Mangetti farmers out in the cold

The Mangetti Farmers' Association (MFA), whose members operate under two land tenure systems, yet without the actual ownership of their land, says they were left out in the cold during the second national land conference.

MFA chairperson Ismael Shailemo confirmed they were not represented.

He said the government invited the Namibia Agricultural Union (NAU) and the Namibia National Farmers Union (NNFU), who did not have a mandate to represent Mangetti farmers.

“We have problems of our own in the Mangetti farming area, of which the government is aware, but we were not invited to the land conference to express our views. Our views cannot be represented by unions who attended the conference,” Shailemo said.

Shailemo said in the Mangetti area there is a block of 96 farms that were allocated by the government in the 1980s, while four were kept by the agriculture ministry for the Okapya Livestock Development Centre (LDC).

There are also farms in the area that were allocated by the Ondonga Traditional Authority.

He said farms within the block were designated in a 2011 government notice and thus could be allocated by the land reform ministry under long-term leases from the Oshikoto Communal Land Board.

“Farmers within the block were registered, but they could not receive their leasehold rights. This is because the land reform ministry rejected their registration forms because they were not signed by the occupants. Recently the ministry sent their registration forms back and we are busy finalising the process, by getting applicants to sign them,” Shailemo said.

“Farmers outside the block also belong to Mangetti, but they are not registered yet. These farms have not been surveyed, hence some consider them to be illegal.”

A case study of small-scale farmers in the Oshikoto Region, presented at a World Bank conference on land and poverty in Washington DC in March this year, revealed that communal land tenure in the Mangetti farming area is a total mess.

No leasehold agreements were signed with these farmers, although there is an adjudication process under way that will result in leasehold rights being granted.

The only evidence that could be provided of proof of ownership was a map with the names of the beneficiaries on it and a list of names being kept at the traditional authority's office.

Leasehold rights for the Mangetti farming area is reportedly available for small-scale farmers, but no record of any registered leasehold agreement could be traced at the Deeds Office, the report said.

It also revealed that Mangetti small-scale farmers are operating under two different land tenure systems.

Legally, communal and resettlement farmers are supposed to be provided with leasehold rights that allow them access to mainstream economic activities.

The report indicated that Namibia is increasingly diversifying its tenure arrangements, with no fewer than four distinct systems operating in the country.

This includes the flexible land tenure system, the commercial deeds registration system, the communal land title registration system and the Rehoboth deeds system.

“In the case study area we are dealing with only two of the tenure types are defined in law, namely the rights applicable under the communal land title registration system and the commercial deeds registration system.

“In the Mangetti farming area, leasehold rights are available for the small-scale farmers... be that as it may, in both cases no record of any registered leasehold agreement could be traced at the deeds office. Standard leasehold agreements have been drafted that are essentially identical for the communal and resettlement farmers.”

Another report, compiled by the department of land and property sciences at the Namibian University of Science and Technology (Nust), which was released in 2016, indicated that farm occupants themselves generally had no map or defined spatial extent for their allotments, even though they made reference to camps and fences.

Short of conducting a detailed survey to re-establish the boundaries, it was not possible to determine whether the occupants were resettled in accordance with the subdivision plan held in the surveyor-general's office, the Nust report said.

“Although the subdivisions were effected very recently (2014-2015), it could not be established whether this was done in anticipation of signing leasehold agreements with the occupants.

“If such agreements were anticipated, then it is reasonable to assume that the surveys were conducted in accordance with the current spatial arrangement and occupation of the allotments.”

ILENI NANDJATO