land, livelihoods and housing programme...

Faculty of Natural Resources and Spatial Sciences Integrated Land Management Institute (ILMI)

Land, livelihoods and housing Programme 2015-18 Working Paper The Integrated Land Management Institute (ILMI) is a centre of the Faculty of Natural Resources and Spatial Sciences (FNRSS) at the Namibia University of Science and Technology (NUST), committed to developing reputable and multidisciplinary research and public outreach activities in the fields of land administration, property, architecture, and spatial planning. The Land, Livelihoods and Housing Programme aims at deepening and expanding the focus on these three key issues in Namibia. This thematic approach seeks to reflect the wide-ranging skills exiting at the FNRSS, and was developed to guide ILMI’s activities during the 2014-18 period. The programme is organised in four aspects: institutional, environmental, fiscal and spatial processes.

August 2018 Integrated Land Management Institute (ILMI) 13 Storch Street Private Bag 13388 Windhoek Namibia T: +264 61 207 2483 F: +264 61 207 9483 E: [email protected] W: ilmi.nust.na

Working Paper No. 9

A short socio-spatial history

of Namibia Guillermo Delgado

Integrated Land Management Institute Namibia University of Science and Technology

ABOUTTHISDOCUMENTThefollowingdocumentwasproducedaspartofmydoctoralresearchattheUniversityofCapeTown(UCT), in SouthAfrica.The scopeof the thesis shiftedup to apoint inwhich itwasn’t necessary toincludea trajectoryofNamibia’s socio-spatialdevelopment for the reader to engagewithmywork.Theterm‘socio-spatial’istostressthespatialdimensionwithinsocialprocesses.Tohavesimplylefttheterm‘spatial’wouldhavemissedthepointofspatialproductionasasocialprocess.Inotherwords,spaceperseisnotwhatisatstakehere,butratherthedialecticrelationshipofhowspaceisproducedandatthesametimeittransformsthosewhoinhabitit.Therefore,whatIwouldliketoencompassisnotmerely townplanningschemes, houses,orpublicspaces,butalsospatialsocial relations,policydocuments, jurisdictions,andtoacertainextenttheproductionofnature.However,thisreviewmaybe useful for other researchers and interested parties to have an overview of the trajectory ofNamibia’ssocio-spatialdevelopment. I’dlike to thankWernerHillebrecht,PhillipLühl,AnnaMuller,NashilongweshipeMushaandja,andWolfgangWernerfortheircommentsonthisratherpreliminarydocument.Athorough‘historyofsocio-spatialdevelopmentinNamibia’stillremainsanoutstandingtask.Ihaveproducedallthevisualsunlessotherwisenoted.ABOUTTHEAUTHOR

GuillermoDelgadocoordinatesthe‘Land,livelihoodsandhousing’programmeattheIntegratedLandManagement Institute, at the Namibia University of Science and Technology (NUST)[email protected]© 2018 ILMI – Integrated Land Management Institute ISBN 978-99916-55-71-0 ILMI is a research centre at the Faculty of Natural Resources and Spatial Sciences (FNRSS) at the Namibia University of Science and Technology (NUST). Views expressed by the authors are not to be attributed to any of these institutions. Please visit our website for details on ILMI’s publications policy: http://ilmi.nust.na

DELGADO A short socio-spatial history of Namibia

ILMI Working Paper No. 10 Page 1

1.IntroductionThispaperislargelybasedonareviewoftheliteraturewrittenonNamibiamainlyinthe1980sand90s, as well as some contemporary literature. Particularly the pre-independence section reliesconsiderablyonaspatialreadingofWallace’s ‘AHistoryofNamibia’,aswellasfromotherhistoricalsources.Whiledoingareviewofurbanresearch inSouthernAfrica in1990s,Swillingnoted that inNamibiaduring theperiodof1983and1991,only21publicationswerededicatedon the topicandmost of it focused on Windhoek. He attributed this to the limited research base and “expatriateacademics and the pre-independence government dominating the research field” (1994:309). Thissituationhassomewhatchanged,butI includeittoaccountforthekindofreferencesthatI’veused.Thispapertriestocapturekeyeventsforsocio-spatialproduction,andthereforeneglectseventsthatmay be of historical importance for Namibia as a nation. While the longest section of this paperaddressestherecentdevelopments,itisinfactonlytoalimitedextent.Onecanconsiderthispaperas‘an index’ of themes. This paperwasn’t conceived to put forward aparticular thesis. However, thereader will find that an argument inductively emerges, one that suggest the development andconsolidationofinequalitythroughsocio-spatialproduction.Thetimingofthereleaseofthispapermayalsobetimely,ascurrentlytheissueof‘land’isataheightin views of the looming Second Land Conference, which was recently announced by the president(RepublicofNamibia,2018)andthatissettotakeplaceinOctoberthisyear.Asthereaderwillfindinthefollowingpages,theFirstLandConferencetookplaceinacontextwherelessthanonefourthofthepopulationwaslivinginurbanareas;today,morethanhalfofthepopulationlivesinurbanareas,andcurrent estimates expect this to increase up to a point in which the situation in 2050 becomespreciselytheoppositeasthatin1990(UNDESA,2018).Atthispoint,Namibiawillhaveabout3millionpeople living in urban areas; and while this number may provide a quantitative reference, theimplications of Namibia’s urban future is arguably far from being understood. Furthermore, whileinformal settlements around 1990 were few, today most of those living in urban areas live in aninformalsettlement1. Inotherwords, thesocio-spatialtransformationofNamibia in less thanthreedecadeshasbeenastonishing.

Figure1Namibiaviewfromspace.Source:GoogleEarth.

1 The numbers of inhabitants in informal settlements gathered through the self-enumeration efforts of the Shack Dwellers Federation of Namibia (SDFN, 2009) represent 60% of the population in urban areas reported in the 2011 census (NSA, 2011).



At the same time, this kind of rapid and profound transformation has taken place in many othercontexts, thequestionis in fact theway inwhich thisdevelopmenthas takenplace.Therefore,whatmay be actually astonishing is that this transformation has taken in a deeply unequal manner.Namibia, togetherwithSouthAfrica, tops the listof inequalitymeasuredbyGINIcoefficient (WorldBank,2017);thecountry’snationalgeographyandurbanareasare,inmanyways,botharesultandanengine for this condition. Namibia’s socio-spatial developmentmaywell be a paradigmatic case ofunevengeographicaldevelopment(Harvey,2006);orperhaps,asothershavediagnosedinthecaseofSouth Africa, both uneven and combined development (Bond, Desai, & Ngwane, 2011). However,defendinganyof these thesesisbeyondthescopeof thispiece.Thispapersuffers fromastructuralomission that presents the gradualprocess of appropriation of spatial production for profit-drivenpurposesasuncontested.This isnotso:thehistoryofresistance to theGermancolonial regime isamaintheme inkeysources(Gewald,1999);Garveystmovements inthecoastaltownsemergedasawaytoresistoppressionintermsofworkingconditionsandracialdiscrimination(Kotze,1990);andworkers, students andwomen struggleshave alsoplayeda role inmany respects (Katjavivi, 1988).However, in the documentation I’ve used for this paper, resistance is mentioned only scantly. Tohighlight these struggles would’ve required archival work or expanding this bibliography to otherfields,whichwasbeyondthescopeoftheprocessfromwhichthispaperstems.What this paper highlights is not only a progression of uneven development, but perhaps also anumber of opportunities. An common idea that was generally shared by the various internationalspeakersatlastyear’sUrbanForum(NUST,2017),was thatNamibiacanstillharnessthedynamicstakingplaceinitsfavour.Africaisthecontinentwiththefastestgrowthinurbanareas,andonlyoneinthreecountrieshavewhatcanbecalleda‘nationalurbanstrategy’orplan(Turok,2015);Namibiaisnotyetoneof them.Theextensiveeffortsand thoroughplanning that theApartheidadministrationputintorestructuringNamibia’sterritorythroughtheOdendaalCommissionhavenotbeenmatchedbyacomprehensiveandunitarydocumentcounteringthisandcharteringtheway foranewspatialreality for the country. Therefore, expanding and deepening on the present document remains animportanttasktomakedecisionsgainingfromhistoricalexperience,andhopefullydeliberatelyaimingat transforming the trends that have progressively turned Namibia’s production of space into anengineofreproductionofinequality.

Figure2Amomentataninformalmarket.Photo:PhillipLühl



Figure3TimelineofeventsinNamibia,keyeventsinSouthAfricaandinternationally.



Urban

Rural



2.Theearlysocio-spatialdynamicsThesocio-spatialtransformationofNamibia’slandscapestartedwaybeforecolonialtimes.Oneofthefirst clarifications Wallace makes when introducing her history of Namibia is that “[b]y the timeNamibia became a colony in formal terms, it had already been considerably transformed” (Wallace2011:1). Already in 1870, she describes the central and southern areas of Namibia as “a complexpolitical environment, inwhich groups of people speakingOtjiherero, Khoekhoegowab, CapeDutchand San languagesmaintained varied and intertwined relationships, andwhere claims to rights toland,waterandgrazingsometimesflaredintoconflict”(2011:46).Thefirstarchaeologicalevidenceofhuman inhabitation in what is today known as Namibia dates from “about 10,000 years ago”(2011:20). From then until the 18th and 19th Century, Namibia was inhabited by pastoralists andtraderspassing through routesnegotiatedwithmore sedentarypolities.Thedeclineof pastoralismwas determined not only by gradual land dispossession from colonising forces, but also due todiseases; Kinahan writes how a rinderpest outbreak in 1897 led to the “effective collapse ofpastoralism”inNamibia(Kinahan,2011:40).Uptothispoint,groupsdidn’tseekcontroloverlandperse, but over rights to access its resources: “wells, pasture […] ants’ nests and beehives” (2011:47).Furthermore,groups themselveswerenotaggregatedas thesolidgroups that thecolonialandthentheapartheidadministrationgraduallyimposed.Akeydynamicthatfacilitatedthetransitionbetweenprecolonialandcolonialtimeswastheexpanseofmissionaryactivities.Initially,themissionarieswereseenbylocalleadersasthreatstotheirpower,but eventually “greatly expanded”(Wallace, 2011:62) after the1842arrival of theRhenishMissionSociety(RMS).Missionaryactivitiesareimportanttohighlightfortheproto-modernistorderthattheystartedtoestablish:

“missionaries promoted a salvation that lay not only in faith, a rigid sexual morality and theabandonmentofwhattheysawas‘heathen’practices,butalsointheadoptionofthefeaturesofanidealised,orderly,Europeanpeasant society:Western clothes, literacy, squarehouses,aChristianeducation,arigidassignmentofmaleandfemalerolesconfiningwomentothedomesticspace,andtheuseoftheplough”(Wallace,2011:64,myemphasis)

This framework placed space within a package of idealised European virtuosity promoted by thechurch.Theproductionofcolonialspacewasnotisolatedbutcamewithinabundleofother‘virtues’andmodernisation.Religionisalsoherebroughttotheforeforitsprimaryroleintheintroductionofthecolonial regimeandthe ideaof ‘thestate’.During theearlycolonial times, the“stateandsettlerpowerhascometobeunderstoodasfrequentlyfractured,partial,andlimitedbycircumstancesandresources,ratherthananall-powerfulmachinery”(Wallace,2011:5).Themissionarychurchwouldattimesfillsomeofthese‘fractures’ofthecolonialstate;andinsomecases,mediatebetweenitanditscongregation.3.ThecolonialmomentEuropean colonial powers gained attention to Namibia with the increase in interest in naturalresources, as well as the own political-economic events taking place in Europe at that time. Theearliest Europeans to settle in Namibiawere the British in the early 1800s. Itwas also themwhostartedexploringcommercialopportunities,anditwasduetotheiractivitiesthattheGermansbecameeventually interested in it (Frayne, 2000). Early trade between local groups and Europeans wasencouragedbyaboominguanoascommodityin1844;anditwasalsoaroundthistimethatthefirstrightstominingweregrantedtotradersbylocalgroups(Wallace,2011:66).ThewatershedmomentforNamibiaandAfricaintheircolonialhistorywasthe1884-5BerlinConference,wherethecontinentwassubdividedandapportionedbetweenEuropeancolonialpowers.AlthoughitisdocumentedthatBismarckhimselfwasn’tkeenontheideaofcolonisation,heeventuallychangedhisviewin1884,butwith the specific position that “colonies should be administered by private German companies”



(2011:116).ThegradualprocessofGermancolonisationofNamibia tooksuchpathway itself:AdolfLüderitz,aGermantrader,‘bought’largetractsoflandfromlocalinhabitantsin1883,paidforingoodsandweapons.AsWallacenotes,the“landpurchasesinthesouthgaveBismarckabasisonwhichtobegintheprocessofinstallingGermanauthorityinNamibia”(2011:117).AsLüderitzfailedtomakeprofits, he sold his land holdings to the newly-established German South West Africa Company(DKGSWA, standing forDeutscheKolonialgesselschaft für Südwestafrika inGerman).The company isdocumentedtohavehadrightstoprospectandminenotonlythoseareasownedbyLüderitz,buttheentire territory;asituation thatmost likelyhadlittle legitimacy.Forstrategicreasons, theGermanscame upwith ‘protection agreements’ that they signedwith local groups,whichwere then used tohinderthedominanceofthemorepowerfulgroupssuchasthoseloyaltopowerfullocalleaderssuchasSamuelMahareroandHendrikWitbooi.The landdispossessionduringGermancolonial rulewasgradual,anddespitetheskewedpowersituationbetweenthecoloniserandthecolonised,manyofthedocumentedexpansionsoflandholdingswere‘purchases’.Someleaderswouldusethesaleoflandasawaytosettledebts;evenifsuchlandwasnotundertheirjurisdiction.CrucialinthisprocesswasthecontrolthatGermansattainedoverthelandregistration,whichwasapowerfultoolthatallowedthemtogain influence inthepoliticsofsuccessioninlocalpolitiesbyconditioninglandsales(2011:150).Land tenure was here employed to exercise significant power over political decisions and colonialexpansion.

Figure4DiagramoutliningthecolonialprojectasrepresentedbytheGermans.Althoughthisvisualexpressestheresourceextractioncolonies,thesettlercolonialprojectalsoimpliedaflowofpeople.Texttranslation:(top)Germany,(bottom)Germancolonies,(textinbetween,lefttoright)Germancapitalinthecolonies,colonialproductstothemotherland,industrialproductstothecolonies,increasedcapitalflow.Source:Kunze(1938).



Theearlystructuresofcolonisationfortheextractionofresourceswerefollowedbythesettingupoflivingspaceforsettlers.GermanyconsideredthatNamibiawas,fromalltheircolonies,“theonethatcould provide the healthiest conditions to settlers” and, due to the armed conflicts that erupted,furthermoresawitasaterritory“boughtwiththebloodofGermansoldiers”(Wallace2011:194).In1891, the Settlement Syndicate for South West Africa (SWA), as Namibia was known then, wasfoundedwiththepurposeofencouragingGermanstorelocate;KleinWindhoekwasidentifiedfortheuseofsettlementandasmall influxoccurred then(2011:127). Itwashoweveronlyuntil1896that“the conditions for colonial development were created” (2011:131): German settlers arrived, andthere was support to develop transport and other infrastructure. In 1896 there were only 2,000‘whites’ including the armed forces, but by 1903 the number had more than doubled (2011:149).Already here can one find the first town plans developed for Windhoek (Frayne, 2000). Thedevelopmentof infrastructure“presaged theconstructionofanewformofcapitalisteconomy,withmuchgreaterindustrialisationandincreasedaccesstotechnologicalresources”(Wallace,2011:151).Alsoitwasintheseearlystagesthatthe‘RedLine’wasestablished,whichwasinitiallyageographicaldelimitationtocontrolcattleinthedrierSouthernareasfrombeingaffectedbythediseasesformtheNorthern areas. This line would eventually acquire other socio-political and economic dynamics,creating a clear social divide that arguably continues until today (Miescher, 2012). Already in the1890sasystemofpropertyrightsandacapitalist landmarkethadbeenestablished(Simon,1991),whichingrainedaWesterncapitalistlogicinthe‘DNA’ofspatialproductioninNamibia.Atthispoint,the resource extraction paradigm had already transitioned into settler colonialism rapidly gainingroots;andthefoundationsforacapitalistspatialproductionandpoliticaleconomyhadbeenlaid.The1904-8warbetweentheGermancolonisersandtheHereroandNamagroupswascrucialforthesocio-spatialdevelopmentofNamibia.The fragileecologybetweenthese twogroupsbroke in1904,andconsolidatedasingleruleovertheterritoryandconfirmedtheideaoftheGermancolonialstate(Wallace, 2011:147).Maps available at theNationalArchives reveal a varyingunderstandingof thespatialdistributionofthevariouspolitiesatthattime,butinallitispossibletorecognisethediversityamonggroups.However,theeffectofthewarwasthemostdramaticintheHereroandNama.Wallaceattributes the victory of the German colonial rule not only in its might, but also to “the level ofpenetrationofmerchantcapitalintoSWA”(2011:148)whichputpressureonleaderstosettledebtsthroughsaleofland.Thesignificanceofthewar,Wallacenotes,wasthatitwas“crucialincreatingthestructure of unequal, and racially determined, land ownership” (2011:155) in Namibia. The racialsegregationoftownswasalsoenhancedbythesituationcreatedafterthewar,andtheemergenceofconcentrationcamps:

“Insometowns,raciallybasedspatialsegregationwasbeginningtoemerge,basedontheadhocconstructionof separateareas forAfricans, includingdetention camps,accommodation for thoseservingthearmy,andinsomecasesanolderandoftencomplexformofsegregationthathadgrownuparoundthemissionstations”(2011:154)

Furthermore, at a largerscale, the ideaof ‘reserves’ hadbeenalreadydiscussed in the early1900s,mainly as a debate between missionaries and the German colonial rule on how to deal withsettlements. In theyearsafter thewar,anapartheid-likesystemwas imposedby thepassingof theNativeOrdinance(EingeborenenverordnungeninGerman)of1907.Wallacearguesthattheaimwasto“transformtheAfricansintoalandlessproletariat,destroytheirpoliticalorganisationandculture,andforce themtowork inadisciplinedandorderlymanner forwhiteemployers”(2011:184).Thiswasachieved by controlling movement, penalising Africans breaking employment contracts, andinstitutingvagrancylaws,amongothermeasures.AkeymomentthatfurtherattractedpowerfuleconomicintereststoNamibiawasthe1908discoveryofdiamondsnearLüderitz.Atthatmoment,asystemforcontract labour forbringingworkers fromthepopulousnorthernareasofthecountryintothelesspopulatedsouthernareaswasalreadytakingplaceatasmallscaleinthe1890s.However,thediamondindustryandtheflourishingcopperindustryin Tsumeb intensified this and eventually turned the contract labour system into the forceful



restructuring factor that itwas.At the turnof the century therewere “asmanyas1,700” (Wallace,2011:152)contractlabourersworkingonrailroads,farms,andformissionaries;by1911,“therewereestimatedtobe15,000morejobsthanworkerswithinthecolony”(2011:187).However,this‘boom’didn’t reflect on improvements of living conditions for workers. Hishongwa documented theprecarious conditions in the labour compounds (1992), demonstrating that economic activity wasundertakenwithhighdisregard for the labour thatmade itpossible.Thepost-warperiod also sawrapidgrowthintheblackandwhitepopulationofNamibia’stowns,whichwasamatterofconcerntoauthoritiesastheyviewedthe“newurbanblackpopulation”asposingthe“dangerof‘indiscipline’andpotential unrest”’ (Wallace, 2011:192). This was also a time when ‘urban governance’ started toinclude ‘Africans’; Wallace explains how “new forms of authority began to develop among urbanAfricans,especiallywhenthestatebegantoappointblackheadmeninthetowns”(2011:192).Thiscanberegardedasamomentwheresegregatedgovernancestructuresstartedtobeestablishedinthecity.Wallace quotes Bley (1996) to note employers’ “everyday struggle for ‘distance’” (2011:196) todescribe the efforts of authorities to keepa segregated social ecology around the concentrationsofpeople that theneweconomiesrequired.Thepaceof the influxof ‘blacks’ intourbanareas that theeconomicimperativesdemandedwasthereforemuchquickerthanwhatwastolerablefromthesocialpointofviewofthoseincharge;andsegregationwasthesolution.

