Graduate School of Development Studies
REDISTRIBUTIVE LAND REFORM IN RWANDA:
THE IMPACT ON HOUSEHOLD FOOD SECURITY
A Research Paper presented by:
Aline Mutabazi
(Rwanda)
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for obtaining the degree of
MASTERS OF ARTS IN DEVELOPMENT STUDIES
Specialization:
Economics of Development
(ECD)
Members of the examining committee:
Dr. Lorenzo Pellegrini (supervisor)
Dr. Jan Van Heemst (reader)
The Hague, The Netherlands
November, 2009
Disclaimer:
This document represents part of the author’s study programme while at the
Institute of Social Studies. The views stated therein are those of the author and
not necessarily those of the Institute.
Research papers are not made available for circulation outside of the Institute.
Inquiries:
Postal address:
Institute of Social Studies
P.O. Box 29776
2502 LT The Hague
The Netherlands
Location:
Kortenaerkade 12
2518 AX The Hague
The Netherlands
Telephone:
+31 70 426 0460
Fax:
+31 70 426 0799
ii
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to my supervisor Dr. Lorenzo Pellegrini for his guidance and
support throughout the research process. I am deeply indebted to him. I also
thank my reader Dr. Jan Van Heemst for stimulating comments of this paper.
Thanks to my family and friends for your love and prayers. Thanks to all those
who sacrificed their time to read and give comments in the entire research
process especially Brenda, Felix, Nokana, Paul and Sebastien.
iii
Contents
List of Tables
List of Figures
List of Maps
List of Acronyms
Abstract
vi
vi
vi
vii
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
1.2 Organisation of the Research Paper
2
2
4
Chapter 2
CONCEPTUAL AND THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
3
2.1 Introduction
5
2.2 Definition of key concepts
5
2.3 A theory on the potential household food security and poverty reduction
impact from land reform
7
2.4 International evidence of poverty-reduction impact of land redistribution at
household level
9
Chapter 3
LAND REFORM AND LAND REDISTRIBUTION
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Background to the land issue in Rwanda
3.3 Land Reform in Rwanda
3.4 Land Redistribution in Rwanda
3.5 Complementary Policies to the Redistributive Land Reform
11
11
11
13
14
16
Chapter4
DATA AND EMPIRICAL STRATEGY
4.1 Data
4.2 Limitation of the study
4.3 Empirical Strategy
4.3.1 Methods for Impact Evaluation
4.3.2 Methods of Measuring Food Security
19
19
20
21
21
22
iv
Chapter5
RESULTS
5.1 Effect of owning land on Food Sources and Diet Diversity
5.2 Effect of owning land on Children’s' Nutritional Status
29
29
34
Chapter6
CONCLUSION
36
References
Appendices
37
41
v
List of Tables
Table 1 Dimension of Food Security and corresponding indicators
6
Table 2 Land Redistribution Situation in Eastern Province of Rwanda
15
Table 3: The categories of land beneficiaries after land redistribution in Eastern
Province of Rwanda
15
Table 4 Food Items, Food Groups, Weights for calculations of the FCS and
Justifications
24
Table 5 Thresholds for creating food consumption groups
24
Table 6 Food Items Consumption
32
Table 7 Food Items Consumption by Food Consumption groups before
owning land
32
Table 8 Food Items Consumption by Food Consumption groups before
owning land
32
Table 9 Comparison of Food Consumptions Groups before and after owning
land
32
Table 10 Frequency (%) of Stunting and Underweight by age and sex
34
List of Figures
Figure 1 The welfare impact from access to land
Figure 2 Conventional Conceptual links between land and Food
Figure 3 Household Food Source after owning land
Figure 4 Household Food Source before owning land
7
7
30
30
List of Maps
Map 1 The Administrative Districts of Rwanda in 2009
vi
40
List of Acronyms
CFVA
DD
DHS
FAO
FCS
HDR
MAR
MDGs
NAR
NLSR
WFP
WHO
Comprehensive Food Security Vulnerability Assessment
Dietary Diversity
Demographic and Health Survey
Food and Agricultural Organisation
Food Consumption Score
Human Development Report
Mean- Nutrient Adequacy Ratio
Millennium Development Goals
Nutrient Adequacy Ratio
National Institute of Statistics of Rwanda
World Food Program
World Health Organisation
vii
Abstract
In 2007 the country of Rwanda started land reform in Eastern and Northern Provinces with the
objective of providing access to land as a means of livelihood to the landless and reducing
inequality in landholdings in those regions. Based on theory and empirics, this redistribution is
expected to have a positive impact on its beneficiaries particularly on household welfare. To
contribute on this important debate, this study investigates the impact of land redistribution on
households’ food security. With data collected using household survey in July 2009 in Kayonza
District, the study tries to assess the impact by using Dietary Diversity and Children’s Nutritional
Status (Stunting, Underweight and Wasted) as proxies of Food Security. The results give evidence
to suggest that access to land has increased the number of people with adequate food quantity
compared to the period before they received land. In addition, the results give evidence to
suggest the improvement in nutrition status of children as the impact of access to land; the
number of children underweight decreased even if many of them are still stunted. This situation
is not surprising, because within 18 months a child can improve in weight but not really in height.
However, among the new landholders there were still an important number of individuals whose
food intake fell below their minimum dietary energy requirements. Hence, this study focuses on
the complementary policies to make land redistribution an efficient tool for food security.
Relevance to Development Studies
One of the important dimensions of welfare improvement expected from access to land is food
security or nutrition well-being. It plays an important role in development through the creation of
human capital with sufficient capacities to provide factors such as labour, finance, education and
care. Consequently, food security as an outcome of all these factors is highly recommended as an
indicator for measuring poverty and sustainable development. Hence, identifying the impact of
land reform on household food security aids policy design and interventions targeting the poor
people with the objective of improving their living standard.
Keywords
Land Reform, Redistributive Land Reform, Household Food Security, Food Consumption Score,
Dietary Diversity, Children’s Nutrition Status, Stunting, Underweight, Rwanda.
1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1
Background
It is argued that improved access to land is good for the poor, particular in terms of food security
and poverty alleviation (see World Bank report, 2005 and FAO report, 2005). Over time
researchers have established links between access to land and improvement in welfare of the
population. Prosterman and Hanstad (2006), for example, have argued that for poor rural
families, land plays a dominant role in their economic and social lives, and their relationship to
the land largely defines their access to opportunity, income, economic and nutrition security, and
status within the community.
To improve and secure land for poor families, many authors point out that land reform is
an option. Lipton (2009), for example, has noted that land reform ‘matters’ mainly for its effect
on poor people. He emphasised that the main goal of land reform is to reduce gross inequality of
rural land rights; thus to decrease poverty. According to him, land reforms have happened and
achieved the goal in developing countries. Along the same lines, the committee of 180 members
and partners of the International Land Coalition during the conference of April 2009 about
“Securing Rights to Land for Peace and Food Security” suggested that providing secure access to
land and natural resources for the poor producers is a vital step to finding lasting peaceful
solutions to addressing rural poverty, persistent hunger, and resource conflicts. Gaining secure
access to land is central to their enjoyment of full citizenship and wider human rights, especially
the right to food.
A large number of African countries are at various stages of reviewing or reforming their
land policies and laws (Adams and Palmer, 2007) including Rwanda. In February 2004, Rwanda
officially adopted a national land policy and in September 2005 a national land law came into
effect. Tenure reform is part of strategy that is intended to promote more effective utilization of
Rwanda’s limited land resources. Before the 2004 Land policy and 2005 Land law, Rwanda had
never had a proper land policy nor had it ever had a land law, apart from a few scattered land
regulations, most of which date back to the colonial period (National Land Policy, 2004). This
situation enhances the existing duality between the written law and the widely practised
customary law, giving rise to insecurity, instability and precariousness of land tenure (National
Land Policy, 2004). Therefore, it was necessary to establish a national land policy that would
guarantee a safe and stable form of land tenure, and bring about a rational and planned use of
land. On the same line of land reform, in 2007 the government of Rwanda started redistributive
2
land reform in Eastern and Northern Provinces with the objective of providing access to land as
a means of livelihood to the landless and reducing inequality in landholdings in those regions.
(the historical background of this situation is discussed in chapter 3 of this research).
The issue of land rights and land reform in Rwanda was given considerable attention this
last decade by many researches. But much of this debate is specifically around the possibility of
reducing social conflicts, gender promotion1 as well as achieving agricultural efficiency in
generally ( see for example Pottier, 2006; Musahara and Huggins, 2005; Bigagaza et al, 2002),
while household’s welfare side has not been widely explored.
This study attempts to make a contribution to this debate by investigating land
redistribution and the impact on households’ food security, an important dimension of wellbeing. The food and nutrition security of the population remains a key building block in
accelerating the rate of growth towards the realization of the Millennium Development Goals
(MDGs). Consequently, during recent decades increased international attention has been given to
food security. Donors have invested in food insecure countries to improve food security. Foreign
involvement often focuses on the distribution and the access to farmland in order to increase
agricultural productivity, to increase food security, to improve the quality of rural life, and to
reduce rural unrest (Henri, 2001).
For Rwanda, food security is expected to alleviate extreme poverty as mentioned in the
document of vision, titled “vision 2020 of Rwanda” (Ministry of Finance, 2007). Rwanda a lowincome, food-deficit and least-developed country is ranked 158th out of 177 countries in the 2006
Human Development Report (HDR). In addition, the country ranks 97th out of 118 developing
and transition countries on the Global Hunger Index (Wiesmann et al 2007)2. Researches about
Food Security in Rwanda indicate that the population of Rwanda remains highly vulnerable to
food insecurity and malnutrition. For example, the Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) of
2005 indicated that over 70 percent of the rural population is considered to be food insecure and
45 percent of the children under 5 are stunted. Additionally, the 2006 report of National Institute
of Statistics of Rwanda (NLSR) and WFP joint Comprehensive Food Security Vulnerability
Assessment (CFSVA) indicated that 28 percent of households in Rwanda- 2.1 million people In Rwanda, before the land reform, women accessed land through marriage, and would only ever fully
exercise their usufruct rights when widowed with male children (Pottier, 2006).
2 The index is an aggregate of the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations’ estimates of
the proportion of people who cannot meet their minimum dietary energy requirements, the prevalence of
underweight in children, and the underfive mortality rate( Wiesmann, 2006).
1
3
are food-insecure; 24 percent of households are highly vulnerable to food insecurity, 26 percent
of households are moderately vulnerable to food insecurity and only 22 percent of households
are food-secure.
