52 Scarcity and Surfeitrelate to land scarcity. Overpopulation as well as inequitable distribution of
land worsened land scarcity for the rural poor. Increasingly, political power
and representation by elite groups at the national level determined control of
land. Widespread disinheritance of land rights of the rural poor coupled with
resource capture by elite groups has been closely related to deepening rural
poverty in the 1980s and 1990s2 Deepening rural poverty, in effect, led to
violent ~onflict.~ Ethnic differences were less important in understanding the
dynamics of the conflict than were elite competitions to dominate critical
environmental decision-making processes through control of the state. In
turn, elite groups characterised these competitions in ethnic terms. Over
time, different groups in the conflict were polarised along ethnic lines and
were purposefully driven to conflict through ideologies propagated through
official media. Gasana observes that the rural poor (both Hutu and Tutsi)
described the ruling elite collectively as abaryi (eaters) who to them repre-
sented a new, exploitative ethnic category? It can therefore be argued that
the conflict in Rwanda was ultimately a struggle against inequitable distri-
bution of land, tragically fought along ethnic, Tutsi versus Hutu, lines.
Recent studies of the Rwandan conflict have come to appreciate and
acknowledge the role played by ecological ~carcity.~ Many studies, however,
still focus intently on the role of ethnicity in the conflict. Homer-Dixon has
described Rwanda as a country with severe demographic stress in the period
leading to the gen~cide.~ In 1991, Rwanda had an estimated population of 7.5
million and a growth rate of 3.3% annually. It had the highest population
density in Africa at 271 persons per square kilometre, and between 400 and
800 persons for arable land depending on the prefecture.' Ninety-five percent
of the overall population inhabits 43% of the total cultivated land. The pop-
ulation density in the rural areas is up to 843 persons per square kilometre. s
Land contributed to conflict in the following two ways. The first is popu-
lation pressure leading to competition for scarce land; the second was the
inequitable distribution of land, most of which was controlled by elite
groups. Having established the links between land scarcity and conflict in
Rwanda, this study uncovers a number of lessons for other countries faced
with volatile land issues. These lessons may inform prevention strategies,
such as the development of early warning and early response systems.
The failure of the Arusha peace process for Rwanda and of the United
Nations intervention force in Rwanda (UNAMIR) to manage the Rwandan
conflict effectively suggests that there was a widespread failure to account
for the root causes of the conflict. This study demonstrates the importance of
including land and resource considerations in conflict prevention and man-
agement policies and processes. The Arusha peace process failed in part
because it focused on the ethnic dimension of the conflict while ignoring
deeper and more critical issues relating to land and resource rights. The les-
sons for conflict analysts and policy makers are many.