University of the Witwatersrand Johannesburg Faculty of Humanities School of Social Sciences The Role of Land Consolidation Programme in Household Food Security in Rwanda: A Case Study of Household Farmers of Gisenyi Village of Bugesera District By Jules Ntirenganya A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Masters in Sociology June 2012 i DECLARATION I hereby declare that this research report is my own, original and authentic work. It is submitted for the Degree of Masters of Arts in Sociology at the University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa. Where I have used the work of other authors, I have properly acknowledged them and I have not copied any author or scholar’s work for intention of making it my own. It has not been submitted before for any other degree of examination at any other university. ____________________________ _________________ Jules Ntirenganya Date ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to gratefully acknowledge the support of my family and friends during my studies. To my father and my deceased mother, a profound thanks for guiding me towards this journey of studies. To my brothers and sisters, I thank you for your invaluable support. I am truly thankful to Professor Samuel Kariuki for his priceless guidance and support. I am sincerely grateful, your insights, expertise and comments have immensely contributed to my growth in knowledge. Writing this report has been an unbelievable journey for me, and you have really pushed me to believe in myself. I would like to thank the people of Gisenyi village (Bugesera district) for allowing me to conduct this case study with them. I will never forget the way you welcomed me. My gratitude also goes to the key informants from, kibirizi cell, Mayange sector, Millennium Village Projects, Association de Coopération et de Recherche pour le Développement (ACORD), and the Ministry of Agriculture and Animal Resources (MINAGRI). I would like also to acknowledge the executives of Mayange sector and Kibirizi cell who helped me during data collection. Furthermore, I would like to thank Mr Fidele Tugizimana and his family for their encouragement and moral support during this endeavour. My acknowledgement further goes to my colleagues and friends at Wits University for their encouragement. I convey a word of appreciation to my dearest friend Miss Nkundabombi Malaika. Without you this would be impossible. To my lovely sister Liliane Uwamahoro, I wholeheartedly thank you for your unthinkable care and support to me since I could not reach this stage without you. You have been an incredible person for me during this journey of my studies. iii TABLE OF CONTENT DECLARATION ................................................................................................................. i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS................................................................................................ ii LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... vi ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................................................................... vii ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... ix CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... 1 1.1. Background Information on Rwanda ...................................................................... 1 1.2. Aims and Rationale ................................................................................................. 2 1.3. Research Questions.................................................................................................. 6 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ... 7 2.1. Overview of Land Fragmentation in Africa ............................................................ 7 2.2. Land Reform .......................................................................................................... 10 2.2.1. Overview and International Perspectives on Land Consolidation...................... 13 2.3. Theoretical Framework.......................................................................................... 14 2.4. Land Reforms in Kenya, Tanzania, and Ethiopia .................................................. 18 2.4.1. Land Consolidation in Kenya ................................................................................. 19 Overview ...................................................................................................................... 19 What was the impact of land consolidation in Kenya? ................................................ 20 What lessons does Kenya land reform offer? ............................................................... 23 2.4.2. Land Consolidation in Tanzania ............................................................................. 24 Overview ...................................................................................................................... 24 What was the impact of land consolidation in Tanzania? ............................................ 24 What lessons does Tanzania land reform offer? ........................................................... 27 2.4.3. Land Consolidation in Ethiopia .............................................................................. 28 Overview ...................................................................................................................... 28 What was the impact of land consolidation in Ethiopia? ............................................. 29 What the lessons does Ethiopia land reform offer? ...................................................... 31 2.5. Overview of the history of land fragmentation in Rwanda ....................................... 32 2.5.1. Land Tenure in Pre-colonial Rwanda ................................................................. 32 2.5.2. Land Tenure under Colonial Rwanda ................................................................. 34 iv 2.5.3. Land Tenure in the Post-colonial Rwanda ......................................................... 38 2.6. Land Reform: Rwanda National Land Policy (2004) ................................................ 41 2.6.1. Overview and Critiques ...................................................................................... 41 2.6.2. Impacts of the 2004 NLP .................................................................................... 45 2.6.3. Gender Inequality in Land Rights ...................................................................... 49 2.6.3.1. Women’s Land Rights Situation in Kenya ...................................................... 52 2.7. Household Food Security .......................................................................................... 54 2.7.1. Definitions and Concepts of Food Security ........................................................ 54 2.7.2. Food Security in Rwanda ................................................................................... 56 CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ................................................... 61 3.1. Research Design .................................................................................................... 61 3.2. Case Study ............................................................................................................. 62 3.3. Sampling ................................................................................................................ 63 3.4. Data Collection Methods ....................................................................................... 64 3.4.1. Document Analysis............................................................................................. 64 3.4.2. Non-participant Observation .............................................................................. 65 3.4.3. Unstructured or In-depth Interviews ................................................................... 66 3.4.4. Key Informants Interviews ................................................................................. 67 3.5. Ethical Issues and Considerations ......................................................................... 