I · Web viewThe survey identified seven social groups whose ... Rwanda's population and economy...

"We are all poor in different ways:"A Rapid Assessment of Livelihood Strategies

and Food Insecurity in Twelve Communities of Rwanda

Elizabeth Adelski, TANGO ConsultantKigali, Rwanda

7 September 2001

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This report is the result of many people's work--from rural Rwanda to Kigali, Rome, and Tucson. All of us who participated in the field work owe our first thanks to the people in the rural communities and districts whose ready cooperation and explanations taught us about their lives. We hope that this report will be of some benefit to them.

I thank all the staff of WFP-Rwanda for their support with this project. Director Mustapha Darboe and Josephine Mahiga-Janabi provided essential assistance, particularly in getting the work started, and David Stevenson gave us much-appreciated support in organizing and completing the report. Robin Wheeler put alot of energy into helping us distinguish the forest from the trees and pulling together our conclusions; thank you. Jean-Baptiste Nkusi and Ayuub Kasasa of the VAM Unit have my thanks for their hard work and humor throughout the project. My thanks to Amiable and his staff for taking care of the ever-present transportation needs, the accounting department for their efficiency and patience, and all my other colleagues for their help in the office and interesting conversations over lunch.

All of the survey field staff deserve a big thank you for their month's work on this project. I appreciate their patience and effort throughout the survey's different stages, and the interest they expressed in the field work. My team-mates were great to work with: thanks for organizing our work, taking care of your team leader, and daily doses of humor.

I thank my colleagues in WFP/VAM-Rome and TANGO in Tucson for resolving the theoretical and practical issues that arose during the consultancy, and for seeing the work through.

Murakoze Cyane!

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

WFP-Rwanda organized the work reported here in order to identify the geographical areas that are vulnerable to food insecurity, to identify vulnerable social groups, and to document their socioeconomic characteristics. A major purpose of the study is to inform the Country Programme (CP) in order to improve sectoral and geographic targeting. In a broader context, the work also provides some baseline and sectoral information to help create a database for the geographic and social mapping of food insecurity in Rwanda. This database will be useful for the WFP-Rwanda/VAM unit and potentially can contribute to the government's disaster mitigation and relief efforts.

A provisional map of the vulnerable communes in Rwanda was drafted in a workshop of experts with general knowledge of the country, as the basis for organizing the survey. The workshop participants identified twelve extremely vulnerable and twenty highly vulnerable communes in eight provinces. The survey was conducted in twelve communes: four of the former and eight of the latter. The overall purpose of the primary data collection was to refine the workshop map and to increase WFP-Rwanda's understanding of the dynamics of food insecurity in different vulnerable populations. Increasing in-house capacity to conduct future surveys was a second purpose of the work.

The survey's primary objective was to answer these four key questions:

Where are the vulnerable populations?

The workshop identified three levels of vulnerability to food insecurity in Rwanda: extreme, high, and areas to be monitored. The extremely vulnerable areas are twelve communes in Butare and Gikongoro provinces. The highly vulnerable areas are four communes in the Bugesera ecozone and sixteen communes in the provinces of Gikongoro, Butare, Kibuye, Gisenyi, and Ruhengeri. The maps that follow the Introduction to the report show these vulnerable areas. The food security advisors also identified areas that are prone to food insecurity and should be monitored. These include the eastern province of Umutara, the eastern corridor bordering Bugesera, the drought corridor along Rwanda's southern border, and seventeen communes in six provinces. All of the provinces and communes that are vulnerable to food insecurity or need to be monitored are shown in the table below.

The household livelihood and food-security survey provided community-level data from some extremely and highly vulnerable areas identified in the workshop. The primary data confirm the vulnerability of the areas, and are the basis for greater understanding of the local-level dynamics of food insecurity in vulnerable populations.

Who is vulnerable to food insecurity?

These people and their households:

Women household heads: widows, women with husbands in prison, the divorced and abandoned.

The land-poor, including the landless and those with poor-quality soils. Orphans and child household heads. Households with chronically ill members

i

The destitute: the elderly, the physically and psychologically handicapped, and the extremely poor.

The people resettled in government resettlements (imidugudus), who were identified as a vulnerable group only in Kanzenze district in Bugesera.

People affected by the 1997-98 and later insecurity, who were identified only in Bukonya district in Ruhengeri.

Why are these social groups vulnerable?

All of these social groups are caught in a vicious cycle that makes them vulnerable to food insecurity, although each group has some particular characteristics that trap them in the cycle. They are all poor and do not have the essential agricultural resources that an agricultural population needs, including sufficient, fertile land; livestock for manure and as a source of money in emergencies; ready access to markets, agricultural inputs, and extension services. As a result their agricultural production and marketable surpluses are limited, so their food stocks and income are limited. Low incomes prevent them from accumulating livestock that are necessary to provide manure for Rwanda's generally poor and over-used soils. These groups generally do not have nonagricultural skills and the economic alternatives to agriculture are nil in rural Rwanda. Wage labor becomes virtually the only option to compensate for poor production, but opportunities are limited in rural areas because most of the population cannot afford to hire labor. The net result for these social groups is food insecurity, which contributes to poor health, and lack of income for basic needs such as medical care, education, housing, and food purchases. People with small or no landholdings, or with poor-quality soils, are caught in this vicious cycle. Those in the northwest also are, because they have lost their assets, including the livestock that are essential for agricultural production, and are in the process of rebuilding their lives.

Lack of household labor and high dependency ratios are the major factors that make women household heads and their families vulnerable to food insecurity. Women with imprisoned husbands expend valuable time and energy providing food for their husbands and therefore have less work-time to support the rest of their households. Traditional culture that limits women's access to and control of resources also contributes to their poverty and food insecurity. Households with chronically ill members ultimately lose labor and incur increasing expenses to care for the invalid, in a cycle similar to that of single women's households. Orphans and child household-heads face similar constraints: they lack the resources, physical strength, and skills for farming, and do not have alternative sources of income. The elderly and handicapped generally have no resources except their land, cannot work, and do not have family support. The people resettled in imidugudus are vulnerable because they generally lost their assets in the war and have been resettled in communities where they are far from their fields, cannot keep livestock, and lack services. They expend time and energy walking to their fields and their isolated crops are damaged by livestock and thieves.

What can be done?

School feeding programs , as children's abandonment of school due to hunger was reported as a problem virtually everywhere.

Cash-for-work and food-for-work, to simultaneous provide resources, improve natural resource management, and rehabilitate local infrastructure.

ii

Purchase local producers' commodities when available and them for SFP or FFW. This would support the formation of associations that are necessary to access credit, inputs, and technical assistance.

Food-for-training, for orphans, the handicapped, and the chronically ill, to teach them nonagricultural skills as a source of revenue for those with limited physical capacity to work. Food-for-training also could work with local partners to provide training related to agricultural and livestock production for producers, including women.

iii

List of the Vulnerable Communes in Rwanda, by Province(source: Food Security Advisors Workshop)

Province Commune/sExtremely Vulnerable Areas

ButareNyakizu, Gishamvu, Huye, Runyinya, Maraba, Rusatira, Ruhashya, Mbazi

GikongoroKarambo, Rukondo, Karama, Kinyamakara, Mubuga

Highly Vulnerable AreasButare KigenbeGikongoro Rwaniko, NyamagabeGisenyi Kibilira, Ramba, Giciye, Gaseke, SatinsyiKigali-rural Ngenda, Gashoro, Kanzenze (Bugesera ecozone)Ruhengeri Ruhondo, Gatonde, Ndusu, CyabingoKibuye Bwakira, Mwendo, Gitesi, GisokuKibungo SakeGitarama KayenziAreas to be MonitoredButare Muyira, Ntyazo, MuyagaGisenyi Kanama, Kayove, MuturaKigali-rural Musasa, Mugambazi, Gikoro, Tare, MbogoRuhengeri Nyarutovu

KibungoNyarubuye commune and the drought corridor along the southern border

Gitarama Kyakabanda, Nyabikenke, Masango, Bulinga

UmutaraKarangari, Gabiro, Kahi, Bugaragara, Gebiro, Rwisirabo

Cyangugu Karengera, Kirambo, Gatare

iv

ACRONYMS

CO Country OfficeCSO Country Strategy OutlineDRSA Regional Headquarters of the Agricultural ServicesEU European UnionFAO Food and Agricultural Organization of the United NationsFEWSNET Famine Early Warning System NetworkFEZ Food economy zoneFFC Food-for-cashFFW Food-for-workFSRP Farming Systems Research ProjectHH HouseholdHIV/AIDS Human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immune deficiency

syndromeHLS Household Livelihood SecurityMEDIRESA Regional Medical OfficerMICS Multiple Indicators SurveyMINAGRI Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Resources, and ForestryMINISANTE Minister of HealthMT Metric tonsNGO Non-governmental organizationPASAR Rwanda Food-Security Assistance Project TANGO Technical Assistance to NGOs InternationalUSA United States of AmericaUSAID United States Agency for International DevelopmentVAM Vulnerability Analysis and MappingWFP World Food Program of the United NationsWV World Vision

v

TABLE of CONTENTS

Section Page

I. Introduction 1A. Background and Objectives of the Survey 1B. Organization of the Report 1

Map 1., Levels of Vulnerability to Food Insecurity in Rwanda 2Map 2., Household Livelihood Survey Sites 3Graph 1., Altitude and Food Crops 4

II. Conclusions and Recommendations 5A. Vulnerability to Food Insecurity: who, where, why, and what can 5be done?

1. Who is vulnerable 52. Where the vulnerable groups are 63. Why the groups are vulnerable 74. What can be done for the vulnerable groups: potential interventions 9

B. Recommendations for Further Surveys 12

III. Methodology 16A. Background: Mapping Vulnerability to Food Insecurity 16B. The Survey Sample 17C. The Field Teams and Data Collection 18D. Definitions 19E. Tables 20

IV. A Brief Overview of Rwanda 24A. Agro-Ecological Zones 24B. The Population and Economy 24C. Trends in Agricultural Production and Food Security 25

V. Characterization of the Food-Insecure Zones Surveyed 29A. Butare and Gikongoro: Extremely Vulnerable to Food Insecurity 29

1. Vulnerability: where, who, why, and what can be done 292. Gikongoro Province: Background 303. Butare Province: Background 304. Summary of the District-level Information 32

1) Vulnerable social groups 322) Vulnerable sectors 32

5. The Social Groups' Economic Resources, Intangible 34Resources, and Livelihood Strategies6. The Food Supply: Sources, Seasonality, and Coping 37Strategies for Insufficiency7. Problems, Coping Strategies, and Potential Interventions 40

vi

TABLE of CONTENTS, continued

Section Page

V. Characterization of the Food-Insecure Zones Surveyed, continued

B. Bugesera: Highly Vulnerable to Food Insecurity 451. Vulnerability: where, who, why, and what can be done 452. Bugesera: Background 463. Summary of the District-level Information 47



C. Kibuye, Gisenyi, and Ruhengeri: Highly Vulnerable to Food 58Insecurity

1. Vulnerability: where, who, why, and what can be done 582. Kibuye: Background 593. Gisenyi: Background 604. Ruhengeri: Background 615. Summary of the District-level Information 62



Bibliography 76

1 vii

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Background and Objectives of the Household Livelihood Security Survey

The lack of sound longitudinal and sectoral data in Rwanda makes analyzing the social and geographical distribution of food insecurity, and its causes, difficult. WFP-Rwanda therefore organized a vulnerability analysis and mapping (VAM) study to identify food-insecure areas and the characteristics of food-insecure populations. One major purpose of the study is to inform the Country Programme (CP) in order to improve sectoral and geographic targeting. Another major purpose is to provide a set of information for the VAM unit to begin building its database that will be used to analyze food-insecurity vulnerability patterns and their causes, and to assist the CO in linking vulnerability analysis with programming decisions. Ultimately, with georeferenced and longitudinal data from additional surveys and other sources, the VAM unit will build a solid database on food security that will be useful for CO programming and for the government's work toward building disaster management capacity.

The major objective of this consultancy was to answer these four questions: where are the food-insecure populations located? who are they, ie what social groups are vulnerable to food insecurity? why are these groups vulnerable? what are the potential interventions to address their vulnerability?

Fulfilling this objective will provide the CO with the necessary information for targeting for its next Country Programme (CP), and will provide an initial set of primary data for the VAM unit. The consultancy's second major objective was to train World Food Program-Rwanda (WFP) staff in the methodology for Household Livelihood Security (HLS) rapid assessment. This will give the CO the in-house capability to implement additional surveys when needed, and contribute primary data to the VAM unit's database.

The HLS survey has a set of secondary objectives. It was conducted in the areas most vulnerable to food insecurity. Its objectives were to identify and characterize communities' different social groups, to quantify the relative importance of the different components of their livelihood strategies, to define the reasons for their food security or insecurity, and to document how they cope with problems. It also reports the different social groups' diagnoses of appropriate interventions to improve their economic and food security.

B. Organization of the Report

This report is organized into four major sections, following the Introduction. The conclusions from the survey—the answers to the four questions above--are presented in Section II. Section III explains the methodology used to implement the survey. It includes a brief review of the consultancies that preceded this study and how they defined vulnerable areas. It also contains an explanation of how the survey sample was defined and the limitations of the information produced. A brief overview of Rwanda's national-level economy, agricultural trends, and recent nutritional data is in Section IV. Section V contains the analysis and discussion of the information from the twelve survey sites; the tables for this section are in a separate document, "Data Appendix for the WFP-Rwanda 2001 Rapid Assessment of Livelihood Strategies and Food Insecurity in Twelve Communities." The bibliography is at the end of the report.

11

21

31

41

II. CONCLUSIONS and RECOMMENDATIONS

A. Vulnerability to food insecurity: who, where, why, and what can be done?

The survey's first objective was to answer these four key questions, in order to provide information for the CP. The answers are below. Many of the elements in our answers appear in the work that we built on—the CSO, Drake's analysis, and the workshop facilitated by VAM-Rome. The workshop summarized information from the Food Security Working Group (FAO, USAID, EU, FEWSNET, Agro-Action, World Vision, the Ministry of Agriculture, CRS, and program officers from WFP-Rwanda). For example, small landholdings, migration, and women-headed households are identified as signs of vulnerability in those reports. Thus there is some continuity in defining vulnerability although the three preceding reports all use different indicators and analytical methods. The survey's task was to refine the previous maps, particularly the workshop map that was the basis of our sample, and answer the questions above using primary data from the survey. WFP-Rwanda's information-base about vulnerability thus has progressed along the continuun from the provincial level (Drake), to the commume level (CSO, the workshop), to the district and community levels (the survey).

It is important to point out that the survey data can be generalized only to the sector level and certainly not beyond that (a sector has about ten or fewer communities). Two survey sites in a province does not provide provincial-level information or conclusions, nor the basis for ranking the province in terms of its vulnerability to food insecurity. The information from the survey provides the basis for defining and comparing the communities' social groups, their livelihood strategies, and their food-security and other problems.

1. Who is vulnerable

The survey identified seven social groups whose households are vulnerable to food insecurity and are listed below. It is important to note that these groups represent broad social categories and that there is internal variation within each one, including variation in terms of their vulnerability and economic status. Being in a group generally identified as vulnerable—such as women household heads or the elderly—does not necessarily mean that the individual person or his/her household is vulnerable. It is in general that these groups are defined as those most likely to be food insecure and in need of assistance. Note also that these people and their households are vulnerable to food insecurity; the term "vulnerable social groups" used throughout the report means the types of households and people that are vulnerable.

The groups below were consistently identified as vulnerable by district officials, the community authorities with whom we did the social classification exercise, and the community-level focus groups. The reasons for each group's vulnerability are explained below. The first five groups were found in all the survey sites; the last two only in the districts specified. Insecurity in Ruhengeri, the reason for the last group's vulnerability, probably is a transitory rather than structural factor and in any case is limited to northwest Rwanda.

Women-headed households: widows, women with husbands in prison, the divorced and abandoned.

The land-poor, including the landless and those with poor-quality soils. Households with chronically ill members Orphans and child household-heads.

51

The destitute: the elderly, the physically and psychologically handicapped, and the extremely poor.

The people resettled in government resettlements (imidugudus), who were identified as a vulnerable group only in Kanzenze district in Bugesera.

People affected by the 1997-98 and later insecurity, who were identified only in Bukonya district in Ruhengeri.

An important conclusion from the survey is that social class, that can be defined practically as differences in the control of resources, is a determining factor in food security. The survey data show that the middle class is food-secure in all the environments surveyed: in densely populated Butare, on the acid soils of Gikongoro, in drought-affected Bugesera. The exceptions to this are rare. The middle class is food-secure because they have or can access the resources necessary to cope with the local constraints on economic and food security: fertile land, livestock, manure, hired labor for agricultural production, cash. In contrast, the poor are caught in a vicious cycle that prevents them from accumulating or accessing these resources, and as a result remain poor and chronically food insecure. The factors often cited as the basis for or predictive of food insecurity—acid soils, high population density, small landholdings, altitude, being in areas with limited trade—are not the only determinants of food insecurity. Social factors—control of resources, having access to the the resources necessary to cope with these conditions—are crucial in determining food security or insecurity.

2. Where the vulnerable groups are

The workshop identified twelve extremely vulnerable communes in Butare and Gikongoro; the survey was conducted in four of these communes. The workshop also identified twenty highly vulnerable communes in three provinces and the Bugesera ecozone; the survey was conducted in eight of these communes. These areas are shown on the maps that precede this section. The survey confirmed that, at the community level and extrapolating to the sector level, the areas identified in the workshop were in fact vulnerable to food insecurity. The geographical location of vulnerability was further refined through interviews with local officials, who identified some of the vulnerable sectors in the communes where the survey was done. This information is shown in Table II-1 at the end of this section. Provincial-level nutritional data from a recent national survey also are useful for understanding where people are food insecure; those data are summarized in Table II-2 at the end of this section.

An example of the type of information available from some provincial reports that is useful for further defining vulnerable groups' numbers and geographical location within a province is shown in Table II-3 below. This information is from Butare's annual report. The report does not have information on all the vulnerable groups that we identified (eg the land-poor) but it is the best information on numbers and location currently available in Butare. For example, it clearly shows that widows are a larger vulnerable group than orphans or the destitute, which should be useful for programming. This is the type of information that will further refine the "where" regarding vulnerable populations. The VAM unit staff are working on collecting this type of quantitative information from the other provinces for the upcoming CP exercise.

61

Table II-3. The Distribution of Some Vulnerable Social Groups in Butare's SevenExtremely Vulnerable Communes (source: Butare Annual Report 2001)

The workshop report postulates that the high-altitude areas along the Zaire-Nile crest appear to be the most chronically food-insecure in Rwanda. This is due to a combination of factors in addition to altitude: poor soil quality, steep slopes and erosion, high population density, small landholdings, and lack of room for livestock that produce the manure essential for good production. The survey's conclusion is that this list of factors usually culminates in poor agricultural production and affects most vulnerable groups. It is the general, vicious cycle that makes households economically insecure in all the survey sites, not just those at high altitudes. The Prefets in Kibuye and Gikongoro said that altitude is not necessarily linked to food insecurity; isolation from marketing and service networks (enclavement) and poor soils are key factors. The survey findings indicate that food insecurity generally is the result of the factors above and of socioeconomic status. They do not suggest that altitude is a more influential factor than any other in food security. 3. Why these groups are vulnerable

a. Women-headed households

As a result of the genocide one-third of Rwanda's households are headed by women and children. "These are the most vulnerable of the poor households, due to a lack of able-bodied labor and long-standing social and legal discrimination against women in the areas of education, employment and property inheritance/ownership" (Common Country Assessment 1999-2000). The survey found that women household heads—widows, women with imprisoned husbands, the abandoned--are particularly vulnerable to food insecurity for several reasons. Their households have high dependency ratios due to their loss of manpower, so the women are left without a partner to share the heavy work of agricultural production. Those with imprisoned husbands are responsible for feeding them, which often requires daily trips to the communal prisons that take time and energy from productive work. (Note: the government is reponsible for feeding prisoners in state prisons, which is not the case in the communes, partly because they have fewer resources). Their extended families generally cannot spare the time and labor to help them so their resources—land, housing, livestock, coffee trees—degrade over time. They generally do not have the time or resources to keep livestock, so they lack manure for their fields and a source of cash for emergencies. Women's income from wage labor or migration, that are primarily men's work, is limited as they cannot easily leave their children and imprisoned husbands to work. Low agricultural production due to their households' limited labor and inputs results in limited food supplies and marketable surpluses. They compensate by doing wage labor but may be paid less than men because they are "weak." They are often cash-poor as they are paid in food instead of cash, so they lack money to pay for health care, education, and necessities such as tools and male labor for heavy work (repairing housing, preparing the fields). Another problem is that

71

Commune Widows OrphansDestitute (elderly

plus handicapped)Maraba (surveyed) 2,262 409 1,921 + 299 = 2,220Rusatira (surveyed) 2,458 152 568 + 125 = 693

Mbazi 2,102 68 86 + 74 = 160Ruhashya 2,251 359 203 + 99 = 302Nyakizu 2,550 486 1,305 + 510 = 1,815

Huye 1,398 240 374 + 209 = 583Runyinya 2,152 188 1,815 + 248 = 2,063

Totals 15,173 1,902 6,272 + 1,564 = 7,836

opportunities for wage labor are limited in rural areas. The net result is that their households are poor in resources, cash, and food, and their children suffer.

b. Land-poor households

Land-poverty may be due to either small landholdings or owning unusable land; both types are found in the populations surveyed. The former obviously is the result of high population density in a country where 91% of the population is engaged in agriculture, and the other sectors of the national economy cannot absorb rural labor. Owning land that is unusable for agricultural production is the result of over-using Rwanda's generally fragile soils. Many producers cannot afford livestock to provide manure, or fertilizers and lime, or fallowing. Those factors plus erosion due to steep slopes degrade soil quality to the point where producers plant it in trees or let the scrub and erogrostis take over. As a result they have only small parcels left to cultivate.

Producers that are land-poor are vulnerable to economic and food insecurity. Poor soil quality often exacerbates their land-poverty. Manure is essential for production but the rural population lost most of its livestock in the war and the poor cannot afford to restock. Their access to alternative inputs such as fertilizer and lime is nil due to low incomes. The combination of small landholdings and lack of inputs results in small harvests and surpluses. They cannot produce enough to feed themselves or generate the cash for basic consumer necessities. The primary alternative in rural Rwanda is wage labor; the constraint is that opportunities are few because most of the rural population cannot afford to hire labor, and there are few nonagricultural work opportunities for an uneducated population. The net result of an oversupply of labor and an undersupply of employment is food insecurity. Migration is the next option but there is competition everywhere for work, as Rwanda does not have an industrial or service sector to absorb its rural labor. This vicious cycle and its food insecurity can only become worse as the land-poor population grows, particularly as it is likely to grow faster than Rwanda's nonagricultural sectors can absorb it.

c. Households with chronically ill members

Tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS are the two main chronic diseases that create household vulnerability. The chronically ill ultimately represent a loss of household labor, as their capacity to work diminishes. At the same time they require expenditures on food, medical care, and medicine. A sick person who is hospitalized requires a family member as a care-taker (garde-malade), which further decreases household labor-power. HIV/AIDS in particular is reported to bring conflict and depression into the household. The combination of these factors impoverishes the household and makes it food-insecure. A high dependency ratio, due to the loss of the invalid's labor, pushes the household into the negative spiral that is common to all the vulnerable groups: decreasing agricultural production which means a decreasing marketable surplus to generate cash, an increasing need for wage labor as a source of cash and food, in a rural and national economy where wage-labor opportunities are limited. Household economic and food insecurity are the inevitable results, during the invalid's life. After the invalid's death the affected household is still vulnerable because it is a single-parent household that lacks labor and has a high dependency ratio.

