The right to a decent standard of living remains unfulfilled for many Namibians. In 2003, one-third of the population was identified as in need of humanitarian food assistance and the most recent figures show that 40% of Namibians are living below the income poverty line. Among rural households, 80% have access to safe drinking water and 21% have access to basic sanitation; 58% live in houses with thatch or grass roofs, one-third have mud or clay floors, 12% have access to electricity23, 77% have access to a radio, 22% have access to a telephone and 2% have access to a computer. Just 25% of all households and below 5% of rural ones are using electricity as their main source of energy for cooking.²⁴

Issues Identified
Despite the country’s middle income status large tracts of the population are dependent on low or no wages and subsistence agriculture. The three main manifestations of the unfulfilled right to a decent standard of living were identified as high levels of income poverty, high and rising levels of food insecurity and the related area of biodiversity loss.

High Levels of Income Poverty

Statement of Rights Unfulfilled
A total of 38% of households in Namibia live in relative poverty and 9% in extreme poverty. Relative and extreme poverty are defined as households spending 60% and 80%, respectively, of their total incomes on food.25 The national medium-term targets for 2006, which are linked to the first MDG to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger, are to reduce relative poverty to 28% and extreme poverty to 4%.²⁶

Causality Analysis
The immediate causes of high levels of income poverty are low incomes from wages and subsistence farming and the inadequate availability of social safety nets. Each of these factors are analysed further below.

Low Incomes
The most recent data, for 1993/94, shows that Namibian households have an annual average per capita income of N$3,610. Incomes are highest in Khomas regions (N$11,360) and lowest in Ohangwena (N$1,070). Average incomes are four times higher among urban households than rural households. German-speaking households have an average income that is 23 times higher than that of San-speaking ones. Households headed by men have double the income of households headed by women.27 The underlying factors to low disposable incomes include:

• A high dependency on subsistence farming of low economic value, the main source of income for 42% of the population. Average consumption in households where subsistence agriculture is the main source of income is half the national average and one-third that of households where the main source of income is from cash wages.²⁸
• Lack of wage employment is a key contributor to income poverty. More than half of Namibians identify unemployment and the lack of job creation as the most important problem facing the country.²⁹ Although employment creation is a key policy objective of the government, progress has been limited. Using a strict definition of unemployment to include those economically active, available for work and actively seeking employment gives a national unemployment rate of 20% in 200030 more or less unchanged compared to 1991.³¹ Unemployment, especially among youth, is a critical development challenge. In 2000 the unemployment rate for 20-24 year olds was 42%, more than double the national average,³² and significantly higher than the 34% registered in 1991.³³Relaxing the definition of unemployment, to include those who may be considered economically active and available for work as well as including those who have given up looking for jobs, worsens the picture of the labour market, showing 34% of the total labour force as unemployed. Unemployment in rural areas is higher (36%) than for urban areas (31%); Ohangwena is especially hard hit with an unemployment rate of 58%. Moreover, unemployment for women is significantly higher (39%) than for men (29%). For age groups of adults under 30 the rate of unemployment is higher than 40%, which further highlights the colossal challenge that youth unemployment represents.³⁴
• Many Namibians lack access to credit and financial services which can enable and empower them to manage income and finances, to support new and expanding businesses, and help households through difficult times. 40% of Namibians (almost 80% in rural areas) have no access to banking or insurance services.³⁵
• In 2003 the Small or Medium Enterprise (SME) sector is estimated to account for 11% of total GDP and almost 20% of the labour force.³⁶ The Government has promulgated a national policy for the promotion of SMEs because it is widely agreed that they are essential vehicles for income and employment creation.³⁷
• The HIV/AIDS epidemic contributes directly to lower incomes by reducing informal and formal sector productivity, increasing costs and diverting scarce resources away from investment purposes.³⁸ The impact of the epidemic on business is increasingly understood. Two companies, NamPower and Namdeb found that 14% and 7%, respectively, of employees tested anonymously were HIV-positive.³⁹ A cost benefit analysis carried out for Namibia Breweries estimated that without an HIV/AIDS workforce programme in place, the productivity value lost due to absenteeism would more than double within three years and the cost of replacing and retraining staff would increase by 56% over five years. ⁴⁰
• Additional underlying causes for low incomes are high wage norms limiting incentives to employ more people; high entry barriers to employment like qualifications, especially for youth; and a lack of basic skills needed for the business community.

