Interview with Dr. Nickey Iyambo

Minister of Agriculture, Water Affairs and Forestry

Windhoek, July 2007

Q1/ Honourable Minister, why is land such an emotional issue?

A1/ For human beings all over the world land is probably the most valuable property in life, simply because everything you own is based on land, whether it is a building, a mine or a field. We can disappear as people, but land will always be there.

The struggle to free our country was about land, because a country is in the first place a country because of its land and its people. That is why in some African countries like Botswana and Zambia land is not owned by individuals but only owned by the state.

Q2/ But in Namibia today we do have private ownership of land?

A2/ After independence we discussed the concept of land being owned by the state as a body that represents everybody, and, in fact, according to our constitution all natural resources are owned by the state. However, in 1990 we took over a system where some land was already allocated on an individual basis. For the sake of peace and prosperity we accepted the fact that all natural resources must be owned by the state unless they are already legally owned. We recognized the fact that other instruments were already in place before independence and that in Namibia land can be owned by individuals.

Q3/ Private ownership of land remains the basis for the ‘willing buyer-willing seller' and expropriation policies. Do you think this is generally accepted by Namibians today?

A3/ A number of Namibians say: The land that is owned by individuals today was bought by these individuals and they paid a price for it. Others say: The land was stolen or confiscated from the black community; if you trace back the sequence of buying and selling the land and come to the original transaction, land was never sold. But even if land was sold, a crucial aspect is: Was the basis of transaction free and equal? Did those who bought land negotiate on an equal understanding of the importance of that land? And even when the land was paid for, was it precisely for the value that the land was worth, taking into account that land is the only property that will be there for ever? Can you, in the practical sense, ever put a material value to it? This is a very tricky question.

And yet we are saying today: It is not helpful to continue arguing with history. It would be unthinkable to go back to pre-colonial times and start rearranging things, because where would you start and to whom would you allocate which land? We do not know who owned precisely a particular piece of land.

Procedures that assign a certain value to land have been established and we have accepted the laws that had allowed white farmers to buy and own farms. But of course, this concept of land valuation is not 100 % satisfactory to all black communities.

 Q4/ When can land reform be regarded as complete?

A4/ While we acknowledge that things in history have happened, we have to take each other by our hands and move forward. We will use legal procedures to buy land from those that have land and give it to the landless, until at the end of the day there will be a balance: whites have land and blacks have land also.

Q5/ Many people say the land reform process has been too slow?

A5/ admit that it is very slow, and many people believe the process should move faster. However, we know that moving faster with land redistribution will not increase agricultural production, simply because the newcomers do not know much of the ABC of farming. In Namibia , farming is very tough and acquiring land must be accompanied by training. If we had sufficient means to mentor those to whom land is made available, then we could maybe increase the pace of acquiring farms. But acquiring land without the means to assist emerging farmers will not be advisable.

One problem is that people believe that getting land will make them rich. If they see a fenced off farm, they don't see anything else but wealth. But as a minister responsible for agriculture I know that owning a farm can be a nightmare! Having land and farming does not mean you are rich, never! Having a farm actually means that you might have debts up to your neck.

Q6/ Most resettled farmers neither have a lease agreement nor do they own the land that was allocated to them. Is this not a problem?

A6/ Resettled people live on land which belongs to the state. They therefore cannot use the farm as collateral for borrowing money from banks for developing their farms. Unless they have their own means to develop the farm, many new farmers are letting their farms crumble and we are seeing boreholes and fences collapsing.

The government through the Ministry of Lands is currently looking at providing resettled farmers with a legal instrument for accessing credit with the banks. But this is a very tricky issue, because if resettled farmers use their farms as collateral and then do not pay back their loans, the government might be confronted with the situation that a substantial number of farms will become the property of banks and the whole land reform process will boomerang. But in any case, government will have a formula that will make sure that banks will not take over, and another previously disadvantaged person will be allocated that farm to continue farming.

Therefore, if government wants to resettle people and wants them to develop the farms, we have to provide mentoring to new farmers and enable them to run their finances, manage their farms etc. We can say then at the end of the day: We have trained you and you know how to manage your farm. Now you can go to the bank and get money and implement what we mentored you in. All these things are going to work together in the end.

Q7/ The question of expropriation causes a lot of fear among white farmers. Why does the government not provide commercial farmers with more security in terms of the criteria for expropriation?

A7/ It takes two to tango. The government has never closed its doors to discuss particular issues, and Namibians should not suffocate themselves with things that are lingering in their minds. Commercial farmers should go through their organizations to request a formal discussion in which their fears can be brought forward. The political environment in this country allows people to freely discuss issues, no matter how sensitive they may be.

The supreme law of this country protects everybody, and even if you decide in certain cases to expropriate, the constitution is clear that you have to compensate and that owners should agree with the price offered. Development is for every Namibian and that can only be done if there is peace, harmony and understanding in this country.

Q8/ The Namibia Agricultural Union (NAU) as representative organization of commercial farmers is still seen with suspicion. Why is that so?

A8/ We have come a long way as people in Namibia , and people take things by what they used to know. NAU used to be a white farmers' union, serving white farmers' interests, because they were by design the only people that were commercial farmers. Today this is still the perception, although they have some black members too and are serving whoever is a member.

Also, after independence another union, the Namibian National Farmers Union, was established, taking care of the communal and emerging black farmers. I know that these two unions are actually working together, and maybe one day we may even succeed to have one union truly representing all farmers, I hope.