Rwanda Environmental Threats and Opportunities

Assessment (ETOA) 2008 Update

JULY 2008

This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by
Chemonics International Inc.
Rwanda Environmental Threats and
Opportunities Assessment
2008 Update

EPIQ IQC Contract No. EPP-I-00-03-00014-00, Task Order 02

Biodiversity Analysis and Technical Support for USAID/Africa is funded by the U.S.
Agency for International Development, Bureau for Africa, Office of Sustainable
Development (AFR/SD). This program is implemented by Chemonics International Inc.,
World Conservation Union, World Wildlife Fund, and International Program Consortium
in coordination with program partners the U.S. Forest Service/International Programs
and the Africa Biodiversity Collaborative Group.

Photos, front cover: Nyungwe National Park (Lance Gatchell, USFS); Gorillas in Volcano
National Park (Anecto Kayitare, IGCP), Southern Province (Stephanie Otis, Chemonics
International)

The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for
International Development or the United States Government.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

To capture the maximum amount of information in the short amount of field time available to
conduct this assessment, planning, logistics, and communications had to function seamlessly.
Accordingly, the assessment team relied heavily on the cooperation and goodwill of many
others. The entire team is most appreciative of the time given generously by individuals and
institutions to assist in our efforts to understand the situation of biodiversity and tropical forest
conservation in Rwanda. There are several individuals in particular whom we would like to
thank. They include Mr. Roger Gakwerere, Tourism Warden at Akagera National Park, and Mr.
Louis Rugerinyange, Chief Warden at Nyungwe National Park, who each gave generously of
their time to meet with us, answer our many questions, and to escort us to particular sites in the
parks that we asked to investigate. At USAID, Environmental Officer Mr. Timothy Karera was
extremely important to the success of our assignment by helping to arrange meetings, plotting
our logistical arrangements with us, making constructive suggestions on key documents, and
providing a critical review of the drafts produced for this report. We are of course grateful to the
many individuals who met with us to answer a broad array of questions about Rwanda, its
biodiversity, its forest assets, and the threats to these natural attributes. The complete list of
people whom we consulted can be found in Annex E. We are indebted to each of them for the
information they provided and sincerely hope that this assessment may also be of value to them
and their organizations.

RWANDA 2008 ETOA i

CONTENTS
Acknowledgements.......................................................................................................................... i

Acronyms and Abbreviations ........................................................................................................ iii

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ v

Section 1: Introduction.................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Purpose and Background ........................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Methodology for the ETOA Update .......................................................................................... 1
1.3 ETOA Update Report Organization........................................................................................... 2

Section 2: Context of the Assessment............................................................................................. 3

2.1 Biophysical Description............................................................................................................. 3
2.2 Socioeconomic Description ....................................................................................................... 5
2.3 Political and Legal Contexts ...................................................................................................... 7
2.4 Overview of Environmental Programs and Initiatives............................................................. 20
2.5 Key Changes since the 2003 Assessment ................................................................................ 20

Section 3: Status of Environmental Resources in Rwanda........................................................... 23

3.1 Forest and Terrestrial Biodiversity .......................................................................................... 23
3.2 Watersheds and Wetland Ecosystems...................................................................................... 32
3.3 Agriculture and Farming Systems ........................................................................................... 33
3.4 Energy Resources..................................................................................................................... 34
3.5 Economic Value and Importance............................................................................................. 38

Section 4: Threats to Forests, Biodiversity, and the Environment ............................................... 41

4.1 Population pressure on biodiversity resources and protected areas ......................................... 41
4.2 Institutional weaknesses and inefficiencies ............................................................................. 43
4.3 Energy pressure........................................................................................................................ 45
4.4 Degradation of wetlands and lack of clean water .................................................................... 45
4.5 Agricultural inefficiencies and soil erosion ............................................................................. 47
4.6 Climate Change........................................................................................................................ 48
4.7 Waste disposal issues............................................................................................................... 48

Section 5: Initiatives in the Environment Sector .......................................................................... 51

5.1 Government Institutions........................................................................................................... 51
5.2 Donors and the Environmental Landscape .............................................................................. 52
5.3 USAID-Funded Environmental Activities............................................................................... 56

Section 6 Potential Entry Points and Recommendations.............................................................. 63

6.1 General Entry Points ................................................................................................................ 64
6.2 Opportunity Areas and Recommendations for USAID Involvement ...................................... 65
Resources Consulted..................................................................................................................... 71

Annexes
A: Scope of Work
B: U.S. Foreign Assistance Act 118-119
C: Environmental Analysis – Rwanda
D: Biographies of the 2008 ETOA Update Team
E: Persons Consulted/Interviewed
F: Environmental Legal and Policy Framework in Rwanda
G: IUCN Threatened Animal and Plant Species
H: Rwanda Species on CITES Appendices I and II
I: Additional Maps
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ACNR Association for the Conservation of Nature in Rwanda
AfDB African Development Bank
ANP Akagera National Park
ARECO Rwandan Association of Ecologists
AREDI Rwandan Association for Integrated Development of the Environment
AWF African Wildlife Federation
CBD Convention on Biodiversity
CBOs Community Based Organization
CDF Common Development Fund
CURPHAMETRA University Center for Pharmacy and Traditional Medicine
DFGFI Diane Fossey Gorilla Fund/International
DFID Department for International Development
DRC Democratic Republic of Congo
EAC East African Community
EDPRS Economic Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy
EIA Environmental impact assessment
ETOA Environmental threats and opportunities assessment
FAA Foreign Assistance Act
FFI Fauna and Flora International
GDP Gross domestic profit
GEF Global Environment Facility
GIS Geographic Information Systems
GNU Transitional Government of National Unity
GOR Government of Rwanda
GTZ German Development Cooperation
ICRAF International Center for Research in Agroforestry
IGCP International Gorilla Conservation Project
IRST Institute of Scientific Research and Technology
ISAR Rwanda Institute of Agronomic Sciences
IUCN International Union for Conservation and Nature
KIST Kigali Institute of Science, Technology, and Management
LFRC National Land and Forest Research Centre
LVBC Lake Victoria Basin Commission
MEAs Multilateral Environmental Agreements
MINAGRI Ministry of Agriculture & Animal Resources
MINALOC Ministry of Local Government, Good Governance, Community
Development and Social Affairs
MINEDUC Ministry of Education
MINERENA Ministry of Water, Energy and Natural Resources
MINECOFIN Ministry of Finance & Economic Planning
MINICOM Ministry of Commerce, Trade, Industry, Tourism & Cooperatives
MININFRA Ministry of Infrastructures

RWANDA 2008 ETOA iii

MOH Ministry of Health
MINITERE Ministry of Lands, Environment, Forestry and Mines
NAFA National Forestry Authority
NAPA National Adaptation Program of Action to Climate Change
NBF National Biosafety Framework
NBI Nile Basin Initiative
NBSAP National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan
NDIS National Decentralization Implementation Secretariat
NELSAP Nile Equatorial Lakes Subsidiary Action Program
NEPAD New Partnership for Africa’s Development
NISR National Institute of Statistics of Rwanda
NGO Non Governmental Organization
NNP Nyungwe National Park
OGMR Rwanda Geological and Mines Authority
ORTPN Rwandan Office of Tourism and National Parks
PAs Protected Areas
PEM Poverty-Environment Mapping
PNV Volcano National Park
PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategic Plan
PSTA Agricultural Transformation Strategic Plan
RADA Rwanda Agricultural Development Agency
RARDA Rwanda Animal Resources Development Agency
RBS Rwanda Bureau of Standards
REMA Rwanda Environment Management Authority
RHOoDA Rwanda Horticultural Development Agency
RIEPA Rwanda Investment & Export Promotion Agency
RPSF Rwanda Private Sector Federation
RAFNET Rwanda Agroforestry Network
SPREAD Sustaining Partnerships to Enhance Rural Enterprise and Agribusiness
Development
TKTIWRDP Transboundary Integrated Water Resources Development Project
UCB Belgian Chemical Union
UNCCD United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification
UNDP U. N. Development Program
UNEP U. N. Environment Program
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
WCS Wildlife Conservation Society
WWF World Wildlife Fund

iv RWANDA 2008 ETOA

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Purpose. This document is an update of the Environmental Threats and Opportunities
Assessment (ETOA) that was conducted in 2003. It describes the status and actions necessary to
conserve biodiversity and tropical forests in Rwanda. At the request of USAID’s Africa Bureau,
it both integrates and builds upon substantial pieces of the 2003 ETOA document where the facts
and situations have remained constant. The purpose of this approach is to provide the reader with
a comprehensive set of information in one document rather than two.

This update provides USAID/Rwanda with facts and assessments about biodiversity and tropical
forestry conservation as it enters its next planning period. It provides the information necessary
for USAID to comply with Sections 118 and 119 of the U.S. Government Foreign Assistance
Act (FAA) of 1961, as amended (see Annex B), to guide and inform USAID/Rwanda as it
develops its Annual and Operational Plans and its Country Assistance Strategy. Annex C
contains the Environmental Analysis that addresses the FAA’s tropical forests and biodiversity
directives.

Report organization. The assessment report is organized to provide the reader with a broad
background about Rwanda’s biophysical setting, its general socioeconomic conditions, and
summaries of the primary policies and legislation that pertain to the environment sector. It
presents an inventory of biological diversity and tropical forests, as well as the general
conditions of other important environmental factors such as water, wetlands, energy, and
agricultural lands and practices. The main threats to the protection and conservation of these
natural assets are presented next, followed by a discussion of what government, donors, NGOs,
and the private sector are doing currently to address the perceived threats to the environment.
The last section provides the reader with sets of entry points for investment and action that can
build on current efforts and also help to address gaps where key threats to biodiversity and
tropical forestry conservation and protection are not being adequately addressed. Report annexes
provide information to complement the main body of the report.

Biophysical description. Rwanda is a small, mountainous, landlocked country with an area of

26,338 km2 with an average altitude of 1,250m above mean sea level. On the landscape there are
five distinct ecosystems: cropland and natural vegetation (47 percent of total land); scrubland,
savannah and grasslands (32 percent of total land); forest (12 percent of total land); wetlands and
water bodies (8 percent of total land); and sparse/barren vegetation (1 percent of total land).
These ecosystems contain a wide variety of different habitats and species due in part to varied
topography, which is responsible for diverse regional climatic conditions. Vegetation can best be
described as a regional mosaic that includes segments of Guineo-Congolian and Sudanian
vegetation. The Lake Victoria biome is subdivided into secondary grass mosaics and east African
bush land, which is in turn divided into shrub savannah with trees under four meters high and
acacia-wooded savannah with taller trees. Secondary forest mosaics produced by human activity
have replaced natural vegetation in several parts of Rwanda.

RWANDA 2008 ETOA v

Rwanda’s hydrology is characterized by a dense network of lakes, rivers, and wetlands that feed
into two major drainage basins: the Nile to the east and the Congo to the west. Approximately
eight percent of the entire country (210,000 ha) is under water: lakes occupy about 128,000 ha,
rivers about 7,260 ha, and water in wetlands and valleys accounts for about 77,000 ha.

Socioeconomic description. Rwanda’s population growth over the last four decades has been
unprecedented – from approximately 2.6 million in 1960 to 8.2 million in 2002. In 2007, it was
estimated at 9.3 million, and is likely to reach 10.8 million in 2012. Annual population growth
rate was 3.1 percent in 2002, one of the highest in Sub-Saharan Africa, but declined to about 2.6
percent in 2007. The population density is about 343 people per km2, the highest in Africa, but in
some districts it exceeds 500 people per sq km. About 56.9 percent of the population lives below
the poverty line and cannot meet their basic human needs. The gender difference nationally is 53
percent female and 47 percent male. The 2002 census data reveals that almost half the Rwandan
population (48.6 percent) is under the age of 16. The youthfulness of the population combined
with its high population growth rate and density has had a significant impact on the use of
natural resources, the environment, and all public services from health care to education.

Agriculture is the mainstay of the Rwandan economy. Approximately 91 percent of the

population depends on the sector, which is also estimated to contribute about 40 percent to gross
domestic product (GDP) and 30 percent to export earnings. Per capita land holdings are very
small, averaging only about 0.6 ha per family, and 2 percent of cultivating households do not
own land. Most Rwandans are subsistence farmers, but some earn additional income selling
cash/commercial crops such as bananas (primary), coffee, tea, pyrethrum, and cattle. Fish is also
another source of income, especially in the Rift Valley lakes in the east.

Health statistics have deteriorated since the genocide of the 1990s; however, there have been
significant improvements in health service delivery. Since 2003, new health centers have been
constructed to reduce travel distances, and the mutual health insurance coverage has increased.
The prevalence of HIV/AIDS is estimated at 3 percent nationally and may be holding firm or
falling, a remarkable turn around from the 13 percent prevalence rates in 2000.

Collecting water imposes burdens on the time of women and girls due to the distances involved,
and the water itself is often harmful to health. In rural areas, access to safe water is around 40
percent and in urban areas about 60 percent.

Literacy has slightly improved in the past five years from 63 percent to 64.7 percent of women,
and from 75 percent to 76.3 percent of men (70 percent of the total population). Only 7.1 percent
of the population has post primary education, and only 0.4 percent has tertiary education.

Legislative framework. Significant reforms have been made in the legal and regulatory
framework for environmental management since the last ETOA in 2003. Almost all sector
policies and laws have been repealed and new ones enacted in line with the Constitution of June
2003. Because the environmental sector is a relatively new addition to the political framework of
Rwanda, few laws have specifically addressed environmental issues.

vi RWANDA 2008 ETOA

Despite the importance of forest and tree resources to the livelihoods and economy of Rwanda,
the country did not have a forest policy until 1988, when the first one was enacted but not
implemented because of war and genocide. The present policy was formulated in 2004. It has a
focus on promoting gender, fostering public-private partnerships, and enhancing international
cooperation in forest management. It also creates a national Forest Protection Service,
responsible for extension and efforts to combat forest encroachment.

Although wetlands are among the most important resources for Rwanda, both in terms of
productivity and ecological functioning, they are not sufficiently protected, and continue to be
degraded. A current Global Environment Facility (GEF) project is working to classify wetlands
in four areas in the country. Rwanda has comprehensive water or wetlands policy.

Fisheries legislation dates to colonial periods; more recent orders developed by the Ministry of
Agriculture for fisheries gives concessions to the private sector. In some areas, fisheries have
been leased by local associations. For the lakes within the Akagera protected area, however, the
ORTPN (Office of Tourism and National Parks) has jurisdiction, even though it has no fisheries
staff. Part of the problem is perhaps the fact that, despite the existing resource endowment and its
potential, fisheries remain low in priority within natural resource sectors in terms of public
investment. In addition, its contribution to GDP is inadequately recorded.

