A study on poverty alleviation strategies in Rwanda

Dr Sudarsanam DORAVARI
Dr Venuste MURINDA
Dr Daniel N. RUKAZAMBUGA
Faculty of Agriculture, National University of Rwanda.
Abstract:
In order to achieve speedy economic growth and alleviate
poverty, this study attempts to show how agricultural
research generates agricultural productivity growth
which can improve the living conditions of the poor. A
sample survey has been conducted in the study area
using a questionnaire to ascertain the level of
agricultural productivity and several areas of agricultural
research required were identified. They basically revolve
around introducing new crops and increase the
agricultural base, which leads to increased agricultural
productivity and agro-processing industries.
Key words: Poverty alleviation, agricultural productivity,
rural livelihood diversification, diversity of fruits and
vegetable crops.
Abrégé :
Afin de réaliser une croissance prompte de l’économie et
réduire la pauvreté, cette étude essaye de montrer
comment la recherche agricole peut croître la
productivité agricole en améliorant les conditions de vies.
Une enquête par échantillonnage a été menée en utilisant
un questionnaire pour s'assurer du niveau de
productivité agricole et plusieurs domaines de recherche
agricoles exigés ont été identifiés. Ils s’agissaient
fondamentalement d’introduire des nouvelles cultures et
améliorer la base agricole, qui accroît la productivité
agricole et des industries agro-alimentaires.
Mots clés : Réduction de la pauvreté, productivité
agricole, diversification rurale de vie, diversité des fruits
et légumes.

1
 INTRODUCTION

Rwanda faces enormous development challenges

which are for beyond its means: poverty, an economy
dominated by low-yield subsistence Agriculture,
resource scarcity, soil degradation and the legacy of
the genocide. Rwanda is helping itself; it has developed
a credible frame work for its own development
initiatives and through the international community
activities.

The key objectives of poverty reduction [ CITATION Min \l

1033 ] strategy are to increase economic growth,
reduce population growth, combat extreme poverty,
and ensure more effective poverty reduction strategies.
In the area of Agriculture, the main program includes
the intensification of sustainable production system in
crop cultivation and animal husbandry; building the
technical and organizational capacity of farmers by
promoting commodity chains and agribusiness; and
strengthening institutional framework of the sector at
central and local level. The program also recognizes
the importance of environmental and land priorities of
ecosystems and the rehabilitation of degraded areas
and strengthening newly established central and
decentralized institutions, special attention will be
paid to sustainable land tenure security through the
planning and management of land registration and
rational land use, soil and water conservation,
combating deforestation, preservation of biological
diversity, adaptation and mitigation against the impact
of climate change.

These objectives form part of vision 2020 and the

expected outcomes are: creation of non agricultural
jobs; increased agricultural productivity and
production; greater protection and rehabilitation of
2
natural environment; greater access to the means of
production for women and men in rural areas; less
vulnerable farmers, diversification of the rural
economy; greater awareness of ways to prevent
HIV/AIDS among rural population.

In the long term, the program will help transform

Rwanda’s economy by increasing rural income and
purchasing power as well as enhancing savings and
investments. Strengthened infrastructure will also lead
to better environmental management and protection.

Ultimately these initiatives will strengthen the enabling

environment for the rural private sector, increasing the
access of poor farmers to markets and expanding the
commercial potential of Agriculture.

Rapid environmental degradation, declining food

security, and unstable population growth are
significantly linked to one another, and also to chronic
poverty. The dominance of low yield Agriculture, the
use of fire wood as the chief source of household
energy, not to mention the years of conflict and
repeated population shifts, have all taken a heavy toll
on Rwanda’s soils, forests and water.

Natural resource management must receive constant

attention if sustainable development is to be achieved.
Rehabilitation and conserve natural resources directly
and also build capacity for environmental protection.
Promoting poverty reduction by supporting
modernization of the rural economy will help ease the
pressure on natural resources.

Some of the major factors contributing to increasing

poverty in Rwanda are:

3
1. Low agricultural productivity leading to poorer
yields for major crops;
2. Population pressure on arable land;
3. Poor agricultural marketing in rural areas;
4. Rural unemployment/under employment;
5. Lack of savings and investment in rural households;
6. Weak environment conservation practices.