Social Safety Nets
Namibia is one of the few African countries to maintain social safety nets for vulnerable groups such as senior citizens, orphans, people living with disabilities and war veterans. However, many of those eligible do not receive their entitlements due to a number of reasons including lack of awareness, geographical and social exclusion and limited capacity of the delivery system. It is estimated that one in five of all eligible pensioners are not receiving monthly pensions.41 Moreover, while social pensions have been increased from N$250 to N$300 per month, pension incomes have not kept up with general price increases and in real terms pensions today are 14% lower than in 1990.42 In 2003, Cabinet approved the creation of an Orphan Fund with an initial injection of N$10 million. However, the fund remains lows compared to the needs and received no allocation for 2004/05. It is estimated that N$34 million would be needed annually to assist the 14,150 orphans currently registered, which covers less than 10% of the total orphan population in Namibia.43

Root Causes
The root causes for persistent high levels of income poverty are low economic growth, high levels of income inequality, pervasive gender inequality, incapacity and loss of life due to HIV/AIDS and other diseases, lack of access to and quality of education, and widespread environmental degradation.

Economic growth in Namibia over the past decade has been low and erratic and is just keeping pace with population growth. On average GDP per capita has grown just 1% and is expected to be 3.1% in 2003, 4.4% in 2004 and 4.1% in 2005.44 Low economic growth in Namibia is attributable to a combination of factors including high dependency on primary sector production, which is highly susceptible to external shocks; falling productivity; increasing labour costs; the net outflow of private financial capital, especially to South Africa; and the AIDS epidemic; which is estimated to reduce real growth in GDP between 1.0 to 1.5 percentage points.⁴⁵

Inequality in income distribution is a key impediment to translating economic growth into poverty reduction. The richest 7,000 people in Namibia consume as much as the 800,000 poorest. Namibia has a Gini-coefficient of 0.7, a common measure of inequality gauging whether a society is perfectly equal (0) or perfectly unequal (1).⁴⁶ Out of the 125 countries for which data is available, Namibia has the highest score, thus making it one of the most unequal societies in the world.⁴⁷ Namibia’s high level of inequality is inextricably linked to the country’s apartheid past and to the economy’s dependency on resource extraction, which is capital intensive. Thus, the benefits of Namibia’s slow economic growth to the poorest, jobless and most vulnerable are very limited. Cutting poverty in half by 2015 would require annual per capita growth rates of 5.5% (compared to the 1% realized in the 1990s). Policies combining the pursuit of economic growth while reducing income inequality would be much more effective for achieving poverty reduction.

There is also an intra-household gender dimension to inequality in Namibia that contributes to income poverty, particularly among women and children. Gender inequality manifests itself in different forms, including differential access to resources, inheritance structures favouring men and women’s exclusion from decision-making processes. Female-headed households in rural areas are particularly burdened and vulnerable.

HIV/AIDS and other diseases contribute to income poverty of households and communities by threatening the most economically active adults, children and by burdening households and communities with the costs of medical treatment and required household and community care. The private sector is not adequately addressing the burden on their employees. Lack of access to and quality of education and training act as further constraints for gainful employment and income generation.

Natural resources are the main source of livelihood and survival for the vast majority of Namibians. Unable or unwilling to invest in their local natural resource base for lack of financial and human resources, or because of uncertain access to or insecure tenure of land and natural resources, poor people may not be left with any other option but to overuse their very life support system. Processes of impoverishment and environmental degradation interact in ways that reinforce each other.⁴⁸