68 3.6. Limitations and Scope of the Study ....................................................................... 69 CHAPTER FOUR: RESEARCH FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATION ..................... 71 4.1. Description of the Area and Demographic Profile of Household Farmer Respondents ........................................................................................................... 72 4.1.1. Description of the Area....................................................................................... 72 4.1.2. Demographic Profile of Household Farmer Respondents .................................. 73 4.1.2.1. Gender ............................................................................................................. 73 4.1.2.2. Age................................................................................................................... 74 4.1.2.3. Household Size ................................................................................................ 75 4.1.2.4. Household Land Size ....................................................................................... 76 4.1.2.5. Household Consolidated Land Size ................................................................. 77 4.1.2.6. Household Economic Activities ...................................................................... 78 4.1.2.7. Types of Cash Crops in LCP in Gisenyi Village ............................................. 79 4.1.2.8. Household Agricultural Productivity within LCP ........................................... 81 v 4.1.2.9. Yearly Monetary Income of Household Farmers ............................................ 82 4.2. Agricultural Land Usage and Household Food Productivity Situation before the 2004 NLP ......................................................................................................... 83 4.2.1. Agricultural Land Usage before the 2004 NLP .................................................. 83 4.2.2. Household Food Productivity Situation before the 2004 NLP ........................... 84 4.3. Land Reform: the 2004 NLP ..................................................................................... 88 4.3.1. Brief Presentation of the LCP Implementation in Gisenyi Village .................... 88 4.3.1.1. Implementation of LCP in Gisenyi Village and Key Players Involved .......... 88 4.3.1.2. Impacts of the LCP Implementation ................................................................ 90 4.3.1.3. Government Support in the LCP ..................................................................... 92 4.3.1.4. Household Farmers’ Response and Views on the Implementation of LCP .... 94 4.4. Current Agricultural Land Usage and the Household Food Productivity Situation in the Post 2004 NLP Phase in Gisenyi Village ........................................................ 95 4.4.1. Current Agricultural Land Usage ....................................................................... 96 4.4.2. Advantages of Land Use Consolidation ............................................................. 97 4.4.3. Agricultural Products and its Sustainability within the LCP .............................. 98 4.4.4. Economic Situation of the Agricultural Production Following the LCP Implementation ................................................................................................. 101 4.4.4.1. Market Situation of the Agricultural Produce ............................................... 102 4.4.5. Challenges within LCP ..................................................................................... 104 CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION ................................................. 108 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 108 5.1. Summary of Background to the Study ................................................................ 108 5.2. Summary of the Key Findings ............................................................................. 112 Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 118 Selected References .................................................................................................... 119 vi LIST OF FIGURES Table 1: Gender distribution Table 2: Age distribution Table 3: Household size distribution Table 4: Household land size distribution Table 5: Household land consolidated distribution Table 6: Household economic activities distribution Table 7: Types of crops in LCP distribution Table 8: Household agricultural products per year, in LCP Table 9: Yearly monetary income of household farmers Table 10: Household agricultural products per year, before the 2004 NLP vii ABBREVIATIONS ADF African Development Fund AMC Agricultural Marketing Corporation ACORD Association de Coopération et de Recherche pour le Développement CFSVANS Comprehensive Food Security and Vulnerability Analysis and Nutrition Survey CFSVA, Comprehensive Food Security and Vulnerability Assessment FAO Food and Agricultural Organisation FCS Food Consumption Score GNC General National Census GDP Gross Domestic Product IFDC International Centre for soil Fertility and Agricultural Development ICARRD International Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development IFRC International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies LC Land Consolidation LCP Land Consolidation Programme MVP Millennium Villages Project MINAGRI Ministry of Agriculture and Animal Resources MINECOFIN Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning MINITERE Ministry of Land, Environment, Forests, Water and Mines MINIRENA Ministry of Natural Resources NAS National Agricultural Survey viii NISR National Institute of Statistics of Rwanda NGO Non-Governmental Organisations TANU Tanganyika African National Union UNDP United Nations Development Programme ix ABSTRACT The aim of this study is to investigate the outcomes of the Land Consolidation Programme (LCP) in household food productivity. The implementation of the 2004 Rwandan National Land Policy (which incorporates LCP) has been one of the Rwandan government strategic attempts to improve the livelihood of the Rwandans. In this study we look at some of the social-economic factors benefited by household farmers through the LCP since its implementation in 2007. In Sub-Saharan Africa many people depend on land for their livelihood and consequently, one of the obvious negative impacts has been the fragmentation of land. Historically the customary land management, in which inheritance is the major mode of land acquisition, has been the main way of allocating land in African societies. This communal tenure is viewed as unstable and leads to detrimental implications, in the form of mismanagement and overexploitation of the available land. The demographic pressure has also aggravated the issue of land scarcity and land fragmentation. The latter has consequences on agricultural productivity since it makes harder the efficient use of land. In this study the researcher explores the outcomes of the LCP in Rwanda as a type of land reform that aims at preventing fragmentation of land and enhancing the livelihood of household farmers. For achieving this objective, the study used a case study of household farmers from Gisenyi village of Bugesera district (in Rwanda) who are involved in the LCP since its implementation. Empirical data was obtained through in-depth interviews with 20 household farmers and 8 key informants. The emphasis in the study was put on investigating the state of household food productivity in Gisenyi. The study was guided by the property right theory and its basic conceptual assumption of enhancing the income through credit access. The findings of the study demonstrate that household farmers in Gisenyi village have benefited from the LCP. Household farmers confirmed that agricultural productivity has increased due to the new farming techniques brought by the programme. The study concludes that once the programme is properly and fully implemented, the LCP will highly enhance food self-sufficiency situation in Rwanda, improving also the livelihood of rural areas through other benefits such as infrastructure development. 