Food Crops or Cash Crops in the Northern Communal Areas of Namibia:
Setting a Framework for a Research Agenda
Hopolang Phororo
October 2001
NEPRU WORKING PAPER NO. 80
N EPRU
THE NAMIBIAN ECONOMIC POLICY RESEARCH UNIT
Postal: P. O. Box 40710, Ausspannplatz, Windhoek, Namibia
Street: 59 Bahnhof, Windhoek, Namibia
Tel.: +264 - 61 - 228284
Fax: +264 - 61 - 231496
Email: [email protected]
Web site: www.nepru.org.na
NEPRU produces:
• Books
• Research Reports
• Working Papers
• Briefing Papers
• Travel and Meeting Reports
• Occasional Papers
Please turn to the back pages for a list of publications.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or
by any means, including photocopying, recording and storage in a retrieval system, without the
written permission of the copyright holder except in accordance with the copyright legislation in
force in the Republic of Namibia.
 Copyright 2001 by the Namibian Economic Policy Research Unit.
NEPRU Research Report ISSN 1026-9231
First published in 2001 by the Namibian Economic Policy Research Unit,
P.O. Box 40710, Ausspannplatz, Windhoek, Namibia
Acknowledgements
The author would like to acknowledge the generous financial support of the
Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (NORAD) for making this paper a
reality. Thanks go to the Christian Michelsen Institute in Bergen for facilitating and
hosting the stay of the author during May, 2001 while she was undertaking the
research for this paper.
The author of this paper would also like to thank all those who contributed their
comments for this paper.
Disclaimer
The opinions presented are those of the author.
i
Table of contents
Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................... i
Disclaimer ................................................................................................................... i
Table of contents........................................................................................................iii
List of tables ...............................................................................................................iv
List of abbreviations ................................................................................................... v
List of abbreviations ................................................................................................... v
1. Introduction.......................................................................................................... 1
2. Historical Background on Namibia’s Agriculture Sector ...................................... 2
3. Agriculture in Namibia ......................................................................................... 3
3.1.
Definition of Communal Farmers................................................................. 4
4. The Advantages and Disadvantages of Farmers shifting from food crop to
cash crop production ........................................................................................... 5
5. Constraints faced by small Farmers in Making a Transition from Food
Crops Production to Cash Crops Production....................................................... 8
5.1.
Increasing Burden placed upon women ...................................................... 8
5.2.
Competition for labour ................................................................................. 8
5.3.
Access to Resources................................................................................... 9
6. Impact of HIV/AIDS ........................................................................................... 11
7. Conclusions ....................................................................................................... 13
8. Drawing up a Research Agenda........................................................................ 14
8.1.
Labour Issues............................................................................................ 14
8.2.
Negative Impacts from Cash Crop production .......................................... 15
8.3.
Millet production ........................................................................................ 15
8.4.
Impact of HIV/AIDS on the Communal Farmers ....................................... 15
8.5.
Role of the Private Sector ......................................................................... 15
8.6.
Incomes in the Communal Areas .............................................................. 16
8.7.
Spill-over effects as a result of Cash Crop Production.............................. 16
9. References ........................................................................................................ 17
iii
List of tables
Table 1:
Millet Production (000 tonnes) for 1990/91 – 1999/2000 ...........................4
Table 2:
Gross margins for annual cotton and millet ...............................................6
iv
List of abbreviations
ABC
Agro-Business and Consultants
CRIAA SA-DC
Centre for Research-Information-Action in Africa, Southern
Africa-Development and Consulting
FAO
Food and Agriculture Organisation
GDP
Gross Domestic Product
HIV/AIDS
Human Immunodeficiency Virus/Acquired Immunodeficiency
Syndrome
ILO
International Labour Organisation
MAWRD
Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Rural Development
NCA
North Central Areas
NPC
National Planning Commission
UNAIDS
United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS
UNDP
United Nations Development Programme
UNFPA
United Nations Population Fund
v
1.
Introduction
In order to improve rural incomes in Africa, the semi-subsistence, low input and low
productivity farming systems need to be transformed. The emphasis in many
Southern African countries has been to promote food production by intensifying the
supply of inputs, such as subsidized credit and input delivery systems through state
institutions. However, these approaches have failed with many of these state
institutions becoming financially unsustainable. Other strategies have been adopted
and that has been to intensify crop production by promoting high value cash crop
production. Economists have extensively debated the issue of whether small
farmers should produce food crops or cash crops (von Braun and Kennedy, 1994;
Govereh and Jayne, 1999). The premise has been that where cash crops are
produced they can be marketed, hence enabling households to increase their rural
incomes. This income can then be used to purchase household consumption goods
rather than the household be constrained to produce all the various goods that are
needed (Timmer, 1997, Govereh and Jayne, 1999). Other economists have argued
that more food crops rather than cash crops should be produced because this can
contribute to the achievement of national self-sufficiency. Others have indicated that
it does not make a difference whether food or cash crops are produced because
what matters most for improved household food security is income growth.
This paper does not attempt to answer the question of whether farmers in the
Northern Communal Areas1 in Namibia should make the transition from food crops
to cash crop production. The paper examines issues, which might be important for
farmers to make the transition to cash crop production and proposes a research
framework under which this question can be answered. Food crops include the
cereal grains and the focus is mainly on millet whereas cash crops comprise cotton,
oriental tobacco and groundnuts. The emphasis is on cotton. The historical
background on Namibia’s agriculture sector will be presented to better understand
the dualistic nature of the sector, which is made up of two categories of farmers,
subsistence farmers and commercial farmers. Furthermore, a distinction will be
made between subsistence farmers, those who have holdings that are less than 1
hectares, those who have holdings of 1 to 4 hectares and those who have 5 to 20
hectares, who for purposes of this paper will be defined as small, medium and large
subsistence farmers respectively. In the paper, it is suggested that a transition from
food crop production towards cash crop production will be difficult in the case of the
small farmers, who produce for subsistence, given the constraints that they face.