Role Analysis
According to the Declaration on the Right to Development: "States have the right and the duty to formulate appropriate national development policies that aim at the constant improvement of the well-being of the entire population and of all individuals, on the basis of their active, free and meaningful participation in development and in the fair distribution of the benefits resulting there from." The government has put in place strategies for creating an enabling environment for development, including: maintaining economic and political stability; the development of legal, financial and physical infrastructure; and incentives for foreign direct investment. The overarching development framework is Vision 2030, with seven medium term NDPs as the envisaged implementation tools. NPRAP has been developed along with a MTEF. These are linked to a Performance Effectiveness Management Programme, which intends to shift government priorities away from a focus on projects lines and resource inputs and toward sector programmes, results and outcomes. Balancing the need for redistribution of existing productive resources with the need for accelerated economic growth that is biased towards the poorest groups is a critical policy challenge. Central to a pro-poor economic strategy is that it targets the poorest by investments in labour intensive sectors, such as agriculture or manufacture, in areas where the poor live, rural areas and urban settlements, and more fundamentally is designed and implemented by the poorest groups themselves. The private sector has a role to play through choosing hiring and training practices that stimulate development, especially for the most excluded groups in society.

Capacity-gap Analysis
The key capacity challenge is to make the national and sectoral development frameworks work for the people. Creating an effective implementation strategy for Vision 2030, based on close multi-sectoral and multi-stakeholder collaboration and coordination, is the foremost priority. Effectively managing the series of national and sector development frameworks and strategies is a key capacity challenge, which could be addressed by strengthening linkages between the Ministry of Finance (MOF), the NPCS and the Office of the Prime Minister (OPM). The MOF and the NPCS execute the recurrent and development budgets respectively. As will be explored further below accelerating the decentralisation process, empowering regional and local authorities, as well as communities to take action and implement development policies is critical to bridging the deep structural divisions and inequalities existing in Namibia.

Further stimulating an environment of evidence-based policymaking must be emphasised. A wealth of data is currently being collected by various government agencies, the private sector, and NGOs, but an overall guiding framework is lacking, the authority of the CBS is not clear to all partners and too often data is not transformed into information, knowledge and policy change. Strengthening capacities specifically for assessing the options for economic growth and employment creation must remain a key priority. Building partnerships, strengthening institutional capacities and allocating scarce resources to the sectors and the geographical areas where the poor live and work must be at the centre of any pro-poor policies.

High and Rising Levels of Food Insecurity

Statement of Rights Unfulfilled
Freedom from hunger is a basic human right but its fulfilment is becoming increasingly complex. Shortage of water resources, low and erratic rainfall and poor soil quality severely constrain productivity and limit more intensive forms of agricultural food production. At the same time, marginally productive lands are susceptible to land degradation⁴⁹ and different parts of the country suffer from regular droughts and floods. Therefore, agricultural output tends to be uncertain and heavy government subsidies are often necessary to prevent hunger and malnutrition. Causality Analysis
The immediate determinants of food insecurity, both at the household and national levels, are low, variable and uncertain levels of food production mainly caused by water scarcity combined with dry spells and low rainfall and the weakening purchasing power. The effect of HIV/AIDS on household productivity has yet to be measured but given its prevalence among the most economically productive age groups, the impact cannot be ignored.

Low, Variable and Uncertain Levels of Food Production

• In 2001/02, cereal production fell to 64,000 Metric Tonnes (MT), the lowest level since the drought of 1992. Production recovered to 91,000 MT in 2002/03 and is estimated to reach 124,000 by 2003/04.⁵⁰ Namibia has a food production deficit, with a 10 year average self-sufficiency ratio of 34%.⁵¹
• Land capability and agricultural productivity in Namibia is generally low, due to the country’s arid climate, low and variable rainfall, as well as poor and easily degradable soils.⁵²
• Namibia’s potential for rain-fed agriculture, in particular crop production, is very limited.⁵³
• With HIV prevalence rates highest in regions with the highest populations dependent on rain-fed agriculture as well as in regions with high urban populations, its effects on family productivity are clearly an emerging issue.
• Periodic natural disasters further exacerbate difficult environmental conditions, and cause food production to plummet. With limited coping mechanisms due to HIV/AIDS this often results in humanitarian crises. Dry spells in many communal regions from December 2002 to January 2003 and floods in Caprivi region triggered the recent humanitarian crisis. Long-term global climate change is likely to result in even hotter and drier climatic conditions in Namibia and is expected to lead to more droughts and floods.⁵⁴ Furthermore, it is projected that even in the absence of climate change, Namibia faces absolute water scarcity by 2020.⁵⁵
• Deforestation, biodiversity loss, soil erosion, bush encroachment, and soil salinisation, which are environmental symptoms of land degradation, all reduce agricultural production and food security and lead to economic loss and increased poverty. The costs faced by both communal and commercial farmers from lost output and increased expenditure have been estimated at around N$100 million per year.⁵⁶