1 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1.1. Background I nformation on Rwanda Rwanda is a landlocked Eastern African country, bordering Uganda (North), Tanzania (East), Democratic Republic of Congo (West) and Burundi (South). Rwanda has an estimated area of 26338 square kilometres, with a population currently estimated to be 10.718.379 and a population density of 407 inhabitants per square kilometres (General National Census, GNC 2002, National Institute of Statistics of Rwanda, NISR 2011). Rwanda is often referred to as the country of a thousand hills, on account of the hilly and mountainous landscape (Veldman and Lankhorst 2011). The Rwandan land ownership system has been historically defined by customary law (United Nations Development Programme, UNDP 2008). The pre-colonial Rwandan society was characterised by the land tenure system whereby the land was owned and distributed by the King (Kagame 1952). Under the colonial period, the Belgian administration sought to enhance the rights of individual land-users, by abolishing the former system and proposing exclusive individual land rights (Musahara and Huggins 2004). This new system divided land into even smaller farm fragments. Following the Rwanda’s independence in 162 till 14 the land tenure s\stem in Rwanda was still based on customary law (inheritance) and the written law, which attribute land rights to individuals. With the overwhelmingly increasing population, the problem of land scarcity and land fragmentation continued to develop, subsequently affecting food security (Ministry of Land, Environment, Forests, Water and Mines, MINITERE 2004). Given its small surface area and its growth which was estimated at 2.7 million in 1960, the population of Rwanda had risen to 7.2 million by mid-1991 (May 1995). In addition, the post-1994 genocide Rwanda was also characterized by land disputes due to the mass return of refugees of 1959 and 1973 (Musahara and Huggins 2004, Takeuchi and Marara 2011, Crook 2006). 2 Throughout of the country’s history, the problem of land scarcity and land fragmentation increased gradually. The lack of proper land management resulted into poor productive farming. The post-genocide government of Rwanda started to establish ways of addressing the problem of land scarcity and improving agricultural productivity. Hence in 2004 a land reform programme (which incorporates a Land Consolidation Programme, LCP) was adopted. This programme was aimed at guaranteeing land tenure security for all Rwandans and giving guidance to the necessary land reforms with a view to good management and rational use of national land resources (International Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development, ICARRD 2006). 1.2. Aims and Rationale This research is aimed at examining the outcomes of LCP on household food productivity in Gisenyi village of Bugesera district, in the East Province of Rwanda. Land consolidation (LC) is defined as projects that are conducted to consolidate fragmented agricultural properties, as well as dispersed parcels from different farms in order to achieve improvements in the agricultural productivity and in living standards (Cay and Iscan 2011, Hartvigsen 2006). The Rwandan land law defines LCP as a procedure of putting together small plots of land, in order to manage the land and use it in an efficient uniform manner, so that the land may give more productivity (Gazette of the Republic of Rwanda 2005). As pointed out in the previous section, various aspects have contributed in aggravating the land problem in Rwanda. According to the Rwandan Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning (MINECOFIN 2007), the situation in Rwanda is such that 2 percent of cultivating households do not own land the\ rent sharecrop or ³Eorrow´ land. More than 60 percent of 3 households cultivate less than 0.7 hectare of land while a quarter cultivate less than 0.2 hectare. 7he households’ standard of liYing is closel\ related to the si]e of the farms hence those holding small land parcels are generally the poorest because they cannot produce enough food to feed their families. Furthermore, the soil in Rwanda is vulnerable and very erosion sensitive (MINITERE 2004). In some areas in Rwanda  the land’s morpholog\ is not ideal for agriculture since it is characterised by very steep slopes that favour soil erosion. The latter sweeps away (into rivers and dams) the fertile top soil which is essential for agriculture, for it generally contains nutrients necessary for crops development. The soil erosion phenomenon may lead to the loss of soil fertility (Olson 1994) and this has a negative impact on agricultural production. Erosion and land degradation have long been assumed to be severe and major reason of the poverty and food insecurity in the country (Olson et al. 2003). Adekunde (2007) argues that, the traditional and primitive farming mechanisms and practices (such as intercropping, non-application of inputs, lack of fallowing system), used for centuries in Africa, have not changed significantly because of limited exposure to new technologies as well as economic constraints. However, despite the currently evident limitations of the African traditional farming methods, the latter have been an effective strategy for providing basic survival food needed. African small-scale farmers have developed traditional complex farming systems that have allowed them to meet their subsistence needs for centuries without depending on mechanisation or modern chemical inputs (Peshin and Dhawan 2009). Recent reports point out that in Rwanda in general, and in Bugesera in particular (which is the focus of this study), food insecurity has been a serious concern. The food security 4 indicators1 envisaged by the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) have exposed the situation of food security in Rwanda as lagging below standard. Food security is linked with food self-sufficiency and is measured by the ability of the household to secure its need for staple food. In addition, food security depends on the availability of cash which will enable a household to purchase staple food and basic factors of production such as land and labour (Calon 1990). The NISR (2006) reports that in 2006, in spite of remarkable economic growth during the post-1994 genocide reconstruction of the country, the population of Rwanda was still extremely vulnerable to food insecurity and malnutrition. According to the 2008 National Agricultural Survey (NAS) conducted by the NISR, in 2008 there was an unsatisfactorily food self-sufficiency in Rwanda with regards to food productivity: only 15 percent and 10 percent of agricultural households declared having reached their level of food self-sufficiency (NISR 2008). Furthermore, the NISR (2009) reported that, nationally, 4 percent of households were found to have a poor food consumption score2 (FCS), 17 percent have a borderline FCS, and 78 percent have an acceptance FCS. In addition, nationally 9.3 percent of households received food support in the 12 months prior to the 2009 Comprehensive Food Security and Vulnerability Analysis and Nutrition Survey (CFSVANS). The 2009 NISR report also indicated that Bugesera region was most vulnerable, in terms of food security, compared to other parts of the country. In Bugesera, 45.7 percent of households reported having received food assistance. The second highest region is Huye district, where 16.9 1 According to the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC 2006:2) an individual, a household or community, a region or a country can only be food secure when all members at all times are able to purchase, produce, obtain or consume sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their needs and preferences for a healthy and active life. According to this view, food security is essential for healthy, productive, and quality life 2 According to the World Food Programme, the FCS is a composite score based on dietary diversity, food frequency, and relative nutritional