iom/oim · iom/oim midimar rapid risk and capacities assessment and livelihoods profiling in...

IOM/OIM MIDIMAR

RAPID RISK AND CAPACITIES ASSESSMENT AND

LIVELIHOODS PROFILING IN NYABIHU, MUSANZE AND

BURERA DISTRICTS AFFECTED BY FLOODS AND

LANDSLIDES

Submitted by Luis Sanchez Zimmerman,

DRR International Consultant

In Collaboration with Vaillant Byizigiro,

National Consultant

Kigali, Rwanda, January 2012

i

Table of Contents

0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... 1

1 BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................................... 4

2 DESCRIPTION OF THE MISSION ............................................................................................................. 5

2.1 Objectives of the Mission .................................................................................................... 6

2.2 Field Trip to Selected Districts and Sectors ........................................................................... 7

3 METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................................... 7

4 BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DISTRICTS OF NYABIHU, BURERA AND MUSANZE ................................ 10

4.1 Nyabihu District ............................................................................................................... 10

4.1.1 Geographic Situation ......................................................................................................... 10

4.1.2 Landscape .......................................................................................................................... 10

4.1.3 Climate .............................................................................................................................. 10

4.1.4 Natural Resources ............................................................................................................. 10

4.1.5 Local Economy ................................................................................................................. 11

4.1.6 Livelihoods Profiles .......................................................................................................... 11

4.2 Burera District .................................................................................................................. 13


4.2.2 Landscape .......................................................................................................................... 13

4.2.3 Climate .............................................................................................................................. 13


4.2.5 Local Economy ................................................................................................................. 14


4.3 Musanze District ............................................................................................................... 15


4.3.2 Landscape .......................................................................................................................... 16

4.3.3 Climate .............................................................................................................................. 16


4.3.5 Local Economy ................................................................................................................. 17


5 RISK ANALYSIS PER TYPE OF DISASTER ............................................................................................. 18

5.1 Risk Analysis in Flood-Prone Areas ................................................................................... 18

5.2 Risk Analysis in Landslides-Prone Areas ............................................................................ 20

5.3 Vulnerability Analysis in Both Floods and Landslides Prone Areas ...................................... 21

5.4 Analysis of the Impact of Both Floods and Landslides ......................................................... 23

5.5 DRR Capacities Assessment .............................................................................................. 25

6 LIVELIHOODS ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................... 27

ii

7 CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................................................... 29

8 RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................................................... 30

8.1 Recommendations to MIDIMAR ....................................................................................... 30

8.2 Recommendations to IOM ................................................................................................. 32

Annexes

1

0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. In the case of floods, these events are predictable most of the time; their magnitude and scale

are the aspects that can vary, although they are not intensive, since frequently only small

surfaces are affected at a time, and the impacted areas resume their normal functioning within

reasonable timeframes. Only in Musanze, floods can be sudden and dangerous due to the fact

that they are provoked by fast rises of water in the torrents coming from the volcanoes.

2. The triggering factors for these events are the high levels of erosion and sedimentation; water

runoff; the clogging of natural drainages and the destruction of the latter by human activities;

infiltration problems are also another issue in Nyabihu, where infiltration capacities are not

enough to absorb the rainwater, thus allowing the water table to rise whenever strong storms

hit the area; the fragility of the soils due to the intensity of agricultural activities; and the

levels of rain that can fall in a particular amount of time. Floods generally don’t last too long;

flooded areas can be affected by approximately one month, until the stagnating water is

washed away or finally absorbed.

3. In the case of landslides, their onset is sudden, but these events are predictable. Most of the

time, these landslides are small in terms of surface affected, although they are many, scattered

all over the sectors. Massive landslides can take place, although it is not as frequent as

expected. In this case, landslides can affect several land plots and disrupt the commercial

activities of the areas, because the roads get blocked.

4. The triggering factors than are behind these events are several: the weakened soils, intensive

agricultural activities, including on steep slopes, erosion, deforestation and the general

degradation of the soils. Moreover, roads lack of adequate drainages. There are infiltration

problems in the mountainous areas.

5. The vulnerabilities of the local populations include a wide range of reasons, but the most

important of them is the high levels of poverty: all the districts included in this rapid

assessment register poverty rates over 70% of the total population. Moreover, all the poor in

these districts rely heavily on agriculture. The most vulnerable populations come, most of the

time, from large households, some members of these households having special needs

(PLWHA and other chronic diseases); the heads of these households are either single women

of widowers – or orphaned children - they depend exclusively on agricultural activities for

food and income, and account elderly members that cannot secure their livelihoods.

2

6. In the case of housing, they lack the use of appropriate construction techniques and weak

materials. Houses are mainly built with mud-bricks and have tin roofing. Floors are made of

trodden earth. Location of houses doesn’t follow a pattern where risks are taken into account,

although local authorities are making efforts in recent times to put some order into this issue.

7. Another major vulnerability is the fact that their entire environment is anthropogenic, which

means that the intervention of human has completely modified the natural environment.

Watercourses have been modified to respond to the needs of the population, hillsides have

been modified with the intensive use of terraces.

8. Roads are vulnerable to the floods and landslides. The lack of mitigation measures makes

them more vulnerable, thus, road sectors are damaged/destroyed every year. It is important to

mention that recent efforts have been carried out to better protect social infrastructure like

hospitals and schools.

9. At the institutional level, authorities are ill-prepared and lack of enough and adequate

equipment/material to better respond to emergency situations. The weakness in terms of this

technical expertise to mitigate/reduce the risks, and also to respond and cope with the impact

of damaging events s increases the levels of vulnerability of these districts.

10. Although human lives are lost during these events, other major impacts that deeply affect the

lives of the affected populations are the ones provoking and deepening human poverty. Loss

of household assets, destruction of the houses, loss of crops and livestock: all these impacts

not only increase the levels of stress that households experience but they can actually

generate more spiralling poverty.

11. One major impact observed in the area is the disruption of regular economic activities during

the emergency phase and, most particularly in the case of landslide-prone areas, communities

are isolated due to the blocked roads and therefore they are not able to go to the markets to

sell their produces.

12. Another major impact of these hazards is the diversion of public resources to respond and to

cope with the emergencies. Local authorities, during these events, are forced to divert

resources from their already tight budgets to provide to the populations in need, rehabilitate

damaged infrastructure, etc.

3

13. Overall, the risk in these areas both generated by floods and by landslides has been estimated

as moderate. Nonetheless, some caveats are important to be pointed out. First, the level of

exposure faced by populations, because the high population density translates into a lot of

households exposed by these hazards. Second: the pervasive nature of these hazards, which

take place every year, year after year. Third: the high levels of poverty make these

populations very vulnerable to these hazards.

14. As mentioned before, households in the area of study rely heavily on agricultural activities to

secure their access to foodstuff. Other sources of income and/or food are marginal.

Households practice an intensive agriculture, with two crop rotation all the year-round. Some

fruits and vegetables are also produced. The agriculture practice is one of subsistence;

produces are sold whenever households have a surplus in their production.

15. Households have also some livestock. Cows are always preferred due to their value as a

means to save. Farm labour is, in essence, the basis for the households to have access to food

and revenue. Other sources of labour are scarce. Off the farm labour relies heavily on the

construction sector in urban areas. Men tend to temporarily move to cities to work as masons

and non-specialised worker. The latter does not imply in any case that populations tend to

migrate. Some trades are practiced, such as woodwork, brick production, dress-making and

other handicrafts. Family transfers are not important and social protection schemes are rare.

16. Coping strategies of the households rely basically on selling their labour. Activities

mentioned above, such as small trade, labour in commercial crops plantations of the better

off, and temporarily moving to work in the construction sector are the preferred strategies.

Other strategies are the sale of household assets, the provision of mutual aid and the demand

of assistance provided by local authorities and/or NGOs, and charcoal production. More

radical options involve internal migration and definite relocation of the households.

17. The recommendations to MIDIMAR include the need to expand the training programme,

both to deepen the knowledge and practice of the DDMCs and to create these capacities of

the SDMCs; provide with sound techniques and methodologies to the local authorities to

better understand the risks to which they are exposed; risk mapping should reach the sector

level; establish a study agenda in which the ministry could identify all technical and scientific

studies necessary to better understand risks; and providing technical assistance to local

authorities in terms of mainstreaming DRR into their regular development plans.

4

18. The recommendations to IOM include providing technical expertise to MIDIMAR and local

authorities; working at the very local level, by means of incorporating participatory process to

assess risks; identifying and strengthening the livelihoods options of the communities

exposed; contributing to put the DRR approach into the spotlight to underlie its importance

1 BACKGROUND

The Republic of Rwanda lies in the Great Lakes region of East-Central Africa, bordered by

Uganda, Burundi, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Tanzania. This landlocked country

has a total area of 26,338 square kilometres of which 24,948 is land and 1,390 is water and with a

population of approximately 11.4 million (2011). Rwanda has historically suffered from periodic

natural disasters, mainly in the form of droughts and floods impacting the agrarian economy and

the country’s efforts towards sustainable development and poverty reduction1.

Vulnerability to periodic natural disasters, mainly in the form of droughts and floods (mainly

flash and associated landslides) is a long term concern. It is estimated that during 1974-2007,

1 “Disaster risk reduction and prevention in Rwanda”, ISDR, 2003.

5

about 4 million Rwandans were affected by droughts and 2 million by floods. Given this high

level of exposure of the country’s economy to natural disasters, it is paramount to note that

national development strategies of Rwanda recognize natural disasters as a challenge and propose

ways to move forward2.

The Ministry of Disaster Management and Refugee Affairs (MIDIMAR), which mission in the

area of disaster risk reduction is to “develop a highly proficient mechanism for preventing,

mitigating, responding to, recovering, securing, monitoring and responding in a timely manner in

order to promote management of natural and man-made disasters including volcanic activity,

earthquakes, floods, landslides, mudslides, storms, fire and drought”, is actually setting up its 5

year Strategic Plan. As an initial step to draw its Strategy, MIDIMAR is conducting a strategic

review, including “on-going and planned initiatives and supports” with the technical assistance of

WFP which committed, within the one UN framework, to support MIDIMAR for Disaster Risk

Reduction (DRR) at policy level. This will be an important step for MIDIMAR towards geared

efforts to support the implementation of the National Disaster Management Policy ( 2009 - the

final draft a revised 2011 National Disaster Management policy is in the final validation process)

which aims to mainstream Disaster Risk Management in national programs including poverty

reduction and community development amongst others. Moreover, this policy response aligns

well with the country’s vision 2020 and the Economic Development and Poverty Reduction

Strategy (EDPRS, 2008) which both points at some of the impacts of natural disasters on the

country’s economy, and proposes to develop strategic plans for disaster preparedness, risk

analysis and mitigation measures.