Purchasing Power of Households

• The low income of households is a key underlying cause of food insecurity as noted in the discussion of low incomes above.⁵⁷ In addition, households have seen a rise in food prices, especially in 2002 when prices rose nearly 20%, almost twice as much as the general consumer price index. Prices have since fallen as food production has recovered.⁵⁸
• 68% of families surveyed across the country reported reduced food intake and 43% reported spending whole days without eating. Food deficits are greater in households having children younger than five years and in households headed by women.⁵⁹
• An estimated 46% of rural households derive income from selling surpluses from their subsistence production. This is the most important source of income in rural areas. In Ohangwena, Omusati, Kavango and Caprivi, the figure increase to more than 60%.⁶⁰

Root Causes
Over the years, pastoralism has given way to sedentary forms of pastoral land use. Reduced mobility has made it difficult for herds to track grazing resources putting pressure on pastures and increased risks of overstocking and overgrazing where people and domestic animals settle more permanently.

Lack of marketing infrastructure and low off-take rate in the communal livestock areas - have resulted in overstocking and have put added pressure on communal pasture resources.⁶¹

Access to land is very unequal. Less than 10% of the country’s population live and work on freehold farm land with 4,100 farmers owning 6,400 commercial farms of an average 6,000 ha collectively making up some 44% of Namibia’s total land surface. By contrast, some 65% of the population, as much as 95% of the country’s farming population, live in the communal areas constituting 41% of Namibia’s total land area.⁶²

In order to maintain economic and political stability, the Government embarked on two, complementary approaches to address the pre-Independence inequalities in land holdings which are along racial lines. The Affirmative Action Loan Schemes (AALS) and resettlement programmes attempt to redistribute land to the previously disadvantaged but progress has been very slow. The AALS has been more successful with about 8.5% of all land redistribution so far that can be attributed to the scheme, compared to 2% of commercial land for the resettlement programme. According to one estimate, at the present rate of redistribution it will take another 40 years before half of the commercial land is owned by previously-disadvantaged Namibians.⁶³ The poverty impacts of the AALS are expected to be limited and indirect as the programme is designed to assist larger communal farmers and benefits poorer farmers only by freeing up communal land.

In communal areas, land has traditionally been allocated by local traditional authorities but informally granted land access and use rights have often not been effectively enforced. There is a lack of land use planning, which has resulted in economically and ecologically inappropriate land uses. A land-use planning policy was created in 2002 but needs effective implementation and multi-stakeholder collaboration.⁶⁴

A participatory poverty assessment carried out in Ohangwena showed that, on average, better-off households have access to and control more than five hectares of good quality farmland, poor households have five hectares of poor quality land and very poor households have three hectares or less of poor quality land. Local farmers explained the difference by claiming that better off households have more and better land because "they can afford to pay".⁶⁵ A different study carried out in the communal areas of northern Namibia showed that the average land area owned by femalehouseholds, widowed by AIDS, was 3.3 hectares, against 3.7 hectares owned by male-headed households where the male is not infected with the virus.⁶⁶

Increasing demand for human activities and mismanagement of the available water resources lead to food insecurity via water scarcity.

The AIDS epidemic is reducing productivity through a loss of indigenous farming skills and increased morbidity and mortality. Households affected by AIDS generally experience more days without food than unaffected ones. In addition, except in the case of inheritance, women’s rights to access appear to be weakened by the lack of legal protection.67 In addition, it has been projected that Namibia is losing 26% of its agricultural labour force between 1985 and 2020.68

Role Analysis
Addressing food insecurity requires a more collaborative and integrated approach across NPCS, MAWRD, MET, MLRR, MFMR and MITI. It also requires co-opting of MOHSS in issues that concern food hygiene, equitable access to water, safety, nutrition and maternal and childcare practices. Government ministries and NGOs need to work together to eliminate inappropriate economic incentives that have fuelled land degradation. MLRR should work with other ministries, farmers unions and other stakeholders to increase the effectiveness of the land resettlement programme. MLRR, the land boards and other players should work together to raise awareness and inform the public, particularly among poor households and communities, about the new communal land rights and how to apply for and benefit from these rights, and to build capacity among land boards. Government ministries and non-state actors should work together to put in place and implement an effective land use planning system. Furthermore, there is a need to develop an overall AIDS-mitigation strategy for the agriculture sector.

