1. Soil Erosion and Land Tenure Regularization in Rwanda: A historical perspective Alfred R. BIZOZA (PhD) Director of Research, IPAR- Rwanda Associate Professor in Agricultural Economist University of Rwanda E-mail: alfredbiz23@gmail.comalfredbiz23@gmail.com “2015 WORLD BANK CONFERENCE ON LAND AND POVERTY” The World Bank - Washington DC, March 23-27, 2015 1

2. Outline of the presentation  Introduction  Soil Conservation in Rwanda  Land Tenure Regularization reforms in Rwanda  LTR and Structural changes  Conclusions and Policy Implications 2

3. Introduction  This paper examines Rwandan highlands and its problems of land degradation and LTR in a historical perspective.  It provides an account of soil erosion against the background of the environmental discourses that have emerged over time in Rwanda.  The tropical highland areas of East Africa and central Africa, including Rwanda are generally of :  High population,  Steep slopes  Sufficient precipitation for a range of agricultural activities  Physical characteristics environmentally fragile.  Soil erosion and deforestation (major environmental concerns) 3

4. Introduction  Environmental historians argued that the colonial states in Africa have imported ideas of conservation from the United States where soil erosion was recognized in the early 20 th Century.  The 1930s dustbowls in the USA prompted government to implement soil erosion programmes and provided the US Department of Agriculture the mandate to enforce measures and to claim more resources for conservation programmes  These concerns travelled to Africa. Networking - travelling abroad and inviting peers from the UK and USA to Africa - has played a major role in the development of an anti-erosion environmental discourse. 4

5. Soil Conservation in Rwanda  Current estimates from RAB shows that 73% of the national land is already protected against soil erosion using both bench and progressive terraces  About 38% of the agricultural land has to be protected from erosion before cultivation and 39% is considered at high risk.  About 80% of potential lands for bench terraces are yet to be terraced compared to 25% for progressive terraces.  These figures underline the importance of anti-erosion measures implemented by the colonial and post-colonial states over the past 100 years. 5

6. Areas at risks of soil erosion in Rwanda 6

7. Soil Conservation in Rwanda 1.Soil conservation during the pre-colonial era  Before colonization, soil erosion was not yet a critical issue;  Accessing or occupying land was a major concern for commoners in Rwanda since the King and elites had the overall control over the land and cattle  Most land was used for livestock while a small portion of land was set aside for cultivation- today is the reverse  Two systems in conserving the natural resources although limited were:  Strip cropping ( Inyanamo) system entailed keeping some fallow spaces between cultivated areas,  Stone rows system ( Rudumburi) that meant protecting the land from runoff 7

8. Soil conservation in Rwanda 2. Erosion control during the colonial era  The colonial administration induced a more intensive and sedentary use of the land, soil erosion control was initiated since 1937 at a limited scale,  The Mission Anti-Erosive was established in 1945 mandated to better disseminate some of the existing soil erosion techniques: hedge-rows, leaving a free space between farms for movement of livestock and digging trenches coupled with hedge-rows,  Burning of fields was forbidden and enforced through penalties and imprisonment; tree planting was stimulated through collective labour ( umuganda),  Those techniques did not provide answers to real problems of soil infertility and decreasing agricultural production 8

9. Soil conservation in Rwanda 9 3. Soil erosion control 1962- 1994  The change of government did not imply a new style to control soil erosion, only hedgerows (for mulching and fodder for livestock) and bench terraces were new additions  In the 1980s, soil erosion control was actively expressed in political terms, 1982 was labeled as ‘the year of soil erosion control’,  The budget for soil erosion control increased by 40%,  Despite all efforts the 1988 National Commission indicated that 63% of the land was not protected by any of the available erosion control techniques.

10. Soil conservation in Rwanda 4. After 1994  In the post 1994 period, the state focused more than before on bench terraces and conservation objectives became closely linked to attaining food self-sufficiency and exporting cash crops,  Experts supports bench terraces as an effective way to combat soil erosion and to maintain water and soil nutrients but if well maintained.  However, terracing huge investments in inputs like fertilizers which farmers often find difficult to secure- farmers contend that you need to feed the land first before it feeds you.  Zero grazing is presently promoted because of its combined effects like soil protection, integrated nutrient management through manure strengthening the (re)integration of cultivation and livestock 10

11. Land tenure Regularization reforms in Rwanda 11  Land Tenure Regulation (LTR) program addressed some of the limitations of the traditional customary institutions of land tenure system  Prominent scholars and policy makers have commended the LTR process in Rwanda- this appears to have been conducted in a more professional and systematic manner following the National Land Policy and other legal and institutional instruments.  During 2009-2013, about 10.5 million land parcels were registered and issuance of land titles was completed in the LTR process,  Social Capital in terms of collective action and trust are seen enabling factors for intervention that requires mega budgets which sometime are difficult to meet.

