Effects of Farm Cooperatives on Farmers Incomes and Welfare

Effects of farm cooperatives on farmers incomes and welfare. 81

EFFECTS OF FARM COOPERATIVES ON FARMERS’ INCOMES AND WELFARE: EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS FROM VUNGA COFFEE WASHING STATION IN NYABIHU DISTRICT, WESTERN RWANDA

Aristide MANIRIHO

School of Economics, College of Business and Economics, University of Rwanda, P. O. Box 1514 Kigali, Rwanda. Email: [email protected]

ABSTRACT

This paper assesses the impacts of Vunga Coffee Washing Station (VCWS) on coffee growers’ incomes and their welfare as well as on coffee plantations. Data were collected from 86 coffee growers selected randomly from VCWS members in September 2015. Data were analyzed using both descriptive statistics and paired-samples T-test. The results from the paired-samples t-test show that the coffee growers’ incomes after the construction of VCWS in 2009 were higher than their annual incomes before the station was constructed, and the number of coffee trees after VCWS was set up was also more than earlier given the significance value which is less than 0.05. Further, VCWS also contributed to job creation, acquisition of new farming technology and the creation of non-farm activities. These results are good indicators of VCWS’s positive impact on coffee growers’ incomes, the coffee plantation and to the welfare of coffee growers. Therefore, it is recommended that (1) the government should enhance the fair trade between coffee producers and foreign consumers to help coffee growers sustain their livelihoods, and (2) VCWS should organize trainings for its members specifically trainings in how to save and adoption of new technologies for coffee farming. Keywords: Impact; coffee washing station; farmers’ welfare; t-test; Rwanda.

RESUME

IMPACT DES COOPERATIVES AGRICOLES SUR LES REVENUS ET LE BIEN-ETRE DES AGRICULTEURS: ANALYSE EMPIRIQUE DE LA STATION DE LAVAGE DE CAFE DE VUNGA DANS LE DISTRICT DE NYABIHU, OUEST DU RWANDA

Cet article évalue les impacts de la station de lavage du café de Vunga (VCWS) sur les revenus et le bien-être des caféiculteurs, ainsi que sur les plantations du café. Les données ont été collectées auprès de 86 caféiculteurs aléatoirement sélectionnés en septembre 2015 parmi les membres de VCWS. Les données ont été analysées en utilisant à la fois des statistiques descriptives et un test de Student. Les résultats montrent que les revenus des caféiculteurs après la construction de VCWS en 2009 étaient supérieurs à leurs revenus annuels avant la construction de la station, et le nombre de caféiers après la mise en place du VCWS était également plus élevé qu’avant au niveau de signification de 0,05. La VCWS a également contribué à la création d’emplois, à l’acquisition de nouvelles technologies agricoles et à la création d’activités non agricoles. Par conséquent, il est recommandé que (1) le gouvernement renforcerait le commerce équitable entre les caféiculteurs et les consommateurs étrangers, et que (2) le VCWS devrait organiser des formations pour ses membres sur la sauvegarde et l’adoption de nouvelles technologies pour la culture du café. Mots clés : impacts: station de lavage de café; bien-être des agriculteurs; test de Student; Rwanda.

Soumis : 22 janvier 2021 Accepté : 11 mars 2021 Online : 11 mai 2021 Agronomie Africaine N° 33 (1) : 81 - 94 (2021) 82 Aristide MANIRIHO

INTRODUCTION pour le Café or the Rwanda Coffee Development Authority) with the mission of connecting coffee producers in Rwanda to trading companies or In most developing countries, coffee production consumers. From 1964 till 1988, there were only provides an important income generation option two companies whose main business was coffee for resource poor households and is thus exports – RWANDEX (Rwanda Exports essential for the socioeconomic development of Company) and ETIRU (Processing Factory of these countries (ICARD, 2002). Agriculture Ruhengeri, Rwanda) (see Bourdeaux, 2013). In remains the mainstay of the Rwandan economy the early 1980s, coffee exports were handled and coffee is the main source of income for by two companies — RWANDEX and ETIRU — household producers of this crop in Rwanda and the government had a high capital share in (Gisaro Ca-Madeberi, 2013; Kamola, 2007) as these companies. From 1988 till 1991, OCIR it has been a major export item for decades Café was authorized to commercialize coffee (Bourdeaux, 2013; OCIR Café, 2009; MINAGRI (Mutandwa et al., 2009). and Ministry of Trade and Industry, 2008; Schluter and Finney, 2001). The beginning of In 1991 it was decided to liberalize the coffee coffee farming in Rwanda can be traced back to sector but this happened only after 1994 through 1904 and its export to 1917 (Chemonics the provision of exporting licences to various International, 2006). Coffee production was exporters and the creation of coffee processing estimated at 16,000 and 20,000 tons in 2009 companies like RWANDEX, the Rwanda Coffee and 2010 respectively and its value accounted Processor and Exporter (RWACOF), COFFEX for 36 percent of Rwanda’s total export earnings (an Australian coffee processing and trading in 2009 (Boudreaux, 2010). This tonnage is company) and CAFERWA (coffee processing relatively low when compared with main coffee and exporting company in Rwanda) (Bourdeaux, producers in Africa such as Ivory Coast and 2013). Before the liberalization of the coffee Uganda, which produce an annual average of sector, farmers sold coffee beans to merchants, 3.5 and 2.7 million tons respectively (Mutandwa who resold them to RWANDEX which sold them et al. 2009). to foreign buyers. However, now the coffee value chain has improved and RWANDEX’s monopoly According to a MINECOFIN report (2003), a has been broken (Mugabekazi, 2014). number of constraints are cited as militating against the attainment of higher productivity in After the liberalization of coffee processing and Rwandan coffee production. These include high marketing, coffee farmers’ cooperatives and production costs, pests and diseases, individual producers and traders entered the production and market risks, low international market which increased competition in the local prices and small landholdings. Other factors market for raw coffee. This resulted in high prices affecting coffee quality in East and West African and helped many farmers gain high incomes (Bourdeaux, 2013). The other advantages of countries include poor agronomic practices, lack liberalization include job creation, training of access to agricultural credit, inadequate opportunities to acquire modern farming research and development linkages, poor techniques, strengthening human and social processing methods, high costs of farm inputs, capital and the provision of useful additional low international prices, high transportation benefits to farmers. For increasing the quantity costs, pests and diseases and inadequate and improving the quality of coffee, the infrastructure in rural areas (FAO, 2004). Coffee Government of Rwanda has stimulated coffee revenue in rural areas is about 14.8 billion producers to group into cooperatives to gain Rwanda francs, which is equivalent to market power and thus gain benefits from their 19,944,478.88 US$ (US$ 1 = 742.06 FRW). businesses. Coffee cropping is primarily done by small The goal of cooperatives is multidimensional. The farmers. These are poor growers who dig their members benefit from services such as access fragmentary land plots. Other actors in the coffee to inputs, input use, monitoring of their utilization sector are small businessmen, shucking and and improvements in quality thanks to exporting companies, government organizations processing of coffee beans at washing stations. and rural and farmers’ organizations. The ultimate objective is to raise coffee growers’ In 1964, the Ministry of Agriculture and Animal involvement and contribution to transformational Resources (MINAGRI) created OCIR-Café changes in farmers’ living conditions. Their (Office des Cultures Industrielles au Rwanda increased participation leads to higher quality