The situation for the larger communal farmers is more favourable and they are in a
better position to make the switch to cash crop production. HIV/AIDS will pose to be
a major challenge facing the farming communities, particularly as it affects the most
productive members of society. The potential for increased crop production might
1
Includes the North Central Regions (Ohangwena, Omusati, Oshana, Oshikoto), Kavango and Caprivi
be limited given that it is labour intensive therefore other non-farming alternatives
will have to be examined to raise rural incomes.
2.
Historical Background on Namibia’s Agriculture Sector
Namibia, like South Africa and Zimbabwe is characterised by a dualistic agricultural
sector, where a strong commercial sector exists alongside a sector comprised of
households in freehold or non-freehold areas. This dualistic agriculture sector was
an inheritance of the past, where white settlers gained mostly marginal land
(unproductive) for grazing and were assisted by the state to become commercially
viable (Moorsom, 1985; Elkan et al, 1992; Kirsten and Van Zyl, 1998). The white
settlers received subsidies for settlement, wells, dams, and breeding stock and cash
loans. In the south, karakul sheep farming was the main activity and in the north,
beef cattle were reared. State support remained an important component of the
farming system, particularly during times of drought, which ensured that farmers
survived. For the marketing and promotion of karakul sheep and cattle, state
monopoly boards were established and played an important role (Moorsom, 1985).
Karakul pelts were marketed in industrialised countries and beef was sold in the
South African markets.
During the apartheid era, the communal areas were sealed off from the commercial
economy and the only way of earning a cash income was through labour migration.
According to Moorsom, 1985, the state went to great lengths to isolate northern
agriculture by banning the southward movement of cattle, sales of produce outside
the communal areas were prevented and only three stores were licensed in the
north. It is not surprising that production has remained at a subsistence level and
that farming remains mainly under the domination of women. The need for a cash
income, which subsistence agriculture could not provide forced an increasing
number of men to join the migrant labour system and by 1970, 45% of the Ovambo
men had left the communal areas (Moorsom, 1985). Nevertheless, both stock
farming comprising cattle, goats and poultry and arable farming, which included
mainly millet, which is well adapted to dry conditions still played an important role.
Some sorghum and to a lesser extent, beans, nuts and vegetables were cultivated
in the northern communal areas whereas maize was cultivated in the eastern
regions of Namibia (Moorsom, 1985; Food Studies Group, 1990). Production was
mainly for home consumption. Black stock-farmers were assigned to inferior
farming land and encountered serious environmental constraints. The lack of
reliable water supplies and severe overcrowding did not make stock farming a viable
option. Although there were some farmers with large herds of stock, the colonial
system did not permit them to become ranchers and to purchase farms away from
the communal areas.
3.
Agriculture in Namibia
Agriculture’s share to GDP at current prices declined from 5.3% in 2000 from 7.6%
in 1994 and this was partly due to the impact of the drought and/or the better
performance of other sectors, such as fishing and mining. The commercial sector’s
contribution to agriculture declined from 4.9% in 1994 to 2.5% in 2000 whereas the
communal sector’s contribution remained constant from 2.7% in 1994 to 2.8% in
2000 (National Planning Commission, 2001). The poor performance of the
commercial sector was due to rising interest rates (Werner, 2001). Livestock
rearing, rather than arable crop production is more suitable for Namibia’s climate
therefore the commercial livestock sub-sector dominates agricultural output. In
recent years, the contribution of the commercial crop sub-sector has increased as a
result of grape production in the south (MAWRD, 1999).
However, despite this declining share of agriculture, 49% of the country’s labour
continues to be employed in the agriculture sector and about 70% of the population
is partly dependent on it for their livelihoods. The agriculture sector will continue to
play an important role in the Namibian economy as a main source of livelihood and
employment (Ministry of Labour, 1998; MAWRD, 1999).
Currently, commercial agriculture is practised on farms, ranging from an average
size of 7500ha in the south to 4500ha in the north and central areas of Namibia
(MAWRD, 1999). Maize, wheat and cotton are grown in central and northern
Namibia, namely the ‘maize triangle’, comprising three areas of Tsumeb, Otavi and
Grootfontein. Cattle rearing remains an important activity in the north. In the south,
commercial farmers have recently diversified into irrigated grapes and dates mainly
for export markets. The livestock sector comprises mainly sheep rearing and ostrich
breeding is becoming increasingly important.
In the Northern Communal Areas, most of the cereal crop is rain fed millet and
sorghum and to a lesser extent maize. Production is predominantly for household
consumption and when surpluses are produced, the traditional practice is to store
grain on-farm as insurance against the failure of the next rainy season or is sold in
village markets to meet an urgent need for cash and is exchange with other goods.
Millet and sorghum represent 30% of the national cereal food utilisation and even
then, is far from meeting the national cereal consumption requirements of the
country (CRIAA SA-DC, 2001 (b); Keyler, 1996). Some horticulture crops, such as
beans, pumpkins, melons, gourds, cowpeas, bambaranuts, groundnuts, and spinach
are also grown (Schade et al., 2000). At least 50 percent of the population resides
in the north and the majority of the population comprises subsistence farmers.
Farming plays an important role for their livelihoods in that production is mainly for
home consumption and in some cases, the surplus sold is the sole source of
income. For other farming households, other sources of income such as wages,
remittances and pensions supplement the incomes earned from farming (NPC,
1999; Ministry of Labour, 1998). As early as 1990, very little or none of the cash
income from migrants remittances was being invested back into crop agriculture in
terms of purchasing new equipment or inputs (Food Studies Group, 1990).
Communal farmers produce the bulk of the millet and sorghum. Out of the 1700
tons of millet and sorghum produced by commercial farmers in the 1998/99 season,
200 tons represented millet and out of the 2400 tons of millet and sorghum
produced by commercial farmers in the 1999/2000 season, only 100 tons
represented millet in the 1999/2000 season (see Table 1). Formal marketing
channels for millet and sorghum were virtually nonexistent prior to Namibia’s
independence but with the establishment of the MMIU efforts are being made to
provide information to millers to facilitate marketing. Millet is now being processed
so that it can become competitive with maize and wheat products in the urban
centres. Namib Mills, the largest industrial processor of maize and wheat in
Namibia has started buying millet and in the 2000 marketing season purchased over
800 tons in the Northern Communal Areas for their new dry-processed millet meal
(CRIAA SA-DC, 2001 (a)). Millet production has fluctuated according to the weather
conditions from 17200 tons in 1991/92 to a high of 117000 tons in 1996/97 as noted
in the Table below. In 1996/97, favourable rainfall patterns resulted in the high
production of millet.