importance of different food groups 5 percent of the households reported having food assistance, and the third were Nyaruguru- Nyamagabe districts with 11.1 percent of household having received food assistance. In order to deal with food insecurity, the post 1994 Rwandan government implemented a land reform policy in 2004. The LCP was adopted as part of this land reform policy and implemented in 2007 with the aim of joining small arable plots of land into large farms in order to improve agricultural productivity. The Article 20 of the land law N ° 08/2005 explains the process of land consolidation. It states that: In respect of public interest and in a bid to improve rural productivity, the Minister having agriculture in his or her attributions [...] may approve the consolidation of small plots of land in order to improve land management and productivity. Each landholder shall be entitled to the rights over his or her parcel of land (Gazette of the Republic of Rwanda 2005). Rwanda is strongly dependent on agricultural production. Agriculture in Rwanda contributes around 39 percent to national Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and generates about 63 percent of total export revenues (Ministry of Agriculture and Animal Resources, MINAGRI 2010). Agriculture is also crucial for national food self-sufficiency, accounting for over 90 percent of all food consumed in the country (World Bank report 2011). Certainly, any improvement in this sector will significantly enhance the livelihood of Rwandans, in general. To our knowledge, no studies have been previously conducted to specifically assess the outcomes of LCP on household food productivity in Rwanda. Literature contains only studies concentrating on theoretical content of LCP (Ansoms 2008, Ansoms 2010) and implementation process of this programme (Huggins, 2009). 6 The present study seeks to examine the outcomes of LCP in Rwanda, where about 83 percent of the population depends on food production. The research focuses on food productivity, which is one of the defining aspects of food security. In this way, the contribution of this work to the academia would hopefully be to provide scientific knowledge of the relationship between government policies and food security. 1.3. Research Q uestions The main objective of the study is to assess the outcomes of the LCP on household food productivity in Bugesera district (in Rwanda). In order to attend this objective, this research will be conducted based on the following key research questions. The main question to be answered through this study is: What are the outcomes of LCP on household food productiYit\ in Rwanda’s %ugesera district? Secondary questions include: 1. What is the current state of the household food security in the post LCP phase? 2. What are the household farmer’s Yiews with regard to L&3 Eoth in polic\ and practices" 3. Have communities participated in the LCP? 4. What forms of infrastructure support do farmers receive through the LCP? 7 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 2.1. An Overview of Land Fragmentation in Africa Land fragmentation can be viewed as including a process of farming progressively in small parcels of land. This, inevitably, has negative impact on agricultural productivity. Furthermore, land fragmentation may hinder chances for economies of large-scale farming, and crop marketing. It may also hamper mechanisation and make it harder to control losses to crop thieves, pests, birds or other animals (Shipton 1989, Oppong 2009). Blarel et al. (1992) emphasise that the costs of fragmentation include increased travelling time between fields, which leads to lower labour productivity and higher transport costs for inputs and outputs, negative externalities such as reduced scope for irrigation and soil conserving investments as well as the loss of land for boundaries and access roads. Clay (1996) adds that there may be good reason to believe that farm fragmentation inhibits farmers from enhancing productivity. This implies that the level of investment required and the relative risk of investing in distant parcels may reduce the incentives for certain types of conservation investments. Different factors have contributed to land fragmentation in Africa, in general. One of these aspects is land ownership system. Throughout history, in most parts of African societies, initial rights to land are generally established through clearing the bush and first occupation. The individual who first cleared the land and his descendants retain a distinguished right over it and can grant more or less extended and more or less temporary rights to others (Reenberg and Lund 1998). Moreover, many empirical studies converge to show that, the major mode of land acquisition continues to be inheritance: the customary land management rules whereby 8 individuals gain access to land according to their positions within kinship networks and/or allocations made by customary authorities (Quan 2007). Over time, according to Migot- Adholla and Bruce (1994), people experienced simultaneous simplification and individualisation of rights whereby households increasingly acquire broader rights of exclusion and transfer as population pressure and levels of commercialisation increase. Families enjoyed rights of use over different parcels of land. In this trend, family rights were transmitted through prevailing rules of succession, which allowed divisible inheritance. For instance, in their study on Eastern Africa, Olson and colleagues (2004) found that, in the areas characterised by high agricultural potential, there was clearance of the forest for grazing domestic animals and for shifting cultivation. There was also change from clan-based land holdings to individual family farms. As ownership is transferred from the group to the individual, and as farms shrink as seceding generations split the land holding among the sons, the land management unit also decline in size and is fragmented. Quan (ibid) asserts that, this is true even in countries where such mode of acquisition is more likely to lose importance, namely countries where land titling programmes have been more or less systematically implemented (Kenya, Rwanda, Burundi, Uganda, Malawi, Zambia, and Zimbabwe). Moreover, in these countries exists various kinds of gifts (in form of land) on the one hand and purchases through the market on the other hand (André and Platteau 1998). Cotula et al. (2004) observed that, throughout Sub-Saharan Africa, land is fundamental issue for economic development, food security and poverty reduction. However, in many areas, land is increasingly becoming scarce due to a variety of pressures, including demographic growth. This had an impact on the effectiveness of land as the main asset for the livelihood of many African peoples. Shipton (1989) views that as population densities rise in Africa, land 9 boundaries increase and the land rights of groups and individuals are clarified. Therefore, population pressure often contributes to the division of open community land rights or individualisation. Migot-Adholla and colleagues (1991) also explain the process in which population pressure may lead to the individualisation of land right, which subsequently lead to land fragmentation. In their view, when population pressure increases, the period of fallow shortens and shifting cultivation is replaced by systems of rotation and soil improvement. These may also be precipitated by the introduction of commercial crops production, which tends to enhance rights of exclusion of individuals even though the basic control over outsiders’ access to the land continues to Ee e[ercised E\ the communit\. Moreover, Cotula (2007) pointed out that while extended family groups continue to play an important role as land management units in many parts of rural Africa, demographic changes, urbanisation, commercialisation of land relations, integration in the global economy, cultural changes and other factors tend to push towards land management decisions being taken more at individual level. In addition the colonialists’ Yiews were that the