Agronomie Africaine N° 33 (1) : 81 - 94 (2021) Effects of farm cooperatives on farmers incomes and welfare. 83 and quantity and helps farmers earn higher Figure 1 shows the coffee produced in Rwanda incomes for their produce (Mugabekazi, 2014). during 1980-2019.

Source : FAOSTAT (Rwanda Crop production).

Figure 1 : Coffee production in Rwanda in tons from 1980 to 2019. Evolution de la production du café au Rwanda en tonnes de 1980 à 2019.

Cooperatives in the Rwandan coffee industry shift from the production ordinary semi-washing have not yet been able to attract many coffee bean towards specialty (or fully-washed) members. The agricultural cooperatives in coffee. Subsequently, coffee producers were general and coffee cooperatives in particular helped to form cooperatives, and build and have performed poorly because their financial manage their own washing stations to process capital base, which correlates highly with coffee cherry (NAEB, 2016; Ortega et al., 2019). membership, is low (RCA, 2006). The initial Besides, it is important to note that coffee investments do not allow coffee cooperatives to processing sector in Rwanda is composed of get expected results. In any case, a sub-optimal both private companies and cooperative-owned use of the cooperatives’ washing stations due CWSs (Ortega et al., 2019) with the aim to to lack of sufficient supply of coffee cherries improve small-scale coffee producer’s income needed as raw material for processing may also and living conditions mostly «by providing be contributing to their financial problems. technical assistance and inputs for production, Because coffee in Rwanda is grown by poor processing fully-washed coffee, increasing smallholders who make up a vast majority of farmers’ bargaining power and market entry the population (around 90 percent), the opportunities» (Bizoza 2011). Coffee washing Government of Rwanda in collaboration with stations are also expected to help smallholder different stakeholders including coffee growers’ farmers work together to improve the quality, cooperatives has reshaped the coffee industry marketing and branding of their coffee (Schilling by modifying the regulatory framework and and McConnell, 2003; Boudreaux, 2013). For the developing market linkages between producers case of our study, the coffee washing station is and foreign buyers and creating coffee washing owned and managed by coffee producers’ stations (CWS) (Bourdeaux, 2013) since 2005 cooperative known as «Vunga Coffee Washing (SNV, 2012). Station». The reforms of Rwanda’s coffee sector resulted Research throughout the world shows the positive in encouraging small-scale coffee producers to impact of coffee farming on farmers’ livelihoods.

