differ-
ently. One is reputedly the cleanest city in Africa,
the other is not.

In one of these cities administration is done col-
lectively, but with minimal authority. It is char-
acterized by naturally structured urban growth,
large numbers of new businesses, and public
spaces that are full of people. Many parts of this
Windhoek are compact and as a result energy is
concentrated here, whether it is in the form of
movement or money, because interconnection
helps to form communities. You might find this
sort of energy and vibrancy in the plazas, high-
streets and markets of old cities across the globe.
But this Windhoek is not without its problems.
No one who lives here can own their land, and so
they cannot invest any of their savings into im-
proving it. Here, no rates and taxes are levied, so,
no one has access to water, sanitation or electrici-
ty in their homes. Common or public space is not
upgraded and no value is added to it. Despite the
high levels of energy these Windhoek residents
are often very poor because they cannot build
their own wealth or that of their neighbourhood.
This is the informal city of Windhoek. Making in-
expensive but incisive changes to this city would
dramatically improve the lives of its residents. If
they could own the land they live on, they could
pay towards improving their common environ-
ment and their access to infrastructure.

The other Windhoek is much more static and
inflexible. It has grown far less. Its administration
is highly structured, centralized, and dominat-
ed by regulation. This city focuses on providing
ideal ready to go urban land or housing, or not
providing it at all. In contrast to the informal city
it relies on regulation to control development
and create strict order. This order is regulated by
enforcing minimum standards, designed as a one
size fits all approach.

The city separates businesses from residential
properties, ensures that buildings are surrounded
with open spaces and limits their size uniform-

ly across the city. Buildings are set back from
the streets to create more space. All shops have
to provide spaces for parking, but not paved
sidewalks for pedestrians. All streets conform to
a minimum width and all new sidewalks make
up a width within that street. Even the smallest
streets are divided into sidewalks and lanes for
cars. There is empty space everywhere: excessive
road reserves, public spaces or reserved for future
development, but these are seldom used. The reg-
ulations are well intended but they spread things
out and slow the growth of the city.

All the order dissipates the energy within the city,
spreading it and the people within over much
greater areas. Thus large parts of formal Wind-
hoek have a public environment that is vacant,
where opportunities for new economic and resi-
dential growth are prohibited and disincentivised.
The dispersed people in this city dont interact
with neighbours in the street there is little
opportunity to meet them in these vacant places.
As a result, a sense of community and identity is
seldom developed in this city. These provisions
make changing of land uses slow and difficult,
slow economic growth and ensure the exclusion
of many. This is formal Windhoek.

The two cities of Windhoek have both been cre-
ated by people, but they operate very differently.
In formal Windhoek most residents have access
to services, and if they have the money they can
own the land they live on. The public realm is
maintained by the rates that the city collects. As a
result of access to services and ownership, many
Namibians who live in informal Windhoek would
dearly like to move to formal Windhoek. How-
ever, the cost of recreating formal Windhoek is
unsustainably high. This makes it almost impos-
sible yet formal Windhoek continues to believe
that its backward regulation is the answer.

A large part of formal Windhoeks slow growth
is a result of following strict land use regulation.
Conversely, informal Windhoek grows at the
speed it needs. It has been created, and is remade
daily, autonomously. It is based on a free mar-
ket that relies on economic opportunity and the

15

negotiations within communities to decide where
and what happens in its spaces. This means that
shops and high streets form naturally where there
is real demand, and spur economic growth. The
two cities are extreme in the different ways they
approach land use management.

It is now widely accepted amongst planners
globally that the form of land use regulation used
in formal Windhoek is highly problematic. But it
is not feasible to adopt the laissez faire approach
from informal Windhoek. Instead, Windhoek
should approach regulation based on creating
forms or intensity, and providing incentives rath-
er than uniformly limiting all of these and land
functions. The city will also need to approach
the way in which common space such as streets
are formed more flexibly. It is neither viable nor
necessary to provide large accesses to the tightly
knit communities such as those already found in
informal Windhoek. These changes in strategy
are widely and successfully implemented else-
where in the world. They are thus tried and tested
and completely viable. Changing our outdated
approaches will allow people across the city to
respond rapidly to the demand for land uses as
and where they arise. Thus we, too could create a
better human-scaled environment that provides

more equal opportunity if it were not for current
regulation.

At 2016 estimates, there were approximately
42,000 houses in informal Windhoek. If each per-
son were given the land they live on, and taxed no
more than N$150 per month, the city would gain
an extra revenue of about N$75,000,000 per year.
At present, many of these residents pay rentals of
around N$500 to lease houses on land that is not
owned by the city.

If Windhoek is to be a successful, good city that
meets the needs of its populace, that provides
opportunities, and is financially stable, it must
take qualities from the two cities of Windhoek.
The dynamism and public realm of informal
Windhoek is of a form that builds good commu-
nities and provides equal opportunities to all its
citizens. At the same time, it is essential that the
residents of informal Windhoek be provided with
the opportunity to own land and gain access to
infrastructure and public space which is managed
and improved. This will allow the citizens living
in informal Windhoek to start to build wealth,
wealth which will benefit not only them, but the
city, nation, and generations to come.

©Development Workshop Namibia

16

House prices not just expensive, but unaffordable
By Daniel Kavishe, published by NMH as an EAN Business 7 contribution, 30 June 2016

The issue in Namibia that most consumers are
facing is that house prices are simply not afforda-
ble. Your salary needs to have increased by at least
52% in order for you to have comfortably bought
the same type of property that was sold in the
market in 2007. This is according to the FNBs lat-
est affordability tracker which looks at real wages
versus increasing prices of housing utilities and
other consumer expenses.

The affordability report was prompted as a result
of the fast paced growth in property prices and
looked at more than just housing. In Namibia,
an average consumers income would have to
increase by 30% in order to afford water comfort-
ably and by 40% in order to afford electricity.

The data further suggests that for the housing
market to remain profitable for those who are
leasing property, rental figures would have had to
quadruple since 2007 in order for most investors
to get decent returns from their investment.

On an annual basis this suggests that consumers
salaries would have had to have been adjusted
by inflation plus an additional 8% in order for
them to adjust to the rising prices of houses. This
adjustment would also have allowed consumers to
comfortably afford water and electricity and other
basic goods and services.

If you couple all of the above with a rising debt
servicing ratio as reported by the Bank of Namib-
ia, an average consumer in the housing market is
simply not a happy camper.

17

Would a Land Value Tax reduce the housing backlog?
By Klaus Schade, published by NMH as an EAN Business 7 contribution, 1 November 2017

Much has been said and written about the lack
of housing in Namibia that is often linked to the
slow pace of serviced land delivery. In addition,
high land prices and high costs of servicing land
limit the affordability of housing. However, we
do not use serviced land optimally. Some mixed-
use developments in Windhoek where the lower
floors are used for commercial purposes such as
shops and offices, while the upper floors are used
for residential purposes indicate a shift in the use
of a scarce resource serviced land.

However, in the suburbs, we are continuing to use
land sub-optimally by constructing single-family
houses. The costs of providing basic infrastruc-
ture to family houses are high. Every house
needs to be connected to the sewerage, water
and electricity infrastructure and be accessible
by a road. Increasing the density of buildings
such as the multi-storey flats in and near the city
centre would reduce the costs of infrastructure
per household since the same length of a road,
water or sewerage pipe and electricity cable would
serve many more households than is currently
the case. At the same time, the higher density will
accelerate the supply of residential space, since
the new infrastructure enables the construction of
multi-storey flats instead of single houses.

Tens of families can be accommodated on space
that is currently occupied by two or three fam-
ilies. Denser residential areas also increase the
viability of public transport, since a bus stop will
serve more people and hence can attract more
customers than in the case of family houses.
Alternatively, they reduce the need for travel-
ling, since the workplace, the shop or the service
provider is just around the corner or even in the
same building.

The introduction of a Land Value Tax could
provide incentives for developers to plan suburbs
differently, increase the density of urban land and
reduce the cost and time of delivery of housing.
It is not only the buildings on the land, but the
land itself that has a value owing to its proximity
to other facilities. The tax is based on the value
of the land, less the value of the buildings on that

land. Therefore, the higher the value of the build-
ings, the lower the tax base and consequently the
amount of tax paid. The value of the buildings
will increase with increased density. Hence, the
introduction of a land value tax could result in a
more optimal use of a scarce resource serviced
land and accelerate the supply of housing at
lower costs.

18

Why is Namibia changing rapidly from a rural to an urban society?
By John Mendelsohn, published by NMH as a Market Watch contribution, 30 June 2018

Namibia is changing rapidly, from a society cen-
tred very largely on rural livelihoods to one based
on urban jobs and homes. The dimensions of
the change are substantial, and the questions are
many. What drives rural people to towns? Why
is cash security becoming more important than
food security? Why are small nuclear families
replacing traditional extended family networks?
Why do people forsake the multiple ownership of
village land and capital for individual ownership
of properties?

In the early 1900s, about 10% of all Namibians
lived in towns. That percentage had grown to 25%
by 1981, and to 32% in 1991, one year after in-
dependence. Since then, urban populations have
skyrocketed further: in 2016, 48% of all people
and 55% of households were in towns, according
to the results of the most recent Inter-Censal
Demographic Survey.

Yet, few of us seem to understand fully why these
changes are happening. And many deny the
extent or permanence of the changes. Migration
is seen to be a mistake, especially when appar-
ently serene rural settings are compared with the
squalor in informal settlements. Some leaders
have even suggested the need to reinstate influx
control, or the need for the poor to be returned
to rural areas. Much of this ignorance and denial
comes from class prejudice.

There is now a real need for Namibia to grasp
the push and pull between rural and urban life.
It is not going away. The sooner there is a clear
understanding of the changes the better. Several
challenges in rural areas push people towards an
urban life, while other advantages pull people
towards it.

Lets start with circumstances in rural areas.
Namibia has very little arable soil, let alone soil
that is properly fertile. About half the country is
covered in sterile, wind-blown sand, while much
of the rest consists of extremely shallow soils
overlying solid rock. Our climate is also largely
against farming, mainly as a result of high rates of
evaporation, low rainfall and its irregular, unreli-
able nature.

As a result of our poor soils and harsh climate,
yields of rain-fed crops are the lowest in Africa
(see https://datamarket.com/data/set/1noc/mil-
let-yield-kg-per-hectare). It simply doesnt make
sense for a farmer to invest in fertilisers and costly
inputs if the risk of harvest failure is high. In good
years, small-holder farmers store any surpluses as
savings in case future harvests fail. Crop produce
is therefore generally not for sale. Small-scale
farming like that in Namibia is characterised by
risk aversion and prudence, adaptations quite
opposite from those in farming systems that max-
imise production for commercial gain.

Livestock farming is also tricky. Again, our soil
and climate work against us. Large areas are
needed to support economically viable numbers
of cattle, goats or sheep. Moreover, most livestock
are kept as savings, security or investments, as
will be explained in the next article. These ani-
mals are not for regular sale and do not contribute
to their owners incomes. Relatively few people
can therefore be supported by livestock farming
or keeping.

As a product of all these constraints, most rural
people have and almost certainly always will have
few means to earn any incomes, let alone ones
that provide for the necessities of the 21st Cen-
tury. Rural homes may be food secure, but cash
security and the type of life that can be lived with
money is often a distant dream.

