By Dr. Tuhafeni DaSilva Hishitelwa
Land reform in Namibia is both a question of historical justice and a practical development challenge. Colonial dispossession created deep inequalities in access to productive land, and independence did not automatically remove them.
The National Resettlement Programme therefore seeks to acquire commercial agricultural land, allocate it to previously disadvantaged Namibians and support beneficiaries in building sustainable livelihoods.
Its purpose is legitimate and necessary. The harder question is whether the programme, as designed and implemented, can meet public expectations at a meaningful pace.
In February 2024, the then, Minister of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform Hon Carl HG Schlettwein rose in Parliament to table the revised 10-year National Resettlement Policy 2023–2033 for approval.
The policy recognizes many weaknesses of the earlier approach. It emphasizes equity, transparent allocation, tenure security, training, post-settlement support, monitoring and agricultural production.
It also introduces differentiated resettlement models for beneficiaries with different capacities and needs. These reforms make the programme more credible on paper.
Yet realism must be measured not by policy language alone, but by the availability of land, finance, infrastructure, skills, markets and reliable public administration.
Requirements to be allocated a Resettlement Farm in Namibia
According to the specific qualification standards managed by the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform (MAWLR), land must be given to emerging farmers rather than established commercial operators, and they must own no more than 150 Large Stock Units (LSU) (cattle/horses) or 800 Small Stock Units (SSU) (sheep/goats).
Applications are assessed by a Regional Resettlement Committee (RRC) using a structured 1-to-5 scoring system across multiple sections. Higher points are systematically awarded for: Gender, Experience & Training, Background; where Generational farm workers and individuals currently crowded into overpopulated communal spaces score higher, and finally the Income Stability, with proof of alternative income or existing livestock to actively sustain and develop the farm unit.
The purported land reform achievements
Government reporting indicates that, by 2024, about 590 farms covering roughly 3.5 million hectares had been acquired at an estimated cost of N$2.5 billion, while close to 5,500 previously disadvantaged Namibians had been resettled. These figures show that the programme is not merely symbolic.
It has transferred substantial land, created farming opportunities and responded to the needs of some landless people, including generational farm workers and marginalized communities.
However, the scale of need remains far greater than the number of available farming units. In the 2023/24 financial year, seven farms totaling about 33,822 hectares were reportedly acquired for N$91.4 million, while only 23 beneficiaries were resettled. Such annual progress is meaningful for those selected, but too slow to satisfy a large and growing pool of applicants. It also illustrates the high cost of acquiring commercial land through market-based transactions.
Why Realism Is in Doubt?
First, land supply and public finance are limited. Suitable commercial farms are expensive, not always offered for sale and often require further investment in water, fencing, housing, roads and livestock facilities. Namibia had aimed to acquire five million hectares of commercial agricultural land, but reported acquisition remained around 3.5 million hectares in 2024.
Unless annual funding and acquisition rates rise substantially, redistribution will continue more slowly than public demand.
Renting commercial grazing land (often called “emergency grazing” or lease agreements) while waiting for allocation is heavily resource intensive. Using the average commercial market rates provided:
For Cattle/horses (150 LSU), at an average rate of N$130 to N$190 per head per month, maintaining a maximum allowable herd of 150 cattle requires N$19,500 to N$28,500 every single month just for the right to stand on land.
For Small Stock (800 SSU), at an average rate of N$20 to N$80 per head per month, a herd of 800 sheep or goats requires a steep rental overhead of N$16,000 to N$64,000 per month.
These figures illustrate the profound economic challenges confronting emerging Namibian farmers, conditions that are fundamentally unsustainable.
In practice, the high cost of leasing grazing land makes maintaining such livestock volumes financially prohibitive, effectively preventing these farmers from meeting the ministry’s resettlement criteria.
Second, allocation does not automatically create a viable farmer. Beneficiaries may receive land without sufficient working capital, livestock, machinery, technical knowledge or market access.
Government and parliamentary assessments have identified weak pre- and post-settlement support, poor agricultural productivity and inadequate monitoring as recurring problems. In a drought-prone country, climate risk makes these weaknesses even more serious.
Third, the programme must balance social justice with economic viability. Requiring applicants to have capital or productive assets may improve the prospects of commercial success, but it can exclude the poorest citizens the very people whom redistributive policy is intended to assist.
Conversely, allocating farms without adequate capacity and structured support may reproduce poverty on state-owned land.