Table 1:
Millet Production (000 tonnes) for 1990/91 – 1999/2000
Millet
and
sorghum:
NCR*
Kavango
NDC/FSP**
Other farmers
Caprivi
Commercial
areas
Total
1990
/91
1991
/92
1992
/93
1993
/94
1994
/95
1995
/96
1996
/97
1997
/98
1998
/99
1999
/00
55.0
15.0
34.3
54.4
33.7
51.9
101.5
35.4
40.2
74.0
0.0
2.4
0.3
0.0
1.2
1.0
0.0
4.4
5.0
3.0
9.3
2.4
2.4
2.5
2.5
4.3
4.9
3.4
3.8
8.0
3.8
0.0
1.2
0.9
0.0
6.0
1.3
0.0
5.7
3.9
57.7
17.2
43.7
69.1
41.1
64.6
117.1
37.5
1.7
49.2
2.4
86.0
Source: Namibia Early Warning and Food Information Unit, Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Rural
Development, 2000
NCR*: Northern Communal Regions
NDC/FSP**: Namibian Development Corporation’s Food Support Programme
3.1.
Definition of Communal Farmers
For purposes of analysis, communal farmers are divided into three categories –
small, medium and large.
A survey (NPC, 1999) undertaken in the Northern
Communal Areas, indicated that 16% of the land holdings are less than 1 hectare,
62% of the land holdings are between 1 and 4 hectares and 22% of the land
holdings are 4 to 20 hectares. In terms of cultivation, the latter two groups cultivate
52% and 45% of the total area respectively while the first group cultivated 3% of the
remaining land area. The average planted area is 2.85 hectares and it would be
mainly millet that is cultivated2. The first group represents small farmers, the second
group are medium farmers and the third group is classified as large farmers. The
large farming households farm a significant portion of the total area and are regular
surplus producers. These large farmers were part of the now discontinued Farmers
Support Programme of the National Development Corporation, which covered other
parts of Caprivi and Kavango3 (CRIAA SA-DC, 2001 (b); Vigne & Associates
Consultants, 2000). All the farm holdings are very small, when compared with the
areas farmed by commercial farmers, thus indicating the deliberate strategy of the
colonial legacy to keep farming at a subsistence level.
4.
The Advantages and Disadvantages of Farmers shifting
from food crop to cash crop production
Since the Northern Communal Areas are most suited to agronomy, the potential
exists for greater intensification and diversification of agricultural production. One of
the goals of the Government of the Republic of Namibia is to increase production,
which will contribute towards the attainment of household food security and a
reduction in the need for imported food.
Government is also encouraging the
diversification of smallholder crop-based systems to promote integrated production
of legumes and other non-food cash crops (MAWRD, 1995). The non-food cash
crops include cotton and oriental tobacco whereas groundnuts are a food cash crop
and are being tested on some farms in the communal areas. Cotton is not a new
product in Namibia and in the 1970s, some 4 to 5000 hectares were cultivated but
production declined due to high transport costs, price declines and labour problems.
In 1998/99, some 3670 hectares were grown of which 850 hectares were planted
under irrigation at Hardap and other schemes whereas the remaining 2910 hectares
was planted on dryland, mainly on commercial farms (Vigne & Associates
Consultants, 2000). Introducing cash crops to communal farmers has the potential
to increase food security by increasing food farming household’s productivity, raising
rural incomes, generating employment and promoting economic diversification
(World Bank, 1986).
Cash crops can generate greater incomes than food crops, since they are grown
mainly for sale and not for consumption. Vigne & Associates Consultants (2000) did
a comparison of gross margins for cotton and millet in Namibia at 1999/2000 figures
under low, average and high rainfall conditions and the following results were
indicated:
2
The division of farmers for purposes of analysis is based on three major groups of holdings identified
by the Central Bureau of Statistics, NPC in the 1998/99 Agricultural Survey.
3
The Farmers Support Programme of the Namibia Development Corporation started with five farmers
in 1990/91 and grew to 136 farmers in 1996/97. The FSP concentrated on the production of millet
and some cotton was produced. The FSP ended in 1997.
Table 2:
Gross margins for annual cotton and millet
Cotton (N$ per ha)
Millet (N$ per hectare)
Low rainfall (<300mm)
200.9
-181.1*/-121.1**
Average rainfall (300 – 450mm)
203.8
-147.5*/-27.5**
High rainfall (>450mm)
206.6
-113.8*/66.2**
Gross margins
Source: Vigne & Associates Consultants, 2000
Figures marked with an * indicate the returns for small farmers, whereas the ** is for the large surplus
producer.
Table 2 indicates that the returns per hectares are much higher for cotton compared
with millet, where negative returns result except for the large surplus farmer
producing under conditions of high rainfall. Four variables were considered in
developing the gross margins: cultivation implements, method of weeding, total
rainfall and crop yields. Cultivation implements included the costs for hoeing,
draught animal power, ploughing and tractor ploughing, whereas the method of
weeding included the costs of weeding using a hand hoe, draught animal power
cultivator, hand hoe or herbicide. Projections of crop yields were based on
intermediate levels of management as defined by inputs (Vigne & Associates
Consultants, 2000). A first glance at these figures would suggest that cotton is the
best crop to produce but other factors such as if cotton were produced and then
millet would be purchased for household consumption, it would be important to
determine how much cash would remain.
Research from other countries suggests that with the incomes received from cash
cropping, households can purchase food in the market. The increased demand for
food can provide a stimulus for private traders, which benefits both rural producers
and consumers. Indirect income effects from farmers shifting to food crops will arise
from upstream and downstream production and employment linkages
(Wandschneider and Garrido-Mirapeix, 1999). Thus, even though households are
not directly involved in cash cropping, they can gain access for their surplus food
production, off-farm employment opportunities in agriculture or in non-farm sectors,
such as services or trade. The incomes can be exchanged for food. However, this
issue needs to be examined further for Namibia.