81

d. Orphans and child-headed households

Orphans are sometimes classified among "the destitute," and sometimes not. Their level of economic activity is limited by their age, physical strength, and skills. Many do not have the strength or knowledge for farming or other work, and some do not have access to land. They often cannot attend school or learn nonagricultural skills because they have to earn their livings and often support siblings. Their economic production is nil. As a result they live in chronic economic and food insecurity and generally depend on assistance from the community or others to survive. The assistance usually is not sufficient to make them food-secure because, as a result of the war that impoverished most rural Rwandans, most households are struggling to maintain themselves and have little if any resources available to help others.

e. The destitute: the elderly and handicapped

The elderly and handicapped generally are economically inactive and therefore destitute. The latter includes the psychological as well as the physical effects of the war--people who were traumatized by the genocide, particularly women, who are psychologically no longer able to support themselves. These people do not have the physical or psychological capacity to work, their families usually are struggling to survive and cannot provide adequate support, including sufficient food, so they depend on begging and the assistance of others to survive. Traditional family support for economically inactive or limited family members has been ruptured by the war. The elderly or handicapped do not have family support because their children were killed in the genocide, have left the community to earn their livings elsewhere, send few or no remittances, or cannot provide adequate support because they are impoverished themselves. Most able-bodied, economically active rural Rwandans are not economically or food-secure; people such as the elderly who cannot work and contribute to their own food security are at a real disadvantage and definitely a vulnerable group.

f. Resettlees in imidugudus in Bugesera

The people who have been resettled in imidugudus in Kanzenze are vulnerable because they lost their homes and in many cases their household goods and livestock in the war. The resettlements are far from their landholdings so they spend time and energy walking to their fields and lose their crops to animals and thieves. Most resettlements lack water systems and services such as clinics and schools, and the housing is poor quality. The net result is that these resettled people are vulnerable to food insecurity. Because this group was reported only in Bugesera, it is not certain whether or not it is generally a vulnerable group throughout the country.

g. People affected by insecurity in Bukonya, Ruhengeri

Ruhengeri and other parts of the northwest have suffered from insecurity and infiltrators since the war, particularly in 1997-98, and as late as 2001. The people surveyed in Bukonya lost their harvests, livestock, and homes to the rebels and are in the process of rebuilding their assets and lives. This vulnerable group was identified only in Ruhengeri and its vulnerability, due to insecurity, is likely to be a transitory and site-specific rather than a structural factor.

4. What can be done for the vulnerable groups: potential interventions

The CSO states the WFP-Rwanda will work in three major areas: human development, food security, and disaster mitigation. The potential interventions suggested from the survey fall

91

into the first two areas. WFP-Rwanda will work in maternal/child health (MCH), HIV/AIDS, and basic education through feeding programs, support for income-generating activities, and capacity-building, all of which are appropriate based on the survey results. Improving food security will focus on swamp reclamation and land terracing, which are appropriate activities in the survey sites and could be done using C/FFW. For example, Karaba district in Gikongoro has a swamp of 900 hectares, the valley of Mwogo, that is unexploited due to lack of funds. The Mayor said that the entire swamp must be reclaimed (have an irrigation system), because if only part were done it would be flooded in the rainy season.

School feeding programs (SFP) can be recommended as universally appropriate, as children's abandonment of school due to hunger was reported as a problem in virtually all the communities surveyed. However, the Prefets in Kibuye and Gikongoro were rather negative about this program because the external provision of food would "create dependency" on the parents' part. They both felt that parents must be responsible for feeding their own children. This position evidently is linked to the government's decentralization policy that, according to the Prefets, is designed to discourage dependence on the state and promote local responsibility. They were somewhat more positive about SFPs that would purchase the commodities locally, which essentially would mean that people were feeding their own children.

FFW to support the creation of collective coffee fields at the community level is an intervention to consider. People's coffee plots degenerated after the war due to insecurity and lack of state TA and inputs. The presence or absence of tea or coffee as major cash crops was noted as a factor linked to food security in the workshop. In Butare people reported that income from coffee generated as much as 20% of household income and food purchases. The problem is that many producers are poor and food-insecure and cannot afford to invest labor in rehabilitating their coffee plots, so they have lost this important source of income. The state's system of TA and inputs on credit for coffee is not yet functioning well. FFW could support community associations to establish collective coffee plots in order to diversify sources of revenue. .

The recommendations for potential interventions for WFP-Rwanda must be set in the context of working toward promoting household livelihood security, which is the ability of a household to meet its basic needs. These needs include health, housing, income, and education as well as food (Frankenberger and McCaston 2001). Food security cannot be treated "as a fundamental need, independent of wider livelihood considerations" because it is only one of several basic needs that households aim to fulfill (Frankenberger and McCaston 1998). The vulnerable groups identified in the survey cannot adequately meet any of these basic needs. They need non-food aid as well as food aid to increase their livelihood security. WFP-Rwanda's comparative advantage is to help improve food security; it should collaborate with development partners whose non-food aid will complement its work by promoting household livelihood security. These partners could respond to the population's felt needs such as restocking, credit for agricultural inputs, and support for women's associations. The interventions suggested below therefore should be part of a collaborative effort with partners.

a. Women-headed households

Food or Cash-for-work (F/CFW), that will simultaneous provide food or cash, and improve local natural resource management (construct or rehabilitate terraces, reclaim swamps for production) or local infrastructure (schools, roads). Women household heads definitely need food, but they also need cash in order to pay for basic needs that affect food security such as tools, medical care, education, and basic consumer goods

101

such as soap and clothes. WFP-Rwanda should work with partners that can complement WFP's food programs with projects that enable women to generate cash.

WFP-Rwanda should buy food commodities locally when possible and then use them for SFP or FFW. This would give some support to women's/producer's groups that generally have better access to working with projects and to necessities such as credit, agricultural inputs, and TA. WFP-Rwanda could collaborate with development partners whose projects work with women's/producer's associations and are aimed at improving natural resource management (NRM) and agricultural production. The collaboration would help WFP-Rwanda and its partner leverage their impact on local development.

SFP to improve children's nutritional status and school attendance.

b. Land-poor households

C/FFW for infrastructure rehabilitation and to improve local NRM. The latter can focus on improvements such as terraces and living fences on their own land, to help improve production.

Food-for-training: WFP-Rwanda could work with local partners to provide training related to agricultural and livestock production for producers, including women. Several groups requested such training. It is necessary because the districts' technicians generally are ineffective due to lack of transportation, lack of expertise, and their insufficient numbers.

Purchase commodities for SFP or FFW from the land-poor when they are available. This may help them organize into producer-groups and improve their access to TA and inputs. Also, as stated above, WFP-Rwanda should collaborate with a development partner that works in rural/agricultural development and can provide the non-food aid that the land-poor and the other vulnerable groups need, such as support for improving NRM, access to improved seed and inputs, and livestock.

c. Households with chronically ill members

Food-for-training (FFT), to teach the chronically ill nonagricultural skills that will be a source of revenue for those with limited physical capacity to work.

Programs in local health clinics and their nutritional centers that provide support in the form of food commodities (feeding programs) specifically for the chronically ill. This would help alleviate the household's burden of feeding a member who works little or not at all.

FFW and SFP also are appropriate for these households as they need assistance to improve the household's food security that is decreased by caring for a chronically ill member.

111

d. Orphans and child household-heads

Nutritional screening and enrollment in local clinics' feeding programs as necessary.

Target SFP to areas where there are many orphans and child-headed households, in order to improve their access to food and education.

Food-for-training for those 15 years of age and older, to give them a basic education and to teach them both agricultural and vocational (secretarial skills, tailoring, house-keeping, masonry, metalsmithing) skills.

e. The elderly, handicapped, and destitute

FFW: part-time work helping to care for the orphans and their households.

Food-for-training for the handicapped, to teach them useful vocational skills.

Programs in local health clinics and their nutritional centers that provide support in the form of food commodities (feeding programs) specifically for the elderly and the handicapped who cannot work.

f. Resettlees in imidugudus and people affected by insecurity in Ruhengeri

C/FFW to build or rehabilitate community infrastructure, including housing, and improve NRM.

Food-for-training: work with local partners to provide training related to agricultural and small livestock production for producers in these communities, including women.

SFP and feeding programs in nutritional centers for children.

Food-for-training, to teach people nonagricultural skills.

B. Recommendations for further surveys

1. A survey team can include two trained nutritionists to take anthropometric measurements on women and children and then analyze the data. This gives a snapshot of nutritional status in the communities surveyed. The measurements usually are done using a "haphazard sample" (measuring whoever chooses to participate) rather than a formal sampling strategy. The limitation on the data is that they are not representative and cannot be generalized to the community because they are not from a random sample. However, they do provide objective data about local nutritional status to complement the focus-groups' qualitative reports. UNICEF or other agencies who conduct rapid nutritional assessments may have methods to address the sampling issue.

2. As a result of the training and the survey WFP-Rwanda has increased in-house capacity to conduct additional surveys. However, additional strengthening and supervision is recommended for the VAM staff (and others) who would be team leaders in any future surveys. On-the-ground training is strongly recommended; discussion and role-playing in the office are not effective. The staff should spend several days in the field with a direct supervisor, conducting all the interviews and exercises at the community and district levels. Only the potential team leaders should participate in this exercise and in no case more than

121

three people per supervisor. Supervised data-input should be the second component of the training.

After the team leaders are trained, they should repeat the entire training process—in the field and data input—with the interviewers. Each team leader should train no more than six people at a time.

It is recommended that the data-summary forms be designed, field-tested, and used as part of this training. These forms essentially are tables that contain the data from each survey site for each question on the questionnaires (see Appendix ? for examples). The data summaries should replace the typed data matrices for each questionnaire that this survey used. This will eliminate the intermediary step of typing up the data matrices and thus save time and effort.

With future surveys, the field teams should complete their data summaries and all the other details of correcting and organizing their survey data in the field. This includes writing up and presenting the team summaries to exchange information. This is because working in the field is more efficient and easier to supervise; once staff return to the office they have other work to do, which delays completing any unfinished survey-work.

131

Table II-1. Vulnerable Sectors in the Communes Surveyed(source: local officials)

Province Commune Vulnerable SectorsExtremely Vulnerable Communes Butare Maraba Tare, Bunzaze, Kabuye, Kibanda, Simbi, Cyarumbo, and

seven sectors of Mbazi.Butare Rusatira Kabona, Nyagisenyi, Maza, and KatoGikongoro Rwamiko Gasare, Bukoro, Matyazo, Gisorora, and KamanaGikongoro Karama Muganza, Kiraro, Cyanika, part of Gitega, Mbazi, Ngara

and Murera. Highly Vulnerable CommunesBugesera Sake Rukumberi, Gituza, Sholi, Rubago, Mbuye, Nshili,

Kabuye, Mabuga, Ngoma, RuyemaBugesera Kanzenze Muyenzi, Mayange, Murama, Maranyundo, NgagihunikaGisenyi Giciye Shaki, Muhungwe, Rurembo, Jomba, ShyiraGisenyi Kibilira Ntanganzwa, Sovu, Rugarama, Gitarama, KareheRuhengeri Gatonde Busengo, Gahanga, Nyakagezi, Mugunga, Kabingo,

Rusoro, Rusasa, Munanira, Kibumba.Ruhengeri Ruhondo Muhororo, Muhaza, Kiganda, Rusayo, Mukono, Gashaki,

Rwaza, RyandinziKibuye Kivumu Cyanyanza, Musasa, Ngoma, Kibanda, Sanza and

NyabinombeKibuye Gisovu Eight sectors of 18 in the high-altitude tea-production area

on the Zaire-Nile crest.

141

Table II-2. Types and Rates of Malnutrition in Children Under Five,by Province (source: Multiple Indicators Survey 2001)

Province

Types and Rates of Malnutrition (rounded percents)Chronic or stunting

(height for age)Wasting or acute,

(weight for height)Underweight

(weight for age)Moderate Severe Moderate Severe Moderate Severe

Kigali town 26 7 8 3 21 2Kigali-rural 48 22 6 2 29 10Gisenyi 36 14 6 0.7 20 4Ruhengeri 48 23 7 0 29 6Byumba 48 21 5 0 32 8Umutara 34 15 11 3 30 10Kibungo 43 24 5 0.6 32 9Butare 42 19 8 0.5 30 8Gitarama 46 19 9 3 31 7Kibuye 44 17 4 0.6 31 3Gikongoro 47 18 8 2 30 7Cyangugu 42 20 5 1 30 9

161

16

III. METHODOLOGY

A. Background: Mapping Vulnerability to Food Insecurity

1. The Country Strategy Outline

WFP-Rwanda's first map of food-insecure areas is in the 2001 Country Strategy Outline (CSO). It is based on information from the joint crop assessments on agricultural and livestock production; disease epidemics in people and animals; market prices from the Rwanda Food-Security Assistance Project (PASAR); and nutritional data from three sources: the CO-assisted nutritional centers, provincial medical officers (MEDIRESA), and nutritional centers in the communes where joint assessment was done. The data are aggregated to the commune level and show eastern and southeastern Rwanda to be the most vulnerable. The provinces identified as most vulnerable, in order, are: Kibungo, Umutara, Butare, Kigali-rural, and Gitarama (Table III-1 below). The CSO states that these are the areas of "chronic short-term hunger." This vulnerability map mainly reflects the effects of the 1998-2000 drought rather than any regional structural factors that underly vulnerability. It does not map the areas that are structurally vulnerable to food insecurity and therefore differs from the two maps produced later.

For clarification, Rwanda's four administrative levels are:

1. Provinces: there are 12 in Rwanda.2. Communes: roughly equivalent to a county in the USA, of which Rwanda had 154. The government recently combined these into new districts. The new districts generally consist of 2-3 communes but may also include only a few sectors from a commune. A national map of the new districts is not yet available.3. Sectors: a group of rural communities, usually ten or less. 4. Cells: rural communities.

2. An analysis of current vulnerability mapping: Drake and VAM

The CO funded two consultancies to refine its vulnerability map, and to provide the starting-point for a HLS survey to identify food-insecure areas and characterize vulnerable populations. Both of these consultancies ranked Rwanda's provinces in terms of vulnerability to food insecurity, produced vulnerability maps, and overlapped with the HLS consultant. Thus they provided the basis for designing the survey's sampling strategy.

The first consultancy produced the report titled "Current Vulnerability Mapping Situation Analysis" (S. Drake et al.) The report outlines the structural and transitory causes of food insecurity, and the data available for vulnerability mapping. Drake concludes that lack of adequate data, software, robust indicators, and systematic data-collection are major constraints on producing meaningful vulnerability maps. However, he and the WFP/VAM-Rwanda unit aggregated the few indicators available to the provincial level in order to provide a relative indication of food insecurity in Rwanda's 12 provinces. Thirteen indicators were used to rank the provinces in terms of structural vulnerability. Those structural indicators and three weighted, transitory indicators were combined to rank the provinces in terms of their current vulnerability status. The results of Drake's analysis are summarized in Table III-2 below. His vulnerability-ranking contributed to the organization of the HLS survey and second consultancy but was not the basis of the survey sample.

171

17

3. The Food Security Advisors Workshop

The second consultancy was a workshop facilitated by WFP/VAM-Rome, attended by food security advisors based in Rwanda. The advisors included FAO, USAID, EU, FEWSNET, Agro-Action, World Vision, the Ministry of Agriculture, CRS, and program officers from WFP-Rwanda. The workshop's purpose was to identify and rank the communes that are chronically vulnerable to food insecurity; communes thus were the unit of analysis for vulnerability. The participants' knowledge enabled them to rank Rwanda's communes in terms of structural and transitory vulnerability, and in terms of extreme and high vulnerability (Stanley, "WFP/VAM Consultation and Consolidation with Food Security Experts.")

It is important to note that the workshop's primary objective was to identify the areas that are structurally vulnerable to food insecurity, and secondarily to identify those that are vulnerable due to transitory factors such as drought. Identifying structurally vulnerable areas was key because they were to be the focus of the HLS survey. Unfortunately, national or provincial-level nutritional data to contribute to the vulnerability analysis were not available when the workshop was held. The data were available after the survey was completed and are discussed in this report The workshop produced an "initial generalized map" that "can act as a springboard for further analysis (especially primary data collection in the [differently] ranked areas)." In other words, it is a starting-point for further vulnerability mapping.

The workshop provisionally identified three major factors that lead to structural vulnerability to food insecurity. Altitude is one: the areas in the high-altitude Zaire-Nile crest appear to be the most chronically food insecure. They have poor soils and steep slopes that lead to erosion and low agricultual production. Continued insecurity since 1997 is another factor, mainly in Gisenyi and Ruhengeri, that has exacerbated some communes' structural poverty. The third dynamic, in Bugesera, is the combination of an abnormally long, three-year drought and the resettlement of people there who lack human and financial capital. Lack of health services and other infrastructure, dietary habits, HIV/AIDS, and drought were cited as factors that affect food security in the generally less-vulnerable communes and provinces. The workshop's ranking of Rwanda's vulnerable communes is shown in Table III-3 below. The HLS survey sample was based on this ranking and was defined in collaboration with WFP/VAM-Rome An important conclusion of the workshop was that pockets of real vulnerability exist throughout Rwanda, even in the provinces that overall are less vulnerable to food insecurity such as Umutara and Kibungo. One task that remains for WFP-Rwanda and the food security advisors is to refine the workshop's initial map by collecting data on these vulnerable pockets. The HLS survey was the first step in that process.

B. The Survey Sample

The survey universe consisted of twelve "extremely food insecure" communes in two provinces and 20 "highly food insecure" communes in three provinces and the well-defined ecozone of Bugesera. The survey sample consisted of a total of 12 communes: four of the extremely food insecure communes in Butare and Gikongoro provinces, and eight of the highly food insecure communes in three other provinces and Bugesera. The survey sample and the characteristics of its 12 communes are shown in Table III-4 below. Twelve sites in six provinces was the maximum number of sites that could be surveyed in the two weeks and with the three field teams allocated for the fieldwork. Other areas that raise questions or are of interest to the CO remain to be surveyed in the future.

181

18

It is important to remember that the survey sample is designed to focus on areas of structural vulnerability that are extremely or highly food-insecure. Bugesera is somewhat of an anomaly in the sample for two reasons: it is not a commune but a well-defined ecozone that lies in five communes in two provinces, and its vulnerability normally is linked to a transitory factor, cyclical drought, rather than structural factors. However, drought since 1998 and an influx of destitute resettlees have made it highly food-insecure for the past three years, and the workshop participants estimated that it needs two or three good harvests (1-2 years) to regain food-secure status. It was included in the survey sample because of its three-year and current food insecurity.

The communes to be surveyed were chosen in collaboration with the WFP/VAM-Rwanda staff, based on their general knowledge of factors such as altitude, crop mixes, and HLS. The fieldwork was done in the communes selected for the sample, with two exceptions: 1. Ruhondo commune replaced the original choice of Ndusu, based on the Ruhengeri provincial authorities' knowledge of chronic food insecurity; and 2. Rwamiko commune replaced the original choice of Mubuga, because the former was more representative of the area's economic and food insecurity status, according to the local authorities. Administratively the communes surveyed no longer exist, as they have been incorporated into new districts, but in fact the provincial and district officials, and the field teams, organized the survey in terms of the "ex-communes." The commune-level sample was discussed and confirmed with the provincial authorities. The district authorities oriented the field teams to representative sectors (that usually has about ten communities or less), based on our sampling criteria. The communities to survey were chosen randomly, using the district officials' lists and a table of random numbers.

It is important to be clear about the use of the survey information and its limitations. The information from a community can be generalized to its sector, but not beyond that (to the level of communes, districts, or provinces) due to their size and the internal variation in their natural and social resources. The information from the sector authorities is representative of the one sector where it was collected, although the survey information shows that the sectors have many similarities. The fact that the survey collected self-reported information also must be taken into consideration. Self-reported information by definition is subjective and unverified and thus cannot be assumed to be entirely accurate. These are universal limitations of any qualitative exercise, however, that just need to be recognized.

The survey sample was specifically defined to investigate some of the more vulnerable parts of the country and cannot be generalized to other areas of Rwanda. Additional surveys will be necessary to define the HLS and vulnerable social groups in other areas.

C. The Field Teams and Data Collection

Training WFP-Rwanda staff in the HLS survey methodology was a major objective of the consultancy. The field staff for the survey were mainly WFP/R field monitors from the suboffices, with the exception of the consultant and two participants from FAO and USAID/FEWS. The consultant trained a total of 19 people in the basic HLS concepts and fieldwork methods. The training included applying the HLS concepts to Rwanda's rural population, role-playing in practice interviews, and field-training in rural communities outside Kigali. Designing and revising the data-collection instruments was a key part of the training. Three questionnaires were designed: one to be used with both poor and middle-class households, one for women, and one for the district authorities. In addition we adapted Save the Children's wealth-ranking exercise to our needs and the consultant designed three

191

19

seasonal calendars. The staff translated two questionnaires into Kinyarwanda (the women's, and the poor/middle-class households'); the others were available in English and French as the staff uses both languages. These instruments are in the data appendix that accompanies this report ("Data Appendix for the WFP-Rwanda 2001 Rapid Assessment of Livelihood Strategies and Food Insecurity in Twelve Communities.")

The staff were divided into three teams of six interviewers each for the field work. The VAM staff and the consultant were the three team leaders. The consultant's team included an extra person as interpreter, although this job was rotated so that all the team members had the opportunity to conduct interviews and to work with the consultant. The team members worked in pairs to conduct the interviews, and changed partners and assignments every day so that everybody learned to use all the different questionnaires. In order to be time-efficient the district-level questionnaire was administered simultaneously as three separate interviews, based on its major topics. The levels and types of data collected are summarized in Table III-5 below. Most of the interviews were conducted in Kinyarwanda; the information was recorded in English and French. All the interviews and summaries of the three major sets of information (the poor and middle class, women, and the disticts) are available in the Data Appendix.

The fieldwork was conducted from July 27 to August 12 and completed on schedule. The field teams then spent two days in Kigali to input the data in summary tables. The VAM staff participated during the rest of the consultancy to help produce the final report.

D. Definitions

Access (VAM-Rome): a measure of the amount of food that a typical household in a specified area could be expected to consume, based on its normal profile of food production, income available for food purchases, and any transfers (gifts/aid) it receives).

Availability (VAM-Rome): a measure of the amount of food already physically present in, or able to be imported to, a defined area, with no reference to who owns, or is able to consume it.

Food Security (1996 World Food Summit): Food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food which meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life.

Household Livelihood Security (Frankenberger and McCaston): Household Livelihood Security is defined as adequate and sustainable access to income and resources to meet basic needs (including adequate access to food, potable water, health facilities, educational opportunities, housing, and time for community participation and social integration).

