However, research also revealed that, despite the fact that most traditional authorities regard
other institutions as wearisome, they nevertheless seek assistance from these institutions
when faced with conflicts involving external parties such as Jatropha companies.
The research also focused on the socio-economic benefits that farmers stand to gain from
Jatropha. This emanated from the fact that many researchers question the claimed benefits of
Jatropha and believe that the current rush to develop Jatropha production on a large scale is
ill-conceived, under-studied and could contribute to an unsustainable trade that will not solve
the problems of climate change, energy security or poverty.
The ‘food vs biofuel’ debate also focuses in the study, as it is feared that Jatropha could
replace the production of crops aimed at securing food for communal farmers. Although
Jatropha is not farmed on a scale large enough to fully determine this aspect in the Namibian
context, in other countries research has shown that Jatropha is planted in direct replacement
of food crops by subsistence farmers. However, it is noted that communal farmers in Namibia
are in essence subsistence farmers, i.e. they produce what they consume, and major concerns
arise when one considers the plan to encourage subsistence farmers to plant large amounts of
Jatropha. This is made worse because subsistence farmers have very weak links to markets
and their lack of storage capacity, communication and information will make it difficult to
benefit from Jatropha.
Research also showed that some investors opt for contracts of farming as a land acquisition
method. However, the obligations in farming contracts are mostly aimed at protecting the
interests of the investment companies, whilst at the same time exploiting the farmers. It is
also clear that many of the farmers did not understand the concepts stated in the agreements
and their decisions to sign these agreements were clouded by the promise of huge profits and
other developmental agendas. It is common cause that communal land is mostly used for
subsistence farming and the introduction of commercial activities such as Jatropha, is
interfering with this mode of farming and leading to the commercialisation of the land. It is
therefore, also important to ensure that the legal framework that operates in the communal
arena is geared to protect the farmers from exploitation of their communal resources by
Jatropha investors and other communal land inhabitants.
The Jatropha experience demonstrates that although procedures under both the Communal
Land Reform Act as well as the customary law are used to allocate land for Jatropha
farming, the two are not properly geared to protect the communal farmers from exploitation
by investors. The lack of a remedial mechanism can be attributed to the lack of a harmonious
co-existence between customary and statutory law. It is therefore, recommended that the
Communal Land Reform Act be revisited by the legislature and that the Act incorporate
customary land law practices and principles. There is also need to ensure that the ever
growing gap between customary law and statutory law is bridged. However, the major
recommendation of the study is the introduction of a National Policy for Biofuels. It is
recommended that the policy will be an important tool in facilitating the farming of Jatropha
in the country.