Figure5PhotographshowingGermancolonialbuildingsandapartmentbuildingsbuiltduringSouthAfricancolonialruleinWindhoektoday.4.SouthAfricancolonialruleWiththedefeatofGermanyintheWWI,NamibiacametobeadministeredbySouthAfricaunderaUN(thenLeagueofNations)mandate.ThemandateofSouthAfricaoverNamibiawasintendedtobeonlytemporaryinnature,butinpracticeitbecameaformofcolonisationthatresultedinastrengtheningoftheon-goingandsystematiclanddispossession.ThelandinNamibiawasofstrategicimportanceforthelocalsituationinSouthAfrica,particularlywiththewhiteworkingclassdisaffectionvis-à-visthehardenedemploymentsituation:

“SWAopeneduptheprospectofjobsandlandforthegrowingnumbersofimpoverishedwhitesinSouthAfricaitself,wherelandlessness,disaffectionandthethreatofsocialunrestwererising,andweretoculminate inthewhiteminers’strike(‘Randrevolution’)of1922.Theauthorities inSWArespondedwithamasslandsettlementprogrammeforpoorwhites”(Wallace,2011:216-217)



WallacequotesWellington(1967)toaffirmthat“theNativequestionissynonymouswiththelabourquestion”(2011:218).Shethenrepurposesthisstatementtoarguethat“[i]fthe‘nativequestion’wasthe‘labourquestion’itwasalso,intheAdministrator’seyes,‘thelandquestion’”(Wallace,2011:218).Landwas largely allocated to South African applicants, but also to some Germans; no applicationswerereceivedfrom'Natives',whowereundertheimpressionthatthelandwouldberestoredtothemafter the WWI (Goldblatt, 1971:226). Goldblatt quotes a Union Government document saying that"[t]hegreatestdifficultywasexperiencedinexplainingtothem[Natives]thatthis[restoringtheland]was utterly impossible" (Goldblatt 1971:226). In 1920 a Native Labour Commissionwas set up toinvestigate the labour situation, and it also laid the ground work guiding the South Africanadministrationtoimplementtheestablishmentof‘native’reserves.The rural areasunderwentmajor restructuring, andurbanareas grewconsiderablyunder thenewcolonialdispensation;bothofthesedevelopmentstookplaceinastarklyunevenmanner.Morethanmining,whichwas the largestcontributor to the economyofS.W.A.,Wallacenoteshow“[t]hemostimportant economic shift [during the South African administration] was the increasing success ofwhite-owned agriculture” (2011:235), particularly in the karakul2 sector. The relevance of theagriculturalsectorforemploymentremainshighuntiltoday,asitcontinuestobethelargestemployerinthecountry(NSA,2015).Duringthe1940s-50s,thenumberofwhite-ownedfarmsexpandedandareportonsocialsecurity, theLardner-BurkeCommissionof1945-47, recommendedtoshifttheRedLine further north to createmore land forwhite settlement. Between themid-1940s and themid-1960s, the number of white-occupied farms increased by 80%, and the white population doubled(Wallace, 2011:251). At the same time, by 1946, about one seventh of the population was alreadylivinginurbanareas.TheNatives(UrbanAreas)Proclamation,No.34of1924,institutedresidentialsegregationbyoutlawingacquisitionoflandby‘Africans’in‘white’areas,andviceversa.TheinfamousSouthAfricanGroupAreasActwasnot instituted inNamibiapartlybecause the existing legislationprovided sufficiently for residential segregation, so that “whites did not feel threatened” (Pickard-Cambridge,1988:22).Someoftheseincludetitledeedsrestrictionsandotherkindsofdiscrimination;most fundamentally in public education and health facilities. The towns in the north werepurposefully-developedinstrumentsfortheSouthAfricancolonialprojecttoexpand.AsDubresson&Graefe note, they were created “out of nothing” (2001:70) for policing, recruitment of contractlabourers,andadministrativepurposes;aswellasforthecreationofmarkets.Themilitaryoccupationinthenorthalso“generatedabizarreconsumereconomyofsupermarketsandbottlestores”(Leys&Saul, 1995:10). A possible unexpected outcome of the growth in urban population, at least for theAdministration,was thaturbanareasbecame “a significantarenaof unrest”,withorganisedgroupssetting up tax boycotts and other forms of protest as early as the 1920s (Wallace, 2011:225).Unionism,particularlyinthecoastaltowns,alsoaddedtothesocialeffervescenceatthattime(Peltola,1995).Themomentwhere the implementationofsegregationistpracticesgained itsstrongesttractionwaswhen theNationalParty inSouthAfrica rose topower in1948.WallacequotesNgavirue (1967) toclarifythatinNamibiatheimplementationofapartheidwasnevertheless“slowerandlesselaborate[…]thaninSouthAfrica”(2011:251).TheNatives(UrbanAreas)Proclamationof1951waspassedtoregulateAfricanmobility,andtogetherwithsubsequenttownplanningordinances,itestablished“newmeans of enforcing spatial apartheid in the towns, using the title deeds of individual properties topreventlandin ‘white’and‘Coloured’areasbeingsoldtoAfricans”(2011:252).Duringthistime,theimplementation of apartheid entailed only “a limited number of forced removals” (2011:253),particularlyinthe1950s,howeverothersarguethatdisplacementwasasignificantforcethatshapedthe waywe understand urban areas in Namibia today (Lühl, 2013). It nevertheless took one sucheventtotriggertheliberationstruggleinearnest.From1954to1959,theclosureofthe‘OldLocation’inWindhoekandrelocationofresidents toanew‘township’ inthenortheastofWindhoek,sparkedprotests thatwere violently crushed by authorities, killing at least 11 of those who demonstrated.Irrespectiveofsuchviolence,Firstnoteshowthisrelocationwasinacceptableforinhabitants:

2 Karakul is a sheep race original from Kazakhstan whose pelts are highly valued in international markets for luxury clothing.



"OffersofmoneyfordevelopmentarerejectedbecausetheAfricansfearthatthemoneyisconditionalontheiracceptanceofapartheid.Africansrefusetomove fromthetin-canslumofWindhoektothenewKatuturatownship;thenewhousingisbetter,butitisapartheidhousing"(1963:16).

Some note that these removals were a key determinant that intensified the liberation struggle inNamibia(Melber,2016);withmanyoftheleadersgoinginexiletocoordinateeffortswiththehelpofallieselsewhereinthecontinentandbeyond.

Figure6AhouseinKatutura,Windhoek,today;withextensions



Figure7RemainsoflifeintheOldLocationintoday’sHochlandPark.

5.OdendaalCommissionAlthoughtheconditionsforseparatedevelopmentwerebeinggraduallyandconsistentlyestablishedsincetheGermanandlaterthroughSouthAfricanoccupation,ithaditssummitwiththeappointmentoftheOdendaalCommissionin1964.AmongtheproposalsoftheCommissionreport,knownas ‘theOdendaalPlan’,wastocreateHomelandsthatwouldeventuallybecomepoliticallyindependent.TheextenttowhichtheOdendaalPlanwasimplementedisnotwelldocumented,butthatwhichisknownrevealssignificantconsequences;particularlywithregards tomovementofpeoplesouthof theRedLine,whichwas alsoknownas thePoliceZone.Oneof thekey contradictions in thisplan,Wallacenotes,wasthattherewerenohomelandsfor‘whites’;“theentirePoliceZone,apartfromthereserves,wasconsidered tobe the ‘whitearea’” (2011:263).Key in thisplanwasthedivisionofthe territoryinto geographical and administrative regions “based on racial and ethnic criteria”,which created asituation inwhich “tenblack regions received40percentof the total landareaof the country, and[whatcanbeconsidered]theonewhiteregionreceived43percent”(Frayne2000:54).Wallacenotesthat a full-on implementation of the plan would’ve required displacing a third of the Africanpopulation (2011:264). The Odendaal Plan relied on three pieces of proposed legislation: theDevelopmentofSelf-GovernmentforNativeNationsinSouthWestAfricaAct(1968),whichentailedadegreeofself-governmentfortheHomelandsintermsofeducation,water,andrevenue-raising,andwhich created positions for representatives from seven traditional authorities throughout theterritory; the SouthWestAfricaConstitutionAct (1968),which governed the ‘white areas’;and theMines,WorksandMineralsRegulationsof1968,whichlaidoutemploymenttermsbasedonrace.Inthisway,Namibiawasre-organisedintothreeunevenlydevelopedgeographicalunits“withtheblacksoccupyingthepoorerandgenerallylessproductiveareasofthecountry;thewhites,thericherareas;and the [white,SouthAfrican]governmentcontrolling therichest,mineralzones” (Frayne,2000).Aconditionthatstructuredthecountryinawaythatstillhascurrencytoday.During its administration, the South African government performed a welfare state role with aconsistentbiastowards‘whites’.Wallacenoteshow,particularlyduringtheeconomiccrisisof1929,“[w]hite farmersandworkersreceivedstatehelp”; in thecapital,anexampleof thiswashow“AvisDam [in Windhoek] was built by white workers as a relief project” (2011:227). Apart from thesegregationist consequences, the Odendaal Plan also “triggered increased government spending”(2011:266). This had significant impact in the urbanisation of the territory: investment ininfrastructure, supply of water and electricity (e.g. Kunene hydroelectric scheme in Ruacana,construction of dams and canals, drilling of boreholes); roads, air transport, postal and telephonecommunications,radio,agriculturalimprovementinthereserves, industrialdevelopment;aswellasincreaseineducation,health,old-agepensions,and“welfareforAfricans”(Wallace,2011:267)evenif



suchinvestment“wasalwaystolagfarbehindtheamountsspentonwhites”(2011:267).Irrespectiveoftheracialandunevenimplicationsofthisplan,Wallacenotesthatitalsoaimedatincreasingstatecontrol(2011:266).