2 DESCRIPTION OF THE MISSION

In order to complement the ongoing efforts at national level, MIDIMAR deemed very important

to strengthen the capacity of all stakeholders at local government level, mainly in the areas prone

to disaster risk. In this regard, MIDIMAR made a general request for assistance to the

International Organization for Migration (IOM) in Rwanda in order to support and strengthen the

capacity at local level, especially for District Disaster Management Committees (DDMC), Sector

Disaster Management Committees (SDMC) and other relevant actors, including civil society and

community based organizations working on the field.

2 Both the Vision 2020 and the EDPRS documents give a great deal of importance to sustainability and resilience.

6

The joint proposed intervention IOM-MIDIMAR sought to assess the capacity needs in DRR in

the Northern and Western provinces, with emphasis on floods and landslides prone districts, e.g.

Nyabihu, Musanze, and Burera; and propose local based intervention plans with key priority

activities (e.g. capacity building, light infrastructures, alternative livelihoods, technical skills

training, etc.).

The mission was conducted over a period of 4 days. Under the supervision of IOM Rwanda, in

close collaboration with MIDIMAR, the team coordinated the assessment of capacity needs for

DRR so as to propose immediate intervention plan in the affected priority areas of Western and

Northern Rwanda Provinces. A team of consultants was set, headed by the international

consultant, Mr. Luis SANCHEZ ZIMMERMAN, assisted by Mr. Vaillant BYIZIGIRO, local

consultant, and in close collaboration with Mr. Philippe HABINSHUTI, Disaster Management

Officer at MIDIMAR.

2.1 Objectives of the Mission

The objectives of the mission were the following:

Comprehend and review the existing policy, structures and mechanism for management

and coordination of disaster risk management at District and Community levels;

Conduct needs assessment to the most affected areas in close coordination and

collaboration with concerned district administration officials, the District Disaster

Management Committees (DDMC) and Sector Disaster Management Committees

(SDMC), and other relevant actors;

Assess existing capacities and practices in disaster risk management and identify gaps and

identify priority areas in which the support of IOM in DRR is needed.

Facilitate the conversion of the assessment findings into instruments for community

stabilization advocacy and intervention in the affected areas and communities, including

livelihood strategy;

Prepare a needs assessment report for use by the Government, IOM and other relevant

Development partners to serve as a basis for the mobilization of resources.

Propose and finalize a pilot project proposal for capacity development in DRR.

7

2.2 Field Trip to Selected Districts and Sectors

Originally, the team held a meeting with MIDIMAR’s officials to prioritize target districts to be

visited by the team. This field trip was intended to last ten days, but timing constraints (e.g., the

Christmas season) limited the availability of days spent on the field to four days only.

Nonetheless, the methodology was adapted accordingly to make sure that the team on the field

was going to effectively collect all relevant data in such short period of time.

The international consultant was able to conduct the rapid assessment along with the local

consultant, and a member of MIDIMAR, Mr. Philippe HABINSHUTI. The first district visited

was Nyabihu, on December the 20th

, followed by Burera, on December the 21st and finally by

Musanze, on December the 22nd

. The last day on the field was used to visit some sites that people

interviewed suggested, that provided more elements for the analysis of the risks in these districts.

A list of people encountered during these visits can be found on annex 1.

3 METHODOLOGY

The rationale behind the methodology to be implemented in the DRR needs assessment in three

high risk districts in Rwanda (Musanze, Burera and Nyabihu), of the North and West provinces,

prone to floods and landslides, consisted on (1) analysing the risks to floods and landslides and

simultaneously (2) assess the capacities local authorities and other key players in order not just to

respond to recurrent emergencies, but also to sustainably prevent and mitigate these risks. In

addition, (3) livelihoods options were also analysed.

The objective of the methodology is to provide the necessary information to assess the risks,

determine the gaps in terms of capacities required to cope with the latter, and to identify possible

areas of intervention in terms of capacity-building, mitigation and identifying new livelihood

options for vulnerable populations to start building more resilient communities.

The information collected focused on the district and sector levels to better understand how

floods and landslides in the areas identified are undermining the sustainability of the local

development processes, the outcomes of public policies aiming at reducing poverty and attaining

the MDGs, and hampering the capacities of populations to become resilient to such events.

In this sense, the main sources of information were the DDMCs for the risk analysis/capacities

assessment whilst the livelihoods options analysis was carried out directly with the SDMCs.

8

To achieve the mentioned above, the first step was to jointly analyze at district level the risks of

floods and landslides, as well as the capacities to mitigate and respond to these hazards. This

analysis comprised the disaggregation of the hazard’s characteristics:

Description of the hazard;

Triggering factors;

Frequency;

Seasonality;

Duration;

Sectors affected;

Impact;

Time of recovery;

Intensity of the hazard.

In terms of vulnerability, the analysis comprised the following elements:

Physical vulnerability;

Environmental vulnerability;

Social/ institutional vulnerability;

Economic vulnerability;

Profile of most vulnerable populations;

Differentiation of impacts;

Level of vulnerability.

Once the risk analysis completed, the analysis moved towards the identification of the capacities

available at the district level as well as their gaps, the latter with respect to DRR strategies that

are already in place or could contribute to mitigate the risks in the districts. The information

collected was the following:

Human resources;

Material resources/ equipment;

Financial resources;

9

Institutional framework;

DRR strategies in place or required;

Gaps identified.

This “picture” of the available capacities provided the elements to proceed to a gaps analysis,

having in mind the fact that it is necessary to evaluate to which extent local authorities and other

stakeholders are able not just to identify and asses the risks but also to carry out actions tending at

reducing these risks and helping the communities to become more resilient to the risks of floods

and landslides. It also provided clues to identify potential actions to be undertaken to mitigate the

levels of risks, which could be later included in the project proposal that will follow this analysis.

Finally, the methodology contributed to determine which actions could be carried out to

strengthen the livelihoods options of the communities severely affected by the recurrence of these

damaging events in the aforementioned districts and sectors identified as being more vulnerable.

The latter will be achieved by taking into account alternative livelihoods and the coping strategies

already in place in the communities. This analysis was carried out with the participation of

SDMCs previously identified by authorities at the district level, prioritizing the more vulnerable

sectors of each district. Because of time constraints, only five of these sectors have been covered.

Data coming from this analysis will also be fed in the project proposal to be delivered by the end

of the consultancy. The information collected at the sector level identified the different sources of

food and revenues at the household levels as well as their coping strategies. The data collected

included:

Primary food-production activity;

Timeline for primary food-production activity;

Secondary food-production activity;

Timeline for primary food-production activity;

Income-generating activities;

Other sources of food/income;

Lean season;

Regular coping strategies;

Coping strategies during disasters;

10

Alternative livelihoods identified.

Finally, the outcomes of these analyses were presented with respect to the type of disaster. The

latter was due to a wide range of similarities that the assessment team found during the field visit

regarding the situation in the three districts and the respective sectors, which enables to do such a

synthesis of the situations encountered.

4 BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DISTRICTS OF NYABIHU, BURERA AND MUSANZE

4.1 Nyabihu District3

4.1.1 Geographic Situation

Nyabihu district is located in the West province. It is surrounded by Musanze district in the North

and the DRC; Ngororero and Rutsiro districts in the South; Gakenke and Musanze districts in the

East; and Rubavu district in the West. The district has twelve sectors: Bigogwe, Jenda, Jomba,

Kabatwa, Karago, Kintobo, Mukamira, Mulinga, Rambura, Rugera, Rurembo, and Shyira. These

sectors are subdivided into 73 cellules and 474 villages called imidugudu. The district’s surface is

512.5 km², and has a population of 280,210 (as for 2007), with a population density of 541

inhabitants per km².

4.1.2 Landscape

The district’s landscape is very uneven, with high mountains, which its tallest peaks being

Karisimbi volcano and mount Muhe. Altitudes range between 1,460 m and 4,507 m. High

Mountains are elongated, slopes are steep, valleys are cut deep into the hillsides, where small

water sources spring up at the bottom. There is also Karago Lake, which has a surface of 27 Ha.

4.1.3 Climate

Climate is generally mild, with an average temperature of 15°C, and rain fall reaching 1,400 mm

per year. A short dry season can be observed between January and February, while a big rainy

season takes place between March and May, another dry season takes place between June and

August and finally, a last rainy season between September and December.

4.1.4 Natural Resources

The environment in the district, besides the protected areas, is highly anthropogenic following a

permanent presence and impact of human activities for a long time. In terms of soils, these are

3 Republic of Rwanda, West Province, Nyabihu District, “District Development Plan”, July 2007 (French).

11

mostly clay and sandy, lateritic and volcanic. Little wildlife can be observed, besides some

reptiles, birds as well as hares, jackals (mostly in highly forested areas). Endemic vegetable

species in the district are mostly planted and non native, such as the eucalyptus, cypress, pines

and herbaceous. Some native species can be found in the Gishwati forest and the Volcanoes

National Park.

4.1.5 Local Economy

The local economy is highly dependant on agriculture. This sector provides most of the labour

and the sources of food and income to the district’s population, even though it is most of the time

subsistence agriculture, practiced in land plots which surface ranges between less than 0.5 Ha per

household in average. Main local crops are: potatoes, maize, wheat, beans, tea and pyrethrum.

Production and yields, different crops (2007)

Crops Surface in Ha Yield in Kg/Ha Production in MT

Maize 5,181 968 5,013

Wheat 3,549 746 2,647

Beans 2,667 715 1,908

Green peas 192 661 127

Bananas 2,569 6,436 16,534

Potatoes 8,241 7,786 64,167

Yams 1,558 5,836 9,093

Malanga and yams 821 4,675 3,838

Manioc 690 6,142 4,238

Vegetables 2,318 7,761 17,991

Fruits 1,471 8,186 12,041

Total 29,257 137,597

Source: District Development Plan.