Agronomie Africaine N° 33 (1) : 81 - 94 (2021) 84 Aristide MANIRIHO

Aoki (2012) assessed coffee as a livelihood In Ethiopia, Mohammed and Lee (2014) support in Nepal. Using a value chain approach, assessed the role of cooperatives in rural he reported that small-scale farmers in development with special reference to the South Hamsapur village were very interested in the Nations Nationalities and the People Region. coffee industry. However, low quality, market Their study shows that the Government of imperfections at the local level and organizational Ethiopia is promoting cooperatives as bottlenecks were the main factors leading to low organizations that could enhance the incomes. In India, cooperatives are like modern development of small farmers and other one-stop centers for shopping where a farmer communities. They are expected to serve can access credit and farm inputs, get technical farmers by providing agricultural inputs, guidance and storage and marketing facilities. marketing services for their produce, mobilizing Viewed thus, they are potential institutions for savings and providing credit services to their transforming smallholder agriculture into a viable members. This study points out that cooperatives business enterprise enabling small players to in Ethiopia have not done as well as was enter a big world and acting as vehicles for expected due to weak leadership and effective financial inclusion (Patra and Agasty, supervision, weak and irregular technical 2013). assistance, lack of knowledge about management and skills, weak documentation In Africa, Wanyama et al. (2008) show that and information and weak horizontal and vertical cooperatives have contributed significantly to the relations and coordination. mobilization and distribution of financial capital, created employment and income generating In Rwanda Gisaro Ca-Madeberi et al. (2012) opportunities, constituted a forum for education analyzed the contribution of coffee cooperatives and training and set up solidarity schemes to in women’s empowerment in rural areas, more cater to unexpected expenses related to specifically in the Karaba coffee zone, Huye illnesses, social welfare, death and other district, southern Rwanda. Their results show socioeconomic problems. A study by Hussain that cooperatives contributed to poverty (2014) in Nigeria identified the need to educate reduction in the district, especially among coffee cooperatives’ members to enhance their capacity growing families. Cooperatives provide credit to for achieving optimum results and sustainability. members through rotating funds locally known He suggests that the government should devise as ibimina. They also provide vocational training a strategy for supervising the activities of to their members for empowering women like cooperative organizations for quality assurance providing adequate shelter, observing human and control and for supporting them in terms of rights, providing access to medical insurance, providing an enabling policy environment and paying school fees for children, undertaking giving them assistance for enhancing their entrepreneurial activities, achieving unity and activities. reconciliation between members and enhancing household incomes. In Tanzania, Sizya (2001) analyzed the role played by cooperatives in poverty reduction. He Gisaro Ca-Madeberi et al. (2012) also analyzed recognized the potential of cooperatives the contribution of the AKM (Abakunda-Kawa contributing to poverty reduction but concluded ba Maraba) cooperative on the socioeconomic that the weakening of cooperatives had development of coffee growers in Huye district. contributed to the deepening of poverty in the They found that the cooperative had helped in country. Sumelius et al. (2013) did a study on bringing electricity and safe water to the rural cooperatives as a tool of poverty reduction and area. It had improved the standard of living of promoting business in Tanzania. They underline the rural population in Maraba sector by building that coffee growers’ cooperatives have helped new houses and renovating the old ones for small their members improve their living conditions farmers. because all business activities are in the hands Further, Gisaro Ca-Madeberi (2013) assessed of the members. Another critical condition is that the socioeconomic impact of KOPAKAMA the secondary structure is light with only a few (Cooperative of Coffee Growers in Mabanza) in employees facilitating entry or exit, dealing with Rutsiro district, western Rwanda. Their research knowledge management, disseminating findings showed that coffee washing stations information and undertaking business were the main reason for the high quality of coffee negotiations with buyers. and they also served as structural elements in

Agronomie Africaine N° 33 (1) : 81 - 94 (2021) Effects of farm cooperatives on farmers incomes and welfare. 85 the rural areas. The author points out that these areas are further divided into 73 cells and 473 structures helped create jobs for coffee villages. Taking into account its administrative producers, granting loans, motivating farmers limits, in the north there is Musanze district and because of an increase in incomes, the Virunga National Park, which separates it guaranteeing a market for the produce and from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). making the prices attractive for members thus In the south, there are Ngororero and Rutsiro improving the socioeconomic conditions of the districts and in the east there are Gakenke and producers. This in turn helped reduce poverty Musanze districts. Finally, in the west there is among coffee grower households. Rubavu district. Even though there are studies on the impact of Ninety percent of Rwanda is characterized by CWS (Elder et al., 2012; Gisaro Ca-Madeberi, rugged mountains with slopes of more than 55 2013; Ortega et al., 2019), their impact on percent leading to high risks of erosion. Hence, socioeconomic development in all areas of there is a need for establishing effective Rwanda is not well documented. Hence, this mechanisms for controlling and preventing study examines the benefits of a farm erosion and other harm associated with climate cooperative to the development of rural areas in change. The soil is sandy and clay, laterite and Rwanda with special reference to Vunga Coffee volcanic in nature and is very fertile. Precipitation Washing Station. The study aims specifically is almost uniform throughout the year and is to analyze the effects of the Vunga Coffee close to 1,400 mm per year. It has a temperate Washing Station on: (1) coffee plantations, (2) climate with an average temperature of 150 C coffee growers’ incomes, and (3) social which favorable for growing agro-pastoral conditions of coffee grower households in its products throughout the year with less risks of operational zone. In intent to achieve these bacteria and diseases. objectives, primary data were collected from 86 The economy of Nyabihu district is heavily coffee producers randomly selected in the study dependent on subsistence agriculture; a majority area. We used descriptive statistics and t test of the households are smallholders. for data analysis. Approximately 74 percent, or 105,672 of the The rest of the paper is structured as follows. 143,000 population in the district, gets its income The next section focuses on the materials and by exploiting the soil. However, there is scarcity methods used for the study. This is followed by of land because according to EICV3, 50 percent the results and a discussion of the major findings. of the population has an area less than 0.3ha. The last section gives the conclusion and Agricultural food and industrial and ornamental recommendations. products are grown extensively. The food crops grown here are Irish potatoes, corn, beans, wheat, bananas and vegetables. Cash crops MATERIALS AND METHODS include tea, coffee, pyrethrum and patchouli that contribute to economic development and improving household welfare (Nyabihu District, THE STUDY AREA AND DATA 2013). The Vunga Coffee Washing Station (VCWS) is Rwanda is a small country in central Africa with a coffee growers’ cooperative operating in the a size of 26,338 square kilometers. It is located Shyira sector in Nyabihu district in the north- between 1°04’ and 2°51’ below the Equator and west of Rwanda. Figure 2 gives VCWS’s at longitudes 28°45’ and 31°15’ to the right of operational area. In this area, coffee is grown on the Greenwich Line. It is bordered by the uneven land plots, especially on the hillsides Democratic Republic of Congo, Uganda, and in the valleys, with normal water sources in Tanzania and Burundi in the west, north, east the volcanic soils of the Albertine Rift Valley. and south respectively. It is divided into five Around 35 percent of the entire coffee production provinces, 30 districts, 416 sectors, 2,148 cells comes from plots owned by the cooperative; the and 14,837 villages. rest is produced by individual farmers who grow Located in the western province of Rwanda and coffee as a complement to maize, beans and in the west part of the country, Nyabihu district bananas. The average number of coffee trees has 12 sectors (Bigogwe, Jenda, Jomba, on each farm ranges from 100 to 200. Sun-drying Kabatwa, Karago, Kintobo, Mukamira, Mulinga, was the primary technique used by the farmers Rambura, Rugera, Rurembo and Shyira). These when they prepared coffee themselves for the