Access to above-average education, health and
other public services is also limited in rural areas.
Facilities may be present, but most professional
and dedicated public servants prefer to live in
towns. Towns offer better services, jobs, careers
and business opportunities. Town folk have
comforts that are normally impossible to have in
rural areas, and they have figurative and literal
connections to the rest of the world. These are
the pull factors of urban life a better life, where
there is money to be made (including money to
send home for family members who remain in
the village).

19

The various circumstances that cause people to
leave their rural homes and build new lives in
towns are not going to change soon. Indeed, they
will be fuelled by our growing compulsion for the
consumption of bought goods, and they may be
exacerbated by changes in climate.

These circumstances also provide perspectives
on how long people will be in towns; under what

conditions they wish to, or should live; and what
sort of property rights they should be able to
acquire.

There is also no doubt that urbanisation offers the
rural poor their best escape from poverty.

The sooner our cities and towns are prepared to
welcome our rural compatriots the better.

©Raison

20

Public spaces create business opportunities
By Klaus Schade, published by NMH in an EAN Business 7 contribution, 15 August 2017

The purpose of urban development and planning
is not only to provide serviced or un-serviced
land for business or residential purposes and
to provide necessary infrastructure (transport,
water, electricity, communication). It should also
support social cohesion, innovation, creativity, as
well as business and employment opportunities
though. Instead of separating residential from
businesses areas, which consequently results in
increasing demands for transport services and in-
frastructure, these should be combined in mixed
developments including residential (low to upper
income), office and light manufacturing areas as
well as public services such as education, health
and civil registration and other amenities such
as shops. Such a design would reduce the need
for ever larger roads separating neighbourhoods
and incentivise other forms of transport includ-
ing non-motorised transport (walking, cycling).
Furthermore, increasing the density of residential
areas by building multi-storey flats will not only
increase the efficient use of scarce serviced land,
but will reduce construction costs and increase
the viability of public transport since bus stops
serve a larger number of potential passengers.

In addition, urban planning needs to create public
spaces in neighbourhoods and city centres, where
people from all walks of life can mingle. Beyond
connecting people within neighbourhoods, public
spaces can create new business opportunities.
For instance, closing the Independence Avenue
in Windhoek between the Hilton Hotel and the
Kudu for traffic (only allowing access for deliv-
ery vans in the early morning hours and small
municipality busses during the day) will not only
reduce air and noise pollution and would most
likely increase the value of properties because
the centre becomes even more attractive but
it could create opportunities for a number of
income-generating activities and make the centre
more lively: Musicians could play their music and
sell their CDs, fashion designers can display their
latest creations, acrobats can entertain the public
and receive a token of appreciation, artists can sell
their crafts and paintings and other vendors all
kind of other things to locals and tourists. More-
over, the newly created space can attract special-

ised small shops, cafés, restaurants, etc. that all
create jobs and generate income (and maybe even
generate tax revenue).

The same holds for the proposed (dry) river walk,
promoted a few years ago that would run from
the Goreangab Dam to the Avis Dam. It will
not only connect very diverse communities and
strengthen social cohesion, create space for out-
door activities, but again provide income-generat-
ing opportunities like in the proposed pedestrian
mall. A more innovative, creative and inclusive
approach to urban development will ensure
that we create sustainable cities in line with the
Sustainable Development Goal 11 and create
business opportunities.

21

How Manhattan solved its housing problem in the 1800s
By Martin Mendelsohn, published in The Namibian, 25 September 2018

New York started as a small settlement on the
island of Manhattan, at the mouth of the Hudson
River. Before it was named was New York, it was
New Amsterdam. The settlement ran from the
southern tip of the island to the north, where a
defensive wall stopped the town from growing
any further. Along this wall ran a street that you
may have heard of Wall Street.

The Wall Street boundary didnt last for long
though; large numbers of migrants were moving
to New York, much as they do to Windhoek or
Oshakati today. The settlement doubled in size
from 30 000 to 60 000 people between 1790 and
1800, expanding in the only direction left on
the island, northwards. More people flooded in,
searching for new, better lives. The formal town
simply couldnt grow fast enough.

Many of the farms on the rest of the island of
Manhattan started to divide their land into por-
tions, to sell them as private towns. The admin-
istration started to explore other options to solve
the housing crisis. In 1811 the Commissioners
Plan was created. It planned a regular grid of
evenly sized blocks and plots to cover the entire
island. The available, titled land in New York
quadrupled overnight! Of course, the construc-
tion of new streets and the provision of services
developed much more gradually. Although none
of the infrastructure and amenities existed, land
and title were immediately made available to
those who wanted it. The plan was the largest ever
undertaken in New Yorks 350 years. Its brilliance
in acknowledging the incremental, constantly
changing nature of cities which need to be well
structured, was pivotal in creating one of the larg-
est, wealthiest metropolises in the world!

The use of a simple grid in planning the city was
pivotal to its success. A simple street grid provides
equal opportunities to people and shortens dis-
tances between different parts of the city evenly.

Initially there was no zoning scheme in New York,
so restrictions over what people could do with
their land were minimal. If there was an oppor-
tunity or demand to open a business, school, or

apartments you could do that on your property.
A natural spatial order has developed in Manhat-
tan that has been able respond to changes in de-
mands for different land uses flexibly. Manhattan
now has a zoning code, but this was introduced in
1926. Almost half (40 percent) of the buildings in
the city today contravene this code and could not
have been constructed if it had been in place.

Another crucial decision in the planning of New
York had to do with plot size. The entire city
was laid out with plots that ranged in size from
between 185 to 240 square meters. You can still
see this today in the size of apartment buildings
across the city. The approach meant that there was
enough land for everyone. It also created densi-
ty that turned land into a commodity, spurring
development, providing equal opportunity, and
enriching the people and the government.

In New York many plots are roughly half the size
of the smallest permissible residential plots in Na-
mibia, yet they house many more people. These
small and numerous plots encouraged fast growth
and facilitated the rise of valuable apartment
blocks and businesses, With humble beginnings
small plots arranged in a simple grid New York
developed into one of the most successful cities
of the world, that is worth 1,7 trillion US dollars
today - over 100 times our GDP.

The restrictive regulation that a single residential
erf may not be smaller than 300 m2 is supposedly
a soft regulation, requiring simple ministerial
approval to create smaller plots. But this is not the
case. In several instances, this process of simple
approval has been drawn out over years, thus
denying people the dignity of owning a piece of
land. In truth, general residential properties in
Namibia smaller than 1,000 square meters are
seldom permitted and the number of people that
they are allowed to house is heavily restricted.
This stifles economic growth and means that
many in the city go without land.

Most of the current Namibian planning is subject
to stringent land use zoning, hierarchies of streets,
and restrictions on accesses and erf sizes. These

22

overly strict regulations not only stifle growth,
but also disproportionately favour the wealthy
and connected who can afford and have the
knowledge to buy, rezone and negotiate for larger
well-located pieces of land - to then develop or
sell them on at a profit. Much of this regulation
has been created and is maintained by the Minis-
try of Urban and Rural Development. In this way
the ministry has actively reinforced the economic
inequality in Namibia and kept many Namibians
poor and without land.

There are a few simple steps that we can imple-
ment immediately, and viably. Many of these
are regulatory, they require removing outdated,
prejudiced standards such as minimum erf size
requirements and harsh zoning requirements.
Others require longer term enactment, like the
provision of land on a grand scale. For many
decades, many Namibian migrants have lived in
towns without secure access to land or economic
opportunities. How much longer will our minis-
tries and government keep them without it?

©New York Public Library

23

Housing market moves to buyers market
By Daniel Kavishe, published by NMH in an EAN Business 7 contribution

The recent downturn in the economy has invari-
ably led to a significant structural dip in the con-
struction sector. This is evidenced in the market
through lower demand for infrastructure projects
and with fewer building plans being approved.
The result of the recession, although unknowing-
ly, has further led to a drop in property prices as
consumers shy away from participation due to
the uncertainty of the current market. Persistently
weak economic growth, rising unemployment
and weak household disposable income growth,
have begun to weaken property prices.

Month on month, property prices have been con-
tracting since December as the sector continues
to fumble to generate any meaningful growth. The
pressures are highly concentrated in the upper
price segments, which remain oversupplied, at a
time when demand is retreating. This has led to
growth in property prices declining from 24%
annual growth in 2014 to the current 6% on an
annual basis. Meanwhile, the volume of transac-
tions have decreased for the past 17 consecutive
months with 95% percent of owners selling their
property for less than their initial asking price.
This has caused prospective sellers to either
hold on to their properties, or settle for a price
potentially lower than the propertys valuation.
There further seems to be a shift in behaviour as
property stands spend an average of 25 weeks on
the market compared to 17 weeks recorded last
year. The recent switch has meant that the market
has moved from being a sellers market to a buy-
ers market.

According to the Estate Agency Survey, overall
activity in the market is down 37% annually.
Furthermore, most sellers are selling their prop-
erties due to either financial stress or to move into
lower-priced apartments, strong signs that the
market is under stress. Although interest rates are
unwinding, the expected deleveraging will keep
price movements in check, with possible down-
side risks from the mass housing program, as
1,942 mass housing units are ready for occupation
and a further 4,012 are currently under construc-
tion. Furthermore, current discussions around the
rent control bill can be seen as one of the reasons

that fewer people are buying property with the in-
tention to let with fears that the property may no
longer serve as a strong investment tool compared
to other asset classes. The premature implementa-
tion of the loan to value restrictions has addition-
ally discouraged buyers from the market acting as
a further catalyst to the slowdown.

The mounting pressures to the property market
will, therefore, serve as a natural correction to
the previously buoyant growth in prices. Whilst
property prices are expected to remain positive
due to the enormous backlog that exists in the
market, certain towns and market segments will
definitely experience a drop in the average prices.
A more cautious approach is therefore expected
from potential buyers and investors.

24

Roads vs Streets: the Economic and Social Cost
By Martin Mendelsohn, published by NMH in an EAN Business 7 contribution, 13 March 2017

A few years ago, I read that Namibia has the
highest number of deaths per capita from vehicle
accidents in the world. I decided that there proba-
bly arent statistics for the worse off places, but its
something thats been bothering me ever since&
Ive slowly come to realise why Namibia may have
such a high traffic fatality rate. Its our streets.
They arent streets actually; theyre roads.

Take a walk down Robert Mugabe Avenue and
you will clearly see that most vehicles drive much
faster than the legal speed limit. Then take a walk
down a residential street and youre likely to see
the same thing. If you walk often enough youll
soon realise that our streets arent safe for anyone
and are largely empty. A busy street would be a
safer street. This means that much of our public
space is not public space but excluded, empty
space. Places in the city where no one really wants
to be or go to, that arent comfortable, or safe,
great places for crime where there are only walls
to watch you and a BIG waste of space! Of course,
Im not only talking about roads. River beds face
the same challenges. To fix these spaces we need
people to use them, but no one is going to use
places that are not designed to be comfortable.

But so what! you say, It is important that cars
can move quickly to get to the distant places
they need to go, so that people can do things.
To this, I say that these places are so far away, in
part, because of how wide our streets are. The
more space they take up, the more spread out and
distant everything becomes. The more spread out
everything becomes; the more cars are needed
and the longer they are on the roads for. The more
cars on the road for longer, the more our roads
become congested. This is induced demand, and
its only going to get worse in Namibia.

Another common argument is that our roads
need to be wide for engineering services, but
numerous studies across the world have shown
that the extra cost of maintaining and installing
all those extra miles of engineering services cost
a great deal more in the long run than building
more compactly. Emergency vehicles also need
wide roads to get from place to place, but other

studies have shown that more people die from the
wide roads catering for emergency services than
are saved by them, and prevention is far better
than treatment!

