The effect of land fragmentation on the productivity and technical efficiency of smallholder maize farms in Southern Rwanda

2.1.3 Effects of land fragmentation

Land fragmentation has both advantages and disadvantages and the debate about which side outweighs the other seems to be a perpetual one. The advantages of land fragmentation are similar to the demand side causes of land fragmentation.

2.1.3.1 Disadvantages or costs of land fragmentation

The costs of land fragmentation are quite many. In this study, the costs of land fragmentation considered are discussed in Shuhao (2005) and Raghbendra (2005). These costs are reviewed in the paragraphs below.

Land fragmentation leads to increased travelling time between fields, hence lower labour productivity and higher transport costs for inputs and outputs. Fragmentation also involves negative externalities such as reduced scope for irrigation, soil conservation investments and loss of land for boundaries and access routes. Farmers may also incur higher costs of supervising workers on each separate farm than when supervision occurred on a large farm.

Fragmentation also involves greater potential for disputes between neighbours. These conflicts arise when farmers do not agree with the current farm demarcations especially because they believe that their neighbours have cheated them by taking some land from their respective farms. Lastly, farmers owning scattered plots that are quite far away from their homes may lose output due to perils such as destruction of crops by herds, fires, floods, thefty and droughts.

Causes of land fragmentation in Rwanda

The major cause of land fragmentation in Rwanda over the past has been population pressure on land (a supply side cause). Due to population pressure, land has been so scarce that people resorted to purchasing and renting of land and even migrations.

In the 1960s, some researchers had started warning of a growing land scarcity in Rwanda. Landal (1970) stated that « it is assumed that by 1975 ceteris paribus, there will be no further land for cultivation lying idle». This became a reality in the 1980s when several Rwandan families started migrating into countries neighbouring Rwanda because they could not get any land for cultivation. There were also internal migrations whereby people moved from areas of high population pressure to areas of low population pressure. Bugesera region, whose population density was 20 persons per square kilometre in 1960 and rose to 120 persons per square kilometre in 1978, is a good example (Clay and Ngenzi 1990).

Indeed, land inheritance has existed in Rwanda for so long. Recently, it has been sons and not daughters who customarily inherit land. However, some traditions enabled women to inherit land. These included Urwibutso; a tradition by which a father would give land to a daughter as a gift, Inkuri; a tradition by which a father would give land to his daughter as a gift when she gave birth (common in Ruhengeri), Intekeshwa; a tradition by which a father gave land to the daughter as a farewell gift upon getting married and finally, Ingaligali; a tradition by which a land chief would give land to women who were abandoned by their spouses. All these led to land fragmentation (Musahara 2006). Currently, laws have been made to incorporate the issue of gender equity in issues related to inheritance of property.

Demographic pressure on land in Rwanda

According to Rwanda Development Indicators (RoR 2003), Rwanda remains one of Africa's most densely populated countries, with more than 340 inhabitants per square kilometre. The rate of population growth was estimated at 3.1% in 1998. It is projected that Rwanda's population will double over the next twenty years; from 8.2 million inhabitants to at least 16 million inhabitants. Population density will certainly rise to 865 inhabitants per arable square kilometre.

In the last 50 years, the population of Rwanda has almost quadrupled. The population in 1934 was just over one and a half million. It had risen to 8.16 million in 2003. Some 40 years ago, density on arable land was 121 persons per square kilometre; the figure rose to 166 persons per square kilometre in ten years later, it is thought to have been approximately 262 persons per square kilometre in 1990; and by 1999, it was well above 350 persons per square kilometre (Baechler 1999). There is thus considerable pressure on land (a fixed factor), and this has made population pressure one of Rwanda's major challenges.

Another important characteristic of the Rwandan population is that a majority of this population lives in rural areas. This rural population largely depends on farming. As population grows rapidly, land becomes scarce. Farmers resort to purchasing and renting of land. Indeed, family planning practices have not been successful in Rwanda; a family produces many children who, after growing up are bequeathed with a portion of land and this leads to land fragmentation.

Impact of population pressure on land distribution in Rwanda

In Rwanda, population pressure on land has resulted into continuous fall in farm size. Table 2.1 highlights the changes in farm holdings that took place between 1984 and 2002.

Table .1: Distribution of land owned at the household level in Rwanda by farm size

Farm size Classification by Area Owned	Households		Total land owned
			% in 1984		% in 2002		% in 1984	% in 2002
Less than 0.25 ha		7.4		16.8		1.0	3.3
0.25-0.5 ha		19.0		26.4		5.9	11.8
0.5-1.0 ha		30.4		29.7		18.4	25.4
1.0-2.0 ha		26.7		19.5		31.8	31.7
Greater than 2 ha		16.4		7.6		42.9	27.8
Total		99.9%		100%		99.7%	100%
Average farm size in Rwanda in ha per household		# Rural households 1,111,897		# Rural Households 1,442,681		1.2 ha	0.84 ha

Source: Mpyisi E. et al. (2003). Note: The symbol # in table 2.1 means «Total number of».

In 1984, some 43.1 % of rural households had farms of 1 hectare and larger. These farms occupied 74.7 % of the total land owned. In 1984 some 16.4 % of households had farms greater than 2 hectares, and this group occupied 42.9 per cent of land.

By 2002, the percentage of households with farms of 1 hectare or larger had dropped to 27.1% but this group still occupied almost 60 percent of land. The percentage of households with less than 0.5 hectares increased from 26.4 % in 1982 to 43.2 % in 2002, but as a group these farms only occupied about 15.1 % of land. The average farm size decreased from 1.2 ha in 1984 to 0.84 ha in 2002.

2.1.4 Technical efficiency definition and measurement

According to Farrell (1957), technical efficiency reflects the firm's ability to maximize the output for a given set of inputs (operate at the boundary of a production possibility frontier), or the firm's ability to minimize inputs used for a given set of output. The measurement of technical (in) efficiency can be classified into two categories: input-orientated measures and output-orientated measures. This study applied the output-orientated measure but reviewed literature about the two measures.