Agricultural productivity and poverty

Agricultural growth will benefit the rural poor and

reduce food prices for the urban poor[ CITATION Col011 \l
1033 ]. The urban growth process is going to be driven
by the agricultural sector. This paradigm has not been
overturned in spite of failure of Agricultural projects in
some countries and consequently the rise of “New
Growth Theories” which emphasize the dominant role
of technologies, infrastructure and education. Much of
the literature shows that Agricultural growth precedes
growth in manufacturing and services, but not the
other way round. Growth in Agriculture is always in
favor of the poor subject to fair ownership of land and
has ripple effect by increasing non-farm income
through rural diversification.

In short, growth in Agriculture drives rural

development by directly benefiting the poor by
increasing their production and creating employment
opportunities to landless. It also creates opportunities
for the poor to migrate due to growth in industrial
sector; reduced food prices help the poor to spend less
proportion of their income on food and also enables
them to participate in decision making, collective
action and withstand calamities by means of their
savings and assets building.

4
Agricultural technology has initially provided food
security in Asian countries by increasing staple crops
yields by several times and benefited largely farmers
with irrigation facility but later it also benefited rain
fed farmers by providing improved varieties of crops
suitable for semi arid lands.

It is therefore necessary to accelerate research in

agricultural technology which increases agricultural
productivity in marginal land and thereby reduce
poverty. Technical advisory committee of CGIAR (2000)
[ CITATION Idr92 \l 1033 ] states its new goal as: “To
reduce poverty, hunger, and malnutrition by
sustainably increasing the productivity of resources in
Agriculture; forestry and fisheries.” CGIAR will develop
a two pronged approach for the future support of
agricultural research, in favored environments to
ensure food security and prevent future poverty, while
at the same time tackling the more complex problems
of poverty in the marginal and hard areas.

IFAD’s response in its Rural Poverty Report

2001[ CITATION Ati01 \l 1033 ]: the challenges of ending
rural poverty (IFAD, 2001). It argues that the only way
to achieve the target of halving poverty by 2015 and
reaching other development goals as set out in the
millennium declaration into focus on rural poverty
reduction, to reverse the decline in the flow of
resources to the rural and agricultural areas and to
ensure that the institutions in the rural areas are
developed in order to increase the capabilities of the
poor to help themselves.

The aim and objective

The aim is to study the agricultural productivity, the

rural livelihoods and their living conditions in a
5
sample population of two villages: KINTEKO and
DUWANE of GISAGARA district. In KINTEKO village,
two groups were identified with relatively large gap in
income based on their living standards (such as
cement and mud house). However, in DUWANE, it was
not possible to differentiate the two distinct groups
based on living standards, so a single population was
surveyed.

The objective of the study is to unravel the differences

in assets, access, and activities and come up with
strategies for poverty alleviation through appropriate
old and new agricultural technologies and relevant
types of agricultural research required for poverty
alleviation through increased agricultural productivity.

Methods and materials

Several community development projects are being

carried out by the National University of Rwanda in
GISAGARA district. In furtherance of this effort, two
villages were selected with differential access to water
resource and also the size of the population. DUWANE
village is relatively small with about 50 families located
on the road to GISAGARA district headquarters and it
consists of families with low income and living in
poverty but having a better access to water.

KINTEKO village has a large population and two

groups with differential income each of ten families
were surveyed. The questionnaire consisted of thirty
questions related to ownership of land, farm and off-
farm income, staple crops cultivated, types of
vegetables and fruits grown, livestock reared and
professions engaged in by family members. Most of the
other questions were related to their family food habits
and pressing problems and their desire to diversify
6
their agricultural resources such as new crops and
also their ideas on income generating, on and off-farm
activities which they consider relevant.

One of the areas of old agricultural technology of post-

harvest processing of rice through parboiling was
considered to be an appropriate technology for
introduction into these rural communities because it
creates employment for women to produce parboiled
rice. This processing technique is new to Rwanda and
has significant potential to improve their nutrition and
living condition. The technique involves pre-soaking
rough rice overnight or longer in water at ambient
temperature, followed by boiling or steaming the
steeped rice at 1000c to gelatinize the starch, while the
grain expands until the hull’s lemma and palea start
to separate. The parboiled rice is then cooled and sun-
dried before storage or milling. Parboiled paddy could
not be milled because currently all the small rice
hullers in the market are closed by government order.