On the basis of the previous statements above, the objective of this study is to
investigate whether the redistributive land reform in Rwanda has been effective in ensuring a
better welfare for its beneficiaries particularly in terms of food security. The analysis focused on
the group that received land in Eastern and Northern Provinces of Rwanda. These regions were
included on the highest proportion of food-insecurity based on a research conducted in 2006 by
the Office of Statistics of Rwanda.
The main question the study seeks to answer is: How has land redistribution impacted on
household food security in Rwanda?
The hypothesis of this research has been formed with reference to the following. Land is
the main productive asset for poor people (Lipton, 2009). While poverty is about much more
than income or consumption, a narrow definition of extreme ‘income poverty’ is: having income
normally not sufficient to meet basic calorie and other needs (Lipton, 2009 p.1). Based on this
definition and empirics about the positive impact of access to land on the welfare of its
beneficiaries, and in view of Rwanda, I hypothesize that the households who received land
through redistributive land reform meet their minimum dietary energy requirements after owning
land.
1.2
Organisation of the Research Paper
This paper is divided into six chapters. The rest of the paper is organised as follows:
The second chapter presents the overall theoretical framework of the study about the links
between land reform and food security. The third chapter provides a background description of
land issue in Rwanda since the colonial period. The fourth chapter covers the Data and Empirical
Strategy used in this study. The fifth chapter presents the findings and discuss the effect of land
redistribution on household food security in Kayonza District. The sixth and the last chapter is
the concluding part of the study.
4
CHAPTER 2: CONCEPTUAL AND THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
2.1
Introduction
The relationship between land reform and food security is confirmed by many researches. This
chapter reviews relevant theories and international evidence which formed the basis for analysis
of the impact of land redistribution on household food security in Rwanda. I also defined the
most relevant concepts for this study, especially the concept of land reform and the concept of
food security.
2.2
Definitions of key concepts
2.2.1
Land Reform
Henri (2001) defines land reform as the reform focus on changing land tenure and redistribution
of agricultural assets combined with legal changes and often also establishment of a system of
land registration, protection of new property right holders and public records of property rights
to provide improved security in land transfers. This definition has been also used by (ElGhonemy, 2003) by noting that today; the term “land reform” is commonly used to refer to
colonisation programs on publicly owned land, land registration, consolidation of fragmented
holdings, tenancy improvement, and land taxation in addition to redistribution. Along similar
lines, Prosterman and Hanstad (2006) define land reform as the reforms that increase the ability
of the rural poor and other socially excluded groups to gain access and secure rights to land. They
also include reforms that provide greater tenure security and rights to existing possessors of land.
Sikor and Muller (2009) put land reform into three broad categories: Redistributive reforms, land
registration and post-totalitarian land distribution. Referring to this categorisation, land reform in
Rwanda belongs on one hand to the land registration. The National Land Policy (2004) specifies
that “the system of land administration in Rwanda will be based on a reformed cadastral system,
including land mapping, recording of all land-related data and land titles”. On the other hand, it
belongs to redistributive reforms for some of the districts of Eastern and Northern Provinces.
Only this latter category is the subject of this study.
2.2.2
Food Security
The high- level representative of the international community at the World Food Summit in 1996
agreed that “food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access
to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an
5
active and healthy life” (FAO, 1996). Other authors have tried to describe different aspects of
food security. For example, Barett (2002) describes food security as (1) the availability of and
access to sufficient amount of food, i.e. when people have enough food to meet their energy/
calorie requirements); (2) the availability of food access to different types of food to ensure
adequate diet quality or that people are able to meet their protein and micronutrient
requirements); (3) the absence of feelings of deprivation restricted choice, or anxiety related to
the quantity or quality of available food, that is the psychological dimension; (4) the social or
cultural acceptability of consumption patterns. Along similar lines, Wiesmann et al. (2006)
summarises the commonly used indicators and proxy indicators of Food Security as listed in the
table1 below.
Table1: Dimension of food security and corresponding indicators
Dimension
(1) Diet quantity
(2) Diet quality
(3) Psychological
dimensions
(4) Social and cultural
dimensions
Source: Wiesmann et al. (2006)
Indicator
Proxy indicator
Dietary energy intake
Calorie availability
Food frequency
Dietary diversity
Meal frequency
NAR, MAR
Food frequency
Dietary diversity
Perception of dietary adequacy Coping strategies
and acceptability
Food security scales
Perception of dietary adequacy Coping strategies
and acceptability
Food security scales
In practice and according to Wiesmann et al. (2009) the most popular dimension of household
food security is the access to sufficient quantity of food. Dietary energy intake as the indicator of
Diet quantity is obtained mostly by assessing the amount of all food an individual ate in the
previous 24 hours (see Gibson, 2005; WFP, 2007). Consequently, food insecure people are
individuals whose food intake falls below their minimum dietary energy requirements3.
For this study, the methods and techniques used to analyse household food security in
the context of Rwanda is detailed in chapter 4; Empirical Strategies.
Dietary energy requirement refers to the amount of energy required by individuals to maintain body
functions, health and normal physical activity (FAO, 1996).
3
6
2.3
A theory on the potential household food security and poverty
reduction impact from land reform
In this section, the channels through which access to agricultural land might affect household’s
food security and poverty reduction are explored.
For many years, enhancing access to agricultural land has been advocated as one of the
most effective approach to household’s welfare including food security (Thiensenhusen, 1989;
Shipton 1991, Barraclough, 1991; Henri, 2001; Prosterman and Hanstad, 2006). The main
potential economic benefits from having access to agricultural land are food consumption and
monetary benefits derived from direct income value of additional production or renting out of
land (Bandeira et al, 2009).
Figure1. The welfare impact from access to land
Self-consumption
Access to
agricultural land
Welfare
On-farm monetary
benefits
Total income or
expenditure
Off-farm income
Source: Bandeira et al, 2009
Similarly, Maxwell and Wiebe (1998) have noted the link between access to land and food
security illustrated in figure2. They argued that where link between land and food are
conceptualised explicitly together, they generally fall within a linear framework that begins with
access to resources and proceeds causally through production, income generation and
consumption decisions to nutritional status.
Figure2. Conventional conceptual links between land and food
Access to land
Production
Income
Consumption
Source: Maxwell and Wiebe (1998)
7
Nutritional Status
In general, the common expectation from many authors is that improving the access of
cultivators to land through land reform can improve lives in a number of ways. The literature has
identified potential benefits of land reform such as increased crop production and nutritional
welfare (Thiesenhusen, 1995; Henri, 2001; Human Development Report, 2003; Lipton, 2009);
poverty alleviation and sustained economic growth (Deininger and Olinto, 2000; Henri, 2001; );
facilitating democracy and better environmental stewardship ( Deininger, 2003); reducing
instability, conflict and urban migration( Prosterman and Riedinger, 2006).
Concerning household food security, it is argued that land reform aimed at individual
land tenure and a higher level of tenure security for individual farmers, will lead to higher
agricultural production. Relatively smaller farms use the land in a more productive way, resulting
in increased food security (Henri, 2001).
The literature has identified main channels through which land reform might affect
household’s food security and poverty reduction. First, income from self-employed or hired-out
farm labour is the main single source of income for the rural poor. In situations where output
markets are incomplete, access to land can make a contribution to food security and household’s
nutritional well-being as the ability to produce their own subsistence provides households with a
safety net, a source of self-employment, and an insurance substitute (Thiesenhusen, 1995).
Similarly Carter (2003) has argued that providing a hectare of land to a landless rural household
will boost the family's net income significantly and significantly more than it will boost the
income of a wealthier household. A second channel through which land ownership would affect
income of the poor and poverty reduction is through investment. Improved land ownership may
relax credit constraints and hence allow households to undertake profitable investments and
therefore preventing them from remaining stuck in a “poverty trap” (Valente, 2009). In addition,
a cultivator with ownership is more likely to use improved and more expensive seeds, fertilizer,
and other inputs that improve and conserve the land than is a cultivator with insecure tenure
(Prosterman and Riedinger, 2006).
Recently, Lipton (2009) has explained five ways that land reform can raise the poor’s income
relatively to the non-poor: via farm labour, land and enterprise; via non-farm activity; and via
economy-wide effects, both through increased output on growth and on the poor’s share of
income. First, due mainly to the lower transactions-cost of labour, small farms use more, often
much more, per hectare than large ones. More equal distributions of owned land mean smaller
operated farms. That raises demand for farm labour and hence the poor’s labour income. Second,
if poor people own land, they also enjoy income from land, whether they farm it or rent it out.
8
Third and similarly to the second way, if the poor people control farmland - whether by owning
or renting in - they enjoy income from farm enterprise, i.e. planning, managing, supervising and
co-ordinating what is done on the farm. Fourth, land reform tends to raise the poor’s non-farm
income. Small farms are likelier than large farms to use local, labour-intensive sources of supply
for farm inputs and processing requirements. Fifth, the poor gain from the economy-wide effects
of land reform. This latter channel has been also pointed out by Henri (2001), noting that the
battle against poverty and the evolution of economic development in developing countries can be
more effectively won with equal distribution of assets, than with more equal income distribution.
Equal income distribution by means of social safety nets or redistribution of income by taxes
generally has short term and not long lasting effects for the poorer segments of the population.
Similarly, the World Development Report (2008) has shown that agriculture is 3 times more
effective in increasing the income of the poor than is non-agriculture investment.
Many researches support the idea that land reform is a fundamental source of
increased well-being of households. While, there is an active controversy about the value of land
reform in increasing income and reducing poverty. The next section reviews the literature about
that controversy.
2.4
International evidence of poverty-reduction impact of land
redistribution at the household level
Access to land, through land reform, is well documented as being effective at rural poverty
reduction (Thiesenhusen, 1989, Binswanger et al., 1995, Finan et al., 2002, Deininger, 2003).
Specifically, many authors argue that providing even very small plots can produce substantial
benefits. For example, Kumar (1978) found that agricultural labourers in the Indian state of
Kerala who received tiny house-and-garden plots of .04 hectare found themselves considerably
better off in terms of income, family nutrition, and status. Similarly Hanstad et al, (2002) have
found that in Karnataka in India, agricultural labourer families who received government-granted
house-and-garden plots of .016 hectares were able to satisfy most of the family’s nutritional needs
for vegetable, fruits, and dairy products and obtain cash income equivalent to one full-time adult
wage from plant and animal products on the tiny plot. Other empirical evidences show the
existence of positive association between access to land and increased income (see for example
Scott (2000) for Chile, Gunning et al. (2000) for Zimbabwe, Cartel and May (1999) for South
Africa). Past study carried out in China (Burgess, 2001) has found a positive relationship of land
ownership and some indicators of household’s welfare.
