WARNING: This is Version 1 of my old archive, so Photos will NOT work and many links will NOT work. But you can find articles by searching on the Titles. There is a lot of information in this archive. Use the SEARCH BAR at the top right. Prior to December 2012; I was a pro-Christian type of Conservative. I was unaware of the mass of Jewish lies in history, especially the lies regarding WW2 and Hitler. So in here you will find pro-Jewish and pro-Israel material. I was definitely WRONG about the Boeremag and Janusz Walus. They were for real.
Original Post Date: 2010-09-15 Time: 09:00:02 Posted By: News Poster
By Irene !hoa(235)ës
Windhoek – The land reform programme is still a contentious issue in all aspects, according to yet another study carried out by the Land, Environment and Development Project of the Legal Assistance Centre.
According to the LAC study titled “Livelihoods after Land Reform”, the bene-ficiary selection criteria for Namibia’s land reform programme are too broad and difficult to apply transparently and consistently.
The criteria are so broad that they give regional resettlement committees so much space to recommend people who are not necessarily in need of land.
The three categories of potential beneficiaries are “people with no land, no livestock and no employment, people with no land and no income, but some livestock and people with income and livestock, but no land”.
Specific target groups are the San community, ex-soldiers, displaced, destitute and landless Namibians, people with disabilities and people from overcrowded communal areas.
Another criterion is for prospective beneficiaries to have a background and inte-rest in agriculture or related activities.
According to the study, the root cause of the contention is that the criteria for selection do not include any income-related criteria, which has resulted in well-off people such as permanent secretaries, governors and senior civil servants benefiting from the programme.
“This has led to land being allocated to people who might have been previously disadvantaged, but who have more than made up for that since independence, by inter alia, being appointed to well-remunerated government and parastatal posts,” found the study carried out by Dr Wolfgang Werner and Willem Odendaal over a three-year period.
Among examples of people who benefited from the resettlement programme cited are current Omaheke Governor and the Deputy Director of Land Use Planning in the Ministry of Lands and Resettlement, although it is not clear whether it is the current deputy director or someone else.
Case studies were done only in the Omaheke, Hardap and Karas regions.
Public dissatisfaction about land allocation has been widely published in the local media.
According to the study, regional councillors in Omaheke have even in some cases allocated land to individuals without the approval of the regional resettlement committee (RRC).
In attempt to address the perceived shortcomings, the Hardap RCC had developed its own criteria such as constituency balance, gender equality, and people with disabilities, carrying capacity, and good financial standing.
An income of N$4000 per month is required, although the preferred income is put at N$8000.
According to the report, “good financial standing” criterion suggests that poor people did not stand much chance of being considered for resettlement.
The line minister has acknowledged skewed allocation in favour of better-off individuals and the fact that officials might not have followed procedures properly.
The ministry is currently reviewing the selection criteria for beneficiaries and the implementation of the land reform programme.
The Hardap Regional Governor, Katrina Hanse-Himarwa, at numerous occasions urged Government to give preference to Namibians who were uprooted from their ancestral land and are currently landless.
Hanse-Himarwa, went to the extent of stating that people who directly lost land should get pre-ferential treatment, as is the case for marginalised groups such as the San and the Ovahimba people.
She also called for a second land conference saying it is the wish of the majority of Namibians.
The Namibian land policy, however, does not recognise ancestral land rights. The majority of the population practising mixed farming in the north central and north-eastern regions were never dispossessed of their land by colonial powers.
Tribes such as the Herero, Damara and Nama, who lived in police zones were uprooted and relocated to different areas called native reserves.
Original Source: 
Original date published: 13 September 2010
Source: http://allafrica.com/stories/201009150485.html?viewall=1