Livelihood (Chambers and Conway): a livelihood “comprises the capabilities, assets (stores, resources, claims, and access) and activities required for a means of living; a livelihood is sustainable which can cope with and recover from stress and shocks, maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets, and provide sustainable livelihood opportunities for the next generation.”

Utilization (VAM-Rome): identifies reasons why accessible food may not be converted by the body into good nutrition.

201

20

Vulnerability to food insecurity (VAM-Rome): vulnerability to food insecurity is a product of a household's 1) normal levels of food security, 2) normal degree of exposure to risks, and 3) the range and potential productivity of normal coping strategies (alternative economic opportunities) that it has.

E. Tables

The following tables show the vulnerability rankings produced by the different methodologies used for mapping that are summarized at the beginning of this Methodology section. The CSO ranking, Table III-1, shows mainly the effects of the 1998-2000 drought. Drake's statistical analysis of sixteen indicators produced the rankings shown in Table III-2. Both of these tables' rankings are at the level of provinces. The workshop ranking of vulnerability, shown in Table III-3, is at the level of communes. Table III-4 lists the communes selected for the HLS survey, based on the rankings proposed in the workshop. The maps that precede this section show the vulnerable areas listed in Table III-3.

Table III-5 summarizes the levels and types of data collected in the survey.

Table III-1. CSO Map: Provinces Ranked in Orderof Vulnerability Due to 1998-2000 Drought

Province Rank (composite from indicators

Kibungo 3.45Umutara 3.20Butare 2.70Kigali-rural 2.63Gitarama 2.59Gikongoro 2.46Kibuye 2.22Kigali-town 2.00Cyangugu 1.92Ruhengeri 1.63Gisenyi 1.58Byumba 1.13

211

21

Table III-2. Drake: Provinces Ranked in Order ofVulnerability to Food Insecurity

Rank of Rwanda's Provinces in Order of Vulnerability

Structural vulnerability Transitory VulnerabilityCurrent Vulnerability (structural plus transitory factors)

1. Butare 1. Butare 1. Kibuye2. Gikongoro 2. Gikongoro 2. Kigali-rural3. Kibuye 3. Gisenyi 3. Gikongoro4. Gitarama 4. Kigali-rural 4. Butare5. Kibungo 5. Ruhengeri 5. Umutara6. Byumba 6. Kibuye 6. Gisenyi7. Gisenyi 7. Gitarama 7. Gitarama8. Kigali-rural 8. Kibungo 8. Cyangugu9. Cyangugu 9. Umutara 9. Byumba10. Ruhengeri,Umutara

10. Cyangugu 10. Ruhengeri

11. Byumba 11. Kibungo

Table III-3. Food Security Advisors Workshop:Communes Ranked in Order of Vulnerability to Food Insecurity

ProvincesNumber of Communes

Rank 1: Extremely Food Insecure

Rank 2: HighlyFood Insecure

Rank 3: To Be Monitored

Butare 7 1 3Gikongoro 5 2Gisenyi 5 3Kigali-rural 3* 5Ruhengeri 4 1Kibuye 4Gitarama 2 5Kibungo 1* 5Umutara 5Cyangugu 3Byumba

*These are 4 of the five communes that constitute Bugesera.

221

22

Table III-4. The Household Livelihood Survey SampleProvinces Communes (new

Districts)*Commune Vulnerability

Communities Characteristics

ButareMaraba (Maraba) Extremely high Gasharu 1,800 meters;, historically suffers from chronic food insecurity.Rusatira (Kiruhura)

Extremely high Kabona 1,500 meters; many widows, orphans, and state resettlements (imidugudus)

Gikongoro Rwamiko (Nyaruguru)

Extremely high Runyinya 1,800 meters; tea as cash crop in about one-fifth of district.

Karama (Karaba) Extremely high Gishiha 1,900 meters; coffee as cash crop in about half the district; chronic food insecurity.

Bugesera area **

Kanzenze (Kanzenze)

High Karambo 1,400 meters; Central Plateau lowlands; little variation in natural resources and HLS in this ecoregion.

Sake (Sake) High Gituza 1,459 meters; Central Plateau lowlands; widows, orphans, and resettlements (imidugudus) due to the war.

GisenyiGiciye (Gasiza) High Rugarambiro 2,524 meters; displacement in 1997-98 and continuing insecurity. Kibilira (Nyagisagara)

High Gakumba 1,900 meters; historical food insecurity exacerbated by continuing insecurity.

KibuyeKivumu (Budaha) High Dutwe 1,600 meters; tea as cash crop.Gisovu (Itabire) High Mahembe 2,000 meters; tea as cash crop, poor roads, historically isolated due to social and

transport factors.

RuhengeriRuhondo (Bugarura)

High Kabara 2,000 meters; extremely poor, high population density, infertile soils.

Gatonde (Bukonya)

High Mwanza 2,383 meters; insecurity and displacement in 1997-98.

* Rwanda's communes have been combined to form new districts. This column shows the ex-communes that were surveyed and in parentheses the new districts to which they now belong. A map showing the new districts is not yet available.

**Bugesera is an ecological zone that lies in the provinces of Kigali-rural and Kibungo; Kanzenze district is in the former and Sake is in the latter.

231

23

Table III-5 Levels and Types of the Survey's Data CollectionAdministrative Levels Types of Data CollectionProvince Unstructured interviews with:

- the Prefet (head of province) - the Charge for Social and Juridical Affairs and other officials - Ministry of Agricultural officials - Health officials

District Structured interviews with: - the Mayor (district head) - the five district officials responsible for Youth, Women, Economic Development, Health, and Social Affairs

Community Structured interviews with five focus groups: 1. Village authorities, to do the wealth-ranking exercise 2. A few knowledgeable men and women to do the seasonal calendars, village map, and Venn diagram 3. Representatives of poor households 4. Representatives of middle-class households 5. Married and single women

241

24

IV. A BRIEF OVERVIEW of RWANDA

Rwanda is known as the "land of a thousand hills" and the most densely populated country in Africa. It is located just south of the equator and characterized by mountainous terrain an average of 1,800 meters in altitude. The population of approximately 8.2 million lives in an area of 26,338 square kilometers; population densities range from 160 people per square kilometer in the east to 470 in the north, and are as high as 746 per square kilometer of arable land (Common Country Assessment 1999-2000).

A. Agro-Ecological Zones

Rwanda is officially divided into twelve agro-ecological zones (Delepierre, the Agricultural Research Institute of Rwanda). They are collapsed into four major areas here, as a brief, layman's resume of the country's major ecological areas. The highlands, mainly the Zaire-Nile crest and Buberuka, have poor agricultural resources and are increasingly considered to be marginal land of low productivity. The areas of higher production are the east and Imbo and Impara in the southwest. The four major zones are:

1. The highlands, of which there are three types: northwestern Ruhengeri and its volcanic soils, the Zaire-Nile crest, and Buberuka. The northwestern highlands have among the most fertile soils in Rwanda and the highest production of potatoes, pulses and cereals. The soils of the Zaire-Nile crest are poor and production in the area is low. Buberuka's soils are of average fertility; the area produces wheat and potatoes.

2. The east: Mayaga, Bugesera, the eastern plateau, and the eastern savanna. This zone has the country's lowest population density and largest farms. Part of the area was opened to agriculture recently and has good production potential. The major crops are plantain, beans, corn, sorghum, peanuts, and cattle.

3. The central zone: the central plateau and the "granitic spine" that runs from north of Butare to north of Gitarama. High population density and small farms characterize this zone. Decreasing farm size has made the swamps (marais) more valuable.

4. The southwest: Imbo, Impara, and the borders of Lake Kivu. This is a zone of contrasts: the areas of Imbo and Impara are more productive than the area bordering the lake.

B. The Population and Economy

Rwanda's population and economy can be described in one word: agriculture. Approximately 92% of the population lives in rural areas and the large majority depend on subsistence agriculture for their living. The population growth rate is estimated at 2.84% and the population in 1997 was larger than in 1994, despite the genocide (ibid). The population is projected to double by 2015 (Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning 1996). The current dependency ratio is estimated at 110%.

The population densities per square kilometer reported in early 1997 are (IOM 1997):

- Central (Ruhengeri and Kigali prefectures): 405-500.- Cyangugu and western-central (Gisenyi, Gitarama, Butare): 310-405.- Western (Kibuye, Gikongoro): 185-310.- Eastern (Byumba and Kibungo): 170-185.

251

25

The genocide had a significant impact on Rwandan demography. Women now constitute 54% of the population and 60% of the labor force. One-third of all households are now headed by women and children. The genocide also created a new social class, the "very poor," comprised of households with members in prison and women- and child-headed households. The very poor class's "lack of labour assets, which compromises their abilities to cultivate land effectively or to pursue wage labor" makes them the people most vulnerable to poverty and food insecurity (Common Country Assessment 1999-2000).

Rwanda's social indicators underline the population's poverty, and increasing poverty is the trend. The percent of households below the poverty line was 53% in 1993 and jumped to 70% by 1997, when per capita income was $180, one of the lowest in the world (ibid). The country has a very high infant mortality rate, 130 per 1,000, and a very high maternal mortality rate, 810 per 100,000. In 1999 life expectancy was about 41 years, which the climbing HIV/AIDS prevalence rate, that was 11.2% in 1997, is expected to reduce further. The war destroyed one-third of the country's schools and many of its teachers. In 1996 the literacy rate for people over 15 was about 48%: 45% for women and 52% for men (ibid).

Agriculture accounts for 45% of GDP, 80% of exports, and employs 91% of the population. The primary sector is oriented mainly to food production except for tea, coffee, and some pyrethrum as cash crops. Agriculture is the major source of income for 54% of all Rwandans and the poor earn more than 70% of their income from agriculture production and wages. Industry and manufacturing generate 20% of GDP, and services, transport, and communications account for 35%. Per capita GNP in 1998 was about half of the Sub-Saharan average, only $252.

C. Trends in Agricultural Production and Food Security

Rwandan agriculture is mainly household production for consumption that produces a limited surplus. Production is based on manual labor and traditional techniques. Seventy-nine percent of all households in Rwanda have landholdings of one hectare or less; the average household landholding is 0.71 hectare (FSRP 2001). Average farm size in several provinces is even less than the national average: 0.61 hectare in Byumba, 0.59 in Umutara, 0.52 in Ruhengeri, 0.51 in Gisenyi, 0.48 in Butare, and 0.37 in Cyangugu (ibid).

The country's agricultural repertoire is quite narrow despite its diverse agro-ecological regions. There are seven major food crops: bananas, beans, corn, sweetpotato, cassava, sorghum, and potatoes. The first five crops are the core of the national agricultural system, are cultivated on 90% of all farms, and occupy 79% of the total farmland (ibid). The highlands produce potatoes, wheat, and corn. Sweetpotatoes are produced throughout the country, with good yields in the eastern provinces of Kibungo, Bugesera, and Umutara when there is adequate rainfall. Cassava is produced in the east and the southwest, and sorghum is produced in the east and the central zone.

The 1994 war seriously damaged Rwanda's production systems. Death, displacement, decapitalization, and pillage destroyed small farms. Eighty to 90% of the national livestock herd was lost. Agricultural support services came to a standstill as technicians disappeared and infrastructure as well as agro-processing facilities were destroyed. After the war a survival economy developed and farmers were forced to be even more self-reliant. The post-war farming systems were characterized by: 1) insecurity and risk; 2) limited market exchange due to weak urban demand and disrupted commercial networks; 3) exchanges based on proximity; and 4) lack of investment in production (livestock, landholdings). Today Rwanda' historically subsistence-oriented production "is reinforced by inadequate facilities

261

26

and infrastructure for marketing, transport, storage and processing, as well as weak research, extension, and rural credit services" (Common Country Assessment 1999-2000). Agriculture continues to suffer from the destruction of rural infrastructure, the loss of inputs and livestock, and continuing insecurity in the northwest.

Agricultural production has not been able to match population growth since the mid-eighties. In 1986 domestic production met 93% of Rwanda's food needs; by 1995 it met only 50% (FAO-WFP 1997). Pulse production has dropped steadily since the late eighties and by 1998 was only half of what it was in the sixties; cassava has followed the same trend, which is critical because it is a food-security crop. Any gains in production have been erased by Rwanda's 15% increase in population since 1990, with the result that per capita production in 1998 was about 20% less than in 1990. The FSRP reports the same trend: a 15% decrease in cereal production in season 2000A compared to season 1990A and that "domestic agricultural production is becoming less capable of adequately feeding a rapidly growing population." Most of the national food deficit is covered by food aid due to Rwanda's limited foreign exchange earnings. Rwanda had a deficit of 158,000 tons of cereal in 1999 and relies on about 60,000 tons of food aid annually.

FSRP's comparison of season 2000A production with that of 1990A shows an overall decrease in production in staple food crops. The exceptions are yams, cassava, and millet, which may be due to the drought. We recognize that the 2000A season might not be representative of recent production, due to the drought, but even so the figures are alarming:

Beans: -27%Peas: -28%Soybeans: -48%Sorghum: -31%Maize: -51%Millet: 219% Rice: 78%Cassava: 107%Sweetpotato: 37%Yam: 184%Bananas: -62%

Per capita food production dropped 25% between 1984 and 1991. This meant a drop in per capita consumption from 2,055 calories per day to 1,509, which is well below the international recommended standard of 2,100 (Common Country Assessment 1999-2000). An estimated 60% of the population cannot produce enough food to meet its basic nutritional requirements and an estimated 40% of the Rwandan population is chronically malnourished (ibid). According to the Country Assessment there are three types of food-insecure regions in Rwanda:

1. The region affected by bad climate and lack of manpower: Umutara, Kibungo, and Bugesera.

2. The region affected by poor soil fertility: Gikongoro, Butare, and Ki buye.3. The region affected by insecurity and massive population displacements: Gisenyi

and Ruhengeri, most recently.

Chronic malnutrition was a long-term problem in Rwanda even before the genocide. Children's nutritional status reportedly improved from the mid-seventies to the mid-eighties but declined when hostilities began in 1990 (ibid). The longitudinal nutritional data available

271

27

indicate that the situation has not changed much in the last decade:

In 1992, 48% of children under five suffered from chronic malnutrition, 4% from acute malnutrition, and 29% were underweight.

In 1996, the estimates were 42%, 9%, and 27% respectively. In 2001, the figures are 43%, 6%, and 29% (MICS2 2001).

Current data show that high rates of chronic malnutrition are present in the rural population and across most wealth groups. Moderate, chronic malnutrition (stunting) rates are 24% in the urban population and 44% in the rural population; the severe rates are 7% and 19% respectively (MICS 2001). At the national level, moderate, chronic malnutrition rates jump from 26% among children 6-11 months old, to 47% among one to two year olds, and reach 59% among four to five year olds (ibid). This means that 59% of Rwandan children four to five years of age are stunted, which also has implications for their mental development. The data show little different in stunting rates in terms of wealth quintiles, except for the wealthiest fifth of the population. About 47% of under-fives in all the wealth groups suffer moderate chronic malnutrition; the rate is 31% in the wealthiest quintile. However, 25% of the under-fives in the poorest quintile are severely chronically malnourished whereas the rate is 11% in the wealthiest quintile. The poor and rural population, which essentially is one and the same, thus is hardest-hit by malnutrition, a sign of economic and food insecurity.

At the national level, the MICS data show that chronic malnutrition is a severe problem in Rwanda. A total rate (moderate plus severe) of 60% indicates a severe problem. The total rate in Ruhengeri is 70% and it is over 60% in Kigali-rural, Byumba, Kibungo, Butare, Gitarama, Kibuye, Gikongoro and Cyangugu. Table IV-1 below shows the provinces' chronic and acute malnutrition rates. The total rate for acute malnutrition or wasting (that can be due to seasonal food shortages or a sign of an emergency) in Rwanda is 8% which is standard in African populations. The provinces with the highest total rates of wasting are Umutara with 14% and Gitarama with 13%. The third nutritional indicator used in the MICS is weight for age, that is a composite of wasting and stunting, and can be affected by acute or chronic malnutrition. Rwanda's total rate is 35% which is moderate, although close to the rate of >40% which is severe. The provinces with the highest total rates are Kibungo with 42%, Byumba with 40%, Umutara with 40%, and Kigali-rural with 40%. Overall the MICS data indicate that malnutrition, and therefore food insecurity, are serious problems in Rwanda.

281

28

Table IV-1. Types and Rates of Malnutrition in Children Under Five,by Province (source: MICS 2001)

Province

Type of MalnutritionChronic or stunting

(height/age)Wasting or acute, (weight/height)

Moderate Severe Moderate SevereKigali-rural 48 22 6 2Ruhengeri 48 23 7 0Byumba 48 21 5 0

Gikongoro 47 18 8 2Gitarama 46 19 9 3Kibuye 44 17 4 0.6

Kibungo 43 24 5 0.6Butare 42 19 9 3

Cyangugu 42 20 5 1Gisenyi 36 14 6 0.7Umutara 34 15 11 3

Kigali-town 26 7 8 3

291

29

V. CHARACTERIZATION of the FOOD-INSECURE ZONES SURVEYED

A. Butare and Gikongoro: Extremely Vulnerable to Food Insecurity

1. Vulnerability: where, who, why, and what can be done

Butare and Gikongoro are structurally vulnerable to food insecurity and historically suffer from cyclical famine. They were first on the vulnerability maps made by Drake and the VAM-Rome workshop, and according to VAM staff consistently are first on any vulnerability list. High population density in Butare and acid soils in Gikongoro are the primary reasons for their vulnerability although each problem exists in different degrees in both provinces.

The summary answers from Butare and Gikongoro to the survey's four central questions about vulnerability are:

Where: the survey confirms that vulnerability to food insecurity definitely exists in all four communities surveyed. Local officials identified a total of 13 vulnerable sectors in Butare and 12 in Gikongoro. The reasons for their vulnerability are given below.

Who: households of widows, orphans, families with members in prison, the elderly, the handicapped, and the land-poor are the vulnerable groups in Butare and Gikongoro.

Why: these households lack key resources for agricultural production. They have few small livestock if any and without manure, an essential resource for their acid, impoverished soils, their crop production is low. The single women also lack household labor and therefore have a high dependency ratio. These groups cannot afford to build up their herds, so they work as wage laborers to compensate for their low production. Low incomes due to lack of surplus production to monetize and due to lack of wage labor result in lack of cash to buy inputs such as fertilizer and lime, to provision their households, and to pay for medical care and education. They are caught in the vicious spiral of renting out as much as half of their land that they do not have the time and inputs to cultivate, cultivating for others to earn food or money, lacking sufficient wage labor due to competition, and not having a local alternative to generate income.

What can be done: C/FFW projects to improve natural resource management (terraces, reclaiming the swamps) and increase people's access to cash and food; school feeding programs to improve children's food intake and access to education; make contracts with producers to buy their commodities and use them in the SFPs; food-for-training for orphans and the handicapped to enable them to continue their education and to teach them vocational skills; feeding programs specifically for the elderly and handicapped.

301

30

2. Gikongoro Province: Background

Gikongoro province is situated in southern Rwanda and has an area of 2,188 square kilometers. It consists of 125 sectors and 852 communites. Approximately 79% of the province is cultivable, and with a population of about half a million the population density is 215 per square kilometer (Gikongoro Annual Report 2000). Its territory falls into three major agro-ecological zones: the Zaire-Nile crest, with altitudes over 1,900 meters, the Bufundu highlands, and the southern plateau at 1,600 meters. Most of the province lies in the Bufundu highlands; only one commune and parts of others are on the Zaire-Nile crest. The soils in all three zones generally are characterized as of very low fertility and production is poor. Average altitude in Gikongoro is defined as 1,700-1,900 meters; high altitude as 1,950-2,200 meters (DRSA Gikongoro). Tea, peas, potatoes, and wheat are cultivated in the highlands; the plateau is more fertile and produces banana, coffee, beans, sorghum, and sweet potatoes. The soil in five districts supports good coffee production but last year the crop occupied a total of only 4,064 hectares cultivated by 15,658 producers and produced 941 MT (Gikongoro Annual Report 2000). The province estimates that 70% of the coffee hectarage is properly maintained. The highlands bordering Nyungwe Forest that runs the western length of the province are suitable for tea production. There are two tea plants there and a third is being built.

Gikongoro is known for its acid and infertile soils, most of which vary from a pH of 4 to 4.8, that are rich in aluminum and poor in magnesium, calcium, salt, and potassium. Karama commune, where the survey was done, has very acid soils and its farmers are reported to depend on their coffee for survival. The province's warmer areas are covered in Ishinge eragrostis, the grass that is an sign of acid soils and aluminum. Steep slopes and torrential rains (1,300-1,800 mm per year) exacerbate the soil-poverty by causing erosion. The soil requires organic material—not just chemical fertilizer—to produce. The DRSA Director estimated that two head of cattle produce 10 tons of manure per year which is the amount necessary per hectare for average production; 20 tons per hectare is required for good production. The equivalent is 12 goats or six pigs. However, the population lost much of its livestock in the war and has neither the money nor the access to credit necessary to buy any. The general result in the province is low agricultural production and food insecurity.

Gikongoro historically has suffered cyclical famine, most recently in 1985 and 1997-98. Food insecurity is a principal characteristic of the province and is linked to its acid, eroded soils and the population's poverty, according to the Prefet. Food insecurity, as he said, is at the center of the poverty problem and is a primary concern to the administration. The genocide and its effects contributed to these chronic problems: a total of 150,000 inhabitants were killed and many were displaced. The net result is that most of the population has not been able to rebuild their herds and thus is vulnerable to the negative spiral of cultivating poor soils, lack of manure, and low production, which results in both food insecurity and low incomes due to lack of a marketable surplus.

3. Butare Province: Background

Butare has among the highest average population densities in the country: 361 people per square kilometer. Some of its former communes (now districts) have more than 500 people per square kilometer: Ngoma with 794, Shyanda with 699, Mbazi with 593, and Huye with 545. Seven of Butare’s communes have a border with Burundi, while Gitarama, Gikongoro and Kigali-rural provinces are the frontiers in the north, west and northeast respectively. Butare Town is at an altitude of 1,800 meters; the province's lowest areas of about 1,500 meters are in the northeast, and the highest elevations of 2,300 meters are in the center and

311

31

southwestern regions. The average annual temperature is 19 degrees Centigrade and the average annual rainfall is 1200 mm. However, for the last three years erratic rainfall has decreased crop production and food security in some areas, namely Muyira, Muyaga, and Ntyazo communes in the Mayaga region.

Butare can be divided into three natural regions, based on altitude, temperature, and rainfall:

1. The Mayaga region in the northeast, covering Muyira, Mugusa, Muyaga and Ntyazo communes. This region is characterized by low altitude (1,500 meters), high temperatures (24 degrees Centigrade annual average), good soil fertility, a longer dry season than elsewhere, and low rainfall. Coffee, rice, sorghum, cassava and peanuts are highly productive in Mayaga. The food-security situation has deteriorated in Mayaga during 1998-2000 due to erratic rains that have nearly devastated crop production. It was necessary to provide food aid for the most vulnerable households during that period. 2. The southwest region, the communes of Nyakizu, Gishamvu, Runyinya and Maraba. This region is characterized by high altitudes, peaking at 2,300 meters, high rainfall, eroded and acidic soils, and low food production that sometimes results in famine. Few crops (wheat and tea) are adapted to the acidic soils; lime and fertilizer are necessary for good crop production. According to the provincial authorities, physical and mental inabilities due to the genocide (in Nyakizu and Gishamvu communes) and lack of interest in agricultural activities (in Shyanda, Mbazi and Maraba communes) have markedly constrained food production in Butare.

