This report presents the outputs of the joint launch of the Enhancing National Climate Services (ENACTS) program of Meteo Rwanda and the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) Rwanda Climate Services for Agriculture (RCSA) project. This launch brought together key government agencies in Rwanda, research organizations, farmers' representatives, development partners, non-governmental organizations and media. The aim of the one day workshop was to launch the ENACTS products provided by Meteo Rwanda and to introduce the RCSA project to the government and public. This was a transition from the design phase of the project to the implementation phase. The report includes the process of the launch event, presentations made and the main comments by participants. ; United States Agency for International Development
The Rwanda Climate Services for Agriculture project is a four-year initiative (2016-2019) that seeks to transform Rwanda's rural farming communities and national economy through improved climate risk management. This report presents the outputs of a five-day training on the use of a Participatory Integrated Climate Services for Agriculture (PICSA) approach to help farmers make climate informed decisions. This training brought together key government agencies in Rwanda, research organizations, farmers' representatives, development partners, non-governmental organizations, and media. The one week training workshop aimed to initiate the process to develop skills of staff to become a group of expert trainers in the PICSA approach. The report includes the proceeding of the training workshop as well as reflections on workshop outcomes and feedback by participants.
This report presents analysis of a baseline household survey for the Rwanda Climate Services for Agriculture project – a four-year, USAID-funded initiative that seeks to benefit Rwanda's farming communities and national economy through climate services and improved climate risk management. The survey intends to provide a baseline assessment of the state of climate services among agricultural households in Rwanda. A random sample of 3,046 respondents was nationally surveyed in the all four provinces of the country and in the city of Kigali. A total of 52% of the sample were female respondents, while two-thirds of the households interviewed were male-headed households. The baseline includes outcome indicators related to access, use of climate information, channels of communication, behavioral change and perceived livelihood benefit/impact. The project evaluation will involve assessing changes over time in these benchmark indicators and eventually comparing the changes across beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries. A qualitative component of the evaluation will provide deeper insights into users' decision making, behavioral change and any socially differentiated effect. ; Future Earth ; Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research ; Irish Aid ; Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Netherlands ; Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation ; Department for International Development, United Kingdom ; United States Agency for International Development ; European Union ; International Fund for Agricultural Development
Rwanda's agricultural sector is facing severe challenges of increasing environmental degradation, resulting in declining productivity. The problem is likely to be further aggravated by the growing population pressure. A viable pathway is climate smart agriculture, aiming at the triple win of improving food security and climate change adaptation, while contributing to mitigation if possible. The Government of Rwanda has initiated ambitious policies and programs aiming at low emission agricultural development. Crop focused policies include the Crop Intensification Program (CIP) which facilitates access to inorganic fertilizer and improved seeds. In the livestock subsector, zero-grazing and improved livestock feeding are encouraged, and the Girinka program provides poor farm households with a crossbred dairy cow. In this study, we aimed at assessing the potential impact of these policy programs on food availability and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of 884 households across different agro-ecologies and farming systems in Rwanda. Household level calculations were used to assess the contribution of current crops, livestock and off-farm activities to food availability and GHG emissions. Across all sites, 46% of households were below the 2500 kcal MAE− 1 yr− 1 line, with lower food availability in the Southern and Eastern Rwanda. Consumed and sold food crops were the mainstay of food availability, contributing between 81.2% (low FA class) to 53.1% (high FA class). Livestock and off-farm income were the most important pathways to higher FA. Baseline GHG emissions were low, ranging between 395 and 1506 kg CO2e hh− 1 yr− 1 per site, and livestock related emissions from enteric fermentation (47.6–48.9%) and manure (26.7–31.8%) were the largest contributors to total GHG emissions across sites and FA classes. GHG emissions increased with FA, with 50% of the total GHG being emitted by 22% of the households with the highest FA scores. Scenario assessment of the three policy options showed strong differences in potential impacts: Girinka only reached one third of the household population, but acted highly pro-poor by decreasing the households below the 2500 kcal MAE− 1 yr− 1 line from 46% to 35%. However, Girinka also increased GHG by 1174 kg CO2e hh− 1 yr− 1, and can therefore not be considered climate-smart. Improved livestock feeding was the least equitable strategy, decreasing food insufficient households by only 3%. However, it increased median FA by 755 kcal MAE− 1 yr− 1 at a small GHG increase (50 kg CO2e hh− 1 yr− 1). Therefore, it is a promising option to reach the CSA triple win. Crop and soil improvement resulted in the smallest increase in median FA (FA by 755 kcal MAE− 1 yr− 1), and decreasing the proportion of households below 2500 kcal MAE− 1 yr− 1 by 6%. This came only at minimal increase in GHG emissions (23 kg CO2e hh− 1 yr− 1). All policy programs had different potential impacts and trade-offs on different sections of the farm household population. Quick calculations like the ones presented in this study can assist in policy dialogue and stakeholder engagement to better select and prioritize policies and development programs, despite the complexity of its impacts and trade-offs.