9
However, many recent studies found that land reform programs have met with limited success to
achieve the goal of poverty alleviation and rural development and hence question the consensus
that land tenure reform is a fundamental source of increased welfare for households. For
example, Dasgupta and Pellegrini (2009) found that tenancy reform of West Bengal have not
been effective in increasing the welfare for its beneficiaries. Valente (2009) finds that on average,
land –reform beneficiaries in South Africa do not appear to have experienced lower food security
as a consequence of land redistribution. Deininger et al., (2007) argued that in India, observed
impact of land reform seems to have declined over time. Similarly, Lopéz and Valdés (2000a)
argued that land contributes little to income and it is consequently better to look at other factors
if rural poverty is a concern.
In general, the literature against the obvious positive impact of land reform on poverty
reduction is based on a theory that considers not only possible benefits, but also possible costs
that can affect land reform process. Each household makes its livelihood’s decisions based on the
needs, opportunities and restrictions that they face, and these decisions imply opportunity costs
which can be high and extremely heterogeneous across different households (Bandeira et al,
2009). Those authors suggest that land can indeed be an important element of poverty reduction
strategy, but there are specific conditions that must hold for this to be the case, calling on
complementary interventions. Those interventions are discussed in chapter 3 of this paper.
In order to check our theoretical argument and investigate the impact of land redistribution
on household food security in Rwanda, we use household data from Kayonza District, a region
where most of the landless who received land during the redistributive land reform process are
involved in agricultural and farming activities.
10
CHAPTER3: LAND REFORM AND LAND REDISTRIBUTION IN RWANDA
3.1 Introduction
In order to understand the need for land reform and land redistribution in Rwanda, it is
important to briefly reflect on structure of land issues that dominated the country for decades.
This chapter provides a background description of land issue since the colonial period to date.
3.2 Background to the land issue in Rwanda
In Rwanda, the pre-colonial land system was characterized by collective ownership of land, and
was based on the complementary links between agriculture and livestock. Families were grouped
together under lineages, and these were in turn grouped under clans. A chief ruled each clan.
Land ownership relationships were thus based on free land use. Land rights were respected and
transmitted from generation to generation according to Rwandan tradition and custom. These
rights were enjoyed under the supreme protection of the King, the guarantor of the well-being of
the whole population. Land ownership was more community-based than individual. This is the
system that the colonial rulers found in place. In the late nineteenth century, Germans colonized
the country and incorporated it into German East Africa in 1890. The German colonial
authorities recognized the King’s authority over land. Following the end of World War I, a
League of Nations mandate transferred control of Rwanda from German to Belgium. The
Belgium colonial continued to recognize customary land law, but also introduced law that allowed
the foreigners to purchase land.
Due to the high population density, the colonial administration introduced the system
called “paysannats”. This system was developed in some regions with grazing land and other land
reserves, and consisted of giving each household two hectares mainly for cultivating cash crops
such as cotton and coffee. This practice was following the new system introduced between 1952
and 1954 which consisted of sharing the land between the chief of the family and other families
which were under his clan. Thus, it promoted the extension of cultivated land to the detriment of
livestock. This development associated with political reforms gave rise to conflicts and created
refugees who fled to neighbouring countries in 1959 (National Land Policy, 2004; Boudreaux,
2009). The land belonging to these refugees has been recuperated by people from different
regions of the country.
After independence in 1962, compared to the colonial period, the situation did not
change much. The Rwanda Constitution of 1962 retained Belgium rules for land tenure, which
11
meant that all unoccupied land belonged to the state and the Minister of Agriculture was required
to approve all contract, for the sale or gifting of land. A 1976 land law imposed further
restrictions on the sale and purchase of land in Rwanda. Land held under customary law needed
the Minister’s approval for sale, but also required an opinion from a local community council.
Further, no sale could be approved if the seller owned less than 2 hectares or if the buyer owned
more than 2 hectares (Musahara, 2006).
At the beginning of the 1980s, there were no more new lands, and problems began to
emerge; reduction of soil fertility and of the size of land for cultivation, family conflicts stemming
from land ownership, food shortages, etc. Through agricultural projects, particularly forestry and
grazing land projects, the government strengthened its role as the owner of vast stretches of land.
Reforestation became an important factor in land accumulation by the State and private
individuals. Forests extended even in lands fit for crops as well as marshlands. Reforestation
became thus a simple form of long term land ownership (see National Land Policy 2004).
Before the genocide the vast majority of Rwandans owned small and fragmented pieces
of land that they inherited from family or that the state allocated to them for use. During the
1994 Rwanda genocide, many civilians participated in the killings and different authors have
written about the factors which could have contributed to the participation of particular groups
of people. Some argue that increasing population and land scarcity coupled with low agricultural
productivity actually drove people to murder (Diamond, 2005). He asserts that if you ran off, or
killed, a Tutsi (or a Hutu for that matter) you might just get the missing or dead person’s land.
This would help you feed your family. Along the same lines, Pottier (2006, p.510) writes that
“ordinary people also killed for economic gain, often for access to a victim’s land”.
While the above assertion could be applicable in some cases, it was not the case everywhere. Political propaganda against Tutsi and Hutu moderates mainly fuelled the genocide. As a
witness to what happened in Rwanda, large groups of people would attack and kill selected families and in some cases would destroy all the valuable property leaving nothing to share amongst
themselves. In addition, it would be difficult for a big group of people to share just one piece of
land, some of which they were even not interested in. This is also the point of Boudreaux (2009,
p.1). He argues that “while land conflict was an important feature of pre-genocide Rwanda it was
not the primary impetus for violence and genocide”.
But in 1994, the war and genocide worsened the already precarious access to land in
Rwanda. By July 1994, an estimated 1 million people, or more than 10 percent of the population,
had been massacred. About 30 percent temporarily fled the country and returned between 1996
12
and 1997. In addition, up to 1 million of people who had fled the country in 1959, returned to
Rwanda after more than 30 years in Diaspora (National Land Policy, 2004). By 1997, there were
complex and multiple claims on scarce land. As an immediate solution, some of the former 1959
refugees occupied land temporarily that had been abandoned4. Others were given plots on public
land and vacant land on which they could resettle and produce. But, because there were no formal rules about the distribution of that public land, at the end of the day the situation was that
much of the land remained in the hands of the privileged few, leaving hundreds of poor villagers
landless. This situation also created conflicts among people who were living in those areas. Thus,
this land situation (from the period of independence) resulted in the need for land reform. The
government of Rwanda reviewed the land law and the enactment of the 2004 Land Policy and
2005 Land Law constituted a reform in Rwanda. The government claimed that the new tenure
system would contribute to enhancing food production, social equity and the prevention of conflict. In addition, the government started land redistribution in Eastern and Northern Provinces
with the objective of reducing inequality in landholdings in those regions and profitably maximize
the allocated land through agricultural transformation and diversification. The next sections discuss about land reform and the process of land redistribution in Rwanda.
3.3 Land Reform in Rwanda
The National Land Policy and Land Law adopted by the Government of Rwanda put a great
importance on appropriate land administration system as a key of land tenure security by providing the possibility of registering and transferring land. The objectives of land reform in Rwanda
are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
To improve the security of tenure by clarifying land rights and by registering land
rights;
To make sure that all Rwandan (both men and women) enjoy the same rights on
land;
To improve the value of the land and promote investment;
To contribute to sustainable land use and management.
The overall objective of the national land policy was to establish a land tenure system that would
guarantee tenure security for all Rwandans and give guidance to the necessary land reforms. The
land policy reform in Rwanda addresses the problem of customary inheritance and non-viable
4
The land belonged to people who temporarily fled the country and return between 1996 and
1997.
13
subdivision of plots. It encodes the priority of effective exploitation of the land through the
ultimate ownership of all land by state and the state’s ability, in the public interest, to expropriate
and redistribute land which is not being used appropriately. Tenure reform is one part of a
strategy that is intended to promote more effective utilization of Rwanda’s limited land resources.
3.4
Land Redistribution in Rwanda
After the 2004 land policy and 2005 land law, the government of Rwanda started the
redistributive land reform in Eastern Province in the Districts of Nyagatare, Gatsibo, Kirehe,
Kayonza and in Northern Province in the Districts of Rutsiro, Rubavu, Nyabihu and Ngororero
where there was a serious problem of inequality in landholdings. The inequality arose from the
fact that the distribution of public land given to returnees5 from neighbouring countries as a
temporary solution had been done without any formal rules. The top government officials, senior
army officers and other people took big chunks of land, leaving hundreds of poor villagers
landless.
In the first stage of land redistribution, there was a committee in charge of redistribution.
This committee tried to start the redistribution process but failed to perform because it was a
very complicated and sensitive situation that involved varied interests across different categories
of people for example the big land owners versus the small owners. After the failure of the initial
programme of redistribution, the President of Rwanda directed the redistribution and went to the
field to supervise the exercise. The exercise started at the end of 2007 by redistributing land that
was initially held by the top government and army officers. Starting land redistribution from high
ranking officers was to set example to the small land holders. This was to avoid conflicts between
those who had it and to those it was given. The policy of redistribution is not applied to top
government officials and senior officers only; it applies to everybody who own more than 25 ha,
the biggest land size that people can get in the redistribution process.
After the president launched the redistribution program, the exercise is now continuous
and headed by the land commission of Rwanda. In Eastern Province (the information for
Northern Province was not available yet), by the time of this research, the land area of 11057Ha
which belonged to 1997 families was redistributed to 14616 families as shown in table2 below.
5
Returnees refers to people who came back to after the Rwandese genocide in 1994
14
Table2: Land Redistribution Situation in Eastern Province of Rwanda
S/no
1
2
3
4
5
District
GATSIBO
KAYONZA
KIREHE
NYAGATARE
TOTAL
Before Land
Redistribution (former
owners)
171
562
47
1217
1997
After Land Redistribution (new allocation)
Cattle keepers Cultivators
Total
699
2768
136
5977
9580
413
540
331
3752
5036
1112
3308
467
9729
14616
Source: Adopted from Land Commission Office in Rwanda
Table 3 below shows the different categories of beneficiaries of land redistribution in Eastern
Province.
Table 3: The categories of land beneficiaries after land redistribution in Eastern Province
of Rwanda
S/no District
Category of beneficiaries
Former Squatters Landless
owners
01
Gatsibo
297
291
355
02
Kayonza
1186
522
1238
03
Kirehe
37
14
225
04
Nyagatare 2251
3609
3366
05
Total
3771
4436
5184
06
Percentage 25.8%
Source: Adopted from Land Commission Office in Rwanda
Total
Returnees Displaced
126
89
184
319
718
74.2%
43
273
7
184
507
1112
3308
467
9729
14616
The table above demonstrates that the former owners constitute 25.8% while new beneficiaries
make up 74.2% of all beneficiaries. Prior to land redistribution, all former owners and squatters
were livestock farmers.