Employment opportunities arise where cash crops are processed. At present, there
are no gins for processing cotton in Namibia since the quantities produced are not
large enough to make processing feasible.
The transition from food crop to cash crop production results in a diversified basket
of crops. Rather than to depend only on millet, planting other alternative crops is a
good strategy, which will be a source of income. In this way, risks can be
minimized.
However, in certain cases cash crops have disadvantages, such as vulnerable
groups may experience food shortages and women and children could be
nutritionally disadvantaged. Where local food availability declines and food demand
increases because of cash cropping activities, food prices will rise. Net food buyer
households cultivating cash crops may be able to satisfy their food needs through
market purchases, even as prices rise but other net food buyers will not be able to
do so. In this case, the vulnerable households will encounter food problems.
It has been argued (Murwira et al, 2000; von Braun and Kennedy, 1994, Govereh
and Jayne, 1999, Gladwin and Thomson, undated; Wandschneider and GarridoMirapeix, 1999) that the income and employment benefits of producing cash crops
are not spread equally within households. Even though women are food producers,
once agricultural production becomes commercial, the role of women is
marginalized because men take over and assume control over household income.
The nutritional status in the household could worsen, as men tend to spend less on
food. However, there is no empirical evidence from sub-Saharan Africa or other
regions to show that cash cropping has negative effects on the nutritional status of
women and children (Wandschneider and Garrido-Mirapeix, 1999).
The transition from cash crop to food crop production brings about certain
advantages and disadvantages as indicated. Cash crop production is beneficial for
farming households, but in Namibia, small farming households tend to stick to food
crop production until their food security is guaranteed and apportion less land to
cash crops than the larger farming households (CRIAA SA-DC, 2001(b); Vigne &
Associates Consultants, 2000). Large and medium farmers own or have access to
draught power therefore they can cultivate a greater proportion of the land area and
make the transition to commercial production whereas small farmers cannot (Vigne
& Associates, Consultants, 2000). The reliance on food from own food production,
especially for small farmers is a response to high transaction costs and risks related
to markets, employment and production.
Research from other developing countries (Govereh and Jayne, 1999; Fafchamps,
1992; Kherallah et. al., 2000) has revealed that production for home consumption is
maintained when farmers make the switch from food crops to cash crop production.
In Namibia, the large farmers are the ones who can readily make the transition to
cash crops since they are the ones who are marketing a surplus of their millet crop
(Vigne & Associates Consultants, 2000). Cash crops can be produced in conjunction
with millet, as some of the farmers are already doing. The small farmers, cultivating
less than 4 hectares are meeting their needs and hardly any millet surpluses are
marketed therefore a complete transition to cash crops may be difficult (Vigne &
Associates Consultants, 2000). This issue is discussed further in the next section.
However, since the Government is promoting the commercialisation and processing
of millet, small farmers increase their production of millet by utilising improved seeds
or fertilizers or combine millet production with cotton production.
However, increasing millet production for commercial purposes, which can be an
option for small farmers, is not so clear-cut because there are so many other factors
at work. Much as the Government is making considerable efforts to increase the
production of millet by providing support for research into improved crop varieties
and techniques of production and the provision for credit that will allow farmers to
expand their operation, the process is slow (CRIAA SA-DC, 2001 (a)). Production
of millet is low and variable and this is linked to low rainfall, poor soils, poor yields,
low input farming systems and a lack of incentives for producers, such as a
guaranteed market or inputs to increase production. As a result of low production,
very limited quantities are traded, which has led to the poor marketing of millet.
According to (CRIAA SA-DC (2001 (a)), there is very strong demand for millet
products hence indicating the need for increased production.
5.
Constraints faced by small Farmers in Making a
Transition from Food Crops Production to Cash Crops
Production
However, given that the holdings of the small farmers are less than 4 hectares, food
production is the priority. Small farmers face several constraints such as the
increasing burden placed on women, competition for labour, access to resources
and the labour shortage that exists in the communal areas, which will tend to make
the transition toward cash crops very difficult.
5.1.
Increasing Burden placed upon women
Due to significant rural-urban migration in the north of Namibia there are 87 men for
every 100 women residing in the rural areas, thus resulting in women being involved
in several activities (Ministry of Labour, 1998). Food production is just one of them,
namely the production of millet, which is the primary crop and absorbs much of
women’s time and in addition, other roles and responsibilities include collecting
water, fetching firewood, caring for the family, assisting in clearing fields, ploughing
and engaging in income generating schemes which must be fulfilled. These
activities leave women with very little time to grow cash crops, even if they wanted
to. With no other labour available except for young children and the elderly whose
participation in agricultural activities is limited, the burden falls on women and the
introduction of cash crop production could be an added strain. With a shortage of
labour, relatively large parts of their holdings may remain fallow or it will not be
cultivated in the most efficient manner. Smaller areas will be cultivated, which will
negatively affect the nutritional status in the household.
5.2.
Competition for labour
Farming in the communal areas is characterised by a heavy reliance on labour
intensive methods of cultivation. The larger the number of people in the farming
households, the greater the possibilities to cultivate larger areas. However, if the
larger households are comprised mainly of children and the elderly, then larger
areas will not be cultivated and the household food security could be at stake.
Children and the elderly contribute to agricultural activities in a limited way. Millet is
often planted in late November with planting through December and the crop is
harvested in April. In years of adequate rains, there might be the need to weed
more often from December to March and solely women and children undertake this
activity. Women and children will also be responsible for harvesting of millet in May
and thereafter will thresh, clean and store the crop. Threshing is considered as a
work bottleneck, particularly in a year of above-average harvest because it
competes with other on-farm and off-farm activities (Food Services Group, 1990;
CRIAA SA-DC, 2001(b)). Millet has similar labour requirements to cotton when
threshing and storage labour requirements are considered. Cotton is harvested
from April to July, which overlaps with the time when millet and other food crops are
harvested. Since the production of millet is an issue of ensuring that household
needs are met, households tend to commit their labour to plant, weed and harvest
the food crop prior to cotton (Vigne & Associates Consultants, 2000).