3. The central northeastern region: this region is one of average altitude and rainfall, some areas with very high population densities (Shyanda, Huye and Ngoma communes), and soils of average fertility. Women constitute a large part of the population as a result of the war and the genocide: the population is on average 55% female, most of whom are widows or single women household heads.

Although the women's households have farmland, they usually lack other economic assets such as livestock and nonagricultural skills. They also lack labor for agricultural production and social assistance, which makes them vulnerable to food insecurity. In 2000 the local authorities identified more than 124,596 vulnerable people, 41,851 of them widows. This means that about one-sixth of Butare's population is vulnerable. Maraba commune that was included in the survey was hard hit by the war and genocide: it is home to more than 9,751 vulnerable people, or 28% of its population. Recent figures from the Rusatira Health Center show high rates of HIV/AIDS spreading in Butare town and the surrounding communes of Maraba, Mbazi and Rusatira. The disease is becoming a threat to food security in Butare province.

Food production is decreasing in most areas of Butare as a result of poor soil fertility, high population density that results in small landholdings of less than 0.5 hectare per household, soil degradation, and soil acidity. Lack of livestock as a source of manure and income was reported by the population and local authorities as one of the major limiting factors on food production. Swamp reclamation has become the solution to the lack of and the small size of fertile hillside parcels. The reclamation and exploitation of swamps by the land-poor and other vulnerable groups in Butare province is highly recommended.

321

32

4. Summary of the district-level information

a. Vulnerable social groups and sectors

1) Vulnerable social groups

Widows, orphans, families with members in prison, the elderly, the handicapped, and the land-poor are the vulnerable groups in Butare and Gikongoro, according to the district authorities (Table V-1). All of these groups are found in both provinces, except in Gikongoro it is the land-poor with acid soils who are vulnerable. The chronically ill (presumed HIV/AIDS cases, TB) are identified as a vulnerable group only in Kiruhura district in Butare.

Widows, orphans, and the elderly are vulnerable for several reasons. They lack the physical strength for agricultural production, they lack social assistance from relatives, and they have few associations to pool their efforts. The widows in Nyaruguru (Gikongoro) lack male labor, have children to support, and having lost their housing in the war are resettled in imidugudus (centralized resettlements) that are far from their fields. Their soil is poor and needs manure but they have no livestock to provide it. The mayor in Karaba district (Gikongoro) said that the widows lost all their possessions in the war: houses, household goods, livestock, money, and male labor. They started out at zero after the war and still have not regained their prewar economic status. Orphans have no or little physical strength and although they farm and do wage labor they never have enough to eat and are dependent on others.

Women with family members in prison are lacking a key source of household labor, yet are responsible for supporting the household. The prisoner consumes but does not produce, as the women said, so the single women work and walk to the prison to feed him which decreases their time and energy for work for the rest of the household. Their households are always food-insecure as the limited supply they manage to generate is divided in two: one for the household and one for the prisoner. Without a husband's labor or male relatives' assistance, their resources (livestock, housing, fields, coffee trees) degrade over time and they are caught in a cycle of poverty. The relatives can provide little if any assistance because they are also struggling to cope with the difficulties of life after the war and its losses.

The land-poor are vulnerable due to small fields, soil acidity and degradation, lack of manure, and low production. They generally are poor and have no livestock so they have no organic matter to maintain their soils and lack the income to buy fertilizer and lime. The mayor in Karaba (Gikongoro) reported that is is the combination of small fields and acid soils that causes vulnerability in the district, not landlessness. The chronically ill in Kiruhura (Butare) are vulnerable because they are almost totally unable to work, so their households lack labor and therefore have limited resources for medical care. Losing an active household member for any reason decreases household income, increases its dependency ratio, and, given the poverty of most rural households, leaves it unable to access the food or medical care that it needs.

2) Vulnerable sectors

The sectors that are vulnerable to food insecurity in Maraba district (Butare) are Tare, Bunzaze, Kabuye, Kibanda, Simbi, Cyarumbo, and seven sectors of Mbazi. They are vulnerable due to fragmented landholdings, acid and infertile soils, and high population density. The vulnerable sectors in Kiruhura district are Kabona, Nyagisenyi, Maza, and Kato. The reasons are fragmented landholdings, very poor soils that do not produce, people who are

331

33

disinterested in working, and vulnerable populations (escapees and families with members in prison).

The vulnerable sectors in Gikongoro in Nyaruguru district are Gasare, Bukoro, Matyazo, Gisorora, and Kamana. High population density, small fields, and poor soils that "produce nothing" are the reasons for their vulnerability. People in Gisorora depend on the tea factory for income. There are seven vulnerable sectors in Karaba district, that has a total of 25. They are Muganza, Kiraro, Cyanika, part of Gitega, Mbazi, Ngara and Murera. They are vulnerable due to acid soils, even in the swamps, small fields, traditional farming methods, lack of well-trained agricultural extension agents, and the fact that producers have lost their livestock in the war and cannot afford to buy fertilizer or lime. The result is low production and consumption.

A few key factors create vulnerable sectors in the four districts surveyed in Butare and Gikongoro. These include high population density that leads to fragmented landholdings and small fields, poor, acid soils that need manure that producers do not have because they have lost their livestock in the war; and lack of sufficient incomes to buy fertilizer and lime. Some officials and Prefets cite traditional farming methods as a factor that contributes to food insecurity, but as they also recognize the facts that their technical assistance services are essentially nonfunctional and producers have neither access to nor income for inputs, it is clear that the producers have no alternative.

b. Changes in food security

The war still is reported as a reason for food insecurity in Gikongoro's Nyaruguru and Karaba districts. It limited people's production and marketing, and killed their livestock. It also damaged marketing networks as shops were destroyed and the major merchants were killed or fled. Drought in 1999-2000 and excessive rain in 2001 damaged the important bean and potato crops in Nyaruguru district.

Food security in the Kiruhura district of Butare has deteriorated due to poor soils, orphans who cannot produce, and a large population of handicapped people. The volume of foodstuffs produced and people's buying power has decreased in Maraba district as a result of the war. Lack of fertilizers and insecticides has cut coffee production, that was an important source of local income before the war. The war also killed the big merchants, who generally had vehicles and big stores, and thus were important in facilitating the flow of goods in to and out of local commercial networks.

c. Market problems

The market problems in the four districts surveyed are summarized in Table V-2. One common problem is that none of the district markets is covered or has storage facilities; they are all open-air markets without any protection from the weather, so they barely function in the rainy season. Another constraint is that the big merchants with vehicles are dead or fled after the genocide. The population's low purchasing power is another factor that has a negative effect on the markets. The negative cycle that affects many of the two districts' markets begins with producers' low agricultural production that limits their purchasing power and their lack of surplus that discourages external merchants from coming to the local markets. Bad roads that increase the price of basic consumer goods (salt, oil, soap) also discourage both merchants and consumers, and thus constrain local connections to the larger commercial networks. The lack of big local merchants who have vehicles to promote trade is another problem and the result of the genocide.

341

34

d. Health problems

The major diseases reported by the health personnel in the four districts are malaria, worms, respiratory illnesses, malnutrition, diarrhea, and HIV/AIDS (Table V-3). District-level testing for the latter generally does not exist so its diagnosis and the health personnel's opinions are completely unconfirmed. Malnutrition is ranked as the number 1 or 2 health problem in the Gikongoro districts, and the number 4 problem in Butare.

5. The Social Groups' Economic Resources, Intangible Resources, and Livelihood Strategies

a. Defining the social groups

Having the community authorities define and characterize each community's different social groups was a key exercise in the survey. The results are shown in the "Groupes Sociaux" forms that are in the report's separate data appendix and are summarized here. The three major groups in all the communities are the middle-class (uwifashije), the poor (umukene) and the destitute (umutindi nyakujya). Rich people (umukungu) were reported only in one community in Gikongoro and they were only 2% of the population.

The poor definitely are the largest social group in all four communities and represent 52-74% of all community members. The middle class constitutes only 14-23% of the population. Thus there are three to five times as many poor as there are middle class people in the communities surveyed. These figures are important because the poor are generally food insecure and the broad category that is WFP-Rwanda's target for its development interventions. The destitute are 10-31% of the communities and include the handicapped, the elderly, and orphans. Their families usually are too poor to provide adequate support for them, including food.

The poor's occupations and sources of income are agriculture, wage labor, and animal husbandry mainly in the form of taking care of the middle class's livestock (gardianage). In Butare their landholdings ranged from only 0.10 hectare in Gasharu to 0.2-0.4 hectare in Kabona. In Gikongoro the poor had one-quarter to one-half hectare, and in Gishiha and .05 to three hectares in Runyinya. The poor often have the same amount of land as the middle class as the result of uniform government grants, but the key difference is that unlike the middle class they do not have the resources to exploit all of theirs, so they rent it out when they can. They rent one-third, half, or even more of their land to the middle class. Small fields and lack of manure limit their production and increase their reliance on wage labor as compensation. The poor work as wage laborers for 200-250 FRW/day; pregnant and lactating women, who are "weak," work for 100-150 FRW/day. Laborers also are paid the equivalent in foodstuffs: beans, manioc, and sweet potatoes. Payment in kind is convenient as it eliminates a trip to the market but it leaves people cash-poor.

Care-takers keep goats and pigs for the middle class and are entitled to the animal's manure, and usually but not always one offspring. However the poor generally cannot afford to keep the offspring and build up a herd, but sell them for much-needed cash. Only in Kabona (Butare) do they have a few animals: 1-2 goats, a pig, 1-3 chickens, and 4-5 rabbits.

The middle class's occupations and sources of income are agriculture and animal husbandry. Landholdings vary by locality in Gikongoro: one-quarter to one-half hectare in Gishiha and 0.05 to 3 hectares in Runyinya. In Butare the range is from 0.10 hectare in Gasharu to 1.05 in Kabona. Coffee holdings illustrate the middle class's control over resources in Butare: they

351

35

have 200-500 trees versus the poor's 30-50. They do not rent out their land, and have the resources to exploit it all and to rent-in additional fields. They hire-in labor and rarely work as wage laborers themselves. Another distinguishing characteristic of the middle class is their ownership of cattle and more small livestock than other groups. Most middle-class households have 1-2 cattle, except in Kabona (Butare) where they have 10-15 and in Gishiha (Gikongoro) where they reportedly have none. They also have goats, sheep (that are necessary companions for cattle according to traditional Rwandan belief), pigs, and chickens. As a result of having more land and livestock for manure than the other social groups they produce a greater proportion of their own food.

The destitute are not economically active; they live by begging; with the assistance of their relatives, neighbors, and organizations such as CARITAS; and by renting out and selling their land. They work as wage laborers only in Runyinya (Gikongoro) and are paid in food because they are weak. They do not own livestock and are not used as care-takers because they do not have the physical ability for the work. The universal report was that they depend on others for their survival and only have enough to eat at harvest-time when people share their harvests.

b. Economic resources

Both poor and middle-class households' primary economic resources are land and livestock, as Table V-4 clearly shows. The one exception to land as everybody's first resource is Gishiha (Gikongoro), where people reported that their land is unproductive and their harvests small, so wage labor and therefore hoes are more important. Houses and households goods predominate as people's third economic resource; the rest are only five items: household goods, tools, houses, radios, and coffee trees. Coffee was a major cash crop before the war but its importance has declined due to decreased production, which in turn was due to lack of security and inputs to maintain the trees after the conflict. People still cultivate food crops (beans, taro) in their coffee fields, which is an indication of their priorities and lack of access to inputs six years after the war.

Women do not have direct access to or control over economic resources; they access them through their husbands. Women reported that all types of resources—from land to radios--are considered "household resources" that husbands control. However, resources such as land, coffee plantations, and cattle belong to their husbands' extended families and even the man of the house cannot make major decisions (rent, sell) without consulting his family. The women's groups reported that they can sell small quantities of food crops and use the income for household needs. Table V-5 ranks the household resources that are important to women. Land is again the most important; coffee, small livestock, houses, land and tools are variously ranked second or third.

Women household heads—mainly widows and those with imprisoned husbands--who were or are legally married control to some extent the resources that their husbands left them. Obviously these resources are used to support the children and the prisoners. Single women of either type usually are the most vulnerable to food insecurity because their households have lost essential resources: livestock, coffee trees, and manpower--literally. They cannot make major decisions about key resources (land, livestock, coffee trees) without consulting their husbands' families or their grown children. However, their husbands' families generally cannot help maintain these resources so they tend to degenerate, which further impoverishes the women's households.

361

36

c. Intangible Resources

People's intangible resources such as education and skills are limited (Table V-6). Most poor and middle-class men have some years of primary-school education; most women do not. Most people are functionally illiterate after only a few years of school, the women in particular reported. Lack of education thus is a universal problem but specifically associated with being a woman rather than belonging to a particular social group. People of both groups generally reported that their health was "alright" and that they had the strength to work but also noted that they suffer from worms and lack of food.

d. Livelihood Strategies

Both the poor and the middle-class households' livelihood strategies in Butare and Gikongoro consist of only five components (agriculture, livestock, wage labor, renting out land, and petty trade (Table V-7). That illustrates our conclusion that overall household livelihood strategies are more homogeneous than heterogeneous, in these communities as in all those surveyed. The difference between the two class's strategies is the great difference in the relative importance of their three principal activities: agriculture, wage labor, and animal husbandry. The poor in three out of four communities earn about 75% of their living from wage labor and only 16-26% from their own agricultural production. Livestock is their third-ranked activity and contributes only 10-16%. The poor in the fourth community, Runyinya (Gikongoro) are the exception to this pattern: agricultural is their primary activity and provides 66% of income, followed by wage labor (24%).

The poor do not own cattle and generally obtain small livestock through taking care of pigs and goats for the middle class, which gives them access to manure and one of the offspring. They usually cannot afford to keep the animals to build up a herd but sell them. Without livestock they do not have manure for their fields or a ready source of cash for emergencies.

Agriculture is the middle class's most important economic activity and generates 45-70% of their household income, considerably more than among the poor (Table V-7). Animal husbandry is uniformly their second activity and accounts for 20% of income. Wage labor is a minor activity for the middle class (0-10% of income) except in Gishiha, where everybody said it is necessary due to poor production, and where it provides 35% of their income. The middle class generally reported that they only work as wage laborers when they need money to buy an essential such as seed. Coffee is an important source of income only in Kabona (Butare); although it also is grown in Gishiha (Gikongoro) its production has deteriorated since the war.

Owning cattle and small ruminants is critical in the middle class's livelihood strategy. The livestock provide milk, manure, and a source of cash when needed. All these products contribute to the middle class's livelihood and food security. Compost and manure are essential to improve production in the provinces' acidic, over-used soils; milk is of minor importance as it is available in mainly the rainy season and in small quantities.

Women's economic activities that contribute most to household income are agricultural production and wage labor (Table V-8). Agriculture accounts for 43-89% of their earnings and is slightly more important for single women. As one women's group said, first of all we cultivate our fields, even if they produce little, with the hope that they will. Wage labor is women's second major activity except for single women in Gishiha, where raising pigs through care-taking is more important and wage labor is third. The women's groups reported that wage labor is a more important activity for single women because married women's

371

37

husbands are primarily responsible for this work, but the figures in Table V-8 do not support this. Weaving, embroidery, petty trade (foodstuffs, sorghum beer) and raising small livestock are minor activities for women.

The importance of wage labor to Gishiha's middle-class (Gikongoro) is is worth explaining. It illustrates a trend that was reported throughout the survey sites: the importance of wage labor in household livelihood systems increases as household agricultural production decreases. In Gishiha people reported that it was better to invest their energy in wage labor for others than in their own fields, because the former guaranteed payment in food or cash whereas the latter was a risk. Production becomes increasingly risky as the area's poor, acidic soils are over-used due to high population density, small landholdings, and no fallowing, while low incomes and lack of availability preclude the use of fertilizer and lime. This is an established negative cycle in the provinces that, without interventions, can only get worse over time. The problem is that wage labor opportunities are limited in rural communities, as few people can afford to hire others, and the combination of lack of work and low production results in food insecurity.

6. The Food Supply: Sources, Seasonality, and Coping Strategies for Insufficiency

a. Sources of food

There is a striking difference between poor and middle-class households' food sources, as Table V-9 shows. Wage labor supplies 20-80% of the poor's food. The importance of wage labor as the primary source of food among the poor in Gishiha is clear; so is Runyinya's better agricultural production (both communities are in Gikongoro). The daily wage ranges from 100-200 FRW or the equivalent in beans or sweet potatoes. The poor often prefer to be paid in food because it saves them the trip to the market. Their own production provides only 18-40% of their food and market purchases provide up to 30%. Livestock are not a source of food for the poor.

In contrast, middle-class households produce 50-65% of their food, except in Gishiha (Gikongoro) (Table V-9). The middle class in Gishiha predictably relies on purchases from wage labor (41%) more than production (37%). Livestock sales contribute 20% to household food purchases except in one community in Gikongoro. Market purchases account for 10-41% of the middle class's food and income from coffee is important (15-20%) in Butare.

Single women's sources of food are different in Butare and Gikongoro. Single women produce more than half of their food in Butare and purchase up to 22% (Table V-10). The single women in Gikongoro produce up to 28% and purchase 44%. The importance of wage labor generally is similar for single women in both provinces and is the source of 10-25% of their food supply. Livestock sales as a source of food predictably are nil among women and family assistance was reported in only one community in Butare (Kabona).

b. The Hungry Seasons and Staple Foods

People have enough to eat 4-12 months of the year, depending on their social group. The poor in Butare reported that they have enough to eat only 4-5 months of the year and not enough to eat two months of the year (Table V-11). The poor in Gikongoro have enough to eat 5-6 months of the year and are hungry for 3-4 months. The middle class generally is better off but they also have hungry months: in Gikongoro they have enough to eat 4-7 months of the year and are hungry 2-5 months. Only in Butare did the middle class report that it has "more or less enough to eat all year."

381

38

Beans are the major harvest and food-source December to January/February. Sorghum and coffee are the major harvests and food-sources during May/August when some beans also are harvested. The year's two hungry seasons generally correspond with the two rainy seasons: the major rainy season in February/March to May/June and the minor one September to November/December. (See the data appendix for this information). These are the hungry seasons because people have consumed their harvests and need to conserve their food and cash to buy seed and maintain their households. Everybody is short of cash and food so little wage labor is available for those who need to earn money to eat and buy seed, plus heavy rains limit working in the fields. Even the middle-class households in Gikongoro reported that they tighten their belts in the hungry seasons and eat less, like everybody else. They may sell one animal to buy food but their longterm need is to maintain their herds in order to have manure, so they cannot sell many. Many households eat only one meal per day or one type of food, often sweet potatoes, during the hungry season.

The calendars that show seasonal food consumption in the four communities are in the appendix to this report. The staple, generally year-round foods are beans, sweet potatoes, and manioc. People in Gikongoro reported that they eat beans all year, both produced and purchased; consumption in Butare was only 7-8 months of the year. Sweet potatoes evidently are a staple food all year: they are cultivated in all types of soil (hillsides, swamps, lowlands) and throughout the year, so they are a security food crop. Manioc is eaten year-round in Gasharu (Butare) and Gishiha (Gikongoro) and during half the year in Kabona (Butare). Sorghum is a food staple after the July harvest and is consumed as beer, gruel, and pate. Potatoes are a staple food and market crop in Runyinya (Gikongoro) and are consumed year-round there, but not in the other communities. Cooking bananas also are a staple there and eaten all year, but consumption reportedly was nil in the other communities due to poor soil and diseases.

Manioc leaves are a major vegetable and are consumed during June to December or year-round, depending on how much is cultivated. Gathering wild foods is limited to amaranth, wild strawberries, and a few other fruits; it is not a tradition in Rwanda. Carrots, cabbage, and eggplant are generally purchased for consumption a few months of the year. Avocado is reported as the major type of fruit consumed in Gikongoro; it is purchased at harvest-time (April) when the price is only 5-10 FRW each.

Protein-rich foods other than beans are infrequently eaten. Meat is eaten at Christmas and New Years and, in Butare, after the coffee harvest when people have money (April-June). Dried or fresh fish is rarely eaten and eggs are sold for 25-30 FRW each rather than eaten. Milk is available after the rainy seasons when there is pasture, mainly to the middle class and the poor who take care of their cows.

c. Reasons for Insufficient Food

The differences in the poor's and middle-class's reasons for insufficient food reflect to some extent the differences in their resources and livelihood strategies. The poor in all four communities reported that small fields and infertile soils—ie, low production--are the principal reason for not having enough to eat (Table V-12). Lack of wage labor to generate cash to purchase food is the second major reason. Climate change (drought and rain out of season) and lack of manure were reported in two communities. Low production due to lack of livestock/manure and lack of work/income for purchasing food are the major reasons why the poor are hungry.

391

39

The middle class also cited low production as the principal reason for not having enough to eat (Table V-13. As among the poor, the need for livestock/manure is linked to this reason. Those in Gishiha, who depend more on wage labor than the middle class elsewhere, were the only ones who gave lack of wage labor as a reason. Other reasons were climate change and expenditures on seed, school fees, and wage labor to prepare the fields. These expenditures generally are all in September-November that is the fall hungry season.

Single-women's reasons for lack of food in their households are shown in Table V-14. The most common reasons were lack of wage labor and illness. Small fields, lack of manure, the high price of food, and school fees were the other reasons. Lack of male labor in the household was reported only in Kabona (Butare) although it appears later as a problem for single women.

d. HIV/AIDS: Effects on Food Security and Social Relations

Questions about HIV/AIDS were addressed only to the women's focus groups. Only one group responded definitely that it is a problem; the others said that it is not, but recognized that without testing they do not really know (Table V-15). Personnel in the district health centers reported that poisoning commonly is believed to cause HIV/AIDS and that traditional medicine is used to treat it. However, the women in Gishiha (Gikongoro) had learned from the radio and local health workers that the disease is spread by dirty needles and sex, so modern messages are at least absorbed if not believed.

The women's groups did report that the disease has serious effects on household food security as the affected person becomes weak and cannot work, and requires medicines and medical care. The affected household thus loses labor and income while its expenditures increase. If the sick family member is hospitalized the household loses yet another active person who is required to work as the patient's full-time care-taker (garde-malade) in the hospital. The net result is that the household is impoverished and the children suffer. Socially, HIV/AIDS is said to leave widows and orphans and bring conflict into the house. Spouses become panicked and depressed because they know it is an untreatable and fatal disease. Only one group reported that the affected person is socially isolated (Butare).

e. Strategies for Coping with Lack of Food

The poor in Butare focus on increasing production to improve their food supply. They cultivate the swamps, take care of the middle-class's livestock in order to have access to some manure, and make compost (Table V-16). Those in Gishiha (Gikongoro) who rely heavily on wage labor to survive reported that their traditional strategy has been to migrate outside their region to seek wage labor because not enough is available locally. Food aid is a new strategy for them although they rarely receive any. In Runyinya (Gikongoro), the poor traditionally have borrowed food, relied on mutual support for transfers, were paid in food for wage labor, bartered foodstuffs and livestock for the food they needed, and obtained loans using their fields or livestock as collateral. Their new strategies are renting out their land and wage labor paid in cash. They reported that bartering and borrowing money using fields or livestock for collateral are disappearing.