Figure8(Left)Odendaalplan:1.Damaraland,2.Kaokoland,3.Ovambo,4.Kavango,5.EastCaprivi,6.Bushmanland,7.EastHereroland1,8.WestHereroland,9.EastHereroland2,10.EastHereroland3,11.Rehoboth,12.Namaland.(Right)Today:1.//Karas,2.Hardap,3.Khomas,4.Erongo,5.Otjozondjupa,6.Omaheke,7.Kunene,8.Omusati,9.Oshana,10.Oshikoto,11.Ohangwena,12.KavangoWest,13.KavangoEast,14.Zambezi.6.TowardsindependenceWhiletheeconomyofSWAwasbooming,thesocialcontract,albeitdistortedandlackinglegitimacy,wasdeteriorating.Thiswas furthermore enhancedby the increasing internationalpressure againsttheSouthAfricanoccupationofNamibia. In the1940sand50s, theeconomyofNamibia “increasedphenomenally” (Wallace, 2011:257) due to expansion of mining, fishing, andmanufacturing; all ofwhich was supported by the system of contract labour system. Around the time of independence,Namibiawasin ‘the leading’groupinSub-SaharanAfrica in termsofeconomicdevelopment;withapercapitaGDPofUS$1,610in1992,Namibiawas“justbehindGabon,Botswana,MauritiusandSouthAfrica” (Diener & Graefe, 2001a:25). However, despite such economic boom, the general livingconditions were not improving and “levels of discontent among workers were high” (Wallace,2011:258);thefrequentstrikeswereevidenceofthis(Dempers,2010).Thekeyeventwasthe1971generalstrike,whichgaveaconsiderableblowtotheAdministrationandeconomyofSWA,and“ledtothemassdeportationofworkersto thenorth,and theshutdownofmostminesand large industrialenterprises” (Wallace, 2011:273) but also became a definingmoment for the labourmovement inNamibia(Jauch,2018).Alreadyinthe1970s,Namibia’sinequalitywas“extreme”(Wallace2011:301);Wallaceexplainshow“inthemid-1970sthetop10percentofthepopulationreceived52.8percentofthe total income,while the bottom40per centhad tomakedowith5.9per cent” (2011:301). Shefurthermore notes how, in1978, official unemployment stood at about 25%while in reality itwascloser to 50% “if those under-employed in the subsistence agriculture sector are included”(2011:301). These conditions of unemploymentwould also slowly reflect in the situation in urbanareas,whicheventuallystartedtoseeinformalsettlementsgrowwithinandbeyondtheirboundaries.In1966theUNGeneralAssemblyendedSouthAfrica’smandateoverSWA;whichwasapprovedbytheSecurityCouncil in1969initsResolution264.In1977anAdministrator-Generalwasappointedand “charged with preparing the territory for independence” (Pickard-Cambridge, 1988:23). This



Administratorendedmanyaspectsregulating themovementofAfricans inthe territory, “abolishingpasses,permitstostayinresidentialareasandtheforcedremovalofunemployedAfricansfromthetowns”(Wallace,2011:287).Atthispoint,anexodus fromrural tourbanareasstarted,creating thefirstconditionsofinformalsettlements.Inrecognitionofthis,andtopromotehomeownershipamong‘blackpopulations’,theNamibiaBuildingInvestmentCorporation(NBIC)wascreated.Uptothispoint,therewasnogeneralhousingpolicy,ashomeownershipinurbanareaswasreservedforwhites.NBICattempted to create low-cost solutions for ‘blacks’ in urban areas, and while the institutions wascompetent, it faced resistance from local authorities who didn’t want ‘low income’ housingdevelopments in theirconstituency(NBIC,1990),aswellas frombeneficiaries,whoperceived theirproductsasinferiorandexpensive.In1978,theUNSecurityCounciltookResolution435,whichwasagreedbySouthAfricaandwhichpavedthewayforNamibia’sindependence.TheUnitedNationswastaskedwithsupervisingthetransitiontoindependence.Theliberationmovementwholedthestruggletowardsindependence,theSouthWestAfricaPoliticalOrganisation(SWAPO)wouldeventuallyagreeon principles “which determined that the constitution of independent Namibia would be a liberaldemocracy –an indication that it was less committed to socialism than many of its statementssuggested”(Wallace2011:292).Thiswouldeventuallyreflectinthesocio-spatialpoliciesthatwouldbe implemented after independence, which were less redistributive and communal in nature, andmore anchored in the paradigm of individual private property and preserving privileges. In 1988,negotiations for independence started, which culminated with Namibia attaining independence in1990.7.Namibia’sfirstdecades

“liberationstruggleisarevolutionthat[…]doesnotfinishatthemomentwhenthenationalflagisraised

andthenationalanthemplayed”(Cabral,1966)

At the moment of independence, some observe that the “whole Namibian socio-spatial systemfunctioned like anoutpost (the ‘fifthprovince’) of SouthAfrican capitalism” (DubressonandGraefe2001:53).Oneofthekeychangeswasthegeographicalreorganisationoftheterritoryintoregionsthathad a socioeconomic logic, moving away from the racial logic of the past (Tötemeyer, 1992). Therestructuring of local government was also a significant step in the reconfiguration of urbangovernance, as most functions were hitherto concentrated in central government (Simon, 1996).Decentralisationpolicywasonlyestablishedin1997;andtheachievementsofsucheffortsareafteradecade are still not conclusive (Republic of Namibia, 2008). Another key event was the ‘LandConference’thatwasconvenedin1991toaddresstherurallandquestionand,toaverylimitedextent,matterspertainingtourbanland.Thismomentseemedtoexemplifythelimitedtransformationthatindependence brought in the socio-spatial realm; something that has been discussed by variouswritersindifferentfields(Jauch,Edwards,&Cupido,2009;Melber,2003,2007).Thedocumentationoftheeventrevealsamoremoderateandtechnocraticapproachtothelandquestion(NEPRU,1992).At this junction, thehistorical landdispossessionwasnot challenged, andamarket-basedpolicyof‘willing buyer, willing seller’ was instituted. The limitations of this first Land Conference can beexemplifiedbytheorganisationofaPeople’sLandConferencewhichtookplaceonlytwoyearslater,in which both the original shortcomings of the 1991 conference and the lack of progress werehighlightedfromabottom-upperspective(NGO-WCLR,1994).Today,thelandreformprogrammeislargelyconsideredafailure;andwhileconsiderableresourceshavebeenallocatedtoit,theoutcomehas not only been a limited amount of land redistribution (Werner, 2015). However, a key factortarnishing the land reform programme is that the redistribution is often redistributed to alreadywealthymembersofthenewpoliticalandeconomiceliteofthecountry(Sibeene,2011;TheNamibian,2016,2018),whichcanbeconsideredaformof“elitelandgrabbing”(Odendaal,2011).



Also,justafterindependence,aNationalHousingSeminarwasconvenedbythethenMinisterofLocalGovernment and Housing. Already then, frictions between inhabitants, local authorities, and NBICwererevealed(Andima,1992).Thismaybeattributedtocollectionofpaymentsbutalsotothesocialalienationbetween inhabitantsandthekindofhousingprovidedandtheprocessesand institutionsthatproducedthem.Regardingthislatterpoint,andobservingthekindofhousingproducedbyNBIC,Muller argues that “[h]ouse typeswere designed for the socio-economic needs of a nuclear familylivinganeuro-americanlifestyle”(Muller1993:213).Thistookplacedespitetherealityontheground,wheretherewas“notanuclearorelementaryfamilyforwhichmodernhousesareusuallydesigned”(Muller 1993:226). At that time, the need for a housing policy to guide efforts of the variousstakeholderswashighlighted.Already in1992,someobservedthat “[a]ccess toadequatehousing isperhaps one of the most controversial and emotional urban issues in Windhoek today” (Frayne,1992:126). Reading through reports on both landand housing events, one can note the hopes thatafterindependencethattheinequitiesandinefficienciesofthepastwouldbeovercome.Thepatiencethatthese‘controversial’and‘emotional’issuesawakenmayhavebeenquelledinthesefirstdecadesthroughthesehopes.

Figure9CommercialfarmlandincentralNamibiaTheLandConferenceandhousingworkshopswerefollowedbythedevelopmentofnationalpoliciesthatwereintendedtoguidesocio-spatialdevelopmentinthecountry.TheNationalLandPolicythatwasdeveloped in1998 isconsiderablybiased towards freeholdtitle.Withrespectstourbanland,itstates that such tenure form is “the only form of secure, registerable title available in urban areaswhichaffordstheholderownershipthatistransferable, inheritableandprovidescollateralagainstaloan”(RepublicofNamibia,1998:7).Whiledisregardingotherformsofsecuretenureaswellasthosethatcanbetransferableorinheritable,thisenhancestheovertfocusonprivatepropertyintroducedbythecolonialGermanregimeahundredyearsback.Thepolicyisattimesprogressivebyprescribingthat informal housing structures should be “upgraded rather than removed” (Republic of Namibia,1998:9),providingfor‘communityparticipation’inlanddevelopment,andprovidingforexpropriationforunder-utilisedorabandonedurbanland.



