Abstract:
Arable land inadequacy and limited livelihood strategies are phenomena posing a
challenge on rural food security and chronic poverty in Rwanda. However, literature
linking land resources, youth livelihood strategies and livelihood outcomes is scanty. The
study examined livelihood strategies pursued by rural youths, analyzes their returns to
labour per day, and determines factors influencing youths’ choices of livelihood
strategies. Furthermore, the relationship between rural youths’ choice of livelihood
strategies, food security and income poverty alltogether were analysed in this study. The
study used data from the 2016/17 wave of Integrated Household Living Condition Survey,
with a sample of 2811 rural youths. The results from descriptive analyses indicate that
rural youths in Rwanda pursue seven livelihood strategies namely agriculture, non-farm
wage employment, self-employment, agriculture plus non-farm wage, agriculture plus
self-employment, non-farm wage plus self-employment, and agriculture plus non-farm
wage plus self-employment. Of these livelihood strategies, non-farm wage plus selfemployment,
non-farm wage and self-employment are three choices with highest daily
return to labour in Rwandan Francs 1(RWF) as they generated median daily income of
RWF 526, 424, and 357 respectively. Although agriculture alone was the most practiced
livelihood strategy, it was the least rewarding with a return to labour of RWF 201 per day.
Findings from the first stage of METE model revealed that rural youth’s choice of
livelihood strategies was influenced by age of youth, sex and education of both youth and
household head, household size, distance to the nearest urban center, land size, land
productivity, access to information through phones. The estimates in the second stage of
the METE indicate that non-farm wage, self-employment, agriculture plus selfemployment,
non-farm wage plus self-employment, agriculture plus non-farm wage plus
1 1usd =RWF 834, Dec ember 2017
self-employment strategies contribute to household food security improvement and
poverty reduction when compared to agriculture alone. Based on these findings, this study
concludes that agriculture is a necessary but not a sufficient livelihood strategy to sustain
the contribution of rural youths’ livelihood strategies to their households livelihood. There
is therefore a need for the government and development practitioners to support
development of rural non-farm activities including agro-processing, distribution,
provision of inputs and improving access to market outlets. This should go hand in hand
with interventions to enhance agricultural productivity as it ncessary not only to motivate
youths to engage in agriculture.
