IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2021) 12-2

Research article
erd

The Challenges of Agribusiness Training on Livestock
Farmers in Namibia
NORAH LYDIA NGATJIZEKO
Graduate School of Agriculture, Tokyo University of Agriculture, Tokyo, JapanHIROKI INAIZUMIFaculty of International Agriculture and Food Studies,Tokyo University of Agriculture, Tokyo, Japan

NINA N. SHIMOGUCHI*
Faculty of International Agriculture and Food Studies,Tokyo University of Agriculture, Tokyo, Japan
Email: n3nocon@nodai.ac.jp
Received 13 February 2020

Accepted 24 September 2021(*Corresponding Author)

Abstract Although contributing only less than five percent to GDP, agriculture remains oneof the top employers in Namibia, with livestock production being the top earner. The national
agriculture policy has highlighted the lack of capacity as one of the constraints in the industry.
Both private and public training institutions in Namibia have had numerous training such asrangeland management, farm infrastructure, and animal health, and seldom focus on the
postproduction activities such as markets and marketing. This study aimed to assess thechallenges of agribusiness training in Namibia as identified by livestock farmers. An in-depth
literature review on Namibian agribusiness training looking at national policies that address
agricultural training and farm survey using a structured questionnaire was conducted. The 33
respondents were from three regions of Namibia: Erongo, Omaheke and Otjozondjupa
regions, and three land tenures: communal, commercial, and resettlement farms. Natural
phenomena including drought and lack of water were crucial challenges identified bylivestock farmers. Other challenges such as access to markets, few buyers in the market, andlack of coordination were among the critical agribusiness factors highlighted by most
farmers. Commercial farmers were the main market of communal livestock which areconsidered of low quality. Communal livestock farmers lamented the lack of market options
available. Thus, Namibia needs to implement a training policy that captures aspects oflivestock marketing that integrates various levels of farmers from communal level to thecommercial level.
Keywords agribusiness training, southern communal area, communal farmer,
resettlement farmers

INTRODUCTION
Namibia is a vast, middle-income developing country in Southern Africa. Located between twodeserts, the country is the driest south of the Sahel, characterized by sporadic rainfall and frequent
drought. Despite these factors, agriculture is a major industry in Namibia. Agriculture uses moreland than any other activity (approx. 78% of the country is farmland), and nearly 1.2 million people(roughly 206,000 households) live on farms and/or in rural areas. Agriculture is the second main
source of income for many households in Namibia (Namibia Statistics Agency, 2013) and remains
one of the top employers in the country in both the formal and informal sectors (Namibia Statistics
Agency, 2015). The following characterize agriculture: small scale mixed farming, cattle ranching,small stock farming, commercial crop production and other intensive agriculture (Mendelsohn, 2006).
Cattle ranching is Namibian’s main agricultural production sector, with an estimated value of N$ 900Ⓒ ISERD

90

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2021) 12-2

million (approx. 56 million USD), 44.4% of which accounted for weaner exports (Enkono et al.,2013). Livestock production includes cattle, sheep, goats, and pigs.
Despite all these factors, agricultural contribution to GDP has been less than 5% (MAWF,
2017) (Fig 1). Several factors attributed to this include the country’s well-diversified economy andhigh production by other sectors. The specific challenges of agriculture however are the low
agricultural capacity because of aridity and poor soils and the low demand within Namibia andelsewhere for Namibian products due to the lack of market development in most communal areas
and the relatively low value-added through local processing (MAWF, 2015).

Fig. 1 GDP by Primary and Secondary Sectors at Current Prices – Percentage Contribution
Source: Ministry of Agriculture Water and Forestry, 2017

