RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
5.3. IMPACT OF THE GE OCIDE ON INFRASTRUCTURE
5.3.1. Income
5.3.1.2. Increase or decrease of household incomes after the genocide
101
Table 5.15: Household's income source before and after the genocide (n= 100) (Multiple responses)
Frequency Frequency
before 1994 after 1994
Household fanning 75 57
Own business 6 23
Informal activities 18 36
Salaries 17 12
Professional activities 2 4
Pensions, social welfare 4 2
Other 9 21
102
5.3.2. Housing and settlement
In Rwanda, during the genocide. houses wert:: burnt or destroyed. with a higher proportion in Cyangugu Province where material \Vas looted. This left the country with a severe housing problem. As thousands or Rwandans returned home In the years following the killings, the government helped by GOs. had to help by providing shelter. especially for poor people in urban as well as rural areas.
5.3.2.1. Housing before and after the genocide
Table 5.16 shows that eighty-five percent of respondents changed their homes because their previous dwellings were either destroyed during the genocide or for other reasons.
Only 15% still live in the same house. More significant was the fact that beyond the material destruction. the destruc ion of homes implied the loss of important symbols of privacy, identity ancl a safe place which fostered family union. This is why many people never rebuilt houses where they lived before the genocide.
Table 5.16: Residence before and after Ihe genocide tn=IOO)
Frequency I Percenl
Same bou<;e 15 15(1
Oi iferenl Iwu'ie 85 R50
Total 100 100.0
I
5.3.2. 2. Reasons for moving to another house
People moved to another house for different reason. Sixty-one percent changed because their houses were destroyed (Plate 5.1), those from exile (3.5%) live in different houses but also some households(25%) moved for psychological reasons as they could not bear to live in the same house where their relatives \\ere killed. Other households (10.5%) fear living close to neighbours \ ho they know participated in killing their family members (Table 5.17).
103
Table5.17: Reasons for moving to another house (n=85) Frequency Percent
House destroyed 52 61
Killings took place in the house 21 25
Fear of neighbours 9 10.5
Other (Exile) 4 3.5
TOTAL 85 100
Plate 5.1. Residential buildings destroyed in Cyangugu town during the genocide
Source: The Author, 2005
The majority of households (78%) built their houses and many with the help of the
government. Those living in grouped habitat called Imidugudu were the most in need
(plate 5.2). These are small and fragile houses constructed in straight lines located in the
suburbs of Musange Cell in Butare and Gatovu Cell in Cyangugu (plate 5.3). This is
interesting for many as they are too poor to pay rent. Fourteen percent of households
bought their houses. This latter ownership predominated in downtown areas of Buye and
Umuganda with renting (8%) for non-permanent residents such as students and lecturers
at Butare University and businesspersons both in Cyangugu and Butare towns (Table
5.18).
104
Plate5.2. Regrouped habitatUmuduguduofGatovu Cell in Cyangugu town
Source: The author, 2005
Table5.18:Types of present dwelling ownership (n=IOO)
Frequency Percent
Buy 14 14.0
Rent 8 8.0
Build 78 78.0
Total 100 100.0
As shown by Table 5.19 the cost of dwellings after the genocide increased for all types of house ownership. All households declared that expenses in housing were higher after the genocide than before due to lack of accessibility to materials but also the inflation- devaluation of the money. For instance a piece of wood for construction which cost 40 Rwandan Francs before 1994 currently costs 400 Rwandan Francs.
According to leaders interviewed, the average monthly rent for a house was about
10,000 Rwandan francs (17 $US) in suburbs and 50.000(84 $US) Rwandan francs in
downtown areas (Table 5.19) depending on the location, quality of the structure,
105
location to transportation or nature or neighbour5. Location was the most important factor in determining the amounl of rent delllandC'c1
Table 5.19: RentbyIllonth (n=R)
FreqllenL\ ['ercen!