Agronomie Africaine N° 33 (1) : 81 - 94 (2021) 86 Aristide MANIRIHO market, but this poor technique meant that they the VCWS was set up in 2009 within one and sold coffee at very low profits. That is why the same random sample. Therefore, a paired- Technoserve subsidized the establishment of samples t-test was conducted to determine if VCWS in 2009 so that the area could get a there was a difference between mean scores of quality structure to process wet cherries and the variables of interest with reference to the two enable the producers to earn higher profits situations, and examine whether that difference (Square Mile Coffee Roasters, n.d.). was statistically significant or different from zero (Hurst, 1995; Jackson, 2009; Singh, 2006). The For this study, data were collected from 86 coffee paired sample statistic t is given by the formula growers selected randomly from 220 members 1. of the Vunga Coffee Washing Station using a structured questionnaire. The questionnaire was mainly used for getting socioeconomic details (1) of the coffee growers, the status of coffee trees, the level of coffee growers’ incomes and their living conditions before 2009 and after 2009 when the Vunga Coffee Washing Station was set up. where is the mean difference between two samples, stands for the sample variance, METHODS OF DATA ANALYSIS is the sample size, is the degree of freedom, and is the paired samples t-test. Descriptive statistics (frequencies, percentages, This technique was used for comparing mean mean, maximum, minimum, sum, variance, etc.) scores of coffee growers’ incomes and mean were used to describe the living conditions of scores of coffee trees considering two points in coffee growers’ households (Francis, 1998, time, that is, before and after the Vunga Coffee 2004; Rukwaru, 2007). In a description of living Washing Station was set up in 2009. On one conditions, the high frequency of a status side, the mean score of coffee growers’ incomes indicator implies high quality living conditions. before VCWS was set up in 2009 was compared In socioeconomic characteristics of the to the mean score of coffee growers’ incomes respondents, high frequency and percentages after it was set up. On the other side, the mean of characteristics were used among the members score of coffee trees before VCWS came up was of Vunga Coffee Washing Station. Descriptive compared to the mean score of coffee trees after statistics (mean, maximum, minimum, variance, it was set up. The test aimed at determining standard deviation) help arrive at the variables whether there was a significant change in coffee under analysis in terms of comparison. growers’ incomes and in the number of coffee trees as a result of VCWS being set up. I also Besides descriptive statistics, inferential tested whether the difference between the mean statistics were also used to test whether a score before and after 2009 was statistically statistically significant difference existed different from zero. The significance level used between two mean scores of the same group at to determine whether the results were two different points in time. Following van Elst statistically significant is p 0.05. If the (2019), the significant differences in the mean significance level was less than 0.05, the scores of farmers’ incomes were investigated, difference was statistically significant; whereas, and the number of coffee trees in two situations, if the significance level was greater than 0.05, that is the situation before and the situation after the difference was not statistically significant.

Agronomie Africaine N° 33 (1) : 81 - 94 (2021) Effects of farm cooperatives on farmers incomes and welfare. 87

Source : Nyabihu District (2013); www.nyabihu.gov.rw accessed on November 16, 2015 at 9:47 am. Figure 2 : Map of Nyabihu District showing the study area: Jomba, Shyira, Rurembo and Rugera Sectors. Localisation géographique de la zone d’étude sur la carte du District de Nyabihu : secteurs de Jomba, Shyira, Rurembo et Rugera.

RESULTS marital status and education levels. Table 1 shows that a majority of the respondents were DISTRIBUTION OF THE RESPONDENTS male (66.3 percent); there were 33.7 percent women making them a minority. The respondents were distributed by gender, age,

Table 1: Distribution of respondent by sex. Répartition des répondants par xexe.

Sex Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent Male 57 66.3 66.3 Female 29 33.7 100.0 Total 86 100.0 - Source : Field survey (August 2015).