communal tenure in $frican countries entails an absence of individual land rights and a domination of group rights, so that the individual land user faces insecurity of tenure which, in turn, constitutes a disincentive to the investments needed for increasing productivity and efficiency on which agricultural development and general social progress must be based (Peters 2007). African states also took on a key role in adjusting land relations either directly, through land nationalisation, or through registration programmes aimed at creating private ownership rights (Cotula 2007). From the late 1960s to the early 1980s, land policies were promoted in Africa on the basis 10 that customary tenure did not provide the necessary security to ensure agricultural investment and productive use of land (Bassett 1993). The communal character attributed by colonial administration to customary land tenure was seen as an obstacle to development. Within communal land tenure system, when there is growing competition for the use of land as a result of population growth and increased commercialisation of agriculture, communal ownership becomes unstable and produces detrimental consequences, in the form of mismanagement and overexploitation of the available land. Efforts at cultivating and conserving it are discouraged and potential social benefits are lost (Chimhowu and Woodhouse 2006, Platteau 1995). The above challenges embedded in customary law (where especially land has been continuously acquired through inheritance), and the population growth which apparently aggravated the issue of land fragmentation led to the necessity of land reforms. Furthermore, the land reform which gives free hold tenure over land would promote long-term investment through the position of collateral security for credit (de Soto 1993). 2.2. Land R eform For many developing countries in Africa, land is the main asset for insuring household food security and generating income. Hence having access to land is a crucial factor for survival. Land constitutes the main and fundamental dimension of economy and livelihood basis (Cotula 2007). Land access can be defined as the processes by which people, individually or collectively, gain rights and opportunities to occupy and use land primarily for productive purposes (Cotula et al. 2006). In countries where agriculture is main economic activity, 11 access to land is a fundamental means whereby the poor can ensure household food supplies and generate income. Thus, in order to meet the requirements, the maintenance of productive capacity of the land has to be improved and made sustainable (Sharma and Soni 2006). This implies that land management mechanisms must enable sufficient agricultural productivity (individually and collectively), and sustain the economy of the society wherein it is a pivotal aspect. Due to the land fragmentation reality pointed out in section 2.1 (p. 7), sustainable land management necessitates imperatively land reform programmes that would counteract potential fragmentation systems. Therefore land consolidation (LC), a land reform procedure that allows consolidating fragmented parcels in order to improve food productivity, is indispensable. A LCP may comprise the exchange of spatially dispersed fragments of farmland to form new holdings (larger and better shaped) at one place, or at few places as possible (Oldenburg 1990). Within the LC, relative value and the ownership of the real plots are usually kept constant (Vitikainen 2004). Land reform is defined as a process where a country modifies the existing arrangements in which the land is governed. It is generally a legislation to directly redistribute rights to current farmland, and thus to benefit the poor by raising their absolute and relative status in terms of power or income compared with likely situations without the legislation (Lipton 2009, Adams 1995). Depending on different societal particularities and contexts, land reform can have various practical meanings. In Latin America and parts of Asia, land reform has tended to mean an organised redistribution of holdings or rights, while in Sub-Saharan Africa it has usually meant reform of systems of rights underlying holdings (Shipton 1989). Dai (1974) argues that land redistribution has practically become a universal of all land 12 programmes especially in the developing countries. Moreover, land redistribution may be more appropriately considered as a basic agrarian change to which all other reform measures bear a more or less dependent relationship. Land reform has been related to agricultural changes where people seek the alternative ways of exploiting land. Dai (ibid) points out that all people emphasising productivity as the primary objective of reform share the belief that meaningful improvement in the well-being of small-farmers can only be achieved in a growing and prosperous agricultural economy. In other words, the land tenure system of a society and its farming mechanisms are some of the key aspects in securing food productivity. Land reform is a blanket term often used interchangeably with agrarian reform. The idea of agrarian reform emerges when a society, or a part of it, recognizes that some of its institutions are inadequate with regard to the reality of the existing agrarian measures and in relation to the immediate economic or political needs (Jha et al. 2007). Thus, agrarian reform (International Fact-Finding-Mission to Brazil report 2000) is one of the most effective measures for guaranteeing the right to feed oneself; it breaks up the cycle of exclusion for millions of peasants, whose access and control over production resources has been denied, while offering them the option of producing food for their own subsistence and for the market. This means that in terms of policy, governments will look beyond redistribution. With agrarian reform, the government should seek to support other rural measures such as the improvement of farm credit, cooperatives for farm-input supply and marketing, and extension of services to facilitate the productive use of the land re-allocated (Musahara 2006, ICCARD 2006). Thus, in this study land reform is seen as a change of land use procedures with the purpose of good management and rational use of national land resources including the 13 consolidation of small plots for more economic and productive use of land as it is stated in the Rwandan National Land Policy of 2004 (MINITERE 2004). 2.2.1. Overview and I nternational Perspectives on Land C onsolidation Different scholars have suggested multifaceted conceptual considerations of LC. Sklenicka (2006) describes LC as a standard device for ensuring rural development and increasing land use efficiency. Similarly, Lerman and Climpoies (2006) emphasise that LC should lessen the expenses of production and increase net income for a farm of given dimension. The opportunity for LC may come when fragmented land is no longer productive (Bullard 2007). The strategy of LC is needed to ensure that necessary resources and assistance is provided to farmers (Food and Agricultural Organisation, FAO 2003). By consolidating small plots into large scale-farms, many opportunities such as obtaining credit facilities and acquiring new technologies in farming may be made available to the land owners and lead them to improve their situation (Crecente 2002). The LC allows farmers to get farms with fewer parcels that are larger and better shaped, and to expand the size of their holdings which enables them to become more competitive in their agricultural activities (FAO ibid). The LC projects may include activities such as improvement of the road and drainage network, implementing the process of irrigation, supporting community based agro- processing, landscaping, environmental management and conservation projects, and facilitating access to markets and infrastructure support. Moreover, LC projects serve to improve land administration through the better quality of information on land rights and 14 facilitate the development of land markets and the management of land conflicts (Vitikainen 2004, FAO ibid). Therefore, LC can be seen as a precondition for land use efficacy that would contribute to sustainable food security. 