Family size and number of cows as determinants of farm size
The allocation of land is according to the number of people in the family and the number of
cows as well. Those with big families and cows received big pieces of land than those without
cows because cows require bigger land for pasture. For the landless but with a small family and
no cows, they receive between 1ha and 2ha of land. For those with big families but without cows,
they receive between 3ha and 4ha of land. Those who are landless with a small family and with
many cows receive between 5ha and 10ha of land. From 10ha to 25ha of land are given to
farmers with big families and with many cows and had land bigger than 25ha before the
redistribution. The redistribution process does not consider whether the land is productive or not
15
but rather the number of hectares redistributed is the major concern. This brings about
complaints regarding the quality, accessibility and productivity of the land received.
After receiving the land, the new landholder receives a temporary land certificate and
after completing the requirements of the Ministry in charge of Land matters, the new landholder
receives a land lease title for 99 years. Those requirements are regarding the mode of organizing
the land received. This rule is applied both to people who receive the land and those who lost the
land in the redistribution process. However, the issue of conditional land titles has been raised by
Prosterman and Hanstad (2006). They suggest that land reform beneficiaries should not be
forced or pressured to adopt a particular mode of organizing their farms; farmers are best suited
to make organizational decisions regarding their farms.
Because the redistribution process is continuous, conclusions cannot be drawn on the
consistency and accuracy between planning and actual execution of redistributive land reform in
Rwanda. This will only be known after the whole redistribution process. However, the issue
about “inequality” resulting from the redistributive land reform can be discussed at this stage.
While the objective of land redistribution was to address inequalities, the process itself resulted in
different categories of people accessing different sizes of land, a situation that also entails
creation of inequality itself. There are different arguments to this case.
First, it is understandable that people with big families and many cattle should own
biggest land for the reasons explained previously. In addition, because some people had big
pieces of land before the redistribution and that they may have undertaken some investments on
that land, it seems fair that they would still be granted more land than those who did not.
Similarly, the Bible in Matthew 13:12 said “For whoever has, to him will be given, and he will
have abundance, but whoever doesn't have, from him will be taken away even that which he has
not”. Second, some researches pointed out that land scarcity does not matter, rather the
productivity (Udry et al., 1995; Barham et al., 1995; and Griffin et al, 2002). All this work shown
that it is not asset inequality per se that creates low agricultural returns, rather the combination of
asset inequality with market failures leads to differential efficiency or productivity between asset
poor and asset rich. Taiwan and South Korea are the example of successful cases of land reform
that have been implemented in agrarian societies with extreme scarcity (Griffin et al, 2002).
Hence, on basis of those statements, we can conclude that in this case of Rwanda,
complementary policies about agricultural productivity and market failures are necessary to
improve the execution of land reform – a point to which I will come back to in the next section.
Finally, another important discussion regarding the size of land has been raised by Prosterman
16
and Hanstad (2006). They noted that some land reforms provide per-family holdings far larger
than necessary. The maximum per-family quantity of land allocated to beneficiaries should be the
amount a family can intensively farm with its own labour and modest capital. They suggest that
rather than providing an idealized holding size, it is generally better to calculate the area likely to
be available under the particular land reform’s acquisition formula and divide that amount by the
number of families needing land. They give an example of one private report which criticized the
1980-1981 land reforms in El Salvador for not giving a “vital minimum” of nine hectares to each
beneficiary family, without realizing that such a pattern of distribution would have required
distributing twice the land area of the entire country. In the case of Rwanda, the information
about the total of landless is not available. Consequently, there is no basis for analysis of this
point.
3.5
Complementary Policies to the Redistributive Land Reform
While the need for land reform remains great in many countries, some researchers have discussed
the obstacles that could jeopardize the success of land reform and proposed a number of
complementary policies for successful land reform (see Pellegrini and Dasgupta, 2009; Deininger,
2003; Griffin et al., 2002). Those conditions and their applications in view of Rwanda are
discussed below.
 Agricultural extension
Agricultural extension is one of the most necessary policies for beneficiaries’ ability to make
productive use of the land acquired during land reform. Griffin et al., (2002), for example, has
argued that in China redistributive land reform was complemented by policies such as
improvement in agriculture’s terms of trade, liberalization of output markets and improved access
to inputs. And the result was that the agricultural growth rate doubled between 1965 and 1975
and between 1978 and 1988. According to him, land reform is not a substitute for policies to
promote agricultural development; on the contrary, agricultural development and land reform
should be seen as complementary.
In the process of land redistribution in Rwanda, agricultural systems have been improved
towards mechanisation for increased agricultural production. The use of equipment for instance
tractors, choppers, water boozers and bailers has brought about an increase in crop production.
Acquiring these machines necessitated to organize farmers into cooperatives and re-activate the
existed ones from which financial resources were mobilized. The communities in those areas (in
17
Eastern Province) raised funds worth 662,304,642 francs (equivalent of 802,794 Euro) that
enabled them acquisition of agricultural mechanization equipment6. Other programs such as
growing of fodder grass and other cattle feeds and deliberate construction of water points on
individual farms have been set up.
 Facilitation of access to credit for poorer beneficiaries
Many studies argue that land reform should be complemented with access to market and credit,
allowing for beneficiaries to be able to make productive use of land. This argument might not be
easily applicable in the context of rural Rwanda. This is because the high illiteracy rates make
people ignorant of those kinds of services (findings from research survey, see the questionnaire in
appendix). In addition, low incomes cannot allow them even to open up bank account and fulfil
the requirements for being granted a credit. This issue has been raised by Finan et al. (2002). He
argued that households with a higher average adult education level achieve a higher return to
their land.
 Access to complementary assets
The transfer from large to small farmers generally requires a change in the pattern of production,
subdivision of the farm and construction of complementary infrastructure (Deininger 2003). In
the redistribution process in Rwanda, farmers were mobilized to adjust from keeping local breed
to quality breed for higher milk and beef production. 39568 local cows were de-stocked in
2008/2009 while 5101 exotic cows were stocked during the same period (information from Land
Commission in Rwanda).
6
Information from Land Commission Office in Rwanda
18
CHAPTER 4: DATA AND EMPIRICAL STRATEGY
4.1
Data
In order to analyse the impact of land redistribution on household’s food security in Rwanda, I
used data collected using household surveys which was distributed in July 2009 in Kayonza
District. While the process of land redistribution in Rwanda had been done in four district of
Northern Province (Rutsiro, Rubavu, Nyabihu and Ngororero) and in four districts of Eastern
Province (Nyagatare, Kirehe, Gatsibo and Kayonza), only Kayonza had been selected to be the
sample of this study. The reason was that the cost and time limitations could not allow coverage
of a scientifically selected sample size both in number and geographical dispersion. As mentioned
previously, by the time of this research, the total of new landholders was 14,616 in Eastern
Province (information on new landholders in Northern Province was not available yet).
In order to test hypothesize of this study, I selected among new landholders, those who
were qualified as poor for the time of the redistribution process. I considered poor people those
landless without cows and whom have received between 1ha and 2ha piece of land because of the
reasons explained above. The majority of these poor people relied on the agricultural wage labour
before they received land, the wage which is lower compared to purchasing power in Rwanda
(see Ministry of Finance, 2007).
In the District of Kayonza, there were a good number of poor people without cows and
therefore received small land (between 1ha and 2ha) compared to those with many cows.
Nyagatare and Gatsibo Districts were not selected because there were a lot of farmers with many
cows, thus, they were not considering as poor. Kirehe district was not selected because the
nature of arable land in that region is unproductive compared to Kayonza. This could create the
problem of endogeneity in the case the results shows a negative impact of access to land on food
security because it could not be easy to specify the reason.
The whole district of Kayonza was not included in the sample. Only the sectors of
Murundi and Ndego were selected due to the fact that the redistribution had started earlier in
January 2008 and since they had experienced 3 harvesting seasons, it was feasible to carry out
impact assessment. With the collaboration of Kayonza District office, the Office of Murundi and
Ndego Sectors, the lists of these people were available. A total of 72 people received land that
time in those two sectors. The target was to interview all of them, but only 50 families were
available and interviewed. The questionnaire survey used for collecting data is presented in
appendix. Additionally, data on child anthropometry for children young than 12 years was taken;
19
94 children from these families were measured for weight and for height. Children were weighted
on electronic scale with a weighing capacity of 0 to 100kg. Their height was measured to the
nearest 1mm with locally made portable devices equipped with height gauges (SECA 206
Bodymeter).
4.2
Limitations of the Study
This study was subject to limitations and threats to the reliability and validity of the results. While
rigorous standard were applied, the following must be acknowledged:
-
The survey took place in July 2009, after the 2009 season B (May and June) harvest7,
resulting in good food availability. The results represent a snapshot of the food security
for that period and therefore may have led to more households reporting high levels of
food security than normal. In addition, questions about food consumption before the
redistribution, that is two years ago, have been asked. This situation might bias the recall
and consequently the results, if there are some items of food omitted or included.
-
Comparing the number of new landholders and the sample of 50 households, the results
of this analysis may not be a comprehensive representative of the all who received land in
Eastern and Northern Provinces of Rwanda. Hence, the findings should not be
generalised to the entire country, but rather should be taken as indicative of this aspect.
-
Inaccurate recall and quantitative estimates may affect the validity of the findings
particularly about child anthropometric measurements.
In Rwanda, the agricultural calendar is the following: January is considered the starting month for
the harvest of season A, May for Season B, and September for season C.
7
20
4.3
Empirical Strategy
In this section, Methods and Techniques used to evaluate the impact and to analyse food security
issue are explained.
4.3.1
Methods for Impact Evaluation
In order to identify the causal relation between access to land and food security, I exploited and
analysed the variation in food consumption for people who received land applying reflexive
comparisons, that is, the participants who receive the intervention are compared to themselves
before and after receiving the intervention (Kene et al., 1999). To do so, the same questions
about food consumption were asked for before and after receiving the land.
It is important to note that the methods commonly used for impact analysis are
randomized controls which allow individuals to be placed randomly into two groups—those that
receive the intervention and those that do not. This allows determining program impact by
comparing means of the outcome variable between the treatment and the control group. While
randomized controls are seen as the most valid and reliable, however, they are used when feasible
(Gunhild et al., 2009).