In addition, as the number of crops cultivated on the farms increases, there will be
competition for labour as to which crops to grow and at what time (Govereh and
Jayne, 1999; NPC, 1999). Vigne & Associates Consultants (2000) indicated that
where relatively small areas are under cotton production, the availability of labour is
unlikely to be a problem. The availability of labour becomes a limitation when the
total area under field cultivation increases beyond a certain threshold. Beyond the
threshold, the household ceases to produce because it will have to pay for additional
labour, which it is not willing to do.
As a result of the influx of people out of the rural areas to urban centres and
commercial farms in search of higher incomes, labour shortages result. This could
be due to the low returns that are earned from working on communal farms when
compared with urban centres and other places. However, research is needed when
it comes to the returns earned from agricultural activities in the communal areas.
5.3.
Access to Resources
Agriculture is dependent upon variable seasonal rainfall and communal farmers in
Namibia depend on it to a great extent, such that a poor season means a decline in
crop production, thus it can jeopardise food security at the household level. Many
farmers are very vulnerable to unpredictable rainfall patterns and food crop
production is a risky business. Farmers face other constraints such as poor access
to labour, unavailability of inputs such as fertilisers and seeds, labour, capital,
namely access to credit, markets and sometimes the services of agricultural
extension agents. Since women are disadvantaged due to cultural, traditional and
sociological factors they do not have access to many of these resources and it
poses very serious problems since they are the farmers (University of Namibia,
2000).
The lack of access to agricultural inputs, such as farmyard manure, chemical
fertilisers and improved seeds contributes to low production. A survey (NPC, 1999)
revealed that traditional seeds are most commonly used on the areas that
communal farmers cultivate. Traditional millet seeds were used on 49 percent of the
total area planted with millet and traditional sorghum seeds were used on 78 percent
of the area under sorghum production. Improved seeds were not widely used
except in the case of maize. It is more economical and cheaper to use traditional
seeds. Farmers keep seeds from selected millet heads for planting during the next
season by selecting the large heads from the best-looking plants in their fields
(CRIAA SA-DC, 2001(b)). Access to improved seeds would increase the yields of
the millet cultivated. Often yield-increasing inputs of production or programmes are
not targeted to women farmers because their non-market subsistence activities are
not considered to be important. This ‘invisible factor’, (the fact that their nonmarketed subsistence activities are not recognised) is one of the gender-related
constraints that lower women’s productivity and is not mentioned as one of Africa’s
food security problems (Gladwin and Thomson, undated; UNFPA and ILO, 1994).
Much as the returns from cash crops are higher than from food crops, it must be
noted that farmers in the NCA produce under conditions of uncertainty, given the
unpredictable rain, marginal soils and high transport costs. Farmers will therefore
take decisions based on subjective assessments of outputs, incomes and risks in
relation to competing livelihoods. In most cases they will tend to play it safe and
secure the production of staple grain crops (Vigne & Associates Consultants, 2000).
If these farmers would convert from millet to cotton, and output or income falls,
some would not survive. Therefore the risk is too great.
Bearing in mind the constraints and farmer behaviour, one option is for the small
farmers to increase millet production, which provides less risk than cotton production
and provides lower returns. The full potential from millet production needs to be
further investigated because it is a less risky crop for small farmers to produce.
Since production does not meet the consumption needs of the communal area
growers, increasing millet production might be a good start for farmers to market
millet. Increased production of millet will depend on the price differential between
millet and maize meal. The wider the margin, the more attractive millet is as a crop
(CRIAA SA-DC, 2001(b)). However, promoting the production of millet for
commercial purposes is not such an easy issue, especially where household needs
are not totally met because it may encourage some farmers to market their
reserves, which can be used during drought periods. Much as the price of cotton
varies, but the returns tend to be higher than from millet, the other option is for the
smaller farmers to allocate small portions of their fields to cash crops, rather than to
put all the emphasis on either food or cash crop production. Much of the emphasis
to reduce the constraints mentioned above has been placed on Government but the
private sector can also play a role.
Findings from other parts in Africa have shown that there are a variety of
arrangements through which the private marketing and processing firms have
related to smallholders (Govereh and Jayne, 2000). However, reliable markets and
predictable returns will drive the private firms to engage in such arrangements.
Some private companies encourage the delivery of smallholder products without
extending major initial outlays or credit that will possibly not be recovered. Others
will provide distribution of credit, inputs, management and extension training and
seasonal labour support to participating farmers who have passed some screening
requirements.
To some extent, Agro-Business and Consultants (ABC) in
Grootfontein is providing some of the services, but other private firms would be
essential in the process. The more successful arrangements between private firms
and small farmers have resulted in increased food crop productivity and incomes.
Producing cash crops under certain conditions has indirectly also benefited food
crop production (Govereh and Jayne, 2000; Kherallah et. al., 2000). This issue
needs to be researched in the case of Namibia. The farmers that are producing
surplus millet can produce cash crops on a larger scale. With greater access to
land, credit and labour, producing on a large scale does not pose a problem.
6.
Impact of HIV/AIDS
One of the greatest challenges that Namibia faces, including the agriculture sector is
HIV/AIDS, which will affect farmers’ decisions to make the transition from food crops
towards cash crops. Considering that Namibia is one of the seven countries in the
Southern African region most affected by HIV/AIDS, this is an issue that deserves to
be highlighted. The smaller communal farmers with fewer productive household
members will be worse hit and their food crop production will be negatively affected.
However, no quantitative study has been undertaken to document how farmers will
be affected by HIV/AIDS in terms of production of crops and household labour.
HIV/AIDS affects people in their most productive years (25 to 45 year olds). One
could argue that since many of these people in this age category represent migrant
workers, who are not even residing in the rural areas, HIV/AIDS is not a problem.