Do a calculation- decrease the width of a road
reserve and youll soon realise that in Windhoek
we waste tens of square kilometres on residential
streets that will never need to be as wide as they
are. This cost most affects the vulnerable; those
who spend large amounts of their incomes on
transport, and who have to travel farther to get
to work than the wealthy. So building like this
creates and sustains inequality. It also affects the
economy of the country as a whole because of the
amount of money that we need to spend import-
ing all this extra fuel. In past years this fuel has
been the second largest import cost to Namibia!

New roads are built all the time, wide and fast and
are planned to be wider than ever in Windhoek.
After building them we inevitably realise that
traffic is too fast, so we spend more money build-
ing speed humps which do little to calm traffic
except over very short distances. Studies have also
shown that the ideal width of large arterial roads
is between 2.8 and 3.0 meters per lane, but even
Windhoeks smallest streets have lane widths of
3.5 meters. Such wide lanes actually create more
traffic and increase road fatalities! If we made
roads narrower they would slow traffic, making
them safer for everyone, saving money, and space.
Many of the most successful and beautiful cities
on the planet have 10 times as many people living
in them in the same area as Windhoek and have
narrower roads, so it is feasible! The structure that
a city has affects a great deal more than we realise
on a daily basis.

If we think about the most comfortable and
successful spaces for business and society they
are pedestrian areas. In Namibia, they are the
malls, markets or arcades. These are some of the
few places that provide opportunities for entre-
preneurs. They are great for people because the
widths between shops are designed to make you
feel comfortable; something you wont easily find
on a Namibian street! It is possible to make streets

25

like this; where cars can go, but that are public
spaces for people to enjoy. Roads with fast cars are
walls, and our city is built to support these walls
and keep people separate. That time should have
passed 26 years ago, lets start building to bring

people together. We have so much potential to
change things for the better, to innovate and use
the latest ideas to create spaces which encourage
economic growth and social interactions, places
for people to live, work, and play in.

©Development Workshop Namibia

26

INCOME AND INEQUALITY

The myth of the lazy poor
By Emit Kiberd, published by NMH in an EAN Business 7 contribution, 20 May 2016

The governments stated war on poverty and
accompanying policy proposals such as basic
income grants and the solidarity tax, have opened
a national debate on the virtues of social grants to
the poor. Surprisingly, the idea has gained trac-
tion, particularly among wealthier segments of
Namibian society, that cash grants to the poorest
in our society will only engender laziness and
dependence.

There is no international evidence to support this
opinion. A 2015 comparison by MIT economists
of cash grants in six countries showed no impact
on whether the recipient was employed or how
many hours they worked.

Perhaps this is to be expected. If you rely solely on
the current N$1,100 per month pension for your
income, for example, is it reasonable to expect
that you would turn down a chance to improve
your income by working? A modest income
supplement should not significantly disincentivise
working.

Moreover, cash grants can be made conditional
on socially desirable behaviour, such as ensur-
ing ones child attends school or is vaccinated. A
growing body of evidence is showing such condi-
tional cash transfers to be an important tool for
accelerated development and poverty alleviation.

This is not to say that social grants of this kind
are a panacea for all the worlds ills. A conditional
cash grant may improve attendance at school,
but final educational outcomes will only improve
if the underlying education system is addressed
simultaneously.

Cash grants in themselves will not lead to full
employment, but they can remove some of the
stubborn barriers to prosperity.

27

One small, but big aspect of the Basic Income Grant
By John Mendelsohn, Letter to the editor published in The Namibian, 6 August 2010

Recent discussions on the proposed Basic Income
Grant (BIG) have attracted a variety of sweeping
statements: about creating dependency, about
productive workers being exploited by the lazy,
about social responsibilities, justice and equality
and, of course, about poverty reduction. (Some
of the problem in this debate may actually stem
from the very concept of poverty reduction
which has now become so all-embracing that its
punch has been lost. Everyone now seems to be
an expert on poverty.)

However, a small but critical point has been
missed in all this discussion. This is the intention
of BIG to bring to the poor of Namibia the very
resource that largely defines and traps them in
real poverty. The resource is cash!

Few of us have any idea of how crucial $100 in
cash can be: the contacts that can be re-estab-
lished with $10 of phone credit, having medical
care for a child after paying a $15 taxi fare, or for
paying $50 for a shirt to replace the torn, grubby
garment that everyone sneers at.

Cash enables. Even a little money opens doors,
raises status, esteem and confidence, and provides
access to the simplest commodities: salt, sugar,
newspapers, school shoes, clean water and a
mattress. These are things that we all simply take
for granted. Indeed, we could not imagine life
without them and, notably, we rich people often
spend less than $100 a month on them. Yet for the
poorest in Namibia who have no access to cash,
these essentials are beyond reach. And without
cash, it is virtually impossible to enter the world
of the employed or self-employed. (This is why
micro-lending services - such as the Grameen
Bank and Angolas KixioCredito - are so effective).

One problem is that many of us assume that $100
is too insignificant to make a difference. However,
I challenge anyone to go without the basic com-
modities that we use every day and buy for less
than $100 a month.

Another problem is our fixation on food secu-
rity to reduce poverty. Rural Namibians are told

to grow food to be food secure. Rural residents,
especially those in communal areas will then have
full, rounded bellies, and it is believed that their
poverty will have been reduced. Paradoxically,
this advice always comes from well-endowed
people who just happen to use cash to buy all
their own food.

But what of the basic needs of rural people to
have money for decent clothes and means of
communicating, for example? These are ignored
by those of us in towns that wallow in our cash
incomes. Are there two goal posts in this coun-
try: food security for the rural poor and financial
security for those with access to cash in towns?
Surely double standards were abolished when
Namibia became independent?

It is common sense that every Namibian needs
cash security, and the need for cash is often des-
perate. Food worth $100 is not the same as $100
in cash! If our Namibian leadership would recog-
nize this, the debate could proceed more usefully
on how financial security can be achieved. One
possibility is to increase social welfare pensions
as a way of getting cash to the poor and in wider
circulation. I suspect also that the countrys over-
all economic health would benefit from a greater
spread of financial security.

Whatever decisions are made regarding the Basic
Income Grant, it is clear that Namibia needs Big
thinking and Big action for the many citizens
who dont have the $3 to buy this newspaper or to
make a phone call about a job.

28

The multiplier effect of Basic Income Grants
By Angela Huettemann, published by NMH in an EAN Business 7 contribution, 20 May 2016

The debate surrounding the introduction of a Ba-
sic Income Grant (BIG), a universal and uncondi-
tional cash transfer to Namibians below the age of
60, has sparked up again after President Geingob
took office.

Much research has been done surrounding the
effects of cash transfers, both conditional and
unconditional. The International Monetary Fund,
the World Bank and various research institutes
find general reductions in poverty and positive
impacts on health, crime, employment and school
enrolment rates in the recipient communities.

In order to assess BIGs in a holistic manner,
positive externalities need to be taken into con-
sideration as well. Rural communities are often
characterized by credit constraints which trap the
poor in subsistence farming or informal labour.
A Basic Income Grant yields the opportunity to
relax this constraint.

According to economic theory, specifically the
Keynesian fiscal multiplier effect, increases in
income lead to surges in consumption and in-
vestment spending. This, in turn, leads to higher
incomes in the communities, which reinforces or
multiplies the initial effect and induces further
consumption and investment. The impact is
anticipated to be strongest in communities where
liquidity is highly constrained.

Applying this to poor rural communities in
Namibia means that the BIG has the potential to
increase levels of liquidity through induced local
consumption and investment. The initiative there-
fore essentially delivers the basis for higher levels
of economic activity and the empowerment of the
poor.

To assess the suitability of an income grant in Na-
mibia, these effects, therefore, need to be carefully
scrutinized.

29

How about a Basic Nutrition Grant instead?
By Jan-Barend Scheepers, published by NMH in an EAN Business 7 contribution

There has been much talk about the Basic Income
Grant (BIG) in Namibia, and elsewhere, however
an alternative option worth considering is a Basic
Nutrition Grant (BNG).

One of the pressing issues facing Namibias devel-
opment is widespread undernutrition throughout
the country, particularly amongst children under
the age of five.

Namibias arid and sparsely populated landscape
makes producing, transporting and storing fresh
produce difficult, which in turn makes food
insecurity and under-nutrition more pronounced.
In addition, the importance of the correct nutri-
tional balance, particularly for young children, is
often poorly understood. Culture, mainly due to a
historic lack of availability, undoubtedly also plays
a role in the absence of nutritional education,
which is further compounded by the compara-
tively high costs of nutritional produce.

A BNG, as opposed to a BIG, could be beneficial
in that it could potentially limit the possibility of
the grant being used for less beneficial consump-
tion (e.g. alcohol) and ensure that funds from the
grant are used to buy nutritional produce, thus
fulfilling one of the most basic human needs.

Furthermore, a BNG could ensure that children
receive adequate nutrients, which is essential for
their cognitive development, potentially lower-
ing the high rates of underweight and stunted
children, not to mention improving educational
outcomes across the board.

Applied correctly, a BNG can also go a long way
in the nourishment of vulnerable women in both
rural and urban areas, thus improving mean BMI,
energy and iodine deficiency.

Over the long term, investing in a nourished
populace can lead to a healthier and competitive
workforce, thus breaking cycles of poverty, as well
as reducing the burden on the health sector.

30

Is food security more important than cash security?
By John Mendelsohn, published by NMH as a Market Watch contribution, 31 August 2018

A recent search in Google for the exact phrase
food security came back with a whopping
24,500,000 finds, while income security pro-
duced a list of 1,820,000 hits. Cash security
trailed way behind with only about 284,000 items.

Very different numbers. The content of the pages
at the top of the search lists was also starkly
different. Sites and references concerned with
food security typically focus on poor people and
poor countries having enough nutrition, whereas
pages on income largely deal with the certainty of
having an income in the long-term. Pages on cash
security, by contrast, mainly talk about thieves,
safes and protecting your money. This was sur-
prising since food, income and cash security are
so related. But Google and others (Namibians
included) see them worlds apart: cash security
troubles those who have much cash; food security
is a concern for the poor who have little food; and
income security is about long-term needs for an
income, such as a pension.

And so it is with so many perspectives, poli-
cies and development programmes in Namibia.
Much focus is on food security. That is what the
poor need, and that is what they will get: in food
packages, seeds, fertilisers, implements, farm-
ing training, baskets and pots. Come what may,
self-sufficient food security is the goal. Rural
people are even persuaded that food security can
be achieved in places where it is impossible to
grow food economically or sustainably. Much of
this perpetuates and promotes poverty.

Even customary land rights if people are lucky
enough to have them in communal areas forbid
the use of land for commercial purposes. Instead,
land held for customary occupation may only be
used for residential and domestic food produc-
tion purposes. To be fair, it is possible for rural
residents in communal areas to have leasehold
rights which could be used for commercial pur-
poses. But then again, these are never offered as
an option because the Ministry of Land Reform
assumes that residents dont need commercial
rights. This has been the attitude and practice for
16 years since the introduction of the Communal

Land Reform Act in 2002. Again, how much of
this perpetuates, if not promotes, poverty?
We are also reminded that there is no point in
giving the poor cash because we believe they dont
really need to buy much. The poor are simple,
ignorant people who need food and little else.
Besides, any money they get is spent on alcohol.
They dont know any better. It is on the basis of
these sorts of attitudes that the Namibian gov-
ernment dismissed proposals for a Basic Income
Grant (BIG) years ago, and now has food packag-
es handed out by the Ministry of Poverty Allevia-
tion & Social Welfare in an attempt to reduce pov-
erty. Sincerely, however, Namibia does a great job
in providing social grants to the elderly, orphans
and disabled. In that, there is much to rejoice.