For this research, randomized controls were not easy to use because it is not possible to
randomly select a control group for the following reasons. First, it was not feasible to identify a
group that was not receiving the land in the same region, because in the redistribution process
poor people without land were targeted and expected to be all satisfied. By the time of this
research, the process of redistribution was continuous. Second, one might think to compare
people who received land with other landless from another region, but the limited resources and
time constraints could not allow me to use this process. Finally, the use of reflexive controls in
this study could not bias the results, because the information about possible factors that could
affect the outcomes had been included in questionnaire and asked to the interviewed during the
process of data collection. An example of one of those factors is “food assistance”. In fact, in
Rwanda, WFP assist the education sector by providing nutritious food for primary schoolchildren
in the post food insecure areas. Nutritious food is provided as a daily cooked meal in primary
schools, and a monthly take home ration for their families. If this could be the case and as the
sample was formed by children with the age of primary school, consequently, the cause of
household food security could not be clear between land reform and food assistance. To get
information on this problem, during the interview, additional questions about external assistance
21
were asked. The following questions are the example of these questions (other questions asked
are in Appendix).
-
Did your household or one (or more) of its members benefit from any food assistance in the last 12 months
(including school feeding)?
-
If “yes”, what type of food assistance was provided? And who provides the food assistance?
4.3.2
Methods of measuring Food Security
Food security is a complex notion that it is virtually impossible to measure directly and a variety
of proxy measures have been suggested. Some of the most commonly used types of indicators in
the assessment of food security include those related to: food production, Income, total
expenditure, food expenditure, share of expenditure on food, calories consumption (or diet
diversity) and nutritional status (Frank et al, 1999). But because of lack of reliable data on some
of those indicators, this analysis only focused on Dietary Diversity and Nutrition Status of
children as proxy measures of food security. The latter indicators are more reliable and efficient
to reflect the food security dimension in the context of Rwanda.
Many researchers have found a consistent positive correlation between dietary diversity
and other measures of household food security such as per capita consumption (a proxy for
income) and energy availability. This evidence suggests that such household dietary diversity
could be a useful indicator of used household food security (Ruel, 2002; Hatloy et al., 1998; Rose
et al., 2002).
Hoddinott and Yohannes (2002) have also raised this issue by indicating four reasons
which make Dietary Diversity an attractive indicator of household food security. First, a more
varied diet is a valid outcome in its own right. Second, a more varied diet is associated with
improved child anthropometric status, birthweight, etc. Third, questions on dietary diversity can
be asked and making it possible to examine food security at household level. Fourth, obtaining
data on dietary diversity is relatively straightforward.
Furthermore, Dietary Diversity has been consistently associated with child nutritional
status and growth in a variety studies in developing countries (Ferguson et al., 1993; Onyango et
al., 1998; Tarini et al., 1999; Arimond and Ruel, 2002). For example, Ruel (2002) has analysed
data from the Ethiopia 2000 Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) and has found a strong and
statistically significant association between food-group diversity measures and children’s heightfor-age Z-scores. Others studies in Mali and Kenya have found a strong association between,
dietary diversity and children’s nutrition. In urban areas of Mali, (Hatloy et al., 1998) have found
22
that lower food variety or dietary diversity scores were associated with twice the risk of being
stunted or underweight. In Kenya, (Onyango et al., 1998) have measured dietary diversity by the
number of individual food consumed in 24h and have found that it was significantly associated
with children nutrition status like height-for-age Z-scores, weight-for-age Z score and weight-for
height Z- scores.
4.3.2.1
Measuring Dietary Diversity
Dietary Diversity (DD) is usually measured by summing the number of different foods or food
groups consumed over a given reference period (Ruel, 2002). Although many studies tried to
measure dietary diversity, there is still a lack of uniformity in methods used for measuring DD
and in approaches to develop and validate indicators. Experience from developed countries and
developing countries in the context of assessing overall dietary quality abound, but differences in
methods and analytical approaches affect the comparability of findings (see Ruel, 2002).
Alternatively, Hoddinott (2002) proposed a weighting system as an approach to measure
DD. For example, a weighted sum of the number of individual foods consumed can be
computed. In this case, the weights reflect the numbers of days the foods were consumed over a
reference period. Based on these findings, the World Food Program (WFP, 2007) has developed
a proxy measure of food security. Data was collected on a seven-day recall of frequency of
consumption of several food groups at household level. These data were used to construct a
Food Consumption Score (FCS) and classify households according to their food consumption.
The FCS8 was calculated using the frequency of consumption of eight food groups consumed by
a household during the seven days before the survey. Table 4 shows the weights proposed by
WFP for the calculation of the FCS which have been adopted in the context of Rwanda for this
8
For the calculations of FCS, the procedure proposed by WFP 2007, is the following:
1. Using standard seven-day food frequency data, group all the food items into specific food groups.
2. Sum the consumption frequencies of food items within the same group, yielding a food group
score for each food group.
3. Any food group score greater than seven is recoded as seven.
4. Multiply the value obtained for each food group by its weight, thus creating weighted food group
scores.
5. Sum the weighed food group scores, thus creating the FCS.
6. Using the appropriate threshold, recode the variable FCS from a continuous variable to a
categorical variable for the Food Consumption Groups.
23
study. After the calculations of food consumption score, the WFP proposes the thresholds for
creating food consumption groups (see Table5).
Table4. Food Items, Food Groups, Weights for Calculation of the FCS and Justifications
The highest weight was attached to foods with relatively high energy, good quality protein, and a wide
range of micronutrients that can be easily absorbed (World Food Programme 2007)
Food Items
Food Group Weight
Justification
Cereals: Corn, Wheat, SorStaples
Energy dense, protein content lower and poorer
2
quality than legumes, micronutrients (bound by
ghum, Rice, Bread
phytates)
Roots and Tubers: Manioc,
Sweet Potatoes, Banana
Peanuts, Beans
Pulses
Energy dense, high amounts of protein but of
3
lower quality than meats, micronutrients
(inhibited by phytates), low fat
Vegetables (including
Vegetables
Low energy, low protein, no fat, micronutrients
1
green, leafy vegetables,
shoots)
Fruits
Fruits
Low energy, low protein, no fat, micronutrients
1
Animal Proteins: Fish,
Meat & Fish
Highest quality protein, easily absorbable
4
Meat, Eggs
micronutrients (no phytates), energy dense, fat.
Even when consumed in small quantities,
improvements to the quality of diet are large
Milk / milk products
Milk
Highest quality protein, micronutrients, vitamin
4
A, and energy. However milk could be
consumed only in very small amounts and
should then be treated as condiment, and
therefore reclassification in such cases is needed
Sugar
Sugar
0.5 Empty calories. Usually consumed in small
quantities
Oils and Fats
Oil
0.5 Energy dense but usually no other
micronutrients. Usually consumed in small
quantities
Source: World Food Programme (2007).
Table5. Thresholds for creating food consumption groups
Food Consumption Score
Profile
0-21
21.5-35
35
Poor
Borderline
Acceptable
Source: World Food Program (2007).
In this study, I used the above method suggested by WFP. The terms about food consumption
that are used in this analysis are listed in Box 1.
24
Box 1. Definitions
1. Food frequency, in this context, is defined as the frequency (in terms of days of consumption over a
reference period) that a specific food item or food group is eaten at the household level.
2. Food group is defined as a grouping of food items that have similar caloric and nutrient qualities.
3. Food item cannot be further split into separate foods. However, generic terms, such as fish or poultry,
are generally considered to be food items for the purpose of this analysis.
Sources: World Food Programme (2007)
During the survey, food consumption data was collected at the household level and used to
obtain a “snap-shot” of households’ access to food. During the analysis, this information was
transformed into a Food Consumption Score (FCS) and households were categorized as those
with poor (food insecure), borderline (moderately food insecure) or acceptable consumption
(food secure).
I used the following process:
-
Households involved in the study were asked how many days a week they consumed a
series of 21 food items during the week prior to data collection and what the source for
those items was (self-production, purchase or other). From a practical point of view, I
first let the household spontaneously describe his food consumption and then I
prompted them to be sure that no item had been forgotten.
-
The consumption of 21 food items which are common in Rwanda was assessed: Maize,
Rice, Other Cereals, Cassava, Sweet Potato, Other Roots/ Tubers, Bread, Cooking
Banana, Beans and Peas, Other vegetables, Cassava leaves, Groundnuts, Sunflowers,
Fresh Fruits, Fish, Meat, Poultry, Eggs, Oil, Sugar, Milk.
-
To facilitate analysis, the food items were grouped into main staples such as: Pulses,
Vegetables, Fruits, Meats and Fish, Milk, Sugar and Oil.
-
Food Consumption Scores (FCS) were computed by grouping together food items for
which consumption was assessed in order to reflect the diversity and frequency (number
of days per week) of the food items consumed by a household. For each food group the
frequency represent the number of days an item from the food group was consumed,
with a range from 0 (never) to 7 (every day).
-
A weight was assigned to each food group (according to the WFP standards),
representing the nutritional importance of the food group.
25
In line of the explanations above, the most basic estimation equation about Food Consumption
Score used for this study is:
 =  0 +  1 X Tubers + 
Milk
2
X
Cereals
 3X Pulse +  4X Vegetables +  5X Fruits +  6X Meats/ Fish +  7X
+  X Sugar +  X Oil
8
9
Y is the dependent variable representing FCS which reflects the diversity and frequency (number
of days per week) of the food items consumed by a household.
The quantities consumed were
not assessed for the FCS. Only food items consumed as a substantial meal during the 7-day recall
period were to be recorded. However, it is possible that some food items consumed in small
quantity, especially milk, meat and fish, were recorded. This may lead to an over-estimation of the
FCS.  n represents the weight attached to food group and Xn represents different food groups.
The FCS is the sum across food groups of the product of the frequency by the weight.
26
4.3.2.2
Children’s Nutrition Status
In this study, Children’s Nutrition Status is analysed using two commonly used undernutritional
indicators, i.e., stunting (height-for-age) and underweight (weight-for-age). The World Health
Organisation (1995) defines those indicators as following.
“Stunting” (insufficient height relative to age) is a good indicator of chronic
undernutrition. It is a measure of linear growth and as such an indicator for long-term effects of
undernutrition not affected by seasonal changes.
“Underweight” (insufficient weight relative to age) indicates present acute undernutrition.
An indicator that tries to express the combination of both present and nutritional deficit is called
“Wasting”.
The following picture reflects these categories:
Source: Waterlow, 1992
27
To capture the impact of access to land on children’s nutrition status, the following is assumed:
1. Poor families which received land were food insecure before.
2. If the results show that many children were stunted and had wasted away, it points
towards the fact that those children were stunted even before their family got land and
consequently no impact of access to land on household food security.