Since the 2003 ETOA, a number of important policies and pieces of environment-related
legislation have been passed, including:

• National Land Policy — key to developing land tenure security

• Organic Law No. 4/2005 — details the protection, conservation, and promotion of the
environment
• Organic Law No. 8/2005 — determines the use and management of land
• Law No.16/2006 — established the Rwanda Environmental Management Authority
• National Policy of Decentralization — created districts and allowed hiring of environmental
officers to assist in integrating environmental issues into the district planning process
and facilitating promotion of environmentally sustainable development at the local level

In addition to being a signatory to a host of international environmental conventions, Rwanda is

also a party to several agreements that require close cooperation with its neighbors on
environmental matters. At the regional level, Rwanda is part of the ten-member Nile Basin
Initiative (NBI) and is host to one of the NBI programs — the Nile Equatorial Lakes Subsidiary
Action Program (NELSAP) — and two of its transboundary projects: the Kagera River Basin
Transboundary Integrated Water Resources Development Project (TKTIWRDP) that covers
Rwanda, Burundi, Tanzania, and Uganda; and the Rusumo Hydropower Project that is
implemented jointly by Burundi, Rwanda, and Tanzania.

RWANDA 2008 ETOA vii

Rwanda has been a member since 2006 of the East African Community (EAC), and a signatory
to its protocols, including the Lake Victoria Basin Commission (LVBC) which is promoting
coordinated development and management of transboundary ecosystems around Lake Victoria.

Significant/key changes since the 2003 ETOA. The key policy, legislative, and infrastructure
changes in the environment domain since the 2003 ETOA are:
• The establishment of Rwanda Environmental Management Authority (REMA) in 2005
(legally in 2006) as the overall authority responsible for environmental management.

• Continued sector and service decentralization following the creation of elected government
structures down to the cell level, and increased awareness of environmental issues at the
district level with support from REMA.

• Creation of a national land center along with land tribunals from the province down to cell
levels. The land reform process is improving the legal framework for land acquisition,
transfer, and use.

• A strategic shift in the national planning process from a socially oriented PRSP I (2002-
2005) to an economic growth driven EDPRS (2007-2012) has changed the priorities towards
more in-depth use of natural resources — water, wetlands, wildlife protected areas, forests,
mineral deposits, etc. — which has implications for the environment.

• Nyungwe National Park was established in recognition that its global and national
significance merit the protection of national park status (Category II under the IUCN
classification) to prevent further encroachment and degradation.

• The role of the private sector has increased in and around Rwanda’s protected areas with the
explicit intent to capitalize on the inherent value of these resources; the extreme example is
the 49-year lease agreement to a private investment firm that now operates and manages
Akagera National Park.

• ORTPN policy is that five percent of total tourism revenue be allocated to the districts
bordering the three national parks. These funds have been used to build schools, provide
health facilities and services, and other community services.

Biodiversity and natural forest resource inventory. Almost all of Rwanda’s remaining
forested lands of any significance are found within the borders of its national parks and two
forest reserves. A few small gallery forests and remnant forests also exist. Almost all of the
country’s significant biodiversity also lies within the protected areas shown in the table below.

viii RWANDA 2008 ETOA

Table: Rwanda’s Protected Areas
Manage- Latest
IUCN ment Date Area Manage- No. of
Name cate- Respon- Estab- (km²) Location ment Staff
gory sibility lished Plan
Dubai 1.45’00 S
Akagera National Park II World 1934 1,085 30.38’00 E 2006 78

2.30’00 S
Nyungwe National Park II ORTPN 2005 1,013 29.14’00 E 2005 108
1.28’41 S
Volcano National Park II ORTPN 1929 140 29.30’00 E 2004 103
1.47’00 S
Gishwati Forest Reserve IV For Dept 1933 61 29.23’00 E - -
1.59’00 S
Mukura Forest Reserve IV For Dept 1933 20 29.31’00 E - -

These protected areas provide additional services of significance. They are the key components
for watershed protection (the headwaters of the Nile and Congo River basins mentioned above);
they protect habitats and landscapes that are the basis for a significant component of the
economy (tourism); and they are a large carbon sink that captures greenhouse gases, providing a
large benefit on a global scale. One estimate puts the economic value of these services just for
the Nyungwe watershed is more than $285 million annually.

There are also economic losses to consider from not having protective regulations and
conservation boundaries in place. Areas like Gishwati and Mukura Forest reserves and the larger
wetlands in the north that lack management plans and tighter protection legislation have been
allowed to degrade with severe consequences to downstream populations. Those who depend on
fish stocks, the close proximity of fuel wood and clean water, and tourist revenues have seen
their livelihoods lowered significantly because of the loss of forest cover. Siltation in reservoirs
that supplied hydropower for electricity has meant the electric utility could not meet domestic
demand and had to turn to other more expensive alternative power supplies, resulting in
enormous price increases to domestic users of electricity in Rwanda.

Threats to biodiversity, tropical forestry conservation, and environment. The update

assessment did not find any significant change from the 2003 ETOA list of key threats. They are,
in order of seriousness:
1. Population pressure on biodiversity resources and protected areas
2. Institutional weaknesses and inefficiencies
3. Energy pressure
4. Degradation of wetlands and lack of clean water
5. Agricultural inefficiencies and soil erosion
6. Climate change
7. Waste disposal issues

RWANDA 2008 ETOA ix

Population growth is straining natural resources as never before and remains the primary threat.
Second is the lack of capacity in government institutions charged with establishing standards,
guidelines, and enforcing policies governing the use, protection, and conservation of renewable
resources. Since 2003, regulatory institutions such as REMA and the Bureau of Standards have
been established, but have inadequate staff and capacities.

However, the country is now far better equipped to mitigate threats and is moving as quickly as it
can to close institutional gaps. The donor community, and NGOs especially, have helped
ORTPN and REMA to make substantial progress with protecting and managing the nations
protected areas, particularly the three national parks. Government programs such as the EDPRS
and the positive direction of decentralization, along with some rigorous private sector
investment, have also aided in mitigating the two primary threats to biodiversity and tropical
forestry conservation.

Outside the national parks and reserves, the greatest environmental threat is the lack of a water
and wetland policy that will engender a comprehensive strategy to monitor the health of this
resource, regulate its management, and ensure there is communication and cooperation with
other sectors of the economy that rely on water and wetland services. Water and associated
environmental services desperately needs a higher profile in Rwanda.

Development assistance. Development assistance to Rwanda’s environment sector is small.

Recent government documents (Government of Rwanda, 2008b, 2008c) reported that 11 bilateral
donors were supporting 165 separate projects/programs in the country and only 10 had links to
the environment. Most of the funding for environment-related initiatives is focused on Rwanda’s
protected areas and is sourced through international NGOs and university-related research
efforts. Private sector investment in activities linked directly to Rwanda’s biodiversity and
protected areas is also growing.

Support for environmental programs by USAID/Rwanda continues to be very limited by budget

constraints. The primary environmental activity supported at the time is the Destination
Nyungwe Project, funded primarily with biodiversity earmark monies. Activities are intertwined
in three components: biodiversity conservation, ecotourism and rural enterprise development,
and health. The total budget is $5.0 million over the 2006 to 2010 life of the project.

USAID/Rwanda also has environment interests in several other small business assistance
projects. These include fuel wood supply concerns with an essential oils project, and stream
pollution issues associated with wastewater from coffee washing stations in another project. Its
food aid program has also been involved with a GOR effort to construct radical terraces. The
efficacy and sustainability of constructing bench terraces to control erosion and improve
agricultural production is a matter of considerable debate.

NGO coordination, seen as a very weak point in the 2003 ETOA, has improved considerably,
especially in NGOs active around the national parks. Much of this is due to the revenue sharing
with local communities instituted by the ORTPN. In addition, active social marketing and

x RWANDA 2008 ETOA

themed campaigns have made a significant difference in citizen perceptions on environmental
issues, biodiversity, and the role/importance of Rwanda’s protected areas.

Entry points for investment assistance. The update identifies four environmental opportunity
areas where technical assistance could be effective in Rwanda. They are:

• Increased assistance to REMA as well as other GOR institutions engaged in protecting and
monitoring the natural environment
• Directed assistance to developing legislation and policies focused on safeguarding the
environment and, more importantly, help applying those policies
• Continued development of environmental public-private partnerships with links to local
communities
• Continued support for public education and raising awareness about environmental issues,
and support for engaging decentralized entities in environmental management

For USAID, the recommended areas for effective investment include:

• Continued support to ORTPN and the activities underway in Nyungwe National Park
• Policy support, especially in the development of a water and wetlands policy, and in
providing leadership to address the fuel wood energy crisis
• Working with REMA to find workable, cost-effective solutions that adhere to international
standards to resolve the pollution issue at coffee-washing stations, as the GOR follows
through on its promise to double the number of these stations before 2010
• Leveraging its own well-known “brand” in Rwanda to bring about greater public awareness
and knowledge about environmental issues especially by working with districts,
communities, other government institutions, and other donors

RWANDA 2008 ETOA xi

SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose and Background

This document is an update of the Environmental Threats and Opportunities Assessment (ETOA)
that was conducted in 2003. It describes the status and actions necessary to conserve biodiversity
and tropical forests in Rwanda. The specific tasks for this assignment can be found in Annex A,
Scope of Work (SOW).

At the request of USAID’s Africa Bureau (Resch, 2008), the authors have substantially
integrated and built upon the 2003 ETOA document, retaining facts and situations that remain
unchanged while noting events and activities in Rwanda’s environment sector that have occurred
in the last five years. In this way the reader has comprehensive information covering 2003 –
2008 in one document, rather than two. The report examines:

• The current state of biodiversity and forest conservation in Rwanda

• The principal actions necessary in Rwanda to conserve tropical forests and biological
diversity
• The extent to which needs can be addressed by USAID/Rwanda given current and past
programming initiatives, experience, and funding

This update of the ETOA also provides USAID/Rwanda with facts and assessments about
biodiversity and tropical forestry conservation as it enters its next planning period. ETOA
documents are intended as tools to be used by USAID in integrating environment concerns into
its programming portfolio in the short- and medium-terms. This report also provides the
information necessary for USAID to comply with Sections 118 and 119 of the U.S. Government
Foreign Assistance Act (FAA) of 1961, as amended (see Annex B), to guide and inform
USAID/Rwanda as it develops its Annual and Operational Plans and its Country Assistance
Strategy. Annex C contains the environmental analysis that addresses the FAA’s tropical forests
and biodiversity directives.

1.2 Methodology for the ETOA Update

The 2003 ETOA was updated in Rwanda in June 2008 by a team of five specialists (short
biographies on the team members can be found in Annex D). USAID/Rwanda’s environmental
officer provided valuable background information and support, and accompanied team members
in field visits on numerous occasions.

Using the tasks outlined in the SOW, the ETOA team developed a preliminary work plan and
schedule. This was approved by USAID/Rwanda and modified following the team’s initial
discussions and briefings. Meetings and interviews with USAID’s Africa Bureau staff and
international NGOs operating in Rwanda were conducted in Washington, DC prior to the team’s

ETOA UPDATE 2008 1

departure. Three team members also held discussions focused on key issues with environment
staff at USAID’s East Africa Region Office in Nairobi just prior to their arrival in Rwanda.
During its 10-day presence in Rwanda, the ETOA update team reviewed background documents;
interviewed key informants in the environmental community in the capital, Kigali; and made
field site visits to USAID/Rwanda-supported projects within the SO7 (Economic Growth)
portfolio. These included an essential oils project (Ikirezi Natural Products) east of Kigali; a rural
enterprise/agribusiness (coffee) project (SPREAD) in Butare; and an ecotourism and biodiversity
protection project (Destination Nyungwe) in and around Nyungwe National Park in the
southwest part of the country. The team also reviewed issues and important developments with
staff of Rwanda’s Tourism and National Parks Office in Akagera National Park on the country’s
eastern frontier. A complete list of the persons consulted/interviewed appears in Annex E of this
report.
The interviews and field visits enriched, confirmed, and raised additional questions about the
information reviewed in background documents and reports. Information collected through the
field visits, background readings and interviews, and a preliminary analysis of potential entry
points for future investment were presented at a briefing delivered to USAID/Rwanda at the end
of the field phase of the assessment update. A draft report was delivered to and reviewed by
USAID/Rwanda; comments and edits from the review process were then incorporated into the
final ETOA update.

1.3 ETOA Update Report Organization

Background details for the FAA 118/119 Environmental Analysis for Rwanda are provided in
Annex C to this report. The main chapters include this introductory section, followed by data
pertinent to the country’s environmental sector and significant changes in the Government of
Rwanda’s (GOR) approaches to biodiversity and tropical forestry conservation (Section 2). New
programs and policies (and/or changes in old ones) that impact the sector are summarized along
with important legislation that has appeared since the 2003 ETOA. Section 3 provides an update
of the overall status of natural resources in Rwanda. Key threats to biodiversity and tropical
forestry conservation are identified in Section 4, as well as other important threats to Rwanda’s
natural environment. An analysis of current and planned initiatives in the sector that impact
conservation efforts, protection activities, and rural livelihoods that rely on terrestrial and aquatic
resources is presented in Section 5. These not only focus on USAID’s investments, but also
include important government programs, private sector work, and activities that rely on NGO
direction, funding and management. A discussion of the 2003 ETOA recommendations in light
of ongoing activities is also presented. Section 6 concludes the main text of the assessment by
identifying potential entry points and opportunities for additional investment aimed at mitigating
the main threats to Rwanda’s natural environment. The primary references and citations used by
the ETOA team for this update, along with supplemental information (e.g., policy and legal
frameworks, maps, contacts, etc.), can be found in the report annexes.

2 RWANDA 2008 ETOA

SECTION 2
CONTEXT OF THE ASSESSMENT
2.1 Biophysical Description

Rwanda is a small, mountainous, landlocked country with an area of 26,338 km2. It is bordered
to the north by Republic of Uganda, on the south by the Republic of Burundi, to the east by the
United Republic of Tanzania, and to the west by the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).
Its varied territory has an average altitude of 1,250m above mean sea level. Rwanda has been
described as the country of a thousand hills (mille collines), some with flat peaks and convex
slopes, separated by deep valleys measuring between 50 m to 100 m. The six dominant types of
topography are the Great Rift Valley and Lake Kivu in the west; Virunga Mountains and the high
lava plains of the northwest; the Nyungwe afromontagne rainforest of the Congo-Nile divide and
the central plateau east of the mountains; savannas and swamps of the east and southeast; central
plain; and arid area of the southeast. Within these areas, there are five distinct ecosystems:
cropland and natural vegetation (47 percent of total land); scrubland, savannah, and grasslands
(32 percent); forest (12 percent); wetlands and water bodies (8 percent); and sparse/barren
vegetation (1 percent). (World Resources Institute 2003b)

Rwanda has an equatorial mountain climate with an average temperature range of 19-21°C and
annual rainfall between 1,200-1,280 mm, distributed over two rainy seasons. The characteristics
of the climate are linked with the geomorphology of the country's natural regions.