However, it must be noted that the migrant workers complicate the problem and
contribute to accelerate the spread of HIV/AIDS. Studies in South Africa have
indicated that migrant workers, who are far from home get lonely and then get
involved in a number of relationships, which can result in their contracting the virus.
Since they visit home at regular intervals, they spread the virus to their partners
(UNAIDS and UNDP, 1999). The HIV/AIDS epidemic hits women hardest due to
their biological make up and their low status in society and in sexual relationships,
thus increasing the vulnerability of poor rural women, who play a key role in the
agricultural work force. In 1999, women accounted for 54% of all reported new HIV
cases (Ministry of Health and Social Services, 2000). In situations, where they are
infected and get sick, the production of food crops is bound to be affected thus
resulting in a serious drop of agricultural productivity and hence in the nutritional
status at the household level. Women themselves may engage in commercial sex in
periods of economic stress, thus getting infected. Tied to the issue of migrant
labourers is that they come back home to their villages of origin to die, thus placing
the burden of the costs of HIV/AIDS on the rural communities.
According to FAO (2000), 7 million agricultural workers have died of AIDS since
1985 in the 25 hardest hit countries. It is projected that 16 million could be dead
before 2020. In the northern regions of Namibia, the HIV prevalence rate in pregnant
women is high as 33% in Caprivi, 16% in Kavango and ranging from 21% in
Omusati to 28% in Oshana4. These regions have the highest rates when compared
with other regions in the South and Western parts of the country (Ministry of Health
and Social Sciences, 2001). Already households are facing situations where
productive household members are dying from the disease. FAO (2000) projected
that Namibia will have lost 26% of its agricultural labour force through HIV/AIDS
from 1985 to 2020. AIDS reduces productivity, as people become ill and other
family members, particularly women have the responsibility of nursing sick family
members, mourning and attending funerals. In Namibia, the mourning period led to
a drop in agricultural production and in Uganda, the mourning period can last for 40
days, hence taking away precious time from agricultural activities. This results in
severe labour shortages for both agricultural and other activities (FAO, 2000 and
Phororo, 2000). A number of farm changes in Eastern Africa have arisen as a
result of labour shortages, such as a reduction in the land that is cultivated, a
decline in crop yields and a shift from cash crops to subsistence crops (FAO, 2000).
Results from a study undertaken in northern Namibia revealed that not only is
agricultural production affected by deaths in families but also by deaths in the
community. As households spend more time mourning for the death of relatives,
people are unable to continue with their agricultural activities, thus leading to delays
in some of the tasks (Engh et al., 2000). It is clear that HIV/AIDS is a serious threat
to increased agricultural production and with the elderly and children left in the
villages, what does that say about household food security? As the number of
productive family members declines, the elderly in Namibia who earn a pension of
N$200 (equivalent of US$25) per month will have the burden of looking after
grandchildren, thus endangering both short-term and long-term household food
security. In addition, HIV/AIDS places severe pressure on declining financial
resources since medication, hospital, food and ultimately funeral expenses are
incurred. This means that less income is allocated to certain activities and in some
cases, children have to be withdrawn from school since fees cannot be paid and
they assist with either domestic tasks or agricultural activities.
A fall in labour at the household level in the communal areas of Namibia where
women undertake agricultural tasks among other activities will result in a situation
where the land cultivated gets progressively smaller. In households where women
have died, men will have to assume other responsibilities, such as looking after the
children or in most cases, will arrange for a female relative to become a part of the
household (Engh et. al, 2000). Taking into consideration all the constraints, cash
crop production cannot be the only way to proceed. Recognising that it is women
who undertake much of the agricultural activities, strategies need to be directed to
them. In many countries, food production is under the domain of women whereas
production for sale is under the domain of men.
Farming should become a
4
To obtain a national average of HIV prevalence for pregnant women, the regional prevalence figures
were calculated as the mean of the prevalence from all sites within each region. HIV prevalence
was then weighted according to the population size of each region to come with a weighted national
prevalence among pregnant women.
worthwhile activity but as long as it remains for subsistence, people will search for
other options. The shortage of labour will escalate with the high spread of HIV/AIDS
as it affects the most productive members of the population. The intensification of
food production and cash cropping are mutually dependent and one cannot be
obtained without the other.
7.
Conclusions
Even though the opportunities from agriculture are limited given the variable rainfall,
the production of millet in the northern regions will continue to play a very important
role in the livelihoods of the population. Millet is mainly grown for subsistence but
Government is making considerable efforts to encourage increased production and
to introduce cash crops such as cotton in the Northern Communal Areas.
The communal agricultural sector is dominated by millet being cultivated mainly for
home consumption since markets for millet, unlike for maize was never explored
and it is the informal channels, such as sale to small traders, relatives or neighbours
that have played an important role. A distinction was made between small, medium
and large farmers in the communal areas, whereby a small farmer was defined as
one who cultivated less than 4 hectares, a medium farmer cultivated from 1 to 4
hectares and a large farmer cultivated 5 to 20 hectares. In some cases, the large
farmers were producing surplus millet, which was being sold to millers, whereas
small farmers were just producing for household consumption. These larger farmers
are in a better position than the small farmers to switch to cash crops, such as
cotton. Cash crops are an attractive option because employment opportunities will
be generated, incomes will increase and risks are spread among the various crops.
However, the success of cash crops is contingent upon reliable markets and
predictable returns. There are disadvantages associated with cash crops, where the
prices of food increases and the more vulnerable households are unable to afford
them and since women are often marginalized when it comes to cash crops, men
may benefit more than women. The money may not necessarily be spent on food
(Vigne & Associates Consultants, 2000).
This paper has attempted to show that the issue of whether farmers should produce
cash crops or food crops is not a clear-cut case in the North Central Areas,
especially for smaller farmers. It is a complex issue because this is a sector
characterised by poverty and by production using mainly family labour to grow food
for consumption, rather than for the market. Cash crop production generates higher
incomes that food crops, as indicated by the gross margins for cotton and millet
however small farmers who have yet to achieve household food grain security are
unlikely to adopt cash crops to a significant extent, unless the crops prove to be
secure options in the long run. Small farmers can increase their production of
millet, so that surpluses can be marketed for an income. However, even when it
comes to increasing the production and marketing of millet, several issues such as
low and variable production by farmers, very low returns to labour, low yields, poor
market access and poor storage still need to be addressed. The establishment of
the MMIU is one endeavour to address some of these constraints.