3. If the results show that many children were stunted but not wasted then it means that
there is a positive impact on food security considering that after only two years of
improved nutrition, a child can only gain weight but not height.
4.3.2.2.1
Techniques of measurement of undernutrition
The anthropometric indices are constructed by comparing relevant measures with those of
comparable individuals (in regard to age and sex) in the reference population. There are three
ways of expressing these comparisons (see World Health Organisation, 2006):
1. z-score (standard deviation score): the difference between the value for an individual and the
median value of the reference population for the same sex and age (or height) divided by
the standard deviation of the reference population.
2. Percent of median: ratio of measured value for an individual to the median value of the
reference data for the same sex and age (or height).
3. Percentile: rank position of an individual on a given reference distribution stated in regard
to what percentage of the group the individual equals or exceeds.
In this study, I used the preferred and most common indices, the z-score because it has a number
of advantages (World Health Organisation, 2006). For example z-score can be used to estimate
summary statistics (e.g., mean and standard deviation) for the population, while this cannot be
done with percentiles.
To determine whether a child is malnourished or not, I used the common used cutoff of
a value of -2, that is, two standard deviations below the reference median, irrespective of the
indicator used. For example, a child whose height-for-age or weight – for –age z-score is less than -2 is
considered stunted or underweight (WHO, 2006).
To analyze the data, anthropometric indicators have been computed using dedicated
anthropometric software “ANTHRO”, a program that can be used to compare the growth of
individual children with the growth patterns of the WHO growth standards. It requires the sex,
height, weight and age of children to calculate normalized anthropometric z-values, percentiles,
and percent-of-median (WHO, 2006).
28
CHAPTER 5: RESULTS
5.1
Effect of owning land on Food Sources and Diet Diversity
5.1.1
Food Sources
In order to get information about sources of food, for each of the food items consumed,
households were asked to provide the main sources of that food items. They reported that food
items were obtained through a variety of means, especially after harvesting their own crops and
purchasing. Borrowing, domestic livestock and food exchange played a secondary role.
After receiving land, results show that “own production” became the main source of
staples, pulses, vegetables. Households mainly produced and consumed tubers (manioc, sweet
potatoes and banana). Also, bananas, used for cooking and for beer were frequently produced by
households. Cereals (sorghum), pulses (kidney beans and groundnuts), and vegetables (green, leafy
vegetables, shoots) are also common. Milk is obtained through domestic livestock. Other items like
Meats, Sugar and Oil were purchased. But some households reported to cook by using Oil from
the milk (from cows). This item was produced locally and knows as “Amavuta y’inka”.
Before the households owned land, the results show that people surveyed mainly
purchased their food. The following is a common statement coming from the majority of
households:
“Before we received the land, we used to go and cultivate for people who had big land and they paid us
either money or food. Thanks to the government that gave us the land, because, this time, even if we continue to
cultivate for other people, but at least we have our own land which helps us to get more and better food.”
Figure3 and 4 below give an idea about the importance of owning land on the overall diet
of households.
29
Figure 3: Household Food Source after owning land
Household Food Source after owning land
120
100
80
60
domestic livestock
40
% purchase
20
% own production
0
Figure 4: Household Food source before owning land
Household Food Source before owning land
120
100
80
60
domestic livestock
40
% purchase
20
% own production
0
Figure3 and 4 show changes in food sources as explained above. The results demonstrate the
expectations obtained from various previous studies. For example, Hanstad et al, (2002) found
that in Karnataka in India, agricultural labourer families who received government-granted houseand-garden plots of .016 hectares were able to satisfy most of the family’s nutritional needs for
vegetable, fruits, and dairy products. Similarly results were also found by Kumar (1978) in Kerala
in India.
The results also show increased consumption and production of milk by livestock. This
situation occurred in the sample that was composed of poor people without cows. The question
30
to raise here is: where is the origin of that milk? The answer lies in the fact that after owning land
some households got cows from the neighbours or friends. As explained by one of the
interviewees “this time, we have land and we can negotiate a cow from the neighbours, because we have a space
where we can put it. We have a system of giving each other a cow, you take care of it and when it produces, you give
back the calf to the owner. This helps us to get milk for our children, increase our income by selling milk and also
it increases our agriculture production because its gives fertilizer for our land from the manure”. This is an
interesting impact on beneficiaries who access land. In addition to the subsistence, Lipton (2009),
Deininger, Jin and Nagarajan (2007) state that land reform tend to raise the poor’s non farm
income. Additionally, it confirms the idea that access to land can creates opportunities of
investment as has been supported by Thiesenhusen (1995) that access to land increases
investment and more transparent production incentives.
5.1.2
Diet Diversity
The results from the sample show that among new landholders 76% of the household eat on
average of two times a day. In comparison to the period before they received land 57% of
household on average ate only once a day. Before receiving land, many households reported to
sometimes sleep at night hungry because there was not food.
The items most frequently consumed include tubers, cereals and pulses which are
consumed nearly on a daily basis. Vegetables and milk are less frequently consumed (on average 3
times a week) compared to the previous items, but their consumption has increased compared to
the period before receiving land. Sugar, fruit, animals proteins are less frequently consumed (on
average once a week) but the frequency has also increased after they own land (they were
consumed on average once three weeks before they own land).
Table 6 below represents the summary from the sample for the frequency and percentage
of households about the consumption of different items. Moreover, the information on food
Diet Diversity contributed to the computing of Food Consumption Score (see table 7, 8 & 9)
below.
31
Table 6: Food items consumption
After owning a piece of land
Before owning a piece of land
Food Groups
% of household Average days of % of household Average days of
on average 5 consumption/ per on average 3 consumption/ per
times a week
week
times a week
week
Staples
Pulses
Vegetables
Milk
Meat & Fish
Fruits
Sugar
Oil
76%
76%
64%
53%
43%
41%
46%
48%
6 days
4 days
2 days
3 days
1day in three weeks
1day in two weeks
1day
2 days
5.1.3
57%
57%
56%
32%
32%
28%
32%
39%
3 days
2 days
1 day
1 day in two weeks
1day in four weeks
1 two weeks
1day in four weeks
1 day
Food Consumption Groups
Table 7: Food items consumption by food consumption groups before owning land
Food ConFood Groups (Weekly Consumption)
FCS
Pop.
sumption
Score
(%) Tubers Cereals Pulses Vegs Fruits Anim. Oil Sugar Milk
Groups
Average
Prot.
Poor
53.4
3.9
3.7
2.4
2.0
0.2
0.0
0.9 0.5
0.6
20.3
Borderline
46.6
5.6
4.2
3.6
3.1
0.4
0.5
1.6 0.9
1.2
31.55
Total
100
Table 8: Food items consumption by food consumption groups after owning land
Food ConFood Groups (Weekly Consumption)
FCS
Pop.
sumption
Score
(%) Tubers Cereals Pulses Vegs Fruits Anim. Oil Sugar Milk
Groups
Average
Prot.
Poor
12.5
3.9
3.8
2.5
2.2
0.2
0.0
0.9 0.5
0.6
20.8
Borderline
33.4
5.6
4.3
3.8
3.4
0.3
0.0
1.7 0.9
1.4
33.2
Acceptable
54.1
6.3
6.2
6.7
4.3
1.1
0.7
2.5 1.8
2.0
51.05
Total
100
Table 9: Comparison of Food Consumptions Groups before and after owning land
Food consumption Population in %
Groups
Before redistribution
(1)
Poor
53.4%
Population in %
After redistribution
(2)
12.5%
Difference
(2)-(1)
Borderline
46.6%
33.4%
- 13.2%
Acceptable
0%
54.1%
+54.1%
32
- 40.9%
The results in table 9 lead to in the conclusion mean that owning land led to difference in
household diet diversity. The negative signs on poor consumption and borderline consumption
categories (-40.9% and -13.2 %) mean that the number of households with poor or borderline
diet diversity has decreased after owning land. In addition, the positive sign on acceptable
consumption (+54.1%) means an increase in number of households with acceptable diet
diversity. Thus, one can tentatively conclude that the experience of redistributive land reform in
Rwanda, gives evidence to suggest that owning land has a positive impact on household’s dietary
diversity. An important number of households are able to satisfy most of the family nutritional
needs.
However, the results demonstrate differently with recent various previous studies on
impact of land reform on household welfare. For example, Dasgupta and Pellegrini (2009) have
found that tenancy reform in West Bengal have not been effective in increasing the welfare for its
beneficiaries. Similarly, Valente (2009) has found that on average, land reform beneficiaries in
South Africa did not appear to have experienced lower food security as a consequence of land
redistribution. The authors of those studies explained the situation by the fact that the needs,
opportunities and restrictions that the new landholders can face imply opportunity costs which
can be high and extremely heterogeneous across different households. This was not the case for
the beneficiaries of land reform in Rwanda.
33
5.1
Effect of owning land on Children’s Nutrition Status
The hypothesis of effect of owning land on children’s nutrition status was that:
If the results show that many children were stunted but not wasted then it means a positive
impact on food security; because of the fact that after only two years of improved nutrition, a
child can only gain weight but not height. Otherwise, there is no impact.
Table 10: Frequency (%) of Stunting and Underweight by age and sex
Undernutrition prevalence (%)
Age (years)
Sex
n
1
2
Boys
Boys
Girls
Boys
Girls
Boys
Girls
Boys
Girls
Boys
Girls
Boys
Girls
Boys
Girls
Boys
Girls
Boys
Girls
Boys
Boys
Girls
Boys
Girls
Boys + Girls
2
2
1
2
2
2
3
5
7
6
4
5
4
4
6
6
5
5
5
7
7
4
50
44
94
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1-12 years
1-12 years
Stunting
Frequency
And
0
0
0
1 (50)
1 (50)
1 (50)
2 (66,6)
3 (60)
4 (57,14)
3 (50)
2 (50)
2 (40)
2 (50)
2 (50)
4 (66,6)
3 (50)
3 (60)
3 (60)
3 (60)
5 (71,42)
4 (57,1)
3 (75)
27 (54)
24 (54,5)
51 (54,25)
34
Underweight
0
0
0
0
0
0
1 (33,3)
1 (20)
2 (28,57)
2 (33,3)
1 (25)
1 (20)
0
1 (25)
1 (16)
1 (16)
2 (40)
1 (20)
1 (20)
2 (28,57)
2 (28,57)
1 (25)
11 (22)
9 (20,45)
20 21,27)
The results (table10) show that the level of chronic malnutrition (stunting) was significantly
higher (54.25%) as compared to acute malnutrition (underweight, 21.27%). This indicates that
the nutritional intake currently consumed by the children in the sample has improved after having
obtained land compared to the period of landlessness. In addition, the results show that the
variations between sexes are negligible; stunting (boys=54%, girls=54.5%) and underweight
(boys=22%, girls =20.45%).