Namibian agriculture is agrarian in nature, with many households depending on their crops
and livestock for part of or all their income and/or nutritional needs. A key distinctive factor of thesector is its dualistic in nature with a highly developed, technology-based, and productive
commercial sector and a subsistence sector characterized by low productivity dependent on manuallabor and use of traditional methods of production often referred to as communal farming (Namibia
Training Authority, 2013). The communal land system is a remnant of the duality applied to land
tenure by the apartheid pre-independence system. Black communities had to stay in small areas, often
away from cities and share resources such as land and water. Traditional livestock rearing in Namibia
is characterized by low productivity due to low calving rates, high mortality, and low off-take rates
for meat and milk (JICA, 2017). Historically commercial farmers benefitted considerable support
from the government through direct assistance – such as subsidies, extension, and veterinary services– and indirectly because of the development of transport, marketing, and other services (Schmokel1985).
At independence, studies found that farmers in the communal areas often lacked adequate
agribusiness skills to make them competitive in modern agriculture (Ministry of Agriculture, Water
and Forestry, 2015).
In its 2013 inaugural report, the Namibian Training Authority (NTA), the country’s regulator
for vocational education and training, developed the agricultural sector skills plan (SSP) to provide
skills the needed by sector (Namibia Training Authority, 2013). This SSP set the blueprint fortraining in agriculture. This SSP focused on the demand for vocationally skilled labor, specificallyon the primary agricultural sector, and excluded occupations of a generic and general nature which
do not relate specifically to the sector. This SSP found that reliable data on qualification and skill
profiles in the agricultural sector remains scarce as most studies and surveys have focused on thecommercial sector (Namibia Training Authority, 2013). This is supported by studies stating thattraining in developing countries often focuses on production without taking cognizance of postproduction activities (Mabeya et al., 2010). Hence, capacity-building exercises also often target
commercial producers and professionals leading to a skills shortage in rural (communal) areas.
Ⓒ ISERD

91

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2021) 12-2

OBJECTIVE
Due to the highlighted factors, the objective of this study is to identify the challenges farmers facegiven the current agribusiness training offered in the country. Further, this study looks at findings
from farmers in all three-land tenures in the country.
METHODOLOGY
Study Area
This study was conducted in three regions within the Southern Communal Area: Erongo, Omaheke,
and Otjozondjupa, where a combination of livestock farming takes place. A veterinary cordon fence
was erected in 1896 under German colonial rule to contain a Rinderpest outbreak, resulting in the
splitting of Namibia into two livestock farming zones: Northern and Southern Communal Areas.
Method of the Study
This study utilized both qualitative and quantitative data. Secondary data was sourced frompublications from line ministries involved in agriculture, which are the Ministry of Agriculture,
Water and Forestry, the Ministry of Land Reform, and the Ministry of Industrialization and Trade,
as well as documents from parastatals (refers to government-owned agencies): Meat-Board of
Namibia, MeatCo (Meat Company) Namibia and the Namibia Statistics Agency. Primary data werecollected from a structured questionnaire administered to livestock farmers from all land tenures (e.g.,communal, commercial, and resettlement farmers) in August 2019. A total of 33 livestock farmers
were surveyed through convenient sampling. The questionnaire aimed to collect farmers' views on
agribusiness training in the country, including what they believed were the challenges in agriculture,training, and livestock markets. It should be noted that this study is essentially a qualitative literature
review, that not only considers findings from the three regions but relies on historical findings andsupporting studies on Agricultural training in Namibia.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Training Access and Content
Prior to the inaugural SSP report in 2013, Namibia conducted baseline surveys on the impact ofextension services in all regions. These surveys tried to address whether impact can be proven andto whom this impact is felt (Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Rural Development, 2003). Thesesurveys looked at advisory services, information, communication, and farmer training, and can beconsidered the most significant for looking at communal areas as extension services address all
farmers. These surveys are also critical for assessing training access in terms of government
extension services which are offered at no cost but vary in frequency and location (distance fromtraining area), and these can be seen as challenges.
The most significant research on training access and content for Namibia in recent years is the
SSP, which aimed at addressing all Technical, Vocational Education and Training (TVET) in the
country by looking at factors affecting training and all the key role players. This SSP was a
consultative process, to match demand and supply of Agricultural Technical and Vocational
Education and Training (ATVET), the skills needed mainly include production side (e.g., anatomy
and physiology, farm production). Farm management, another sub-category of the trainings,
includes business planning and entrepreneurial skills, marketing skills, record keeping andadministration, financial management skills, people management and management as well astransport and stores management (Namibia Training Authority, 2013). These are the skills considered
to scale up farmers entrepreneurship (Schulleri, 2013). According to the TVET studies, the demand
for training is high and diverse but providers are few thus there is a need to prioritize on the trainingⒸ ISERD