2.3. Theoretical Framework Hernando de Soto’s theoretical Yiew on propert\ right proYides a framework that enaEles the researcher to rationally assess the different aspects of the LCP in Rwanda and the state of food security. De Soto (2004) views property right as something that is so essential for creating wealthy and alleviating poverty. He asserts that property enables trust, which in turn enables credit, which in turn enables capital, and capital is what ultimately enables exchange. In other words property is more than simply ownership. In his book, The Mystery of Capital, de Soto (2000) argues that the poor have many assets; the problem is that they hold these resources in defective forms. Houses are built on land whose ownership rights are not adequately recorded many engage in unincorporated businesses with undefined liability. Besides the fact that the rights to these possessions are not adequately documented, these assets cannot readily be turned into capital, cannot be traded outside of narrow local circles where people know and trust each other, cannot be used as collateral for a loan, and cannot be used as a share against an investment. For de Soto (ibid), a property document is the conspicuous sign of vast hidden processes that connect all these assets to the rest of the economy. Thus, without representations, assets are dead capital. 15 According to de Soto (1993), when it comes to land, property rights are embodied in formalised titles and a piece of land without such title ownership at low cost is extremely hard to market. Any trade of this land will require enormous effort to determine the following: Does the seller own the land and have the right to transfer it? What are its boundaries? Will the new owner be accepted as such by those who enforce property rights? What are effective means to exclude other claimants? De Soto (ibid) thus emphasises that when people formalise titles they are aware that property is under their own legal control and therefore they have the incentive to invest their intelligence and work in improving it. He postulates that formalised titles open the door to credit. This implies that, once the rules are made clear on ownership of property it is easy for people to optimize use of assets as they have security. Likewise, Otto (2009) argues that the poor should quickly move their land assets from an unproductive extra-legal sphere into the legal sphere where these assets could turn into capital. From the foregoing, it can be argued that formal property records and titles represent our shared concept of what is economically meaningful about any asset and they capture and organize all the relevant information required to conceptualize the potential value of an asset and so allow us to control it. 'e Soto’s theoretical approach offers an analytical tool for addressing the role that land consolidation plays in increasing food production at the household level in Bugesera District in Rwanda. However, the formalisation theory of informal property rights as a capital generator may not claim to be the only one adequate theory to explain how to alleviate poverty in rural poor population of the undeveloped countries. 16 Musembi (2007), for instance, questions formal property towards the Kenyan example. $ccording to the .en\an Land $ct e[cept as otherwise proYided in .en\a’s Registered Land Act, no other written law and no practice or procedure relating to land shall apply to land registered under that $ct. 0usemEi’s argument is that although the official idea of ownership attached on formal title does exist in some form, it is not the defining feature of property relations. It coexists, and is constantly in tension, with broader and dynamic social processes and institutions that shape property relations by constantly balancing between various competing claims and values, rights and obligations (Musembi 2007, Mathieu 1999). Thus, the content and shape of formal title varies with local context, and can be very different from what the officials and proponents of formalisation have in mind. Beckman (2003) argues that, for de Soto, it is primarily the location in the informal, the extra-legal sphere which is the problem. De Soto seems to propose that it would be easy to legalise such rights without changing them. Hitherto, the experiences with land rights reforms show that, even with a well-functioning bureaucracy, the transformation of local property rights into actual private ownership changes the nature of the rights and leads to the exclusion of the weaker amongst them women. 'e Soto’s theor\ of accessing credit through propert\ right has also been questioned. It is arguable that access to financial markets is very important for poor people (WB 2000). However, according to Gilbert (2002) these poor people are often discouraged and do not seek loans since they believe that they will be denied credit or they assume that they will not fulfil bank requirements. On the other side, he argues that the reluctance of the poor to request for loans may be primarily due to fear of what may happen if they are not able to pay back the loan. Thus, for every poor family, repaying a loan is a burden that may endanger the 17 household’s entire financial viability. In Tanzania, the Shiviji Commission found that some villages believed that village titles would enable them to get loans, using the title as collateral. However, when they were made aware of the ultimate possibility of foreclosure in the case of failing to pay, simple amazement they displayed indicate that such a possibility had occurred to them (United Republic of Tanzania 1994). Scholars like Chimhowu and Woodhouse (2006) have also contested de Soto’s Yiew E\ claiming that if land under customary tenure were to be considered extra-legal property, in the sense that indiYidual land user’s rights are recognised E\ customar\ authorit\ Eut not in the statutory legal system, then it is not clear how in Africa formalising of property rights would generate capital in the manner de Soto foresees. Their argument is founded to the Shipton’s 12 work in rural areas of Kenya where it was found that under risky dry land farming conditions, land is rarely used to secure loans even if it is held under freehold. The farmers fear that credit can lead to debt which may result in loss of land. Hence, as Johnson and Rogaly (1997) argue, lending can harm as well as enable poor people. Financial relationships, especially those of debt, are one way in which the powerlessness of groups of poor people is rooted. Therefore, the poorest are likely to need to build up a degree of security before investment and growth becomes possible. Thus to sum up, the LC projects are structured in such a way to promote high agricultural productivity as a priority. Hence it is of paramount importance for both public and private sector to install drastic measures to support farmers by providing them with seeds, significant inputs and new food production technology so that the underlying mandate of LC becomes more beneficial. 18 In Rwanda, the LCP, which is the focus of this study, was initiated by the post-1994 Rwandan government in order to effectively address the concern of food security, particularly with the aim of increasing agricultural productivity. However, before assessing the LCP in Rwanda, it may suffice to single out and briefly discuss three typical examples of African countries (Kenya, Tanzania and Ethiopia) wherein LC policies have been implemented, so as to comparatively situate our critical study of the LCP in Rwanda. As mentioned above, LC is a land reform that allows the exchange of dispersed parcels of farmland to form new holdings which are larger and better shaped at few places as possible. It can also facilitate the adoption of new farming techniques leading to a more prosperous and efficient agricultural (Oldenburg 1990, FAO 2003). 