The information in Table 2 indicates that a single, 20.9 percent were widowed and 2.3 majority of coffee farmers served by the Vunga percent were divorced. The results in table 4 Coffee Station were aged between 46 and 60 show that 36.0 percent of the respondents had years (34.9 percent) and between 31 and 45 completed primary education, 26.7 percent had years (27.9 percent); 17.4 percent were over 61 no formal education and only 14.0 percent had years. It also shows that only 19.8 percent were completed secondary education; 9.3 percent under 30 years of age. This implies that coffee had done professional courses and 14.0 percent growers were experienced enough and good at had attended university. The table also shows coffee farming practices. However, they were not that a majority of VCWS members were less strong enough for other agricultural activities. educated as a majority (that is 62.8 percent of the respondents) had only primary education or The results in table 3 show that 52.3 percent of less. the respondents were married, 24.4 percent were

Agronomie Africaine N° 33 (1) : 81 - 94 (2021) 88 Aristide MANIRIHO

Table 2 : Distribution of respondents by age. Répartition des répondants par age.

Age Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent Below 18 3 3.5 3.5 18-30 14 16.3 19.8 31-45 24 27.9 47.7 46-60 30 34.9 82.6 Above 60 15 17.4 100.0 Total 86 100.0 100.0 Source : Field survey (August, 2015).

Table 3 : Distribution of respondents according to marital status. Distribution des répondants par état civil.

Status Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent Married 45 52.3 52.3 Single 21 24.4 76.7 Widow 18 20.9 97.7 Divorcee 2 2.3 100.0 Total 86 100.0 100.0 Source : Field survey (August, 2015).

Table 4 : Distribution of respondents according to their level of education. Distribution des répondants par niveau d’éducation.

Level of education Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent Below primary 23 26.7 26.7 Primary 31 36.0 62.8 Secondary 12 14.0 76.7 Professional 8 9.3 86.0 University 12 14.0 100.0 Total 86 100.0 100.0 Source : Field survey (August, 2015).

ASSESSMENT OF THE IMPACT OF VUNGA significance value was 0.00. As this value is less COFFEE WASHING STATION ON COFFEE than Į ( Į =0.05), it implies that the difference GROWERS’ INCOMES between coffee growers’ incomes before and after VCWS was statistically different from zero. This Table 5 shows that the coffee growers’ mean means that the coffee growers’ annual income income before the construction of VCWS in 2009 after the construction of VCWS in 2009 (FRW was FRW 188,500 or 249.31 US$ (US$ 1 = 440,500 or 593.62 US$) was more than their 742.06 FRW) and the mean income of coffee income before 2009 (FRW 188,500 or 249.31 growers after VCWS was set up was FRW US$). In other words, VCWS had a positive 440.500 or 593.62 US$. Table 6 shows that the impact on coffee growers’ incomes.

Agronomie Africaine N° 33 (1) : 81 - 94 (2021) Effects of farm cooperatives on farmers incomes and welfare. 89 . a g n u V

e d

é f 0 e a 9 1 c c 2 6

n 7 8 e ) a i 1 2 d d r . .

e l a 2 1 e i 0

c . V i a g 0 t t . g i a - s 0 i v 2

S t

(

a l

8 t

. d 1 a f 5

i . 1 8 v n D 1 0

8 6

. a 3

4 t 2 c d i 1 t t 9 t S 1 s

s 1

i e . a t t l

6 -

2 T

S d

5 5 c t i E E t n n e s 5 5 a i e h t t 8 0 e

a m 8 f 4 t . . M 9 e o S 1 4

4 s l

r .

s a

i e 4

l v

4 p r

b e

9 e p

. . t c t

0 0 U 5 n S n c é I i ’ 0 0 m 6 t l e 0 9 r e u s W 2 . . i

s t c e

0 8 C f m è a i n f

t 4 6 i r V x e

S 2 7 p a D r d 8 i a f e r 6 M t t .

n f e

e 6

o a

1 t C

o d 4

n .

L n a 8 % 0 a m 0 v c i 2

5 0 t u 9 a 2 e 9

s 0

8 r i

m . t s

o r 3

a 0 f

t i u 2

7 e

S e 1 b

M t

u e

. n

s i 4 o m i

t é 0 o 0 f 0 . u a c i c i e 0 1 a e 8 t v t n g 1 9 c l i s 1 . . i e

t u n l 5 9 5 s . D a c a a . t i 6 4 e . 7 u e é R S 1 6 d d 8 f n t m a s n S l o

c a c

e i c

t ’ s u n

s 6 6 i s i e n t r 5 N 8 8 ’

d n a e E s t n r a w e a S e 2

o e u s

r 7 m n u

g M 4 r

e n a

2 v f e e

e v e f r e f e

r e o 9 f

u e f c 0 s e d o S f

0 e f c n s 2 d o

W o

f e c

v n C t n o i i f

t s o V o s

p e s S

i t i r c r i - e e a t c t W r S T s f m i s

a t C a o s e

p a s c e t d a s r l C r

m n

e g S I p e s o

a n - S m e c m e w g u r v u a o n i 9 a V W e r t f q

u S 0 i d r g p C t i

0 V e o r t s d V i e

f 2 e s c t e f e n o r f s e a e f i

n f t r o i e o i a T n

t o o S c f D o P n a c

i r

f e t e o : f : i e r o a b t

t o

c e c

5 6 e r s e

e u r e c r

r e m e e t m r l l m o a s o w f e b o b r t n c o e f c a a a r o n n I B A T T P I c g

Agronomie Africaine N° 33 (1) : 81 - 94 (2021) 90 Aristide MANIRIHO

ASSESSMENT OF THE EFFECT OF VUNGA coffee trees after the setting up of VCWS was COFFEE WASHING STATION ON COFFEE around 588; this average was around 286 earlier. PLANTATION The descriptive statistics also shows that the number of coffee trees increased after VCWS. As described in Table 7, the average number of

Table 7 : Paired sample statistics on number of trees before and after VCWS. Les statistiques des échantillons appariés sur le nombre de cafétiers avant et après l’établissement de la Station de lavage de café de Vunga.