In another blast of prejudice, we believe that rural
residents in communal areas dont need to use
land as investments. They live in 38% of Namib-
ias homes. How often do we hear the nuanced
comment that such simple people really live day-
to-day? They dont need to, or cant plan ahead we
are told! For that reason, communal land need
not be traded and therefore has no investment
value. The same is true for the quarter (26%) of
Namibian families who live, but cant own land
in informal settlements. But recall that livestock
have long served the need for investments, capital
and savings by people in Africa. That continues
today in the keeping of millions of cattle, goats,
sheep and poultry by non-farmers living in
Windhoek and other towns.

What evidence do we have that the poor are
stupid, irresponsible and with no need for long-
term capital? On what evidence do we assume
that day-to-day nutrition is their most pressing
need? Why cant people have the options that cash
provides: to buy food, or medicine, or blankets,
or taxi fares to a hospital, or cell phone credit to
telephone for a job or advice from an uncle? Most
modern necessities are as important to the poor
as they are to the rich, especially in being able to
get ahead: find a job, be mobile, look presentable,
find a spouse, have children and to communicate
with family and friends who provide social capital
or support.

31

Namibian society is moving rapidly from a rural,
subsistence environment to one based on incomes
and consumerism in urban environments. Nutri-
tion is needed, but so are cash incomes, and more
so in towns. Unlike food security, cash security
provides options for both: to buy food and other
necessities of life. Options available to different
groups during apartheid were not equal because

it was then believed that some people were better
than others. That was bad! But the same belief has
guided many perspectives, policies and pro-
grammes in the same vein for the last 28 years.

Namibia should ensure that different socio-eco-
nomic classes have the same options. That would
be good!

©Raison

32

Perpetuating inequality on a daily basis
By Klaus Schade, published by NMH in an EAN Business 7 contribution, 9 August 2017

Reducing income inequality has been one of
Namibias national development objectives since
independence. Although some progress has been
made using the Gini-coefficient as a measure,
much more needs to be done. High income ine-
quality is not only detrimental to social cohesion
and social development, but also to economic de-
velopment. The better off in society spend a large
share of their total income on imported goods
and services, while the poorer people purchase
more domestically produced goods, but can often
not satisfy their needs. A more equal distribution
of income would result in increased demand for
local products and consequently in job creation.

Income inequality needs to be tackled on various
fronts. On the macro level, we need the right pol-
icies that incentivise domestic and foreign direct
investment in sustainable, genuine businesses as
well as the creation of decent jobs. We need to im-
prove the quality of education in order to empow-
er the younger generation to become successful
in life and contribute to income and job creation.
There are other factors that contribute to income
inequality, but that do not receive attention.

One area is wages and salaries. While some in top
management reportedly receive an annual guar-
anteed salary increase of 10%, the large majority
of employees have to fight for an inflationary
adjustment usually below 10%. However, the
currently published average inflation rate is only
a crude measure, since it covers vastly different
consumption patterns caused by different income
levels. For instance, high food price inflation
affects poorer households more, since they spend
a larger share of their total consumption on food
than more affluent households. Calculating addi-
tional inflation rates for low, middle and high-in-
come groups would provide more guidance for
salary negotiations. Moreover, performance
bonus payments that are several times the average
annual income in Namibia paid to management
only further cement inequality. This practice is
questionable, not only at institutions that are
continuously dependent on state bailouts, as
achieving certain targets usually depends on the
contribution of other employees as well.

Likewise, the habit of automatically increasing
rental fees annually by 10% is not in line with the
income increase of most tenants and hence wid-
ens the income gap between lessors and lessees.
There are many more examples in daily life,
including the fencing in of communal land, the
allocation of land for residential, agricultural or
business purposes and the allocation of licenses,
that prevent us from making more progress in
reducing inequality.

Addressing these areas is relatively easy since they
do not require new policies or new legislation.
Breaking with these practices is in the hands of
individuals who could play their part, as small
as it may seem, in contributing to a more equal
society.

33

Most Namibian families cant own land!
By John Mendelsohn, published by NMH as a Market Watch contribution, 6 July 2018

Sixty-four percent or two out of three Namibi-
an families cannot own the land on which they
live. The figure of 64% is based on data collect-
ed during the 2016 Inter-Censal Demographic
Survey and 2011 Population & Housing Census.
Thirty-eight percent of these families live in com-
munal areas where the law forbids the ownership
of land. The other 26% are in urban informal
settlements where local authorities seldom make
land available which is affordable to lower income
groups. These families, therefore, occupy land
that belongs to local authorities, while those in
communal areas occupy land that de facto belongs
to traditional authorities.

What are the impacts on families unable to own
land? How is the economy of Namibia affected
by these laws and regulations? Before consider-
ing those questions it is useful to note that the
legal and governance procedures which prevent
land ownership in communal areas and towns
were adopted after independence, and that they
generally benefit the upper class. By 2018 the total
number of families not able to own land will have
risen to about 371,000, about 60 times more than
all the commercial farms in Namibia. The scale
of the problem thus goes way beyond questions
of land distribution. Moreover, this is a matter of
ownership and not access.

Major beneficiaries of the status quo are tradi-
tional authorities who can dispossess families of
the land they occupy, sell and lease properties,
and donate land to political patrons. In urban
areas, local authorities limit the supply of residen-
tial land. This inflates prices so much that only
relatively expensive housing and services can be
developed, providing handsome profits to proper-
ty developers and their allies.

Returning to the question of impacts, families
that cant own property lack access to a combi-
nation of benefits. These are significant. Property
can be used as a long-term investment in its own
right, and to create short-term options that are
not easily available to people without investments.
Ownership provides a fixed address, credentials,
greater permanence of tenure and the confidence

to build a future and a home (as opposed to a
house), it provides greater access to services as
well as to collateral. Aspects of these benefits are
described in the essay on page 36.

Increased property ownership would benefit Na-
mibias economy in several ways. Public revenue
would increase because more property owners
would be available to pay rates and taxes, and
property addresses will increase the tractability of
defaulters. Investments in property would grow
the overall wealth base of Namibia, thus creating
more taxable revenue and capital. The opportuni-
ties to invest in properties would reduce spending
on luxury imports and reduce the flow of revenue
leaving Namibia. Imagine a family that owns a
house on a small plot. Any surplus income could
be saved and invested in the house: to add an
extra room, give the house a coat of paint, fix a
leaking roof, or to pay off more on a mortgage.
The family gains a potential return on every dollar
thus spent, unlike disposing of the same dollar on
an imported car, or sunglasses or shoes.

Surely the time is right and ripe for Namibians
to replace the discriminatory conditions that
preclude many people from land ownership with
ones that allow every family the choice of owning
land or not. And if families so choose, they must
be able to stay in their present physical and social
environment.

The key is choice, creating options and allowing
opportunities now closed to most Namibian
families. These are needed increasingly as society
evolves from a predominant focus on communal
networks and customary leadership to socio-eco-
nomic conditions in which nuclear families and
accountable governance prevail. Besides, it is
morally right for all Namibians to enjoy equal
opportunities.

34

Not the source, but the level of income matters
By Klaus Schade, published by NMH in an EAN Business 7 contribution, 1 August 2017

Benjamin Franklin reportedly said that there were
only two certainties in life: death and taxes. Taxes
have been with us for many thousand years dating
back to ancient civilisations including many in
Africa. Taxes have been collected to finance pub-
lic services ranging from safety and security (po-
lice, military) to health, education and other vital
infrastructure, and have been used to redistribute
wealth. Some see paying taxes as the responsibili-
ty of every citizen, the Tax Justice Network Africa
stated: Taxation is therefore needed to underpin
the contemporary African version of Ubuntu as
one of the fundamental responsibilities of every
citizen. Therefore, taxes are here to stay. The
question that arises is who should pay taxes?

Adam Smith in his well-known book The Wealth
of Nations referred to four principles of taxation.
One of the principles states that it should be in
proportion to the revenue which (the citizens)
enjoy under the protection of the state. This
principle has been fine-tuned over time and is
referred to as the horizontal and vertical equity of
taxation. While the latter refers to the taxation of
different income levels at different tax rates, for
instance through progressive taxes, the former re-
fers to non-discrimination of taxpayers, meaning
irrespective of where the income is derived from
or irrespective of how you buy goods, the same
tax rates should be applied.

This brings us to the public debate on whether the
informal sector should be taxed. It would contra-
vene the principle of vertical equity if someone
who happens to be employed in the formal sector
and earns, for instance, a salary of NAD60,000
per annum has to pay income tax, while their
neighbour, who runs an informal business and
makes a profit of NAD60,000 at the end of the
year, does not need to pay income tax. Both ought
to pay income tax on the amount that exceeds
the tax threshold of (currently) NAD50,000 per
annum. This would also level the playing field
between formal and informal businesses. The
tax threshold ensures that low-income earners
whether they are employed or self-employed,
whether they are involved in the formal or
informal sector, are protected from being taxed.

However, collecting taxes from the informal
sector will increase costs, as tax inspectors have to
go out and identify un-registered businesses and
determine their profit. In the absence of any or
at least incomplete records of turnover and input
costs, this will be challenging. These challenges
touch on another principle, namely the cost-effec-
tiveness of tax collection. If cost-effective ways are
found, everyone who earns an income or makes a
profit that exceeds the tax threshold should con-
tribute to Government coffers in order to finance
public services.

35

How do rural people save and invest traditionally?
By John Mendelsohn, published by NMH as a Market Watch contribution, 14 September 2018

From income and expenditure surveys we know
quite a lot about what people earn and spend
from day to day. The surveys also tell us about
sources of incomes. By contrast, less information
is collected on what people save or in what they
invest. That seems odd. Why should we pay scant
attention to assets used for future contingencies?
Do we assume that many families dont have real
savings and investments, or that planning for the
future is neither a priority nor a practice? Perhaps
those are our presumptions about rural people
who appear poor and seem to lead day-to-day
subsistence lives.

Those assumptions are mistaken, but how wrong
is hard to say. I am not aware of any study to
have targeted directly the question of how rural
families save and invest traditionally in Namibia,
but here are some observations that indicate that
they do much more to prepare for the future than
we think.

First and most obviously, crop-growing house-
holds save food stocks, often going to great
lengths to make sure that the reserves last as
long as possible. Not surprisingly, stored foods
are those that remain edible over long periods.
Magnificent omashisha or iigandhi storage baskets
were developed to help people overcome famines,
some of which devastated populations in the
North in the first half of the early 20th Century
and before.

Second, livestock are largely used as savings and
investments. This may be the case throughout
Africa, especially among agro-pastoralists (see the
essay on page 48. An interesting report on finan-
cial inclusion released recently by the Namibia
Statistics Agency contains useful information on
the uses of livestock (the report can be download-
ed from https://nsa.org.na/microdata1/index.php/
catalog/32/related_materials ).

However, not everyone has livestock, especially
pigs, goats, sheep or cattle that have considerably
greater savings value than chickens. And among
those who do keep animals, the majority have few
livestock. As with other kinds of wealth, livestock

ownership is highly skewed in rural households.
Cattle serve as long-term investments over years,
smaller goats and sheep as savings over shorter
periods of months, while chickens are cashed-in
to meet more frequent needs for cash.

