Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
4.2.1 Geographic Situation ......................................................................................................... 13
4.2.2 Landscape .......................................................................................................................... 13
4.2.3 Climate .............................................................................................................................. 13
4.2.4 Natural Resources ............................................................................................................. 13
4.2.5 Local Economy ................................................................................................................. 14
4.2.6 Livelihoods Profiles .......................................................................................................... 14
4.3 Musanze District ............................................................................................................... 15
4.3.1 Geographic Situation ......................................................................................................... 15
4.3.2 Landscape .......................................................................................................................... 16
4.3.3 Climate .............................................................................................................................. 16
4.3.4 Natural Resources ............................................................................................................. 16
4.3.5 Local Economy ................................................................................................................. 17
4.3.6 Livelihoods Profiles .......................................................................................................... 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
4.2.1 Geographic Situation
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.
4.2.4 Natural Resources
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.
Production and yields, different crops (2007)
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.
4.2.6 Livelihoods Profiles7
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
7 FEWSNET, “Livelihoods Zoning “Plus”, Activity in Rwanda, A Special Report by the Famine Early Warning
Systems Network (FewsNet)”, August 2011.
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
4.3.1 Geographic Situation
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.
4.3.4 Natural Resources
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.
Production and yields, different crops (2006)
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
4.3.6 Livelihoods Profiles9
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.
9 FEWSNET, “Livelihoods Zoning “Plus”, Activity in Rwanda, A Special Report by the Famine Early Warning
Systems Network (FewsNet)”, August 2011.
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
Frequency Seasonality Duration Sectors Affected Impact Time of
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
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.
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
Frequency Seasonality Duration Sectors Affected Impact Time of
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
Vulnerability Analysis
Physical
Vulnerability
Environmental
Vulnerability
Social/ Institutional
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
Frequency Seasonality Duration Sectors Affected Impact Time of
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
Vulnerability Analysis
Physical
Vulnerability
Environmental
Vulnerability
Social/ Institutional
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