Number of coffee trees Mean N Std. Deviation After creation of Vunga CWS 587.87 86 387.26 Before creation of Vunga CWS 285.59 86 174.39 Source : Data analysis by the researcher based on the field survey data (September 2015).

Table 8 shows that that the significance value is coffee trees after VCWS (around 588 coffee trees 0.0000. As this value is less than Į ( Į =0.05), on average) was more than the number of coffee it implies that the difference between coffee trees trees before VCWS (around 286 coffee trees on before and after VCWS is statistically different average). In other words, VCWS had a positive from zero. This also means that the number of impact on the coffee plantation.

Table 8: Paired samples T-test on number of coffee trees before and after VCWS. Test de comparaison des nombres de cafétiers avant et après l’établissement de la Station de lavage de café de Vunga.

95% Confidence Interval Std. Sig. Parameter Mean of the Difference T-test Df Deviation (2-tailed) Lower Upper Number of tree after - Number 302.28 225.64 253.90 350.66 12.42 85 of trees before VCWS 0.00 Source: Data analysis by the researcher based on the field survey data (September 2015).

ASSESSMENT OF VUNGA COFFEE paying school fees for children (19.8 percent) WASHING STATION ON THE WELFARE OF and providing assistance to vulnerable persons COFFEE GROWERS’ HOUSEHOLDS (16.3 percent). Through increased incomes, coffee growers could also pay for health Table 9 reports VCWS’s different insurance of their household members in due socioeconomic effects. The coffee growers time (10.5 percent) and coffee growing interviewed reported that VCWS had helped households also had increased access to food them initiate new farm income generating stuff (12.8 percent). VCWS had led coffee activities and thus contributed to job creation growers to acquire decent shelter (12.8 percent) (57 percent), acquiring new technologies for and good clothing (12.8 percent). These results coffee farming (46.5 percent), creating non-farm are good indicators of VCWS’s contribution to income generating activities (31.4 percent), welfare improvements of coffee growers’ household members.

Agronomie Africaine N° 33 (1) : 81 - 94 (2021) Effects of farm cooperatives on farmers incomes and welfare. 91

Table 9: Coffee growers’ views on socioeconomic benefits from Vanga Coffee Washing station. Appréciations des caféiculteurs sur les benefices socioéconomiques apportés par la station de lavage de café de Vunga.

Parameter Frequency Percent Economic benefits Increase in food availability and accessibility 11 12.8 Creation of employment 49 57.0 Acquisition of new technology for coffee farming 40 46.5 Creation of off-farm income generating activities 27 31.4 Social benefits Acquisition of good shelter 11 12.8 Acquisition of good clothing 11 12.8 Payment of health insurance 9 10.5 Payment of school fees for children 17 19.8 Assistance to vulnerable persons 14 16.3 Source: Data analysis by the researcher based on the field survey data (September 2015)

DISCUSSION assistance to vulnerable persons (16.3 percent), helped in paying health insurance (10.5 percent), led to an increase in food availability and Research findings from the paired-samples t-test accessibility (12.8 percent) and acquisition of indicate that the Vunga CWS positively ‘impacted good shelters (12.8 percent) and good clothing coffee growers’ incomes which were FRW (12.8 percent). These results are good indicators 188.500 or 249.31 US$ before its constructioan of VCWS’s contribution to improvements in the in 2009 as compared to FRW 440.500 or 593.62 welfare of coffee growers’ household members. US$ after 2009. This implies that coffee growers’ These results support Sumelius et al.’s (2013) incomes have increased significantly since the findings on cooperatives as a tool of poverty construction of Vunga CWS. These increasing reduction and promoting business in Tanzania. incomes serve as an incentive to coffee growers These authors also underlined that coffee to grow more coffee trees. These results are growers’ cooperatives had helped their members supported by Wanyama et al., (2008) who improve their living conditions thanks to the fact demonstrated that cooperatives significantly that all business activities were in the hands of contributed to the creation of income-generating the members. In contrast, the results of this opportunities in Africa, as well as the findings of study oppose studies which conclude that Gisaro Ca-Madeberi (2013) who reported that cooperatives had no significant effects on increased incomes due to cooperatives in farmers’ socioeconomic conditions (Mohammed Rutsiro district in western Rwanda had motivated and Lee, 2014; Patra and Agasty, 2013; Sizya, farmers. They also support Gisaro Ca-Madeberi 2001). et al., (2012) whose findings show that cooperatives contributed to poverty reduction in the country, especially among families of coffee CONCLUSION growers in the Karaba coffee zone, Huye district in southern Rwanda. But they are in contrast to The purpose of this research was to assess the Aoki’s (2012) findings in Hamsapur village in impact of Vunga Coffee Washing Station on Nepal where the cooperatives failed to secure coffee growers’ incomes, on coffee plantations incomes for small scale farmers. and on the welfare of coffee growers’ household Regarding improvements in farmers’ livelihoods, members. Data was collected through a field this study found that the Vunga CWS’s survey conducted among 86 coffee growers members lived under good socioeconomic randomly selected from the Vunga Coffee conditions. This was endorsed by the Washing Station’s members. A structured respondents who reported that VCWS had questionnaire was used to find the contributed to job creation (57 percent), socioeconomic characteristics of coffee growers, acquisition of new technology for coffee farming the status of coffee trees, the level of coffee (46.5 percent), creating non-farm income growers’ incomes and living conditions of coffee generating activities (31.4 percent), paying growers’ households before and after the setting school fees for children (19.8 percent), giving up of the Vunga Coffee Washing Station in 2009.