The other option is that the small farmers can produce both millet and cotton since
they face constraints, such as competition for labour, lack of access to credit and
markets and the increasing burden placed on women, which would not make a
complete switch possible. Farmers whose food grain needs are already secured
from non-farm income or have surpluses, can opt for cash crops purely as income
generating schemes. The relationship between sources of income and cash crop
production is an interesting issue, which can be further investigated.
Evidence from other countries has revealed that the production of cash crops has
spill over effects on input use and food crop productivity. Therefore mechanisms
should be in place to facilitate the production of cash crops and both the private
sector and government can play a role in the provision of credit, seeds,
infrastructure and markets. However, this will only be undertaken when the private
sector is convinced that positive returns can be made and at present, the quantities
of the cash crops produced are limited.
One of the most serious threats to household food production is the impact of
HIV/AIDS, which can severely hinder the transition to cash crop production. If
difficulties are encountered for the production of food crops, then it is even more
unlikely that cash crops will be produced. However, this issue needs to be further
studied to determine in what ways agriculture production will be specifically affected
and how labour will be allocated between various crops. Given that the returns from
food crop production are low and that HIV/AIDS could aggravate the labour shortage
problem, especially for the small farmers, it will be important to examine what other
non-farm opportunities exist to increase incomes. The tourism industry and the
processing of oils, leather and meat could be further investigated.
The issue of gender needs to be addressed as a separate point since women play a
key role, which can be unrecognised in the Northern Communal Areas. They
perform many crucial roles such as food production, food processing and
preparation, water acquisition, firewood collection, caring for the children and elderly
and income-generating activities. They are overburdened with so many activities
that they not able to fully participate in them. Their access to incomes and their
roles in household decisions on expenditures have serious implications for
household food security.
8.
8.1.
Drawing up a Research Agenda
Labour Issues
Labour issues in the communal areas need to be further explored. What is of
interest is whether the agricultural wages from cash crop production will act as an
incentive to retain workers in the communal areas or off-farm employment remains
more attractive. The utilization of unpaid household labour as opposed to the use of
paid labour as a constraint for cash crop production needs to be examined since
other research revealed that when farmers have to use paid labour, they cease to
produce cash crops. The issue of labour shortages in the rural areas needs further
research.
8.2.
Negative Impacts from Cash Crop production
Research in other countries has suggested that when production is for commercial
purposes, men take over and the income is not necessarily used for food. Therefore,
the nutritional status of women and children will worsen. This needs to be further
explored in making the transition from food crops to cash crop production in the
communal areas.
8.3.
Millet production
The full potential to be derived from millet production needs to be further examined.
This is an area that has been raised by the MAWRD5 and was tabled in their
strategy and action plan to address constraints, such as low and variable
production, few value-added millet or sorghum products in the formal markets and
the limited trade in millet and sorghum grain. Increased production of millet for sale
could be an option for the smaller farmers.
8.4.
Impact of HIV/AIDS on the Communal Farmers
The impact of HIV/AIDS on the farming activities needs to be quantified and studied.
There is no quantitative analysis on how this affects the areas that are cultivated,
other than what was provided by FAO, 1999 that the areas cultivated would decline.
Research on how the production of food and cash crops would be affected when
household labour dies would address the issue of whether cash crop production is a
viable option.
8.5.
Role of the Private Sector
The private sector could possibly play a role in cash crop production, but research
on how it could facilitate the transition from food crops to cash crop production,
particularly for small farmers would take away the emphasis from Government. At
present, the provision of services, markets and resources, especially for millet is
5
Proceedings from a Workshop to Develop a Strategy for the Multiple Use of Mahangu and
Sorghum convened by MAWRD and held on 27-28 June 2000 in Namibia
often perceived as the responsibility of Government, but an arrangement could
possibly be worked out between Government and the private sector.
8.6.
Incomes in the Communal Areas
The issue of whether cash crop or food crop production is the way of raising
incomes in the communal areas needs to be further explored. The question of
whether farmers are better off once they make the transition to cash production and
earn higher returns and with that income then purchase millet for household
consumption needs further study. Other off-farm employment opportunities may be
a better option to raise household incomes and need to be investigated. In addition,
the fact that farmers who have other off-farm income sources are in a better position
to cultivate cash crops for income generating purposes suggests a relationship
between sources of income and cash crop production, which needs further
research.
8.7.
Spill-over effects as a result of Cash Crop Production
Research from other countries has revealed that spillover effects on input use and
food crop productivity can result from cash crop production. Indirect income effects
also arise from upstream and downstream production and employment linkages.
Research is needed to determine whether this will be the case in the communal
areas.
9.
References
Cargill Technical Services Inc, 1999. Study of the Cotton Sector in Namibia for the
Namibian Agronomic Board, Windhoek, February.
CRIAA SA-DC, 2001. Mahangu Post-Harvest Systems, Du Plessis P. and Mallet,
M. for the Directorate of Planning (MAWRD) and the Namibian Agronomic Board,
Windhoek, March.
CRIAA SA-DC, 2001. Promoting Mahangu and Sorghum in Namibia, for the
Directorate of Agricultural Research and Training (MAWRD) and the Namibian
Agronomic Board, Windhoek, January.
Dreze, Jean, 1999. Notes on ‘Development, Food Security and Freedom’.
Presented at a meeting on Development, Food Security and Freedom. June,
Brussels.
Economist Intelligence Unit, 2000. Country Profile 2000 Namibia and Swaziland.
Economist Intelligent Unit Ltd.
Elias, Misrak, 1985. “National Food Policies in African Countries, Research Needs
and Priorities” In Smits, A, P., ed., Food Security in developing countries. The
Netherlands: Rawoo.
Elkan, W., Amutenya, P., Andima, J., van der Linden, E., and Sherbourne, R., 1992.