Development assistance to rural development, land reform and sustainable environment has been significant from the EU and various European governments’ ODA programmes. The UNDAF for 2001-2005 identified poverty and disparity reduction as one of two most critical issues for UN assistance. The role of the UN in the Poverty Reduction Strategy implementation is a critical aspect of its mandate in the country. However, the development of a cohesive and complementary approach to poverty reduction among development partners and UN agencies to support an equally multi-sectoral collaborative effort across the ministries remains a challenge.

Capacity-gap Analysis
The institutional capacities of the current fragmented approach to the implementation of the Poverty Reduction Strategy need closer analysis. The NPCS needs to explore with the concerned ministries and development partners the possibility of strengthening integrated programming in the most critically affected regions and to address the growing vulnerabilities identified in the poorer regions. There is a need for MLRR, other ministries, and civil society to create the capacity to develop and implement an effective land resettlement and redistribution programme that is non-confrontational, based on sound social, economic and environmental criteria; entails effective land use planning in order to identify the best land uses in the resettlement areas; provides adequate infrastructure and ongoing support services, and pre- and post-settlement training; and, involves all stakeholders in the planning. There is a need to ensure an integrated water resources management approach between all stakeholders, including water users. The capacity of land boards, in collaboration with the traditional authorities, to effectively, efficiently and equitably administer leasehold and customary land rights in communal areas must be strengthened. The capacity of poor people and communities to understand and benefit from the new communal land tenure rights should be built through awareness raising activities.

The following constraints to building an effective land use planning system needs to be addressed: lack of human resources, institutional capacity, mechanisms to coordinate and cooperate among different role players at different levels, and relevant information and knowledge. There is a need to strengthen the emergency management capacity of Emergency Management Units (EMU) and Regional Emergency Management Units (REMUs), as well as strengthening community coping mechanisms in emergency and crisis situations. The Southern African Development Community (SADC)-led Regional Vulnerability Assessment Committee and UN agencies should assist the government to undertake systematic assessments, mapping and monitoring of the most vulnerable people to ensure appropriate targeting of assistance.

In view of the wide-ranging implications of AIDS, the development partners should assist government to respond to the pandemic using a multi-sector approach to ensure effective linkages with food security, nutrition, agriculture and gender issues.

Continued Biodiversity Loss
Statement of Rights Unfulfilled
Namibia’s rich and unique biodiversity " the variety and variability of living organisms and natural environments in which they occur " provides a fundamental and essential life-support system for plants, animals and human beings alike. Continued widespread loss of biodiversity will have lasting adverse effects on the lives and livelihoods of future generations. As ecosystems become less complex food supplies, wood, medicines and livelihood from the tourism industry are all threatened.⁶⁹

Causality Analysis
The immediate causes of continued biodiversity loss are loss of habitat, unsustainable harvesting, pollution and the introduction of alien invasive species.

Loss of Habitat and Illegal Harvesting Practices

• Loss of habitat is the most important direct cause of biodiversity loss.70 It results from land clearing, strip-mining activities, and from poor land management. More than 90% of all rural households use firewood as their primary source of energy.
• Harvesting of wild plants and animals is an important part of subsistence economies in Namibia’s rural areas but unsustainable practices have intensified under commercial exploitation. In parts of the Caprivi, rural communities rely on wild plants and animals for at least 50% of their sustenance.⁷¹
• Threats to harvesting stem from a lack of control over subsistence fishing, hunting, and other harvesting activities in the communal areas, population growth and increasing human pressure.72
• The open canal section of the eastern national water carrier has caused the death of vast numbers of wild animals. These mortalities include at least 50,000 reptiles per annum.73