This situation gives evidence to suggest that owning land has positive impacts on
children’s nutritional status. It also confirms the previous positive impact of owning land on
dietary diversity as many authors argued that household’s dietary diversity is correlated to
children’s nutritional status and growing (Ferguson et al., 1993; Onyango et al., 1998; Tarini et al.,
1999; Arimond and Ruel, 2002).
Conclusion
Summing up, it is notable that the present study gives evidence to suggest that owning land has
positive impacts on household’s dietary diversity and children’s nutrition status as proxies of
household’s food security. The next chapter conclude the discussion with a recap on the issue
emerging and put forward some policy implications for the successful redistributive land reform
in Rwanda.
35
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION
The present paper attempted to provide an analysis on the impact of redistributive land reform in
Rwanda on household’s food security. Thus, food security was analyzed through dietary diversity
and children nutrition status represented by the anthropometric measures weight-for-age and
height-for-age considered as good indicators and proxy of food security in the context of
Rwanda. The data used for the investigation was collected using household survey which was
undertaken in July 2009 in Kayonza District. The reflexive comparisons technique was applied to
exploit the variation in dietary diversity for people who received land in comparison to
themselves before they owned land. In addition, the anthropometric indices were constructed by
using z-score to compare relevant measures with those of comparable individuals. All those
techniques were used to obtain statistical estimates of the effect on household food security. The
results give evidence to sugget positive effects of owning land on household’s dietary diversity
and children’s nutrition status. Comparing household’s dietary diversity before and after
redistribution process, the results show that 54.1 % among of new landholders have acceptable
diet diversity while none was in that category during their period of landlessness. However, there
are still an important number of households with severe poor diet diversity and moderate diet
diversity even if this number has decreased after owning land. Furthermore, children have
improved in weight but many of them are still stunted. This situation is not surprising because
those families received land two years ago which is an insufficient period for them to improve in
height.
To make land redistribution an efficient tool for food security, complementary policies
may be needed. These interventions should be responsive to different clusters of the poor across
the population. This issue has been raised by authors like Pellegrini and Dasgupta, 2009; Valente,
2009; Finan et al., 2005; Deininger, 2003; Thiesenhusen, 1995 by pointing out that if land reform
is to be successful in ensuring a better standards of living for the recipients of land, government
policies should be directed specifically to the small farmers and at the barriers they have to
overcome to increase the productivity of their lands. Therefore, the present paper contributes to
further discussion in the field.
In the case of Rwanda, as many new landholders have low skills (education), their access
to economic opportunities such as access to credit and other relevant information to increase
agricultural productivity are reduced. Therefore, adequate investment in human capital
(education, health, family planning) is necessary to support a land reform and ensure agriculture
growth.
36
References
Adams, M., & Palmer, R.( 2007). Independent review of land issues (Vol.III). 2006-07: Eastern and
Southern Africa, Oxfam (mimeo).
Arimond, M. & Ruel, M. (2002) Progress in Developing an Infant and Child Feeding Index: An
Example from the Ethiopia Demographic and Health Survey 2000. Food Consumption
and Nutrition Division Discussion Paper. International Food Policy Research Institute,
Washington, DC.
Bandeira, P.,& Sumpsi, J.M. ( 2009). Access to land and rural poverty in developing countries:
theory and evidence from Guatemala. Universidad Politecnica de Madrid.
Barraclough, S. ( 1991). An End to Hunger? The social Origins of Food Strategies. London: Zed
Books.
Barrett, C. B. (2002). Food security and food assistance programs. In Handbook of agricultural
economics, ed. B. L. Gardner and G. C. Rausser, 2103-2190. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Besley, T., Burgess, R. (2000). Land Reform, Poverty Reduction, and Growth: Evidence from
India.The Quarterly Journal of Economics 115(2): 389-430.
Bigagaza, J.C.A., & Cecile Mukarubuga. 2002. “Land Scarcity, Distribution and Conflict in
Rwanda,” in Scarcity and Surfeit: The Ecology of Africa’s Conflicts, edited by Jeremy Lind and
Kathryn Sturman Pretoria, South Africa: Institute for Security Studies.
Binswanger, H. P., K. Deininger and G. Feder. 1995. "Power, Distortions, Revolt and Reform in
Agricultural Land Relations."Handbook of Development Economics 3B 2659-772.
Boudreaux, K. (2009). Land Conflict and Genocide in Rwanda. The Electronic Journal of Sustainable
Development (2009) I (3).
Burgess, R. 2001. "Land and Welfare: Theory and Evidence from China." Working Paper. London:
London School of Economics.
Bhattacharya, J., Currie, J., Haider, S. (2004). Poverty, Food Insecurity, and Nutritional Outcomes
in Children and Adults. Journal of Health Economics 23(4): 839-62.
Carter, M.R. and J. May. 1999. “Poverty, Livelihood and Class in Rural South Africa”. World
Development 27(1): 1-20.
Carter, M. (2003). Designing land and property rights reforms for poverty alleviation and food
security
Christine, V. (2009). The food (In) Security Impact of Land Redistribution in South Africa:
Microeconometric Evidence from National Data. The University of Nottingham, UK
Danie, C., Fidele, B., Jaakko, K. (1995). Promoting Food Security in Rwanda through
Sustainable Agricultural Productivity: Meeting the Challenges of Population Pressure,
Land Degradation and Poverty.
Dasgupta, A. & Pellegrini, L. (2009). The impact of Tenancy Reform in West Bengal: Evidence
the National Sample Survey. “The European Journal of Development Research 21(2): 231-249.
Deininger, K. and P. Olinto. 2001. "Redistribution, investment, and human capital accumulation:
The case of the Philippines." Washington, DC: World Bank.
Deininger, K. (2003). Land Policies for Growth and Poverty Reduction. Washington, World Bank and
Oxford University Press
Deininger, K.,S. Jin and H.-K. Nagarajan (2007). Land reforms, Poverty and Economic growth: evidence
from India: The World Bank, Policy Research. Working Paper Series. Washington, D.C.
Diamond, Jared. 2005. Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed New York: Penguin.
El-Ghonemy, M.R (2003). Land reform development challenges of 1963-2003 continue into the
21st century. Land Reforms, 2, 33-42.
37
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 1996. Rome Declaration on World
Food Security and World Food Summit Plan of Action. Rome.
FAO (2005). The state of food insecurity in the World 2005: Eradicating World hunger, key to
achieving the Millennium Development Goals. Rome: Food Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations.
Ferguson, E., Gibson, R., Opare-Obisaw, C., Osei-Opare, C., Lamba, C. & Ounpuu, S. (1993)
Seasonal food consumption patterns and dietary diversity of rural preschool Ghanaian
and Malawian children. Ecol. Food Nutr. 29: 219– 234.
Finan, F., E. Sadoulet and A. de Janvry. 2005. “Measuring the Poverty Reduction Potential of
Land in Rural Mexico”. Journal of Development Economics 77: 27-51.
Gibson, R. S. 2005. Principles of nutritional assessment. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press,
Inc.
Griffin, K., A.R. Khan and A. Ickowitz. 2002. “Poverty and the Distribution of Land”.
Journal of Agrarian Change 2(3): 279-330.
Gunhild, B., Tobias, L., Johannes, R. (2009). Far from Perfect? Impact Evaluation of NonExperimental Donors Programs in Water Supply and Sanitation. Working Paper.
Gunning, J. W. and et al. 2000. "Revisiting Forever Gained: Income Dynamics in the
Resettlement Areas of Zimbabwe, 1983- 96." Journal of Development Studies 36 (6): 131-54.
Hanstad, T., Brown, J., and Prosterman, R. (2002). Larger Homestead Plots as Land Reform?
International Experience and Analysis from Karnataka, 37 ECON. & POL. Wkly. 3053.
Hatløy, A., Torheim, L. E. & Oshaug, A. (1998) Food variety—a good indicator of nutritional
adequacy of the diet? A case study from an urban area in Mali, West Africa. Eur. J. Clin.
Nutr. 52: 891–898.
Henri A.L. Dekker (2001). Property Regime in Kyrgyzstan; An investigation into the links
between Land Reform, Food Security, and Economic Development. A Model to Assess
the Effectiveness of Land Tenure Change.
Holden, S., & Yohannes, H. (2002). Land redistribution, tenure insecurity, and intensity of
production: A study of farm households in southern Ethiopia. Land Economics, 78(4).
573-590.
Hoddinott, J. (2002) Measuring Dietary Diversity: A Guide. Food and Technical Assistance
Project (FANTA), Washington, DC.
Hoddinott, J. & Yohannes, Y. (2002). Dietary Diversity as a Food Security Indicator. Food
Consumption and Nutrition Division Discussion Paper, No. 136. International Food
Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC.
Human Development Report (2003): Millennium Development Goals: A compact among
nations to end human poverty. UNDP, New York Oxford University Press.
Jennifer, C., Anne S., Paula B. (2007). Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) for
Measurement of Food Access: Indicator Guide.
Kene, E., Anders R., Subbarao, K. (1999). Impact Evaluation: A note on concepts and Methods.
The World Bank.
Kumar, S. (1978): Role of Household Economy in Child Nutrition at low incomes: A case study
in KERALA.
Lipton, M (2009): Land Reform in Development Countries: Property Rights and Property
Wrongs. London and New York, Routledge.
López, R. and A. Valdés. 2000. “Fighting Rural Poverty in Latin America: New Evidence of the
Effects of Education, Demographics and Access to Land”. Economic Development and
Cultural Change 49(1):197-211.
38
Maxwell, D.& Wieb, K. (1998). Land Tenure and Food Security: A review of Concepts, Evidence
and Methods. Land Tenure Center. University of WISCONSIN – MADISON.
Musahara, H. (2006). Improving land tenure security for the poor in Rwanda.
Musahara, H. & Huggins C., 2005. ‘Land Reform, Land Scarcity, and Post-Conflict
Reconstruction: A Case Study of Rwanda’. In From The Ground Up: Land Rights, Conflict
and Peace in Sub-Saharan Africa, eds C. Huggins and J. Clover, 269–77. Pretoria and Cape
Town: Institute of Security Studies.
Ministry of Finance (2007). “2007 Government of Rwanda and Development Partners Retreat.
Draft Report”. Kigali, Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning.
National Institute of Statistics of Rwanda (2006). Comprehensive Food Security and Vulnerability
Analysis (CFSVA). Strengthening Emergency Needs Assessment Capacity.