4.1.6 Livelihoods Profiles4

Nyabihu district is part of the Northwest Volcanic Irish Potato Zone, as well as the Western

Congo-Nile Crest Tea Zone. In the case of the Irish potato zone, though years of agricultural

production has made the once highly fertile volcanic soils less productive, this zone is rarely at

risk of acute food insecurity, producing surplus food in normal years. Rain-fed agricultural

production serves as the basis for rural household livelihoods. Irish potatoes, maize and beans are

harvested twice annually while the main cash crop pyrethrum3 is harvested throughout the year.

Land tenure defines wealth in the zone as it is the principal productive asset.

4 FEWSNET, “Livelihoods Zoning “Plus”, Activity in Rwanda, A Special Report by the Famine Early Warning

Systems Network (FewsNet)”, August 2011.

12

The population of the zone is dense, and as a result most households are constrained to

cultivating relatively small plots. The poorer sector of the population cultivates less than 0.5

hectares of land which limits the amounts of crops it is capable of harvesting, including the

availability of crop residues which is a limiting factor for keeping livestock. Most poor

households in this zone reserve their harvest for consumption and do not sell. Labour sales, both

on and off-farm, are the only means for the poor to earn cash. Though some households will

work on the farms of wealthier households, most find construction labour opportunities in

Musange or Gisenyi towns.

In the case of the Tea Zone, it is relatively food secure endowed with moderately fertile soils and

annual precipitation ranging between 1,700 mm and 2,000 mm. The zone’s residents are heavily

dependent on tea and the labour demands associated with its production. Any threat to tea

production or marketing increases their risk of food insecurity. Land ownership and livestock

holdings are two main determinants of wealth in the zone. Wealthier households typically

cultivate more land and are the main producers of tea. Their economic position, and access to

resources, allows them to grow maize, beans, Irish and sweet potatoes and vegetables. They will

sell surplus Irish potatoes, maize and beans when available. Unlike their wealthier neighbours,

poor households lack the land and/or the ability to maintain cattle and pigs. Goats, poultry and

rabbits are kept by the poor and serve as an important source of food and income. The

mountainous terrain, poor road networks and remoteness limit market access in the zone. Irish

potatoes and maize are sold locally; then, they are transported by wealthier households to the

intermediary markets of Mukamira or Kabaya, then off to larger markets inside and outside the

zone.

Most livestock sold stays within the region however goats and pigs are also exported to the DRC.

As own stocks run out, the poor will purchase Irish potatoes and beans from the market. The Irish

potatoes are sourced locally while beans are imported from the DRC via Rusizi, Nyamasheke,

Rubavu, Ngororero or Rutsiro. Tea plantations and factories serve as a labour magnet. The

majority of poor households work on wealthier households’ land, picking tea. Few poor

household members travel to towns outside the zone from June to August to work in

construction. As a response to the effects of a bad year, households may implement one or more

of the following coping strategies to compensate for food and income losses. The poor will

substitute cheaper foods for normal, preferred foods and forego some non-food purchases. They

13

will also increase labour sales or migrate outside the zone to look for work. Though child labour

is illegal in Rwanda, some households will pull children out of school to look for work, usually

as housekeeping support5.

4.2 Burera District6


The Burera district has a surface of 644.5 km2, and is one of the five districts making up the

North Province. The district borders Uganda is in the North and East, Gicumbi district is in the

East; Gakenke and Rulindo districts are in the South; and Musanze district is in the West. The

district accounts seventeen sectors: Bungwe, Butaro, Cyanika, Cyeru, Gahunga, Gatebe, Gitovu,

Kagogo, Kinoni, Kinyababa, Kivuye, Nemba, Rugarama, Rugengabari, Ruhunde, Rusarabuye

and Rwerere. Total population reaches 336,739 (RGHP, 2002), distributed into 67,925

households, with an average of 5 persons per households. Population density is 522 habitants per

km2.

4.2.2 Landscape

Burera district is part of the agro-bioclimatic area of the Buberuka and the Laves highlands. Its

average altitude reaches 2,100 m. Its landscape is uneven, with steep slopes hills, linked either by

deep cut valleys or by flooding swamps. Most important peaks are Bisaga (2,401 m) ; Kabyaza

(2,392 m) ; Kabona (2,348 m) ; Karurunga (2,305 m) ; Seta (2,305 m) ; Nyanamo (2,225 m).

4.2.3 Climate

Le district’s climate is humid, with two dry seasons and two rainy seasons: a short dry season

taking place in mid-December till February; a big rainy season going from March till mid-June; a

big dry season from June till September; and a short rainy season going from mid-September till

December. Yearly rains reach 1,400 mm, whilst the temperature can go from 9o C to 29

o C.


The Burera district has an important hydrologic network formed by the Burera and the Ruhondo

lakes (55 Km2 and 28 Km

2 respectively), the Rugezi swamps (6,735 hectares), and the Urugezi,

Cyeru, Kabaya and Kabwa rivers, as well as many wild water sources. Rain water in the district

reaches more than 1,400 mm each year, which provides a theoretical water reserve of

5 Ibid.

6 Republic of Rwanda, North Province, Burera District, “District Development Plan”, July 2007 (French).

14

531,560,000 m3 each year. Soils are mostly formed by black schist and in some places are

lateritic and, in volcanic areas, the soils are volcanic.

The endemic tree species in the district is the eucalyptus. Other agro-foresting species present in

the area are “alnus” and “grevilleas”. Ficus and “markhamia” are found close to houses.

Otherwise, crops cover most of the surface of the district. Main crops are sorghum, wheat, beans,

potatoes, green peas, bananas, maize, vegetables and fruits.

The wildlife in the region consists mainly in birds and reptiles, the biodiversity is larger in the

secluded Rugeri swamps, where herons and even large mammals, like otters and swamps

antelopes can be observed

4.2.5 Local Economy

Agriculture is the main economic activity of the district, absorbing 90% of the labour force. It is

mainly of subsistence, and the main crops are wheat, potatoes, sorghum, beans, maize, green

peas, vegetables and fruits. Some commercial crops are present: coffee, pyrethrum and tea, but

their inception is on an early stage. Nonetheless, the district has a good potential for fruits, like

apples, avocados, passion fruit, Japan’s plum, etc.


Crops Surface in Ha Percentage of

crops occupation

Yields in MT Production in MT

Sorghum 9,100 28% 1.4 12,740

Maize 1,625 5% 1.2 1,950

Wheat 1,300 4% 1.0 1,300

Beans 5,525 17% 1.1 6,077.5

Green peas 325 1% 0.8 260

Bananas 3,250 10% 9.0 29,250

Potatoes 6,825 21% 10.0 68,250

Yams 2,600 8% 8.0 20,800

Yams and malanga 325 1% 4.0 1,300

Manioc 325 1% 4.0 1,300

Vegetables 650 2% 16.0 10,400

Fruit 650 2% 17.0 11,050

Total 32,500 164,677.5

Source: District Development Plan.


Located between eastern shores of Lake Burera, Lake Ruhondo and the Central-Northern

Highlands Irish Potato, Beans and Vegetable Zone, households in this livelihood zone are able to



15

meet most of their food needs from their own fields, supplement the remaining food from the

market and in-kind payment. Livelihoods in this densely-populated, mountainous zone are

dependent on agricultural production and animal husbandry. The zone has some minerals such as

gold and wolfram (tungsten). The majority of households hand-tills relatively small plots and

depends on the 800 mm to 1,200 mm of rain it receives annually. Beans, wheat, vegetables and

maize are the primary crops produced for both household consumption and sale. All households

sell surplus production after harvest. However, poorer households own and cultivate less land,

and therefore have significantly smaller surpluses than the wealthy, if any.

For the most part poorer households earn the bulk of their cash by working on the farms of their

wealthier neighbours Cash is earned after the first harvest season of wheat and maize. Poor

households are also paid in-kind. Beans and wheat are provided in exchange for the second

harvesting period of maize and wheat. Market access in this small zone is difficult as most

farmers do not live near the local markets. Gitanga is the biggest retail/intermediary market in the

zone serving mostly the four sectors in its nearest proximity. Most of the commodities sold are

taken to the local markets and then to intermediary markets in the zone. Wheat can go as far a

Gicumbi town, whereas beans go to Kigali or Musanze markets. Livestock (mostly goats and

cattle) are brought to local markets and are then transported to the larger markets of Rubavu,

Kigali and Nemba.

4.3 Musanze District8


The Musanze district is one of the five forming the North province. It comprises the old

municipalities of Ruhengeri, Mutobo, Kinigi, Bugarura and Bukamba. Its surface covers 530.4

km2, from which 60 km

2 corresponds to the Volcanoes National Park and 28 km

2 to Lake

Ruhondo. The district is bordered in the North by Uganda, the DRC and the Volcanoes National

Park; in the South by Gakenke district; in the East by Bukera district; and in the West by Nyabihu

district.

Musanze district accounts 15 sectors, 68 cellules and 432 villages (Imudugudu). The district’s

population is 314,242 inhabitants (2007) and its population density is 592.6 inhabitants per km2.

The most densely populated districts are Muhoza and Cyuve, with densities of 1.722,3

8 Republic of Rwanda, West Province, Musanze District, “District Development Plan 2008-2012”, July 2007

(French).

16

inhabitants per km2 and 903 inhabitants per km

2 respectively. The population under 25 years

represents 60% of the total.

4.3.2 Landscape

Musanze has a landscape divided in two main areas: the volcanic plains and the mountain range.

The volcanic plains covers the central and North part of the district, including the Musanze,

Muhoza, Muko, Kimonyi and Cyuve sectors; its average altitude is 1,860 m.

The mountain range is located in the South-East of the district, covering over a third of the total

surface of the district. Its altitude ranges from 1,900 m to 2,000 m, covering the Muhoza, Cyuve,

Gacaca, Rwaza, Gashaki, Remera and Nkotsi sectors. The highest peaks are Kalisimbi (4,507 m),

Muhabura (4,127 m), Bisoke (3,711 m), Sabyinyo (3,574 m), and Gahinga (3,474 m).