A realistic programme must therefore distinguish between commercial farming, livelihood-oriented settlement and social protection, rather than expecting one model to serve every beneficiary.
Fourth, governance determines public confidence. Transparent selection criteria published allocation decisions, enforceable rules against subleasing and timely resolution of disputes are essential.
The revised policy’s pathway from leasehold to possible freehold ownership may strengthen incentives to invest, but only if performance standards are clear and applied fairly.
Without credible monitoring data on farm output, household income and land condition, the country cannot know whether resettlement is generating durable benefits.
Press coverage cited in the discussion of transparency and fairness in resettlement land allocation.
Concerns about fairness are reinforced by reports that some allocated resettlement farms remain unoccupied while long-standing local applicants continue to wait.
In the //Kharas Region, for example, local stakeholders have alleged that farming units were awarded to beneficiaries from other regions who did not take possession, despite applications from residents who were ready to use the land.
Although such claims require formal verification, they highlight why allocation decisions should be publicly explained, consistently assessed against published criteria and followed by effective occupancy and land-use monitoring.
Fairness depends not only on who receives land, but also on whether the selection process is transparent and the allocated land is put to its intended productive use.
Katjiuanjo’s Four-Year Displacement
Donald Tuarimbara Katjiuanjo, a livestock farmer in the Kalahari Constituency of the Omaheke Region, has reportedly grazed his animals in national road corridors for four years following an unresolved dispute over a family farm.
He says he approached the relevant authorities seeking land but remained without a secure grazing area. During this period, his small-stock herd reportedly declined from about 330 animals to roughly 200, with some livestock killed by vehicles.
Katjiuanjo has warned that cattle and small stock roaming beside a busy route endanger motorists, truck drivers, herders and the animals themselves, and he has appealed to the Government for a safe place to keep his livestock.
The Omaheke governor acknowledged that his office was aware of the case but noted that Katjiuanjo was one of many farmers seeking grazing land and advised him to apply through the formal resettlement process.
This case, among others, illustrates a gap between formal eligibility and timely relief. A standard application process may protect consistency, yet prolonged exposure to road corridors can erode a farmer’s productive assets before an allocation decision is reached and can create a wider public-safety hazard.
Katjiuanjo’s experience therefore strengthens the argument for transparent waiting lists, clear reasons for decisions, emergency grazing arrangements and priority mechanisms for applicants facing verified displacement or immediate safety risks.
It also raises a practical fairness question: whether applicants with urgent, documented need receive an adequate response while some resettlement farms reportedly remain idle or underused.
A more Realistic Approach?
- Government should set measurable annual targets: Publish hectares acquired, units allocated, infrastructure rehabilitated and beneficiaries supported. Set clear selection transparent strategy in place. If what is achieved cannot be measured, then it did not happen.
- Fund the whole settlement package: budget for water, fencing, training, extension services, start-up finance and market access, not land purchase alone. Emerging farmers do not have access to finance, let alone market, an inclusion of this starter-pack package will be helpful.
- Match land to purpose: Use separate models for emerging commercial farmers, communal producers, generational farm workers and highly vulnerable households. These needs to be separated and clearly advertised and allocated separately.
- Use transparent selection and oversight: disclose criteria, regional allocations and reasons for awards, while providing a credible appeal process.
- Measure outcomes: track production, income, employment, loan performance and environmental condition over time. If a lack of performance is detected, the programme should make provisions for terminations through a clear and transparent process. Make mentors available to guide the new farmers for at least the first 3 years.
- Build climate resilience: prioritize water security, drought planning, appropriate stocking rates and diversified livelihoods.
Conclusion
Namibia’s National Resettlement Programme is realistic as a long-term, targeted instrument of land reform, but unrealistic if presented as a rapid or stand-alone solution to landlessness, poverty and historical inequality.
The revised policy contains sensible reforms, yet its success depends on sustained financing, competent administration and serious post-settlement support. The true test is not how many farms are handed over, but whether beneficiaries gain secure tenure, productive livelihoods and resilience.
If government links redistribution to transparent governance, adequate investment and measurable results, the programme can make steady contributions to justice and rural development. If those conditions are absent, it will remain politically important but economically fragile.
Dr Tuhafeni DaSilva Hishitelwa holds a PhD in Management Strategy and is a renown strategist, Farmer and a Researcher. He writes in his personal capacity. He can be reached on hishitelwat.dasilva@gmail.com.