Figure 2.1 Rwanda’s 30-year Average Annual Rainfall Distribution (in mm), 1962 to 1990

Source: Government of Rwanda, 2005 and the Rwanda National Meteorological Service.

ETOA UPDATE 2008 3

Rwanda is home to a wide variety of different habitats
and species due in part to its varied topography,
which is responsible for diverse regional climatic
conditions. Vegetation can best be described as a
regional mosaic that includes segments of Guineo-
Congolian and Sudanian plant life. The Lake Victoria
biome is subdivided into secondary grass mosaics and
east African bush land, which is in turn divided into
shrub savannah with trees under four meters high and
acacia-wooded savannah with taller trees. Secondary
forest mosaics produced by human activity have
replaced natural vegetation in several part of Rwanda.

Savannahs, which occur mainly in the east, comprise

five distinct natural zones: Mutara,
Buganza, Mubari-Migogo, Gisaka, and Bugesera.
These are dominated by xerophyllous vegetation in
which Acacia senegal, Albizia petersiana, and
Agriculture and tea plantations outside of
Lannea humilis are dominant. The Mutara consists Nyungwe National Park
largely of open savannahs in which Themeda spp.,
Hyparrhenia spp. and Cymbopogon spp. predominate.
The Buganza subregion is an undulating plateau covered by
Combretum spp. and Acacia siberiana. The Gisaka region is wetter than the other zones;
vegetation there consists of a mosaic of mesophyllus forest and woodland savannahs. Vegetation
in the Bugesera subregion in southeast Rwanda is dominated by woodland and shrubbery
savannah consisting mainly of Acacia spp and Combretum spp.

According to the World Resources Institute (2003b), the total forest cover (natural and
plantation) is 3,070 km2 (460 km2 and 2,610 km2, respectively). There are two main
afromontagne forest reserves in Rwanda — Gishwati and Mukura — and two afromontagne
national parks, Volcano National Park (Parc des Volcans) and Nyungwe National Park. The
forests are characterized by high altitudes (2,000 m on average, though varying from 1,600 m to
4,500 m) and the dense understory and clearings typical of afromontagne forests. The natural
forest is estimated to have once covered 36 percent of total land area in Rwanda; that has fallen
by a drastic 78 percent since 1990 alone. The GOR’s need to permanently resettle the millions of
returnees since the 1994 genocide, and to provide people with fuel, agricultural land, and shelter,
has led to the almost total destruction of Gishwati and Mukura forest reserves and drastically
reduced the forest cover across the country.

Rwanda’s hydrology is characterized by a dense network of lakes, rivers, and wetlands.

Approximately eight percent of the entire country (210,000 ha) is under water: lakes occupy
about 128,000 ha, rivers about 7,260 ha, and water in wetlands and valleys accounts for about
77,000 ha.

4 RWANDA 2008 ETOA

Rwanda is located on the eastern rim of the Albertine Rift, where two major drainage basins are
located: the Nile to the east and the Congo to the west. The Congo River basin, which covers 33
percent of Rwanda, receives 10 percent of all national waters. The Nile River Basin, which
covers 67 percent of Rwanda, receives 90 percent of the national waters. Nyungwe National Park
is Rwanda’s major watershed for both the Nile and the Congo basins. The waters of the Nile
basin flow out through the Akagera river system, which contributes between eight and ten
percent to the Nile drainage system.

Wetlands (large permanent swamps) and marshlands (seasonal grass swamps, marais) occupy
about 10 percent of the country and comprise three large and numerous small marais
interspersed among the country’s many hills. The main swamps are Akanyaru (125.46 km2), on
the border with Burundi; Kagera, along the Tanzania border to the east (122.27 km2); and the
Nyabarongo (246.98 km2) and Rugezi wetlands (62.94 km2) to the north. Rwanda’s wetlands are
important as buffers in flood or overflow plains. They reduce maximal flow rates during the
rainy season and maintain a relatively high flow rate during the dry season.
Arable land in Rwanda is approximately 1,385,000 ha (52 percent of total land), 8,250 km2 of
which is cultivated.

2.2 Socioeconomic Description

Rwanda’s population growth over the last 4 decades has been unprecedented — from
approximately 2.6 million in 1960 to 8.2 million in 2002 (National Census Service, 2005). In
2007, it was estimated at 9.3 million and is likely to reach 10.8 million in 2012 (UNFPA 2007).
Annual population growth rate was 3.1 percent in 2002, one of the highest in Sub-Saharan
Africa, but declined to about 2.6 percent in 2007. The population density is about 343 people per
km2, the highest in Africa, but in some districts, such as Musanze in the north and Huye in the
south, it exceeds 500 people per sq km. About 56.9 percent of the population lives below the
poverty line and cannot meet their basic human needs. While the gender difference nationally is
53 percent female and 47 percent male, in Kigali City the split is 52 percent female and 48
percent male. The 2002 census data reveals that almost half the Rwandan population (48.6
percent) is under the age of 16. The youthfulness of the population combined with its high
population growth rate and density has had a significant impact on the use of natural resources,
the environment, and all public services from health care to education.

Population movement has also seriously affected the quality of life for Rwandans. Almost 3.5
million of them have been displaced or have only recently returned. There is still a huge need for
wood for housing construction, and 96 percent of all households in Rwanda rely on wood or
charcoal for cooking.

Agriculture is the mainstay of the Rwandan economy. Approximately 91 percent of the

population depends on the sector, which is also estimated to contribute about 40 percent to gross
domestic product (GDP) and 30 percent to export earnings. Per capita land holdings are very
small, averaging only about 0.6 ha per family; 2 percent of cultivating households do not own
land at all. Most Rwandans are subsistence farmers, although some earn a portion of their living

ETOA UPDATE 2008 5

with cash/commercial crops (such as bananas [primary], coffee, tea, and pyrethrum) and cattle.
Fish is another source of income, especially in the Rift Valley lakes in the east.

There have been significant improvements in health service delivery in recent years. Since 2003,
new health centers have been constructed to reduce travel time, and the mutual health insurance
coverage has increased. The infant mortality rate declined by 19 percent (from 107 per 1,000 live
births to 86 per 1000 live births) and the under-five mortality rate fell by 22.4 percent (from 196
per 1000 to 152 per 1000); yet the rural mortality rates are one and a half times those in urban
areas. The fertility rate has slightly increased from 5.8 children per woman in 2000 to 6.1
children in 2005. Also, the percentage of women using modern family planning methods
increased from 4 percent to 10 percent. Despite these improvements, the health status is
comparable to 1992 pre-genocide levels.

The overall HIV/AIDS prevalence in the country is estimated to be 3 percent (NISR 2005),
which implies a considerable decline from 5.1 percent in 2004 and 13 percent in 2000.
According to 2005 data from the Rwanda Demographic and Health Survey, there is wide
disparity between rural and urban areas. The HIV prevalence in rural areas is 2.2 percent and 7.3
percent in urban areas (UNGASS 2008). Of those infected, 2.3 percent are men and 3.6 are
women. Rwanda remains a high risk country for HIV/AIDS, despite commendable efforts of the
GOR and other partners.

The greatest cause of morbidity (illness) is malaria, followed by diarrhea and respiratory
infections. The causes of ill health are highly complex; among them are low incomes, limited
information about prevention methods, low levels of literacy and education, and inadequate
access to clean water and health services. The very low use of health services has improved
slightly in recent years. The main deterrent is cost, followed by accessibility (though the
government has recently made efforts to increase health facilities and offer health insurance
coverage as noted above).

Collecting water imposes burdens on the time of women and girls due to the distances involved,
and the water itself often affects health because its quality is poor. In rural areas, access to safe
water is around 40 percent and in urban areas, Electrogaz provides drinking water to about 60
percent of the population.

As for education, literacy has slightly improved in the past five years from 63 percent to 64.7
percent of women and from 75 percent to 76.3 percent of men (70 percent of the total
population). Gender disparities have also improved in primary school, with a higher enrolment
rate for girls (87 percent) than for boys (85 percent). In secondary school, girls are still lagging
behind boys in completion rates and exam scores. There are still disparities between income and
age groups in enrolment in secondary schooling.

As a part of the government’s goal to become a knowledge-based and technology-driven society,

an Education for All Plan was conceived to provide primary education and the first three years of
secondary school free. This is in line with the Dakar Framework of Action on Education for All

6 RWANDA 2008 ETOA

(EFA) and the Millennium Development Goals (MDG), and is motivated by the relative success
of the fee-free basic education for all introduced by President Paul Kagame. At the university
level, science and technology programs are being developed through ICT educational programs
for undergraduate and graduate students. Over 4,000 computers were provided to institutions,
and the Centre for Innovation and Technology Transfer (CITT) at the Kigali Institute of Science
and Technology (KIST) was created.

Only 7.1 percent of the population has post-primary education, and only 0.4 percent has tertiary
education. Moreover, there are concerns about the quality of education, particularly given the
lack of books and facilities, and the challenges posed by the introduction of English and French
throughout primary education without the necessary resources.

In 2003, Rwanda began implementing its first Poverty Reduction Strategy (PRS1 2002-2005).
This was the first major medium-term development strategy following the end of the transitional
government’s tenure (see below). The poverty reduction efforts implemented in PRSP 1 have
paid off, albeit modestly: absolute poverty declined from 60.4 percent in 2001 to 56.9 percent in
2006 (according to the Economic Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy 2007) but
poverty levels remain unacceptably high (as observed in Table 2.1 below). The southern and
northern provinces have the highest incidences (higher than the national average) and this is
attributed to soil degradation and overpopulation respectively. But other areas – notably the
southeastern plains which are prone to drought — also remain vulnerable to poverty.

2.3 Political and Legal Contexts

Since 2003, when the Transitional Government of National Unity (GNU) that was formed under
the 1993 Arusha Peace Accords ended, Rwanda has been governed under a democratically
elected government established in accordance with the National Constitution of June 2003. The
present government is headed by a president whose seven-year term began in since September
2003; a multi-party senate; and lower house of parliament (Chamber of Deputies).

Table 2.1 Poverty Headcount and Share of Poor

Poverty headcount ( Share of the poor ( Extreme poverty headcount (
percent) percent) percent)
Province EICV1 EICV2 EICV1 EICV2 EICV1 EICV2
City of Kigali 24.4 20.2 4.1 3.4 15.4 11.1
Southern 65.8 67.3 27.1 30.2 45.9 47.2
Northern 66.9 62.7 23.5 20.3 47.2 40.8
Eastern 61.8 50.4 20.4 19.7 41.7 28.7
Western 63.1 62 24.9 26.3 41.8 40.9
National 60.4 56.9 100.0 100.0 41.3 36.9
Source: EDPRS, 2007 (Principal data sources are: EICV1 survey done in 2000 and EICV2 completed in 2005)

The Rwandan constitution ensures the protection and sustainable management of the
environment more than any previous constitution. It provides the basis for protection and rational

ETOA UPDATE 2008 7

use of Rwanda’s environmental resources and takes into consideration how people relate to
natural resources. Article 49 states:

Every citizen has a right to a safe, satisfying, and sustainable environment. Every person has the
duty of protecting, maintaining, and promoting the environment. Any act aiming at damaging the
environment is punishable by law. The state must protect the environment.

Article 191 prohibits any agreements authorizing the storing on Rwandan territory of toxic waste
and other substances that may damage the environment. It states:

It is prohibited to make international agreements permitting the transit or dumping of toxic waste
and other hazardous materials capable of endangering public health and the environment.

The 2006 policy on decentralized service delivery developed by MINALOC (Ministry of Local
Government, Good Governance, Community Development, and Social Affairs) provided
guidance and compelled ministries to decentralize service delivery activities and budgets and
retain only policy, monitoring, and capacity building responsibilities. This was backed by
reforms that reduced departments in all sector ministries to two: Administration and Finance; and
Policy, Planning and Capacity Building.

In 2006, Rwanda was reorganized from 12 provinces to 5: Eastern; Kigali City; Northern,
Southern; and Western. Also, the 106 districts were consolidated into 30 (See figure 2.2).

Significant reforms have been made in legal and regulatory frameworks for environmental
management since the 2003 ETOA. Almost all sector policies and laws have been repealed and
new ones enacted in line with the constitution of June 2003. Because the environmental sector is
a relatively new addition to the political framework, few laws have specifically addressed
environmental issues.

Nevertheless, Rwanda has long-standing laws that regulate natural resources and several more
are being drafted. The main legislation that has significantly shaped environmental governance is
listed in Table 2.2, and further information can be found in Annex F.

8 RWANDA 2008 ETOA

Figure 2.2 Rwanda’s Provinces and Districts

Source: Kigali City Official Website, 2007. www.kigalicity.gov.rw/spip.php?article117

Despite the importance of forest and tree resources to the livelihoods and economy of Rwanda,
the country did not have a forest policy until 1988. It was enacted but not implemented because
of the civil war and genocide. The present policy was formulated in 2004, a year after the end
of the transitional government. It came into effect after the country had lost two-thirds of the
forest estate over four decades, which was attributed to weak forestry governance and over-
dependency on forest resources. The policy focuses on promoting gender sensitivity, fostering
public-private partnerships, and enhancing international cooperation in forest management. It
also creates a national Forest Protection Service, which is responsible for extension and
combating forest encroachment.

Although wetlands are among Rwanda’s most important resources — both in terms of
productivity and ecological functioning — they continue to be degraded; recent efforts have
been made toward wetland protection legislation. Currently, the Global Environment Facility
(GEF)/World Bank is undertaking an inventory of wetland resources in four critical wetland
ecosystems: Kamiranzovu in Nyungwe National Park, Rugezi in the high altitude extreme
northern Rwanda, the Rweru-Mugesera complex, and the Akagera wetlands system. The
inventory will classify categories of wetlands for different uses, including strict protection.
Based on the information from the inventory, five Ministerial Orders will be drafted relating to
the use and management of wetlands, as well as an overall wetlands policy.

ETOA UPDATE 2008 9

MINAGRI developed Ministerial Orders for fisheries concessions to the private sector, and in
some areas fisheries have been leased by local associations. For the lakes within the Akagera
protected area, however, the ORTPN (Office of Tourism and National Parks), which has no
fisheries staff, has jurisdiction.