Third, considerable security comes from social
networks formed in and around extended fami-
lies. Membership of a network offers degrees of
access to land, livestock and help from a package
of assets, capital or savings. Substantial insurance
value can come from being able to draw on that
package when needs arise. Families also supply
land and livestock as start-up capital to young
men when they mature, marry and start their
own more nuclear families. As with food stocks
and livestock, family assets vary in value, and
some members have greater access to the assets
than others.

For those interested in how the poor make a
living and their use of credit, read Portfolios of the
Poor by Daryl Collins and others. It is an en-
lightening book, which describes the substantial
number and variety of financial instruments that
poorer families use to save, as well as to lend. For
those of us who are wealthy and presume to be
clever, the book provides sobering perspectives
on the astuteness of the poor.

There is still much to ask and learn about how
Namibians save and invest. If livestock, family
land and social networks clustered literally and
figuratively around the village are important in-
vestments in rural areas, how might people retain
or transfer those assets when they move away to
urban societies? How are new social networks
created? And how do urban people re-establish
access to secure assets if they move back to the
village?

36

What is the purpose of property rights?
By John Mendelsohn, published by NMH as a Market Watch contribution, 10 August 2018

Two types of property rights govern the land on
which most Namibian families live: customary
land rights and freehold rights. Customary land
rights confirm traditional and/or historical enti-
tlements to occupy the land which occupants may
use for residential and crop growing purposes.
Commercial uses are not allowed, and the land
rights may not be sold. These rights are believed
to be appropriate for families in communal areas.

Freehold rights confirm ownership of land which
may be used for a variety of commercial and
other purposes, although special permissions may
be needed for particular uses in certain areas. The
land may be bought and sold, and is therefore an
investment. Freehold rights are regarded to be
appropriate for private property in urban areas
and for surveyed land that is not communal.

Clearly, Namibia has double-standards: one ten-
ure system allows and facilitates the use of land to
generate wealth, the other not. Divisions between
the two were based on race before independence,
now they are used to separate the classes. Not sur-
prisingly, lots has been written and argued about
the comparative merits of the two systems. Most
discussion is about the trade-ability and collateral

value of communal land. Supporters of the status
quo offer a range of ideas on why communal land
should not be traded, and on why collateral is
inappropriate or unnecessary in communal areas.
Their arguments favouring customary land rights
are intense, but weak in defending the role of
customary land rights in maintaining poverty.

The fixation on collateral as the only value of trad-
able rights bedevils these debates, because other
benefits get ignored. But first a few comments on
loans and collateral. Financial institutions need a
range of validations before lending money. Most
critical is the simple ability of the borrower to
repay a loan, which is assessed from such qualities
as the potential borrowers employment record,
earnings, age, health and even life insurance.
These are important measures of the chances of a
financial institution getting its money back. Hav-
ing property as collateral can be useful, but other
assets are of greater value.

What about those other benefits of being able to
buy and sell land? Number 1 is the use of land as
investments to produce wealth. By definition, any
item only has investment value if it can be sold.
How much of the wealth in Namibia has been

37

generated by buying and selling land? We dont
know, but it is considerable, and many families
are better-off as a result. Recall that cattle and
other livestock in communal areas are used as
investments, so the value of investments has been
clear to everyone for a long time.

Second are the options that come from having
freehold land. For example, it is easier to fund
special ventures or needs by selling all or part of a
property, or by using the land to help raise a loan.
Expensive medical treatment or higher education
for a child becomes affordable, and enterprises are
easier to start, for example.

Third, fixed property provides an address, a
place on a street map where owners are traceable,
and a place that provides credentials. These are
measures of status, which are hard to provide to
land with customary rights. Fourth and as a
consequence of the third point tenured, regis-
tered properties are likely to have better access to
public services than others.

Fifth, freehold titles are more secure, both in
real and perceived terms than other land rights.
The chances of dispossession are therefore lower

than for other properties. Sixth, secure freehold
properties provide their owners with confidence,
a sense of permanence and greater options to plan
for the future.

Seventh, owners of freehold title can decide,
and be certain of who inherits their property.
Currently, traditional authorities and/or other
members of a deceaseds family determine how
customary estates are inherited. Coupled with
the value of collateral, that makes eight benefits.
Each has its own merits, but it is the combination of
values that create options, confidence and security.
In turn, they raise levels of social and economic
well-being, and convert houses into homes. In that,
there is much to gain.

And now recall (from the article on page 33) that
two-thirds of all Namibian families cant enjoy
the benefits of property rights! That is deplorable.
Furthermore, those who decide that poor people in
communal areas or informal settlements should not
own land are largely freehold landowners. That is
remarkable. In effect, those who have, know whats
best for those who have not! Or perhaps those of
us who are wealthy assume that the poor cant use
property to improve their lives.

©Raison

38

The cost of bypasses
By Martin Mendelsohn, published by NMH in an EAN Business 7 contribution, 3 November 2016

Throughout the world, business moves to people
and to the traffic routes that carry people to
congregate in certain places. This is particularly
clear in many of our towns. Compare Okahandja
and Otjiwarongo, which are similar in size. Drive
through Otjiwarongo and one sees a bustling
town centre with all sorts of businesses that have
grown along the main street over the last few
years. Okahandjas centre, on the other hand,
appears to have fewer businesses than ever before.

In the 1980s the B1 passed through Okahandja
in the same way as it does through Otjiwarongo
today. If one wanted to travel past Okahandja one
had to go through it. Then the first Okahandja
bypass was built. Suddenly there was a massive
drop in traffic going through the town. Passers-by
werent bringing money to Okahandja anymore,
and its centre decayed. The bypass allowed people
to move quickly past the town, but the road cost a
massive amount to build and devalued the entire
city centre and local economy in the process.
Opportunities dwindled and the value of existing
investments in the town centre decreased.

The placement of the bypass road created a new
magnet for growth some 500 meters west of the
old town centre. New investment and develop-
ment slowly occurred around the new bypass,
eventually leading even to the building of a
shopping mall. Now, this is the business centre
of Okahandja. People will always move to where
they have opportunities.

The most active business hubs in Otavi,
Keetmanshoop and Mariental are the petrol sta-
tions, which lie on the edges of the economically
quiet remainders of these towns. The centres of
Usakos, Otjiwarongo, Outjo and Grootfontein are
relatively vibrant because they are not bypassed,
figuratively and literally.

Imagine, now new bypasses may be built around
Okahandja, Otjiwarongo, Omuthiya and
Oshakati Ondangwa. What would happen to
all the business and investments made in these
places?

Bypasses reduce travel time as well as the con-
gestion caused by heavy trucks making their way
through narrow roads in towns. But they also
damage the economies of towns, by diminishing
opportunities for the people living in many of
these places. Roads should create activity, not
destroy it. Namibia should be built for the people
that live in it, not the cars that drive through it.

39

Transport services, jobs and motor cycles
By John Mendelsohn, published by NMH in an EAN Business 7 contribution, 7 February 2018

We generally look to the developed world for ide-
as on how to improve circumstances in Namib-
ia. And normally we adopt formal, rather than
informal systems or services. We do this because
development needs to be regulated, attractive to
investors, and to contribute to GDP.

However, the informal world has much to teach
us, especially when it comes to innovation and
filling gaps left by the formal sector. One good
example comes from our northern neighbour,
Angola.

There are few places, even in very remote rural
areas of Angola, where you wont find motorcycle
taxis, willing to take you anywhere for a modest
fare. Most road junctions in rural areas have
several taxis parked there for much of the time.
All are ready to go, wherever and whenever need-
ed. They carry not only people, but also goods
that have to be transported from rural homes to
markets. Many a motorcycle is to be seen carrying
one or two goats, or bags of charcoal or maize.
Imagine how long rural residents would have to
walk without this service. And incomes earned
from sales in markets are invaluable in rural areas
where there are no other sources of money.

The majority of taxis though operate in and
around urban areas between residential and
commercial zones. Here they complement the
services of blue and white mini-bus taxis (called
candongueiros), which provide transport along
major roads and in-and-out of central business
districts. These two services work together. It is
the motorcycles that make their way along nar-
row, rough roads in dense informal settlements,
for example. And they fill other gaps left open by
the bigger, more formal mini-buses or even large
inter-city buses.

Cheap motor cycles are available for sale in every
town, and every significant market offers spares,
workshops and mechanics to fix problems. The
motorcycles are licenced, but helmets are not
required and several passengers can squeeze
themselves on to ride pillion.

Accidents happen, of course. But their costs are
outweighed by the number of jobs and services
provided by Angolas motorcycles. They provide
millions of Angolans with transport services, and
with livelihood opportunities that come from
people being able to move themselves and their
goods. Tens of thousands of motorcycle drivers
are gainfully employed, and their taxis are sup-
ported by thousands more mechanics and traders
who help maintain this service.

Many of us see these motorcycles as dangerous,
messy. We just dont want this kind of informality.
We are somehow better, more organised, perhaps
more developed. But those perspectives only
come from people who seldom, if ever need a
taxi. Certainly, no critic has had to take a bag of
vegetables to market, and then use the proceeds
to buy medicine for a child.

Namibia would gain much by allowing motor-
cycle taxis. Thousands of jobs would be created,
and valuable services would be available to those
Namibians who spend too much time footing.

40

RURAL LAND AND FARMING
Should tenure systems still govern land uses, or vice versa?
By John Mendelsohn, published by NMH as a Market Watch contribution, 24 August 2018

The much-awaited 2nd land conference is 6 weeks
away. Lots is being alleged, assumed and demand-
ed during dozens of meetings and consultations,
often accompanied by considerable hype. Despite
all this talk and energy, the debate about land re-
mains narrow, focusing largely on land as a polit-
ical football. Those who score most goals will fill
their political bellies with more free, idle farms.
Those who lose will continue to be destitute and
forgotten. A few thousand families will be win-
ners, but hundreds of thousands will be losers if
the debate continues on its present course.

Redistribution and restitution are extremely
important challenges to which solutions must
be found. The solutions need to be practical,
and much more pragmatism will be achieved if
Namibia begins to focus on the uses and values of
land, rather than the kind of tenure or ownership
applied to land.

Land policy in Namibia has largely been struc-
tured so that tenure arrangements are determined
first. Land uses come second, thus having to fit in
with tenure stipulations. As a result, tenure sys-
tems have been established in many areas of the
country regardless of what land uses are desirable,
or indeed possible. The nature of ownership or
occupation of land has become more important
than the purpose or use of land.

Much poverty has been caused as a result. The
best example and with the greatest impact
is in communal areas where about 38% of all
Namibian homes are found (a percentage based
on extrapolations using the 2016 Inter-Censal De-
mographic Survey and 2011 Population Census).

Most of those households have been offered or
given customary land rights (but not in Kavango
East and Kavango West). The Communal Land
Reform Act of 2003 first set a limit of 20 hectares
(which was later raised to 50 hectares) for each
customary land right parcel. However, in areas
where crops can be grown population densities
are so high that most residents have only a few
hectares, largely of soil with minimal fertility.
The same legal tenure conditions apply in other

areas mainly or entirely used for farming live-
stock. Each resident normally has a tiny plot,
large enough for a residence, a kraal and perhaps
a small vegetable garden. There is no point in
having more land around your house, and also no
sense in having 20 or 50 hectares because cattle
herds or flocks of goats or sheep require hun-
dreds, if not thousands of hectares of forage.

