Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Population Growth and Land Scarcity in Rwanda: The other side of the
“Coin”
Alfred R. BIZOZA (PhD)Agricultural Economist ,University of Rwanda
2014 Conference on Land Policy in Africa , Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
11-15th November 2014
1
Outline of the presentation
1. Background2. Conceptual Framework 3. Trends of Population and Land Use in Rwanda4. Agriculture and Land use management 5. Empirical analysis of population Growth and land
Scarcity 6. Conclusions and Policy Implications
2
Background Rwanda is currently ranked among the fast growing economies within EAC (World Bank, 2013). For example, poverty rate has decreased from 58.9 % in 2000/2001 to 44.9% in 2010/2011 (NISR, 2012),
Increased population and land scarcity have been subject of an extensive debate as being the major constraints of Economic Development in Rwanda .
Less attention was paid to the side of the “Coin” which needs just as much attention for the future development of Rwanda ‐ people’s livelihoods can and must be created outside agriculture.
3
Background (Cont’d) This paper attempts to argue that population growth in its current pace in Rwanda may not be a problem till 2050s rather needs to be viewed as an enabler for the overall economic development.
The assumption made in this paper:
“ the inability to create more economic opportunities along the agriculture value chains, in the services and manufacturing to uphold population increment is rather a problem than population growth and land scarcity per se”
4
Conceptual Framework
The intent of this study is to assess the possibility of the non‐farm sector leading the economy and to address the deficiencies of the arguments that link population growth, land scarcity and lower economic development.
We share the view that if resources such as land are getting scarcer, humankind will adapt to these new challenges, and that land scarcity may work as a catalyst to trigger technological innovations .
5
Conceptual Framework (cont’d)
The reason why population growth leads to land scarcity is the lower capacity of other development sectors, such as in industry and services, to absorb even the qualified segment of an increased population.
This limitation in uptake capacity can be explained, among other reasons, by the small number of employment opportunities created by these sectors, compared to the agriculture sector.
More job creation is needed if pressure on land, poverty, food insecurity and social conflicts are not to increase.
6
Conceptual framework (Cont’d)
7
Trends on Population growth and Land Use in Rwanda
1. Population Growth and Density Some Population Statistics ( 2002‐2012)
8
Province % Population Change
Average Annual Growth Rate
Population Density
Farm employment
Non-farm employment
Number of Establishments
Kigali City 48.4 4.0 1,552 24.7 75.3 83000 Southern 26.0 2.3 434 8.5 19.5 51000 Western 21.2 1.9 420 73.2 26.8 62000 Northern 10.8 1.0 527 76.5 23.5 49000 Eastern 53 4.3 274 80.8 19.2 37000 Rwanda 29.6 2.6 415 72.6 27.4 282000
Source: NISR (2014)-The 2012 RPHC4 (Population and Housing Census)
2. Farm and non‐farm Employment Industry of Work for people with 16 years Old
Farm and nonfarm employment
9
Sector/ Year 2000 2005 2011
Agriculture, hunting and forestry 88.6 79.3 72.5
Mining & Quarrying 0.2 0.4 1.0
Manufacturing 0.8 1.7 2.3
Gas, Water & Electricity Supply 0.1 0.1 0.2
Construction 0.8 1.6 2.9
Wholesale & Retail Trade 3.1 6.8 8.9
Transport & Communications 0.7 1.3 1.8
Banking Financial & Business Services 0.4 0.3 0.4
Government, Admin & Social Services 2.4 3.1 4.3
Recreation & Tourism 0.1 0.2 0.5
Domestic Services 2.7 4.5 4.1
Inadequately Described 0.1 0.7 1.1
Total 100 100 100.0
Source: NISR (2006, 2012)
Projections of farm, non‐farm employment and population growth
The trends in Figure bellow suggest that the percentage of people leaving the farming sector is similar to those joining the non‐farm sector.
This will require policies and strategies that are aggressive to continue unlocking opportunities for small and medium enterprises as well as large labour–intensive firms.
Rwanda can continue to capitalize on its population growth to create a pool of skills that are needed to enter into the non‐farm sector, and reduce dependence on farming activities for both economic growth and employment.
10
Projections of farm, non‐farm employment and population growth
The non‐farm sector will take the lead in creating more employment for the young and active population.