Nonetheless, there are a number of fisheries ordinances dating to colonial times: a 1947
ordinance (No 325/Agri) which prohibits introduction of exotic fish species into Rwandan
waters; a 1955 ordinance which prohibits retention, culture, multiplication, sale and
transportation of Eichornia crassipes — the water hyacinth; a 1955 ordinance (52/55) which
prohibits use of narcotics to catch fish in the Rwandan lakes and rivers; a 1955 law that
prohibits fishing with a net of mesh less that 4 cm; and a 1959 law that prohibits fishing with
seines in the interior lakes, except for research purposes.

Part of the problem is perhaps that, despite the existing resource endowment and its potential,
fisheries remain among the lowest priority natural resource in terms of public investment
support. Correspondingly, its contribution to GDP is inadequately recorded, and there is limited
policy, legislative, and institutional support.

Despite the current developments in environmental policies and legislation, the following
challenges in developing and defining environmental management in Rwanda exist:

• Inter-sectoral and intra-sectoral coordination: Coordination of institutional activities and

integration at all levels — within and among government institutions, donor/government and
donor/donor levels — is weak. This undermines any efforts toward integration, joint
programming, and monitoring. Improved coordination appears to be evolving at district and
other decentralized levels, where the Joint Action Forum brings together all district
departments and development partners. At the national level, sectors tend to work
individually, which makes it difficult to appreciate and follow-up cross-cutting
environmental issues.

• Engaging young environmental governance institutions: The establishment of REMA in

2006 strengthened the environmental governance regime, especially since the Department of
Environment in the Ministry of Lands, Environment, Forestry and Mines (MINITERE) was
under-funded and under-staffed. Environmental monitoring has been stepped up and a
number of environmental projects are now coordinated under REMA; yet the institution is
still young and needs to strengthen its capacity.

• Building sustainable capacities in a highly dynamic environment characterized by

frequent reforms: The Environment and Lands Secretariat of State Portfolio established in
2002 was scrapped in the 2007 ministerial reshuffle, and its docket transferred to the minister
of state responsible for water and Mines. REMA is still recruiting and there are ongoing
discussions that its Directorate of Environmental Impact Assessment and Compliance
Monitoring will be transferred to a complex development agency to be placed under the
Ministry of Commerce, Trade, Industry, Tourism and Cooperatives (MINICOM). From the

10 RWANDA 2008 ETOA

 policy perspective, most of the sectoral strategies, plans, and policies elaborated during
2003–2006 are being reviewed to align with the EDPRS elaborated in 2007. These and other
developments that are ongoing create a highly dynamic institutional environment in which it
is difficult to establish proper systems.

• Weak information and knowledge management systems: Availability and access to

reliable data remains a big challenge. There is no central location where one can find
information on environmental issues, since environmental data are scattered across ministries
and agencies. Most agencies – government, donors, NGOs, etc — rely on commissioning
specific studies, which means that data are not standardized and are therefore difficult to
compare. One positive note: the National Institute of Statistics of Rwanda (NISR) has
recently been collaborating with REMA on environmental statistics.

Table 2.2 Summary of Significant Rwanda Legislation, Policies, and Environmental

Instructions Pertaining to the Environment
LAW/POLICY/INSTRUCTION DATE DESCRIPTION OF KEY POINTS
Environment — General
National Environment Policy 2003 Stipulates the utilization of natural resources and the protection
and rational management of ecosystems for sustainable and fair
development
National Strategy and Action 4/2003 Develops national strategies, plans or programs for the
Plan for the Conservation of conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity; Integrates
Biodiversity the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity into
relevant sectoral and cross-sectoral plans, programs and policies
National Land Policy 2/2004 Stipulates the appropriate land administration system as a key of
land tenure security by providing the possibility of registering and
transferring land and also the possibility of investment in land
Organic Law N° 04/2005 on 4/2005 Stipulates the modalities of protecting, safeguarding and promoting
protection, conservation and the environment
promotion of the environment
Organic Law N° 08/2005 on 7/2005 Determines the use and management of land in Rwanda and
the use and management of institutes principles on land legal rights. Recognizes private
land ownership, both customary and legal, of most hillside areas.
Previously, all land belonged to the State, making it illegal to buy
and sell land and any required expropriation would result in users
of land being compensated for assets lost at a fixed rate. As a
result, there have been serious shortcomings in the national
processes associated with land expropriation, resettlement and
associated compensation payments.
Presidential Order N° 54/01 10/2006 Determines the structure, responsibilities, functioning and
on land commissions composition of Land Commissions
Ministerial Order N° 01/2006 09/2006 Determines the structure of land registers, responsibilities and
on land registers functioning of the District Land Bureau
Land Expropriation Law N° 04/2007 Determines the procedures relation to expropriation in the public
18/2007 interest
National Biosafety Law 2005 Provides the basic understanding upon which to plan and
Not yet implement appropriate measures to enhance benefits from
formal law biotechnology while safeguarding against environmental and
human health risks
Guidelines and Procedure for 2006 Developed to operationalize the provisions of the Organic Law to
Environmental Impact Not yet a make EIA mandatory for all development projects
Assessment (EIA) formal law

ETOA UPDATE 2008 11

 Law No. 16/2006 3/2006 Established REMA and delineated its organization, operation and
responsibilities
National Policy of 2006 Recreated districts, sectors and cells to include environmental
Decentralization officers within the district organigram to help with planning and
coordination of environmental activities in the districts. First time in
Rwanda’s history to have explicit environmental officers at sub-
national levels.

Ministerial Directive of 2004 Bans the manufacture, importation, use and disposal of plastic
9/8/2004 Not yet a bags/containers
formal law
National Wildlife Policy 2007 Provides for mechanisms to protect wildlife, including regulatory
Not yet a instruments for hunting and collection of specimens. Wildlife
formal law outside protected areas is not explicitly provided for
Law N° 14/2003 5/2003 Stipulates quality control and commercialization of plant seeds
ICT Policy Statement and 6/2006 Encourage activities to enhance the civic sense of youth by
Action Plan 2006-2010 proposing activities for issues such as the environment,
democracy, civic behavior, child labor, etc
Forests and Forestry
Instruction N° 01/2003 2003 Ban of cutting trees before maturity. Requires the permit of the
Not yet a district mayor
formal law
Instruction N° 0001/2004 2004 Ban of fuel wood use in making brick and tiles
Not yet a
formal law
Instruction N° 001/2006 2006 Authorizations required for cutting and transporting trees at
Not yet a maturity
formal law
National Forestry Policy 2004 Established Provincial Forest Commission to promote and oversee
forestry activities that meet, on a sustainable basis, the
population’s needs for wood and other forest products and
services. The main targets are forest cover to comprise at least 30
percent of the national territory and to have at least 85 percent of
farmland under agro-forestry by 2020. To replace current Forest
Law, No. 47/88 of 1988
Water Resources and Wetlands
Sector-specific Environmental Expected Currently being developed to operationalize the provisions of the
Impact Assessment (EIA) August Organic Law for water resources and wetlands management;
Guidelines 2008 wastewater treatment; hydropower development; housing and
roads infrastructure
Wetlands Policy 2004 Shelved pending detailed inventory and categorization of wetlands
Not yet a for production and protection
formal law
National Policy on Water and 2004 Inventory and integrated management of water resources including
Sanitation watershed protection; expansion of water supply and sanitation
infrastructure to increase access to potable water; water for
livestock and agricultural production; water resources governance
including decentralization, community participation and
privatization; capacity building. Policy implementation has,
however, been hampered by lack of a strong legal framework and
weak institutional and human resource capacities.
Draft Fisheries Law 2008 2008 Three types of fishing governed by law: fishing as a sport or leisure
activity; commercial fishing, and scientific fishing, to study and
advance the knowledge of fish and aquaculture resources.

12 RWANDA 2008 ETOA

Regional and international framework. At the regional level, Rwanda is a member of the ten-
member Nile Basin Initiative (NBI) where, together with Burundi and DRC, it is valued as a key
upstream member. Indeed, Rwanda is host to one of the NBI programs, the Nile Equatorial
Lakes Subsidiary Action Program (NELSAP) and two of its transboundary projects – the Kagera
River Basin Transboundary Integrated Water Resources Development Project (TKTIWRDP) that
covers Rwanda, Burundi, Tanzania and Uganda; and the Rusumo Hydropower Project that is
implemented by the tripartite of Burundi, Rwanda, and Tanzania.

Since 2006, it is also a member of the East African Community (EAC) and signatory to its
protocols including the Lake Victoria Basin Commission (LVBC), which is promoting
coordinated development and management of transboundary ecosystems in the Lake Victoria
Basin.

Rwanda has signed and/or ratified and is signatory to a number of international conventions and
protocols and agreements on or related to environment. The status of implementation at the
national level is summarized in Table 1.

In June 2005, Rwanda and Ghana became the first two African countries to open up their
governance processes for independent and transparent assessment through the APRM (African
Peer Review Mechanism) process.1 The process is being conducted under the New Partnership
for Africa’s Development (NEPAD), for which there is a fully fledged and facilitated
Secretariat in the Office of the President. Rwanda is also actively involved in two pilot
environmental sector projects under NEPAD: setting up a national Convention Coordination
Centre in Rwanda, along with centers in Uganda, Mozambique, and Tanzania; and the
transboundary agro-ecosystem management program for the Akagera River Basin.
Environmental governance and sustainability is one of the priority programs of NEPAD.

Since 2003, Rwanda has been selected as a pilot country for various international
environmental programs. They include the UNDP-funded Poverty-Environment Mapping in
2003-2004, the UNDP/UNEP-supported Poverty Environment Initiative (2005-present), and the
UNEP-funded Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) Synergies Project. Under the
MEAs Synergies Project, Rwanda is piloting the Integrated Reporting System for the Rio
Convention on Biodiversity (CBD), United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC) and United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD). Rwanda is
also a pilot case for implementing the “one UN” concept.

1
Rwanda NEPAD. 2005. NEPAD Magazine, Issue No. 004, December 2005

ETOA UPDATE 2008 13

Table 2.3 Status of International Conventions, Treaties, and Protocols in Rwanda
Convention Date signed/ratified Implementation progress
UN Rio Convention on Biological Diversity 18th March 1995 2000. September 2007
(1995)
The Cartagena protocol on Biosafety to the Authorized to be Prepared a National Biosafety
Convention of Biodiversity signed in Nairobi ratified by Law N° framework and submitted it t GEF/
from May 15, to 26, 2000 and in New York 38/2003 of 29 UNEP in 2006.
from June 5, 2000 to June 4, 2001 December 2003
United Nations Framework Convention on 18th August 1998 Submitted initial communication in June
Climatic Change (1998) 2005; prepared a national plan of action
with projects worth about US $ 8.11
million. The GOR is also preparing
second communication report.
The Kyoto Protocol to the Framework Authorized to be Rwanda has prepared the initial National
Convention on Climate Change adopted at ratified by Law N° 36/ Communication report to the UNFFCCC
Kyoto on March 6, 1998 2003 of 29 December Secretariat in Bonn and elaborated a
2003 National Plan of Action for Climate
Change Adaptation, as part of its
obligations under the Convention.
However, lack of expertise and
appropriate institutional framework as
well as funding hinder activities for
climate change adaptation.

United Nations Convention on 22nd October 1998 First reported in 2000, and most recent
Desertification Control (1998) report submitted in December 2004. The
GOR has developed a National
Desertification Control Strategy and
action plan.
Vienna Convention for the Protection of the 6 December 2000 Have implemented the implementation
Ozone Layer and Montreal Protocol on plan since 2003. Established a focal
Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer point office in REMA.
(2001)
Stockholm Convention on Persistent June 2002 Developed a database on POPs.
Organic Pollutants/POPs (2002)
The Ramsar International Convention of Authorized to be Gazetted Rugezi wetland, as a
February 2, 1971 on Wetlands of ratified by Law N° RAMSAR site.
International importance, especially as 37/2003 of 29
waterfowl habitats was authorised to be December 2003
ratified by Law N° 37/2003 of 29 December
2003
The Bonn Convention On Conservation of 29th December 2003
Migratory Species of Wild Animals opened under Law N° 35/2003
for signature on June 23, 1979
The Montreal International Convention on Ratified by Rwanda on
Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, 29th December 2003
signed in London (1990), Copenhagen
(1992), Montreal (1997), Beijing (1999),
especially in its Article 2 of London
amendments, and Article 3 of Copenhagen
,Montreal and Beijing amendments
Convention on the Prior Informed Consent 11th September 1998
(PIC) Procedure for certain hazardous
chemicals and pesticides in international
trade (2003)
The Rotterdam International Convention on Approved by
the establishment of international procedures Presidential Order N°
agreed by states on commercial transactions 28/01 of 24th August

14 RWANDA 2008 ETOA

 Convention Date signed/ratified Implementation progress
of agricultural pesticides and other poisonous 2003 approving the
products, signed in Rotterdam on 11 membership of
September 1998 and in New York from 12 Rwanda
November 1998 to 10 September 1999
Recalling the Washington Agreement of Authorized for
March 3, 1973 on International Trade in ratification by
endangered species of Wild Flora and Fauna Presidential Order N°
211 of 25 June 1980
BASEL Convention on the Control of Approved by
Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Presidential Order N°
th
wastes and their disposal as adopted at 29/01 of 24 August
BASEL on 22 March 1989 2003
Source: Various publications from REMA; ETOA 2003

In the implementation of these conventions, agreements, and protocols, Rwanda is progressing,

albeit slowly. For example:

• A National Biosafety Framework (NBF) was developed in 2006, with GEF funding support
and through UNEP, but the framework not been implemented.

• Some training has been undertaken regarding the Vienna Convention on Ozone Depleting
Substances (ODS), an inventory was undertaken in 2007, and a demonstration centre was
established in Kigali city. Nonetheless, little has been done to raise awareness and to increase
access to information. Capacity building for monitoring of ODS, beyond developing a
database at REMA, has not been undertaken.

• Regarding the three Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEA) viz. CBD, UNCCD, and
UNFCCC, there is significant progress, especially in building synergies in the coordination
of conventions. Rwanda has a strategy and action plan for each of the three conventions: the
National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP), the National Desertification
Control Plan, and the National Action Plan for Climate Change Adaptation.

• Rwanda is among the pilot countries to develop an integrated reporting system for
Multilateral Environmental Agreements recently developed under the Rio Synergies Project.
But implementation of these agreements remains weak, due in part to the apparent disconnect
with overall national development processes; the poverty reduction strategy (now EDPRS)
and sector strategies; weak institutional linkages; and inadequate human resource capacities.