The middle class in Butare reported that generally they have sufficient food, and did not report strategies for coping with deficits (Table V-17). The middle class in Gikongoro reported that traditionally men migrated to find work when their households needed food. They also fallowed their fields, stocked crops after a good harvest and worked as wage

401

40

laborers. One new strategy is that now both men and women work as wage laborers when they need food. Mutual assistance, sharing among neighbors, still exists also.

7. Problems, Coping Strategies, and Potential Interventions

a. The poor

The poor reported somewhat different problems in Butare and Gikongoro. Low agricultural production is the first-rank problem in Butare; the others are lack of income, limited access to health care, lack of manure, and limited access to water (Table V-18). People address the problem of low production by making compost from manure and household waste, obtaining manure by taking care of the middle-class's livestock, and protecting their land through anti-erosion measures. The only strategy reported for lack of access to health care is to have men carry the sick person to the health center on a cot. Migration is the solution to lack of income; the poor in Kabona go to the Mayaga region to work.

The poor in Gikongoro reported lack of food and lack of money to buy hoes for work as their primary problems. Their other problems are lack of money for health care and to pay school fees, lack of skills for nonagricultural work, illnesses caused by malnutrition, and children abandoning school because they are hungry (Table V-18). Health issues are a problem among the poor in all four communities and are consistently reported as a problem by women also. People in Runyinya cope with low production and their lack of manure by incorporating crop residues and weeds into the soil, cultivating climbing beans that produce better than bush beans without manure/fertilizer, and cultivating in rows to conserve manure. They use traditional medicine or go to the health clinics to deal with their health problems. There are no strategies to cope with the problems of lack of money to pay school fees and lack of of nonagricultural skills. The poor in Gishiha, the farmers without hoes, borrow them in order to cultivate their fields.

The interventions proposed by the poor in Butare are (Table V-19)

Provide livestock through rotating credit. Continue to use their strategies of making compost. Create development projects in the region. Make health insurance (mutuelle) accessible to the population. Install a potable water system.

The interventions proposed by the poor in Gikongoro are (Table V-19):

Credit for small livestock, to provide manure. Make fertilizer available free or at a reasonable price. Decrease the cost of health care so the poor can afford it. Free school uniforms. Free hoes and manure—which will improve their production and thus resolve their

other problems (Gishiha).

b. The middle class

Middle-class problems in both Butare and Gikongoro are mainly related to agricultural production: lack of manure, lack of TA and training, lack of pesticide, and plant diseases (Table V-20). One group in Butare reported the need for pasture and veterinary medicines for livetock. Only one middle-class group in Gikongoro reported illness as a problem,

411

41

whereas health/nutrition was cited as a problem by all of the poor. Lack of wage labor and children leaving school are problems only in Gishiha (Gikongoro).

The producers in Butare who need pesticides, mainly for their coffee crop, said that they have no strategy to cope with the problem. They do not have the money to buy the product. They make compost from household waste to compensate for their lack of manure, and trade milk for the forage they need for their livestock; there is no strategy for their lack of veterinary medicine.

The middle-class coping strategy for poor soil in Gikongoro is to make compost and use manure from their livestock, rent fertile land, and work collectively in the swamps (Runyinya). They do not have enough land for fallowing. People in Gikongoro resolve the problem of insufficient harvests by selling livestock, or both men and women migrate to seek work. Illness is treated using traditional medicine and the health clinics. There is no strategy for dealing with children who abandon school.

The middle class proposed these interventions for their problems (Table V-21):

Provide livestock through rotating credit, or credit for livestock, in order to have manure.

Provide fertilizer on credit that is reimbursed at harvest-time, for coffee above all. Make veterinary medicines available and teach the livestock-owners how to produce

pasture. Make pesticides available and set up sales points; also make available credit for

improved seed, and TA from veterinarians and agricultural extension agents. Create projects to provide work. A closer health clinic and medicines at low prices. Food aid for students.

b. Women

1) Married women

Married women's problems range from illness to low agricultural production to the Rwandan mentality that makes women socially inferior to men. Low agricultural production and lack of food were the primary problem reported in three groups. Illness and/or malnutrition was cited as a problem by all four groups (Table V-22). Other problems linked to agriculture are overwork and the lack of diverse crops. Women are overworked because they are responsible for feeding their households and low production means that they have to do wage labor to make up the deficit, in addition to all their other household responsibilities. The women in Gishiha (Gikongoro) reported that they are losing crop diversity because they are forced to narrow their crop mixes due to their households' small landholdings. They said that they are losing seed for some crops and also diversity in their diets. This trend is potentially dangerous because ultimately it is likely to reduce the distribution of harvests across time, which generally is a characteristic of small farming systems that make different foods available throughout the year.

The women in Gikongoro cope with poor agricultural production and lack of food by doing wage labor, selling small livestock, and engaging in petty trade (selling food crops and sorghum beer). Illness is treated with traditional as well as modern medicine because the latter is expensive and requires travel-time, although women do take their children to the nutritional centers to treat malnutrition. Trying to maintain crop diversity is done by renting

421

42

a parcel and paying it for it by working in the owner's fields. This adds to their workload but, as they said, there is no strategy for coping with overwork.

Another set of married women's problems is related to social issues. These include family conflicts, abandonment by their husbands, women's ignorance, and their difficulty in accessing resources (Table V-22). Abandonment is the result of poverty, hunger, and family conflicts. The latter is linked to poverty and a culture that does not give women the right to manage resources. Their view is that nothing has changed for women in terms of their access to and management of resources. One group of women stated that "nothing can be done to change the mentality that makes men the master of all." On the other hand, they also said that women's ignorance is due to their lack of interest in education and training, and to not demanding their rights.

Married women in Butare recommended the following interventions for their problems (Table V-24):

Encourage women to send their daughters to school and literacy for women. Encourage women to demand their rights. Encourage women to have their own resources. Training in conflict resolution and the family code. Training and awareness-raising about preventing disease and family planning.

In Gikongoro the married women recommended (Table V-24):

Projects or associations as a source of livestock for manure and improved seed through credit..

Improve produciton in order to decrease their work as wage laborers. Make available low-cost medicine, decrease the cost of health insurance (mutuelle)

from 3,000 to 1,000 FRW per year, and a closer health clinic. Food assistance for primary schools. Improved seed and the free distribution of hoes to the poor. Introduce fruit into their production and dietary systems for a balanced diet for their

children. Improved seed, including seed for new crops that they do not cultivate, in order to

diversify their cropping systems.

2) Single women

Single women's primary problems also are related to agriculture: infertile land, lack of male labor, low agricultural production and lack of food, lack of hoes and money for seed (Table V-23). Three groups reported that illness is a problem. Single women have some problems that married women do not: they work alone yet are responsible for feeding their imprisoned husbands, they lack social respect, good housing, and the money to pay school fees. Housing is a problem only in Butare. Family conflicts, overwork, and children dropping out of school were reported by two groups.

The single women's reasons for infertile land and low agricultural production are lack of inputs, lack of livestock and manure, and the drought in Butare (Table V-23). The single women in Gishiha, where wage labor is important, often are paid in food rather than cash and thus lack the money to buy the hoes and seed that are essential for their livelihoods. Opportunities for work are also limited there. The absence of male labor—not only husbands, but brothers and other male relatives—is due to the genocide. Illness is the result

431

43

of insufficient food that causes weakness, plus lack of hygiene, poverty, and the high cost of health care. The single women in Butare who are resettled in imidugudus (centralized government settlements) after the war reported that it is not good housing and that access to construction materials for improvement it is difficult.

The genocide and its aftermath are the basis of some of the single women's problems. Lack of respect is said to be due to a social mentality that considers widows to be without value. The genocide and poor resource management cause family conflicts. Imprisoned husbands and the responsibility of feeding them is a real problem for women household heads. They lack a key, active member of the household, who does not work but still eats. And they are obliged to take the prisoners food every day or several times a week, which costs them time and energy. Their situation is a vicious cycle of lack of household labor, a high dependency ratio, low production, low cash income due to payment in food and limited time to work, insufficient diets, poor health, and lack of money for health care, food purchases, and education.

Wage labor is single women's major coping strategy for their agricultural problems, lack of food, and feeding their imprisoned husbands (Table V-23). They also compensate for low production and food needs by selling their small livestock, most of which are acquired through care-taking. The women in Gishiha (Gikongoro) who cannot afford hoes reported that they borrow them in the afternoon, when the owners have finished working, and cultivate their fields late in the day. Illness in Runyinya (Gikongoro) is treated with traditional medicine due to the cost in time and money of going to a health clinic.

The single women in Butare suggested these interventions (Table V-25):

Support for women's associations, reimbursible credit for them in livestock or money, and support for women's income-generating activities.

Accelerate the Gacaca laws and help the prisoners work in the swamps and fields that are not cultivated, in order to feed themselves and relieve women of this responsibility.

Agroforestry projects and a project for energy conservation/improved stoves. Training and awareness-raising to prevent disease and a government intervention to

reduce the cost of health care. Construction projects for those who need good housing. Awareness-raising and training for society on women's rights, and training in conflict

resolution. Encourage people to provide mutual support, training in how to save money and

engage in petty commerce to earn money.

In Gikongoro the single women recommended (Table V-25):

Projects or associations as a source of livestock for manure and improved seed through credit..

Make available low-cost medicine, decrease the cost of health insurance (mutuelle) from 3,000 to 1,000 FRW per year.

Improved production in order to decrease their work as wage laborers. Food assistance for primary schools. Opportunities for wage labor to earn money to buy hoes, or free hoes. Form women's associations that would have better access to seed by pooling their

work and earnings, or free seed distributions.

441

44

There is no real solution for having a husband in prison; perhaps form an association for mutual support among single women.

451

45

B. Bugesera: Highly Vulnerable to Food Insecurity


Food insecurity in Bugesera normally is linked to cyclical drought that occurs every five years or so rather than structural factors. However, a three-year drought during 1998-2000 and an influx of destitute resettlees have made it highly food-insecure since 1998. The first good rains in Bugesera fell this year, in the second season. It was included in the survey sample because of its food insecurity that began three years ago and still exists.

The summary answers from Bugesera to the survey's four central questions about vulnerability are:

Where: the workshop identified four highly vulnerable communes in Bugesera; the survey was conducted in two. We can confirm that vulnerability to food insecurity exists in the communities surveyed. In addition, local officials identified 15 sectors in the two communes as vulnerable to food insecurity; they are discussed below.

Who: households of the land-poor and landless, those with poor-quality soils, widows and widowers, women with husbands in prison, orphans, the handicapped, and people who have been resettled in government resettlements (imidugudus).

Why: households of the land-poor, landless, and those with poor-quality soils are vulnerable to food insecurity because agriculture is their major economic activity but their production is low. As a result their household food stocks and marketable surpluses are limited, so they are insecure economically and in terms of food. They turn to wage labor for income for food and other basic needs but work opportunities are limited in Bugesera. They cannot afford to buy livestock and build up herds to produce the manure that their small plots and poor soils need. Caught in this negative spiral of low production and lack of wage labor they remain vulnerable to economic and food insecurity.

The people who have been resettled in imidugudus are vulnerable because they lost their homes and in many cases their household goods and livestock in the war. The resettlements are far from their landholdings so they spend time and energy walking to their fields and lose their crops to animals and thieves. Many resettlements lack water systems and services such as clinics and schools, and the housing is poor quality. The net result is that the resettled people are vulnerable to food insecurity.

Lack of sufficient household labor is a major reason that widow/ers, women with imprisoned husbands, orphans, and the handicapped are vulnerable. They do not have the physical capacity to support themselves and the single women, in particular, have high household dependency ratios. These groups are caught in the negative spiral described above: low production, reliance on wage labor to earn cash and food, limited opportunities for labor, and no livestock or manure for their fields. These people generally cannot migrate or engage in nonagricultural activities to compensate for lack of local wage labor so they have few economic options to improve their situation.

461

46

What can be done: C/FFW to simultaneously improve natural resource management (terraces, reclaiming the swamps) and give vulnerable groups access to cash and food; school feeding programs to improve children's nutritional status, reduce abandonment rates, and reduce their households' food deficits; contracts with producers to buy their commodities and use them in the SFPs and FFW; food-for-training for the handicapped and the orphans to teach them viable, nonagricultural skills to earn their livelihoods; feeding programs in local health centers for the elderly, for the handicapped who cannot participate in training or work, and for malnourished children.

2. Bugesera: Background

Bugesera is not a commune but a well-defined agroecological zone that lies in two provinces. Its vulnerability to food insecurity is linked to cyclical drought that usually occurs every five years; it is not structurally vulnerable. It was included in the survey because of a recent three-year drought that has caused food insecurity.

Bugesera has a total area of about 1,765 square kilometers and lies within the administrative boundaries of Kigali-rural and Kibungo provinces. It covers three communes in the former (Kanzenze, Gashora and Ngenda) and parts of the new Sake district in the latter. Bugesera is characterized by uneven and erratic distributions of rainfall (860-1000 mm annual average) and by high temperatures (20-21 degrees Centigrade is the annual average, but the it sometimes reaches 35 degrees). The region has plateaus at altitudes of 1,403 to 1,557 meters as well as swamps and lakes.

Bugesera used to be Rwanda's breadbasket and produced mainly sorghum, beans and roots/tubers. Coffee was produced in Kanzenze and Ngenda communes and in some sectors of Gashora. Crop production was good and fertilizer was not needed because the soils were only exploited beginning in the late 1950s. A variety of crops was grown in the region. Producers earned their livings from selling crops and livestock, mainly goats, and the general food-security situation was satisfactory. Over time both soil fertility and food production began decreasing. The need for livestock for manure (soil fertilization) was expressed by all producers and authorities interviewed. The latter, both in Sake and Kanzenze, reported to the survey team that formerly at harvest time sorghum and beans were sold to many retailers from Kigali and Butare. Currently, few trucks can find any commodities to buy.

Despite the presence of eight small lakes, the availability of potable water always has been a problem in the Bugesera region. The water system was rehabilitated in 1999 in some sectors of Sake and Kanzenze districts, but the problem remains for the rest of the region.

The 1994 war and genocide took the lives of many people in the Kanzenze and Ngenda communes of Bugesera, and left behind many orphans and widows who are now facing acute food security problems. According to the mayor of Kanzenze district, many parcels in Kanzenze are still not cultivated because the owners are widows (handicapped or with small children), child household-heads, or families with members in prison. These parcels are being identified so that they can be temporarily allocated to for use by youth's and women's associations.

The post-genocide era in Bugesera has been characterized by consistent food shortages due to drought and flooding by the Akagera river. Although drought has been a problem in Bugesera the past few years, the swamps bordering Akagera river were flooded—and still are—which prevents the population from producing its season C harvest (vegetables, sweet potatoes and beans). No recovery or rehabilitation from the 1994 war has been ever possible due to these conditions. Only one year (1997) was productive, which was not enough for the population to

471

47

rebuild the household assets that were lost in the war. The recent, prolonged drought (1998-2000) exacerbated the situation and left many households vulnerable to even slight shocks. There has been minimal food production during the past three years and the population has relied on humanitarian assistance (WFP-Rwanda and Caritas). Severe malnutrition was reported among children, especially the under-fives. More than 6,990 pupils abandoned school because of hunger, about 5,307 people migrated to other areas searching for food, and 551 people sold their roofs and doors to buy food.

According to the VAM-Rome workshop participants, at least two or three normal harvests will be needed for the population of Bugesera to regain its food security. However, the population needs sources of income; rainfall alone will not solve their problems. Reclaiming the Akagera river swamps and rehabilitating infrastructure (water systems, roads, markets) in Bugesera is an option for providing work now and for improving agricultural production and food security in the future.




People in Bugesera are vulnerable to food insecurity for a range of reasons. Households with small landholdings (less than half a hectare) and those with sandy, porous soils are found in Gituza district (Kibungo). The former's small plots do not produce enough for their households that have five or more members; the latter require more and regular rainfall than the area recently has received. The landless are vulnerable but were reported only in Karambo district (Kigali-rural).

Widow/ers, the elderly, orphans, and women with imprisoned husbands are reported as vulnerable groups in both districts (Table V-26). They are all vulnerable because they lack the physical capacity to work and therefore cannot feed themselves adequately. The orphans have the additional responsibility of parenting other small children and the elderly do not have social assistance. As reported in other areas, the women with imprisoned husbands cannot produce sufficient food to support their families and half of the limited amount they do produce is consumed by the prisoner. These households may receive assistance from their families but it is not enough to make them food secure.

Both nuclear families and single women were forcibly resettled in imidugudus in Karambo as a result of government policy. They lost their own homes, which in many cases were replaced with inferior shelter including plastic sheeting. The resettlements are a constraint on food security as they are long distances from the inhabitants' fields. The result is time and energy spent in reaching the fields and the loss of their isolated crops to animals and thieves.

Bugesera also has vulnerable populations as a result of the drought. Three hundred households left Karambo (Kigali-rural) in 1999 because of the drought; many went to Umutara, Ruhengeri, and Gisenyi. They returned in June/July of 2001, having heard that the harvest in Karambo was good. However, they returned without food or resources and are now surviving with the assistance and food of their relatives and neighbors. They are decapitalized and have minimal resources to invest in the fall agricultural season.


481

48

According to the district authorities there are ten vulnerable sectors in Sake district (Kibungo). Five of these sectors are vulnerable because of drought: Rukumberi, Gituza, Sholi, Rubago, and Mbuye. The other five are vulnerable because household landholdings are very small. In Nshili and Kabuye this is due to population growth; in Mabuga, Ngoma, and Ruyema it is because the landholdings were shared with the returnees from Burundi.

There are five vulnerable sectors in Kanzenze district of Kigali-rural: Muyenzi, Mayange, Murama, Maranyundo, and Nyagihunika. They all suffer from very poor, sandy, infertile soils that are unproductive.


Food security in Sake was good until 1995 and has decreased since then, in the district authorities' view. The negative change is the result of soil degradation—decreasing fertility—and the fact that household landholdings were cut in half in order to provide land to the returnees from Burundi. Lack of manure for the poor soils is another contributing factor, partly the result of livestock losses in the war.

A similar negative change has occurred in Kanzenze (Kigali-rural), where the food-security situation was said to be generally good until 1998, except for the loss of livestock in the 1994 war. Food security declined during 1999-2000 due to the drought: there was little harvest and people sold their resources to survive. The district also suffered in the genocide and has many widows, whose food-security status is always precarious because they have neither the physical capacity nor the resources to produce sufficient food.

c. Market problems

Some of the problems with the Bugesera markets are common to those reported in the other survey sites (Table V-27). These are that the capable merchants are dead or fled as a result of the genocide; that the markets are open-air and thus problematical in the rainy seasons; and that commercial links to other markets are limited due to limited and/or homogeneous local production (Table 27). In Sake, that has suffered from the drought, there is little marketable surplus so few foodstuffs are available in the markets. Market activity there also is strongly linked to seasonal production cycles: the markets are active at harvest-time and prices fluctuate based on seasonal supplies.

d. Health problems

The major health problems reported in both districts are malaria, respiratory illnesses, malnutrition, diarrhea, worms in children, and coughs (Table 28). Malnutrition is ranked as the third health problem in both districts (Table V-28).



The two communities surveyed both reported that they have three social classes: the middle class (uwifashije), the poor (umukene), and the destitute (umutindi nyakujya). The middle class represents 11-24% of the communities, the destitute 11-25%, and the poor are, as we found elsewhere, the great majority: 65% of the population (see the data appendix for the information on social groups). Household size is similar in the middle class and the poor, 3-

491

49

7 and 5-8 members respectively. The poor have slightly more active members, 2-5, in comparison to the middle class's 2-3. The destitute, who are widow/ers, orphans, and the handicapped, have small households of only 1-3 members and are "incapable of working and usually beggers." Widow/ers' socioeconomic status depends on their age and resources: older people who cannot work, have little or no social support, or have psychological problems as a result of the genocide are destitute. Those who are physically and mentally strong enough to work do so, but are usually are poor because they lack household labor and therefore produce little.

The middle class's major occupations are agriculture and animal husbandry, although those in Kanzenze also work as teachers and in petty trade, and have nonagricultural skills such as masonry. They hire labor but do not work as wage laborers themselves; cultivate all their landholdings and in addition rent land from the poor; and do not rent-out their land. Those in Gituza (Kibungo) have sizeable herds: 5-10 cattle, 1-5 goats, 5-10 rabbits, and up to 10 chickens; those in Karambo (Kigali-rural) have only 5-10 goats and 10-30 chickens. Their major sources of income are the sale of up to half of their agricultural production, livestock, and milk, and revenue from teaching and nonagricultural activities such as masonry. The middle class in both communities reported that they have enough to eat all year.

The poor work as wage laborers and in their fields. Daily wages are 200 FRW/day or the equivalent in beans. In Karambo (Kigali-rural) all social classes have the same amount of land, 2 hectares. The poor there cultivate about 0.25 hectares and rent the rest, or as much as they can, to the middle class. In Gituza (Kibungo) the poor have about 0.25 hectare and the middle class has 0.20 to 1.0 hectares. The poor in Gituza cultivate about half of their land—only about 0.12 hectare—and rent the rest to the middle class for 2-5,000FRW for a year (two seasons). Renting-out their land makes them more dependent on wage labor to survive, the same phenomenon seen among the poor in the other communities surveyed. Their major income sources are the sale of a small part of their production (50 kilos of beans and 50 kilos of sorghum in Karambo, for example); wage labor, and land rental. Their only access to livestock is through taking care of goats for the middle class; they do not own cattle. As elsewhere, their lack of manure for their fields is a critical problem. The poor reportedly have enough to eat four months of the year.

The destitute are easily characterized as they have few resources and are said to be economically inactive. They do not work and they rent-out most of their land. In Karambo (Kigali-rural) the destitute earned 1,500 FRW for the rental of one-quarter hectare. These people do not have livestock as they do not have the physical capacity to care for them. They survive with the assistance of others, including some neighbors in Gituza (Kibungo) who cultivate 0.10 hectare of their own land for them, and never have enough to eat, according to the community authorities.


The poor's and middle class's economic resources are shown in Table V-29. Land is the primary resource for both groups, followed by livestock, houses, and tools. In Bugesera, as in the other communities surveyed, and probably in Rwanda in general, the different social groups' economic resources and livelihood strategies are similar: agriculture and livestock are the rural population's mainstays. It is the difference in the relative importance of these resources that distinguishes the social groups' livelihood strategies.

Livestock holdings in both groups have decreased due to the war and the drought. The middle class reported that their herds are still smaller than before the 1994 war. They have

501

50

sold and lost livestock as a result of the drought. Livestock-owners also have conflicts with farmers because, also due to the drought, pasture has decreased and their animals damage farmers' crops. The universal problems with farmland are decreasing soil fertility and the long drought that has reduced production.