Agronomie Africaine N° 33 (1) : 81 - 94 (2021) 92 Aristide MANIRIHO

Both descriptive statistics (mean, maximum, In keeping with these results, it is recommended minimum, variance, standard deviation) and that the coffee growers should know and respond inferential statistics (paired-samples t-tests) to consumers’ preferences and the government were used to analyze the data. I used inferential should enhance contact between coffee statistics to test whether there was a statistically producers and consumers (that is, promoting significant difference between two mean scores fair trade). The Vunga Coffee Washing Station in the same group at two different points in time. in collaboration with the government and Hence, I used a paired-samples t test to development partners should organize training determine if there was a difference between mean for its members, specifically training in savings scores and whether or not that difference was and in constituting and adopting new statistically significant or different from zero. I technologies for coffee farming. Since this study found that a majority of the respondents were would not capture all dimensions of Vunga male (66.3 percent); there were 33.7 percent Coffee Washing Station’s impacts, a qualitative female respondents. The results also show that or a mixed method research should be 52.3 percent of the respondents were married, recommended. 24.4 percent were single, 20.9 percent were widowed and 2.3 percent were divorced. The data also shows that coffee growers were ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS experienced enough and good at coffee farming The author would like to thank the respondents practices given that a majority (34.9 percent) for providing the information required for this was aged between 46 and 60 years, 27.9 percent research. Anonymous reviewers are also were between 31 and 45 years and 17.4 percent acknowledged for their comments to improve the were above 61 years. quality of this article. He also claims The results from the paired-samples t-test show responsibility for any errors of omission or that the significance value (p value) was equal commission. to 0.00. As this value is less than Į ( Į =0.05), it implies that the difference between coffee REFERENCES growers’ annual income before and after VCWS was set up was statistically different from zero. Aoki, K. (2012). Coffee as a Livelihood Support for This further means that the coffee growers’ Small Farmers: a Case Study of Hamsapur incomes after VCWS was set up (FRW 440.500 Village in Nepal. Journal of International or 593.62 US$) was more than their incomes Agricultural Extension and Education, 19 before 2009 (FRW 188.500 or 249.31 US$). In (1), 16-29. other words, VCWS had a positive impact on Bourdeaux, K. C. (2013). A Better Brew for Success: coffee growers’ incomes. The results also Economic Liberalization in Rwanda’s indicate that the number of coffee trees after Coffee Sector. Chemonics International, VCWS (around 588 coffee trees on average) was 2006. Assessing USAID’s investments in more than the number of coffee trees before Rwanda’s coffee sector best practices and VCWS (around 286 coffee trees on average). lessons learned to consolidate results and expand impact. Further, the respondents said that VCWS had contributed to job creation (57 percent), Elder, S. D., Zerriffi, H., & Le Billon, P. (2012). acquisition of new technology for coffee farming Effects of fair trade certification on social (46.5 percent), creation of non-farm income capital: the case of Rwandan coffee generating activities (31.4 percent), payment of producers. World Development, 40(11), 2355-2367. school fees for children (19.8 percent), assistance to vulnerable persons (16.3 percent), FAO. (2004). Table C.10: Most important imports payment of health insurance (10.5 percent), and exports of agricultural products (in va- increase in food availability and accessibility lue terms). FAO Statistics Division, 2006, Archived from the original. (12.8 percent), acquisition of a good shelter (12.8 percent) and acquisition of good clothing Francis, A. (1998). Business mathematics and (12.8 percent). These results are good indicators statistics (5 Ed.). London, Continuum. of VCWS’s contribution to the improvement of Francis, A. (2004). Business mathematics and the welfare of coffee growers’ household statistics (6th Ed.). London: Thomson members. Learning.

Agronomie Africaine N° 33 (1) : 81 - 94 (2021) Effects of farm cooperatives on farmers incomes and welfare. 93