92

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2021) 12-2

needs. It is important to note that “agribusiness” is rarely explicitly mentioned in most documents,and often “agricultural training” and “marketing” and most other “finance” related terminology are
the terms used to capture these critical skills.
Assessment of ATVET provision found numerous challenges including incapacity of trainers,
limited training institutions, and inadequacy of practical training facilities and equipment. The
government through the NTA has agreed to adopt the Competency Based Education and Training(CBET) approach to vocational training which places a high demand on the ability of the training
provider to provide practical training opportunities wherein trainees can develop practice anddemonstrate competence very few institutions currently can offer.
Farmer-Respondents and Training
Respondent profiling was done in terms of age, gender, education level, occupation sector andmonthly income. Majority of the 33 farmer-respondents were male (72.7%) and were between theages of 50-59 (36.4%), closely followed by 60-69 age group (33.3%). The education level for morethan 50% of farmer-respondents was undergraduate degree and post-graduate degree levels, with30.3% and 27.3 % respectively. Most of the farmer-respondents were full time employees in public
and private sector with 18.2 and 45.4% respectively. Most of the surveyed farmers had over 21 yearsof farming experience, many of whom consider themselves communal farmers. Table 1 shows thedetailed results of the farmer-respondents’ socio-economic profile.
Table 1 Socio-economic profile of farmer-respondents (n=33)
Socio-economic
characteristic
AgeLess than 40 yr. old
41-50 yr. old
51-60 yr. old
61-70 yr. oldAbove 70 yr. old
GenderMale
FemaleFrequency

Percentage

3
6
12
11
1

9.1
18.2
36.4
33.3
3.0

24
6

72.7
27.3

25
8

75.8
24.2

9
10
4
10

27.3
30.3
12.1
30.3

21
5
7

63.6
15.2
21.2

Marital Status
MarriedSingleEducation
Postgraduate
Undergraduate
Diploma
Other
Occupation
Employed
Self-employedPensioner

Socio-economic
characteristic
Annual Income
50,000 N$ and less
50,001-100,000
100,001-300,000
300,001-500,000
500,001-above
Household size
1-5 persons
6-10 persons
11 persons and more
Farming experience
1-5 years
6-10 years
11-15 years
16-20 years
21 years and above
Type of Farming
Communal
Commercial
Resettled

Frequency

Percentage

3
8
7
6
9

9.1
24.2
21.2
18.2
27.3

18
14
1

54.5
42.4
3.0

1
8
4
6
14

3.0
24.2
12.1
18.2
42.4

16
12
5

48.5
36.4
15.2

Source Field Survey, August 2019

Out of the 33 farmers surveyed, 25 had attended some form of training as seen in Table 2, yet
two were aware of training and opted not to attend any, the remaining six were unaware of any
available training and therefore had not attended any. Of the trained farmers, 12 farmer-respondents
attended training identified by the farmers’ organization or ministry involved. The training institution
mostly identified was government extension services provided by the ministry. Government
extension training is offered on an ongoing basis through advice and farmer support services. This
type of training is mostly done in the field by the extension staff and is usually not of a structured
nature and is not standardized (Ministry of Agriculture Water and Rural Development, 2003 andⒸ ISERD

93

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2021) 12-2

Namibia Training Authority, 2013). Some attended training with MeatCo which provides training
mainly to livestock farmers. Agribank of Namibia also offers training through its Agri Advisory
Services, which offers various content packages, from financial to rangeland management, howeverthese are often for those in urban areas or those that can attend farm excursions which is notnecessarily available to all farmers. Farmers also attended training with Agrifutura, although they
could not provide the training content, the institution offers training and farm visit (site-led) training
on livestock management; livestock marketing; farm finances; animal health; rangeland and pasturemanagement. Few farmers mentioned attending training provided by Agra ProVision. This isperhaps the costliest of the ATVET institutions in Namibia, its courses are tailormade and includes
mentoring. Their course content ranges across the entire plethora of farming and management. The
SSP has stated that Agra ProVision is one of the few institutions with the capacity to offer adequate
training, its biggest constraint is resources to pay for such services.
Table 2 Awareness and participation to training
Characteristic
Aware of training, attended training
Aware of training, did not attend training
Unaware of training, did not attend