Women also reported land as their most important material resource (Table V-30). Livestock are the second most important resource for married women, and harvests the third. Single women (ie women household heads) cited their houses or coffee plots as their number-two resources, livestock as three, hoes as four, and kitchen utensils as five. The married women have access to livestock because they are a household resource controlled by their husbands; single women have fewer if any, and often are more dependent on wage labor (ie their hoes) to survive than are married women.


Men have slightly more education than women, but not more than 3-6 years of primary school (Table V-31). Men's skills apparently are limited to masonry in the communities of Gituza and Karambo, and women have none. Associations evidently do not exist in these communities except when a group of men cooperates to carry a sick person to the clinic.


Wage labor and agriculture are the only two components of the poor's livelihood strategies in Gituza and Karambo (Table V-32). Wage labor is by far the more important activity and generates 74-83% of their household income. This reflects the effect of the three-year drought on agricultural production, which has made wage labor a better option. Agriculture contributes only 17-26% to the poor's income. Animal husbandry as an activity and source of income does not appear in this social group.

The middle class's livelihood strategy is more diversified: it includes animal husbandry and nonagricultural activities as well as agricultural production. The middle class in Gituza (Kibungo) obviously can cope with the drought as agriculture remains its primary economic activity and accounts for 80% of income (Table V-32). That is not the case in Karambo (Kigali-rural) where the middle class's primary source of income is animal husbandry (40%), followed by nonagricultural activities such as masonry (20%), and wage labor (20%). Agriculture generates only 10% of their income.

Agriculture is women's primary economic activity and their major source of income (Table V-33). It accounts for about half of both single and married women's earnings. The relative importance of women's other economic activities is the same for both married and single women. Petty trade in sorghum beer and food crops is ranked as number two in importance and generates 25-32% of their earnings, and wage labor is third and accounts for 12-16%. Crafts such as weaving contribute 10% or less to women's income.


a. Sources of food

Purchases and wage labor, the latter paid both in cash and in kind, are the poor's major sources of food in Gituza and Karambo (Table V-34). Agriculture is a minor source and provides only 6-11%, because the poor invest their labor in others' fields and cultivate little of their own land—about one-quarter of a hectare in Karambo and half that in Gituza. Food aid

511

51

from WFP and from neighbors accounts for a considerable proportion of the poor's food in Karambo, 21%.

Agriculture provides 80% of the middle class's food in Gituza (Kibungo), despite the drought. However, in Karambo (Kigali-rural), livestock sales are the source of 40% of the middle class's food and agriculture provides only 20% (Table V-34). The drought and lack of the more productive swamp-land (marais) in Karambo has decreased the importance of agriculture as an activity and as source of food in the past three years.

Despite the drought, agricultural production is still single women's major source of food. It provides up to 44% of all their food (Table 35). Purchases are their second major source and account for about 28%, followed by wage labor that is the basis of about 16%. Food aid contributes to single women's food supply in both the communities surveyed and is particularly important in Gituza (Kibungo) where it is 25% of their total supply. Livestock sales are the source of only 10% of women's food supply in Karambo (Kigali-rural); women often take care of the middle class's small livestock, receive an offspring in return, and sell it for cash.

Both the poor and the middle class reported that their agricultural production has decreased due to the drought and low soil fertility. Purchases via wage labor or livestock have become a more important source of food for both groups than before the war. Livestock have become a more important source of money for food in recent years for the middle class, as crop production decreases due to the drought.


The year's hungry seasons generally are before and during the rainy seasons, that normally are February/March to April/early May and October to December (see the data appendix for this information in table form). Before the rains people need to save or buy seed for sowing, and both money and seed are scarce for most people, who are poor. During the rainy season wage labor is scarce, there are no harvests, and most people have consumed all their stocks, so they are hungry. The hungry months in Karambo and Gituza are March to May and September/October to November.

Beans, cassava, and sweet potatoes are the staple food crops In Karambo (Kigali-rural) (data appendix). Cassava is eaten year-round; beans are harvested and eaten December-February and June-July; and sweet potatoes are available June-September. The sorghum harvest is in June-August and provides beer, gruel, and pate. Manioc leaves are eaten most of the year and other vegetables are available January to May. The banana trees have been decimated by the drought and fed to the livestock, to keep them alive, so production is very low. Cooking bananas are eaten in April and July-August. Meat is eaten only at Christmas and New Year's and other sources of protein—fish, eggs, peas—reportedly are not eaten in Karambo.

Cassava also is eaten year-round in Gituza. Beans are harvested and eaten in December-January and in June/July. Sweet potatoes are available from March to November and sorghum is harvested in June and July. The coffee harvest, which is an important source of income for those whose trees are maintained, is during May and June. This income provides money for food purchases including meat. Manioc leaves are eaten only in June/July and vegetables in April and December, after the rains. Banana production has dropped due to the drought so cooking bananas are available only in April, July, and August. People in Gituza eat meat only at Christmas and reportedly do not consume fish, eggs, peas, rice, or taro (colocase).

521

52

There is a great difference between the poor and the middle-class in terms of the number of months that they have enough to eat, according to the focus groups. The poor in both Gituza and Karambo reported that they have enough to eat for 6-7 months of the year, and barely enough to eat during 3-4 months (Table V-36). They are do not have enough to eat two months of the year. In contrast, the middle class has enough to eat 10-11 months of the year, barely enough during 1-2 months, and does not ever suffer from not having enough to eat.

This illustrates an important conclusion from the survey: social class—that can be defined practically as access to and control of economic resources—is a determinant factor in food security. In all the communities surveyed, including those in Bugesera affected by a prolonged and debilitating drought, the middle class was able to maintain its economic and food security. Evidently their economic resources and coping strategies enable them to cope quite well with the resource-poverty and problems of their environments. The ability to rent-in land, hire labor to work it, and keep livestock makes the middle class food-secure in Gituza and Karambo, even after three years of drought. Unfortunately they are at most one-quarter of the population in the two communities surveyed, which means that the great majority of the people surveyed are poor and can not cope adequately with the problems they face.


The poor in both Gituza and Karambo cited low soil fertility or infertility as the first reason for their lack of food (Table V-37). Health problems and the drought were other common reasons. Lack of wage labor was reported only in Gituza (Kibungo) and lack of livestock to provide manure was reported only in Karambo (Kigali-rural). The middle class has enough to eat most of the year.

Single women's first-ranked reasons for their lack of food are infertile soils in Gituza and lack of physical strength for agricultural labor in Karambo (Table V-38). Being the single household-head clearly is a constraint on food security: the women in both communities reported that lack of household labor (ie working alone to produce the household food supply), a high dependency ratio, and imprisoned husbands that consume but do not produce are the reasons for their insufficient food supplies. Health problems are another reason reported by both groups. The women in Gituza (Kibungo) also cited lack of livestock for manure as a reason for insufficient food.


HIV/AIDS is not a problem in Gituza (Kibungo), according to the women interviewed there. There are no known cases in the community. However, it is said to leave widows and orphans, and to decrease household food security (Table V-39). The latter is because the household loses labor-power and spends more on health care for the affected member than it does on food. The women in Karambo (Kigali-rural) reported that HIV/AIDS is a problem in the community, perhaps because they have been sensitized by the HIV/AIDS awareness project that is operating in part of the district. They said that the social effects of HIV/AIDS were that the sick person is isolated and that the disease leaves widows and orphans without assistance. It reduces household food production by reducing household labor, and increases expenditures on health care.

531

53


The poor's traditional strategies in both communities for coping with insufficient food were to sell some of their household goods. Migration was not a traditional coping strategy, but it may not have been necessary as Bugesera historically has been Rwanda's breadbasket rather than a food-deficit region. Reclaiming the more fertile swamp-lands and migration are new strategies in both Gituza and Karambo (Table V-40). Migration is a major change in their coping strategies for lack of food; large numbers of entire households moved to the east and northwest as a result of the recent drought.

The middle class traditionally has been food-secure in Gituza and Karambo, as a result of having adequate resources in a productive region. Therefore they do not have "traditional coping strategies" for lack of food. They cope with food shortages by selling livestock.


a. The poor

The poor reported different problems in the two sites in Bugesera. Poor harvests due to low soil fertility, no manure, and the drought were the number-one problem in Gituza (Kibungo) (Table V-41). Their second problem is poor housing: many people in Gituza lost their homes during the war and now, as a result of the drought's economic consequences, do not have the means to replace them. They currently are living under plastic sheeting and in huts. Gituza has only one functional water source so lack of water is a problem; illness also is, due to frequent malaria epidemics and the poor's lack of money to buy medicines. Another problem is that the drought has led to lack of pasture so the livestock destroy crops, which has caused tensions with the farmers.

Reclamation of the Akagera swamps is the poor's strategy to cope with poor harvests (Table V-41). They formed groups to build houses but they lack poles and iron sheeting. They addressed their water-problem by raising money and contributing labor to rehabilitate the water-delivery system. Illness is treated using traditional medicine and carrying the sick person on a cot to the health clinic; if necessary household belongings are sold to raise money to care for the person. The problem of the livestock-owners' animals destroying crops was addressed in meetings held with the local authorities to discuss the issue and agree on solutions.

The poor's first two problems in Karambo (Kigali-rural) are illness and lack of wage labor. They do not have the money to pay for health care, there are no development projects to provide work opportunities, and they do not have the nonagricultural skills to find work (Table V-41). Lack of potable water is a problem because only one of four water sources in their sector is functional. They lost their livestock to the war and the drought, so now they lack manure to fertilize their fields, which is another problem.

The poor report that their soil fertility and thus agricultural production is declining, partly due to their loss of livestock in the war and also due to the drought. The result is that they have smaller harvests and smaller surpluses as a source of cash to pay for basic needs such as medical care, housing, and potable water systems. The combination of lack of medical care and unclean water affects their health. The drought also has created the new problem of conflict between livestock-owners who need pasture and farmers who need to protect their crops.

541

54

The Karambo poor have an association that transports sick people to health centers. Their strategy for lack of work is to migrate east (Kibungo and Umutara) and to the northwest (Gisenyi and Ruhengeri). The only way to obtain water is to walk long distances (30-60 minutes) and carry it home. They compensate for the lack of manure by renting parcels in the swamps in other sectors, and by incorporating weeds and stubble into their fields.

The poor in Gituza (Kibungo) proposed these interventions to address their problems (Table V-42):

Provide livestock on a rotating credit basis (a household keeps the offspring and passes on the female), to improve their soil quality and production.

Provide improved ("adapted") seed to improve their production and thus their health. Build a health center near or in their community. Assistance to furnish poles and roofing (tiles or iron sheeting) for housing. Construct a water-delivery system. To resolve the problem of livestock destroying crops, raise awareness and use the

agreed-upon measures.

The poor in Karambo (Kigali-rural) proposed these interventions:

Construction of a health center, make health insurance accessible to the population, and provide nets ("SupaNet") to address their health problems.

Create development projects to provide work. Rehabilitate the water system; each household to contribute 150 FRW. Provide fertilizer on credit, to be repaid after the harvest, and livestock on a rotating

credit basis to improve their agricultural production.

b. The middle class

The middle classes in both communities reported the same primary problem: low agricultural production (Table V-43). The reasons are the three-year drought and the war that destroyed their herds, so now they have little manure and thus reduced soil fertility. Another common problem they have is illness: in Gituza (Kibungo) there are malaria epidemics; in Karambo (Kigali-rural), the economic consequences of the drought have reduced their ability to pay for health care.

The common strategy for low agricultural production is to cultivate plots in the swamps near the Akagera river (Table V-43). The district offices generally charge a fee of about 1,000 FRW for cultivating swamp-land, as the people in Karambo reported. Health problems are dealt with using traditional medicine, buying medicines without consulting a doctor, using bicycles and cots to transport sick people to clinics, and borrowing money to pay for care.

The middle class in Gituza has faced floods as well as drought. The drought forced them to cultivate in the swamp-land near the Akagera river, which flooded their crops in the dry season. Another problem is that pasture is always limited and the drought has exacerbated this by destroying the grass. Their fifth-ranked problem is that they need agricultural credit but there are no institutions that provide it, partly because they have have limited resources to reimburse it. The people of both classes in Gituza thus are caught in a negative spiral caused by the drought: it has reduced their resources (livestock, crop surpluses, household goods that were sold for cash) and thus reduced their capacity to invest in what they need to be productive: health care, food, livestock, and inputs for production. That is why, as they said,

551

55

they will need more than rainfall to recover—they will need time and assistance to recapitalize in order to regain their former productive status.

The people in Gituza have no strategies to deal with the problems of flooding or lack of access to agricultural credit. Their economic situation is even too precarious to form small groups (tontines) to raise small amounts of money among friends. Lack of pasture is addressed by allowing livestock to graze farmers' plots and by migrating to better pasture-lands near the Akagera river and the lakes.

The middle class in Karambo (Kigali-rural) also reported lack of work and potable water as problems. The former is due to the drought, that has reduced the need for agricultural labor in the fields and the swamps, and to lack of development projects in the area. Lack of potable water is due to the fact that there are few water sources in the community; people use bicycles to cover the distances that this problem causes.

People in Karambo migrate to the east and the northwest to find employment. They also seek swamp-land to rent in other sectors so that they have more productive plots to cultivate. The community collected some money to rehabilitate its water systems, to address their lack of potable water, and some people bought bicycles to alleviate the problem of transporting water long distances.

The middle class in Gituza (Kibungo) recommended the following interventions for their problems (Table V-42):

Reclaim the Akagera swamp so that it can be cultivated during the drought, in order to improve their production and to control flooding.

Teach producers pasture-production techniques so that they have sufficient pasture for their livestock.

Make health insurance accessible to the population. Make credit available as they can reimburse it if there is no drought.

The middle class in Karambo (Kigali-rural) suggested these interventions:

Make health insurance accessible to the population. Create development projects in the community to provide work opportunities. Rehabilitate the community's potable water system. Provide livestock through rotating credit schemes, so people will have manure to

improve their production.

c. Women

1) Married women

Married women have quite different problems in the two communities surveyed. Those in Gituza (Kibungo) reported that their husbands are not productive and overspend household resources due to alcoholism and liasons with other women (Table V-44). Jealousy and in-laws' inappropriate behavior causes conflicts among couples. The women cope with these problems by seeking advice from elder men and women in the community, and work as wage laborers to cope with the economic problems that their husbands' behaviors cause. Conflicts are settled with the help of parents and friends.

561

56

The married women's problems in Karambo (Kigali-rural) were related to household resources and health. Their soil is infertile due to lack of manure and they have limited access to household resources due to traditional Rwandan culture. They also cited, as their third problem, husbands' alcoholism and abandoning the family for other women. Malnutrition is their fourth-ranked problems, the result of insufficient food, followed by health problems that are due to poor sanitation and lack of money for health care.

These women use household refuse as a substitute for manure, to improve soil fertility, and work as wage laborers to compensate for their lack of access to household resources. Wage labor is also women's strategy to earn money and support their households when their husbands abandon them. Malnutrition and illness are treated by taking children to the health clinics, using traditional medicine, or using medicine from friends without consulting a doctor.

The married women in Gituza (Kibungo) proposed these interventions for their problems (Table V-45):

Support for women's associations. Reimbursable credit for livestock for women. Encourage women to have their own resources. Encourage women to have mutual-aid savings in case of problems. Awareness-raising about conflict resolution.

The married women in Karambo (Kigali-rural) recommended these interventions (Table V-45):

Rotating credit for livestock and other reimbursable credit, to improve their soil fertility.

Community awareness-raising about the family code to address abandonment. Credit for cows for women's associations in order to have milk to nourish their

children. For health problems: women's training in nutrition and disease prevention, and

reduction of the cost of health insurance. To improve women's access to resources: awareness-raising about women's rights

and the family code, and encourage women to demand their rights.

2) Single women

Single women's problems clearly are linked to their role as the household breadwinner. In both Gituza and Karambo their main problems are infertile soils, poor crop production, and lack of lack labor in the household (Table V-46). The reasons for these problems are lack of livestock/manure, drought, lack of a spouse, and children to take care of. The latter two add up to a high dependency ratio, which the survey found is a universal problem for single women. The problems that single women rank as the next most critical are inadequate housing, health problems, and women's inferior social position. The first of these is the result of the war and the drought; some households sold their tin roofs and wooden doors to raise money to survive. Health problems are due to lack of food and water, and their inability to pay for health care. Women are "looked down upon" due to the Rwandan culture that "disrespects women." Single women in both communities also reported that they cannot pay their children's school fees because they have no savings and they lack sources of income. Only the women in Gituza (Kibungo) cited the problem of bringing food to their imprisoned husbands which leaves them no time to work to support their households. However, they

571

57

also said that this task is necessary because the prisons in rural Rwanda do not provide enough food for the prisoners.

Taking care of goats for the middle class is the women's strategy for obtaining access to some manure and fertilizing their soil. They compensate for their lack of household manpower by working with other women. There are no strategies to cope with the problems of poor housing and women's inferior social status. Health problems are treated by using traditional medicine and taking modern medicine without consulting a doctor. Children's school fees are paid for by borrowing money or the problem is dealt with by withdrawing them from school. There is no strategy to cope with the task of supplying food regularly to imprisoned husbands.

The single women in Gituza (Kibungo) recommended the following interventions to address their problems (Table V-47):

Support women's associations and provide them with credit, including reimbursable credit for livestock, to address their their lack of household labor.

Finance construction projects to building good housing and encourage mutual assistance for those without housing.

Training and awareness-raising about preventing disease, and reduction of the cost of medical care (a government intervention) to address health problems.

Rotating credit for livestock to improve soil fertility. Accelerate the Gacaca process and give women's associations access to swamp-land

to help them feed their imprisoned husbands. Awareness-raising and training for people about women's rights.

The single women in Karambo proposed these interventions for their problems:

Support women's associations to encourage mutual asssistance, to compensate for their lack of labor.

Credit for women's associations to create income-generating activities. NGO intervention to construct houses or provide construction materials for those

without decent housing. Credit in the form of livestock and inputs (improved seed) to improve production. Community training about women's rights. Training on how to prevent disease and improve nutrition. Training on how to save money, form savings groups (tontines), and finance income-

generating activities.

581

58

C. Kibuye, Gisenyi, and Ruhengeri: Highly Vulnerable to Food Insecurity

Parts of these three provinces were identified as highly vulnerable to food insecurity. The communes surveyed are grouped as a "food insecurity zone" due to their similarities in altitude and farming systems.


The summary answers from these provinces to the survey's four central questions about vulnerability are:

Where: food insecurity exists in the six communities surveyed, among some social groups. In addition, local authorities identified a total of 27 sectors in the three provinces that are vulnerable to food insecurity. These sectors and the reasons for their vulnerability are discussed below in section 5.a.2).

Who: people who are landless or have small landholdings, including the repatriates of 1994; women-headed households (widows); widowers; orphans and child-headed households; households of the elderly, handicapped, and destitute. Victims of the 1997-98 insecurity are a vulnerable group that was reported only in Bukonya district of Ruhengeri.

Why: households with small or no landholdings are vulnerable because they do not have essential agricultural resources: fertile land and livestock for manure. The repatriates who returned to Rwanda in 1994 have no land and have had to build their lives all over again. Agriculture is the primary occupation for all these people; in generaly they are uneducated and do not have nonagricultural skills, and there are no local economic alternatives such as industry. Acid, infertile soils and lack of livestock exacerbate the problem of trying to earn a living from small parcels. Some of the land-poor also have large families which gives them a high dependency ratio.

Women- and child-headed households lack the labor and physical strength for farming, do not have other sources of income to buy food or pay for health care, and lack family support. Orphans of 14-16 who are household heads are too young to farm or do not have land. The women's and orphan's relatives cannot provide the assistance they need for food- and economic security. Women with husbands in prison spend much of their time and energy providing food for the prisoners, which reduces their work-time for supporting their children.

The elderly and handicapped cannot work, their children often migrate to seek work outside the region, and they do not sufficient social or economic support. Ruhengeri has suffered from insecurity and infiltrators since the war, particularly in 1997-98. People in Bukonya district lost their harvests, livestock, and homes and are still rebuilding their lives.

What can be done: SFPs to improve children's nutritional status and their access to education; food-for-training to teach people nonagricultural skills-- women, men, the handicapped, orphans; C/FFW to improve natural resource management (erosion control, reclaim swamps, water control) and provide food and income to those who need it; contracts with producers to buy their

591

59

commodities for use in SFP and FFW programs; feeding programs in local nutritional centers for children, the elderly, the handicapped; FFW for the elderly and handicapped who are capable of assisting the orphans' households.

2. Kibuye: Background

Kibuye is the smallest of Rwanda's provinces, with only 460,000 people and 1,336 square kilometers of territory. Approximately 200,000 people, or about one-third of its original population, were killed during the genocide. Its nine communes were consolidated into six districts and the town of Kibuye earlier this year. The six districts have 102 sectors and 628 communities. The new, larger districts were created in order to increase the amount of taxes and human resources available at this administrative level, which also will support the government's decentralization policy.

Kibuye has six major natural regions, throughout which agricultural and animal husbandry are the primary economic activites. It produces tea in the southeast and coffee all along Lake Kivu and in the central region of Bwishaza. Coffee is an important source of cash for rural producers but it is produced in only four of the province's nine communes and production has plummeted due to neglect during and after the war. The northern region of Akanage runs along the Zaire-Nile crest at altitudes of 2-2,800 meters and produces potatoes, maize, peas (petit pois), and wheat. Bwishaza, the central region, is considered to be at relatively low altitudes for this province although they vary from 1,500-1,700 meters. This region's major crops are coffee, sorghum, maize, some soybean, beans, sweet potato, and some banana and manioc. The eastern zone borders on Gisenyi and Gitarama provinces and is at 1,800-2,800 meters. The northeast, near Gitarama and Gikongoro, is at average altitude and like the latter has the problem of very acidic soils. The southern Rusenyi region borders Lake Kivu, where the altitude is 1,500 meters and rises to 2,000 meters inland. Most of the sixth region, southeastern Itabire, is high altitude and produces tea in the Gisovu area.

According to the Prefet, Kibuye's soils are eroded due to its steep slopes and degraded due to over-use. The latter is the result of the negative cycle that generally characterizes rural Rwanda: high population density, fragmentation of landholdings, no fallowing, the loss of livestock in the war, and no money to buy fertilizer. In his opinion high altitude is not necessarily linked to poverty and food insecurity: isolation ( enclavement ) from markets and services is a more significant factor, which varies in different regions, depending on their links to "the outside world." It is the combination of isolation, acid soils, and no access to fertilizer that creates food insecurity in Kibuye.

Kibuye was physically and socially an isolated backwater until about two years ago. The previous administration's "ethnic and regional equilibrium policy" kept the province marginalized in terms of higher education and national political participation, among other things. The new road that links the province with Kigali was just completed in 1999 and has reduced travel-time from six to about two hours. This is changing Kibuye's physical and psychological isolation, to some extent.

Kibuye historically suffers from cyclical famine. The causes are inadequate rainfall, fragmented and over-used landholdings, acid soils, lack of fertilizer, and traditional production techniques; the result is low agricultural production. The genocide exacerbated the problems of poverty, low production, and food insecurity by destroying livestock and manpower. It left the province with 25,000 orphans, 16,000 widows, and 4,000 households headed by children 14 years of age or younger. The genocide left these social groups

601

60

traumatized and apathetic, which affects their ability to work and their hope for the future. They are the people who are the most vulnerable to food insecurity, according to the Prefet.