On the housing front, a National Housing Policy was developed by a committee led by NBIC andapprovedbyCabinetin1991(RepublicofNamibia1996).Thepolicyembodiedaneoliberalspiritthatproposed theroleofgovernmentas “a facilitatorrather thanadirectproviderandadministratorofhousing”(RepublicofNamibia1990:17).Withoutreferringtoit,thepolicywasinlinewiththetenetsthatweresynthesisedintheWorldBankreport‘Housing:EnablingMarketstoGrow’(1993)andtheFirst United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat I). It substantiated this approachbased on the intention to avoid developing “a syndrome of paternalism or dependence on stateassistance”; it also made clear that the “primary responsibility for providing family housing restsclearlywiththeheadofeachhousehold”(RepublicofNamibia1990:17).Although it recognisedtheinformalsectorand thegrassrootsinthehousingprocess itentailed, itwasconsiderablyconcernedwith the impact that housing had on the economy andmade clear that the Namibian governmentwouldfavourhomeownershipasthemainobjectiveofsupportinghousing.Itdid,however,aimtoputhousingasamatterofnationalimportance.Atthattime,NBICchangedleadershipanditadoptedthenameNationalHousingEnterprise(NHE);thehousingpolicyreferstoNHEasthe“executingagentofthecentralgovernment” (RepublicofNamibia1990:38)withregards tostate-supportedhousing.Atthispoint, localauthorities(LAs)weretaskedmainlywiththeprovisionofservicedland,whilelow-incomehouseholdswerebasicallyrelegatedtothetaskofsavingmoneytowardshousing.Thepolicywasreviewedin2009,buttheunderlyingapproachdidn’tchange;ifanyitwasmademoreexplicit: “Housing: An Agent for Namibia’s Economic Growth”, reads the introductory section ofChapter 5 (Republic of Namibia, 2009).At the same time, itwas recognised that about70% of thepopulationwasunabletoaccessacommercialhomeloan(RepublicofNamibia2009:4);afigurethattoday stands at about 92%, if one considers recent figures from theNamibia Labour Force Survey(Chiripanhura,2018).Thisisarguablyamorechallengingsituationthanthatwhichwasdiagnosedinthe first housing policy, where 60% of the urban population couldn’t “afford to pay ANYTHINGtowardshousing”(RepublicofNamibia1990:2,capitalsintheoriginal).Thesamedocumentestimatedthatabout4,7%ofthe‘GrossNationalProduct’wasspentonhousingin1988,whichwasinlinewiththe recommendations of multi-lateral organisations at that time (i.e. 5%) (1990:5). Furthermore,privateinvestmentinhousingwasmainlyfocusedonWindhoek;a1994estimatecalculatedthatabout70% of investments in housing at that time had happened in the capital,mainly due to the lack ofservicedlandelsewhere(Namoya-JacobsandHokans1994:7).Therevisedhousingpolicydidmakeasignificant departure from previous documents by recognising the Shack Dwellers Federation ofNamibia(SDFN),whichhademergedinthelate1980s,andtheNamibiaHousingActionGroup(NHAG)amongthe‘roleplayers’inthehousingstrategy,aswellastheinclusionof‘people’shousingprocesses’amongthemethodsofdelivery.During the 1990s, there were also several housing interventions supported by foreign donors inNamibia.Inthenorth,theOshakatiHumanSettlementsProgramme(OHSIP)aimedatimprovinglivingconditions throughparticipatoryprocesses thatwere thought to instil democracy at the local level.The projectwas supported by theDanish andalthough it had some success, the project developedfrictions with the local authority due to perception of competing authority created by the self-organisedgroups formedby theproject (MRLGH&Ibis,1996)andtodaya lotof the infrastructurethat was produced is in ruins. In Windhoek, the Germans supported a comprehensive housingprogrammeknownas‘Oshatotwa’,whichhaddifferentsub-componentstargetingdifferentgradientsof the lower income groups (SUM-McNamara Consultants, 1993). The project was implementedthrough NHE with two partner consultants, one local and one from Germany. The programmedeveloped several housing units, but it also faced some difficulties in managing social situationsemergingduringallocationandwithrepaymentsforthehouses.TheFrenchalsosupportedahousinginterventioninWindhoek,aswellasresearchonthethen-newphenomenonofinformalsettlements(Peyroux&Graefe,1995).HopeswerealsothatNamibiawoulddevelopcooperatives,particularlytotackle the housing question. While foreign specialists came to explore this possibility (Namoya &Hokans, 1994), the concept had only limited success; mostly outside the realm of housing. Theseinterventions eventually ceased, and a review of their success in terms of the built environmentproducedaswellasthesocialimpactisoutstanding.



Figure10InfrastructurebuiltthroughOHSIPinOshakati:asillustratedinreport(MRLGH&Ibis,1996)(left),andtoday(right).The growth and consolidation of the SDFN membership and activities and the emergence of thegovernment-led Build Together programme can be considered some of themajor changes in post-independencesocio-spatialproduction.Thisisnotonlyrelatedtoaccesstoland,butalsointermsofenumerations, exchanges, and partnership building (SDFN & NHAG 2014:2). The Community LandInformationProgramme(CLIP)wasthefirstnation-wideenumerationeffortofinformalsettlementsin Namibia and, according to Mabakeng (2015), also from all the country affiliates of the ShackDwellers International (SDI) 3, an international coalition of groups of inhabitants of informalsettlements.While thisprocess ison-going,currentlySDFNandNHAGhavesignedMoUswith localgovernmentandalsowithuniversitiestoexpandtheiractivitiesthroughwiderco-production(ILMI,2017). In recent years, ‘planning studios’ have challenged top-down planning, where “[p]ower isplaced in the hands of the local authority” which “side-lines community inputs” (SDFN & NHAG2014:26).

3 These member countries include Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Ghana, India, Kenya, Liberia, Malawi, Namibia, Nepal, Nigeria, Philippines, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe (SDI, 2015).



Figure 11 Tsumeb. Meeting with inhabitants of informal settlements, the municipality, NHAG, SDFN members,NUSTlecturersandstudents.Photograph:MartinNamupala.On theotherhand,theBuildTogetherprogrammewasdevelopedaroundthe timeof independencewithsupportfromtheUnitedNationsDevelopmentProgramme(UNDP).Theprogrammeisakindofstate-led micro-finance system supporting home building and improvements. Theoretically, theprogrammehasninecomponents:leasingaplotof land,addingservicestoaplotof land,supporttosavingsgroups,collectiveobtainingofapartly-servicedplotoflandthroughCommunityLandTrusts,acquisitionofaplotofland,obtainingaservicedplotof land,buildingmaterials,acquirecompletedhouses, and building of collective facilities (Ministry of Urban and Rural Development, 2007).However, only loans for a few of these objectives have been made available to beneficiaries. Theprogrammewas administered by central government, butwas later ‘decentralised’ to LAs in2007.This, however, has been observed to yield many irregularities due to the limited administrativecapacities inLAsat thetimeofdecentralisation(Simion,2007).Throughmyworkinotherprojects,some stakeholders have mentioned that the programme was ‘decentralised’ without provision forflankingsupportforLAstodealwiththisadditionalbundleofadministrativetasks.However,perhapsa more systemic shortcoming, is the threshold for eligibility and the need to demonstrate somecapacity of repayment.While the programme aims to benefit those earning amonthly salary up toN$3,000,alreadyinthe1990s,areportbytheUrbanTrustofNamibia(UTN,n.d.)quotedinPeyrouxobservedthattheprogrammewas“notreachingthelowest-incomeresidents”,mainlybenefitingthosewith formal employment (Peyroux 2001:197). However, it is this programme, sometimes incombinationwiththeeffortsofSDFN/NHAG,thathasthewidestreachstilltoday.NamibiaparticipatedintheHabitatIIconferencein1996andthereportthattheMinistrypreparedforthatoccasionisaportraitofthestateofthecountry’surbanandhousingdevelopmentinthe1990s(RepublicofNamibia,1996).Subsequently,Habitatmeetingswereconvenedwherelocalgovernment,professionals,grassrootsorganisationsandgovernmentwouldcometodiscusstheirprogressintheirpractice.Whilemost of those who have participated have spoken tome highly of thesemeetings,eventually they stopped taking place. In 2004, the Habitat Research and Development Centre wasestablishedtopromoteincreasedexplorationon‘habitat’-relatedmatters;however,someobservethat



theaimtomainstreamsustainabilityinthebuiltenvironmenthasnotbeenrealised(Sweeney-Bindels2011:27).With support from UN-Habitat and efforts of local and foreign planners, a plan towardsNamibia’s‘urbanisationstrategy’wasdrafted(Ottolenghi&Watson,2011);however,itisalsounclearwhat the impact of this document was, as currently no concrete steps are being taken to draft anofficial nationalurbanpolicyorplan.Mattersof urbanisationdonot onlydealwithurban landandhousing,butalsoofinfrastructure;Namibia’smainroadsarepartofaseriesofnetworks:theTrans-Caprivi Highway, connecting with Botswana, Angola, Zambia and Zimbabwe; and Trans-KalahariHighway,whichconnectsNamibiathroughBotswanatoSouthAfrica.However,fromthedams,mines,and large real estate developments, the recent construction of the Husab uraniummine project inErongostandsasthesinglelargestinvestmentinNamibia(IJGResearch,2013).Itsimpactisnotonlyineconomicterms,butalsointherestructuringthatsuchlarge-scaledevelopmentshaveintermsoflabour and, consequently, in terms of living environments. Information and communicationstechnologies deserve also a considerablemention, as today it can be said that every inhabitant ofNamibiahassomeformofcellularphonesubscription(CTO,n.d.).Andalthoughstillonly13%ofthepopulationisidentifiedas‘internetuser’,thecurrentministerhasmadehispersonalgoalfortomakeNamibia fully covered with internet access (MICT, 2017). In this respect, documents such as theNationalDevelopmentPlansortheRegionalLandUsePlansbeingcurrentlyundertakenspeakmorebroadlytoawiderdefinitionofurbanisationbeyondthelimitsoftheboundariesofproclaimed‘urbanareas’.TherearearguablymorecontinuitiesthanbreakswiththepastinthewaythatspatialproductioninNamibia unfolds since independence. One of the key colonial legacies of Namibia is an economy ofextractivenature,onethat“essentiallyproduceswhatitdoesnotuseandconsumeswhatitdoesnotproduce”(Rogerson,1990:31).AnothermorepracticalmatterisnotedbyWallace,whoobservesthat“[t]the newgovernment took over the existing civil service, addingposts for its ownpeople ratherthan dismissing those already employed”, something that “helped to create Namibia’s currentdisproportionatelylargebureaucracy”(2011:309-310).Inthe2016/17nationalbudget,about30%ofnationalexpenditurewasusedtocovergovernment’spersonnelcosts,whichraisedconcernsamongeconomicanalysts(Brown,2017).Legislationhasnotfundamentallychanged,andalthoughitisnowwidelyrecognised,eveninmainstreamfora,thata‘freemarket’logicdoesnotleadto‘goodcities’4,thelackofgovernment funds iscurrentlypushingsocio-spatialdevelopmentto therealmof theprivatesector. Even after recently passed public-private partnership (PPP) legislation5 outlines clearly thespecificcasesinwhichsuchpartnershipsarerecommended(i.e.thosewherethere’sadeficitbetweensupply and effective demand), the ‘PPP’ phrase is currently a buzzword when discussing publicprojects,particularlyintherealmoflandandhousingdelivery.Thechangesoutlinedinthissection,appearmoreasreactivethanasconsciousstrategiesforfuturesocio-spatialdevelopment.

