The gap between policy and practice

It is not just this resolution. Apparently Cabinet decided more than four years ago on such a move.

But as usual there is a gap between policymaking and implementation. And in the meantime more people continue to fence.This piece of policy by Government was welcomed and represented a very limited victory for proponents of common resources.I once suggested that Government should, through a comprehensive public policy instrument, make it clear that land is a natural (and common) resource that belongs to each and every generation of Namibians.And I urged the Government then, to ‘bring down the fences’ that sprawl the Namibian landscape.My ‘bring down the fences’ call would hopefully be vindicated by the decision from the Cabinet retreat and indeed the Cabinet decision of four years ago.This is a limited victory for a number of reasons.Because one of the discussion groups that recommended Government start implementing the said Cabinet decision, put forward several conditions that needed to be looked into before implementing this decision.First, it struck me as odd that we should resort to a pre-Independence law to achieve this – as if there aren’t relevant clauses in the Namibian Constitution to do so.Secondly, the group said that those who have already fenced off land in communal land, with valid reasons, should be given the opportunity to apply for approval – to formalise tenure rights.Thirdly, that traditional authority has been given a blank cheque to write off land deemed to be within their limits and this must be defined flexibly.This is like a ‘one step forward, two steps back’ approach.How about this? If someone fences off land then it goes without saying that it is for a good reason.I have been trying to figure out why someone would fence land without a valid reason.So, already a good chunk of the fenced-off land in the communal areas would remain just that – fenced off.Because I would assume everyone who has fenced has done so for a good reason.Secondly, the traditional authority would continue to dish out land under their jurisdiction and within their limits but with the flexibility clause inserted there.Which means, they can give more land than they are supposed to allocate.So, the business of land enclosure will continue indefinitely until such time that the Communal Land Bill is radically overhauled.Communal land is in need of a rescue operation, so that it can be restored to its proper place – the public realm – as provided for by our Constitution.As it is now, the capitalist tentacles are hanging over communal land, ready to engulf and grab it at the earliest opportunity – which usually comes under the cover of an investment project.The question is: why the commons? Why protect and preserve the little that is left from what our greedy comrades have expropriated in the name of a free-market economy? This is the context in which the ‘fence or not to fence’ debate should be conducted and perhaps understood.The on-going conflict over land and grazing rights in the Okavango Region is fundamentally related to these broader questions.Although some people want to reduce this issue to a conflict between two ethnic groups, they also want to simplify it by invoking the so-called constitutional right that allows a citizen to reside anywhere in Namibia.It must be made clear that this is a struggle over an increasingly limited resource – grazing rangeland.Even within the so-called four ‘O’s’, there is latent conflict developing over grazing rangeland.The other problem is that many people don’t differentiate between a common resource and an open access resource.The former has defined boundaries (however porous these might be) and users, and the latter doesn’t – to put it simply.And in most ‘traditional’ societies those social and spatial boundaries are well defined and respected by members and outsiders alike and you therefore don’t need fences and walls to broadcast this fact.But they also allow for some porousness and flexibility in order to accommodate outsiders who are in distress.But once you start to fence and draw ‘hard’ as opposed to ‘soft’ boundaries and formalise tenure rights; then the system starts to break down.This is what is happening in the former Owambo and Herero areas.The main cause of land scarcity in these areas is the fencing off of large chunks of land that has been taking place over many years thus denying others access to common resources.Some people might argue that the problem is one of rapid population growth.In my view, the major problem is that the commons has been shrinking, not expanding.And it is a pity that in light of this clear link between enclosure and land scarcity, some people are still calling for more fencing off of communal land.And these range from high-ranking Government officials to some communal farmers themselves.The Mangetti Farmers’ Association, for example, has been spearheading this campaign.This spells disaster.And the crisis is here already, as evidenced by the ongoing conflict in Okavango.Thus, it is not a question of whether one has fenced off legally, illegally or has formalised illegal fencing as some people argue, but it is the effect of such a move that is crucial.And the effect is invariably negative: pushing some people off the land.We should try to socialise as much land as possible.This could be done by buying farms that are adjacent to communal land and then opening them up in order to increase the spatial space available to communal farmers and rural communities.And that’s why Government’s resettlement programme has not been very successful because it is essentially an imitation and mimicry of the view that the individual tenure is superior to the African common system.Even though a number of studies have proven that as far as pastoralism is concerned; the African open systems are better suited to Namibian conditions.But let’s wait and see if Government