A provincial survey done in 1999 reported that the rural population's priorities for development are agriculture, animal husbandry, education, health, infrastructure to improve access to markets and health care, potable water, and housing. Lack of effective technical assistance for agriculture and animal husbandry is a major constraint on local development. MINAGRI's technicians are very limited in numbers and expertise, and generally do not have transportation, so they are not effective on the ground. Both districts surveyed in Kibuye reported that since IFAD's agricultural project ended this year their technicians do not have gas and therefore cannot use their vehicles, if they have any. Kibuye's situation—an agricultural population that does not have adequate natural resources, technical assistance, access to markets or essential services such as health and education—clearly is serious in terms of the province's food security.

3. Gisenyi: Background

Gisenyi province is situated in the northwest of Rwanda and has an area of 1,634 square kilometers. It is bordered by the Democratic Republic of the Congo to the northwest, Kibuye to the southeast, and Gitarama and Ruhengeri in the northeast. Gisenyi has ten communes, 135 sectors, and 873 communities. The province is characterized by tall mountains along the Zaire-Nile crest that reach 4,500 meters, with volcanoes whose tips are usually covered with snow. It also has valleys with altitudes of 1,600 meters and plateaus in the south.

There are three major soil types in Gisenyi. The natural region of Bugoyi has volcanic ash that is very fertile and suitable for potatoes, maize, vegetables, and beans. The Zaire-Nile basin area consists mainly of acidic soils with a relative high carbon content. The eastern piedmont is a small band of soil east on the Zaire-Nile crest. Contrary to the belief that the whole province is fertile, the sites surveyed, Gasiza and Bugarura districts, have unproductive, exhausted soils and are highly populated. The benefits of good soil quality found close to the Virunga volcano chain decrease considerably farther south in the province.

The 1997-98 rebels’ invasion of Gisenyi significantly disrupted the province’s socioeconomic life. Like Ruhengeri, and unlike the rest of Rwanda’s provinces, the 1994 war had less negative impact on people’s lives than this later invasion, except for those who fled to Congo during the war. Since the beginning of 1997 the province of has been affected by widespread insecurity and conflict. The displaced population was estimated to be 100,000 by the end of 1998, about a half of which were in internally displaced persons (IDP) camps. At the height of the insurgency in 1998 the majority of households had lost their assets and livestock to the infiltrators, and their livelihood strategies were totally disrupted.

The internal displacement, which resulted in two years of minimal if any agricultural production, made Gisenyi one of the hungriest provinces at that time. Chronic malnutrition was widespread among children and women. The government made efforts to restore the situation to normal after the rebels were defeated. WFP-Rwanda delivered food aid in the form of general food distributions, supplementary and therapeutic feeding programs, and FFW projects in an effort to revive agricultural production.

The sub-director of social affairs expressed the situation of the people in Gasiza and Bugarura districts as follows: the majority depended on the many foreign-funded development projects that operated in the province before the war for employment and extension services. Gisenyi was the seat of power for the past regime so resources were

611

61

directed to the province. The population became dependent on these resources and was left "naked" when the projects ended due to the war.

4. Ruhengeri: Background

Ruhengeri province is situated in the north-west of Rwanda and covers an area of 1,762 square kilometers. It is bordered by Uganda in the north, Byumba in the east and Gisenyi in the south. The province is divided into four bioclimatic regions:

1. The highlands of Buberuka. Altitude in this region varies from 2,025 to 2,250 meters. Annual average rainfall is about 1,200 mm. The region is very hilly, its lateritic soils are of average agricultural quality, and soil erosion is common. Butaro, Cyeru and Nyamugali communes are in the Buberuka highlands.

2. The volcanic lava highlands. These are generally fertile volcanic soils that are excellent for agricultural production. Annual average rainfall ranges from 1,300 to 1,600 mm. The region includes Kidaho, Kigombe, Kinigi, Mukingo, Nkumba and Nkuli communes. Its major crops are Irish potatoes, maize, peas, climbing beans, sorghum and wheat.

3. The Zaire-Nile basin. This region is situated at altitudes between 1,900 and 2,500 meters. The soils are overcultivated and population density is among the highest in Rwanda. Soil erosion is endemic in the area. Cyabingo, Gatonde, Nyarutovu and Ndusu communes are in this region. It is considered chronically food insecure compared to the rest of Ruhengeri.

4. The highlands with volcanic soils. This is a moutainous region with altitudes varying from 1,800 to 2,000 meters. The soils are prone to erosion as they are on high, steep slopes. The major crops are potatoes, sweet potatoes, sorghum, maize, taro, beans, and bananas. Nyamutera and Nyakinama communes are in the region

The province of Ruhengeri has been affected by widespread insecurity and conflict since the beginning of 1997. The displaced population was estimated to be 400,000 by the end of 1998, more than two-thirds of whom were in IDP camps. WFP-Rwanda delivered food aid in the form of general food distributions, supplementary and therapeutic feeding programs, and FFW projects.

According to the subdirector of technical affairs, the effects of the 1997-98 insecurity are still being felt in many parts of the province, particularly in Bukonya and Bugarura communes where the survey was conducted. The loss of livestock and thus manure is one major effect. Another is the fact that during those years there was no agricultral production. This year's harvest was fair but the recent insecurity in May/June again destabilized the communes. The infiltrators stole crops from the fields and people's houses.

The provincial Food Aid Committee will soon evaluate the extent of the damage and will produce a report on its impact and potential interventions for WFP-Rwanda and other agencies. In the subdirector's opinion, Bukonya and Bugarura communes are the most vulnerable in the province. He emphasized the fact that, despite the common belief that all of Ruhengeri's soils are fertile, parts of the province are food insecure.

621

62




The vulnerable social groups in these three provinces are the same as in the other survey sites: people who are landless or have small landholdings; women-headed households (widows); widowers; orphans and child-headed households; the elderly, handicapped, and destitute; and the repatriates of 1994. Victims of the 1997-98 insecurity are a vulnerable group found only in Bukonya (Ruhengeri) (Table V-47).

The landless and land-poor are vulnerable because they are farmers without essential resources: fertile land and livestock for manure. Agriculture is the primary occupation for the district's population, people are uneducated and do not have nonagricultural skills, and there are no local alternatives such as industry. Those in Gasiza (Gisenyi) are landless because they sold their land to emigrate to Kibungo and then returned. Twenty percent of the population in Bugarura (Ruhengeri) has only 0.10-0.20 hectares to farm; those in Nyagisagara (Gisenyi) have only 0.30 hectares. Acid, infertile soils and lack of livestock exacerbate the problem of trying to earn a living from small parcels. Some of the land-poor also have large families which gives them a high dependency ratio.

Women- and child-headed households are vulnerable due to lack of physical strength and household labor for work, lack of income to buy food or pay for health care, and lack of family support. Widows often have limited resources and do not have children to help them. Orphans of 14-16 who are household heads are too young to farm, or do not have land or assistance from a family. Women household heads whose husbands are in prison spend much of their time and energy providing food for the prisoners, which is a constraint on supporting the rest of their households.

The elderly and handicapped cannot work, their children often migrate to seek work outside the region, and they do not have adequate social or economic support. The repatriates who returned to Rwanda in 1994 had to build their lives all over again and do not have land to farm. MINALOC is starting to distribute 0.7 hectare parcels to them in Gasiza (Gisenyi). As the provincial summary above notes, Ruhengeri has suffered from insecurity and infiltrators since the war, particularly in 1997-98. The victims in Bukonya lost their harvests, livestock, and homes.


The vulnerable sectors in the area around Dutwe community in Kibuye's Budaha district are Cyanyanza, Musasa, Ngoma, Kibanda, Sanza, and Nyabinombe. They are isolated--far from paved roads and markets—and also have poor soils and high population densities. In Itabire district the vulnerable areas around the survey site of Mahembe community are those at high altitudes on the Zaire-Nile crest. Eight sectors in this area are vulnerable due to lack of local markets and high population density that reduces the size of their landholdings. The lack of local markets is partly due to low agricultural production and causes economic problems for the population. The district authorities also said that households in the areas where tea is grown work only as laborers with the tea and do not produce other crops.

There are nine sectors vulnerable to food insecurity in Bukonya district in Ruhengeri, according to local officials. Busengo's infertile and over-used soils, high population density,

631

63

lack of organic fertilizer, and the bean fly that attacks the bean crop are the reasons for its vulnerability. The eight other vulnerable sectors are: Gahanga, Nyakagezi, Mugunga, Kabingo, Rusoro, Rusasa, Munamira, and Kibumba. They are vulnerable because livestock destroy the summer harvests. Bugarura district also has eight vulnerable districts: Muhororo, Muhaza, Kiganda, Rusayo, Mukono, Gashaki, Rwaza, and Ryandinzi. The reason for their vulnerability is high population density that results in small landholdings for the agricultural population.

The two districts in Gisenyi where the survey was done have a total of ten vulnerable sectors. There are five in Gasiza district: Shaki, Muhungwe, Rurembo, Jomba, and Shyira. Shaki and Shyira have a large number of widows and orphans as a result of the 1997-98 insurgency, and have few livestock and educated people for the same reason. Muhungwe and Rurembo have acid soils and steep slopes that affect production. Jomba's population consists mainly of the elderly as the young have joined the rebels, so the economically active population is small. Nyagisagara district has five vulnerable sectors: Ntaganzwa, Sovu, Rugarama, Gitarama, and Karehe. Acid and infertile soils are the problem in the first four sectors; small landholdings are an additional problem in Sovu, Rugarama, and Gitarama. Mining for coltan and cassiterite are the reason for Karehe's vulnerability.


The mayor in Budaha district (Kibuye) had limited knowledge of changes in the local food security situation. He said that the war destroyed people's assets, including their livestock that are essential for agricultural production. Overall, production has decreased in the area since 1994, which has a negative effect on food security. The mayor in Itabire (Kibuye) reported that political security has improved recently in his sector and therefore production and food security have improved. His long-term view, however, is that production was better before the war and that overall food security has decreased due to the destruction of erosion-control terraces and the population's decreased activity. Production has not been good since 1999; people have been traumatized by the war and do not work as hard as before, so they produce less food. (In the community interviews people said that they are still wary of investing in livestock or erosion control because a war or insurgency could destroy their investment.)

The reports from Ruhengeri are considerably more positive. The population in Bukonya was not affected by the 1994 war but they were displaced and their production curtailed by the 1997-98 insurgency. Security was re-established in 1999-2000 but then they were hit by a long dry season (May to October) that caused a poor harvest. Security recently has improved and they are purchasing goats and sheep, increasing their agricultural production, and repairing their houses. Production in Bugarura was good in 1999 because insecurity and displacement allowed the land to lie fallow in 1997-98. However, the September 2000 and June 2001 bean harvests were poor due to the bean fly.

Improved security also led to improvements in the food-security situation in Gasiza district (Gisenyi). Officials reported that production increased 10-20% and that livestock numbers (sheep, goats, pigs) increased by about 50% in comparison to 1997-98. The former is due to good-quality seed for beans, peas, and potatoes distributed by an NGO (BAIR) and to improved security. The latter is due to improved security that allows the population to return to raising livestock.

641

64

c. Market problems

Open-air markets that do not functional well in the rainy seasons are a problem in these provinces, as elsewhere. The local populations' low production and therefore low purchasing power creates a negative cycle in the markets: external merchants have little incentive to come and bring goods to sell due to limited purchasing power, and there are few goods to buy due to low production (Table V-49). Bad roads that increase costs due to the difficulty of transportation are a further disincentive to outsider merchants. The result is that producers have few buyers for any commodities they do have to sell, such as potatoes in Gasiza (Gisenyi), and they have limited and relatively expensive supplies of basic goods that they need such as soap, oil, and foodstuffs. For example, food staples from other areas do not reach Budaha markets due to lack of local demand and purchasing power. The transport of goods into and out of district markets therefore is limited, which in turn limits producers' income from any surplus they may have. The markets become oriented mainly toward local demand and its lower prices, which is a disincentive to production. The authorities in Bugarura (Ruhengeri) said that the local merchants are leaving due to the population's lack of buying power.

d. Health problems

The most common illnesses in the survey sites are malnutrition, malaria, respiratory illnesses, and worms (Table V-50). HIV/AIDS was reported as a problem only in Itabire (Kibuye). Pneumonia, fevers of unknown origin, and pregnancy-related complications are less common. Malnutrition is the first health problem in Bukonya (Ruhengeri) and the third or fourth in the other areas.



A wider range of social groups was found in these provinces than in the others surveyed. There are "rich" (umukungu) groups in four communities. The middle class (uwifashije), the poor (umukene), and the destitute (umutindi nyakujya) are found in all six communities and the very poor (umutindi) are present in three (see the data appendix for this information in table form). The existence of a rich class and of the very poor is different than the three groups (middle class, poor, and destitute) reported in the communities surveyed in the other provinces.

The rich groups are in Gakumba and Rugarambiro (Gisenyi), Kabara (Ruhengeri), and Dutwe (Kibuye). They constitute only 6-19% of the communities' populations. Like almost all rural Rwandans, the rich are engaged in agriculture and animal husbandry; they also are petty traders, have small shops, and work for the state as teachers and local civil servants. Only in Dutwe (Kibuye) are the rich's activities limited to agriculture and livestock-raising. This group generally has the same number of economically active household members—two to four—as the households in the other social groups.

The rich consistently have more land than the other social groups: 1-3 hectares in Kabara (Ruhengeri); 1-2 hectares in Gakumba and Rugarambiro (Gisenyi); and 1-2 hectares in Dutwe (Kibuye). Given that the average farm size in Rwanda is 0.71 hectare and that it is about 0.51 hectare in Ruhengeri and Gisenyi, the rich obviously control relatively large amounts of this essential resource. They cultivate all of their land, except in Kabara

651

65

(Ruhengeri) where they cultivate two-thirds of it, and in Dutwe (Kibuye) they also rent-in 0.4 to 0.6 hectare of the more productive swamp-land. In Kabara (Ruhengeri) the rich rent-out their land to the poor in exchange for their labor (a practice also reported in Gikongoro). All of the rich have livestock, including 1-5 head of cattle. They also have sheep, goats, pigs and chickens. Perhaps most important, in all four communities they reported that they have enough to eat all year.

Twelve to twenty-six percent of the people in the six communities are defined as "middle class." Their landholdings vary from only half to one hectare in Gakumba (Gisenyi) to two hectares in Mahembe (Kibuye). Most of them have 1-1.5 hectares. However, not all of their land is used or usable. Those in Gakumba exploit at most 80% of their land; those in Kabara (Ruhengeri) have half a hectare of their 1-1.5 hectares planted in trees; those in Mwanza (Ruhengeri) cultivate at most one of their 1-1.5 hectares; and those in Mahembe (Kibuye) have only 0.30 to 0.50 hectare of usable land out of their 1-2 hectares. The topsoil in Mahembe has been lost through erosion so much of the land has been planted in trees; as the people there said, nobody in the community has one hectare of usable land. In Dutwe the middle class rents-in about 0.2 hectare of swamp-land once a year; this is probably the case with the middle class in the other communities as well. Only in Mahembe (Kibuye), which overall was a very poor and isolated community, did the middle class report that they rent-out 0.2 hectare of their land for 1-1,500 FRW per season when they need the cash.

The middle class generally owns cattle and some small ruminants that provide much-needed manure for agricultural production and cash when needed. In three communities (Gakumba, Rugarambiro, and Kabara) they own 0-1 head of cattle; in the other three (Mwanza, Dutwe, Mahembe) they own 1-5. As they pointed out, many people buy bulls because they are cheaper than cows (approximately half the price) so they have manure but no milk. Sheep holdings range from 2-5; goats from 2-10; pigs 0-1; and chickens and rabbits three to ten.

The middle class engages in several activities in addition to agricultural and animal husbandry to earn its living. Some middle-class people are civil servants in the local administration; others are petty traders and semi-skilled workers such as carpenters and masons. Sales of banana beer, small livestock, foodstuffs, milk, and poles for housing are other sources of income.

The poor (umukene) are the largest group in all the communities, 38-65%, except in Kabara (Ruhengeri) where they are only 18% of the population. However, Kabara has a larger proportion of destitutes than most communities as well as a group of the very poor. The poor work in agriculture and wage labor, sell firewood, and trade small amounts of foodstuffs to earn their livings. Those in Gakumba (Gisenyi) work as wage laborers (not salaried workers) in the coltan and cassiterite mines.

This group generally has from 0.15 to half a hectare of land, except in Mahembe (Kibuye) were they have half to one hectare. However, those in Mahembe only cultivate 0.1-0.3 hectare of their land; the rest is unproductive due to erosion and their lack of manure, so it is planted in trees. The others generally cultivate all of their land and in Dutwe (Kibuye) the poor rent-in swamp-land for one season per year. This often is done collectively by a small group of friends who collect the 1-1,500 FRW necessary to rent 0.2 hectare. The poor in Mahembe (Kibuye) often rent-out their land because their harvests are poor, they need the cash, and wage labor is a better use of their labor than cultivating their poor soils without manure.

661

66

The poor own fewer livestock than the better-off classes, and do not own cattle. They usually have a few chickens, 1-3 goats, and 2-10 rabbits. Pigs are owned in Dutwe (Kibuye) and Gakumba (Gisenyi) and the poor in Mwanza (Ruhengeri) may own a cow. As elsewhere, taking care of the middle class's livestock in return for the manure and an offspring is common among the poor in these communities.

A social group defined as "very poor," the umutindi, are found in Mahembe in Kibuye, and Mwanza and Kabara in Ruhengeri. They are 11% of the population in Mahembe, 13% in Karaba, and 39% in Mwanza. They cultivate their land and work as wage laborers to survive; in Kabara they "work and beg for food." The very poor in both communities in Ruhengeri have only 0.04 to 0.05 hectare of land; in Mahembe they have 0.2 to half a hectare. The soil in Mahembe is so infertile that this group rents it all out and earns their living from wage labor and making baskets. Those in Ruhengeri cultivate all their land and in Kabara they rent-in land from the rich in exchange for work. The very poor own 1-2 chickens and in Mwanza (Ruhengeri) may also own a goat. They earn their living from wage labor, renting their land, and selling small livestock. In Mahembe people also get food aid from the French nuns who operate a health clinic and nutritional program.

The poorest group of all is the destitute, who range from only 5-6% of the population in Mwanza (Ruhengeri) and Mahembe (Kibuye) to 28% in Kabara (Ruhengeri). The destitute are usually the elderly, handicapped and the landless; they may also be widows and orphans. Some orphans work for the rich as servants, and the single women farm and work as wage laborers. However, as in all the other communities they are said to be economically inactive and to survive by begging and with community or churches' assistance.

The destitute are landless, have only the plot of land that their house is on, or have 0.01 to 0.05 hectares of land. In Dutwe (Kibuye), three-quarters of the destitute in are landless. In Gakumba (Gisenyi) and Mwanza (Ruhengeri) community members cultivate up to 0.02 hectare of the destitute's land to help support them. Only in Mahembe (Kibuye) do the destitute rent out their land. They do not have livestock, as they cannot care for them or sell them immediately for cash. The destitute are highly food-insecure: in general they never have enough to eat. People give them food after the harvest so that in Dutwe and Mahembe (Kibuye) they have enough to eat during two months of the year, and during four months of the year in Rugarambiro (Gisenyi).


As in all the other survey sites, land is the primary economic resource among both the poor and the middle class all six communities (Table V-51). The one exception to land as the primary resource is in Dutwe (Kibuye), where the poor reported that their hoes are more important because they depend on wage labor due to their low agricultural production. Small livestock generally are the poor's second most important economic resource, except in Gakumba (Gisenyi) where land for mining is their second resource, and their houses the third. The poor's other resources are limited in type: household goods, tools, and banana plantations.

Land definitely is the middle class's first-ranked resource, followed by livestock in most cases or by their houses (Table V-51). Although they are relatively well-off in comparison to the rest of their communities their material resources also are quite limited. They reported tree plantations (usually on land unusable for agriculture), wooden barrows, bank accounts, household goods, bicycles, radios, and cash savings of 2,500-20,000 FRW as their other major resources.

671

67

Overall the women cited land as their most important resource, as well as banana trees, household food, and livestock (Table V-52). Land apparently is equally important to both married and single women, although in both communities in Kibuye it is reported as single women's third resource. Livestock are consistently married women's second most important resource, followed by household goods, tools, and housing. Housing and livestock are equally important as single women's second resource, followed by household goods and, in Dutwe (Kibuye), cattle. Livestock evidently are more important in single women's livelihood strategies than land.


Education among both men and women is limited (much information about the poor from this question is missing). In Mahembe (Kibuye) the poor reported that men have a maximum of three years of primary education and that women have none (Table V-53). Some of the poor in Kabara (Ruhengeri) must have an education because they are qualified primary school teachers. Overall the poor reported that they have the physical strength to work. Men have a variety of skills: metalsmithing, basket-weaving, pottery, masonry, carpentry, and brick-making and laying. Poor women's skills include weaving sisal mats and embroidery. As in most of the other survey sites, community associations do not exist among the poor except for "good neighbor relations."

Education among the middle class also is mainly limited to primary school (Table V-52). Most people in Dutwe (Kibuye) complete primary school and in Mahembe (Kibuye) the middle class reported that 70% of their households are literate. Some work as teachers and nurses in Mwanza (Ruhengeri) so they probably have secondary education or more. Nonagricultural skills among the middle class include carpentry, brick-making, and masonry among the men, and weaving among the women. The middle class in Dutwe (Kibuye) reported that they have no such skills. The only community associations are tontines for mutual financial help among friends in Dutwe (Kibuye) and Mwanza (Ruhengeri)


Agriculture is the most important component of the poor's livelihood strategy, although wage labor is their mainstay in Mwanza (Ruhengeri). Agriculture generally accounts for about half of household income among the poor (50-61%), except in Mahembe (Kibuye) where it generates only 39% and in Mwanza (Ruhengeri) where it is not even reported as an economic acitivity (Table V-54). Wage labor generates 80% of the poor's income in Mwanza, which makes their livelihood strategy very different from the rest. The poor's secondary sources of income include small livestock, wage labor, mining, and nonagricultural activities (masonry and carpentry). Mining is a major activity only in Gakumba (Gisenyi) where it produces 30% of income. Wage labor provides 20-30% of income in Kabara (Ruhengeri) and Mahembe (Kibuye).

Small animal husbandry was reported as people's number-two activity in Dutwe (Kibuye) although it generates considerably less income than their nonagricultural activities. Animal husbandry generates about one-third of household income in Mahembe (Kibuye) but it is important to note that this is in the form of care-taking for the middle class rather than ownership. Petty trade is a tertiary activity in Rugarambiro (Gisenyi). Nonagricultural activities (brick-making, pottery, weaving, metalsmithing, carpentry, masonry) are major sources of income in Dutwe (Kibuye) and Kabara (Ruhengeri), although they are of minor importance among the poor in the other communities.