4.3.3 Climate

The district has a high altitude tropical climate, with an average temperature of 20ºC. Rains are

generally abundant, ranging from 1,400 mm to 1,800 mm annually. There are two rainy seasons

as well as two dry seasons: the big dry season, going from June to mid-September; the short rainy

season, from January to mid-March; the big rainy season, from March till the end of May; and

the short rainy season, from September to December.


The hydraulic network in the district is formed by temporary Torrents and permanent

watercourses. Torrents surge during strong storms, and they are provoked by water coming

downhill from the volcanoes, some 20 Km away. These torrents cause severe erosion,

sedimentation and crop losses. The main torrents identified are Susa, Muhe, Rwebeya, Rungu,

Cyuve, Kansoro and Mudakama. The district is drained by two main permanent watercourses,

which origin is the water table. There is the Mpenge spring, with a rate of flow of 2.3 m3 per

second, and the Kigombe spring, with a rate of flow of 0.7 m3 per second. The district is also

crossed by the Mukungwa River, which drains Ruhondo Lake. All these watercourses belong to

the Nile basin, and they converge into the river Mukungwa, which, in turn, discharges into the

Nyabarongo River, which is an affluent of the Akagera River.

The main types of soils found in Musanze can be grouped into three categories: volcanic soils;

lateritic and humus-bearing soils; and clayey soils. In the case of the Cyabaralika and Kiguhu

swamps, they are abundant in turf.

17

4.3.5 Local Economy

The crops mostly exploited in the district are: potatoes, maize, wheat, beans, bananas, fruits and

vegetables and flowers. The latter are in the initial phases of development. Vegetable-growing is

also limited, although some groups of producers have seen the day in the district. In addition,

pyrethrum and coffee are also grown in the district.


Crops Surface (Ha) Production (in MT) Yield (T/Ha)

Potatoes 5,142.8 53,999 10.5

Beans 4,406 5,287 1.2

Maize 5,532 8,298 1.5

Wheat 1,050 1,313 1.25

Source: Annual report, IMBARAGA, 2006


Musanze district is part of the Northwest Volcanic Irish Potato Zone. Though years of

agricultural production has made the once highly fertile volcanic soils less productive, this zone

is rarely at risk of acute food insecurity, producing surplus food in normal years. Rain-fed

agricultural production serves as the basis for rural household livelihoods. Irish potatoes, maize

and beans are harvested twice annually while the main cash crop pyrethrum is harvested

throughout the year. Land tenure defines wealth in the zone as it is the principal productive asset.

The population of the zone is dense, and as a result most households are constrained to

cultivating relatively small plots. The poorer sector of the population cultivates less than 0.5

hectares of land which limits the amounts of crops it is capable of harvesting, including the

availability of crop residues which is a limiting factor for keeping livestock. Most poor

households in this zone reserve their harvest for consumption and do not sell. Labour sales, both

on and off-farm, are the only means for the poor to earn cash. Though some households will

work on the farms of wealthier households, most find construction labour opportunities in

Musange or Gisenyi towns.



18

5 RISK ANALYSIS PER TYPE OF DISASTER

5.1 Risk Analysis in Flood-Prone Areas

District Sectors Exposed to Floods

Nyabihu Bigobwe

Genda

Mukamira

Musanze Muko

Busogo

One main feature of the risk of floods in the selected districts is the fact that local authorities –

and communities – actually know when these events are likely going to take place in a particular

year, and also where and which areas are more likely to be impacted. Hence, floods are

predictable most of the time; their magnitude and scale are the aspects that can vary, although

they are not intensive, since

frequently only small surfaces

are affected at a time, and the

impacted areas resume their

normal functioning within

reasonable timeframes. Neither

have they produced big losses,

at least in terms of human lives.

Nonetheless, there could be

years of exceptional large quantities of water that can stagnate in the two districts studied, like

2005 and 2006, for example. Only in Musanze, floods can be sudden and more dangerous due to

the fact that they are provoked by fast rises in the levels of waters of torrents coming all the way

from the volcanoes.

The factors that can trigger these events are the high levels of erosion and sedimentation, which

allows water runoff to be more important, since the capacity to absorb rainwater has been

crippled by human activities, mostly agricultural activities on steep slopes. Moreover, natural

drainages seem to have been either destroyed or clogged by sedimentation. Infiltration problems

are also another issue in Nyabihu, where infiltration capacities are not enough to absorb the

rainwater, thus allowing the water table to rise whenever strong storms hit the area.

19

The fragility of the soils, due to

high levels of exploitation in

agricultural activities, erosion and

deforestation, is also linked to the

problem of sedimentation of

natural and/or man-made

drainages. The intensity of these

activities, rotating from one crop to

another without laying the land

plots fallow to allow the soil to regenerate, is also a major factor affecting the livelihoods of local

populations, because whenever excess water hits them, the soils are already so fragile that they

loose more in terms of fertility and depth, or get washed away in the case of plots located in steep

slopes.

Another triggering factor of floods in the selected area is the levels of rain that can fall in a

particular amount of time. Although there is no evidence that more rain is falling in this area (due

to changes in the patterns of rain, for example), there is a concentration of levels of rainwater

falling during the peaks of the two rainy seasons.

Finally, these floods generally

don’t last too long. In regular years,

the flooded areas can be affected by

around one month, until the

stagnating water is washed away or

finally absorbed. During this time,

the agricultural activities are

interrupted, which also affects the

economic activity of the region, which relies basically on the primary sector. Although these

events entail a potential important damage to the transport infrastructure, the economic activity is

mostly affected by fact that less production is available for the local markets.

20

5.2 Risk Analysis in Landslides-Prone Areas

District Sectors Exposed to Landslides

Nyabihu Rugera

Shyra

Kintobo

Rambura

Rulembo

Burera Kinyababa

Rusarabuye

Nemba

Ukagogo

Cyeru

In the case of landslides, their onset is sudden, although again, both communities and authorities

have a common knowledge of when and where these events can hit their sectors. Indeed, people

actually know how to link the rainy season, and particularly strong storms, to the fact that

landslides will occur. Most of the time, these landslides are small in terms of surface affected,

although they are many, scattered all over the sectors.

Massive landslides can take place, although it is not as frequent as expected. In this case,

landslides can affect several land plots, disrupt the commercial activities of the areas, because the

roads get blocked, and require the use of heavy machinery to clear away the debris, unlike the

case of small landslides, where members of the communities are mobilized under the

“umuganda” scheme for this task, and basically provoke more damages either to the households

and to the sector

infrastructure.

Nonetheless, it is

important to underlie

the fact that these

events are also

predictable, they follow

a yearly/seasonal

pattern, since they take

place during the peaks

21

of the rainy seasons, and the inhabitants know to a certain extent where these landslides are going

to take place.

The triggering factors than are behind these events are several. The weakened soils can be

mentioned as one of the main factors. Intensive agricultural activities, including on steep slopes,

have entailed high levels of erosion, deforestation and the general degradation of the soils. The

depth of the latter is weak, and vegetable cover is not enough to protect the soils from water

runoff. The latter is aggravated by the fact that houses roofing in these areas contribute to the rate

of runoff. Moreover, roads lack of adequate drainages, which adds to the fact that the latter have

not been built using appropriate techniques, they are rudimentary and, therefore, highly

vulnerable to the effects of landslides.

Finally, it is also important to point out the fact that there are infiltration problems in the

mountainous areas. Part of the problem is due to the fact that natural infiltration areas suffer from

high levels of sedimentation, which prevents water to be absorbed, hence increasing the rates of

runoff and increasing the likeliness of landslides to take place.

5.3 Vulnerability Analysis in Both Floods and Landslides Prone Areas

The vulnerabilities of the local populations include a wide range of reasons, but the most

important of them is the high levels of poverty: all the districts included in this rapid assessment

register poverty rates over 70% of the total population10

. Moreover, all the poor in these districts

rely heavily on agriculture, which in turn is very vulnerable to natural hazards as it has been

exposed above. Although a lot of progress has been achieved in recent years to reduce the levels

of poverty, with programmes like “one cow per family”, poverty is still pervasive; its prevalence

is overwhelmingly high in these areas. The poverty levels experienced by these households are a

major factor of exposure to the floods and landslides hazards, because it affects every aspect of

their lives: quality of the housing, access to land and other productive assets, etc.

Interviewees described the most vulnerable populations coming, most of the time, from large

households, some members of these households having special needs (PLWHA and other chronic

diseases); the heads of these households are either single women of widowers – or orphaned

children - they depend exclusively on agricultural activities for food and income, and account

elderly members that cannot manage to secure their livelihoods by themselves.

10

Republic of Rwanda, “Economic Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy, 2008-2012”, Ministry of Finance

and Economic Planning, September 2007.

22

Since households rely heavily on agriculture, natural resources like soils are intensively

exploited: techniques such as fallow lands are not used, since the rationale of the households is to

continuously produce foodstuff: in this sense, crop rotation is intensive, and access to arable land

is limited, since the availability of the latter is limited itself by the high levels of population

density. The struggle to reduce erosion has led to enforce reforestation programmes, which in

turn reduce the surface available for agricultural purposes.

In the case of housing, the

most important feature is

the lack of appropriate

construction techniques

and weak materials.

Houses are mainly built

with mud-bricks and have

tin roofing. Floors are

made of trodden earth.

Specialised masons are

not involved in the construction, since it is the head of the household, sometimes with the help of

the community, whom erects the family house. Location of houses doesn’t follow a pattern where

risks are taken into account, although local authorities are making efforts in recent times to put

some order into this issue.

On the other side, another major vulnerability faced by local populations is the fact that their

entire environment is anthropogenic, which means that the intervention of human has completely

modified the natural environment. Besides the natural parks in the area of the study, no native

forests are to be seen. Watercourses have been modified to respond to the needs of the

population, hillsides have been modified with the intensive use of terraces. This manipulation of

the environment has certainly led to a series of “imbalances” that can be deduced from the

behaviour and frequency of damaging events provoked by the sedimentation of natural and man-

made drainages, the weakening of the soils, the increase in the runoff rates and the overflowing

of lakes and riverbeds.

Vital infrastructure, such as roads, is also vulnerable to the floods and landslides. The lack of

mitigation measures makes them more vulnerable, thus, road sectors are damaged/destroyed

23

every year. In the case of landslide-prone areas, this situation is more acute, since landslides often

block entire sectors. In the Burera district, for example, some road sectors that were washed away

also affected the recently acquired optic fibre network. It is important to mention that recent

efforts have been carried out to better protect social infrastructure like hospitals and schools,

which is bearing positive results since no damages have been reported on them recently.

