Interview with Mr. Vehaka Tjimune

Executive Director of the Namibian National Farmers Union

Windhoek, July 2007

The Namibian National Farmers Union , NNFU, is a national federation of regional farmers unions. It was established in June 1992 to serve as a lobby group for Namibian communal and emerging farmers. The NNFU advocates and actively participates in land reform discussions and has embarked in various activities and programs as means to compliment, support and direct land reform in Namibia .

Mr. Vehaka Tjimune is a Rural Social Scientist and was part of the Permanent Technical Team on Land Reform (PTT) which was created in 2003. Its task was to review the current land reform process and to formulate strategic action plans.

Q1/ Mr. Tjimune, why is land reform such an emotional issue?

Q2/ How can you do that?

A2/ During the previous years of the land reform process, the NNFU has been very emotional. However, we realized that putting emotions to an already emotional issue is not going to help the situation. So of late we have changed to another strategy that focuses on the issue of economical emancipation for the benefit of the new farmers and for the country in general. And for this I would love to completely eliminate emotions out of this process, because even if you have taken all the land from the white commercial farmers and redistributed it to the previously disadvantaged, the reality at the end of the day is that we will have the land but will not gain economically from it.

Land is not an end in itself; it is a means for production. The land reform progress should therefore not be judged on the number of beneficiaries and the numbers of farms bought, but on its economic and social impact. This can be achieved by providing institutional and financial support to new farmers. Fuelling emotions will eliminate objectivity in this process.

Q3/ But this would need time?

A3/ Yes, and there has been an outcry that land reform has been very slow. This slowness has been acknowledged by everyone. However, accelerating it without a proper plan and without proper support has not been proven to be efficient.

And so I say: Maybe the slowness of the land reform process is a blessing in disguise.

It has become very clear that the production level of farms in the present resettlement scheme and to a certain extent also in the Affirmative Action Loan Scheme decreased significantly. Had we distributed significantly more commercial land in a shorter time to the previously disadvantaged, this would have seriously compromised Namibia 's potential in terms of meat production, our export capacity for the international market and also foreign revenue generation for the country.

Q4/ But seeing that land reform is such an emotional issue, will people not become impatient?

A4/ If people are becoming impatient, it is because we do not take our electorate through an educational process, not even at government level. I have never heard government telling the electorate: whatever we do, we cannot satisfy the land hunger of all Namibians in need of land. I have also not heard anyone saying: we Namibians cannot all be farmers, there is a limit to it, even in the life stock sector, because we are living in a fragile environment. If realism accompanies the process of land reform, I think the electorate will understand it.

Q5/ Who are the people who want land and what do they want the land for?

A5/ We made a very strong recommendation in the PTT (Permanent Technical Team on Land Reform) report to undertake a qualification and quantification survey, even if it is a bit late, to come to an understanding of the need for land. The only figure that we have at present is that of 240,000 people who need land. It is not clear how this figure was arrived at, and there is no data base showing if this list has either been stretching or shrinking. We therefore need a survey to qualify and quantify these land demand needs.

During this survey government can issue questionnaires which at the same time would serve as an application form for potential beneficiaries. On this form they would provide information on what they want the land for, and where. Some people might want to do small-stock production, others grow crops, and there might also be quite a number of people who do not want land for agricultural production at all, but simply want to get away from informal settlements and have secure tenure outside towns.

Applicants would also provide information on their economic status so that, when identifying potential beneficiaries based on specific criteria, some people might be disqualified and advised to rather apply for a loan at Agribank. Permanent Secretaries and Governors, for example, could be excluded. The figure of 240,000 people in need of resettlement would shrink, we would have a much more realistic data base, and expectations would be decreased.

Q6/ For white farmers land reform is also an extremely emotional process. There is a lot of fear.

A6/ If I was a white commercial farmer today and look at the concept of land reform, the very first thing that comes to my mind is the level of uncertainty. I do not know what will be the next move. I do not know whether my farm is the next to be expropriated, because for me, the criteria for farm expropriation are not very clear. I do not know whether I should go to Agribank and take out a loan for say an investment period of ten years. I do not know whether I should invest in a new tractor because next year my land might be expropriated. This uncertainty will actually result in the production going down and the country will start feeling it. So for me, to eliminate that fear, government has to manage the process by making its intentions very clear.

Expropriation has happened in this country before, the Odendaal Plan was an expropriation plan. I am not saying its objectives were correct, but at least there was a plan on the table with clear objectives that the government could sell to the land owners.

For me, expropriation is not an issue of getting rid of whites, but a way to redistribute land for the benefit of the Namibian society. It would mean negotiating with white farmers about how some of their land could be expropriated, while they would keep enough land to continue farming and using their skills productively for the benefit of the country.

Q7/ How could the land reform process become more transparent?

A7/ We proposed in the report of the Permanent Technical Committee to establish a ‘Negotiated Land Reform Forum' which would help to make the land reform process more transparent through public debate. An open debate is the only instrument that will take away fear. People would know what to anticipate. And this forum should then inform and advise government on the next level of action.

It would, for example, advise how to use a certain area of land that was acquired by government in the most productive way, and at the same time it would look at factors such as extension services to the new farming community and services such as schools and hospitals. For me it would be very important not to expropriate single farms, but to expropriate in small clusters so that we can create a community of beneficiaries and provide them with the agricultural and social services that they need.

During our trip to Zimbabwe , we asked both the commercial farmers and land reform beneficiaries, what went wrong with the land reform process in their country, and everyone acknowledged: had we sustained the debate around the table, many things could have been avoided. So let's continue with the debate, even if we bring very emotional persons to the debating table. Let everybody realize that everyone around the table can say what they want to say, as long as it is done in a manner that will sustain that debate.