The farmers have no choice but to sell the paddy to

licensed agents who in turn supply the same to large
rice millers, the reason given by the government is that
there is high proportion of broken rice when processed
by old, small rice hullers in the local market. As a
result, treated rough rice was hand threshed by
women in DUWANE.

Results and discussions

Diagram 1, 2, 3 depict land area distribution of the

rich and poor families of KINTEKO and moderate
income families of DUWANE.

7
 Diagram 1 Diagram 2

Diagram 3

Diagrams 1, 2, 3 show individual family land holding

and the same are pictorially represented. The results
from KINTEKO show that 40% of the poor families
have less than a hectare and 60% have no land. While
20% of the rich families have one hectare and 10%
have half hectare and 70% have less than half hectare.
Lack of availability of land to the poor families places
them in dire straits and discourages them to directly
participate in future innovations in agriculture. This
unequal land distribution is a major constraint for
accelerated increase in agricultural productivity by the
poor families as against the rich.

In DUWANE, only 10% have no land, 30% have less

than a hectare, 30% have half hectare and 10% have
three quarter of a hectare and 20% have one hectare.
This shows that there is more equitable access to land
8
for the families in DUWANE and it can provide
opportunity for collective action to introduce new
agricultural technologies.
Table 1: Total per annum income in RWF in sample families of
the villages.
KINTEKO
DUWANE
Rich Poor
 FAMILY FARM NON-FARM TOTAL FARM NON TOTAL FARM NON-FARM TOTAL
No INCOME INCOME In RWF INCOME FARM INCOME INCOME
(in RWF) (in RWF) INCOME

1 12000 396000 408000 10000 120000 130000 50000 102000 152000

2 46000 60000 106000 35000 0 35000 53000 0 53000
3 0 949000 949000 2000 108000 110000 0 73200 73200
4 0 600000 600000 30000 0 30000 36000 300000 336000
5 0 480000 480000 0 12000 12000 6000 960000 966000
6 0 960000 960000 0 120000 120000 1000 68000 69000
7 0 732000 732000 7000 480000 487000 0 120000 120000
8 0 732000 732000 10000 0 10000 0 96000 96000
9 0 594600 594600 2000 180000 182000 0 121000 121000
10 0 1548000 1548000 0 217000 217000 5000 240000 245000
Total 58000 7051600 7109600 96000 1237000 1333000 151000 2080200 2231200
Average 5800 795160 710960 9600 123700 133300 15100 208020 223120

Table 2: Percentage of farm and non- farm income of the

families.
KINTEKO     DUWANE
  Poor Rich
Farm income 7.2 0.8 6.8
Non-farm income 93.8 99.2 93.2

Table 3: Size of families

KINTEKO DUWANE
No Poor Rich
1 9 6 3
2 3 8 4
3 6 9 4
4 5 4 6
5 5 4 3
6 4 4 3
7 8 9 3
8 6 9 4
9 4 4 2
10 4 4 7
Total 0 0 0
Average 5.4 6.1 3.9

Diagrams 4, 5 and 6: Class interval distribution of

total income

9
 Diagram 4

Diagram 5

Diagram 6

The Diagrams 4, 5, 6 showing class interval

distribution of total income per annum for the different
groups indicates more heterogeneity among the rich in
KINTEKO and more homogeneity among the poor of
KINTEKO and DUWANE. This can easily be
interpreted due to the different occupations engaged in
by the rich in comparison to the poor in KINTEKO and
those in DUWANE whose occupation is mostly
unskilled labour on and off farm and some petty
trading.

10
Table 4: Types of crops cultivated by the sample population

KINTEKO DUWANE

  Rich Poor  
     
Family Name of Crops Number of Name of Number Name of Number
No item types Crops of items Crops of item types
1 R; B; M; IP; Cau; Ba 6 B; Sg; M 3 B; Sg; SP; M; Sg 5
2 B; Ca; Sg; Cau 4 Sg; B; SP 3 Sg; B; M; R 4
3 B; Sg; R 3 B; IP; SP; Cau 4 B; M; SP; Sg; IP 5
4 Ba; Ca 2 Sg; B; SP 3 B; SP; Sg; M 4
5 B; SP 2 Ba; Cau; B 3 Sg; B; M 3
6 M; B; Sg 3 0 0 Sg; M 2
7 B; Sg; Ca; SP 4 M; Ba; B 3 B 1

8 B; Sg; Ca; SP 4 B; M; SP 3 B; SP; M 3

9 B; Sg; M 3 B; Sg 2 B; M 2
10 B; SP; R; Sg; M 5 B; M; SP; Sg 4 SP; B; Sg; M; Ba 5
  Total: 36 Total: 28 Total: 34
R: Rice; B: Beans; M: Maize; IP: Irish potato; SP: Sweet potato; Cau: Colacasia;
Ba: Banana; Sg: Sorghum; Ca: Cassava.