11
Trends of agriculture and land use
12
Non‐agricultural Land Non‐agricultural Land
Estimates show that about 57.8 to 55.9% of the total agricultural land area remains potentially uncultivated.
Cultivated Area per household
13
Cultivated Area
(EICV 3)
Average total area cultivated per HH
Less than 0.3Ha
0.3 to 0.9 Ha
0.9 to 3Ha
More than 3 Ha
Total Total HHs cultivate for crop production (000s)
All Rwanda 0.59 45.8 37.6 14.7 1.9 100 2,095
Kigali city 0.58 70.3 19.4 7.7 2.6 100 124
Southern 0.55 51.2 36.4 10.5 2.0 100 533
Western 0.48 52.1 35.9 10.5 1.5 100 508
Northern 0.52 46.0 39.7 13.5 0.8 100 404
Eastern 0.78 28.3 43.1 25.8 2.8 100 525
Urban 0.46 67.3 21.1 9.0 2.6 100 219
Rural 0.60 43.3 39.5 15.4 1.8 100 1875
Source: EICV3- NISR (2012)
Crop Yield Vis‐à‐vis Potential
14
Crop yields are increasing due to on‐going Crop Intensification Program but there is yet room to improve these and get more food than currently.
Productivity trends of major food crops in Rwanda
Land use and Management
15
EICV 3 Irrigated Protected against soil erosion
Consolidated Cultivated (in 000 ha)
All Rwanda 3.0 78.1 11.5 1228
Kigali city 4.2 74.4 2.0 72
Southern province 3.1 84.9 6.1 292
Western province 1.3 80.4 12.0 244
Northern province 1.9 81.0 20.3 209
Eastern province 4.3 71.0 12.1 411
Urban 3.3 73.3 8.8 101
Rural 3.0 78.5 11.7 1128
Land irrigated, protected against soil erosion, land consolidated
Source: Rwanda EICV3 report, 2012
Use of Chemical and Organic fertilizers
16
Area Chemical fertilizer Organic fertilizer
EICV2 (2005) EICV3
(2012)
EICV2 (2005)
EICV3 (2012)
All Rwanda 11.0 28.9 7.0 9.3
Kigali city 7.6 10.7 5.8 5.1
Southern province 11.8 26.3 8.5 9.7
Western province 14.2 37.3 7.3 10.4
Northern province 12.9 39.0 9.2 14.8
Eastern province 5.7 20.1 3.6 4.7 Urban 5.1 16.3 5.4 7.0 Rural 11.6 30.4 7.2 9.6
% of population using chemical and organic fertilizers
Effectiveness of Population and Land Policies
Turning to Land markets Land‐renting options are scarce due to limited liquidity, credit
constraints, and support institutions. Fewer by land for investment in rural areas. About 12% of the rural people participate in land markets to pay debt and 45% sell their lands to maintain their consumption when faced with unexpected shocks.
17
Province % of HHs with perceived right to sell or use lands as collateral
HHs who have used land as collateral
EICV 2 EICV 3 EICV 2 EICV3
All Rwanda 70.8 84 9.8 33.8
Kigali city 70.0 70.1 16.2 10.0
Southern 70.6 84.9 7.6 41.1
Western 71.5 84.2 8.9 35.7
Northern 77.0 87.6 8.8 42.5
Eastern 65.5 83.2 10.9 36.3
Urban 59.9 73 15.6 15.3
Rural 72.0 85.2 8.8 39.5
Effectiveness of Population and Land Policies
18
Family planning and Policies and Strategies
The period after 2005 has heralded massive family planning campaigns, training for different groups, increased budget allocated to the health sector, strengthening health facilities; and the provision of more affordable and available contraceptives.
The contraceptive prevalence rate (CPR), the unmet need, and the TFR have significantly improved (see Table 11).
Indicator Rwanda Uganda Tanzania Kenya
Year 2005-2010 2006- 2011 2004/05- 2009 2003 - 2008/09 CPR (%) 17.1-51.6 23.7-30.0 26.4-35.4 39.3-45.5 Unmet need (%) 37.4-19.2 40.6-34.3 21.8-25.3 24.5-25.6 TFR 6.1-4.6 6.7-6.2 5.7-5.4 4.9-4.6 Source: Muhoza et al. (2013).