4 An example of this can be when the former executive director of UN-Habitat stated that “the market doesn’t produce good cities” (UN-Habitat, 2014) 5 Public Private Partnership Act 4 of 2017



Figure12Windhoek.Informalsettlementsintheforegroundandthecitycentreinthebackground.Segregation continues tobe a significant legacy fromapartheid times.At the timeof independence,Windhoek’svaluationrollrevealedthathousesintheupmarketandformerlywhiteareasofErosorOlympiawereworththreetimesthatthoseinKatutura(Asiama1993:15).Intheearly1980s,about36% of the houses inWindhoekwere owned by the state (Pickard-Cambridge 1988:24), which issomethingthatsuggestsathepotentialopportunitythatpublicinstitutionshadineasingorenhancingurbansegregationattheseearlystages;however,mostofthesehousesweresoldandarenow‘traded’in the private market. Residential differentiation had clear racial connotations; a multidisciplinaryteam in the 1980s observed that: “[t]ypes of houses vary from a high standard (especially amongwhitesandotherhigh-incomeearners),toaverage(especiallyamongtheColouredsandBasters),touniform mass schemes (especially among the Black people)” (Stals 1987:16). Around the time ofindependence,desegregationinWindhoek,intermsof‘blacks’movingintoareasreservedfor‘whites’,was scantly described as “slight but noticeable” (Pickard-Cambridge 1988:1). This preservedinequality is documented not only in terms of figures, but alsodescribed through lived experience.Some describe Windhoek as having “a First World character” and at the same time note that thedevelopmenttakingplace“doesnotyettakeintoaccounttheneedsofthemajorityofinhabitantsofthelargerurbancomplex”(Stals1987:26-27).Othersobservethatthecircumstancesatindependencecreatedsomemomentsof“spontaneousde-segregation”which,throughstate-supportedprogrammes,real estate dynamics, and legislation, “was followed by an organized re-segregation […] on a largerscale than before” (Peyroux 2001:205). As itwasmentionedat the beginning, Namibia, alongwithSouthAfrica, tops the list in the inequality indexmeasured through theGINI coefficient andas thisbriefhistoryhaslaidout,thisconditionhasbeenanon-goingandlong-standingprocessinthemaking;andonethathasverymuchbeenunfoldinginandthroughthesocio-spatialmilieu.



8.RecentdevelopmentsNamibia canbe said tobe inanurban landandhousing crisis.On theonehand, propertyprices inNamibiahave increaseddramatically; just between2012and2016, housingpriceshavemore thandoubled (FNB Namibia, 2016). Considering that such price increases have not been met with aconcomitantgrowthinemploymentorwages,thealarmsofapossible ‘housingbubble’wereraised,which attracted multi-national organisations to assess the matter in question (IMF, 2015). Thisconfirmedthathousepriceswere ‘overvalued’ (IMF,2016),andpartlydue toarecentgovernmentslowdown in spending, the sharp rise in house prices has eased. Partly to address the housingdilemma, former President Hifikepunye Pohamba, just in his final years of mandate in 2013,announced the Mass Housing Development Programme (MHDP). In scale, it was conceived as thesingle largest development intervention in independent Namibia, aiming to build 180,000 housingunitsby2030atanestimatedcostofN$45bn(RepublicofNamibia,2013).Toputthisinperspective,thiswould’verequiredbuildingabout14,000housingunitsperyear,whilethestate-ownedhousingparastatal (NHE),whowas implementing theproject, developedanhistorical averageof about400units every year (NHE, 2014). The envisioned amount was also far beyond any budgeted projectsnationallyatthetimethattheprojectwasannounced.Whiletheprojectencompassedvariouskindofhousing-related interventions, including support for ‘people’s hosing processes’, only credit-linkedhouses were developed in the first phase. However, after a number of difficulties, the project wassuspendedin2013.Twoyearslater,thereviewoftheprojectwascommissionedtoNUST,aprojectinwhichIhavetakenpartandthatcontinuestobeunderdiscussion.

Figure13PhotoofanuninhabitedhousedevelopedthroughtheMHDPinWalvisBay



Despitetheseefforts,housingremainsunattainableformost,andit isinthiscontextthatin2014,anumberofSWAPOYouthLeaguememberssymbolicallyoccupiedaplotoflandinthewealthyareaofKleineKuppeinWindhoek.Thisunprecedentedmove,alongwiththethreatofurbanlandinvasionsnationwide, placed the young leaders in a politically powerful position. The President invited theyoungactivistsforadialogue,anditwasshortlyaftersuchmeetingin2015thattheMassUrbanLandServicing Programme was announced. This programme aims to service 200,000 plots of landnationwide, and a steering and technical committee were appointed including the young activists.However, they subsequently pulled out of these committees, and the most recent developmentregarding this programme is not clear. The movement, which became known as AffirmativeRepositioning, continues to rally for similar matters in the socio-spatial field, such as a new rentlegislation aswell as supporting those affectedby evictions.Anothermobilisation ledby anoustedDeputyMinister,theLandlessPeople’sMovement,hasalsoemergedgivingvoicetoinhabitantsmainlyfromthesouthernregionsofthecountryonland-relatedmatters.Thesetwosocialmovements,alongwiththehistoricaleffortsoftheShackDwellersFederationofNamibia,canbeconsideredthebottom-upcomponentamongthestakeholdersinthecontemporaryproductionofspace.Communalareasarealsobeingshapedbytherapidchangesinurbanisationandcouldbeconsideredthemselvesbe includedwithin it.Thegrowthofnorthern towns isalsotakingplaceatarapidpace,and active informal landmarkets in communal areas have also been documented in these regions(Mendelsohn & Nghitevelekwa, 2017). Considering that still most of the population lives in thenorthernregions,thisremainsacrucialspacewherespatialdevelopmentcanbeexpectedtocontinueatafastpace.Illegalfencingofcommunalarea,largelybyelitegroupswithincomefromurbanareas,isbynowwidespread(Werner,2011).Experimentsoncommunity-basedresourcemanagementhavebeenimplementedinNamibia,andalthoughsuccesshasbeendocumented,thereareseveralobstaclesthat require attention, particularly the uneven beneficiation through these schemes (Wang,Humavindu,Bandyopadhyay,&Shyamsundar,2004).Recently,therehavebeenincreasingdiscussiononmatterspertaining ‘ancestral land’, partly triggered by the announcement that the Second LandConferencewilladdresstheissueandpotentiallyresolveonthestancethatgovernmentwilltakeonthismatter(RepublicofNamibia,2018).Matterspertainingallthepreviousmayalsoinprinciplebesteeredinadifferentdirectionafterthisevent.



Figure14TraditionalhouseholdsintheOshanaregiondevelopingthroughnewwaysofbuilding.AlthoughNamibia’sdefiningcharacteristicofitsurbanareashasbeenhistoricallythatofsegregation,todayitcanbesaidthatitistherealityofinformalsettlementsformostofitsinhabitants.Therehasbeensomeinnovationinthisrespectatthelocalgovernmentlevel;OtjiwarongohasdevelopedawaytoguidethedevelopmentofinformalsettlementsandRehobothhasalsotestedtheideaof ‘plannedlayouts’ (Esterhuizen, 2016). A recently-established non-governmental organisation, DevelopmentWorkshop, is testing ways to develop serviced land that is ready for later upgrading at a costaffordabletoalargeportionofthepopulation(Weber&Mendelsohn,2017).Atypology that isalsoreproducing quickly and becoming another defining characteristic of Namibia’s socio-spatialdevelopmentaregatedcommunitiesand‘lifestyleestates’.Whiletheformerrefertosecuredhousingestates subdivided through sectional title schemes, the latter refer to large-scale residentialneighbourhoods developed often in the outskirts of urban areas promising security and a kind of‘affordableluxury’(Morange,Folio,Peyroux,&Vivet,2012).TheexpansionandconsolidationofurbanareasintometropolitanregionsmaybealsoanewwayofunderstandingNamibia’surbanareasinthecomingdecades.



Figure15GatedcommunitiesinKleineKuppe,WindhoekFinally,Namibia tookpart in theHabitat III conference in2016, and committed to the ‘NewUrbanAgenda’. However, the action plan to undertake this in Namibia hasn’t been planned yet. Thedocumentpreparedforthiseventisalsoacontemporaryportraitofasituationofthecountrytodayinterms of socio-spatial matters (Republic of Namibia, 2015). Housing and land issues also have aprominent role in the national programmes developed by the Geingob administration, notably theHarambeeProsperityPlan aswell as theFifthNationalDevelopmentPlan.Recently, theUrbanandRegional Planning Bill legislation was passed towards the end of 2017, aiming to streamline thestatutory process of ‘landdelivery’ (Genis, 2015); it also entails a ‘spatial development framework’thatshouldprovidedirectiononnationalspatialplanning.Similarly,theFlexibleLandTenureActwaspassed in2012,which aims to createmore accessible formsof land tenure; the regulations for thiswere gazetted during the time of writing this paper, which will enable the rolling out of pilots inWindhoek, Gobabis and Oshakati. Furthermore, the jurisdiction of this field remains fragmentedbetween government offices, ministries and agencies, which further complicates coordination.However, thepressure from thenewly emerged socialmovements, the increased recognitionof theefforts of organised inhabitants around housing matters, and an increasing consciousness of theimportance of the right to urban life,will continue to keep socio-spatial issues as a crucial field inNamibia’sagenda.9.ConclusionThe paper I’ve drafted outlines a sequence of events in Namibia’s socio-spatial production. I havesuggestedintheintroductionthatthistrajectorycanbesaidtohaveprogressively(andconsistently)turnedNamibia’ssocio-spatialproductionintoanengineofreproductionofinequality.Fromtheearlyhistorical dispossession during colonial times, until the more contemporary displacement of low-incomeinhabitantstoperipheriesinurbanareas.Today,theactualcrisisseemsnotnecessarilytorelyontheexistenceofinformalsettlementsbutonhowthesituationisbeingdealtwithandwherestatesupportisplaced.Attemptstobefitformalplanningandlanddeliverymechanismstotheneedsofthelowestincomeshaveprovedinsufficientandtheimpassecreatedbytheactualsocioeconomicrealityof the many vis-à-vis the nature of public interventions result in the kind of deeply unequal andsegregatedurbanexperience.Theplanthatisyettobreakorcountertheoverallprogressionofeventsoutlinedinthispaperremainsapressingandoutstandingtask.