12. Land tenure Regularization reforms in Rwanda LTR and land-based Investment (1)  Land tenure and security of tenure are considered to be key institutional dimension driving land reforms.  The land reforms observed in the past were driven by ensuring enabling environment for  land markets, establish equal land rights for both men and women, establish institutional infrastructure to manage lands, regulate expropriation and registration, and promote land-based investment, among others  The relationship between LTR and investment has been of great debate in Rwanda. But there is still an ambiguous linear relationship between investment in land conservation and security of tenure  Earlier studies found little empirical evidence of the relationship between land tenure and increased land based investment such as SWC measures, also verified in Rwanda. 12

13. Land tenure Regularization reforms in Rwanda LTR and land-based Investment (2)  One of the conclusions in our earlier studies has been and still remains that “ whether formal or traditional land rights are conducive for land- based investment should be considered site or context –specific and remains open to empirical debate in Rwanda and elsewhere  Again there seems to be expectations that are over optimistic about the changes in the people’s livelihoods.  LTR is a necessary but not a sufficient condition to effect land-based investment in Rwanda. Other structural changes are needed to fully sustain and benefit from LTR program.  This implies that the analysis of LTR effects on land investments will need more than a single causal effect relationship but multiple ones to account for structural changes and adaptations needed for an effective LTR program. 13

14. Land tenure Regularization reforms in Rwanda LTR and Structural changes  The social and economic prospects of the LTR comprise: security of land tenure, gender equality, ensure land rights, access to bank credits, enables land transfers, and promotion of land based investment.  Linking LTR and poverty raises an important question of how the LTR can serve as means out the poverty vulnerability trap?  Two sister’s methodological questions are important : The first is linked to the nature and achievements of the LTR prospects while the second is linked to what is the optimum time needed for apparent changes in people’s livelihoods  To optimize the LTR benefits some structural challenges need due attention: promotion of land markets, optimum use of land for economics purpose, secure transferable land rights, and access to credit using land as collateral 14

15. Land tenure Regularization reforms in Rwanda LTR and Structural changes- Land Markets and Access to Credits  Land-renting options are scarce due to limited liquidity, credit constraints, and support institutions,  Earlier studies show that people buy land for investment in rural areas. About 12% of the rural people participate in land markets to pay debt and 45% sell their lands to maintain their consumption when faced with unexpected shocks, 15

16. Land tenure Regularization reforms in Rwanda LTR and Structural changes- Land Markets and Access to Credits  The mortgage is still dominant (82%) among other collaterals in most of the commercial banks in Rwanda  Land transfers are increasingly important: donation, expropriation, exchange, etc 16 ProvinceDistrict Number of transfers EasternKayonza706 Kirehe277 Kigali CityGasabo6424 NorthernMusanze467 Rulindo192 SouthernGisagara108 Huye544 WesternNgororero115 Rubavu1303 Total10136

17. Land tenure Regularization reforms in Rwanda LTR and Structural changes- The limitation of the ascending land sharing (Umunani)  This system of Umunani has been for long time embedded in socio- cultural norms of Rwanda.  However, this has now collided with some limitations due to new emerging population and development dynamics.  One of the limitations is linked to the land sharing requirement. The amended Ministerial order of 25th February 2013 in its article 68 states that “land to be shared should be enough so that when subdivided each party gets land which is not less than (1) hectare”.  The current per capita land is estimated at 0.5ha, more fragmentation may conflict with new demands of land for large investments and aggravate rural poverty. 17

18. Land tenure Regularization reforms in Rwanda  Given that the majority of parents have land as the main asset – this has been mostly used as a gift for many parents.  But the trend of giving land as “Umunani” suggests exploring other options such as “education” and materials as Umunani to secure subsistence for one’s children. But continue to consider land in the form of inheritance.  In the case of inheritance, the remaining children will decide how to use rationally and collectively their land plus other assets which discourages the tendency for division of land that is less than 1 ha.  For this to happen this require the legislators to adapt ‘Umunani’ re population dynamics and lands as well in Rwanda. 18 LTR and Structural changes- The limitation of the ascending land sharing (Umunani)

19. Land tenure Regularization reforms in Rwanda Other structural Challenges to adapt include:  Population growth and density ( 416) : More focus on development options and priorities that respond to the population’s increment for both food and labour  Youth employment: uptake of the farm and non-farm sector 19

20. Conclusions and Policy Recommendations  Soil erosion control has received much attention and yet more efforts are to be made.  Land tenure regularization has been successfully implemented in Rwanda.  However, some structural challenges need to be addressed so as to optimize on the LTR benefits to reduce poverty  Land markets and access to credits give signals of required improvement as informal land markets may prevail and compromise the intended LTR outcomes,  Mortgage is still dominant among the commercial banks and hence their products need to be tailored to land titles,  The government should continue to invest in rural education and mostly the education that is linked to emerging development deficits in various economic sectors in Rwanda. 20

21. Conclusions and Policy Recommendations  This paper concludes that LTR remains an enabler for the banks and microfinance institutions, land governance, structural adaption to translate LTR gains into more investment in agriculture and land, access to credits and poverty reduction.  The LTR effects observed so far are in line with social benefits and more efforts are yet required for environmental and economic benefits. Future evaluations of the LTR should focus on these areas to inform the policy for advanced adaptation. 21

22. Thank You for your attention ! Murakoze ! 22