Institutions and civil society organizations supporting environmental management. The

establishment of the Rwanda Environment Management Authority as a regulatory authority is
the landmark event that has taken environmental governance in Rwanda to a much higher level.
Its creation raised the profile of environmental management in Rwanda from a small, under-
funded, and understaffed department in the Ministry of Lands, Environment, Forestry, Water
and Mines to a relatively well facilitated, politically visible, and robust institution. In 2004, the
Department of Environment in MINITERE had only three technical personnel, and the public

ETOA UPDATE 2008 15

sector reform of 2005-2006 further reduced staff to only one. REMA now has an established
staff of 15 professional personnel, and recruitment is ongoing.

A National Forestry Authority (NAFA) was established in 2007. NAFA is a semi-autonomous

institution responsible for policy, planning, and promotion of forest activities. However, the law
formally establishing the organization (provisions of the draft forest law) has only recently been
elaborated and is yet to be passed by parliament. Recruitment of staff is also yet to start and only
a director general is currently in place. Under the present forest sector strategic plan, the National
Forest Policy (2004) established Provincial Forest commissions to promote and oversee forestry
activities in provinces. It also created the RAFNET (Rwanda Agroforestry Network) as a forum
to promote dialogue among national and province-level stakeholders around forestry activities of
common interest.

The draft Forest Sector Strategic Plan also created a National Land and Forest Research Centre
(LFRC) to undertake forest research alongside the Rwanda Institute of Agronomic Sciences
(ISAR). The LFRC will specifically be responsible for inventories and statistics, research on
wood technology and utilization, forest economics and forest products marketing, and other
tasks. The main concern for both the LFRC and NAFA is the lack of trained human resources —
a situation that is further compounded by absence of a forestry training institute in country.

The position of environment in the overall national governance framework in Rwanda has
become more prominent with successive institutional reforms. But these frequent changes have
affected institutional growth as the portfolio moved from one institution to another. For
instance, in the ministerial review of March 28, 1997, the environment portfolio moved from
MINETO to MINAGRI (Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, Environment and Rural
Development); another reform two years later, on February 8,1999, moved it to MINITERE
(Ministry of Lands, Resettlement and Environment), where it has remained. The ministry later
changed to Ministry of Lands, Environment, Forestry, Water and Mines (MINITERE) and at
the end of 2007, it became the Ministry of Water, Energy, and Natural Resources
(MINERENA).

16 RWANDA 2008 ETOA

Table 2.4 Key Rwanda Institutions and Departments/Autonomous Agencies with Links to
Environment
Institution
Roles in/links with environment
Department/autonomous agencies
MINERENA Responsible for environmental policy formulation and monitoring, as well
(Ministry of Water Energy and Natural as the sectors of water, mining, forestry and lands. All functional units
Resources) are coordinated by the Directorate of Policy, Planning and Capacity
Building.
• National Land Centre (NLC) Provide technical and administrative support to the National Land
Commission, as well as, archiving information on land conflicts and
adjudication. Implements the National Land Policy, the Organic Laws on
land and environment, and their subsidiary legislations (e.g. the
Presidential Order No. 53/01 on the Registrar of Land Titles). Create
land governance structures at decentralized levels – from district, sector
and cell levels.
• NAFA (National Forestry Authority) Implements government forestry policy; promotes agroforestry; advises
government on policies, strategies and legislation related to forestry
management; advises on implementation of forestry related international
conventions; advises on protection of land, water and forest biodiversity;
advises on soil erosion and safeguarding forestry; assists districts to
prepare their forest management plans.
• Rwanda Geological and Mines Ensures environmentally sustainable mining by setting policy and
Authority (OGMR) standards for mining and provide technical guidance and oversight to
prospecting of minerals.
• REMA REMA as the overall agency responsible for overseeing the
implementation of the Organic Law on Environment and related policies
and laws. The REMA Director General is designated Coordinator of
environmental projects and Focal Point for the Rio Multilateral
Environmental Agreements (MEAs).
MINAGRI Sets national policies on agriculture, livestock & fisheries. Provides
(Ministry of Agriculture & Animal guidelines and standards for land use management including terracing.
Resources) Promotes marshlands reclamation for cereal growing and ensures safe
importation and use of chemical fertilizers.
• RADA (Rwanda Agricultural Took over responsibilities of the National Seed Certification Service and
Development Agency) the agricultural extension services with respect to crop production. It’s
responsible for land improvement activities and soil conservation
through the national terracing programs. Sets standards for terracing,
improvement & multiplication of seed, and delivery of extension
services.
• RARDA( Rwanda Animal Resources Responsible for livestock development and management of rangelands,
Development Agency) the ‘one cow per poor household’ program to increase availability of
animal manure for organic fertilizer of soil and for biogas production.
• RHoDA (Rwanda Horticultural Ensures safe use of agricultural chemicals and fertilizers as well as
Development Agency) safety of workers in flowers & other horticultural projects.
MININFRA Responsible for setting policies related to energy; urbanization and
(Ministry of Infrastructures) settlements; road and communication infrastructure; meteorology; and
urban water supply.
• Settlements & Urbanization Promotes grouped settlements and improving housing environment.
Support to the re-settlement of people displaced from within 50-metres
of the Lakes and River banks, and in the construction of protection
infrastructures on the banks of target rivers and streams.
• Energy Promotes alternative energy sources and popularizing energy efficient
technologies. Work with REMA on fuel wood saving stoves.
• Meteorological Services Climatic data collection and dissemination, and monitoring of weather
conditions (temperature, humidity, rainfall, etc).

ETOA UPDATE 2008 17

 Institution
Roles in/links with environment
Department/autonomous agencies
• Electrogaz Public Company which provides access to safe water and sanitation in
urban areas and electricity. Pumps and treats water from natural
sources while protecting watersheds for sustainable generation of hydro-
power and supply of water to urban authorities.
MINICOM Sets policy for trade, tourism and cooperatives and industries, including
(Ministry of Commerce, Trade, Industry, small scale artisans.
Tourism & Cooperatives)
• ORTPN (Rwanda Office of Tourism & Responsible for National Parks management and conservation;
National Parks) promotion of tourism and cultural heritage; development and
management of site and monuments; access to wildlife resources and
revenue sharing between communities, local authorities and central
treasury; monitoring illegal hunting/ poaching and protection of
endangered species; and spatial information on planning, monitoring
and management of ecosystems.
• RIEPA, (Rwanda Investment & Facilitates investments and ensures that investors are not constrained
Export Promotion Agency) by compliance procedures for environmental impact assessment, and
ensures standards as part of the investment support package.
• RBS (Rwanda Bureau of Standards) Assist REMA in regulating importation, manufacturing or dumping of
environmentally hazardous materials.
MoH Provides and improves health services through the provision of
(Ministry of Health) preventive, curative and rehabilitative care.
• Environmental Health & Hygiene Sanitation and hygiene.
Department
• Epidemiology Surveillance Unit Monitor Malaria parasites breeding areas and promote environmental
safety of Indoor Residual Spraying
MINALOC Promotes the well-being of the population by good governance,
(Ministry of Local Government, Good community development and social affairs.
Governance, Community Development &
Social Affairs)
• NDIS (National Decentralization Supports the decentralization of sectoral functions including
Implementation Secretariat) environmental management.
• CDF (Common Development Fund) Finance local government development projects as a basket fund
derived from national resources and donors. Its funding criteria have to
ensure that local development projects funded by the CDF take into
consideration environmental concerns.
• Ubudehe Participatory bottom-up planning undertaken by local communities.
MINEDUC Promotes the reduction of poverty by providing human resources useful
(Ministry of Education) for the socio-economic development of Rwanda through the education
system.
• Department of primary and Ensures environmental education in schools (by supporting
secondary education Environmental Clubs in schools) and initiates the process of
mainstreaming environment into school curricula
• National Curriculum Development Includes environmental education in schools.
Centre
MINECOFIN Promotes the increase in living standards and human development
(Ministry of Finance & Economic within a sustainable environment. Promotes mainstreaming of
Planning) environment into DDPs and budgets. The Directorate of Development
Planning has an Environment Focal Point who liaises with the
environment and natural resources ministry and REMA on
mainstreaming environment into macroeconomic, sectoral and
decentralized planning frameworks.
• National Institute of Statistics of Coordinates the Household Living Conditions Survey (EICV II),
Rwanda (NISR) Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) II), Food Security Survey, and
National Census Service (NCS).

18 RWANDA 2008 ETOA

Local NGOs have a long record of accomplishment in Rwanda’s environmental sector, and
considerable experience in mobilizing human and financial resources and operating directly in
the field without heavy administrative structures. The main NGOs concerned with environmental
protection in Rwanda are presented later in Table 5.2.

The activities of these NGOs vary from education, training, and promoting public awareness and
participation in sustainable natural resource management to environmental programs targeting
women, youth, farmers, herders, artisans, and other trades people. Most of these initiatives help
reinforce civil society’s role in environmental strategy, policy, and legislation.

The following table lists the key private organizations that have activities directly related to the
environment or complementary activities with a focus on environmental management.

Table 2.5 Key Private and Public Organizations with Links to Environment
Institution/ Agency Roles in/links with environment
Rwanda Private Sector Federation (RPSF) RPSF is an independent body that brings together all private
sector practitioners including industrialists; exporters & importers
and commission agents. RPSF mobilizes and coordinates the
private businesses, enterprises, focusing on improving enterprise
efficiency for the interest of the commercial, industrial,
agricultural, crafts, and service sectors.
National University of Rwanda Trains and builds capacity of scientists and researchers in the
natural sciences (agriculture, natural and applied sciences,
conservation and environmental protection). Established the
Environmental Research Coordination Unit to better coordinate
environmental research and provide a better framework for
multidisciplinary research. The GIS and Remote Sensing Center.
established with USAID/PEARL assistance, serves as a clearing
house for all Rwanda’s geographical databases, mapping and
remote sensing services of rural and urban areas to the private
and public sectors in addition to providing training for university
students and government departments.
Institute of Agronomic Sciences of Rwanda Promotes the scientific and technical development of agriculture
(ISAR) and livestock; carries out research and experimentation to
improve agriculture and livestock; publishes and diffuses
research results; manages research stations and centers of
experimentation throughout the country.
Institute of Scientific Research and Technology Undertakes scientific and technological research directly related
(IRST) to Rwanda’s socioeconomic development, with particular
emphasis on the use of technologies that help preserve the
environment. There are two research centers: The Energy
Center works on renewable energy technologies such as solar
energy and biogas, and on wastewater management. The
University Center on Pharmacy and Traditional Medicine
(CURPHAMETRA) is charged with exploiting the value of
Rwanda’s medicinal plants.
Kigali Institute of Science, Technology, and An environmental program in its science and technology
Management (KIST) department which trains in biogas development, renewable
energy, waste management, and increased environmental
awareness at all levels by publishing education, information, and
communications programs.

ETOA UPDATE 2008 19

2.4 Overview of Environmental Programs and Initiatives

Even with improvements and a stronger focus on environmental management in Rwanda, the
country still depends largely on internationally funded projects to implement activities and, with
their technical expertise, to lead in environmental and biodiversity protection. Despite the
formation of REMA and the reorganization of the ministries, Rwandan institutions are too weak
and understaffed to provide technical expertise that is needed to effectively manage the
environment. There are many positive efforts being made to define environmental management
(see Section 5), yet it will take time for the government to act on all of these, given other needs
resulting from the genocide.

Very few resources come from the GOR’s budget, compared with the efforts led by outside
organizations and institutions. The majority of programs and initiatives in forestry and
biodiversity protection are concentrated in the remaining tracks of land uninhabited by humans
and agricultural development — the National Parks and Forest Reserves. There are substantial
efforts being put into protected area management at the national parks (see Section 5), especially
for Volcanoes National Park, where species such as mountain gorillas draw in large revenues
from tourists visiting from around the world. Also, the newly gazetted Nyungwe National Park is
gaining momentum in project activities with international partners like the Wildlife Conservation
Society, Family Health International, and the National Cooperative Business
Association/CLUSA to involve local communities in protected area management, economic
development projects, and improved community health.

Public/private partnerships are being encouraged by the GOR in joint marketing, tourism
development, training, access to finance, and enhancing linkages with local communities (see
Section 5). Dubai World Rwanda is an example of an international private partnership with the
GOR in several developments around the country, from handing over Akagera National Park
management to high-end tourism lodges in Nyungwe National Park and Volcanoes National
Park.

Environmental protection initiatives beyond the protected areas boundaries have been less of a
focus for international donors and organizations, as well as for the GOR. While there are efforts
to protect watersheds and wetlands, there are few initiatives to protect one of Rwanda’s most
precious resources: water.

2.5 Key Changes since the 2003 Assessment

The main changes in the domain of environment or with implications to environmental

management in Rwanda since 2003 entail:

• The establishment of REMA in 2005 (legally in 2006) as the overall authority responsible
for environmental management. The subsequent adoption of the Environmental Impact

20 RWANDA 2008 ETOA

 Assessment as an environmental management tool has helped improve compliance with
environmental best practices, especially among private investors.

• Sectoral and services decentralization — the first phase of decentralization (2001-2003)

created elected government structures down to the cell level, where environmental
management was not important. The subsequent phase had deepened decentralized
governance by creating stronger and more viable administrative structures (down from 106 to
30 districts) and establishing specific units and staff responsible for environment. Awareness-
raising on environmental issues has also been stepped up in districts, with support from
REMA. In the context of decentralization, a program dubbed Vision 2020-Umurenge was
developed as one of the flagship programs of the EDPRS to localize the Millennium
Development Goals. The Vision 2020 – Umurenge program identified the poorest sector in
each of the 30 districts, and concentrated development activities and resources to create a
head start in poverty reduction and development. The program is coordinated in MINALOC.

• Land reform process — has created a national land center and land tribunals from the
provincial down to cell levels. The land reform process is creating a land registrar and
improving the legal framework for land acquisition, transfer, and use.

• National planning process — a strategic shift from a socially-oriented PRSP I (2002-2005)

to an economic-growth driven EDPRS (2007-2012) has changed the priorities towards more
in-depth use of natural resources — water, wetlands, wildlife protected areas, forests, mineral
deposits, etc. — which has implications for the environment. The government’s framework
for private-sector led economic growth has attracted large scale investors like Dubai World,
which has undertaken the management of Akagera National Park (and its game lodge) and
made several investments in Rwanda’s natural resources. Other important areas of the
EDPRS that have implications for environmental management are the intensification of high-
value crops (washed coffee) and annual crops. The EDPRS has made efforts to mainstream
environment compared to the PRSP 1, and consequently all key sectors have at least one
environmental key performance indicator.

Under the Agricultural Transformation Strategic Plan (PSTA), MINAGRI is implementing a

program dubbed “the green revolution” with emphasis on the development of the value
chains of selected agricultural crops (coffee, tea, and annual crops like wheat, cassava,
bananas, and potatoes). The main strategy is land consolidation. It has accordingly set targets
seen in Table 2.6. While this strategy is an opportunity for environmental improvement, it
could also create threats if implications for pollution (e.g. intensive use of fertilizers and
expansion of cultivated wetlands) are not properly addressed.