Pollution and Invasive Species

• Effects of air, soil and water pollution have begun to have localised effects in some areas. Pesticide residue can threaten many aquatic species.⁷⁴
• Alien invasive plants do occur and must not be allowed to spread.75 The economic implications of alien invasive species on Namibian agriculture are potentially significant and could also affect the tourism industry.⁷⁶

Root Causes
Population pressure results in increasing demand for natural resources, as does economic development based on inadequate and sometimes a lack of environmental impact assessments and the unsustainable use of resources. The long-term benefits of protecting nature are seldom considered in economic decision-making. In the absence of other options, poor subsistence communities have no choice but to depend on natural resources for their livelihoods and this leads to increasing rates of soil erosion, deforestation, and over-exploitation of wild plants and animals. There is a lack of secure and exclusive tenure for rural communities. There is insufficient coordination between relevant ministries, including MAWRD, MFMR, MET and MLRR. Global climate change is manifesting in more and stronger natural disasters. Inappropriate policies have prevented the sustainable use of water, land and wildlife including inappropriate livestock subsidies, drought aid, inappropriate price support for commercial maize and wheat producers, unrealistic water pricing policies, and lack of effective land and natural resource tenure in communal areas.

Namibia’s protected areas network is limited because national parks and reserves were not designed for biodiversity conservation and the country’s ecological diversity is not evenly represented within the 13-14% of the total land area that represents the country’s protected areas network. Virtually all wetlands are under-protected. The centre of plant and animal endemism along the Namib Desert are also poorly represented within the existing protected areas system, and there are no proclaimed marine reserves.77 There is a lack of biodiversity information, trained human resources and financial resources. Poor coordination and planning hamper progress in improving the information base about biological diversity.78 There are also cross-border conservation challenges like animal diseases that require effective cross-border conservation zones and management regimes.

Role Analysis
The Government of the Republic of Namibia (GRN) should review and implement all policies in contributing to land degradation and habitat loss and pass legislation that will be instrumental in ensuring biodiversity conservation and sustainable use. It should increase community awareness about the link between sustainable livelihoods and healthy environments and establish national and community control over unsustainable harvesting practices, encourage secure and exclusive tenure regimes, including effective group land resource tenure regimes. To control pollution, the government should encourage cleaner production and consumption by introducing suitable economic incentives and effective monitoring and enforcement mechanisms. It should provide incentives for improved systems of safer and more effective waste disposal and develop national legislation to prohibit problem alien species. Knowledge and information about Namibia’s biodiversity should be strengthened. Other stakeholders, including land owners, natural resource users, private sector companies, and civil society organisations, should contribute to the prevention and control of biodiversity loss by adapting their patterns and practices of natural resource use to make them more sustainable and should work with the government toward improved policies, laws and institutions. Government should develop a long term research and education facility for the management of Namibia’s natural heritage.

Capacity-gap Analysis
Namibia lacks the human and institutional resources to monitor, enforce and implement policies and legislation that safeguard conservation and sustainable usage of its rich biodiversity. There is not enough information and knowledge about biodiversity loss and this constrains efforts to build systems to prevent and control further biodiversity loss. The capacity for integrated, inter-sectoral coordination and collaboration at government level and across other stakeholders does not yet exist. There is little experience with the design and implementation of shared cross-border resource management.

Issues Requiring Further Research Vulnerability assessments Pro-poor economic growth options Mitigating the impact of HIV/AIDS on productivity Monitoring system Public spending patterns and social impact SME enabling environments Basic service delivery to the poor Gender roles Land degradation and implications for food insecurity An effective land redistribution and resettlement programme Water efficient and water saving production technologies Relationship between land degradation and biodiversity loss Impacts of alien invasive species and pollution Policy failures driving biodiversity Extending the protected areas

Conclusion
The right to a decent standard of living, thereby allowing people to provide the basic requirements of life for their families, is an essential part of life and should be available to every Namibian. Poverty, food insecurity and biodiversity loss are further compounded by the multiple impacts of HIV/AIDS on productivity and additional financial burdens on families, communities and the economy as a whole. Despite Independence, inequality remains among the highest in the world. Hence, these interrelated issues must be conquered to safeguard the health and wellbeing of Namibians today and into the future.