ReferencesAndima,J.(1992).NotesontheNationalHousingSeminar,Windhoek,19-20April1990(NEPRUTraveland

MeetingReportNo.1).NamibianEconomicPolicyResearchUnit.

Asiama,S.O.(1993).UrbanLandDeliveryinNamibia.UnitedNationsCentreforHumanSettlements(HABITAT).

Bley,H.(1996).NamibiaUnderGermanRule.Münster:LitVerlag.

Bond,P.,Desai,A.,&Ngwane,T.(2011).UnevenandcombinedMarxismwithinSouthAfrica’surbansocialmovements:Transcendingprecarityincommunity,labourandenvironmentalstruggles.PresentedattheBeyondPrecariousLabour:RethinkingSocialistStrategies,CenterforPlace,CultureandPoliticsandTheSocialistRegister,CityUniversityofNewYorkGraduateCenter.

Brown,R.(2017).TheNationalBudget2017-18:PrioritisingPersonnel(SpecialBriefingReportNo.19).InstituteforPublicPolicyResearch.Retrievedfromhttp://ippr.org.na/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/19_DB_Budget_WEB.pdf

Cabral,A.(1966).TheWeaponofTheory.Presentedatthe1stTricontinentalConferenceofthePeoplesofAsia,AfricaandLatinAmerica,Havana.Retrievedfromhttp://www.marxists.org/subject/africa/cabral/1966/weapon-theory.htm

Chiripanhura,B.(2018).HousinginNamibia:thechallengesandprospectsforadequatefutureprovision(ILMIWorkingPaperNo.7).Windhoek:IntegratedLandManagementInstitute.Retrievedfromhttp://ilmi.nust.na/sites/default/files/WP7-CHIRIPANHURA-Housing-in-Namibia-WEB.pdf

CTO.(n.d.).ICTdataforNamibia.RetrievedMay23,2018,fromhttp://www.cto.int/country-ict-data/africa/ict-data-for-namibia/

Dempers,U.(2010).StrikesinNamibia:alonghistoryofstruggle.Windhoek:LabourResourceandResearchInstitute.Retrievedfromhttps://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-h_z2Ab5OhDc2NpN0loTjNjOVk/edit?usp=sharing

Diener,I.,&Graefe,O.(2001).Introduction.InI.Diener&O.Graefe(Eds.),ContemporaryNamibia:Thefirstlandmarksofapost-apartheidsociety(pp.19–33).Windhoek:GamsbergMacmillan.

Dubresson,A.,&Graefe,O.(2001).TheState,accumulationandregulation:forapoliticaleconomyofNamibia.InI.Diener&O.Graefe(Eds.),ContemporaryNamibia:Thefirstlandmarksofapost-apartheidsociety(pp.53–74).Windhoek:GamsbergMacmillan.

Esterhuizen,L.(2016).Plannedlayoutsv.‘planningforslums’:thecaseofRehobothExt.5&6(ILMIDocumentNo.3/2016).Windhoek:IntegratedLandManagementInstitute.

First,R.(1963).SouthWestAfrica.PenguinBooks.

FNBNamibia.(2016).FNBHousingIndex-September2016.Windhoek:FNBNamibia.

Frayne,B.(1992).Urbanisationinpost-independenceWindhoek:withspecialreferencetoKatutura(ResearchreportNo.6).Windhoek:NamibianInstituteforSocialandEconomicResearch.

Frayne,B.(2000).PoliticalIdeology,SocialChange,andPlanningPracticeinNamibia.JournalofPlanningEducationandResearch,20,52–65.

Genis,P.(2015).TheProposedNewUrbanandRegionalPlanningBill(ILMIDocumentNoteNo.1/2015).Windhoek:IntegratedLandManagementInstitute.

Gewald,J.-B.(1999).Hereroheroes:asocio-politicalhistoryoftheHereroofNamibia,1890-1923.Oxford:JamesCurrey.

Goldblatt,I.(1971).HistoryofSouthWestAfrica:fromthebeginningofthenineteenthcentury.CapeTown:Juta.

Harvey,D.(2006).Spacesofglobalcapitalism.London:Verso.

Hishongwa,N.S.(1992).ThecontractlaboursystemanditseffectsonfamilyandsociallifeinNamibia:Ahistoricalperspective.GamsbergMacmillan.

IJGResearch.(2013).QuarterlyEconomicReview:NationalAccounts-Background(EconomicFlashNote).IJGSecurities.Retrievedfromhttp://www.ijg-research.net/wp-content/uploads/IJG-National-Accounts-Review-2013.pdf



ILMI.(2017).Theroleofuniversitiesinparticipatoryinformalsettlementupgrading:experiencesfromKenya,Namibia,UgandaandZambia(ILMIDocumentNoteNo.1/2017).Windhoek:IntegratedLandManagementInstitute.Retrievedfromhttp://ilmi.nust.na/sites/default/files/ILMI-DN-The-role-of-universities-in-participatory-slum-upgrading-Namibia-Kenya-Uganda-Zambia-WEB.pdf

IMF.(2015).Namibia:macro-financialrisksassociatedwithhousingboom(SelectedIssuespaperNo.15/277).InternationalMonetaryFund.Retrievedfromhttps://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2015/cr15277.pdf

IMF.(2016).2016ArticleIVConsultation-Pressrelease;Staffreport;andstatementbytheExecutiveDirectorforNamibia(IMFCountryReportNo.16/373).Washington,D.C.:InternationalMonetaryFund.Retrievedfromhttps://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2016/cr16373.pdf

Jauch,H.(2018).Namibia’sLabourMovement:AnOverview.History,ChallengesandAchievements.Windhoek:FriedrichEbertStiftung.

Jauch,H.,Edwards,L.,&Cupido,B.(2009).ARichCountrywithPoorPeople.InequalityinNamibia.LabourResourceandResearchInstitute.

Katjavivi,P.(1988).AHistoryofResistanceinNamibia.London:JamesCurrey.

Kinahan,J.(2011).FromtheBeginning:TheArchaeologicalEvidence.InM.Wallace,AHistoryofNamibia:FromtheBeginningto1990.Jacana.

Kotze,C.E.(1990).AsocialhistoryofWindhoek,1915-1939(D.Litt.etPhil.).UniversityofSouthAfrica.

Kunze,P.(1938).DasVoksbuchunsererKolonien.Leipzig:GeorgDolheimerVerlag.

Leys,C.,&Saul,J.S.(1995).Introduction.InC.Leys&J.S.Saul(Eds.),Namibia’sLiberationStruggle:thetwo-edgedsword(pp.1–18).London:JamesCurrey.

Lühl,P.(2013).Theproductionofinequality:fromcolonialplanningtoneoliberalurbanisationinWindhoek.DigestofNamibianArchitecture,26–30.

Mabakeng,R.,Harris,B.,&Beukes,A.(2015,February16).KnowYourSettlement/KnowYourCity:SlumDwellersFederationofNamibiaandtheCommunityLandInformationProgramme(CLIP):PartI.RetrievedOctober10,2017,fromhttps://knowyourcity.info/2015/02/know-your-settlementknow-your-city-slum-dwellers-federation-of-namibia-and-the-community-land-information-programme-clip-part-i/

Melber,H.(2003).Re-examiningliberationinNamibia:politicalculturesinceindependence.NordicAfricaInstitute.

Melber,H.(2007).TransitionsinNamibia:whichchangesforwhom?Retrievedfromhttp://nai.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2:275566

Melber,H.(2016).RevisitingtheWindhoekOldLocation(BABWorkingPaperNo.3).Basel:BaslerAfrikaBibliographien.Retrievedfromhttps://baslerafrika.ch/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/2016_3_Melber.pdf

Mendelsohn,J.,&Nghitevelekwa,R.(2017).AnenquiryintolandmarketsinNamibia’scommunalareas.Windhoek:NamibiaNatureFoundation&MinistryofLandReform.

MICT.(2017).RemarksbyHon.TjekeroTweya,MinisterofInformationandCommunicationTechnology,attheInternetSocietyNamibiaChapterlaunch.Windhoek:MinistryofInformationandCommunicationTechnology.Retrievedfromhttps://cdn.prod.internetsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Ministers-Speech.pdf

Miescher,G.(2012).Namibia’sredline:thehistoryofaveterinaryandsettlementborder.Springer.

MinistryofUrbanandRuralDevelopment.(2007).Namibia“BuildTogether”NationalHousingProgramme :implementationguidelines&procedures.Windhoek:MinistryofUrbanandRuralDevelopment.Retrievedfromhttp://www.murd.gov.na/documents/99085/148699/BTP+Booklet+19+March+2007.pdf/6a85a0b3-21d2-4ade-b88b-ef912c2d8950

Morange,M.,Folio,F.,Peyroux,E.,&Vivet,J.(2012).Thespreadofatransnationalmodel:‘gatedcommunities’inthreeSouthernAfricancities(CapeTown,MaputoandWindhoek).InternationalJournalofUrbanandRegionalResearch,36(5),890–914.



MRLGH&Ibis.(1996).UpgradingofShantyAreasinOshakati,Namibia.OHSIPBestpracticereport.Namibia:MinistryofRegionalandLocalGovernment&HousingandIBIS.

Muller,A.(1993).ACaseStudyofDomesticSpaceinNamibia.InK.K.Prah(Ed.),SocialscienceresearchprioritiesforNamibia(pp.212–229).UniversityofNamibia&CouncilfortheDevelopmentofEconomicandSocialResearchinAfrica.