ETOA UPDATE 2008 21

Table 2.6 A Selection of the PSTA Targets to be Realized by 2010
Indicator 2006-07 2008 2010
Agricultural land protected ( percent) from erosion 40 100
Radical terraces (ha) 12,000
Hillside irrigation (ha) 130 1,840
Marshlands rehab./developed (ha) 11,000 16,400
Households receiving cows 3,500 11,000 95,000
Households using improved seed ( percent) 17
Fertilizer application (kg/ha) 4 13
Households per extension worker 3,000 2,100
Horticulture exports (tones) 2,000 20,000
Source: GOR, 2007b.

The PSTA emphasizes that crops should be prioritized through a process of consultation at the
provincial level, with potatoes, wheat, beans, milk, and meat being highly ranked for attention.
The key support that is to be provided by the agricultural research services in the development of
each of these value chains is emphasized repeatedly in the document.

• Rwanda’s admission into the East African Community, alongside Burundi in July 2006
(which was effected in November 2006) has generated a series of legal, policy, and
institutional reforms, to harmonize with EAC standards. This is an ongoing process, and
includes areas such as Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) and the management of
transboundary water resources. A Ministry for East African Affairs was created at the end of
2007.

• Increased support to environment from multilateral agencies. Since 2003, there has been
a remarkable increase in donor support for environment, mostly through REMA: UNDP,
UNEP, AfDB and GEF through UNDP and World Bank (see Table 5.1 in Section 5).
However, the resources provided are still too little, over too short timeframes. Moreover,
coordination and synergy among projects is weak, even though most of them are under
REMA and their coordinators participate in joint weekly management meetings.

22 RWANDA 2008 ETOA

SECTION 3
STATUS OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES IN RWANDA
This section examines the state of the natural environmental inventory in Rwanda, describes
protected areas, and discusses current uses and trends of environmental products and services.
The emphasis is on biodiversity and tropical forests, but other sectors of the environment such as
watersheds and wetland ecosystems, land use (primarily agricultural uses), and energy figure into
the discussion. Most of Sections 3.A and 3.B are taken from the 2003 ETOA to economize
information that has not changed substantially between the two periods.

3.1 Forest and Terrestrial Biodiversity

Rwanda’s 26,338 km² is covered predominantly by mixed cropland/natural vegetation (47

percent), followed by savannah (32 percent), forests (12 percent), and water and wetlands (8
percent). Deforestation and conversion of natural habitats to agricultural systems in the last three
decades has caused a loss of variability across all of its ecosystems. A little less than nine percent
of Rwanda’s total land area is protected. Almost all of Rwanda’s remaining forested lands of any
significance are found within the borders of its national parks and two forest reserves. A few
small gallery forests and remnant forests also exist. Figure 3.1 illustrates the extent and location
of the forest resource in Rwanda. And, not surprisingly, biodiversity is also greatest within the
protected areas. Table 3.1 provides an inventory of the protected area system in Rwanda.

Table 3.1 Rwanda’s Protected Area System

Manage- Latest
IUCN ment Date Area Manage- No. of
Name cate- Respon- Estab- (km²) Location ment Staff
gory¹ sibility lished Plan
Akagera National Park II Dubai 1934 1,085 1.45’00 S 2006 78
World² 30.38’00 E
Nyungwe National Park II ORTPN 2005 1,013 2.30’00 S 2005 108
29.14’00 E
Volcano National Park II ORTPN 1929 140 1.28’41 S 2004 103
29.30’00 E
Gishwati Forest Reserve IV For Dept 1933 61 1.47’00 S - -
29.23’00 E
Mukura Forest Reserve IV For Dept 1933 20 1.59’00 S - -
29.31’00 E
¹ IUCN defines protected areas based on management objectives. The two categories into which Rwanda’s pro-tected areas fall
are:
• Category II: National Park: protected area managed mainly for ecosystem protection and recreation. Definition: Natural area
of land and/or sea, designated to (a) protect the ecological integrity of one or more ecosystems for present and future
generations, (b) exclude exploitation or occupation inimical to the purposes of designation of the area and (c) provide a
foundation for spiritual, scientific, educational, recreational and visitor opportunities, all of which must be environmentally and
culturally compatible.
• Category IV: Habitat/Species Management Area: protected area managed mainly for conservation through management
intervention. Definition: Area of land and/or sea subject to active intervention for management purposes so as to ensure the
maintenance of habitats and/or to meet the requirements of specific species.
• ² The GOR, through ORPTN, signed a 49-year lease agreement with Dubai World Rwanda in 2008 to conduct the
management of ANP as well as the operation of the tourism facilities within the Park boundary.

ETOA UPDATE 2008 23

Figure 3.1 Forest Cover in Rwanda, 2005

24 RWANDA 2008 ETOA

Rwanda’s afromontagne forests used to run the length of the Nile-Congo crest, but population
pressure has now limited them to the forest reserves of Gishwati and Mukura, Nyungwe National
Park (NNP) and Volcano National Park (Parc Nationale des Volcans - PNV). Both national
parks are classified by the International Union for Conservation and Nature (IUCN) as a
Category II: National Park — a protected area managed mainly for ecosystem protection and
recreation. The area estimates of the protected areas listed in Table 3.1 are the best available at
the time this assessment was drafted. Definitive boundaries for all protected areas are still being
defined and contested. PNVs last survey was 14 years ago. These will become more accurate as
conflicts are resolved and the current management plans are rigorously used. Map I-1 in Annex I
illustrates each of these protected areas in relation to one another.

Nyungwe National Park. Nyungwe National Park

(NNP) was newly created in 2005, primarily to
protect a natural resource that is widely recognized
as being of global as well as national significance.
When it was originally designated a forest reserve
in 1933, its total area was 1,141 km²; encroachment
by local farmers between 1958 and 1979 reduced
the reserve area to 971 km². Today, partially
buffered by forest plantations and tea estates around
some of its borders, and with the addition of the
remnant forest of Cyamudongo, it covers slightly
more than 1,000 km². The forests at Nyungwe are
interrupted by two large permanent swamps,
Kamiranzovu and Uwasenkoko. Kamiranzovu
(“swallows elephants”), which covers
approximately 13 km², is one of the largest peat
bogs in Africa. With the destruction of Gishwati
and Mukura forest reserves (see below), NNP is one
of only two remaining afromontagne components of Tree ferns in Nyungwe National Park
Rwanda’s protected area system. Several maps of
Nyungwe National Park, including management zones, species richness, and human-induced
degradation, are located in Annex I.

NNP is important for conservation of several restricted-range species that are found only in the
Albertine Rift eco-region in Africa. It is home to 26 Albertine Rift endemic birds, more than any
other protected area in the region; only the unprotected Itombwe Mountains contain more
endemic species. NNP also contains 13 species of primate, including the owl-faced monkey
(Cercopitecus hamlynii) and l’Hoest’s monkey (C. lhoesti) — both restricted-range species. The
black and white colobus (Colobus angolensis) groups in Nyungwe are unusually large, ranging
up to 450 individuals — larger than any other groups recorded for this species. Eastern
chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii), an endangered species, live in Nyungwe, and
IUCN classifies the owl-faced monkeys as vulnerable.

ETOA UPDATE 2008 25

In 2006, an outlying remnant of the Nyungwe forest at Cyamudongo was added to the park. This
relic is only about 4 km² but is relatively intact. It is home to an important group of about 25
chimpanzees as well as other small mammals. (Nyungwe National Park, together with Kibira NP
in Burundi, which shares a common boundary, has an estimated total chimp population of 200.)
In addition to the primate species, Cyamudongo has biodiversity significance as a birding site.
Birdlife International’s online World Bird Database (2008) notes that:

Cyamudongo forest holds many species typical of the Albertine Rift forests, including Apalis
argentea. Musophaga rossae, which is not found in Nyungwe, is common in Cyamudongo, while
the only Rwandan record of Accipiter erythropus is from here. In addition, four species of the
Guinea-Congo Forests biome (A05) have also been recorded.

USAID, working in collaboration with ORTPN and private investors, is financing a business
plan and tented camp designs for a community-owned lodge to be developed at Cyamudongo.
This facility would be aimed at small groups of tourists that would be fitting for this more remote
site that demands a minimal impact.

Within its altitudinal range of 1,600 to 2,900 meters, NNP is home to 1,068 recorded plant
species, of which about 250 are endemic to the Albertine Rift. There are more than 200 different
tree species. Among fauna, 85 mammal, 278 bird, 32 amphibian, and 38 reptile species have
been recorded there; of these, 62 species are endemic to the rift. A comparison with the Albertine
Rift shows that for all taxa, NNP ranks consistently high. It has more endemic species than any
other rift forest that has been surveyed (about 60 percent). Thus, Nyungwe is considered a
critical area for conservation of restricted-range species not only by the GOR but also by the
international conservation community.

NNP’s socioeconomic importance is as significant as its biological importance. Nyungwe is the

watershed for over 70 percent of Rwanda; its streams feed both the Congo and the Nile basins. It
thus protects a major watershed for surrounding communities as well as communities much
further downstream. Population densities around Nyungwe are among the highest in Africa (250-
500/ km²), but the forest’s tempering effect results in longer periods of rain each year, supporting
a relatively high degree of agricultural production.

The buffer zone around the forest has been planted with a variety of species (Pinus patula,
Cupressus lusitanica, and Acacia melanoxylon) and is a source of building poles and firewood
for local populations. (At the moment, this is done illegally because there is no management plan
for these plantations to enable harvests by local communities.) Local herbalists harvest medicinal
plants in the forest and an ORTPN program allows herbalists to harvest wildings from the forest
to plant on their own land. Beekeeping associations place hives at the edge of the forest because
the honey produced there is of superior quality. Tourism in Nyungwe generates a growing
amount of direct revenue (see Section 3.5) for the national park system, but probably has a
greater importance to the industry as part of a larger tourism circuit. Private sector investments
begun in mid-2008 in a site-friendly tourist lodge at the western entrance to the park will help
reinforce NNP as a key component in that circuit.

26 RWANDA 2008 ETOA

Mukura Forest Reserve. Staying on the western side of the country but moving to the north, the
next significant block of afromontagne forest is the Mukura Forest Reserve. Founded in 1933
with a total area of 2,000 ha, Mukura Forest Reserve was at one time linked to Gishwati along
the Nile-Congo crest. Subject to intense human pressure over the years in the form of agriculture
encroachment, illegal cutting, grazing (1,000 milk producers are in the forest), and more recently
returnee resettlement, Mukura has been reduced to a series of small, disjointed primary forest
relics in remote valleys and on steep slopes that are difficult to access. Although the ETOA team
did not visit Mukura, interviews suggest that the total area left is very small and that many of
Mukura’s previously important plant and animal species, particularly birds, have disappeared.

Like other afromontagne forests of the Nile-Congo crest, Mukura played an important watershed
role for Rwanda and was the source of a number of permanent springs and streams. With the
disappearance of the forest, many of these springs have apparently become seasonal. Mukura
forests also acted as a sponge, absorbing excess water and preventing runoff and erosion, thus
stabilizing agriculture in surrounding areas. Local residents report that this benefit has all but
disappeared; according to GOR and NGO authorities, the residents have formed an association in
an attempt to help reconstitute the forest.

Gishwati Forest Reserve. Still further north along the divide is the Gishwati Forest Reserve.
Founded in 1933, Gishwati Forest Reserve originally had an area of about 28,000 ha in
Ruhengeri/Gisenyi provinces, running for about 25 miles along the Nile-Congo crest at between
2,000 m and 3,000 m altitude. Plant and animal species distribution in Gishwati was similar to
that of Nyungwe. Like Mukura, Gishwati has neither a management plan nor permanent staff
assigned to its protection and management.

In the 1980s actual forest areas was reduced to about 4,500 ha when a World Bank-funded
project cleared the forest and replaced it with pasture to accommodate more than 26,000 cattle.
The rationale at the time was that it was better to have a designated pasture area and a smaller
protected reserve than to have cattle graze indiscriminately in the forest.

Current estimates of the remaining natural forest area in Gishwati are between 20 and 700 ha,
found mostly on inaccessible sites. In a 2006 survey (Munanura et.al.) it was noted that in some
instances the remaining 6 km² of buffer zone plantations are included in estimates of the forest
reserve’s total area. The short-term consequences of removal of the forest are readily visible in
the erosion on the Gisenyi-Ruhengeri road. Without the forest to slow run-off, areas of the road
require almost continuous maintenance in the rainy season to clear mud and silt, and stabilize the
roadbed. The resources lost in Gishwati are also addressed in another discussion at the end of
this section.

GOR policies over the last decade have also served to transform parts of the Gishwati and
Mukura Forest Reserves and a significant portion of Akagera National Park (see below), into
resettlement areas. Although this has eroded important components of its natural resource, the
policy actions have addressed a major national point of conflict: how to settle returnee families

ETOA UPDATE 2008 27

that had been in exile for decades, and found their ancestral lands occupied on their return in
1994. Under the 1993 Arusha Accords, returnees no longer had the prerogative to lay claim to
land upon which they once had traditional tenure rights, yet these families were facing
destitution. Use of national parks and forest reserve land was seen as a necessary compromise,
despite the negative short- and long-term ecological and economic consequences.

Volcano National Park. The final significant portion of the afromontagne forest in Rwanda is
that found in Volcano National Park (or Parc National de Volcan) along the northern border with
the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). This area is also a part of the critical Albertine
Rift Ecosystem that is shared by Rwanda, the DRC, and Uganda.

Volcano National Park (PNV) has probably the longest conservation history in Africa. Its major
objective was saving the last representatives of a species becoming extinct, the mountain gorilla
(Gorilla gorilla beringei). In 1902, Captain Oscar von Beringei was the first European to observe
the mountain gorilla. He and a fellow explorer spotted a group of black apes while climbing
Mount Sabinyo of the Virunga Mountains. They shot two of the animals and sent them to the
great German anatomist, Matschu, who said they were a separate subspecies. This started a flurry
of international scientific interest that brought the death of 54 more Virunga gorillas between
1902 and 1929.

Carl Ackey, after shooting five mountain gorillas in 1929 for the American Museum of Natural
History, was so impressed with the subspecies and its habitat that he urged the Belgian
Government, headed by King Albert, to make the Virunga Mountains a national park. That same
year, Albert National Park was established as one of the first national parks in Africa, with the
Volcano National Park as the Rwandan component.