At the institutional level, it is also important to point out that authorities are ill-prepared and lack

of enough and adequate equipment/material to better respond to emergency situations. The

weakness in terms of this technical expertise to mitigate/reduce the risks, and also to respond and

cope with the impact of damaging events s increases the levels of vulnerability of these districts.

5.4 Analysis of the Impact of Both Floods and Landslides

Although human lives are lost during these events, other major impacts that deeply affect the

lives of the affected populations are the ones provoking and deepening human poverty. Whenever

these events take place, inevitably households will see their capacities to cope with and recover

dampened. Loss of household assets, destruction of the houses, loss of crops and livestock, all

these impacts not only increase the levels of stress that households experience but they can

actually generate more spiralling poverty, and even create the conditions to definitely prevent

these households to overcome abject poverty.

Households in these communities recur to a series of strategies to overcome the constraints of

poverty, securing access to food and income to provide for their basic needs. Once these

households are affected by an event, either a flood or a landslide, the levels of loss will determine

to which extent these households will be able to recover. The problem with frequent and

recurrent events is that households are not able to recover when another event hits them,

aggravating their distress and forcing them to sacrifice assets such as farming tools, livestock,

household equipment, etc., assets necessary to secure their livelihoods. Loosing one crop harvest

is already hard enough, but loosing consecutive harvests put a lot of stress on these households.

In addition to this, one sector, which is particularly vulnerable to events such as floods and

landslides, is the housing sector: the permanent loss of houses in these areas absorbs plenty of

community resources, but it is also in the centre of a major problem related to relocation and

uprooting of affected households. On the first hand, relocation is an extreme measure, implying

that the household affected is forced to leave its land to settle somewhere else, with all the

implication on their social networks. On the other hand, it puts more pressure on an already

24

stressed and scarce resource: land. Indeed, local authorities must manage to find land for people

affected to settle, which is not obvious in densely populated areas.

Livestock plays an important role in household economics, because it becomes a means to save

for the leanest times. Cattle or small livestock represent a lifeline for poor households, and

whenever they get affected by damaging events, and mostly when these damages take place year

after year, the households hit a dynamics of de-capitalisation, in which they progressively start

selling all these assets in order to survive, whilst at the same time the replacement of these assets

becomes harder and harder.

Households rely also on farm and off the farm labour, although these sources of revenue are not

sustainable and they are shut down whenever the area is hit by a damaging event. In addition to

loss of crops, loss of assets and loss of housing, households have to face shortages of labour,

which traditionally is a lifeline in periods of stress.

One major impact observed in the area is the disruption of regular economic activities during the

emergency phase. This situation is due to the fact that households loose their crops and therefore

they have nothing to sell on the markets, or most particularly in the case of landslide-prone areas,

communities are isolated due to the blocked roads and therefore they are not able to go to the

markets to sell their produces. In both cases, local economies suffer a slow-down, markets are

depressed, foodstuffs become scarce and households have to rely on external aid to overcome this

stressful situation.

Finally, another major impact of floods and landslides is the diversion of public resources to

respond and to cope with the emergencies. Local authorities, during these events, are forced to

divert resources from their already tight budgets to provide to the populations in need, rehabilitate

damaged infrastructure, etc. The lack of a specific budget to respond to emergencies, on the one

side, and the overwhelming needs of a poor and vulnerable numerous population on the other

hand, puts a lot of pressure over the local authorities forced to take decisions on how to allocate

the meagre resources available.

Overall, the risk in these areas both generated by floods and by landslides has been estimated as

moderate. It is true that these events are not as life-threatening as in other regions, due to the

intensity and losses in terms of human lives. Nonetheless, some caveats are important to be

pointed out. First, the level of exposure faced by populations, because the high population density

translates into a lot of households exposed by these hazards and hence, a lot of persons. Second:

25

the pervasive nature of these hazards, which take place every year, year after year, affecting these

populations on their livelihoods with over and over again, with a stunning frequency. Third: the

high levels of poverty make these populations very vulnerable to these hazards, even if they are

not as intense and massive. The meagre livelihoods of these populations are targeted by these

events; they get thinner year after year, and all possible gains of development processes are

practically washed away by these events, deepening the poverty of the destitute and putting at

stake the capacities of the better-off to cope with and recover, turning them more dependant

towards external resources to sort out these situations.

5.5 DRR Capacities Assessment

As stated above, capacities at the local level to respond and cope with emergency situations are

scarce. Both human and material resources are deemed insufficient to face the situations

provoked by both floods and landslides. Although DDMCs and SDMCs have been put into place

recently, the general opinion is that more training and capacity-building should be provided to

make sure that these structures play their expected roles. The equipment available is basic, and

only at the district level.

There are some financial resources available at the district level, mostly from the regular budget,

although some of these funds are allocated to the relief operations when needed. In addition,

some NGOs present in the area provide some resources.

In the case of public awareness, the population seems to know what the risks are, when they

affect their communities and what to do in the case of an event. The civic sense of duty of the

communities make the task of coordinating actions by local authorities a lot easy, which explains

the fact that community mobilisation is all around to be found.

Local authorities have already implemented some risk-reducing strategies, mainly by relocating

households living in high risk areas into “Umudugudu” settled in low risk areas. It was not clear

how authorities define low risk areas, but it is important to point out that at least they are trying to

orderly relocate people when they get affected, following a deliberate settling strategy.

Some mitigation works have also been taking place, mainly with respect to the maintenance of

drainages and roads. In this sense, “Umuganda” plays an important role, because the local

authorities can rely on the community mobilisation to carry out these works that otherwise would

be very difficult to implement due to lack of funds, materials and equipment. Sometimes, these

26

HIMO activities can be rewarded with a daily fee, but most of the time it is the community’s

contribution.

Another major risk-reduction strategy already implemented consists on the erosion-reducing

practices and works, like the construction of terraces and reforestation initiatives, the use of

living hedges and other soil-stabilisation works, like the use of gabions, the construction of

mountain-side drainages and the diversification of crops, which encourages the use of more

permanent crops.

With respect to the last point, it was also mentioned that all districts are implementing a land use

consolidation plan, which intends to regulate the use of the land accordingly to maximise the

potential yields. This regulation also implies how human settlements are planned, which lands

have to be reforested and stopped being exploited, and which areas should not be exploited at all

due to the levels of risks (like in the case of lands close to rivers that tend to overflow).

Finally, some social protection mechanisms are also into place to provide for the most vulnerable,

mostly the elderly. Nonetheless, the coverage of these mechanisms and their implementation

seem to be at the embryonic phase.

With all the capacities identified, and with the risk-reducing measures, it was also important to

identify the actions that could help these districts, once implemented, to overcome these gaps and

reduce their vulnerability towards the risks of floods and landslides. In this sense, the major gaps

were the lack of technical expertise and human resources to carry out a risk mapping at the sector

level. Risk mapping was acknowledged to be a useful tool to better plan the development of the

districts, to orient mitigation initiatives and to help local communities to raise their awareness

towards the risks threatening them.

Another point raised was the lack of equipment and funds to respond to emergencies. In the case

of the equipment, it was mentioned that when in need, local authorities have to recur to heavy

machinery provided by the central government. In terms of funds, local authorities have to

allocate resources from funds already earmarked to do something else, which is a major

constraint to the development of these districts because investment to develop them has to be

“sacrificed” in order to respond to emergencies. Taking into account that these situations repeat

themselves year after year, it is obvious to conclude that regular budgets are being constantly and

unavoidably eroded by these damaging events, diverting critical resources to mitigation or relief

actions instead of increasing their physical, social and human capitals.

27

It is important to increase the capacities of local authorities to respond, cope with and mitigate

these risks. In order to do so, more specialised training is needed, not only at the district level, but

this training should reach the sector levels too. It was also pointed out that more in-depth

knowledge of these phenomena is necessary. That is why technical and scientific studies should

be carried out to better understand the dynamic behinds these risks, their underlying causes and

how their levels could be reduced. This gap also has to do with the lack of adequate

methodologies to identify, monitor and follow-up the risks of floods and landslides in these

particular districts.

6 LIVELIHOODS ANALYSIS

As it has been mentioned in this document in early sections, households in the area of study rely

heavily on agricultural activities to secure their access to foodstuff. Other sources of income

and/or food are marginal. Households practice an intensive agriculture, with two crop rotation all

the year-round. They have a main crop, like potatoes or beans, and then they rotate with another

crop such as maize or wheat. Some fruits and vegetables are also produced, although the latter

can be found more frequently due to the fact that small vegetable gardens are encouraged at the

household level. The agriculture practice is one of subsistence; produces are sold whenever

households have a surplus in their production.

Households have also some livestock, generally a cow or goats or sheep. Cows are always

preferred due to their value as a means to save, and the success of the “one cow per one poor

family” programme is obvious. Farm labour is, in essence, the basis for the households to have

access to food and revenue.

Other sources of labour are scarce, they involve temporary labour, and it requires very often for

some members of the households, generally the men, to temporarily leave their places of origin to

have access to labour: one example of the latter is the labour available in tea plantations, which

attract men and women from different sectors, and even from neighbouring districts. Another

example is agricultural labour in the farms of the better-off, although this source is very rare.

Off the farm labour relies heavily on the construction sector in urban areas. Men tend to

temporarily move to cities to work as masons and non-specialised worker. The latter does not

imply in any case that populations tend to migrate, generally they leave their communities for

short periods of time to work somewhere else, but they come back to their places of origin.

28

Another livelihoods strategy widely used by households is small trade, triangulating produces

harvested in different sectors to sell in their communities. This trade can make the households to

move to different sectors and neighbouring districts, and even to Kigali. Some cross-border

commerce is also practiced, mainly between the DRC and Uganda.

In terms of off the farm labour, some trades are practiced such as woodwork, brick production,

dress-making and other handicrafts such as knitted baskets. Besides these sources of income and

food, households have little access to other sources of the latter. Family transfers are not that

important, and social protection schemes are very rare, and in some cases non-existent.

In terms of roles, men are most of the time in charge of monetised activities, like trade, selling

their surplus as well as farm and off the farm labour. Women are in charge of activities restricted

to their farms and related to food production, such as working on the fields or vegetable gardens,

breeding livestock and caring for the family. Only in the cases of households headed by single

women, their role is more diversified.

