Apart from the mentioned efforts with regard to law changes in Na- mibia, the government has proposed several plans to curb the problem with orphans, particularly AIDS orphans in Namibia. The problem, though, lies in the fact that these plans have not really worked thus far. The above-mentioned facts about Namibia illustrate that. This is further illustrated by individual reports. Only the latest two are indicated here. One report is on the general situation in Namibia and the second on a
more specific monitor action that took place in 2008 in two of the re- gions (Erongo and Hardap) of Namibia.
In 2007 a Namibia National Plan of Action for Orphans and Vulnerable Children was drawn up by the Ministry of Gender Equality and Child Welfare in Namibia, with the following indicators targeted as monitor actions for 2010:
Rights and Protection, with target: all children should have access to protection services;
Education, with target: Equal proportions of OVC versus non-OVC aged 16-17 years have completed Grade 10;
Care and Support, with target: 50% of all registered OVC receive any external support (economic, home-based care, psychosocial and educa- tion);
Health and Nutrition, with target: 20% reduction in under-five mortality of all children / equal proportions of OVC and non-OVC aged 15-17 years are not HIV infected;
Management and Networking, with target: “multi-sectoral” (my quota- tion marks) coordination and monitoring of quality services to OVC are significantly improved.
In 2008 the plan of action was monitored in a volume specifically on Monitor and Evaluation (M&E) and in many of the mentioned indica- tors, specifically in Education, Care and Support and Health and Nutri- tion, it seems that the plan has failed up till then. In Education and Care and Support dismal results are reported. In the category Education only two of thirteen target categories have been given values for 2010 and in Care and Support only two of ten categories do not have the value “To Be
Discussed” for 2010.
In the more specific regional report mentioned (of the Standing Com- mittee on Human Resources, Social and Community Development, 2008) a few categories were discussed of which a few findings will be mentioned. With the first “Functioning of OVC Committees” category, the report found that “the functioning of these committees and their activities was at times exclusive and not broad based in their operations, and it was evident that all the new OVC committees were still in need of training to help them do their job effectively” (p. 5). In the category of the “Provision of Identity Documents”, a requirement to register as OVC in order to receive a social grant, it was found that in many places it was
difficult to obtain these, sometimes simply because of very practical issues such as the long distances to travel and the cost of travel (p. 6). In the category “Exemption from School Fees”, it was reported that, “although there is a national policy in place regarding the exemption of OVC from the payment of school development fund fees it was not ad- hered to by some school principals” (p. 6). And further: “It was widely reported that pensioners could no longer cope on their pension as they also had to cater for the needs of family members and OVC who are not registered due to the absence of national documents and inaccessibility of registration services.”
As further proof that the government did not seem to “get it right” an- other report from the Ministry of Gender Equality and Child Welfare appeared in September 2009 with the title “Standards to Improve Service
Delivery for Organisations Working with Orphans and Vulnerable Children in Namibia” (My emphasis).
Except for Government, of course, many other organisations, as sug- gested in the above-mentioned title, are involved in the delivery of ser- vices in Namibia. They include a number of church-based organisations such as Apostolic Faith Mission AIDS Action, Catholic AIDS Action, Church Alliance for Orphans, Evangelical Lutheran Church in the Re- public of Namibia AIDS Programme and Rhenish Church AIDS Pro- gramme, to mention but a few. One other organisation, which may be mentioned in this regard, is the so-called BIG (Basic Income Grant) Coalition, which had its roots in the Church.
BIG recommends to Government that each person in Namibia should be granted a basic income grand per month. This should be recovered from the personal and other taxes of Namibians who are eligible to pay tax. This will place an extra burden on the tax payers of Namibia, but will, so the Coalition claims, relieve the poverty situation in Namibia such that many other social problems will be solved.
BIG has created quite a controversy in Namibia. Henning Melber, well- known commentator and writer on Namibian politics, has called BIG “so far the most serious effort to come to terms with the horrendous discrepancies” in the Namibian economy and social structures. On 10 May 2010 the President of the Republic of Namibia, Pres. Hifikepunye Pohamba, said that the monthly grant will encourage people “to do noth- ing” (See the report on the Namibian, 12 May 2010). This, in turn, was heavily criticized by Bishop Zephania Kameeta, Chairperson of the BIG
Coalition, and well-known anti-Apartheid poet, writer and commentator, who called for an in-depth study to be conducted into the matter with the aim of possibly introducing the grant in Namibia.
The BIG Coalition introduced a pilot project of the basic income grant in the settlement of Otjivero at Omitara, near Gobabis in the North-East of Namibia in 2008. A basic grant of N$ 100.00 (± 10 Euro) was paid to each person in every household. Bishop Kameeta reported that this was a huge success and brought complete change in the community with some business activities going on, more children going to school and more people seeking work because of the fact that they have money for transport and basic foods. In fact, he said that the BIG project in Otjivero was proof that people did not become “lazy” after the grant. Rather, they are encouraged to seek work and to become active (see the report of the
Republikein, 11 May 2010; see also NANGOF 2008).
The controversy about introducing a general income grant in Namibia is going on, with political commentators from other countries, such as South Africa, Germany and Sweden, joining the debate (see, for exam- ple, the New Era article of 4 June 2010).
Another initiative, specifically aimed at orphans in Namibia, which should be mentioned, is the Churches’ Alliance for Orphans (CAFO), a sister organisation of the Council of Churches in Namibia (CCN). This organisation has initiated various projects with the aim of assisting and educating orphans in Namibia. Foreign donors, such as USAID (United States Agency for International Development), have come to the aid of CAFO as can be seen in articles published in the Namibian and the
Republikein on 10 June 2010. In the specific case reported, CAFO re-
ceived 70 metric tons of food packages from the Center for International Health to be distributed to OVC in Namibia.