Frequency (n=33)
25
2
6

Source: Field Survey, August 2019

Table 3 Agricultural challenges identified by number and tenurial type of farmers
Challenges identified
Environment-related
Bush Encroachment
Drought
Increase in number of wildlife
Lack of grazing
Water shortages
Livestock technology
Animal health
Quality of livestockMarket-related
Few auctions/uncoordinated auctions
Few buyers/monopolies buyers
High cost of transport
Low market accessNo direct marketing channels
Poor prices
Policy environment
Few regional farmers’ organizations
High interest loans
High land prices
Lack of capacity
Lack of information
Low government support
Permit bureaucracy

Commercial(n=12)

Communal(n=16)

Resettlement
(n=5)

0
1
0
0
0

0
1
1
1
1

1
1
1
1
1

1
1

1
0

1
0

1
1
1
0
1
1

1
1
1
1
1
1

0
0
0
0
0
1

0
1
1
1
1
1
0

1
0
0
1
1
0
0

0
0
0
1
1
0
1

Source: field survey August 2019
Note: 1 implies that farmers agree this is a challenge and 0 implies farmers did not agree that this is a challenge. For
each challenge all farmers from that tenure agreed the factor is a challenge.

Although the available trainings ranged from basic livestock management to range management(Mabeya et al., 2010), it is evident that training is often production-oriented leaving a capacity gap
in post-production activity. Moreover, this study found that livestock farmers, even those receiving
some form of training experienced various challenges (Table 3).
Environment related ChallengesⒸ ISERD

94

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2021) 12-2

All farmers identified drought as being a major threat to livestock agriculture in Namibia, theMinistry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry (2015) highlighted this as one of Namibia’s major
agricultural constraints as the country has had a severe drought over consecutive periods since 2013.
This has worsened water shortages, especially in communal areas where farmers share resources
including land and water with each other and the growing amount of wildlife. Farmers in communal
areas are increasingly facing challenges of reducing grazing pastures as more areas are being fenced
off by well to do families, leaving less land available for open grazing (Togarepi et al., 2016).
Livestock grazes on open access commonage pastures and woodlands. The practice of transhumancehas declined in recent years. Farmers also alluded the high cost of land in Namibia.
Livestock Technology
Animal health was identified by all farmers as a common problem which explains why one of themain trainings is on livestock health. Musaba (2011) found that increased technology adoption is
only possible through capacity development, his findings show higher adoption rates for farmers
located closer to extension officials. This clearly shows the importance of extension services and theneed for frequency of training for livestock farmers. The SSP also identified 40 areas of skills
demanded in agriculture through consultation with farmers and other key stakeholders (Namibia
Training Authority, 2013), these skills were ranked from 5 to 1 on importance. Those skills pertaining
to livestock technology ranked between 3 to 5 which is high ranking.
Market Challenges
The low prices, small number of buyers, and few uncoordinated auctions point to livestock market
challenges. The Namibian market is small due to the country’s low population with the only lucrative
markets being in urban areas. Many farmers stressed how difficult it was to make a profit in livestock
farming due to numerous cost constraints including the price of stock feed, high cost of transportation
to markets and few auctions and buyers available in the country. Most farms are located far frommarkets thus prices of farm products are often also high to cover variable costs, including transport.
Similarly, perishables, like meat and meat products require costly cooling or other special storage
facilities, which are not readily available in rural areas. Farmers predominantly sell to a single buyer
or speculator, a situation which has created monopolies within the sector, as one commercial farmer
stated, “Farmers have few options but to sell to a middleman,” conveying that they are often pricetakers.
Policy Environment
One of the key factors that play a major role in livestock market participation by farmers has beenfound to be “business orientation by the smallholder livestock farmers” (Zuwarimwe and Mbaai2015) which highlights a need for capacity in the industry as identified by all the farmer-respondents.
Another common policy problem was the lack of information among or within the agricultural sector.
Agricultural policy decisions are made, without involvement of the primary recipients – the farmers(Kumba, 2003).
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Farmer-respondents clearly identified agricultural sector challenges in the country, including theirpersonal farming challenges. Literature review of the SSP also highlighted challenges of the training.
Together these sketch a foundational analysis where the two can be used to further study training
needs and agricultural challenges’ convergence to improve the sector. It was found that the livestock
production, although dominating the Namibian agriculture sector, is faced with a myriad ofchallenges, some, such as drought and climate variability are beyond anyone’s control. However,Ⓒ ISERD