Currently, mountain gorillas are found in four national parks in two forested blocks. Together
they cover about 590 km² of afromontagne and medium-altitude forest typified by high species
diversity and endemism. One of the forest blocks is the Bwindi Impenetrable National Park in
Uganda, which has 310 gorillas. The other is composed of three national parks: Mgahinga
Gorilla National Park in Uganda, Virunga National Park in the DRC, and PNV in Rwanda.
Together, these parks account for at least 358 gorillas, with half residing in Rwanda. Seven
groups, ranging in size from 7 to 33 individuals, are tracked for conservation and ecotourism
efforts.

Situated in the Northern and Western provinces, the PNV lies in the Virunga Mountains, a chain
of eight dormant volcanoes, five of which are in Rwanda: Karisimbi (4,507 m), Muhabura (4,126
m), Bisoke (3,711 m), Sabyinyo (3,634 m), and Gahinga (3,474 m). The current area of the park
is about 15,000 ha, down from 19,000 ha (4,000 ha were given up for pyrethrum culture after
Rwanda’s independence).

The vegetation, which varies with altitude, is classified into four main ecotypes, with only those
at higher elevations remaining fairly intact.

28 RWANDA 2008 ETOA

1. The afromontagne forest zone at the foot of the volcanoes (2,000-2,900m) in general has
been severely degraded into secondary forest as a result of human activity, mainly agriculture
and deforestation. Only the higher parts remain more or less intact, most notably the bamboo
forest (Arundinaria albina) situated between 2,600 and 2,900 m on Sabyinyo.
2. The Hageni-hypericum zone (2,900-3,200 m) is characterized by two species, Hagenia
abyssinica and Hypericum revolutum. The lack of spermatophytes is made up for in part by a
notable presence of cryptogames (most notably Usnea spp.) and bryophytes.
3. Vegetation of the alpine belt (3,200-3,500 m) reflects diurnal temperature extremes. It is
composed mainly of Lobelia wollastoni and Lobelia stulhmani, with grasses (Alchemilla
johnstoni), bryophytes, and lichens dominating the herbaceous strata.
4. The desert alpine zone (above 3,500 m) is composed solely of lichens and mosses.

In addition to the gorillas, the Volcano National Park afromontagne forests contain elephants,
buffalo, several primates, and other mammals. CITES considers Rana anolensis, Chameleo rudi,
and Leptosiaphos graueri endangered.

Overall, the flora and fauna inventory of the park includes:

• 245 plant species, 17 of which are threatened; and of these, 13 species of orchids are
internationally protected
• 115 mammal species
• 187 bird species
• 27 species of reptiles and amphibians
• 33 arthropod species

Given the focus on mountain gorillas, many of the other species in the park, both plant and
animal, have gone more or less unnoticed. Since the 2003 ETOA, the International Gorilla
Conservation Program (IGCP), working with ORTPN, has habituated two groups of golden
monkeys (Cercopitecus mitis kandtii) that are now visited by tourists. Data collection and
monitoring continue. PNV has achieved additional prominence (also as a result of IGCP efforts)
as a part of the tripartite transboundary 10-year management plan with the Democratic Republic
of the Congo and Uganda, and is working to protect the rich diversity and physical beauty of the
Virunga massif.

Finally, as in the case of Nyungwe, Volcano National Park is crucial in capturing and retaining
rainfall in Rwanda. While the park only covers 0.5 percent of total area, it represents 10 percent
of watershed protection. The volcanic soils in and surrounding the park are some of the richest
and most productive in Rwanda. Given the high rainfall, Volcano National Park forests act as a
sponge, absorbing excess water and preventing runoff and erosion, helping to stabilize nearby
agricultural efforts. Numerous maps of PNV that cover park administration, visitation, ranges of
gorilla groups, et cetera are in Annex I.

ETOA UPDATE 2008 29

Gallery forests. Gallery forests — strips of forest along watercourses or extending from
wetlands — have been significantly reduced in Rwanda due to clearing for agriculture, bush
fires, and cutting for fire and construction wood. They are now found only in the east along the
Akagera river system (including areas within Akagera National Park). Their area is less than 200
ha.

From a biodiversity point of view, the most important gallery forest is Ibanda-Makera in the
southeastern part of the country. It contains a number of rare endemic plant species, including
Blighia unijugata, Grewia forbesi, Rhus vulgaris, and Ficus spp. Many of these species are used
in traditional medicine, and there is interest in researching their qualities for biochemical extracts
and modern medicine. Commercial exploitation of these species may have negative
consequences on Rwanda’s remaining gallery forests if no safeguards are put in place.

Savanna and savanna woodlands. Savanna vegetation at one time extended through almost
half of what is now the Eastern Province as well as the eastern-most parts of the Southern
Province. Rwanda has three types of savanna:
• Grass savanna with:
— Hyparrhenia collina (on quartz soils) and Loudetia arundinacea on the tops of the hills
— Hyparrhenia lecomtei on the slopes
— Themeda trianda in valleys with sandy clay soil
— Themeda trianda and Botrio insculpa on vertisols

• Wooded savanna with mostly spiny shrubs, such as Acacia hebecladoides and Nefasia spp.,
on alluvial soils and around lakes

• Gallery forests with mostly Carissa edulis, Jasminum mauritianus, Lannea humilis, L.
schimperi, L.stulhmanni, and L. fulva, on rocky soils

Akagera National Park. Because the savanna region is so rich in flora and fauna, in 1934 the
Akagera National Park (ANP) (267,000ha) was established, and the Mutara Hunting Reserve
(64,000ha) was added in 1957.
Today, because of human
pressure, over-grazing, and the
need to resettle returnees, the
Mutara Hunting Reserve has
been completely converted to
agriculture and grazing, as has
two-thirds of ANP. The only
remnants of the natural savanna
outside the ANP are in the state
controlled grazing areas of
Rilima (430ha) and Karama
(300ha) and in the Gako military
Savanna wildlife in Akagera National Park

30 RWANDA 2008 ETOA

area. Maps of the Park can be found in Annex I. In the 1960s, Akagera National Park formed
part of the Akagera-Lake Mburo ecosystem that included Uganda’s Kikagati Game Reserve,
Lake Mburo National Park, and the rangeland areas north to the Katonga River. To the east, the
system extended across the Akagera River into Tanzania’s Ibanda and Rumanyika game
reserves. Today, this ecosystem is entirely fragmented and wildlife is found only in small,
disturbed enclaves, and the reserves on the Tanzania side of the border exist in name only.

This part of eastern Africa has been greatly affected by civil war and upheavals in Rwanda over
the past 40 years, particularly during the early 1990s. Under the 1993 Arusha Accord, it was
resolved that returning Rwandan refugees would be settled into open areas of Rwanda; the areas
deemed most suitable were the ANP and the Mutara Hunting Reserve. After the genocide of
1994, resettlement became increasingly urgent. In 1997, the Mutara Reserve was degazetted, the
ANP area was reduced by two-thirds, and today officially covers 1,085 km².

Vegetation in the ANP previously comprised seven distinct biomes:

1. Gallery forests along the Akagera River in the north

2. Subhumid savanna in the west
3. Floodplains in the central valley
4. Lakeside woodland in the south
5. Subarid regions with dry forests
6. High plateaus
7. Swamp and lake system of the Akagera basin

The fauna is essentially east African, including species of roan antelope (Hippotragus equines
langheld), baboon, eland, hippopotamus, impala, oribi, sititunga, topi, warthog, waterbuck, and
zebra. Black rhinoceros, introduced in 1956, were thought to be extinct, but tracks and spoor
have been sighted. Elephants were reintroduced in 1975 and giraffes in 1985. The giraffes have
thrived, but the elephants are all but gone. Large carnivores include leopards and, until recently,
a small lion population. In 1990, the fauna comprised 5 primate, 18 carnivore, and 17 ungulate
species. The lake and wetland system of ANP is home to about 525 different bird species,
including the rare shoebill stork (Balaeniceps rex).

German Technical Cooperation (GTZ) estimates that the reduction in ANP area and the loss of
the Mutara Reserve have resulted in a severe loss of biodiversity through the exclusion of three
principal biomes: the subhumid savanna in the west; the floodplains of the central valley; and the
Acacia kirkii gallery forest in the north. It is estimated that the total loss resulting from exclusion
of these ecosystems will be 15 percent of the former tree and shrub species and 20 percent of the
herbaceous species. The loss of these habitats will lead to a decline in all wild fauna species in
the area. The species most severely affected are:

• The topi, which breeds in the floodplains

• All ungulates in general, because the floodplains are one of their main feeding grounds
during seasonal movements

ETOA UPDATE 2008 31

• The silver monkey, whose major habitat is the A. kirkii forest
• All small fauna with species-specific relationships with plant species in the abandoned
ecosystems

As recently as 2006 it was also quite common to see cows grazing in the park from the
neighboring resettlement areas. Today, under a practical management plan (ORTPN, 2006),
increases in patrolling staff, re-establishing boundary markers, and greater awareness on the part
of neighboring communities that stiff fines are issued for grazing violations inside the park have
all but eliminated the problem.

Dubai World Rwanda, a South African company, signed a 49-year lease in June 2008 with the
GOR through ORTPN, assuming the daily management and operation of the entire park (GOR,
2008a; Hofmeyr, 2008). The hotel and other tourism infrastructure inside the park boundary are
also included in the lease agreement.

3.2 Watersheds and Wetland Ecosystems

Rwanda’s hydrology is characterized by a dense network of lakes, rivers, and wetlands. Water
is, without a doubt, Rwanda’s most valuable natural resource. Approximately 210,000 ha, eight
percent of the entire country, are under water; lakes occupy about 128,000 ha, rivers about 7,260
ha, and water in wetlands and valleys about 77,000 ha. The country is divided into two major
drainage basins, the Nile to the east and the Congo to the west. The Congo basin covers 33
percent of Rwanda and handles 10 percent of all national waters. The Nile basin covers 67
percent and delivers 90 percent of the national waters. The forested area of Nyungwe National
Park is Rwanda’s major watershed for both the Nile and the Congo basins. The waters of the
Nile basin flow out through the Akagera river system, which contributes 8 to 10 percent to the
Nile drainage system. Figure 3.2
illustrates the river and lake
systems of the country.

The network includes numerous

lakes (the major ones are Kivu,
Bulera, Ruhondo, Muhazi,
Cyohoha, Rweru, Sake,
Gaharwa, Kilimbi, Mirayi,
Rumira, Kidogo, Mugesera,
Nasho, Mpanga, Ihema,
Mihindi, Rwampanga, and
Bisoke) and rivers (the major
ones are the Akagera,
Nyabarongo, Akanyaru, Ruhwa,
Rusizi, Mukunga, Kagitumba,
and Muvumba). This network
Lake Ihema in Akagera National Park
and its associated wetlands

32 RWANDA 2008 ETOA

contain a wide variety of plant, animal, and aquatic species. A map of Rwanda’s wetlands is
presented in Figure 3.3.

In Rwanda the term “wetlands” has been restricted to the large permanent swamps; the seasonal
grass swamps have been generally classified as marshlands, which is equivalent to the French
term marais. These are discussed separately below.

Rwanda’s wetlands are extremely important. They act as a buffer in flood or overflow plains,
reducing maximal flow rates during the rainy season and maintaining relatively high flow rates
during the dry season. The wetlands and marshlands, which occupy about 10 percent of the
country, are comprised of three large swamps and small wetlands scattered among the country’s
many hills. The main swamps are Akanyaru (12,546 ha) on the border with Burundi, Kagera
along the Tanzania border to the east (12,227 ha), and the Nyabarongo (24,698 ha) and Rugezi
wetlands (6294 ha) to the north (Odada, 2004).

The marshland systems are the most physically and chemically heterogeneous of all the aquatic
ecosystems in Rwanda. They act as sinks for silt particles and soluble inorganic nutrients and are
sources of dissolved and particulate organic matter. They are seasonal wetlands, with the water
table near or above the lowest ground surface during the wet season. They do not have large
flood plains (generally less than 200m wide) or great length.

From a hydrological point of view, marshlands are complex, with runoff and river valleys
downstream replacing seepage in the upland areas. Because they are environmentally fragile, it is
critical that their ecological integrity be safeguarded — a difficult task when Rwanda’s growing
population wants to convert them to agriculture. The total area of marshlands in Rwanda is
estimated to be 168,000 ha, 94,000 ha of which have already been developed officially, mostly
for agriculture and pasturage. This estimate is probably much higher, given that most of the areas
are not under public management and therefore are not captured in official statistics.

The main user of water in Rwanda is the agricultural sector (94 percent) followed by the
domestic users (just under 5 percent), and industry consuming the balance. The total estimated
withdrawal rate is 0.8 cu. km/year (equivalent to 141 m³/person/year), which is approximately 22
percent of the total allowable withdrawal (IISD, 2005). This suggests that there is presently little
pressure on the water systems to meet demands.

3.3 Agriculture and Farming Systems

As reported in the 2003 ETOA and above in Section 2.B, agriculture is the mainstay of
Rwanda’s economy. The main food crops are bananas, beans, sorghum, sweet potatoes, Irish
potatoes, cassava, maize, and rice. Vegetable crops are mainly tomatoes, cabbages, and peas.
Crop yields are generally low, but the agro-diversity present in Rwanda is greater than in many
other parts of Africa.

ETOA UPDATE 2008 33

Animal husbandry, especially cattle raising, is an important component of the farming systems in
the country. The main areas are the eastern province (especially old provinces of Umutara and
Kibungo), rural Kigali, and southern province, ex-Gitarama. The use of animal manure from
cattle and other livestock figures prominently into the farming systems and are important for
fallow (when there is that opportunity) and for returning nutrients to soils that become exhausted
due to the cultivation intensity.

For the most part, agriculture lands do have a fairly continuous cover, and crop rotation is widely
practiced. Without it, the soils would produce even less, and the steep slopes would erode more
quickly and more severely than they do today. The use of chemical fertilizers is relatively rare in
Rwanda, with its rich history of agroforestry as a mainstay of most of its farming systems (and
an important source of fuel wood). Over-cultivation, rather than erosion, appears to be a main
factor in declining soil fertility (IISD, 2005) and agricultural productivity. Rwanda has recently
embarked on a nationwide program to improve and retain its agricultural soils through an active
terracing campaign. Section 4.2 provides some discussion about the techniques used.

Commercial crops such as coffee, tea, pyrethrum, and cut flowers also provide important cover
and protection functions. The hazards of growing these crops on a commercial scale are
discussed in a Section 4, along with other threats to Rwanda’s environmental resources.

3.4 Energy Resources

Rwanda’s energy resources consist primarily of

wood fuels, geothermal sources, and methane.
Research on geothermal options began in
Rwanda in 1969 and there is strong evidence
that there are geothermal fields that could be
developed as power sources. Especially
promising is the Albertine Rift region, where
nine thermal sources have been identified, with
a total estimated energy potential of 50–170 mw
(Tuttle et. al. 1990).