National Institute of Statistics of Rwanda (2009). Comprehensive Food Security and Vulnerability
Analysis (CFSVA). Strengthening Emergency Needs Assessment Capacity.
Onyango, A., Koski, K. G. & Tucker, K. L. (1998) Food diversity versus breastfeeding choice in
determining anthropometric status in rural Kenyan toddlers. Int. J. Epidermal. 27: 484–489.
Pellegrini, L. (2009). Forest management in Bolivia, Honduras and Nicaragua: reform failures?
Institute for Social Studies. The Hague.
Pellegrini, L. & Dasgupta, A. (2009). Land Reform in Bolivia : The Forestry Question.
International Institute of Social Studies of Erasmus University Rotterdam. The Hague.
Pottier, J. (2006). Land Reform for Peace? Rwanda’s 2005 Land Law in context. Journal of
Agrarian Change, Vol. 6 No.4, October 2006, pp.509-537.
Prosterman, R., L. & Hanstad, T. (2006). Land Reform in the Twenty-First Century: New
Challenges, New Responses. 4 Seattle J. Soc. Just. 763
Rose, D., Meershoek, S., Ismael, C. & McEwan, M. (2002) Evaluation of a rapid field tool for
assessing household diet quality in Mozambique. Food Nutr. Bull. 23: 181–189.
Ruel, M. 2002. Is dietary diversity an indicator of food security or dietary quality? A review of measurement
issues and research needs. Food Consumption and Nutrition Division Discussion Paper 140.
Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute.
Ruel, M. T. & Menon, P. (2002) Child feeding practices are associated with child nutritional status
in Latin America: innovative uses of the Demographic and Health Surveys. J. Nutr. 132:
1180–1187.
Satish, C., Charles, Y.(2002). Land tenure and productivity: Farm level evidence from Papua New
Guinea.
Scott, C.D. (2000). “Mixed Fortunes: A Study of Poverty Mobility among Small Farm
Households in Chile, 1968-86.” Journal of Development Studies, 36(6): 155–80
Shipton , P. (1990). “African Famines and Food Security: Anthropological Perspectives”. In
annual Review of Anthropology, 1990, pp.353-394.
Sikor, T. and D. Muller (2009). “The limits of State-led and Reform: An Introduction”. World
Development, 37(8), 1307-1316.
Thiesenhusen, W. C. (1989). Searching for agrarian reform in Latin America. Unwin Hyman:
Boston.
Thiesenhusen, W(1995): Broket Promises: Agrarian Reform and the Latin American Campesino.
Westview Press, Co.
Tarini, A., Bakari, S. & Delisle, H. (1999). The overall nutritional quality of the diet is reflected in
the growth of Nigerian children. Sante 9: 23–31.
Udry, C., Hoddinott, J., Alderman, H. & Haddad, L.(1995). Gender differentials in farm
productivity: Implications for household efficiency and agricultural policy. Food Policy,
20(5), 407-423.
39
Wiesmann, D. 2006. A global hunger index: Measurement concept, ranking of countries and trends. Food
Consumption and Nutrition Division Discussion Paper 212. Washington, D.C.:
International Food Policy Research Institute.
Wiesmann, D., J. Hoddinott, N.-L. Aberman, and M. Ruel. 2006. Review and validation of
dietary diversity, food frequency, and other proxy indicators of household food security.
Report submitted to the World Food Programme, Rome, by International Food Policy
Research Institute.
Wiesmann, D., I. Schöninger, A. K. Sost, H. Dalzell, S. Collins, L. Kiess, and T. Arnold. 2007.
The challenge of hunger 2007. Bonn, Germany; Washington, DC; and Dublin, Ireland:
Deutsche Welthungerhilfe, International Food Policy Research Institute, and Concern.
Wiesmann, D., Bassett, L., Benson,T., Hoddinott,J. (2009). Validation of the World Food
Programmes’ Food Consumption Score and Alternative Indicators of Household Food
Security. IFPRI Discussion Paper 00870.
World Health Organization (1995) Physical Status: The Use and Interpretation of
Anthropometry. WHO Technical Report Series. WHO, Geneva, Switzerland.
WHO, Child Growth Standards (2006): Length/ Height-for-Age, Weight-for-Age, Weight-forLength, Weight-for- Height and Body Mass Index-for-age: Methods and Development.
Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.
World Bank. (2005). "World Development Report 2006: Equity and Development." Washington,
DC: The World Bank and Oxford University Press.
World Bank. (2007). Food consumption analysis: Calculation and use of the Food Consumption
Score in food consumption and food security analysis. Technical Guidance Sheet (draft).
Rome.
40
APPENDIX
MAP1: THE ADMINISTRATIVE DISTRICTS OF RWANDA IN 2009
U G A N D A
T A N Z A N I A
NYAGATARE
MUSANZE
D. R. C O N G O
RUBAVU
BURERA
GATSIBO
NYABIHU
GICUMBI
GAKENKE
RULINDO
NGORORERO
KAMONYI
RUTSIRO
MUHANGA
KARONGI
KAYONZA
GASABO
NYARUGENGE RWAMAGANA
KICUKIRO
NGOMA
RUHANGO
KIREHE
BUGESERA
NYANZA
NYAMASHEKE
NYAMAGABE
HUYE
RUSIZI
NYARUGURU
GISAGARA
B U R U N D I
0
12.5
25
50
´
Kilometers
41
SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
“REDISTRIBUTIVE LAND REFORM IN RWANDA: THE IMPACT ON HOUSEHOLD
FOOD SECURITY”
SECTION 1. GENERAL BACKGROUND
1. Survey number
……………………………………………
2. Survey
Prov……….. Dist………Sector……… Cell………
3. Survey date
……………………………………………….
SECTION 2. DEMOGRAPHICS
1. How many people are currently living in your household?...............................................
2. What is the gender (sex) of the household head?
1. Female …….
0. Male……..
3. What is the age of the household head (in years)………………………………….
4. Can the household head read and write a simple message in any language? 1. Yes 0. No
5. What is the level of Education of the household head?.......................................................
6. What is the Marital Status of the household head?
1. Married
2. Partner
5. Widow or Widower
3. Divorced
4. Living apart not divorced
6. Never Married
7. What is the age of the household head spouse or partner?.................................................
8. Can the household head spouse or partners read and write a simple message in any language
1. Yes 0. No
9. What is the level of Education of the household head spouse or partner?..........................
11. What is the number of children 0 to 12 years old?..................................................................
12. What is the number of children 5 to 14 years old currently attending school?...................
SECTION 3. ACCESS TO LAND
1. Did you receive the land during the land redistribution process?
1. Yes 0. No
2. If yes what is the size of your land approximately ....................( Number in hectares)
3. Did you receive the Title of that land?
1. Yes 0. No
4. Did you own any land prior land redistribution?
42
1. Yes 0. No
5. If yes what is the size of that land? ......................................................................
6. Does your household farm land?
1. Yes 0. No
Cropping seasons Season B 2009
Season A 2009
7. Did you use chemical fertilizer during this cropping period?
Season C 2008
1. Yes 0. No
8. Did you use natural (from animal/plant etc) fertilizer during cropping period?
1. Yes 0. No
SECTION 4: INPUTS TO LIVELIHOOD
1. What are your household’s main livelihood activities throughout the year?......................................
- Main
- Second
- Third
- Fourth
2. Who participates in those activities?.........................................................................................................
3. What proportion of this activity do you directly consume (food)?....................................................
SECTION 5: FOOD SOURCES AND CONSUMPTION
1. Yesterday, how many times did the adults in this household eat?.......................................................
2. Yesterday, how many times did the children (<14 years old) in this household eat?.......................
3. Compared to the period before you received land, how many times did the members of this
household eat?..................................................................................................................................................
4.a) Could you please tell me how many days in the past one week your household has eaten the
following foods and what the source was?
b) Could you please tell me how many days in the period before you received land your household has eaten the following foods and what the source was?................................................................
43
Last week
Food items
Number of Food
days eaten Sources
last 7 days
Maize
Rice
Other Cereals
( Sorghum)
Cassava
Sweet Potato
Other Roots/and
Tubers
Bread
Cooking Banana
Beans and Peas
Other vegetables
Cassava leaves
Groundnuts
Sunflowers
Fresh Fruits
Fish
Meat
Poultry
Eggs
Oil
Sugar
Milk
Before owning land
Food items
Number
of days
eaten last
7 days
Maize
Rice
Other Cereals
( Sorghum)
Cassava
Sweet Potato
Other
Roots/and
Tubers
Bread
Cooking
Banana
Beans and Peas
Other
vegetables
Cassava leaves
Groundnuts
Sunflowers
Fresh Fruits
Fish
Meat
Poultry
Eggs
Oil
Sugar
Milk
Food
Sources
5. Before you owned land or after owned land, did you or any household member go to sleep at
night hungry because there was not enough food?
0. No
1. Yes
6. If yes, how often did this happen?
1. Rarely
2. Sometimes
3.Often
7. In the past 7 days, it there have been times when your household did not have enough Food or
money to buy food, how often has your household had to:
44
Number of days
a) Rely on less preferred and less expensive foods?
b) Borrow Food, or rely on help from a friend or relative?
c) Limit portion size at meal times?
d) Restrict consumption by adults in order for small children to eat?
e) Reduce number of meals eaten in a day?
f) Others ( specify)
8. Did you experience any unusual situation during last two cropping seasons that affected your
household’s ability to provide for itself, eat in the manner you are accustomed to or affected what
your household owned?
9. If yes, by order of importance, what problems affected your household that period?
SECTION 6: SOURCES OF CREDIT, EXTERNAL ASSISTANCE, PROGRAMME
PARTICIPATION
1.
2.
3.
4.
Does your household have access to money from credit/ loan facilities?.............................
Have you or any household member taken a loan (or plan to take a loan) this year?............
If yes, what was the main use of the loan taken?
Did your household or one (or more) of its members benefit from any food assistance in
the last 12 months (including school feeding)?........................................
5. If “yes”, what type of food assistance was provided? And who provides the food
assistance: a) Food for school children ( eaten at school or take-home)
b) Food for pregnant and breastfeeding women and small children
c) Food for work
d) Food for training
e) Free food distributions
f) Other food assistance program, specify
6. Did your household or one (or more) of its members benefit from any non-food
assistance in the last 12 months?........................................
7. If “yes”, what type of non- food assistance was provided? And who provides the nonfood assistance: a) Agricultural assistance ( tools, seeds, fertilizers, etc)
b) Veterinary services
c) Money allowances
d) Constructions
e) Education ( e.g school material)
f) other, specify.
45