Effectiveness of Population and Land Policies
Despite the decrease in mortality and in fertility , the Rwanda’s population will continue to grow and is expected to be doubled in 2050 or so.
Therefore, maintaining the unidirectional view of linking population growth to land scarcity will remain problematic.
Rather, there should be a focus on development options and priorities that respond to the population’s increment for both food and labour.
19
Empirical Analysis of the Population growth and Land scarcity
The Empirical Model aims to: Provide empirical linkages between population growth and land scarcity in the short and long run.
Enable us to test for the presence of empirical and significant relationships between land scarcity and change in population growth.
Assess the extent to which the pace in population growth and land scarcity can be adjusted by the change in non‐farm sector employment resulting from the industry and services.
20
],,,),/)[( 11 slandreformGenocideNFEmpFEmpPopPopPopfLandPop
tttt
t−−−= (Eq.2)
tttt erroXY εαβ +−−Δ=Δ −10 ])[1( (Eq.3)
Empirical Results OLS –robust estimates of farm and non‐farm labour on land scarcity
21
Variables Land Scarcity Population GrowthChange
3SLS –Land scarcity 3SLS –Population Growth Change
Robust Coefficient
t-value Robust Coefficien
t-value Coefficient t-value Coef. t- value
Explanatory Variables Physical population density 16137.26 4.06*** 25824 23.63***Population Growth Change ( Squared)
1.67e-11 6.83***
Lagged Population Change 8049.918 0.056*Farm Labour 0.0007 2.97***Non-Farm Labour -0.0003 -5.64***Farm labour – Squared -0.65e-11 -3.32***Non-Farm Labour – Squared -5.14e-12 -6.30***Ln Farm-Labour -2184.88 -3.78*** -217.7526 -1.59***Ln Non-Farm Labour 143.33 3.45*** 602605.5 5.67*** 141.41 44.33*** 332212 1.98**Genocide- Dummy -29.74 -2.23** 529316 1.76* -8.41 -0.61 63653 3.58 ***Land Reforms- Dummy 13.63 2.08** 33.38 2.25** -751654 -4.09***Constant 29150.39 3.37*** - 8334390 -6.01** 1733.4 5.66*** -506338 -2.49**(n) 70 70 70 70R2 0.9958 0.994 0.97 0.99Fisher Statistic (6,60) 5218.41 0.0000***
Empirical analysis (Cont’d)
Long‐ run effect of the non‐farm employment on population growth change
22
Dependent Variable: First Difference of Population Growth Change
Robust Coefficient( t Value)
Robust Std. Deviation
First Difference Non-Farm Employment 4.08 (13.15)*** 0.301
Lagged Residuals -0.148 (-11.17)*** 0.013
Constant 914769.5 (10.04)***
(N) 69
R2 0.7496
Adjusted R2 0.742
Fisher Statistic (2,66) 98.77***
Empirical analysis (Cont’d)
• The above tables shows the short‐run and long effects of the non‐farm employment on population growth change and Land Scarcity
• In the long‐run, the variation in land scarcity is likely to be better explained by non‐farm employment.
• The speed of adjustment determined by the coefficient of adjustment (1‐ estimated at 0.856 and is closer to 1 (e.g. 0.148); this implies a faster speed of adjustment of population growth change to non‐farm sector employment.
23
Conclusions and Policy Implications
Our analysis has focused on population growth and land scarcity in Rwanda.
Evidences from population projections in this paper suggests that the population in Rwanda will continue to grow, despite efforts being made in family planning.
These results seem to imply that the other side of the “coin”is to continue developing the non‐farm sector, to enable it to uptake new and active entrants to the labour market.
24
Conclusions and Policy Implications
More job opportunities will come from the non‐farm sector from 2025 onwards if the current pace of economic growth is maintained or improved upon.
Stronger education supporting self‐employment and the creation of businesses seems one of the areas to strengthen the development of the non‐farm sector.
25
Conclusions and Policy Implications
The on‐going free education programs by the government should go beyond ensuring equitable distribution of education opportunities, to empower graduates with the technical and vocational skills needed for self‐employment and the creation of more businesses.
To a larger extent, the government in partnership with the private sector should continue to take seriously the issue of unemployment, especially focussing on youth and women as they constitute a major part of the active population
26
Thank You for your attention !
27