Gisaro Ca-Madeberi, Y. B. (2013). Socio-economic Mutandwa, E., Kanuma, N. T., Rusatira, E., impact of rural farming structure in Rwanda: Kwiringirimana, T., Mugenzi, P., Govere, I., Case of KOPAKAMA coffee growing & Foti, R. (2009). Analysis of coffee export cooperative and coffee washing station, marketing in Rwanda: Application of the Rutsiro District, Western Province. Rwanda Boston consulting group matrix. African Journal, 1(1), 32-51. Journal Business Management, 2 (4), 210- 219. Gisaro Ca-Madeberi, Y. B., Lebailly, P., & Mbonyinkebe, D. (2012). Coffee has given NAEB. (2011). Annual Report 2010. National us a voice: Coffee Cooperatives and Women Agricultural and Export Board, Republic of Empowerment in Rwanda’s rural areas. Rwanda, Minagri, Kigali. Available at: http://ccr.ica.coop/sites/ Nyabihu District. (2013). District Development Plan ccr.ica.coop/files/attachments/ for 2013-2018. Nyabihu District, Western 1.5%20Bititi%201.pdf. Rwanda, June 2013. Gisaro Ca-Madeberi, Y. B., Lebailly, P., Burny, P., & OCIR Café. (2009). National coffee Census. Mbonyinkebe, D. (2013). Role of KOPAKAMA February 16th 2009 to March 27th 2009, Ki- in promoting socio-economic development gali, Rwanda. of coffee farmers. International Non- Governmental Organizations Journal, 8 (3), Ortega, D. L., Bro, A. S., Clay, D. C., Lopez, M. C., 61-67. Tuyisenge, E., Church, R. A., & Bizoza, A. R. (2019). Cooperative membership and Hurst, S. (1995). The Characteristic Function of the coffee productivity in Rwanda’s speciality Student-t Distribution. Financial coffee sector. Food Security, 11, 967-979. Mathematics Research Report No. FMRR006-95. Patra, R. N., & Agasty, M. P. (2013). Cooperatives, Agriculture and Rural Development: Role, Hussain, M. S. (2014). The Role of Cooperative Issues and Policy Implications. Internatio- Organizations in Rural Community nal Organization of Scientific Research Development in Nigeria: Prospects and (IOSR) Journal of Humanities and Social Challenges. Academic Research Interna- Sciences, 13 (2), 14-25. tional, 5 (3), 189-197. RCA. (2006). National policy on promotion of ICARD. (2002). The impact of the Global coffee cooperative, Kigali, Rwanda. trade on Dak Lak Province, Vietnam: Analysis and Policy Recommendations (Fi- Rukwaru, M. (2007). Fundamentals of Social nal Draft). September 2002, OXFAM Publi- Research. Nairobi: Eureka Publishers. cations. Schilling, M., & McConnell, T. (2003). Model for Jackson, S. L. (2009). Research Methods and Sitting Coffee Washing Stations in Rwanda. Statistics: A Critical Thinking Approach (3rd Butare: National University of Rwanda. Ed.). Wadsworth: Cengage Learning. Schluter, J. E., & Finney, A. (2001). Rehabilitation Kamola, I. (2007). The Global Coffee Economy of Coffee Sector, Rwanda, Development of and the Production of Genocide in Rwanda. Washed Processing Within a Framework Third World Quarterly, 28, 571-592. of Private Investment, Common Fund for Commodities/International Coffee MINAGRI & Ministry of Trade and Industry. (2008). Organization (Mimeo). Rwanda National Coffee Strategy Update (2009-2012), Kigali, Rwanda. Singh, Y. K. (2006). Fundamental of research methodology and statistics. New-Delhi: New MINECOFIN. (2003). PRSP Annual Progress Re- Age International (P) Limited. port (June 2002-June 2003), Kigali, Rwanda. Sizya, M. J. (2001). The Role Cooperatives Play in Poverty Reduction in Tanzania. Paper Mohammed, N., & Lee, B. W. (2014). Role of Presented at the United Nations in obser- Cooperatives in Rural Development, the vance of the International Day for the Eradi- case of South Nations Nationalities and cation of Poverty on 17 October 2001. People Region, Ethiopia. Developing Country Studies, 4 (19), 32-39. SNV. (2012). Tougher links make stronger chains: Strengthening coffee cooperatives in Mugabekazi, D. (2014). Evaluation of factors Rwanda. Netherlands Development Orga- influencing membership in coffee coope- nisation in Rwanda, Kigali, Rwanda. ratives in Huye District, Rwanda. MSc thesis, University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya. Square Mile Coffee Roasters. (n. d.). Vunga

Agronomie Africaine N° 33 (1) : 81 - 94 (2021) 94 Aristide MANIRIHO

Nyabihu Bourbon Washed. Accessed at signs https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0017/1562/ files/Vunga.pdf (accessed on September CWS: Coffee Washing Station 11th 2015 at 3: 36 pm). ETIRU: Processing Factory of Ruhengeri Sumelius, J., Tenaw, S., Bäckman, S., Bee, F., (Rwanda) Chambo, S., Machimu, G., & Kumburu, N. (2013). Cooperatives as a Tool for Poverty FRW: Rwandan francs Reduction and Promoting Business in Tanzania. Finland, Department of Econ. MINAGRI: Ministry of Agriculture and Animal Manag. Resources (Rwanda) van Elst, H. (2019). Foundations of descriptive and MINECOFIN: Ministry of Finance and Economic inferential statistics. Lecture notes for a Planning (Rwanda) quantitative – methodological module at OCIR: Cash Crop Promotion Agency in Rwanda the bachelor degree (B.Sc) level. Köln: parcIT GmbH. E-Print: arXiv:1302.2525v4 (Office des Cultures Industrielles au Rwanda) [stat.AP] RCA: Rwanda Cooperative Agency Wanyama, F. O., Develtere, P., & Pollet, I. (2008). RWANDEX: Rwanda Exports Company Encountering the Evidence: Cooperatives and Poverty Reduction in Africa. Working SNV: Netherlands International Development Paper on Social and Co-operative Organisation Entrepreneurship WP–SCE 08.02. US$: United States dollars List of abbreviations, acronyms and VCWS: Vunga Coffee Washing Station

Agronomie Africaine N° 33 (1) : 81 - 94 (2021)