The Communal Land Reform Act of 2003 allows
only two land uses on parcels registered as
customary land rights: residential purposes and
crop growth. No commercial uses are allowed,
and the land may not be sold. Customary land
right parcels, therefore, cannot provide incomes
or investment values. These restrictions follow the
perverse, pervasive prejudices that food stuffs are
the only consumables that rural people need, and
that these simple people have no need to invest
for the future.

Tenure conditions for commonages are left under
the control of traditional authorities who are not
accountable to local residents who use or should
be able to use commonage resources. The
freedom and authority that the Communal Land
Reform Act gives traditional authorities allows
them to expropriate or facilitate the appropriation
of very large areas of commonage. For example,
more than half the communal land in Kavango
West and East has been expropriated and allocat-
ed to a few hundred influential families, many of
them from other regions.

Namibians in other areas are also constrained by
inappropriate tenure systems. For example, reset-
tlement farms cant be owned by their occupants.
Onerous requirements for tenure and planning
regulations in urban areas prevent more than
a quarter of all Namibian families from having
small plots on which to build their homes and
invest in their futures.

These are people now crowded into informal set-
tlements. Their numbers will grow so that shacks
become the predominant form of Namibian hous-
ing in 2025 if major changes to tenure policy and
practice are not made soon.

41

These are the bizarre tenure arrangements that
bedevil the livelihoods of the majority of Namib-
ians, now too poor and polite to complain. Even
the States honourable intentions for communal
land to be used as a safety net for the poor are
undermined by the tenure system that facilitates
abuse by traditional authorities.

Perhaps it is not too late to ask those who lead the
land conference to focus more on the livelihoods
of the majority, less on the wealth of the few. Place
emphasis on the use of land, not who owns it.

Maximize the economic value of Namibian land,
rather than using it as a political football to ex-
aggerate differences between the ruling elite and
the lower class, leaving the distribution and use of
land more broken than ever!

In the words of the late Kofi Annan, delegates to
the land conference would do well to acknowledge
that suffering anywhere concerns people every-
where. Indeed, Mr Annans words would do well as
a slogan for Namibias 2nd Land Conference.

©Raison

42

Capital or revenue: the use of land by wealthy, urban livestock owners
By John Mendelsohn, published by NMH in an EAN Business 7 contribution, 17 August 2018

There has been a major change in the distribution
and purpose of most Namibian cattle over the last
20 years. Previously, the majority of cattle were on
so-called commercial freehold farms where they
were used largely to produce beef. Nowadays,
most Namibian cattle are in areas we call commu-
nal where they are used mainly as investments or
savings. Commercially farmed beef, on the other
hand, produces incomes for farmers and public
tax revenues.

Cattle have increased at an enormous rate,
especially in the northern communal areas. For
example, between 2008 and 2015, the number of
cattle increased by 5% in Zambesi, 54% in Kavan-
go East and West, 69% in Ohangwena, 30% in the
communal areas of Oshikoto, 51% in Oshana and
by 19% in Omusati. The annual rate of growth in
these areas combined was equivalent to numbers
doubling over 11 years.

Most cattle added recently to communal areas be-
long to wealthy men who live and work elsewhere
in towns and cities. Some of the animals are
grazed and watered around cattle posts in open,
free-range areas, such as the ombuga grasslands
in central Oshana, and many others are kept
on fenced farms, some of them surveyed and
allocated before 1990. But the majority of farms
were acquired after 1990 through appropriation
or expropriation. Some resettlement and com-
mercial farm owners use a system of dual grazing
to maximise forage for their herds. Each autumn
cattle are moved into communal areas until the
grazing has been depleted, after which they return
to grazing preserved on the private, fenced farms
of their owners. Similarly, many Namibian urban
cattle owners have placed large herds of cattle in
the Oshimolo ohambo area of Angola.

Some owners farm their cattle productively on
communal land, earning regular incomes from
sales, mostly of young weaners, tollies and oxen.
However, the great majority of cattle are invest-
ments, started and expanded as and when their
owners have money to buy stock. The returns and
security provided by cattle are higher than those
from banks, unit trusts and insurance companies,

making cattle perfect investments for people liv-
ing in town who can get communal land, grazing
and water for free.

What are the impacts of so many wealthy urban
men keeping hundreds of thousands of cattle in
communal areas? Much of the land now occupied
by the urban owners of large cattle herds was
acquired by evicting resident small-holders or
day-to-day users of commonage in these areas,
normally by or with the agreement of traditional
authorities and with no compensation. Some
poorer local residents remain in certain areas
where their small herds and flocks compete for
land, grazing and water with the large numbers
belonging to wealthy livestock owners. Cattle
and goats belonging to less fortunate residents
also serve as sources of money, which are often to
meet more pressing needs than the more affluent
wants of urban owners.

These circumstances contravene both the law and
spirit of our Constitution. Article 17 (1) of the
Communal Land Reform Act of 2002 states &.all
communal land areas vest in the State in trust for
the benefit of the traditional communities residing
in those areas and for the purpose of promoting
the economic and social development of the
people of Namibia, in particular the landless and
those with insufficient access to land who are not in
formal employment or engaged in non-agriculture
business activities. In short, communal land was
intended to be a safety net for poorer people. A
reading of Namibias Constitution suggests that
the state has a duty to administer the communal
lands for the benefit of the native population that
lives there.1

Cattle ownership and access to land is thus an
uneven playing field, one in which the rich and
powerful have gotten much by appropriating
resources that were set aside for the poor. And
while thinking of the land that was taken away,
reflect too on the lives shortened by the loss of
means to survive.

43

My emphasis on communal land is because this is
a relatively recent and massive change in the use
and occupation of land intended for less fortunate
Namibians. But the use and keeping of land and
livestock as capital is also a feature of commercial
farmland, and has been for many decades. The
land owners are often known as weekend farm-
ers or absentee landowners. They were typically
white, but many black people now use their farms
in the same way, irrespective if the farms were
bought, subsidised with affirmative loans or given
free as resettlement farms.

If we add communal and commercial areas to-
gether, probably more than a third of the farm-
land and over half the livestock is held as capital

by wealthy people who live in towns and make
their living from non-farming enterprises. Both
the land and livestock are largely dormant invest-
ments because only rarely is the capital used to
generate new sources of revenue for the economy.

Finally, here are two questions to challenge
delegates at the 2nd land conference. First, should
Namibia accept the realities of land reform in
communal areas and abandon provisions of the
Constitution and Article 17 (1) of the Communal
Land Reform Act of 2002 that protect communal
land and poorer Namibians? Second, are Namib-
ians so wealthy and replete with other sources
of revenue that so much agricultural land and
livestock can be set aside as dead capital?

1 Harring, S.L. 1996 The Constitution of Namibia and the rights and freedoms guaranteed communal land holders: resolving the
inconsistency between Article 16, Article 100, and Schedule 5. South African Journal of Human Rights 12: 469.

©Helge Denker

44

We will die communal
By John Mendelsohn, published by Insight, October 2013

Such was the plaintive comment by a humble
resident in the Aminius Block after wealthy live-
stock owners from Windhoek and Gobabis had
appropriated much of the forage on which his few
goats and cattle depended. The farmers were re-
signed to circumstances, and in his view, nothing
could be done to protest the losses of common
resources by the rich and powerful. And he is
not alone- Many of over one million communal
land residents in Namibia likewise feel powerless.
But many are less content with a communal fate,
and they vote with their feet by moving to town
in pursuit of chances to ear an income and own
land that has value, a choice made by most young
people who see little future for themselves in
communal areas.

This is not what the government of the Repub-
lic of Namibia intends, at least not according to
Section 17(1) of the communal Land Reform
Act 2002 that contains the admirable declara-
tion: Communal land areas are&.for the benefit
of the traditional communities residing in those
areas &. in particular the landless and those with
insufficient access to land who are not in formal
employment or engaged in non-agriculture business
activities. Many people believe and hope that
communal land should be safety net for the poor
who cannot afford freehold property.

Others see the matter differently Yes, communal
land is not to be free for the poor but it is also
free for the rich. Moreover, it is easy for those
who are well-connected to get free land because
the allocation of communal land is delegated to
governments agents: those traditional chiefs that
are officially recognised by government. Anyone
with the right influence and wealth can therefore
obtain huge pieces of land and unlimited access to
grazing.

The best example of massive allocation is in
Kavango West and East where the five hompas
and the fumu (chiefs) have allocated almost
half of all the communal land as private land to
several hundred families. Most of the owners
of the large farms (euphemistically called Small
Scale Commercial Farms) live in Rundu or else-

where in Namibia. Few visit their farms, let alone
attempt to develop or use their farms productivi-
ty. Similarly, much of the former Hereroland has
been fenced off into large farms, and the same
has happened to substantial areas of Oshikoto,
Omusati and Ohangwena. Residents that have
lost their traditional usage rights to now enclosed
land, have also lost access to resources that were
important to their livelihoods. Land previous-
ly used for seasonal or emergency grazing has
gone, as has access to game meat, fruits, timber
and many other forms of natural bounty. And
thus it must be said that a good deal of Namibias
communal land has been expropriated, and those
people whose rights were expropriated received
not a cent in compensation. Further to this, most
cattle in communal areas outside the new fenced
enclosures belong not to local residents as we
would hope and expect but to businessmen and
well-paid employees who live and work in free-
hold towns. Their use of free grazing on common
pastures is obviously at direct cost to resident
farmers who generally are much poorer and
whose animals must compete for grazing with
the large herds of absent, wealthy owners. In this
way, the pastures have been appropriated rather
than being expropriated, and this is what irks
the people of Aminuis. Expropriation communal
and appropriation by Namibias wealthy elite is
on reason why many people will expect to die
communal.

Another is that even those communal residents
with registered customary land rights lack op-
portunities and incentives to use their rights for
financial gain. If you are lucky enough to reside
outside communal land, you have complete free-
dom to sell rights to your land, to use them as se-
curity, and to transfer the value of the land rights
elsewhere. These are options and benefits that
everyone who lives in the freehold world takes for
granted, indeed as a fundamental right.

These options provide freeholders with incentives
to develop the value for their land, for example
by investing in their properties to increase their
potential values. Property owners do this because
they have confidence that their land rights can

45

one day be sold and transformed into monetary
values which can be used for other purposes.
Someone living in Windhoek can sell a property,
put the money in her pocket, move to Swakop-
mund and use the pocketful of money to buy
another piece of land, for example. Likewise, the
value of a property can be used to start a business,
or to pay for education of your children; indeed,
for any purpose at the prerogative of the owner.

Remarkably, however, the half, or over, a million
Namibians who live on properties in communal
areas do not have any of these choices because
communal land may not be sold. Communal land
residents therefore may not transfer or use the
value of their land for other purposes. Namibian
law in the form of the Communal Land Reform
Act of 2002 thus denies half its population the
very rights and options that help the other half
prosper.

The prohibition on the use of land as collateral
or security to raise loans is widely argued to be
the greatest disadvantage of individual tenure in
communal areas. This is the argument made by
Hernando de Soto in his well-regarded book The
mystery of Capital. De Soto shows that communal
land is dead capital, a problem likewise empha-
sized by Ipumbu Shiimi, the Governor of the
Bank of Namibia. However, it is uncertain to what
extent people in rural areas would use their land
to raise capital. Banks tend to be circumspect,
often requiring life insurance, proof of liquidity,
or a business plan before advancing loans. Nev-
ertheless, the immorality of denying people the
choice of using the collateral value of their land in
unquestionable.