Namibian Agriculture: Policies and Prospects. NEPRU Research Report No.5. Copublished by the OECD Development Centre Technical Paper No. 73. Windhoek,
August.
Engh, Ida-Eline, Stloukal, Libor and Du Guerny, Jacques, 2000. HIV/AIDS in
Namibia: the impact on the livestock sector. FAO/UNAIDS.
Fafchamps, Marcel, 1992. Cash Crop Production, Food Price Volatility, and Rural
Market Integration. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 74(1). 90-99
FAO, 2000. AIDS - A threat to rural Africa. AIDS Focus, FAO. Rome.
FAO, 1999. The Impact of HIV/AIDS on Farming Communities in Namibia.
Windhoek, Namibia.
Food Studies Group, 1990. Household Food Security in Northern Namibia.
International Development Centre, University of Oxford.
Govereh, J and Jayne, T.S. 1999. Effects of Cash Crop Production on Food Crop
Productivity in Zimbabwe: Synergies or Trade-Offs. MSU International Development
Working Paper No. 74. Michigan State University, Michigan.
Gladwin, Christina H. and Thomson, Anne M,. (undated). Food or Cash Crops:
Which is the Key to Food Security?
Keyler, S.K., 1996. Economics of the Namibian Millet Subsector. PhD dissertation,
Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University. East Lansing,
USA.
Kherellah, M, Delgado, C, Gabre-Madhin, E, Minot, N and Johnson, M., 2000. The
Road Half Travelled: Agricultural Market Reform in Sub-Saharan Africa. Food
Policy Report, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington D.C.
Kirsten, J and van Zyl, J., 1998. Defining small-scale farmers in the Southern
African context. Agrekon 37(4): 560-571.
Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Rural Development, 1999. Agricultural Statistical
Bulletin. Windhoek, September.
Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Rural Development, 1999. The Impact of
HIV/AIDS on Gender Burdens and Household Incomes in Kavango: technology and
policy implications. Discussion Paper No 4. Windhoek, September.
Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Rural Development, 1997. Food security or food
self-sufficiency for Namibia? The background and a review of the economic policy
implications. Discussion Paper No 1. Directorate of Planning, Windhoek, June.
Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Rural Development, 1995. National Agricultural
Policy, Windhoek, October.
Ministry of Health and Social Sciences, 2001. Report of the 2000 HIV Sentinel Sero
Survey. Windhoek, April.
Ministry of Labour, 1998. The Namibia Labour Force Survey 1997: An Interim
Report of Analysis. Windhoek, October.
Moorsom, Richard, 1985. Transforming a Wasted Land. A Future for Namibia 2
Agriculture. The Catholic Institute for International Relations, London.
Murwira, Kuda, Wedgewood, Helen, Watson, Cathy and Win, Everjoice J with
Tawney, Claire, 2000. Beating Hunger The Chivu Experience. Intermediate
Technology Publications, London.
National Planning Commision, 1999. 1998/1999 Annual Agricultural Survey. Central
Bureau of Statistics, Windhoek, June.
National Planning Commission. 2001. Preliminary National Accounts 2000. Central
Bureau of Statistics. Windhoek, March.
Phororo, H. 2000. The Economic Effects of HIV/AIDS in the 4 O’s Regions in
Namibia. Report prepared for the University of Namibia – Northern Campus. With
contributions by Bruno Venditto, Windhoek.
Schade, K, Kalili, N and Simpson, R., 2000. A Survey of subsistence farmers in the
Ohangwena region. NEPRU Research Report No. 19, Windhoek, January.
Tapscott, 1990. Social Economy of Livestock Production in the Ovambo Region,
Namibian Institute of Social and Economic Research, Discussion Paper No. 4.
Windhoek, May.
Timmer C.P., 1997. Farmers and Markets: The Political Economy of New
Paradigms. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 79(May): 621-27.
UNAIDS and UNDP, 1999. HIV/AIDS & Human Development. South Africa 1998.
Ambhuku.
UNDP, 1998. Namibia Human Development Report 1998. UNDP, Windhoek.
UNFPA and ILO, 1994. Women, Population and Development Issues in Namibia: A
Rapid Appraisal of Some Evidence. Preliminary Draft Report for Discussion and
Amendment. Windhoek, February.
University of Namibia, 2000. The National Gender Study: Volume 1. Ed by E. M.
Iipinge, F.A. Phiri and A.f. Njabili. Windhoek
University of Namibia, 2000. The National Gender Study: Volume 2. Ed by E. M.
Iipinge, F.A. Phiri and A.F. Njabili. Windhoek.
University of Namibia and UNDP, 2000.
Iipinge and M. Williams. Windhoek.
Gender and Development.
Ed by E.
Van Rooyen, Johan, 2000. Regional food security and agricultural policy in southern
Africa: a challenge of policy conversion in diverse settings. Development Southern
Africa, 17(1): 5-22.
Verheye, Willy H, 2000. Food Production or Food Aid? An African Challenge.
Finance & Development, 37(4): 38-41.
Vigne & Associates Consultants 2000. Socio-economic Implications of Smallholder
Cotton in Namibia for the Namibian Agronomic Board, Windhoek, July.
Von Bruan, J, Msuya, J and Wolf, S, 1999. On the ‘How To’ of Agricultural Growth
promotion and Improved Food Security: Implications for Southern Africa in a
Regional and International Context. Agrekon. 38(Special Edition): 1-19.
Von Braun, Joachim and Kennedy, Eileen (eds), 1994. Agricultural
Commercialization, Economic Development, and Nutrition. Maryland: The John
Hopkins Press Ltd.
Wandschneider, Tiago Sequeira and Garrido-Mirapeix, Julio, 1999. Cash Cropping
in Mozambique: Evolution and Prospects. Food Security Unit Mozambique,
European Commission.
Werner, Wolfgang. Rights and Reality Farm workers and human security in
Namibia. CIIR Briefing. Russell Press Ltd, Nottingham. UK.
World Bank, 1986. Poverty and Hunger: Issues and Options for Food Security in
Developing Countries, A World Bank Policy Study, Washington D.C.