During the lean seasons and times of emergency, the coping strategies of the households rely

basically on selling their labour, both in farm and off the farm. Activities mentioned above, such

as small trade, labour in commercial crops plantations of the better off, and temporarily moving

to work in the construction sector are the preferred strategies. Other strategies, more radical in

their outcomes, are the sale of household assets such as livestock, the provision of mutual aid and

the demand of assistance provided by local authorities and/or NGOs, and charcoal production.

These activities are practiced whenever their situation is more desperate. Finally, the more radical

options involve internal migration and definite relocation of the households.

The alternative to more sustainable livelihoods includes the diversification of the local economy

by encouraging activities such as mining, fishing and handicrafts. The livelihoods depending of

the agricultural sector can be strengthened by creating agricultural and livestock cooperatives,

encouraging the production of non-traditional commercial crops such as fruits and vegetables,

processing local production (flour production for example), improving the stocking of foodstuffs,

and encouraging the agro-forestry.

In conclusion, households have not too many livelihoods choices to secure their access to food

and income: if crops fail due to floods and landslides, this access is limited. Nevertheless, it is

important to say that the area of the study is not food-insecure, but households experience lots of

stress during the lean seasons and the emergency situations. Since these situations take place

29

every year, the sustainability of these livelihoods gets eroded year after year. Moreover, the lack

of a wide range of options to overcome difficult times, as depicted by the few and unsustainable

coping strategies in place, demonstrate the need to diversify these livelihoods options and to

provide more off the farm opportunities for the households, thus reducing the levels of

dependence on agriculture, which is very vulnerable to the impacts of floods and landslides.

7 CONCLUSIONS

The main conclusions of this rapid risk assessment are the following:

Floods and landslides are predictable, populations know where and when these events are

more likely to take place;

The fact that the local environments are fully anthropogenic plays a major role in the

construction of risks;

The impact of these events are moderate in the short-run, they are not as life-threatening

as other events, but a caveat is necessary to be made because their impacts on the

livelihoods are more pervasive in the long-run;

Local populations are very vulnerable to the high levels of poverty, the lack of enough

resources such as land, the large families and the high population density;

Housing and transport infrastructure are very vulnerable to floods and landslides;

Weak capacities of both district and sector authorities to respond and cope with the

impacts of floods and landslides are also a vulnerability factor;

Responding to these events is diverting resources that otherwise could be invested in the

development of the districts involved;

Livelihoods of the populations rely heavily on agriculture, other sources of food and

income are scarce;

Populations in this area are not food-insecure, but the repeated impact of these events on

their livelihoods is undermining the sustainability of the latter;

Diversification of the local economies and provision of more sources of off the farm

income can contribute to the increase of the resilience of local populations.

30

8 RECOMMENDATIONS

Although this rapid assessment provides a picture of the DRR situation in the three selected

districts, more in-depth analysis is necessary to put forward actions or programmes intended to

reduce the risks faced by the populations in these districts. The following recommendations

require, hence, a further analysis and validation. They are intended to provide some clues to

identify the next steps to be implemented both by MIDIMAR and IOM to implement and

mainstream DRR in vulnerable areas of Rwanda.

All the recommendations have been formulated taking the main findings into account, having in

mind the capacities and will observed to do something in the area of DRR. Again, the latter only

reflect the outcome of the rapid assessment, and can represent a partial view of the actual

situation.

8.1 Recommendations to MIDIMAR

In line with the conclusions of this mission report, it is important to recommend some actions to

the main DRR stakeholders in Rwanda. First and foremost, it is important that MIDIMAR

expands its training programme, both to deepen the knowledge and practice of the DDMCs

(which have already been trained) and to create these capacities at the SDMCs. Technical

capacities is one of the major gaps identified to respond, cope with and mitigate risks in the

districts selected. In addition, MIDIMAR can deploy its technical staff to these districts during

the periods where these damaging events are likely to take place to provide support and

secondment to the local authorities, either in the response or the rehabilitation processes. This

action could provide the “embryonic” linkages between the local and the central levels, which

could later on be rolled out and replicated somewhere else in the country.

In line with the stated above, MIDIMAR should also consider the establishment of a permanent

training facility, in order to be able to provide on-demand training, refreshment sessions and

regular education to local officials on aspects related to DRR. This training component will

include the production of training materials and methodologies, but also the setting up of a team

of trainers and a resources centre to file these training materials along with materials produced by

other actors, and also literature from Rwanda and abroad.

Whilst this rapid assessment provides only a superficial view of the situation of risks in the

selected districts, MIDIMAR could launch more initiatives, either by itself or with the

31

participation of other technical partners, tending to go deeper into the conclusions of this

assessment, either to validate them or not. Once the situation in these districts will be fully

understood, more actions can be launched, such as the elaboration of technical/scientific studies,

mitigation actions and so on.

Another recommendation to MIDIMAR consists on the importance to provide with sound

techniques and methodologies to the local authorities, districts and sectors alike, to better

understand the risks to which they are exposed. A risk mapping initiative is already in place at the

district level, but if this kind of initiative could also reach the sector level, it would generate local

capacities at this level. This initiative also involves the setting up of a study agenda by

MIDIMAR, in which the ministry could identify all technical and scientific studies necessary to

better understand risks. These studies could include the following: the geomorphologic structure;

the types of soils available; the hydraulic dynamics; the identification of infiltration areas and

natural drainages; the actual rates of water run-off in the area; the impact of non-native vegetable

species in the environment; the profiling of secondary watersheds; the patterns of climate and

rainfall in the area; the environmental impact of disasters; the sociological and anthropologic

aspects of risk construction in the area; the economic impact of disasters and climate change;

gender issues related to disasters in the area; and so on. This list does not pretend to be

exhaustive, but it provides a stark view of what knowledge needs to be produced to better

understand, and apprehend the risks faced by local populations in the selected districts. It is

important to note that multidisciplinary studies are necessary for this end, in order to produce a

holistic view of what the actual situation is in terms of risks.

Another area where MIDIMAR can play a major role is in the mobilisation of other ministries

and agencies to support the efforts intended to secure the livelihoods of the most vulnerable

populations. By providing an accurate profile of the latter, it could contribute to a more efficient

way of reaching the target populations, hence contributing to the resilience of these individuals.

The priority areas where MIDIMAR may do the latter include housing, agriculture, infrastructure,

health and education.

MIDIMAR could also provide technical assistance to local authorities in terms of mainstreaming

DRR into the regular development plans. 2012 brings an important opportunity because this

planning process is going to be launched. It can also contribute to annual investment plans. The

latter could be done either “upstream and downstream the disaster”: upstream, meaning before

32

the event takes place; and downstream, when the event has already taken place. This way,

MIDIMAR will be able to provide its expertise to the local authorities to better plan their

investments, in order to turn them more resilient to the recurrent damaging events identified in

this assessment.

8.2 Recommendations to IOM

IOM can provide technical expertise to MIDIMAR and local authorities by mobilising experts

and methodologies used in other countries where IOM operates. Its broad experience can be

imported, adapted and replicated in Rwanda, all this in coordination with MIDIMAR and local

authorities.

A major opportunity to IOM remains at the very local level, by means of incorporating

participatory process to assess risks at the community level. The involvement of the communities

is paramount since, during a disaster, the communities are the first responders. It could also

contribute to the appropriation by the community of this knowledge.

Identifying and strengthening the livelihoods options of the communities exposed is also an

important means to reduce risk. The need to drive more and more households out of agricultural

activities due to the high levels of vulnerability of this sector is widely accepted, and IOM can

take advantage of its past experience with the life skills actions they have carried out with

returnees.

Finally, DRR in Rwanda is a subject that seems to start gaining momentum. IOM, with its vast

experience can contribute to put this approach into the spotlight to underlie its importance to

secure the livelihoods of the most vulnerable, protect the life of entire communities, improve the

way public investment decisions are made and improve the overall efforts tending to ameliorate

the lives of the Rwandan people and its future generations.

33

Annexes

34

Annex 1: List of interviewees

District People met with Title

Nyabihu Alexandre SAHUNKUYE Vice Mayor in charge of Social

affairs

Burera Samuel SEMBARAGA Mayor

Musanze 1. Winifrida

MPEMBYEMUNGU

2. Martin NTIRENGANYA

Mayor

Social affairs

Sector District People met with Title

Rambura Nyabihu Beatrice Dukuzumuremyi Social affairs

Bigogwe Rwisumbura Gerda and

Ntabagwira Marie-Espérance

Social affairs

Executive, Kora cellule

Muko Musanze Sector Agronomist

Busogo Sector Agronomist

Nemba Burera Ngirimana Justin

35

Annex 2: Risk and Capacities Analyses for the districts of Nyabihu, Burera and Musanze

Flood Risk Analysis

District: Nyabihu Hazard Analysis

Description of

the Hazard

Triggering

Factors

Frequency Seasonality Duration Sectors Affected Impact Time of

Recovery

Intensity of the

Hazard

There is no

presence of

flash-floods,

these events tend

to develop in

time, they are

predictable in

terms of timing

and geographic

scope

High levels of

rain, absence

and/or

sedimentation of

natural or

artificial

drainages in the

plains ;

Fragile and

impermeable

soils, which

hampers

infiltration of

rain water ;

Sheet metal

roofing increase

the surface

runoff;

High levels of

erosion;

Rains fallen on

the mountain

slopes flow to

the plains almost

freely due to

high levels of

deforestation.

Annual floods ;

Worst floods in

the last ten years

took place in

2006, 2010 and

2011.

Mars, April and

May

One month (the

time stagnating

waters recede)

Bigowe,

Genda,

Mukamira

Destruction of

houses ;

Lives lost ;

Crop losses ;

Water systems

damages/

destroyed ;

Loss of

household

assets ;

Loss of

livestock ;

Road

infrastructure

affected/

destroyed ;

Formation of

spontaneous

ponds and loss

of arable land;

Energy

infrastructure

damaged/

destroyed.

3 months to

relocate and/or

rebuild

damaged/

destroyed houses

Intensity of

hazard deemed

moderately

strong, the

phenomenon

does not last

long and its

impact is highly

localized.