Opening up Namibias communal land to the
modern economy in which capital is such an ena-
bling factor would, also do a great deal to improve
Namibias economy. Directly and indirectly, levels
of poverty in communal areas could be reduced
significantly. Land and pasture grabbing and the
fact that land rights have no financial value are
the conditions that elicit despair among residents
of the Aminuis Block, and elsewhere. It is these
harsh realities that contribute to pervasive pover-

ty in communal areas and that cause thousands
to forsake their peaceful rural homes for squatter
townships. Just as apartheid denied some people
opportunities because of skin colour, so too are
economic choices denied to hundreds of thou-
sands of Namibians that happen to live on the
wrong side of the commercial /communal fence.
If you are not convinced by all of this, imagine the
uproar from individuals who now enjoy freehold
rights if those benefits were suddenly taken away.
For some, this is too ludicrous to conceptualise
but doing away with such rights is no different
from denying them in the first place.

What can be done to lift Namibias communal
land into a modern economy where residents
have secure land rights with financial value? Un-
fortunately, there are enormous vested interests
against change, especially those of traditional
authorities who earn a good deal of money and
patronage through the current system of alloca-
tion, likening them to feudal landlords. People
who stand to benefit from their patronage are
likewise against change. They are keen to continue
having opportunities to gain large tracts of land
for free, and the countrys political leadership also
depends on the patronage of traditional leaders to
secure votes and obedience. In the most perverse
example of the effects of patronage, the 26 000 or
so families that use the remaining half of Kavango
East and Wests communal land are prohibited by
the chiefs from registering customary land rights
or developing group land rights. Tens of thou-
sands of families thus remain squatting on their
traditional lands, while the chiefs have given the
other half of the regions land to a few hundred
well-endowed, well-connected families. Forc-
ing the chiefs to change their ways is simply not
politically expedient. Resistance to change also
comes in patronising or prejudicial ways from
observers who hold that residents of commu-
nal land are somehow different from the rest
of us. It is claimed that these simple, rural folk
arent ready for tradable rights, and they cant be
trusted when dealing with unscrupulous buyers.
Communal land rights are said to be rooted in
subsistence and tradition, as if people living in
communal areas supposedly have different needs

46

for wealth and security, and as if traditional
chiefs are benevolent landlords. And yet, exactly
the same people who supposedly have different,
naïve values are not protected from rural land
markets when they move to town or when their
rural properties become part of newly declared
townlands. And nothing is done to protect the
same people when rural properties are traded on
a willing buyer-willing seller basis, or when chiefs
sell off the land rights of their minions. To all of
these inconvenient truths, we outside observers
cast a convenient blind eye.

However, welcome winds of change are now
blowing through the corridors of the Ministry

of Lands & Resettlement. Minister Alpheus
!Naruseb has agreed that leaseholds may be trada-
ble, and the need that leaseholds may be tradable,
and the need for group or community rights over
communal land (or commonage) has become
widely accepted. The idea that ordinary residents
can be given choices to register their properties
as leaseholds or customary land rights is also
being debated. It will be sometime before those
ideas find their way into legislation and practical
implementation, but with sufficient bold action
and thinking it may yet be possible to avert the
continued downfall of the livelihoods of the many
citizens who continue to live in, and depend on,
communal areas.

©Helge Denker

47

Strip the Emperors clothes: the façade of the rural
By John Mendelsohn, published by Insight, January 2016

After good rains in the late 1990s and first dozen
years of the 21st century, low and erratic rainfall
during the past three summers have reminded
us that Namibia is prone to drought. The conse-
quences of many earlier droughts were of course
much more severe, and that was long before
climate change could be blamed. The main lesson
in this is that rainfall cannot be relied upon, irre-
spective of how often leaders insist that Namibia
is good for farming, and that people must live off
several hectares of mahangu (paradoxically, on a
piece of land they may not own).

A greater constraint is the virtual absence of
arable soil in Namibia. Everyone should under-
stand that viable crop production requires soil
that supplies water and nutrients, but very few
Namibian soils can do this properly. And because
grass is generally so sparse, huge areas of grazing
are required for livestock farming to be viable.

But what is viable? How many kilograms of grain
or meat should a farm produce for it to be viable?
The answer to that depends on what standard of
living Namibians should have. Should they have a
decent living, for example, one that most mid-
dle-income civil servants and employees enjoy:
health insurance, ownership of a home and car,
and enough cash to be dressed presentably and
for their kids to have a reasonable schooling?
That would be a fair inclusive (in the words of Mr
Geingob) goal to aim at.

If that can be agreed, then we must ask what
occupations can produce that kind of standard of
living, and what uses of dry, soil-less rural land
can deliver a decent living? I submit that there are
just five: (1) animal production on about 5,000
hectares in the north and not less than 15,000 in
the south; (2) irrigated crop production on plots
of several hectares; (3) tourism lodges; (4) mines;
and (5) middle-income employment at farms,
lodges, mines, and clinics, schools and other
services, for example.

How many families could make a decent living
in rural Namibia from these land uses and jobs?
30,000 or 40,000 certainly, not much more, and

far, far fewer than the 230,000 rural households
counted by the 2011 census. Most of those house-
holds were, and remain, dreadfully poor.

So what can be done to offer so many rural people
decent livelihoods? One thing is clear, it wont
happen in places devoid of useful soil and rain.
Strip the emperors clothes, stop promoting small-
scale dryland farming and other feeble rural
activities that only propagate poverty. Begin now
to promote and welcome urban development, and
decent jobs and viable enterprises.

48

What is the purpose of livestock in Namibia?
By John Mendelsohn, published by NMH as a Market Watch contribution, 13 July 2018

It is established fact, indeed dogma, that Namibian
livestock are used to produce meat, as well as some
milk, skins, eggs, draught power and manure. The
animals are farmed for production. They or their
products are harvested regularly and sold to earn
revenue. This is generally thought to be the true
function of all livestock. Government, its agencies
and foreign development organisations often repeat
this assumption.

But this is not true for most Namibian cattle and
goats, and probably not for most pigs and chick-
ens. As a rule, these animals are neither sold nor
slaughtered regularly and do not provide their
owners with steady revenue or income. They are
not used for production. Instead, they are kept as
investments (akin to savings, security or capital) by
most livestock owners across northern Namibia,
and in other communal areas. This also holds for
many resettlement and freehold farms operated by
weekend farmers, both from former and current
times. And it seems to be the case throughout most
of Africa.

Livestock ownership is thus divided into farming
and keeping. Farming generates income and keep-
ing produces capital. Divisions between the two
may blur, for example when market opportunities
encourage keepers to sell, or when farmers gain
other incomes and then become keepers. Most,
but by no means all commercial farms are used for
farming, while keeping predominates in commu-
nal areas. There are some notable exceptions, for
instance in the substantial marketing of goats in
former Namaland and cattle in former Hereroland.

There are subtle, but important differences between
livestock savings and investments. For poorer
residents in communal areas, livestock are mostly
savings which are drawn when needs arise for addi-
tional income. The needs are often unexpected and
pressing. Small amounts are withdrawn by selling
one or two chickens, while bigger amounts are ob-
tained by selling two goats or one cow, for example.

By contrast, wealthy livestock owners from Wind-
hoek, Walvis Bay, Rundu, Oranjemund, Oshakati
and other towns keep livestock largely as invest-

ments. Their main purpose is to provide longer
term capital security for themselves and their
children. However, animals are also withdrawn
when needs arise for extra money, which includes
giving animals or cash for weddings or other special
occasions. The needs of wealthier livestock owners
can generally be predicted more easily and they are
less critical than those of poorer livestock owners.

The balance between farming and keeping
livestock may be changing, but it is not always
clear in which direction. On the one hand, younger
livestock owners in communal areas increasingly
produce and sell animals, as is expected from farm-
ers generally. On the flipside, increasing numbers
of cattle (and often goats) are kept as capital on
communal land by wealthy urban residents.

The latter makes for great investments because the
land, grazing and water are all free, and labour costs
are low. Today, more livestock on communal land
are without any doubt owned by non-residents than
by those who actually live in communal areas. This
has extreme implications, both environmental and
social. Many areas are now over-stocked, and the
small herds that belong to resident families barely
manage to compete for the forage and water that
remains for their use. These are communal families
who lack substantial incomes and for whom live-
stock savings are vital piggy banks to be accessed
in times of real need.

These circumstances force us to ask What should
Namibian land be used for? As safety nets for
the poor, as productive land for agriculture and
tourism, or as investments for rich people? Sensible
answers are needed to these questions. And then
their implementation needs to be bolstered by
serious political will.

Finally, claims that livestock in northern Namibia
would be farmed if the veterinary cordon fence was
removed ignore the very purpose of most livestock.
Getting rid of the red-line would have several
benefits, buts more might be achieved if investment
options for wealthy urban livestock keepers were
increased in other fields.

49

Crop farming on communal land: maximising production or
minimising risk?
By John Mendelsohn, published by NMH as a Market Watch contribution, 27 July 2018

A fascinating thing about most livestock in com-
munal areas is that they are not used for produc-
tion, contrary to what western society expects
(see the essay page 48). What about crops? What
rules do crop farmers follow in communal areas?

Agronomists generally assume that farmers seek
to maximise production, which only works if the
value of production exceeds the costs. The greater
the value of the produce, the more can be spent or
invested in growing the crop. Farmers can work
hard, invest in machinery, improved seeds, fertil-
isers, and expensive labour all in the knowledge
that the benefits of doing so will be repaid.

Environments where farmers can be confident
that production values will exceed costs are those
which have access to markets and fairly stable
prices, where weather conditions vary little and/
or predictably, soils are fertile, and where the
costs of inputs are bearable.

This is where farming can be a business, and one
that provides a regular decent income.

Those conditions are rare in Namibia, however.
In most areas the soils are poor, lacking nutrients,
organic matter, and capacity to hold much water.
Climatic conditions are also harsh, due to com-
binations of high evaporation rates, irregular and
often low rainfall, and sporadic scorching heat.
Even the hardiest crops often struggle in these
conditions. Pests may also decimate crops, and
most markets are small and some distance from
farmers.

It goes without saying then, that Namibian crop
farmers cant be confident of producing good har-
vests, a point reinforced by small-holder farmers
in Namibia having the lowest yields of their staple
pearl millet in Africa! Often Namibian farmers
cant be sure of having any harvest! Crop failures
may happen in one season, and even the next.

Under these circumstances, only one strategy
makes sense: prudence. Translated into econom-
ic language, this means minimising losses and
avoiding risk. It also means that surpluses are to
be stored and used to supply staple nutrition for
as long as possible. Surplus harvests are therefore
seldom sold, given the possibility that there may
be nothing to reap next season.

This kind of farming is best described as a low
input low output system. Expert non-farmers
often deplore these low inputs, noting that dry-
land farming is shabby, lacking in effort. Its not
serious, as we often say in Namibia. We judge that
farmers could work harder, and increase produc-
tion if their skills and inputs were better. In other
words, the problem is with the farmers.

Not so! Households in parts of Angola have two
farming systems (similar twin strategies might
be found on a smaller scale along the Okavango,
Zambezi and Kwando Rivers and Olushandja
Dam in Namibia). One is on dryland fields and
works in just the same way as low input low
output farming in Namibia. The staples are pearl
millet, maize, sorghum and manioc, all crops that
can be stored over many months.