Namoya,R.,&Hokans,J.(1994).TheUrbanTrust:AnUrbanPolicyDevelopmentandActionPlanningOrganization(DiscussionPaper).Windhoek:TheUrbanTrust/CooperativeHousingFoundation.

Namoya-Jacobs,R.,&Hokans,J.(1994).UrbanGovernanceinNamibia:ARockyRoadTowardsDecentralizationandSustainedPovertyAlleviation.PresentedattheGlobalUrbanResearchInitiativeWorkshop,Johannesburg:UniversityofWitwatersrand.

NBIC.(1990).Reviewofoperations.Windhoek:NationalBuilding&InvestmentCorporationofNamibia.

NEPRU.(1992).NationalConferenceonLandReformandtheLandQuestion,Windhoek,25June-1July1991.Vol.1,Researchpapers,addressesandconsensusdocument.Windhoek:NamibianEconomicPolicyResearchUnit.

Ngavirue,Z.(1967).TheLandTheft.InR.Segal&R.First(Eds.),SouthWestAfrica:TravestyofTrust(pp.178–188).London:AndréDeutsch.

NGO-WCLR.(1994).ReportofthePeople’sLandConferenceheldundertheauspicesoftheNGOWorkingCommitteeonLandReforminMariental,9-8September1994.NGO-WorkingCommitteeonLandReform.

NHE.(2014).FinancialStatements2009-2014.Windhoek:NationalHousingEnterprise.

NSA.(2011).2011PopulationandHousingCensusMainReport.NamibianStatisticsAgency.

NSA.(2015).TheNamibiaLabourForceSurvey2014Report.Windhoek:NamibianStatisticsAgency.

NUST.(2017).WelcometoUrbanForum2017|UrbanForum2017.Retrievedfromhttp://urbanforum.nust.na/

Odendaal,W.(2011).ElitelandgrabbinginNamibiancommunalareasanditsimpactonsubsistencefarmers’livelihoods(PolicybriefNo.33).CapeTown:InstituteforPoverty,LandandAgrarianStudies.Retrievedfromhttp://www.lac.org.na/projects/lead/Pdf/landgrabbing.pdf

Ottolenghi,R.,&Watson,B.(2011).TowardaNationalUrbanizationStrategyforNamibia.Issueanalysisandkeyrecommendations.

Peltola,P.(1995).TheLostMayDayNamibianWorkersStruggleforIndependence.Uppsala:NordicAfricaInstitute.

Peyroux,E.(2001).PoliticallogicandterritorialchangeinWindhoek(Namibia).Thecaseoflow-incomeperipheries.InM.Mulenga&A.Dubresson(Eds.),Politico-territorialrestructuringandurbantransformation(pp.195–210).UniversityofZambia,Lusaka.

Peyroux,E.,&Graefe,O.(1995).PrecariousSettlementsatWindhoek’sPeriphery.InvestigationintotheEmergenceofaNewUrbanPhenomenon.CentreforResearch,Information,ActionforDevelopmentinAfrica.

Pickard-Cambridge,C.(1988).Sharingthecities.ResidentialdesegregationinHarare,WindhoekandMafikeng.Johannesburg:SouthAfricanInstituteofRaceRelations.

RepublicofNamibia.(1990).NamibiaNationalHousingPolicy.

RepublicofNamibia.(1996).NationalPlanofAction.NationalHabitatIICommittee.MinistryofRegionalandLocalGovernment&Housing.

RepublicofNamibia.(1998).NationalLandPolicy.MinistryofLands,ResettlementandRehabilitation.

RepublicofNamibia.(2008).Movingtowardsvision2030throughdecentralisation:10thanniversaryoftheadoptionofthedecentralisationpolicy(2nded).Windhoek:MinistryofRegionalandLocalGovernment,HousingandRuralDevelopment.

RepublicofNamibia.(2009).NamibiaNationalHousingPolicy.CabinetApprovedJuly1991andReviewedJuly2009.MinistryofRegionalandLocalGovernment,Housing,andRuralDevelopment.

RepublicofNamibia.(2013).SummaryofblueprintonmasshousingdevelopmentinitiativeinNamibia.



RepublicofNamibia.(2015).NamibiaCountryReport(Draft).FortheThirdUnitedNationsConferenceonHousingandSustainableUrbanDevelopment(HabitatIII).MinistryofUrbanandRuralDevelopment.Retrievedfromhttp://habitat3.org/wp-content/uploads/National-Report-Africa-Namibia-English.pdf

RepublicofNamibia.(2018).StateoftheNationAddressbyHisExcellencyDr.HageG.Geingob,PresidentoftheRepublicofNamibia.Windhoek:OfficeofthePresident.

Rogerson,C.M.(1990).AspectsofurbanmanagementinWindhoek,Namibia.UrbanForum,1(1),29–47.

SDFN.(2009).CommunityLandInformationProgram(CLIP).ShackdwellersFederationofNamibia&NamibiaHousingActionGroup.Retrievedfromhttp://www.sdinet.org/media/upload/countries/documents/NAMclip_.pdf

SDFN&NHAG.(2014).ParticipatoryplanningforinformalsettlementupgradinginFreedomSquare,Gobabis.SDI-AAPSPlanningStudios.ShackDwellersFederationofNamibiaandNamibiaHousingActionGroup.Retrievedfromhttp://sdfn.weebly.com/uploads/2/0/9/0/20903024/freedom_square_report_clip2.pdf

SDI.(2015).SDIAnnualReport2014-15.Slum/ShackDwellersInternational.

Sibeene,P.(2011,October14).Resettlementbenefitstheelite.WindhoekObserver.

Simion,N.T.(2007).NamibiaNationalHousingProgramme–“BuildTogether”.Assessmentoftheeffectivenessoftheprogramme.LundUniversity,Lund.Retrievedfromhttp://www.hdm.lth.se/fileadmin/hdm/alumni/papers/SDD_2007_242a/Naomi_Simion__Namibia.pdf#search=%27namibia%27

Simon,D.(1991).Windhoek:DesegregationandchangeinthecapitalofSouthAfrica’sErstwhileColony.InLemon,Anthony(Ed.),HomesApart:SouthAfrica’sSegregatedCities(pp.174–190).CapeTown:DavidPhilip.

Simon,D.(1996).Restructuringthelocalstateinpost-apartheidcities:NamibianexperienceandlessonsforSouthAfrica.AfricanAffairs,51–84.

Stals,E.L.P.(1987).UrbanisationinSouth-WestAfrica/Namibia.AnExploratoryStudy.Windhoek:BureauforResearch,Academy.

SUM-McNamaraConsultants.(1993).Firststeps(ProgressreportNo.1).Windhoek:NationalHousingEnterprise.

Sweeney-Bindels,E.(2011).HousingPolicyandDeliveryinNamibia.InstituteforPublicPolicyResearch(IPPR).

Swilling,M.(1994).TowardsandUrbanResearchAgendaforSouthernAfricainthe1990s.InR.Stren(Ed.),Africa(pp.281–374).Toronto:UniversityofToronto.

TheNamibian.(2016,October21).Moremembersofelitebenefitfromresettlement.TheNamibian.Retrievedfromhttps://www.namibian.com.na/index.php?page=archive-read&id=157163

TheNamibian.(2018,March20).OutrageoverYaToivoresettlement.TheNamibian.Retrievedfromhttps://www.namibian.com.na/index.php?page=read&id=65590

Tötemeyer,G.(1992).ThereconstructionoftheNamibiannational,regionalandlocalstate(ResearchreportNo.7).Windhoek:NISER,UniversityofNamibia.

Turok,I.(2015).Turningthetide?TheemergenceofnationalurbanpoliciesinAfrica.JournalofContemporaryAfricanStudies,33(3),348–369.

UNDESA.(2018).WorldUrbanizationProspects:The2018Revision.UnitedNationsPopulationDivision,DepartmentofEconomicandSocialAffairs.Retrievedfromhttps://esa.un.org/unpd/wup/

UN-Habitat.(2014,August24).AddressingMexico’sSenate,Dr.Closrootsforurbanlegislation–UN-Habitat.RetrievedMay23,2018,fromhttps://unhabitat.org/addressing-mexicos-senate-dr-clos-roots-for-urban-legislation/

UTN.(n.d.).LocalAuthoritiesinNamibia:acomparativestudy.Windhoek:UrbanTrustofNamibia.

Wallace,M.(2011).AHistoryofNamibia:FromtheBeginningto1990.Jacana.

Wang,L.,Humavindu,M.N.,Bandyopadhyay,S.,&Shyamsundar,P.(2004).DoHouseholdsGainfromCommunity-BasedNaturalResourceManagement?AnEvaluationofCommunityConservanciesinNamibia.WashingtonDC:WorldBank.Retrievedfromhttps://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/14044



Weber,B.,&Mendelsohn,J.(2017).InformalsettlementsinNamibia:theirnatureandgrowth.ExploringwaystomakeNamibianurbandevelopmentmoresociallyjustandinclusive(OccasionalPaperNo.1).Windhoek:DevelopmentWorkshop.

Wellington,J.(1967).SouthWestAfricaanditshumanissues.Oxford:ClarendonPress.

Werner,W.(2011).“Whathashappenedhashappened”ThecomplexityoffencinginNamibia’scommunalareas(Land,EnvironmentandDevelopment).Windhoek:LegalAssistanceCentre.Retrievedfromhttp://www.lac.org.na/projects/lead/Pdf/fencing.pdf

Werner,W.(2015).25yearsoflandreform(ILMIWorkingPapersNo.1).Windhoek:IntegratedLandManagementInstitute.Retrievedfromhttp://ir.polytechnic.edu.na:80/xmlui/handle/10628/533

WorldBank.(1993).Housing:enablingmarketstowork(No.11820)(pp.1–172).TheWorldBank.Retrievedfromhttp://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/1993/04/1561159/housing-enabling-markets-work

WorldBank.(2017).GINIIndex(WorldBankestimate).RetrievedMarch18,2017,fromhttp://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.GINI

land, livelihoods and housing programme...

Documents