would implement its own policy soon because there seems to be a great gap between policy and practice.And in the meantime more people continue to fence.This piece of policy by Government was welcomed and represented a very limited victory for proponents of common resources.I once suggested that Government should, through a comprehensive public policy instrument, make it clear that land is a natural (and common) resource that belongs to each and every generation of Namibians.And I urged the Government then, to ‘bring down the fences’ that sprawl the Namibian landscape.My ‘bring down the fences’ call would hopefully be vindicated by the decision from the Cabinet retreat and indeed the Cabinet decision of four years ago.This is a limited victory for a number of reasons.Because one of the discussion groups that recommended Government start implementing the said Cabinet decision, put forward several conditions that needed to be looked into before implementing this decision.First, it struck me as odd that we should resort to a pre-Independence law to achieve this – as if there aren’t relevant clauses in the Namibian Constitution to do so.Secondly, the group said that those who have already fenced off land in communal land, with valid reasons, should be given the opportunity to apply for approval – to formalise tenure rights.Thirdly, that traditional authority has been given a blank cheque to write off land deemed to be within their limits and this must be defined flexibly.This is like a ‘one step forward, two steps back’ approach.How about this? If someone fences off land then it goes without saying that it is for a good reason.I have been trying to figure out why someone would fence land without a valid reason.So, already a good chunk of the fenced-off land in the communal areas would remain just that – fenced off.Because I would assume everyone who has fenced has done so for a good reason.Secondly, the traditional authority would continue to dish out land under their jurisdiction and within their limits but with the flexibility clause inserted there.Which means, they can give more land than they are supposed to allocate.So, the business of land enclosure will continue indefinitely until such time that the Communal Land Bill is radically overhauled.Communal land is in need of a rescue operation, so that it can be restored to its proper place – the public realm – as provided for by our Constitution.As it is now, the capitalist tentacles are hanging over communal land, ready to engulf and grab it at the earliest opportunity – which usually comes under the cover of an investment project.The question is: why the commons? Why protect and preserve the little that is left from what our greedy comrades have expropriated in the name of a free-market economy? This is the context in which the ‘fence or not to fence’ debate should be conducted and perhaps understood.The on-going conflict over land and grazing rights in the Okavango Region is fundamentally related to these broader questions.Although some people want to reduce this issue to a conflict between two ethnic groups, they also want to simplify it by invoking the so-called constitutional right that allows a citizen to reside anywhere in Namibia.It must be made clear that this is a struggle over an increasingly limited resource – grazing rangeland.Even within the so-called four ‘O’s’, there is latent conflict developing over grazing rangeland.The other problem is that many people don’t differentiate between a common resource and an open access resource.The former has defined boundaries (however porous these might be) and users, and the latter doesn’t – to put it simply.And in most ‘traditional’ societies those social and spatial boundaries are well defined and respected by members and outsiders alike and you therefore don’t need fences and walls to broadcast this fact.But they also allow for some porousness and flexibility in order to accommodate outsiders who are in distress.But once you start to fence and draw ‘hard’ as opposed to ‘soft’ boundaries and formalise tenure rights; then the system starts to break down.This is what is happening in the former Owambo and Herero areas.The main cause of land scarcity in these areas is the fencing off of large chunks of land that has been taking place over many years thus denying others access to common resources.Some people might argue that the problem is one of rapid population growth.In my view, the major problem is that the commons has been shrinking, not expanding.And it is a pity that in light of this clear link between enclosure and land scarcity, some people are still calling for more fencing off of communal land.And these range from high-ranking Government officials to some communal farmers themselves.The Mangetti Farmers’ Association, for example, has been spearheading this campaign.This spells disaster.And the crisis is here already, as evidenced by the ongoing conflict in Okavango.Thus, it is not a question of whether one has fenced off legally, illegally or has formalised illegal fencing as some people argue, but it is the effect of such a move that is crucial.And the effect is invariably negative: pushing some people off the land.We should try to socialise as much land as possible.This could be done by buying farms that are adjacent to communal land and then opening them up in order to increase the spatial space available to communal farmers and rural communities.And that’s why Government’s resettlement programme has not been very successful because it is essentially an imitation and mimicry of the view that the individual tenure is superior to the African common system.Even though a number of studies have proven that as far as pastoralism is concerned; the African open systems are better suited to Namibian conditions.But let’s wait and see if Government would implement its own policy soon because there seems to be a great gap between policy and practice.