36

Vulnerability Analysis

Physical

Vulnerability

Environmental

Vulnerability

Social/ Institutional

Vulnerability

Economic

Vulnerability

Profile of Most

Vulnerable

Populations

Differentiation of

Impacts

Level of

Vulnerability

Weak housing and

inadequate

construction

techniques ;

Location of inhabited

areas in high risk

zones.

Deforestation;

Overexploitation of

natural resources

such as soil, which

entails its fragility

and the lost of its

fertility;

Man-made

environment.

Inadequate use of

land (lack of

planning)

DDMC is active

since 2009, but lacks

of training (just one

training carried out

since its inception)

and other capacity-

building mechanisms

(study tours);

Lack of materials and

equipment to respond

to emergencies

No resources

earmarked for

emergency response;

In habitants are aware

of the risk at the

Umudugudu level ;

Populations

mobilized to support

persons with special

needs ;

Presence of national

and international

NGOs.

High levels of

poverty, although

people have access to

food ;

Low levels of food

insecurity;

Weak monetization

of exchanges;

Access to social

services secured;

People depending

exclusively on

agricultural and

livestock related

activities ;

Numerous widows

and women heads of

households;

Minors heads of

households (war of

HIV/AIDS orphans);

Low levels of

schooling ;

Persons with special

needs (handicapped,

PLWHA).

The impact of the

floods on households

headed by widows,

the elderly and

orphaned minors is

stronger.

The resumption of

agricultural activities

is harder, sometimes

they have to fend for

themselves or receive

support from the

community, without

any specific

assistance.

Vulnerability towards

floods is deemed

moderately strong,

mostly because even

though these events

affect a large number

of households, the

most vulnerable

amongst them are not

many.

37

Landslide Risk Analysis

District: Nyabihu Hazard Analysis

Description of

the Hazard

Triggering

Factors


Recovery

Intensity of the

Hazard

Landslides take

place in

mountainous

areas, they are

generally small

landslides but

they are

numerous. They

are provoked by

the flow of water

over steep slopes

due to

infiltration

problems. They

happen

suddenly, but

their location is

predictable.

High levels of

rain fall ;

Fragile soils due

to

overexploitation

and the use of

inadequate

agricultural

techniques;

High levels of

erosion.

Landslides take

place on an

annual basis.

In 2010 and

2011, the

situation

aggravated.

Mars, April and

May

Over a month

Rugera, Shyira,

Kintobo,

Rambura,

Rulembo

Loss of lives ;

Destruction of

houses;

Crop loss ;

Loss of planting

surface ;

Destruction of

roads and water

systems ;

Isolation of large

numbers of

populations due

to roads getting

blocked;

Economic

activities

disrupted;

Displacement of

affected

households,

which leads to

their uprooting.

Between 3 and 6

months,

sometimes even

longer (in the

case of the most

vulnerable

households).

Small landslides

scattered all over

large surfaces,

which in turn

affected large

numbers of

populations.

38


Physical

Vulnerability

Environmental

Vulnerability


Vulnerability

Economic

Vulnerability

Profile of Most

Vulnerable

Populations

Differentiation of

Impacts

Level of

Vulnerability

Weak housing and

inadequate

construction

techniques ;

Location of inhabited

areas in high risk

zones.

Road infrastructure

without mitigation

works.

Deforestation ;

Overexploitation of

natural resources,

mainly the soils,

which has led to its

facilitation ;

Erosion.

Inadequate use of

land (lack of

planning)

DDMC is active

since 2009, but lacks

of training (just one

training carried out

since its inception);

Lack of materials and

equipment to respond

to emergencies

No resources

earmarked for

emergency response;

In habitants are aware

of the risk at the

Umudugudu level ;

Populations

mobilized to support

persons with special

needs ;

Presence of national

and international

NGOs.

High levels of

poverty, although

people have access to

food ;

Low levels of food

insecurity;

Weak monetization

of exchanges;

Access to social

services secured;

People depending

exclusively on

agricultural and

livestock related

activities ;

Numerous widows

and women heads of

households;

Minors heads of

households (war of

HIV/AIDS orphans);

Low levels of

schooling ;

Persons with special

needs (handicapped,

PLWHA).

The impact of the

floods on households

headed by widows,

the elderly and

minors is stronger.

The resumption of

agricultural activities

is harder, sometimes

they have to fend for

themselves or receive

support from the

community, without

any specific

assistance.

Vulnerability levels

are higher than in the

plain areas, although

more vulnerable

populations are not

many.

39

Analysis of DRR Strategies and Local Capacities to Respond to the Risk of Landslides

District: Nyabihu Human Resources Material/ Equipment Financial Resources Institutional Framework DRR Strategies Gaps Identified

DDMC is active since

2009 but more training is

needed to fulfil its role.

DRR competences are

rare, if not missing.

Populations are aware of

the risks and can be

easily mobilized.

Some equipment is

available, mostly donated

by international partners.

Internet connection

available though fibre

optic;

Office furniture and

equipment available.

The district has different

budgets allocated in all

areas of public

investment;

NGOs in the area have

also available resources.

Relocation of

populations in

Umudugudu, where risk

is lower ;

Awareness-raising

amongst the populations.

Floods :

Construction and

maintenance of

drainages ;

Relocation of

populations in low risk

areas;

Landslides:

Relocation of

populations to low risk

areas ;

Measures to reduce

erosion (reforestation,

implementation of

progressive and radical

terraces);

Crop diversification,

encouraging permanent

crops ;

Zonification of

agricultural activities.

Specific budget for

emergency response and

mitigation activities ;

More training g on DRR

at the district and sector

levels ;

Provision of material

intended to be used for

clearing away affected

areas;

Improve the role of the

DDMC on DRR;

Risk mapping at the

district and sector levels ;

Lack of transportation

equipment;

Communication

hardware ;

Dedicated software like

GIS ;

EWS.

40

Landslide Risk Analysis

District: Burera Hazard Analysis

Description of

the Hazard

Triggering

Factors


Recovery

Intensity of the

Hazard

Landslides are

predictable; they

take place

during the same

period of the

year and

frequently in the

same areas.

Most of the

time, they are

small but many,

concentrated in a

small geographic

space, but there

can also be of

large magnitude,

involving large

amounts of

surface,

provoking more

losses.

Hilly landscape

with steep

slopes ;

Soils weakened

due to

overexploitation;

Strong rain fall

levels and/or

strong storms ;

High levels of

erosion.

Sheet metal

roofing increases

the surface

runoff.

Annual events ;

Most serious

events took

place in 1975-

1976, 2011.

February to

April

September to

November.

1 month

Kinyababa,

Rusarabuye,

Nemba,

Akagogo, Cyeru

Destruction of

road sections ;

Roads blocked,

disrupting

economic

activities and

access to social

services ;

Isolation of large

number of

people;

Loss of lives

(during major

landslides);

Destruction of

houses;

Displacement

and relocation of

affected

households;

Infrastructure at

risk (fibre

optic) ;

Loss of crops.

Affected

populations

spend 3 months

assisted by

authorities; then

it can take

another 6 moths

for these

households to

fend for

themselves.

High intensity,

serious impact

on the local

economy.

41


Physical

Vulnerability

Environmental

Vulnerability


Vulnerability

Economic

Vulnerability

Profile of Most

Vulnerable

Populations

Differentiation of

Impacts

Level of

Vulnerability

Roads are not paved,

they lack mitigation

works ;

Houses built in high

risk areas with

inadequate

techniques and

materials (some

families are not able

to build sustained

houses due to lack of

clay);

Absence of drainages

for excess water.

Sedimentation of

mountain lakes

(Burera and

Ruhondo) in the area

increases the

probability of

overflows ;(note)

Crater lake water

(Virunga) causes

floods and damages

downstream;

Deforestation and

high levels of

erosion;

Dense but scattered

vegetable coverage;

Weakened soils due

to agricultural

overexploitation;

Inadequate

agricultural

techniques used in

steep slopes.

Problems with the

adoption of modern

agricultural

techniques to protect

the soils ;

Weak

implementation of the

land use

consolidation plans.

High prevalence of

poverty, hampering

the capacity of

households to better

withstand the impacts

of events;

High dependence on

subsistence

agriculture ,

Limited arable land.

Households formed

by large number of

members (an average

of 6 persons per

household) ;

Households where

the men practice the

polygamy,

Limited access to

arable land (less than

1 Ha);

Widowed women

heads of households ;

PLWHA;

Orphaned children

heads of households.

Vulnerability of these

populations is higher

and thus the impact

of events is harsher,

their suffering is

more serious.

Household with high

levels of vulnerability

are not may, the

vulnerability is low.

42

Analysis of DRR Strategies and Local Capacities to Respond to the Risk of Landslides

District: Burera Human Resources Material/ Equipment Financial Resources Institutional Framework DRR Strategies Gaps Identified

Some technical expertise

in place (agronomist,

etc.);

The DDMC exists but it

is not very involved into

DRR activities ;

Some training has been

carried out, but more is

needed to acquire the

competences to address

this risk;

DRR Curricula at

schools.

Lack of heavy machinery

to clear away landslides ;

No prepositioned stocks

of items necessary to

face emergency

situations.

Access to regular budget

resources ;

Social protection

programs.

Environmental protection

unit in place ;

Reforestation programs ;

Some access to technical

assistance in place ;

Community mobilization

via the umuganda

mechanism;

Community-based

mutual aid ;

Participation of different

state institutions.

Stabilization of backfills

on the roads with living

hedges, using new

species like bamboo;

Crop diversification with

permanent crops ;

Relocation of

populations into low risk

areas ;

Strengthening of housing

construction techniques;

Protection of social

infrastructure;

Construction of rain

water collecting

structures;

Use of progressive and

radical terraces;

Social protection

mechanisms targeting the

most vulnerable;

Construction of

drainages to protect

roads ;

Better roofing to reduce

runoff.

Specific budget for

emergency response ;

Improved development

plans with DRR;

Lack of technical

capacities to mainstream

DRR into local

development plans;

Public awareness-

raising ;

Lack of technical

competences to assess

and address the risk of

landslides;

Lack and/or need for

more specialized

training;

Capacity-building at the

local levels;

Promotion of new non-

agricultural activities.