2.4. Land Reforms in Kenya, Tanzania, and Ethiopia These three African countries are in the vicinity of Rwanda (East-Africa block and great lakes region in large), and their pre-colonial land management was almost similar to that of pre-colonial Rwandan kingdom (described above). Kenya, Tanzania and Ethiopia have earlier adopted land reform processes, as it will be discussed below. Thus, their distinctive experience in land reform, where LC has been implemented in order to improve land usage, may permit situate, comparatively, the present study (on LCP in Rwanda), by pointing out the possible challenges encountered in moving from one land management system to the other (from traditional system to a legislative land reform policy), the benefits of LC program. Thus, as such, these exemplary cases (of Kenya, Tanzania and Ethiopia), provide a contextualised reality of land reform experiences in East Africa that can shade light in assessing and understanding the Rwandan program of LC. 19 2.4.1. Land Consolidation in Kenya Overview Kenya is one of the African countries that have adopted the policy of land reform and LC (as early as 1954) in order to address the problem of land fragmentation (Barber 1970). Kenya is used as an example in this study to interrogate the possibility and chances of success of the LCP in the Rwandan situation. Its experiences and challenges are used to underscore the importance of sustainable policies that take into account local measures for their success. As in all pre-colonial African countries, the land tenure system in Kenya was based on customary law. In his assessment of the Kenyan case, Coldham (1978) asserts that customary law was deduced to be a barrier to agricultural development. The allocation and inheritance of land (under customary law) was largely responsible for the considerable fragmentation of land holdings. The purpose of land consolidation was then to make sure that unproductive plots were replaced by large farms where agricultural productivity could be increased. Thus, in the early 1950s, the colonial administration in Kenya adopted a plan that came to be known as the Swaynnerton plan. The Swaynnerton plan implemented in 1954, aimed at entrusting African farmers with secure land ownership rights and access to export crop markets (Deininger and Binswanger 1995). One of the main objectives of the 1954 Swaynnerton plan was to transform customary land rights into individual freehold. He adds that the twin pillars of the programme were the institution of freehold land tenure and the selective loosening of restriction on African cultivation of high value crops such as coffee and tea (Kariuki 2004). This means that the main purpose of this plan was for cash crops rather than for crops for consumption by the general public. 20 In 1956 the land reform programme for the registration of individual titles to land held under customary law started. It was guided by three statutes which are the Land Consolidation, Land Adjudication and Land Group Representatives Act (Njenga 2004). The implications of these land reforms for individual households and for the changing land-use systems were of central importance to rural development in Kenya (Smucker 2002). Kenyan smallholders whose communities allowed the government to register their land as private property did so largely in the hope of obtaining farm loans on the security of their land titles (Shipton 1992). What was the impact of land consolidation in Kenya? During the year 1956, some areas in Kenya were already undergoing the early stages of an agricultural revolution, the like of which had not been seen in any other African country. For instance, with emphasis on cash crops, areas like Bungoma responded positively to the land consolidation. Furthermore, the popularity of Arabica coffee among Bungoma households during this phase of .en\a’s colonial econom\ was reflectiYe not onl\ of their inclination to embrace agricultural innovations, but also of the extent to which the forces of commercialisation had penetrated their agrarian economy (Makana 2010). The post-independence Kenya (1963 and beyond) maintained the LC projects. Throughout Kenya, consolidation and intensification of land-use was followed by state investment in infrastructure creating an emerging national political and economic core (Smucker 2002). In the 1960s, Kenya experienced the highest agricultural productivity increases in Africa (Migot-Adholla et al. 1991). Although land reform in Kenya has had notable benefits such as increased and market-oriented agricultural productivity, some cases of shortfalls have also been registered. Wilson (1971), in his study of Kisii district, found that there was no 21 significant relationship between increased security of tenure and added inducement to invest in the development of holdings. The reason for this may be that the smaller holdings were always relatively developed to serve immediate family needs, and also because even before registration, family heads did not feel very insecure, in spite of some land litigations. Likewise, although land titles were held by many farmers in Kenya (in the regions of Madzu, Lumakanda, Kianjogu, and Mweiga), there was no significant relationship between the possession of land title and use of credit (Migot-Adholla et al. 1991). Green (1987) reports that although the purpose of LC in Kenya was to make sure that unproductive plots get replaced by large farms where agriculture productivity can be increased, the post-independence Kenya has been marked by imbalances in access to credit. He mentions that the post-independence Kenyan administrative rules favoured farmers with sufficient holdings, usually rich farmers, facilitating their access to credits . The social status of the applicant and his liquidity in monetary system was considered in order to receive credit (Okoth-Ogendo 1976). For instance, according to Shipton (1992), by December 1991, sixteen years since land registration in the Luo sub-location of Kanyamkago had been completed, only 77 (6 percent) of the 1,242 registered land parcels had ever been mortgaged for loans. The credit was available, and appropriately scaled, only to a small wealthy elite. This led to rich farmers having the privilege of owning more land while small holdings farmers were losing some of their land as it got confiscated because they were unable to fully exploit their farms (Green ibid). Although many landholders have been able to mortgage their lands since registration, and obtained credit for agricultural development, Wilson (1971) points out that many of the loan recipients have been people with off farm employment since the banks based their lending on 22 capacity to repay rather than the security offered. Thus, the often inadequate supervision, especially of commercial bank credit, has meant ineffective utilisation of the credit facilities. Furthermore, the issue of gender and land right was neglected yet as Mbote et al. (2005) argue, customary law ensured that women do not really exercise the same land rights as men do. The issue of gender inequality in land rights in Kenya is more debated in section 2.4.3.1. (p. 52). In addition, the political and business elites allocated themselves larger parcels of the land. In other words, the adoption of individual titles created also a new form of land fragmentation whereby a few rich individuals accumulated large chunks of land for commercial purposes and marginalised small scale farmers ( Rutten 1997). Thus, despite LC attempts, land fragmentation continued in Kenya. Shipton (1989) observes that the land reform did not end subdivision and fragmentation. Where holdings were consolidated under government authority, the holders continued to subdivide them in succession and inheritance. Customary law continued to determine the way in which the head of a household divides his land among his family, where a single piece of registered land would be subdivided on the ground between the registered proprietor and the members of his family (Coldham 1982). For instance, Shipton (1992) elucidates that patrilineal system (tracing descent and kin group membership through the male line  Yirilocal residence settling at the husEand’s natal