5000-1:;000 :; :;()
15000-25000 J .,0
Total 8 80
Do not rent 92 Q20
5.3.2.3. Material used for building
The most common building materials for houses were adobe bricks and tiles in Sutare and wood. mud and iron roof in Cyangugu. In Cyangugu town the majority of households were built with wood and sheet iron because of the poor quality of the soil for making tiles while in Sutare the) used adobe bricks and sheet iron or tile as the soil is more suitable for bricks and tiles. In Cyangugu a large number of households used timber, thatch or plastic sheetings for kitchens. sanitation facilities and livestock shelter outside the main house, except for plastic sheeting for roofing brought to Rwanda by the UNHCR after the genocide. the same material was used before the genocide in Cyangugu town contrary to Butare \\ here sheet iron was rare before 1994.
The observations made above are well illustrated by table
5.20
which shows that houses are built of adobe bricks and sheet-iron (26%). and wood. mud and sheets of iron (17%) predominate. This is because adobe bricks or wood and tiles/or sheet- iron were the cheapest material even alter the genocide and the aid given for construction and rehabilitatiolllly
NGOs or the Glwernlllcnt consisted of sheet- iron. Other m:llerials that were used in both towns were as bricks and tiles (14%), wood and sheet- iron (12%), bricks and sheets iron (12%) adobe bricks and tiles (10%), and timber with thatch or plastic sheeting (9%).106
Table 5.20: Type oflllaterials used to build we,em house(n~I\HJI ..
,
,_ _ I
_._-
-Freq uelK) i
I I'c· rCt:1l1 --- _L __..__.
Adobes hrieks+sheet iron 21i 211.0
Wood+lllud,sheel iron 17 li.n
Adobes orieks +Iiles 10 10 ()
Wood+sheet iron 12 12.0
Tillloer+lhatch or sheeling 9 0{)
Bricks + tiles 14 1-1.0
Rricks llnd ,heel iron 12 12.0
Total 100
I
lOOnThere was a significant difference between housing in suburbs and housing downtown.
Bricks and tiles or bricks and iron v\ere found especially in downtown areas in both areas. In addition, most structures were clu tered into compounds that were demarcated by a fence made out of plants, metallic materials or bricks to preserve privacy. In downtown areas bricks and tiles or sheet iron were compulsory when building. They were very expensive and only accessible to rich households.
In the suburbs, people lived in grouped habitats called '"1171 idllgudu " where the common building material was wood, timber. mud and iron sheets in Cyangugu and adobe bricks and iron sheets in Butare. The mud-bricked homes under the imidugudu initiative were built for people whose houses were either destroyed or burnt during the genocide. They were built during the emergency period (]nd lack. proper infrastructure and facilities. The Rwandan government introduced the national human settlement policy, known as Imiduf;udu. in 1996. Since the policy focused on group settlement, the government hoped to solve the problem of land scarcity at the same time. The concept was seen to group and offer advantage to the population. However. the government did not seek the opinion of the local population hef<Jre embarking on this project (]nd as 3 result many of the present occupants were forced illlo these group settlements. In fact. (or economic and cultural reasons, Rwandan people were used to settle in the fenile area but they did not form villages, each family being surrounded by its own fields.
107
The most repeated complaint about housing in suburb (imidugudu) was the small size.
"It
is common to have mature sons and daughters sharing a bed let alone one room"
commented a head of household in Cyangugu. People complained about a complete lack of privacy and peace in the imidugudu settlement for people mostly from rural areas.
The lack of land for farming was strongly mentioned by poor people in Butare and Cyangugu suburbs as they were forced to move kilometres away to access land for cultivation.
Plate 5.3. Houses built under the Rwandan housing scheme known as Imidugudu
Source: Irin, 2004. http://www.irinnews.orglreport.aspx?reportid=51581
Indeed, these houses were built on sites chosen by the government. Designs also came from the government and NGOs and people used to live in properties where fences were uncomfortably settled at the same site with houses without fences, with few and tiny rooms to shelter them.
Finally, another negative aspect of the housing process mentioned by leaders and heads
of households in both areas was its affect on the environment. Large areas of forests
were simply destroyed for settling households.
108