43

Flood Risk Analysis

District: Musanze Hazard Analysis

Description of

the Hazard

Triggering

Factors


Recovery

Intensity of the

Hazard

Floods are

provoked by rain

fallen far from

the areas

affected,

sometimes they

can be flash-

floods provoked

by the overflow

of riverbeds

during strong

storms. Water

courses involved

in these events

are present

throughout all

the sectors of the

district affected

by floods.

Rain fallen on

the volcanoes

runoff to the

plains ;

Increase of

water levels in

the ravines that

flow into the

affected sectors ;

Strong storms

that generate

excess of water ;

Overflow of

riverbeds;

Morphology of

the area.

Annual, the

worst floods in

the last ten years

took place in

2005 and 2009.

Mars – June

September –

December

(although floods

are less

frequent)

2 to 4 weeks

Muko and

Busogo

Houses

destroyed ;

Arable land

damaged ;

Loss of lives ;

Road

infrastructure

damages/

destroyed ;

Isolation of

populations ;

Loss of livestock

and family

assets ;

Loss of

agricultural jobs.

1 year and

sometimes even

longer, if not at

all.

High impact due

to the loss of

houses. It

overruns the

capacities of the

district to

respond to these

situations.

44


Physical

Vulnerability

Environmental

Vulnerability


Vulnerability

Economic

Vulnerability

Profile of Most

Vulnerable

Populations

Differentiation of

Impacts

Level of

Vulnerability

Houses built in high

risk areas ;

Lack of consideration

of the flood risks

when building roads.

Erosion;

Sedimentation of

natural or artificial

drainages;

Deforestation;

Weak soils

Lack of knowledge of

the risk by the

exposed populations ;

Local authorities are

aware of the risks but

don’t have the means

to cope with them

and reduce them.

High levels of

poverty amongst the

population;

The vulnerability

accumulates in the

case of the most

vulnerable

individuals;

Lack of employment

opportunities in the

area.

The elderly ;

Orphaned children

heads of households ;

Large families;

Widowed women;

People with special

needs (handicapped,

PLWHA).

Most vulnerable

persons see their

levels of vulnerability

grow and it becomes

harder for them to

cope with and

recover from the

impact of the events.

Moderate level of

vulnerability.

Although a large

number of people are

affected by the

events, they manage

to recover quicker,

besides the most

vulnerable, which, in

turn, and not many.

45

Analysis of DRR Strategies and Local Capacities to Respond to the Risk of Floods

District: Musanze Human Resources Material/ Equipment Financial Resources Institutional Framework DRR Strategies Gaps Identified

Technicians are available

but overwhelmed by

other responsibilities ;

Lack of time to work on

these matters;

Competences on this

field are weak.

NA

Some resources are

available, although more

are necessary to address

the risk.

DDMC and SDMCs are

active, although training

is lacking at the sector

level.

Reforestation to reduce

erosion ;

Zonification of high risk

areas, mostly the ones

close to river beds that

frequently overflow;

Interdiction to plant close

to river beds ;

Budget not enough for

emergency response;

No materials and

equipment for

emergency response ;

More in-depth training ;

Prepositioning of stocks

for the emergency

response;

Training of the SDMCs

Risk mapping and

technical assistance to

carry out this process;

In-depth studies on the

risk;

Technical/scientific

study to analyze the

problem of water runoff

from the volcanoes.

46

Annex 3: Livelihoods Analyses

Sector: Rambura (landslides) Primary

source of food

Timetable of

primary

source of food

Secondary

source of food

Timetable of

primary

source of food

Income-

generating

activities

Other sources

of

revenues/food

Lean season Regular

coping

strategies

Coping

strategies

during

disasters

Alternate

livelihoods

identified

Potatoes (N) September –

December

Rotation

maize

January –

August

Agricultural

labour in tea

plantations;

Construction

labour

(entailing

temporary

migration to

urban centres;

Small trade

(mainly by

men) ;

Children in

charge of

livestock ;

Woodwork

and brick

production.

Family

vegetable

garden (3 out

of 5

households) ;

Some health

centres and

NGOs provide

food to

malnourished

children and

PLWHA (ex :

Caritas ;

Seed

assistance for

returnees

(CRR) ;

Family

transfers (2

out of 5

families).

September –

January

Petty

agricultural

labour;

Some non-

agricultural

labour, mainly

for men,

implying

temporary

migration;

Harvesting in

neighbouring

areas where

agricultural

cycle is

different

(mostly single

women);

Triangulation

of trade of

potatoes and

maize.

Sale of family

assets;

Request of

assistance;

Internal

migration

(Bugasera and

Umutara) ;

Community

fund-raising;

Charcoal

production

Protection of

watersheds;

Creation of

agricultural and

livestock

cooperatives;

Production of

handicrafts;

Women groups

for the

production of

knitted and

sewed clothes;

Mill and

accessories;

Transformation

of local

production;

Production of

green peas,

sorghum,

avocadoes,

plums, cabbage,

carrots, spinach.

Maize (S) March –

August

Rotation beans September -

January

47

Sector: Bigogwe (floods) Primary

source of food

Timetable of

primary

source of food

Secondary

source of food

Timetable of

primary

source of food

Income-

generating

activities

Other sources

of

revenues/food

Lean season Regular

coping

strategies

Coping

strategies

during

disasters

Alternate

livelihoods

identified

Potatoes

June –

November

Rotation

maize

February –

May

Small trade ;

Handicrafts ;

Livestock

(cattle and

small

livestock);

Labour in the

construction

of terraces

(mostly

demobilised

military);

Production of

pyrethrum

(natural

fertilizer);

Masonry.

Family

vegetable

gardens

(women) ;

Family

Transfers (1

household put

of 10) ;

Social

assistance for

the elderly.

June – August

Small trade

(produces

acquired

somewhere

else) ;

Labour in

other sectors;

Cross-border

trade with the

DRC (beans);

Loans at

microcredit

institutions;

Charcoal

production.

Sale of family

assets;

Mutual aid;

Displacement

to other areas

not affected to

plant again

their crops;

Informal

credit;

Request for

official

assistance;

Displacement

of vulnerable

populations.

Sewing and

knitting for

women;

Woodwork;

Welding;

Shoemaking;

Small trade;

Other crops such

as beans, plums,

roses and other

flowers,

mushrooms;

Transformation

of the

production

(flour)

Production of

charcoal

briquettes.

48

Sector: Nemba Primary

source of food

Timetable of

primary

source of food

Secondary

source of food

Timetable of

primary

source of food

Income-

generating

activities

Other sources

of

revenues/food

Lean season Regular

coping

strategies

Coping

strategies

during

disasters

Alternate

livelihoods

identified

Beans

October –

February

May – August

Maize

November –

April

Livestock

(cattle and

small

livestock);

Production of

tiles and

bricks (men);

Woodwork

(men);

Knitting

(women);

Production of

fibre baskets

(women);

Sewing.

Family

vegetable

gardens

(women and

children);

Microcredit

but mostly for

the better-off

(200,000

RWF);

Social

protection

mechanisms;

Credit

cooperatives;

Family

transfers (less

than 1% of the

populations);

District’s

CFW projects

(1,000

RWF/day)

Production of

banana and

sorghum beer

(men)

May – June

(scarcity of

beans and

money)

Labour as

masons all the

way to Kigali

(5,000 RWF

vs 2,000 RWF

paid locally) ;

Temporary

migration to

the East to

work on the

rice

plantations:

Knitting and

production of

weaved mats

(women).

Mutual aid

and

community

fundraising ;

Relocation to

other sectors

to resume their

crops;

Agricultural

labour (500

RFW) ;

Masonry

labour in

town;

Handicrafts

(women).

Professional

training in

particular trades

(woodwork,

production of

bricks,

dressmaking) ;

Creation of

cooperatives

groups ;

Promotion of

savings;

Creation of a

trust fund to

launch non

traditional

activities;

Actions to

protect the soils

(agro-forestry) ;

Progressive/

radical terraces.

49

Sector: Muko Primary

source of food

Timetable of

primary

source of food

Secondary

source of food

Timetable of

primary

source of food

Income-

generating

activities

Other sources

of

revenues/food

Lean season Regular

coping

strategies

Coping

strategies

during

disasters

Alternate

livelihoods

identified

Maize

September -

February

Rotation beans

March –

August

Woodwork

(men) ;

Masonry at

Musanze

(men) ;

Production of

knitted baskets

(women)

Small trade ;

Bakery ;

Butchery ;

Livestock

(cattle and

small

livestock)

Breeding of

pigs (men);

Production of

tomatoes

(men).

Transfers to

families

accounting

elderly

members.

End of

September –

Mid-

December

April – Mid-

June

Temporary

migration to

town to work

as masons

(men) and

domestic

labours

(women) ;

Commercial

crops

(vegetables -

men) ;

Children

transport

produces to

the markets.

Dependence to

public of NGO

assistance;

Sale of family

assets ;

Sale of small

livestock.

Presence of

mines and sand

quarries, which

could be

exploited by

local

cooperatives;

Fish farming ;

Production of

baskets

(women) ;

Dressmaking

training for

young women;

Non-agricultural

trades.

50

Sector: Busogo Primary

source of food

Timetable of

primary

source of food

Secondary

source of food

Timetable of

primary

source of food

Income-

generating

activities

Other sources

of

revenues/food

Lean season Regular

coping

strategies

Coping

strategies

during

disasters

Alternate

livelihoods

identified

Maize

March –

September

Potatoes

September –

December

December –

March

Dressmaking ;

Small trade;

Woodwork;

Masonry ;

Small

livestock ;

Cattle.

Family

transfers

marginal;

CFW projects.

March

September

(planting

season)

Triangulation

of small trade;

Agricultural

labour;

Children take

care of small

livestock.

CRR provides

support ;

Assistance

provided by

MIDIMAR ;

Mutual aid ;

Neighbours

provide to

people

affected ;

Relocation to

other cellules,

with support

provided by

the

community;

Sale of

livestock.

Agro-forestry;

Post-harvest

cooperatives ;

Umudugudu ;

Measures to

protect the soils

(ditches, fixative

plants) ;

Protect

vegetable cover

at the summits

of the

mountains;

Mitigation of the

accumulation of

sediments;

Canalisation of

waters.

Wheat

March –

October

Beans

November –

February

iom/oim · iom/oim midimar rapid risk and capacities assessment and livelihoods profiling in...

Documents