50

However, the very same farmers in the same
households also grow crops in wet, peaty soils
along small streams and seepages. The fields are
called nacas on which a variety of vegetables (on-
ions, potatoes, carrots, garlic, peppers, tomatoes,
lettuce et cetera), green maize and sugar cane are
the main crops. All are durable and most of each
days harvest is sold immediately in nearby mar-
kets to produce regular, daily cash incomes. Very
little from the nacas is eaten at home. Farmers are
in their fields every day, working seriously as they
plough, plant and weed, control soil moisture by
adjusting drainage channels and harvest whatever
is ripe that day. This is impressive high input
high-output farming.

So the same farmers employ quite different strate-
gies: one risky, producing modest, erratic returns;
the other more dependable delivering high-value
products that generate immediate cash returns
(which, incidentally and obviously, can be used to
buy and supplement food security). Production
incentives are significant and predictable for one
strategy, much less so for the other; and inputs
and outputs vary accordingly.

Such differences in inputs and outputs and in
costs and returns ought to be evaluated when
we make judgements about the potential for
small-holder farming in Namibia. One way of do-
ing so is to start to probe these three possibilities:
would a farm system benefit most by improving
the expertise of farmers, or by increasing inputs,
or by boosting incentives?

©Raison

51

The Business of Land Grabbing
By John Mendelsohn & Hannu Shipena, Letter to the editor published in The Namibian, 24 May 2018

Namibia has been complaining about land grab-
bing and illegal fencing ever since independence
28 years ago. There has been lots of talking, but
nothing really has been done to solve the prob-
lem. This is not surprising because those who
grabbed and fenced are mainly Namibias elites,
a point made clear by Theodor Muduva in his
recent excellent articles on communal land in
the Namibian on the 23rd of February and 18th of
May.

However, there are two points that Muduva and
other commentators have not mentioned. First, is
that all land grabbing happens at least with the
knowledge if not the approval of traditional
authorities. Second, most grabbing is actually
facilitated by traditional authorities since it is
they who either sell or lease land that we are told
has been grabbed or fenced illegally. The buying
are the elite, influential and wealthy; the mer-
chants are traditional authorities. Money, gifts
or patronage seal the deals. Some farms are sold
for hundreds of thousands of dollars, while gifts
range between Land Cruisers and boxes of wine,
depending on the size of the land. And many
farms are secured by bartering patronage and the
annual payment of lease fees to traditional au-
thorities. Their land businesses have made certain
chiefs enormously wealthy.

So the sale of communal land has been rife in
independent Namibia. By now, there must be one
thousand or more large farms acquired by money,
patronage and gifts to traditional authorities. In a
noble move, the government once declared com-
munal land to be free as a safety net for the poor.
And in a crafty move, the government appointed
traditional authorities to manage allocations so
that the land would also be free for the rich.

The public remains ignorant about land sales be-
cause much is obscured by euphemism. Governor
Sirkka Ausiku recently appealed to traditional au-
thorities in Kavango West to stop allocating land
to individuals so that people could remain at the
place they call home. What she was really saying is
stop expropriating and selling the land occupied
by villages and their residents. We are told that

the Ministry of Lands allocated the hundreds of
Small Scale Commercial Farms (SSCFs) in Kavan-
go East and West. These are not small farms! Each
covers thousands of hectares, and all the farms
were allocated long ago by traditional authorities
to several hundred select families. Traditional au-
thorities recognised by government are supposed
to manage communal land that is euphemistically
vested in the state. In actual fact, the state has no
ownership; this is land owned and sold by tradi-
tional authorities. It is as simple as that!

The way in which much communal land is ob-
tained is contrary to the spirit of the constitution,
to the letter of the law, and to the contents of
various government documents and speeches by
politicians. Selling something that does not be-
long to you is illegal. That is one major problem.
So is the displacement of the poor. Allocating and
selling their home lands to the elite is morally
contemptible. Colonial powers were often guilty
of expropriating land. Should traditional authori-
ties stop doing the same?

52

What is land reform all about, or what could it be?
By John Mendelsohn, published by NMH as a Market Watch contribution, 21 September 2018

Over the past few months, these essays in Market
Watch have attempted to shed light on features
of Namibian livelihoods and land that are not
well understood or that are often disregard-
ed. Amongst others, the articles described the
poor soils and low potential for crop and other
agriculture over much of the country; how most
Namibians are moving from rural areas to urban
lifestyles in search of cash security, not food secu-
rity; how most livestock do not produce revenue,
but are used as savings and capital; and the multi-
ple values of property ownership denied to about
two-thirds of all Namibian families. These are all
big issues that affect much of our land. And they
are important to most Namibian lives.

The essays have also sought to raise questions that
require objective answers if all citizens are to have
opportunities of a decent living. We need to be
honest about why the majority of Namibians cant
own land where they now live, how so many First
Nation Namibians (a.k.a. San or Bushmen) were
dispossessed of their land rights since 1990; why
most rural families in communal areas earn little
or no income from their farming activities, or
why we reward traditional authorities with exclu-
sive, often tradable rights over communal land.

The essays have discussed important considera-
tions surrounding land reform, but have said little
about land reform itself & who counts and who
doesnt in the debate, what land matters and what
doesnt, who is accountable and who not, and
who may win and who could lose.

Land reform is selective
Most discussions and arguments about land re-
form are narrow, focused largely on the so-called
politics of land. This is an opaque, polite way of
saying that land is about power and wealth. More
specifically, land reform is largely about trans-
ferring farms from several thousand previously
advantaged people to several thousand mostly
presently advantaged people. Thats the main
goal, and it affects less than 3% of all Namibian
families. The remaining 97% of households derive
virtually no benefit from land reform. By contrast,
the direct and indirect economic costs of land

reform may bring them some hardship. Sadly,
many recipients of resettlement farms are not
farmers, and most farms are too small to function
as economically productive farming units.

Two arguments justify the repossession of free-
hold land: to restore ancestral land rights and
to achieve equality. It is important to note that
it is the ancestral land rights of only some groups
that matter. Those of marginalised San and other
groups are unimportant. Their land rights were
either lost in the distant past, or their recent losses
after 1990 are deemed legitimate because they
were approved by traditional authorities. No one
seems to care! Some land rights are worth repos-
sessing, others are not.

And two arguments are offered to stir up populist
demand for land. One is the idea that every family
can make a living from farming, despite the fact
that most land can only be farmed profitably if
the farms are big, the farmers are serious, and the
farming methods used are appropriate. (This is
even true for mahangu, where several hundred
hectares are needed per farm if it is to be profit-
able and provide a decent income).The second
argument is that every family needs a piece of
rural land, which it can call home. That ideal is
harder to counter, but how much productive land
would be left if the whole county was carved into
plots. As impractical as both ideas are, politicians
exploit them to raise disingenuous expectations.

An advantage of so much focus on freehold farms
is that other pressing issues can be swept aside,
excluded from the public eye and debate. Then,
there is no need to be bothered by other land
rights, land values and uses, recent expropria-
tions, household poverty, or the massive growth
of squatter settlements where hundreds of thou-
sands of Namibians have no land or security, and
few if any services. Politicians and populists
can happily waddle forth, oblivious of the pain
that affects the great majority of Namibians.

Land reform is not about equality
It is widely claimed that land reform is about
equalizing land ownership. We are told too that

53

the liberation war was about land, and thus we
expect much to have been done to increase equal-
ity since independence. True, black ownership of
large freehold farms has increased proportionally,
and so equality among the relatively few freehold
farm owners has increased. But the exact opposite
is true for class divisions among the great majori-
ty of Namibians.

First, land occupation in communal areas is now
far more skewed than before. Vast areas previous-
ly open as safety nets for poorer local residents
have been appropriated for the exclusive use of
tens of thousands of cattle belonging to wealthy
urban owners. Many other open areas have been
expropriated into hundreds of individually fenced
off farms that enclose commonage grazing and
water holes. For example, perhaps a quarter or
more of communal Otjozondjupa, Oshikoto,
and Omaheke are effectively owned by a several
hundred families in each region. Worse still, over
half of Kavango East and Kavango West is owned
by about 400 hundred families, while close to
another 31,000 families in rural areas of these two
regions are barred from even having customary
land rights! What clearer signs do we need to
show that the Namibian commons have failed
enslaved to a few.

Second and at the same time, property and
housing in urban areas has become extremely
unequal. In 1991, 88% of all urban homes were
formal, brick houses while only 12% were shacks.
That proportion of informal shacks rose to 32%
in 2011, and now stands at about 41%. At current
rates of increase, there will be more shacks than
formal houses in urban areas by 2025.

Namibias policies on land and land reform hardly
play to the needs of the majority. Indeed, much is
to their detriment: no commercial or investment
rights in communal land; almost no access to
affordable urban land; and communal land a free
for all and the rich! Looking forwards, will Na-
mibia continue along an emotive, political path,
or one endowed with practical considerations and
ethical fortitude?

What for the future?
Let us imagine a land conference in Namibia
where the deliberations are guided by human
rights activists, compassionate leaders, and
specialist scientists who understand agronomy,
underground water, household economies, soci-
eties, climate, poverty, urbanisation, agricultural
economics and pasture science. In attendance
would be politicians who apply their minds to
facts before making decisions that improve the
livelihoods of the people they represent.

I suspect that delegates to this conference would
make these sorts of decisions about land reform
in Namibia:

" All Namibians and all land rights would be
treated equally before the law. The continued
dispossession of San and other poor people
would be stopped immediately.

" All citizens may buy, sell and rent land any-
where in Namibia, and free from any barrier
based on tribal, class or ethnic considerations.

" Those living on and using the land would
enjoy full ownership rights, giving them in-
centives to develop and manage their proper-
ties in accordance with their wishes and the
possibilities offered by their land.

" Property sizes in both rural and urban areas
would be determined according to what is eco-
nomically viable and productive according to
the reasonable needs of their owners and the
nation. The allocation of small farms which
perpetuate poverty and dependency will be
discontinued.

" Recognising the low productive potential of
most Namibian land for agriculture and other
rural economic activities, urban migration and
economic growth and development in urban
areas will be encouraged. A related goal is for
greater numbers of Namibians to have access
to improved services in urban centres.

54

" For those in need, plots of urban land will be
provided for free as a matter of urgency. The
plots will be fully owned by the recipients.

" All Namibian land is to be administered by
accountable officials elected or appointed for
their expertise in managing land in the public
interest using the most reliable and modern
methods to document land rights. Divisions
between communal, customary land and
modern land rights and management will be
abolished, just as the Namibian state abolished
apartheid in 1990.

" Measures will be pursued to convert dormant
capital (in the form of livestock and land) into
productive revenue - which will contribute to
the economy and to the owners of the live-
stock and land.

" The economic value of all Namibian land is to
be developed sustainably for the benefit of the
families who reside there and own the land,
and also for all citizens to benefit from the use
of public taxes derived from land production.

" All policies, programmes and legal provisions
regarding land will be guided by the overall
desire for Namibia to provide all its citizens
with a decent living while using land sustaina-
bly. Barriers to that goal must be removed with
immediate effect.

" Any policy guided by assumptions that rural
and/or lower class citizens have lesser needs
for property, prosperity and prospects for the
future will be declared null and void.

Their final statement might read:
We the delegates to this historic land confer-
ence declare our wish for further provisions in
the years to come that will continue to make
Namibia better, and Namibians happier.

ISBN 978-99945-87-97-1