95

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2021) 12-2

most of the training offered to farmers by institutions, including government extension, is production
centered, yet the measures to integrate farmers into greater markets are very few. Farmers need to begiven adequate training on how to market their livestock independently. Farmer capacity
development cannot be the sole responsibility of the government; the private sector also needs to be
involved. Farmers need to be equipped with the necessary skills to cope with ever-changing
environments and operate their farms more efficiently. To enhance livestock productivity in ruralcommunities, better farm management practices should be adopted.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The researchers would like to acknowledge the sincere cooperation of the surveyed livestock farmers
in Namibia, and Tokyo University of Agriculture particularly the NODAI Research Institute and the
NODAI Education Support Association for partial financial support.
REFERENCES
Enkono, S.G., Kalundu, S.K. and Thomas, B. 2013. Analysis of factors influencing cattle off-take rate andmarketing in Ndiyona constituency of Kavango region, Namibia. Journal of Agricultural Extension and
Rural Development, 5 (9), 201-206.
JICA. 2017. The Republic of Namibia Northern crop and livestock development master plan. Final Report,
Volume 1. Windhoek JICA.
Kumba, F. 2003. Farmer participation in agricultural research and extension service in Namibia. Journal ofInternational Agricultural and Extension Education, 10 (3), 47-55, Retrived from 10.5191/jiaee.2003.
10306.
Mabeya, E., Christy, R.D. and Bandama, M. 2010. The current state of agribusiness education and training in
Africa. Joint 3rd African Association of Economists (AAAE) and 48th Agricultural Economists Associationof South Africa (AEASA) Conference, Cape Town, South Africa. September 19-23.
Mendelsohn, J. 2006. Farming systems in Namibia. Windhoek, Namibia, Namibia National Farmers Union.
Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry. 2015. Namibia agriculture policy. Windhoek, Namibia,
Government of the Republic of Namibia.
Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry. 2017. Agricultural statistics bulletin 2010-2015. Windhoek,
Namibia, Government of the Republic of Namibia.
Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Rural Development. 2003. Baseline survey of the impact of agriculturalextension services in the Omaheke Region. Government of the Republic of Namibia.
Musaba, E.C. 2011. Analysis of factors influencing adoption of cattle management technologies by communal
farmers in Northern Namibia. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 22 (6), Retrieved from http://
www.lrrd.org/lrrd22/6/musa22104.htm
Namibia Statistics Agency. 2013. Namibia labour force survey. Windhoek, Namibia, Government of the
Republic of Namibia.
Namibia Statistics Agency. 2015. Namibia census of agriculture: Commercial, leasehold and resettlement
farms 2013/2014. Windhoek, Namibia, Government of the Republic of Namibia.
Namibia Training Authority. 2013. Sector skills plan - Agricultural sector of Namibia (2013 -2017). Final
Report, Government of the Republic of Namibia.
Schulleri, F. 2013. Promotion of technical vocational education and training (TVET) for the agricultural sectorin Africa. Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH, Retrieved from https://www.
academia.edu/31791983/Promotion_of_Technical_Vocational_Education_and_Training_TVET_for_the_
Agricultural_Sector_ATVET_in_Africa_A_Review_of_best_Practises_on_ATVET_in_Africa_Case_Stu
dies_of_Ethiopia_Benin_Namibia_and_Sierra_Leone_Final_Report
Schmokel, W.W. 1985. The myth of the white farmer: Commercial agriculture in Namibia 1900-1983. The
International Journal of African Historical Studies, 18 (1), 93-108.
Togarepi, C., Thomas, B. and Kankono, M. 2016. Cattle marketing constraints and opportunities in northcentral communal areas of Namibia, Ohangwena Region. Livestock Research for Rural Development,
Volume 28, Article #132, Retrieved from http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd28/7/toga28132.html
Zuwarimwe, J. and Mbaai, S.M. 2015. Factors influencing smallholder farmers’ decisions to participate inlivestock markets in Namibia. Journal of Development and Agricultural Economics, 7 (7), Retrieved fromⒸ ISERD

96

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2021) 12-2

10.5897/ JDAE2014.0562.

Ⓒ ISERD

97