Search

Mountain regions and their communities are particularly vulnerable to climate change impacts. However, little is known on the impacts observed and adaptation responses used in Burundi’s mountain region and if these are different to those reported in the contiguous mountain region of Rwanda. This paper aims to fill in these knowledge gaps. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 300 smallholder farmers, 150 in northern Burundi and 150 in southern Rwanda. Farmers in both countries reported negative impacts on crops, animals, and human health, with small differences between countries driven by the main cultivated crops. More adaptation strategies were used in Burundi than in Rwanda, and more farmers in Burundi were using multiple strategies. In both countries, farmers’ wealth affected farmers’ adaptation responses and their food security. Notably, for all wealth groups (poor, average, rich), food security was lower in Rwanda than in Burundi. We relate our findings to current agricultural intensification policies in both countries and argue for the greater involvement of local farmers in adaptation planning using, for example, science-with-society approaches.

The warming rates in many mountain areas are higher than the global average, negatively impacting crop systems. Little is known about the climatic changes which are already being observed in eastern Democratic Republic (DR) of Congo, due to the lack of long-term meteorological data. Local perceptions could help us to understand not only the climatic changes and impacts but also which adaptation strategies are already being used by local smallholder farmers. Semi-structured questionnaires were administered to 300 smallholder Bafuliru (n = 150) and Lega (n = 150) farmers living in the Itombwe Mountains. The respondents reported climatic changes and impacts, with the Bafuliru—living on the eastern drier slopes—reporting more changes and impacts. While the Bafuliru were implementing several adaptation strategies (e.g., increased irrigation and use of inputs, more soil conservation, more income diversification), the Lega were implementing very few, due to soft limits (access to inputs, markets, and information) and culture (less interest in farming, less capacity to organize into groups). The results highlight important differences in sociocultural contexts, even for one ‘remote’ mountain, calling for a more collaborative approach to adaptation planning and action.