11
Table 5: Types of vegetables and fruits cultivated by the sample
population

KINTEKO DUWANE
RICH POOR
Fam. Name of item Nbr of Name of Nbr of items Name of item Nbr of items
Nbr Items item
1 Vegetables Aub; A 2 Cb; A; To; Cl 4 A; Cb 2

Fruits Av; G 2 − 0 Av; L; PF 3

2 Vegetables Cb; Aub; C; A 4 A; Cl 2 Cb; A 2

Fruits − 0 Av; TT 2 G 1

3 Vegetables A 1 A 1 A; Cb; C 3

Fruits − 0 − 0 Av 1

4 Vegetables A; Cb; Cl 3 Cb; Aub 2 A 1

Fruits − 0 − 0 Av; G 2

5 Vegetables A 1 A 1 A 1

Fruits − 0 − 0 G 1

6 Vegetables A; On; Cb; Aub 4 − 0 A; Cb 2

Fruits Av; P; Mgo; P 4 − 0 Av; G 2

7 Vegetables A 1 Cb; A 2 C; A 2

Fruits Av 1 − 0 − 0

8 Vegetables A 1 Cb; A 2 A 1

Fruits Av 1 Av 1 − 0

9 Vegetables − 0 A 1 A 1

Fruits − 0 Av 1 − 0

10 Vegetables A; Cb; Aub 3 A 1 A; Cb; Aub 3

Fruits Av; O 2 − 0 Av; P; Ba 3

Total types v: 20 16 18

Total types F: 10 4 13
FRUITS: G: Guava; P: Paw paw; Mgo: Mango; PF: Passion fruit; Av: Avocado; O: Orange; TT:
Tree tomato; −:No item. VEGETABLES: A: Amaranthus; C: Carrots; Aub: Aubergine; To:
Tomato; Cb: Cabbage; Cl: Cassava leaves; On:Onions.

Tables 4 and 5 deal with the different types of staple

crops, vegetables and fruits and the results indicate
that there is very little difference in the number of
types cultivated except that the poor in KINTEKO have
less number of types of fruits grown on their farm, this
can easily be explained, since the majority of them do
12
not have access to land and are either renting land or
given small pieces of land in exchange for their free
agricultural labour. These results indicate that there is
scope for introducing new varieties of particularly
fruits and vegetables for market gardening in order to
diversify the agricultural base and provide employment
for the landless poor.

This can go a long way to increase agricultural

productivity through increased on and off farm income
generation and meet the energy and nutritional
requirements of particularly of the poorer families and
enhance their productivity.

Diagram 7: Types of animals reared by the families

8
7
6
5
Rich
4
Poor
3 Duwane
2
1
0
1. Cows 2. Goats 3. Hens 4. Pigs 5. Rabbits
Diagram 7 is a bar diagram representing different
types of animals and their numbers reared by the
three groups. Only the rich in KINTEKO have cows
while the poor have none. With regard to other
animals, there is no much variation except that the
DUWANE group has more of all types than the poor of
KINTEKO. This clearly indicates that rearing animals
by poorer groups can also alleviate poverty by
generating additional income through livestock
production.
13
 Parboiled rice

Parboiled rice takes longer to cook than raw rice and

may be presoaked in water to reduce the cooking time
to be comparable to that of raw rice. The cooked grains
are less sticky, do not clump end and are resistant to
disintegration, the grains are also harder. They also
tend to expand more in girth rather than in length as
compared to raw rice.

The process of making parboiled rice was

demonstrated and rice was cooked and given to the
villagers for their response. The degree of acceptance
was highly encouraging.