681

68

Agriculture and animal husbandry clearly are the principal components of the middle class's livelihood strategy, and their relative importance is greater than among the poor (Table V-54). Agriculture generates 50-90% of household income among the middle class, a reflection of their control of the resources essential for production, such as fertile land, manure, and hired labor. Livestock account for 10-28% of income in this social group, except in Rugarambiro (Gisenyi) and Kabara (Ruhengeri) where carpentry and masonry are reported as the number-two activities. The other components of the middle class's livelihood strategy are nonagricultural activities (carpentry, masonry, brick-making), teaching, state employment, nursing, and tailoring. The last four are of very minor importance.

Married women's major economic activity is agriculture, which accounts for 24-70% of their contribution to household income (Table V-55). Wage labor is an important secondary activity and in Dutwe (Kibuye), where agricultural production evidently is not productive, accounts for 76% of women's earnings. Petty trade in foodstuffs and sorghum beer and weaving mats are women's secondary activities. Animal husbandry as an activity and source of income was reported only in Kabara (Ruhengeri) and Mahembe (Kibuye) and contributes only 10-16% to their income.

Agriculture is the most important activity and source of income for most single women, and accounts for 34-65% of their income in four communities. The two major exceptions are Mwanza (Ruhengeri) and Dutwe (Kibuye) where wage labor generates 65-70% of women's income (Table V-55). Agriculture is the second most important source of income for the single women in Mwanza and Dutwe (35% and 20% respectively). Those who depend primarily on agriculture report wage labor for money or food as their secondary economic activities. Single women's other, minor income-generating activities include weaving, the sale of foodstuffs, renting out land, and selling beer. Trade in potatoes in Rugarambiro (Gisenyi) is an important women's activity and provides 25% of income.


a. Sources of food

The poor obtain 20-68% of their food from their own agricultural production (Table V-56). The proportions are lowest in Ruhengeri and Kibuye (Dutwe) and highest in Gisenyi. Purchases, mainly with money earned from wage labor, are the source of 20-80% of the poor's food. Purchases are a particularly significant source of food (80%) for the poor in Kabara (Ruhengeri) who evidently cannot produce much. The poor in Mahembe (Kibuye) also rely on purchases for more than half of their food (56%). Wage labor paid in food accounts for 36% of the food supply in Dutwe (Kibuye) and mining accounts for 30% in Gakumba (Gisenyi). Petty trade is an important source in Rugarambiro (28%) and in fact their only source other than agriculture. Minor food sources among the poor are nonagricultural activities in Dutwe (Kibuye) and food aid in Mwanza (Ruhengeri).

As in the other survey sites, the middle class's major source of food is its own agricultural production, followed by purchases (Table V-56). Agriculture provides 60-72% of the middle class's food, which indicates that having access to key resources such as good land, rented-in land, manure, and the money to hire labor results in good production. Purchases make up most of the rest of the middle class's food supply, from 10-40%. Livestock and commodity sales often are the source of cash for these purchases. The middle class's other sources of food are minor: wage labor, migration, sales of beer, and food aid.

691

69

Single women's major sources of food are their own production, purchases, and wage labor (Table V-57). Production accounts for 32-67% of their food supply, except in Mwanza (Ruhengeri) where it provides only 5%. Production is an important source of food for single women in Kabara (Ruhengeri), Gakumba (Gisenyi), and Mahembe (Kibuye). Purchases provide 18-33% of this group's food except in Mwanza (Ruhengeri) where it provides 95%. Wage labor is the third major source of single women's food; it provides 30-35% in Gisenyi and 68% in Dutwe (Kibuye) from payment in kind rather than cash. Family and food aid make very minor contributions to single women's food supply, 10% or less.


The rainy seasons generally are in the same months throughout these provinces. The spring rains begin in March/April and continue through May, sometimes sprinkling into June. The fall rains being in September/October and continue through November/December. As elsewhere, the rainy seasons are usually when people are hungry as they have used their seed stocks for sowing or spent their cash to buy seed (see data appendix). The rains limit field work so wage labor is scarce. The hungry months therefore are March/April to early June, and September to December, or until the bean harvest begins in December.

The major harvest periods are December to January/February or even March and the summer harvest that begins in June/July and ends in August/September. People report that generally these are the months that they have enough to eat. Beans, potatoes, and sweet potatoes are the major harvests in the fall; beans, sorghum, and wheat in the summer. The women in Dutwe (Kibuye) said that even before the war their harvests usually were not sufficient to provision their households all year and that although the situation has deteriorated since the war people do not go hungry, although they might eat only one food, such as manioc or sweet potatoes, in the hungry seasons. This is generally the case in the other communities also, and sweet potatoes are a hungry-season staple. Wheat production was reported only in high-altitude Mahembe (Kibuye) where it is important because it fills a seasonal food-gap.

Staple foods vary to some extent depending on location but there is a core set that everybody depends on. Sweet potatoes, beans, sorghum, cassava, cassava leaves, and cooking bananas generally are eaten in all six communities. Sorghum beer is drunk in the summer months after the harvest, as early as April/May in Rugarambiro (Gisenyi). Cooking bananas are eaten year-round in Gakumba (Gisenyi) but only a few months of the year in the other communities. Sweet potatoes are a staple and eaten all year in most communities or several months of the year. Peas are eaten only in Gakumba (Gisenyi), Kabara (Ruhengeri), and Mahembe (Kibuye); people in Mahembe said that they do not produce well so little is sown. Manioc leaves are eaten year-round or during the rainy season, depending on the quantity planted. Only the people in Kabara (Ruhengeri) reported eating corn; others said that it is no longer worth planting because the production is so low.

Wild foods—greens, animals, insects, fruit—are not eaten in Rwanda and the question always provokes laughter. There are some fruits such as wild strawberries that children eat and people harvest the amaranth that sprouts after the rains, but gathering wild foods is not part of their consumption patterns. Wild plants are used for traditional medicines, not food, people said. They also pointed out that there is little if any forest and its wild products left in Rwanda.

Only in Dutwe (Kibuye) that is about an hour from Lake Kivu did people report that sambaza, the small, local fish from the lake and dried ndagala from Tanzania are eaten in small quantities all year. In the other communities meat generally is eaten only once or twice

701

70

a year, at Christmas and New Years, and fish is rarely eaten. Milk is available during the rainy seasons but owning cattle does not mean that milk is abundant as many people have bulls rather than cows.


The poor have enough to eat 3-5 months of the year and apparently are better off in Gisenyi and Ruhengeri than in Kibuye (Table V-58). Most of them do not have enough to eat 4-5 months of the year. The middle class has enough to eat 4-8 months of the year except in Kibuye where the figure is only three. Those in Gisenyi and Ruhengeri again are apparently better off than their peers in Kibuye. The middle class reportedly does not have enough to eat for 1-3 months in Gisenyi and Ruhengeri, and for 4-6 months in Kibuye. The figures from Kibuye are not surprising as the province in general is poor and historically has been socially and economically isolated from the rest of the country. Mahembe is a very isolated community in the highlands; the French nuns who have a nutritional center there reported that the people's nutritional status was extremely poor, the worst in the sector.

The reasons why the poor do not have enough to eat are shown in order of importance in Table V-59. The most frequently cited reasons are: small fields, lack of livestock/manure, lack of wage labor, small harvests, and many dependents. Their other reasons are infertile soil, illness, lack of markets for their production, and lack of seed because it is consumed for food. Gakumba (Gisenyi) has the particular problem of losing good farmland to landslides due to mining.

The middle class's reasons for insufficient food are in Table V-60. The most frequent reasons are climate change, infertile land, and lack of inputs (seed, fertilizer, minerals, pesticides) and technical assistance. Other reasons are small fields as a result of population growth, loss of wage labor opportunities since development projects ended due to the war, plant diseases, lack of manure, decrease in livestock and in the importance of raising them as an economic activity, and insecurity in 1997-98 and 2001. The latter was reported only in Mwanza (Ruhengeri).

Single women's reasons for their lack of food show the particular problems that they face as their household's breadwinner. The main reasons they cited are lack of manure, infertile soils, lack of cultivable land, illness (malaria, diarrhea, malnutrition), payment of school fees, and lack of household labor (Table V-61). Other reasons are their lack of means to control erosion, lack of the more fertile swamp-land to cultivate, lack of work during the hungry season, and the fact that they cannot leave their children and homes to migrate and look for work.


Questions about HIV/AIDS were addressed to the women in all six communities. The response to the status of HIV/AIDS as a local problem was that it is not: it is not known locally, or only heard of on the radio, or people have heard about a few cases (Table V-62). The women in Mahembe (Kibuye) said that people in the community die of malnutrition, not HIV/AIDS. Those in Rugarambiro (Gisenyi) said that the "victims" died of witchcraft or poisoning. All the other women's groups said that there were no social effects as the disease was not known. The women in Gakumba (Gisenyi) knew of a few cases and said that, in terms of its effects on food security, the disease reduce household labor and is a drain on its resources due to the cost of medical care.

711

71


The poor in Ruhengeri said that traditionally they had more manure to fertilize their land, a more diverse crop mix, and therefore more foodstuffs to store in their granaries. Other traditional strategies were inter-household sharing and social help (Table V-63). They also bought foodstuffs from more fertile areas and sold livestock to buy food. The poor in Gakumba (Gisenyi) also said that traditionally they kept their bean and corn harvest in storage to provision their households. Wage labor, renting-in land, artisanry to earn money, and using manure from livestock are the traditional coping strategies for lack of food in Kibuye and Rugarambiro (Gisenyi).

New strategies include using compost instead of manure, migrating to seek work, traveling long distances to market their commodities, and increased wage labor. The poor in Gakumba (Gisenyi) cultivate short-cycle vegetables in order to generate income quickly. Those in Kabara (Ruhengeri) also seek help from distant relatives. Migrating for work outside their region and spending long periods there is new for the poor in Rugarambiro (Gisenyi). The people in Mwanza (Ruhengeri) apply manure directly when they sow because they have less of it.

The middle class's traditional strategies for coping with lack of food were to fallow their land, stock the harvests (sorghum, corn, beans) in their granaries, rotate their crops based on the seasons, use their livestock as a safety net when there were food shortages, intercrop, and use manure (Table V-64). They also traded in foodstuffs, got help from their neighbors, engaged in wage labor, and the men migrated to find work. Their new coping strategies are quite different. They rent-in land, both hillside and swamp fields, in other communities where it is more fertile, build up their herds in order to have more manure, and plant vegetative hedgerows to control erosion. Those in Mwanza (Ruhengeri) reported rotating their crops, using chemical fertilizer and improved seed, cultivating in rows, and penning their livestock to conserve the manure. Those in Kabara (Ruhengeri) learn nonagricultural skills such as carpentry, masonry, brick- and tile-making in order to generate revenue.

The changes in coping strategies the middle class reports is that before it was not necessary to sell livestock to buy food. Migration to distant areas was unknown; people did wage labor close to home. Food aid is not a coping strategy in these communities; only the people in Dutwe (Kibuye) received any and that was only once.


a. The poor

The poor's two most frequently cited problems are illness (or the lack of money to pay for health care) and lack of wage labor (Table 65). The latter is specifically phrased as "lack of projects for wage labor" in Gakumba (Gisenyi) and Mwanza (Ruhengeri), where development projects ended because of the war and where local officials as well as the population emphasizes the need for their return. Poverty, lack of manure, and lack of food are the next most frequently cited problems. Others include lack of education, increase in school fees, decreased agricultural production, lack of markets to sell commodities, small fields, and, only in Mwanza (Ruhengeri), insecurity. The fact that the poor cited illness and lack of wage labor as problems more frequently rather than what might be expected—small fields, infertile soils, low production—gives some insight into their situation. As many said, give us wage labor and manure to increase production and we will take care of our health, education, and food security.

721

72

Lack of money for health care and medicine, malnourishment that makes people susceptible to illness, and increase in the cost of health care are the reasons for illness. Lack of projects due to insecurity is the universal reason for people's lack of wage labor (Table V-65). Poverty is due low agricultural production for consumption and sale, insecurity that prevents or limits production, lack of work, smaller harvests, and insufficient land to cultivate. The war and its destruction of livestock is the reason for lack of manure. Insufficient food is the result of poor soil; lack of manure, seed, and hoes; drought and climate change; erosion and flooding that further impoverishes their soil; and lack of work to earn money to buy food. The lack of markets to sell local production is partly because the cooperatives that the local NGOs supported have disappeared due to the war. Decreased production in Mwanza (Ruhengeri) is the result of losing farmland to the government resettlement schemes, insecurity, and reduced soil fertility due to lack of manure. Small fields in Kabara (Ruhengeri) are due to high population density and land fragmentation.

The poor's coping strategies for poor health are the use of traditional medicine because it is less expensive than modern treatment, and health insurance although it is too expensive for most people. Those in Mahembe (Kibuye) seek treatment at the nuns' clinic where they can work off their bills at the rate of 200 FRW per day. Health insurance (the mutuelle) is universally reported as too expensive by the poor; in Kabara (Ruhengeri) only 30% paid it this year. People cope with lack of work with short-term migration, engaging in nonagricultural activities such as carpentry and masonry, working for their neighbors, seeking work in the mines in Gakumba (Gisenyi), and migrating to better-off districts to seek odd jobs.

People cope with poverty by using compost to increase their production and sell it to earn money, doing wage labor, migrating, and eating less. Compost and mulch are used to replace manure. They deal with lack of food by doing wage labor, migrating, or selling livestock. The only strategy for lack of markets is to transport their commodities on their heads to markets, and the coping strategy for decreased production is to work for food.

The potential interventions suggested by the poor in all six communities surveyed for each of their problems are presented in Table V-66 and summarized here:

Free inputs: hoes, fertilizer, seed. Form associations for access to credit and restocking through revolving

livestock credit projects (goats, sheep, pigs) Training for adults in agriculture and free education for children from poor

households. Re-establish local projects as sources of wage labor, including projects to re-

introduce livestock, support associations, and income-generating projects. Cooperatives to support producers. Reduce health-care fees and create associations to collect the money necessary

for health insurance. Make essential medicine available locally Micro-projects through the local Community Development Committees.

731

73

b. The middle class

The problems most frequently reported by the middle class are insufficient harvests (or lack of food), illness, climate change, theft of their harvests, and lack of wage labor (Table V-67). Other problems include children abandoning school, infertile land, loss of livestock, small fields, late payment of salaries, and lack of money. Diseases in the bean crop is a problem only in Kabara (Ruhengeri) and lack of diverse crops and insecurity are reported only in Ruhengeri in the community of Mwanza.

The reasons for insufficient harvests are old or infertile soils, lack of manure, climate change, and the termination of the CYNAD project in Mwanza (Ruhengeri). Expensive medicine and distant clinics, lack of a good diet that makes people susceptible to illness, and the high cost of medical care are the reasons for illness. There are two reasons for harvest-thefts: hungry people and, in Gakumba (Gisenyi), thugs exploiting local insecurity. Lack of wage labor is due to the absence of local projects.

Infertile land in Rugarambiro (Gisenyi) is caused by erosion on steep slopes, their loss of livestock is due to theft by the rebels, and their small fields are the result of population increase (Table V-67). The people in Gakumba (Gisenyi) whose salaries are late said that it is because they are paid from taxes that are late, and that their lack of money is the result of having lost their livestock that formerly were a source of cash.

The middle class copes with insufficient harvests with market purchases, sales of goats and chickens to raise cash to buy food, choosing good types of seed and using compost, and borrowing money from the local bank to restock in order to have manure. The strategies to cope with illness are the use of traditional medicine and health clinics and the sale of small livestock to pay for medical care. Lack of wage labor is offset by trade in potatoes that generates cash and, while hoping for a project to provide work, organizing small tontines to raise cash. Harvest thefts are dealt with by hiring sentinels but that can be expensive, as in Mahembe (Kibuye) where the sentinel is paid half of the crop. In Gakumba (Gisenyi) people take care of their own local security.

The people in Rugarambiro (Gisenyi) plant grass on their infertile land to reduce the speed of the water that causes erosion. They are slowly restocking to replace the livestock stolen by the rebels. The salaried workers in Gakumba (Gisenyi) rely on their own harvests when their salaries are late and sell their livestock when they need to pay school fees and buy supplies. Climate change that affects production is offset by livestock sales and growing drought-resistant crops. And in Ruhengeri, that is still affected by insecurity, the middle class said that is "rushes to sell livestock and food stocks" so that they will not be stolen by the rebels.

The interventions proposed by the middle class in the six communities surveyed are in Table V-68. They can be summarized as:

Make available agricultural inputs at a low price to improve production TA and training from the district's agronomists to improve production. Low-price medicines, free medical care, sufficient and competent staff in the health

centers and sufficient medicines. The creation of technical schools to teach skills such as masonry and carpentry. The creation of small community projects and associations. . Agricultural projects in the region that would provide wage labor and provide inputs

and livestock on credit in order to increase production and solve the theft problem. Income-generating projects and food assistance for students.

741

74

Projects that provide livestock on credit for reimbursement later. Family planning. Reforestation to address the drought problem and a project to help produce drought-

resistant crops such as soya, sunflower, and sorghum Small projects with help from the Community Development Committee and primary

materials for nonagricultural activities. FFW to make terraces.

c. Women

1) Married women

Married women's most common problems are lack of food and insufficient harvests, poverty, poor soils, and illness (Table V-69). They also have the problems of small fields, lack of livestock/manure, diseases in beans, many dependents, lack of markets for their produce, lack of off-farm employment, and lack of housing. The reasons for the first problem are poor and infertile soils, and lack of employment. Poverty is the result of lack of livestock, lack of work and markets, and small fields and poor soil. Poor soils in turn are due to lack of manure and over-cultivation. Illness and malnutrition are caused by lack of sufficient food, numerous dependents, and lack of access to clean water.

Small fields are the result of high population density and lack of livestock/manure is due to lack of pasture and theft by the rebels. The beans suffer from pests because the women lack fertilizers and extension services. Lack of knowledge about family planning results in large families and many dependents. Lack of markets, that was reported only in Rugarambiro (Gisenyi) is due to poor roads. Lack of employment is due to the departure of the projects.

Men's migration to other provinces to seek work and women's cultivating "as much as possible" are the coping strategies for lack of food and harvests. They cope with poverty by men's migration to Kigali to work, working harder and migrating for longer periods, and restocking with small livestock. Women address the problem of poor soils and small fields by using the little manure they have from sheep and making compost. Traditional medicine and assistance from the UNICEF and WFP nutritional centers are the solutions to illness and malnutrition. At this time there is no coping strategy for the lack of livestock, bean pests, or having many children and not enough food.

The interventions that the married women recommended are (Table V-70):

Restocking of small livestock through rotating credit schemes. Make available chemical fertilizer at affordable prices. Projects for employment. Increase the number of nutritional centers. Technical assistance from agricultural extension services. Awareness-raising about family planning (ONAPO). Projects to rehabilitate roads in order to improve marketing. Awareness-raising so that women know their rights. Reduction of the costs of medical care. Micro-credit to start small businesses and buy livestock. Children's vaccination campaigns. Support for women's associations.

2) Single women

751

75

Illness and malnutrition, and infertile soils and small fields, are the most common problems reported by single women (Table V-71). Lack of manure, clothes, and shelter are additional problems, followed by poor harvests and poverty. Erosion and lack of livestock, tools, off-farm employment and markets are less fequently cited problems. The reasons for illness and malnutrition are lack of food and money, too many children to feed, no access to health care, and lack of money for medicine. Infertile soils and small fields are the result of high population density, land degradation and fragmentation, lack of manure, and over-exploitation. Destocking is the reason for lack of manure; people do not have housing because it was destroyed during the war, and their lack of tools and clothes is due to lack of employment and therefore money.

The single women in Mwanza (Ruhengeri) said that they have no means to fight erosion due to the lack of extension services. Lack of pasture is the reason for having few livestock in Kabara (Ruhengeri). Poor harvests, poverty, and insufficient food are the result of small parcels, poor soil, and low production. In Rugarambiro (Gisenyi), poor roads have had a negative effect on marketing and the disappearance of projects due to the war have resulted in lack of off-farm employment.

Single women have few coping strategies for their problems of infertile soils and low production. They seek wage labor to compensate for low production, those who have sheep have a little manure for their fields, and they plant a variety of crops. They have no strategies for coping with erosion, lack of manure, and small fields. Their basic response to low production, lack of money for food and other essentials, and poverty is wage labor, trying to raise livestock, engaging in petty trade of small quantitites of foodstuffs, and migrating for longer periods. The women in Rugarambiro (Gisenyi) said that they have a limited ability to restock, which is critical because manure is essential for production, so they have liaisons with married men for help and social protection.

The women in Mwanza (Ruhengeri) use traditional medicine to treat illnesses such as malaria and diarrhea. The others said that they seek treatment for their children at the local nutritional centers. Lack of access to markets due to poor roads in Rugarambiro (Gisenyi) means that women sell their commodities, particularly wheat, locally and at lower-than-market prices. The focus of their coping strategies is to try and restock in order to have manure, and to find wage labor to generate the money they need for essentials such as hoes, clothing, food, and medical care.

Single women recommended the following interventions for their problems (Table V-72): Restocking (goats, sheep) through rotating credit schemes and credit for agricultural

tools. TA from extension services, including TA to build terraces. Projects to provide employment opportunities. Assistance for constructing housing. Make available manure and organic fertilizer. Projects to rehabilitate roads in order to improve access to markets. Reduce the costs of education and medical care. Reinforce community help. Micro-credit for women for restocking and to start small businesses. Children's vaccination campaigns. Support for women's associations.

761

76

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adelski, E., "Rwanda: the Land of a Thousand Cemeteries, Food and Household Livelihood Security Country Profile,' draft report, CARE/USA, 1998.

Drake, S., A. Kasasa, and J.B. Nkusi, "Current Vulnerability Mapping Situation Analysis," July 2001, Kigali, Rwanda.

Farming Systems Research Project and the Division of Agricultural Statistics, Minister of Agriculture, Animal Resources, and Forestry, "Food Security Survey: Phase I, Agricultural Production and Land Use, Season 2000A," Kigali, Rwanda.

Frankenberger, T. R. and M.K. McCaston, "From Food Security to Livelihood Security: the Evolution of Concepts," 1998.

Frankenberger, T. R. and M.K. McCaston, "Developing Household Livelihood Security Profiles," 2001.

Gikongoro Annual Report for 2000 ("Raporo Y'Umwaka w'2000, Perefegitura Gikongoro"), Gikongoro, Rwanda.

Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry, and Forests, "Agenda Agricole 2001," Support Project for Food Security in Rwanda (PASAR), European Community, Kigali, Rwanda.

Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning, Department of Statistics, and National Office of Population, "Socio-demographic survey, preliminary report," 1996 Kigali, Rwanda.

Ministry of Finances and Economic Planning, Department of Statistics, "Survey of Multiple Indicators (MICS2), final report," June 2001, Kigali, Rwanda.

Stanley, A., "WFP/VAM Consultation and Consolidation with Food Security Experts, July 2001, Kigali, Rwanda

United Nations-Rwanda, "Common Country Assessment, Rwanda," 1999-2000, Kigali, Rwanda.

771

77

Date post:	09-Apr-2019
Category:	Documents
Upload:	trandang
View:	220 times
Download:	0 times

I · Web viewThe survey identified seven social groups whose ... Rwanda's population and economy...

Documents