home after marriage), and the subdivision of holdings devolving from one generation to the next remained norms in Luo area. People continued to acquire land through kinship and broader community ties. Rights of individuals were not thought inviolable, but they interlocked with 23 the rights of others, and overlapped with those of families and wider groups. Hence, it increased land fragmentation. What lessons does the Kenya land reform offer? Arguably, the main objective of land reform in Kenya was to improve the agricultural productivity. Based on these literature considerations, it appears that, though the introduction of land rights in Kenya had some significant benefits, there were some aspects of the land reform as a whole that needed attention for the sustainability of the latter. However, despite the aforementioned negative aspects in the land reform situation in Kenya, Coldham (1982) argues that the LCP has been generally successful, and judging from the existing scanty evidence, there is little likelihood that a process of re-fragmentation will occur on an alarming scale. As observed by Rutten (1997), statutory law is gradually replacing customary laws in Africa. The principal argument for tenure reform centres on the effects of uncertainty in discouraging investment on land that is held without long-term security. Thus, land tenure that improves such security may encourage investment and productivity will increase both from the demand side, as famers become more certain of gaining the benefits of investment in the future, and from the supply side, by affording farmers better access to credit. Moreover, according to the National Report on Kenya (2006), any land reform programme is expected to secure the land rights to own and use land by marginal groups especially women and indigenous communities. 24 2.4.2. Land Consolidation in Tanzania Overview Another selected example of LCP is 7an]ania’s case. McHenry (1976) points out that the collectivization drive actually began following the publication of President Nyerere's second "post -Arusha" paper, entitled "Socialism and Rural Development," in September, 1967. In 1969 both the government and Tanganyika African National Union (TANU) established organizations to promote the creation of Ujamaa villages. By the early 1970s several "operations" had been conducted to encourage people to enter the villages. Moreover, the decision by the TANU National Conference of November 1973 that the entire peasantry should live in Ujamaa Yillage within three \ears underlined the regime’s long adherence to the view that agriculture was the main element in the development of the country (Kjekshus 1977). Following the Arusha Declaration in 1967 and the Ujamaa policy, rural development was organised in two main ways: large scale farming and agriculture under parastatals and small- scale agriculture under villagisation (Tsikata 2001). The major purpose of Ujamaa policy was to encourage people to live in villages and do farming together and this policy was destined to affect large scale farming, to prevent the emergence of inequalities and relations of exploitation in the rural areas and to facilitate the adoption of cooperative forms of production marketing (Coldham 1995, Moore 1979). What was the impact of land consolidation in Tanzania? According to Tsikata (2003), both small and large-scale African producers benefited from these policy and legislative reforms in terms of access to land and inputs. Local producers did 25 expand their holdings and improve their productivity, and the continuities in policy affected food production positively. The Ujamaa villages, in order to develop their communal farms, were provided the fertilisers and mechanised equipment, all to be obtained through credit. The tractors generally allowed for the opening up of much larger areas of land than when villagers relied on their hoes alone (Hyden 1980). The benefits of the Ujamaa villages cannot be underrated. Not only was the Ujamaa policy successfully in bringing people to live together in the villages but it also helped a great deal in giving poor peasants communal control over major means of production (De Vries 1978). However, none of these policy shifts has lead either to the transformation of production structures and relations in the rural areas or to the substantial increase in productivity of the rural areas (Lubawa 1985). On the contrary, other scholars reported that the Ujamaa policy led to some shortfalls. Moore (1979) argues that the level of cooperative production in these villages was often minimal. For instance, in 1972 it was becoming clear that the formation of Ujamaa villages was proceeding too slowly, and that some areas were particularly antagonistic towards abandoning traditional rural systems. Hyden (1980) therefore argues that although villages using tractors to plough their land were able to achieve a higher output than those which did not, it was only a quarter of the official estimate. Similar views were held by Shao (1986) who believed that these cooperative and communal production were proving to be a failure since farmers were reluctant to participate. In 1970s and early 1980s, maize, beans and coffee trading remained officially confined to state-controlled marketing institutions, except for food crop sales at the local market. 26 However, the hiccups emerged and there was a major drop in coffee procurement that led to some farmers abandoning coffee cultivation due to loses (Ponte 2001). Hyden (1980) emphasises that in order to modernise maize production, the government insisted on the use of better quality seeds and fertilisers which were provided on credit, but the peasants were reluctant to enter into such financial obligations. Subsequently, it resulted in low production according to the official estimates. The diminished production was evident when the cashewnut authority's purchases fell from 140,000 tons in 1973 to 44,000 tons in 1978/79, a decline partly associated with villagisation because peasants were moved far from their farms (Havnevik 1993). Moreover, Lubawa (1985) argues that the villagisation also affected food crop production adversely. This was due to the fact that more time was spent in moving and settling than farming. Lorgen (1999) asserts that villagisation disturbed work in the fields when it was implemented, and the increased distances from their fields for many of villagised farmers undermined their production. According to De Vries (1978), Ujamaa enterprises were too small to allow scale economies. Most extension agents also had little or no training as well as experience in large-scale production. Consequently, they could only recommend techniques appropriate to small-scale production and were unable to advise village planning committees on the economics of large-scale projects. Moreover, the government assistance at the village level was concentrated in the more developed villages as these were by definition more viable. Thus, as opined by Raikes (1975), the Ujamaa policy did not led to any significant increases in productivity or surplus flow from agriculture. Among the impacts of Ujamaa, were the adverse effects on the environment and particularly on the land used for cultivating (Lorgen 1999). 27 On the other hand, Putterman (2002) argues that, collectivization is said to be inherently disadvantageous or unacceptable to small farmers, simply because it runs directly counter to the self-interests of peasants and to their µhuman nature’. De Vries (1978) asserts that it is only when the farmers will exercise real control over the system that can serve their interests and thus aid in their self-liberation and development. $lso women’s land rights were neglected. Due to customary law, Tsikata (2003) articulates that, male children inherited larger portions of a deceased person’s land Eecause the\ were expected to shoulder the bulk of such responsibilities. Marital residence, which was patriarchal, did not favour women because their share of property often remained in the care of brothers to be accessed by them in case of divorce or widowhood.