Conclusion

The above study has indicated land as a primary

constraint for increasing agricultural productivity in
addition to slow adoption of high yielding varieties,
cultural practices and modern agricultural
technologies. A major constraint is lack of resources
like water, electricity and capital.

While increasing agricultural productivity would bring

about increased income generation and play a catalytic
role to drive rural development, it alone may not be
able to bring out immediate poverty alleviation among
the poor farmers.

Rural diversification of livelihoods [ CITATION Fra00 \l

1033 ] of this vulnerable group is an urgent need which
cannot be addressed immediately by top down national
programs. There is a need for a shift from the general
to the particular, from seeking single solutions with
wide spread application to addressing specific
problems in a limited context; while recognizing the

14
need for diversity utilizing it to reduce poverty
alleviation requires concerted efforts through an
interdisciplinary approach. Some of the poverty
alleviation strategies for the poor in these villages are
suggested below:

1. Utilizing multipurpose agroforestry species to

improve soil fertility, crop productivity, and provide
fodder and food products;

2. Diversification of vegetable base for own use and

market gardens;

3. Introduction of fast growing fruit trees of existing

and exotic varieties of fruits;

4. Planting of fodder crops particularly for rearing

cattle and fodder trees for goats;

5. Rearing of poultry, rabbits, and fisheries;

6. Improved wood stoves and growing trees for fuel,

wood and timber;

7. Post harvest preservation and transportation of

fruits and vegetables;

8. Rain harvesting and erosion control;

9. Honey production through bee-hives;

10. Introduction of simple agro processing industries

to provide labour and value addition to agro products
such as:

a) Parboiled rice production;

b) Production of rice flakes;

15
c) Producing snack foods through processes from
maize, sorghum and rice;
d) Pickling jams and jelly, cassava and banana chips
production.
e) Extraction of edible oils from sunflower, sesame and
groundnuts seeds.
11.Growing of trees for biofuels on marginal lands;

12.Raising seedlings of fruits and multipurpose trees

for income generation;

13.Acquiring skills in arts and crafts and producing

the raw materials necessary;

14.Vocational training in agro allied and general

professions;

15. Training programs for women in agro processing

and agro allied technologies;

16. Provision of basic infrastructure, incentives and

extension in innovative agro-technologies such as
mushroom cultivation, sericulture, apiculture and
others considered appropriate based on availability of
raw materials and markets.

Overall, I would like to conclude that increase in

agricultural productivity alone for poor families
probably cannot overcome poverty immediately but
when coupled with other innovations to create non
farm incomes, poverty alleviation can be accelerated in
these vulnerable groups and make them resist against
calamities such as drought, famine and climate
change.

There are no shortcuts or quick fixes to poverty

reduction. The process requires dedicated and
consistent commitment that is flexible and involves
16
both the poor and the institutions. Poverty reduction
in low-income countries depends on progress in farm
yields and employment, followed by efforts towards
promoting employment-intensive non-farm activities,
with a fall in the number of people involved in
agriculture and an increase in urbanization. Enhanced
small scale agricultural development can meet
immediate poverty reduction targets and can help
create new opportunities for employment and income
in other sectors. There must be a change in the access
for the poor, especially women, to material factors
such as land, water, infrastructure technology and
knowledge; and participation in institutions and
alliances is essential. It is necessary for broad
partnership to be mobilized. It is the poor who need to
be given power and voice to be able to set up
institutional frameworks that will work.

Acknowledgement:

I thank Rodrigue ISHIMWE and Jean Paul GAFIGI,

students of the Faculty of Agriculture for their
assistance in administering the questionnaire.

References
Colin Thirlel et al. (2001). Poverty and agricultural productivity
Relationship between changes in Agricultural productivity and
the incidence of poverty in developing countries. DFID report No.
7946.

Ellis, F. (2000). Rural livelihood and diversity in developing

countries. Oxford University Press.

Idriss Jazairy, M. A. (1992). The state of world Rural Poverty, An

inquiry into causes and consequences. Intermediate Technology
Publications .

17
IFAD, Poverty and agricultural productivity Relationship between
changes in Agricultural productivity and the incidence of poverty
in developing countries. (2001).

MINECOFIN, Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning.

(2007). Economic Development and Poverty Reduction paper
(EDPRS). Kigali.

Westley, A. R. (2001). The challenge of Ending

Rural Poverty. Development Policy Review , 19
(4): 553-562

18