Fuel wood collection along Akagera National Park

34 RWANDA 2008 ETOA

Figure 3.2 River and Lake Systems in Rwanda

ETOA UPDATE 2008 35

Figure 3.3 Wetlands in Rwanda

36 RWANDA 2008 ETOA

Wood fuels. Rwandans depend heavily on wood fuel, which currently meets 90 percent of their
energy needs. Rwandans used 3,510 million kg of wood fuel in 1992 (the last year for which
figures are available). Most of this wood is consumed by homes, though large quantities are also
consumed by a variety of commercial users, such as tea factories. Usage is not confined to the
dispersed rural population: wood fuel also makes up the bulk of energy used in urban centers like
Kigali. Biomass fuels are supplied by a commercial network. Though wood is not generally
considered a commercial energy source, the supply of wood throughout Rwanda is monetized.

Supply sources are fragmented. Large consumers like prisons, brick burners, or tea factories
contract directly with one supplier or send their own employees out to gather wood. Very large
consumers, such as the SORWATHE tea factory, actively plant trees (mainly eucalyptus) and
harvest trees for fuel from their own renewable harvesting areas. Smaller users like residences,
bakeries, and workshops generally purchase wood on the street, at a higher cost.

A World Bank study concluded that the major use of wood fuel was wholesale to the residential
sector. Nationwide the use of biomass as a fuel in commercial establishments like bakeries,
brick-making, or in government buildings tends to be minimal.

Earlier in the decade, the state owned an estimated 44,000 ha of forest plantations, and districts
owned another 23,000 ha. The primary species are Eucalyptus spp., sold for wood fuel and
construction. Most of the plantations were planted with umuganda labor, although some were
planted with Food for Work and other forms of payment. Proceeds from sale of products from
state plantations go into the National Forestry Fund, to be used for additional plantings and to
cover administrative costs. Proceeds from district plantations go into district forestry funds,
where, more often than not they are used to cover general district administrative costs (salaries),
with little left over for additional plantings.

Methane. Lake Kivu in western Rwanda is home to substantial natural gas reserves. It holds
about 250 billion m³ of carbon dioxide, 55 billion m³ of methane, and 5 billion m³ of nitrogen, as
well as numerous other trace gases. Of these gases, methane is the most important because of its
commercial potential. Box 3.2 provides some details about what is being done today.
As reported in the 2003 ETOA, methane is generated in the depths of the lake by two
bacteriological processes. The bathymetric study of Lake Kivu carried out by Lahmeyer
International in 1998 concluded that the maximum annual extraction per module would be 50
million m³ (STP), given extraction hydraulics limitations. The study also concluded that up to 20
modules could be operated, with total annual production of 1 billion m³ (STP).

This estimate is based on maximum production. If the Lake Kivu gas reserves are to be extracted
in a sustainable manner, a study by Klaus Tietze (2000) indicates that the yearly maximum
extraction would be 150 million m3 (STP), because that is the amount the lake creates every year;
extraction at or below the replenishment rate is sustainable. Tietze also concluded that no more
than 25 million m3 (STP) of gas should be extracted from each location; higher production would
require the GOR to set up a system to monitor lake dynamics. Such a system would also help to

ETOA UPDATE 2008 37

determine the precise amount of Box 3.1 Tapping the Methane in Lake Kivu
gas that could be safely
With Lake Kivu's rolling green swells and serene coastline, it's hard
extracted from any particular to imagine why this is called one of Africa's "killer lakes." Fishermen
region of the lake. have known for more than a century about the mysterious gas that
occasionally bubbles up, killing fish and sometimes swimmers.
Lake Kivu gas production was The source, scientists say, is a massive pool of methane and carbon
dioxide that lies at the bottom of the deep-water lake on the border
first investigated by the Belgian between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Gas levels
Chemical Union (UCB), which have been steadily rising, and experts say the gases might one day
built a pilot plant at Keshero explode or burst to the surface, releasing a deadly cloud similar to
one that killed more than 1,700 people at Cameroon's methane-rich
west of Goma in the Congo in Lake Nyos in 1986.
1954. UCB later built a pilot Hoping to avert a catastrophe on the shores of a lake where 2 million
plant at Cap Rubona near the people live and to solve its energy woes at the same time, the
Rwanda town of Gisenyi in Rwandan government is embarking on a risky project to extract the
methane and use it to generate electricity.
1963. This plant, originally built
Methane-power generation plants exist elsewhere, but the effort here
to operate for only 10 years, is is the first attempt to extract the gas from underwater and burn it to
still in operation today with all fuel an electricity plant.
gas produced being sold to the The government launched a $15-million pilot project in May 2008
Bralirwa brewery, which uses that will try to power a four-megawatt generator with methane from
the lake. A floating platform, installed this year, dropped a pipe more
the gas to fire its boilers. It has a than three football fields deep to reach the methane-rich water.
production capacity of between An American energy investment firm, New York-based Contour
1.0 and 1.5 million m³/year, Global, is close to signing a deal to build the permanent electricity
though the plant is often offline plant on Lake Kivu's shore, which would eventually produce 100
megawatts of sorely needed power for Rwanda, nearly twice the
due to maintenance problems. country's daily production, government officials said.

3.5 Economic Value and Source: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-

Importance lake23-2008may23,0,5609738.story

There is no question today that Rwanda’s natural heritage — its forests, savannas, water and
biodiversity — have significant value. The global community, the region, and Rwandans
themselves are increasingly aware of their importance and value. Rwanda’s Economic
Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy (EDPRS) highlights the environment and land
priorities as major cross-cutting issues. It states:
Environmental and land priorities involve ecosystems, the rehabilitation of degraded
areas and strengthening newly established central and decentralised institutions.
Special attention will be paid to sustainable land tenure security through the planning
and management of land registration and rational land use, soil and water
conservation, reforestation, preservation of biological diversity and adaptation and
mitigation against impacts of climate change.

The EDPRS recognizes that tourism and ecotourism constitute significant components of the
national economy. The tourism industry is growing (see Table 3.2 below) and it is heavily
dependent on the country’s rich biodiversity. The sustainability of tourism, and its growth,
depends on maintaining biodiversity and conservation of the environment. The EDPRS targets

38 RWANDA 2008 ETOA

for tourism infrastructure and investments are closely linked to the continued growth of the
tourism sector.

Table 3.2 Number of Visitors in the Rwanda’s National Parks, 2004-2007

Visitor Category 2004 2005 2006 2007
Volcanoes NP
Rwanda Resident 561 577 776 735
Foreign resident 562 693 512 510
Foreign visitors 7,417 9,225 12,720 16,764
Sub-total 8,540 10,495 14,008 18,760
Akagera NP
Rwanda Resident 11,866 7,196 8,018 9,400
Foreign resident 2,185 1,258 1,737 2,066
Foreign visitors 2,425 2,785 3,965 4,978
Sub-total 16,476 11,239 13,720 16,323
Nyungwe NP
Rwanda Resident 172 250 392 252
Foreign resident 469 419 492 453
Foreign visitors 1,339 1,717 2,204 3,276
Sub-total 1,980 2,386 3,088 3,981
TOTAL 26,996 24,120 30,808 39,064
Source: ORPTN statistics.

At least one foreign investment firm, Dubai World Rwanda, is making substantial moves in
Rwanda to capitalize on the inherent value and potential for profit that is present in Rwanda’s
natural environment. It already has two ecotourism properties linked directly to Volcano
National Park, and it is investing in two others in the southwest part of the country, next to
Nyungwe National Park. And it has just concluded an agreement to manage and operate Akagera
National Park within a 49-year lease agreement that includes an eco-lodge within the borders of
the park.

Outside of ecotourism, there is also substantial value and importance in the country’s tropical
forest and biological inheritance. One example involves the afromontagne forests and the value
of watershed protection inside the borders of Nyungwe National Park, with a focus on ecosystem
services. Often such services are primarily beneficial to the global community at large, such as in
protecting biodiversity, or carbon sequestration and storage. In his examination of Nyungwe’s
economic value, Masozera points out the value of other services that also benefit Rwandans
more directly. Table 3.3 gives a quick summary of his thesis.

ETOA UPDATE 2008 39

Table 3.3 Total Economic Value of Nyungwe Watershed
Ecosystem services Economic Value Beneficiaries
($US/year)
Watershed protection 117,757,583 Local communities, OCIR THE, Electrogaz,
Regideso/Burundi
Biodiversity protection 2,000,000 Global community

Carbon sequestration and storage 162,080,000 Global community

Recreation and tourism 3,372,313 Global community, ORTPN and tour operators

Total 285,209,896

Source: Masozera, 2008.

Since the last ETOA in 2003, Rwanda has ratcheted up its environmental quotient and its
campaign to make its citizens greater participants in the conservation and protection of the
nation’s natural resources. Their value is being increasingly recognized within the country and
from outside of its borders.

Some of this awareness stems from costs of not taking proper conservation and protective
measures of forested lands and wetlands. One study (Musahara et.al., 2007) found that
degradation of the Gishwati Forest and the Rugezi wetlands resulted in a 167 percent rise in the
per capita cost of electricity to the two percent of Rwandans who have access to electricity. The
cost is directly traceable to the siltation of the wetlands and the loss of capacity to generate
electricity from hydropower. To meet demand, Rwanda’s electric utility had to purchase diesel
generators, a much more expensive (and polluting) alternative.

Loss of vegetative cover in Gishwati even claimed human lives (Smith, 2007). Fifteen people
were killed in 2007 from landslides in areas previously covered by natural forests. Opportunity
costs, such as decreased livelihoods from reduced fish stocks, longer travel distances/time to
obtain clean water and fuel wood, decreases in tourism revenues, increased incidences of
flooding on agricultural lands, and so on are all the result of negligence and improper
stewardship of forests, land, and wetlands. The potential economic loss of these resources over
the long term is extremely important. In combating climate change, the same argument prevails.
Tropical forests are an important carbon sink that help reduce greenhouse gases, an important
mitigation factor in climate changes that can affect fragile ecosystems.

This section has examined the state of the natural forests, biodiversity, and major components of
Rwanda’s natural environment. Section 4 discusses the critical threats to forests, biodiversity and
the environment and attempts to put them into a context that government, donors, NGOs, and the
private sector can begin to address.

40 RWANDA 2008 ETOA

SECTION 4
THREATS TO FORESTS, BIODIVERSITY, AND THE ENVIRONMENT

This section discusses threats to the natural environment inventory that was discussed in Section
3. In most instances it also analyzes what threats are attributed to, and provides the reader with
options that can be considered to alleviate them. Comparisons are also drawn between the 2003
assessment and the 2008 update.

There is no doubt that tropical forests, biodiversity, and Rwanda’s overall environment are in
peril, and the principal threats that were named in 2003 remain the same today, although the finer
details have changed. The three overarching, primary threats are:

1. Human population pressure on the landscape

2. Insufficient or weak legal and institutional frameworks for the environment sector are not in
place and/or operational
3. Natural causes (usually exacerbated by humans)

Other threats to Rwanda’s natural environment are probably not as direct or immediate as those
mentioned and discussed above. They include other aspects of point and non-point pollution of
air and water resources. Many of these are urban related, such as improper management and
disposal of solid water from domestic, industrial, and medical sources. International standards
and safeguards exit for most of these materials, but it is not known to what degree best practices
are followed, monitored, or if they are even established.

Rwanda is home to almost nine million people and is the most densely populated country in all
of Africa. Headway is being made in reducing poverty and the country’s development focus on
the economy rather than social action does seem to be quite positive in the past three years. As
reported in Section 2, at least 60 percent of Rwandans fall below the poverty line. Close to 90
percent of the population relies on agriculture, with a growing need for land and access to natural
resources, especially water. The particular social, political, and economic situations in Rwanda
have led to serious environmental problems posing significant challenges for achieving
sustainable development, including dramatic soil erosion and loss of fertility, reduction in
surface and ground water, a national energy crisis, and significant and rapid degradation of
ecosystems and key habitats.

4.1 Population pressure on biodiversity resources and protected areas

Rwanda’s population growth has put pressure on the limited natural resources, such as forests,
that do not match with to the high demand of the population needs. This has led to misuse and
over-exploitation of natural resources which in turn leads to environmental degradation. This has
far-reaching consequences in terms of resources spent on reforestation and all efforts aimed at
restoring the lost value of the environment.

ETOA UPDATE 2008 41

In the 40 years prior to 2003, protected areas in Rwanda decreased by more than 50 percent of
their initial area (Rwandan Office of Tourism and National Parks, 2004a). Overall, 80 percent of
Rwanda's forests were lost in those four decades.

The threats to biodiversity in protected areas are caused by neighboring human populations with
high population densities (more than 350 people per km2 ) who compete for scarce land and
natural resources. The lack of livelihood alternatives and poverty pushes people to poaching,
grazing, and wood collection for household use.

Human pressure on biodiversity resources is also exacerbated by population displacement:

returnees after the 1994 genocide, refugees coming from neighboring countries in civil war, and
internally displaced people due to natural disasters such as floods or earthquakes. Population
displacement can cause environmental threats such as deforestation, land degradation, over-
grazing, unsustainable groundwater extraction, water pollution, solid waste management, and
encroachment of protected areas/national reserves (such as Gishwati and Mukura forest
reserves).

Improvements in/around protected areas. In this decade, the losses of natural forest cover
have slowed, especially in and around the protected areas. Local communities have become
involved with their protection and conservation while government, NGOs, and CBOs have
worked to make their livelihoods less dependent on them. Poaching remains a threat, but less so
in 2008 than in 2003. Large national campaigns such
as Kwita Izina have been growing in popularity each
year, and Rwandans countrywide have a much better
understanding of the importance of the gorilla
population and the national parks.

Another significant event since the 2003 ETOA has

been the government’s policy to invest a portion of
all receipts collected from entry fees to national parks
back into the local communities adjacent to the parks.
ORTPN initiated a revenue sharing program in 2004.
According to its policy, five percent of the total
tourism revenue is allocated to the districts bordering
the three national parks in the following ratios: 40
percent to Parc National des Volcans, 30 percent to
Akagera National Park, and 30 percent to Nyungwe
National Park. These funds have been used to build
schools, provide health facilities and services, and the
like. Most importantly these are additional incentives
for local communities to help protect the biodiversity
and the other attributes that attract tourists to these Ditch dug along southern border of Akagera
protected areas. National Park to reduce human-wildlife-cattle
conflict

42 RWANDA 2008 ETOA

International and local NGOs, donors such as USAID and the Dutch government, and the private
sector have each helped to raise awareness about the resources in and around Rwanda’s protected
areas. Strategies and action plans that work directly with local communities and district officials
have also brought about increased participation, interest, and investment of human capital in
protecting and conserving these areas. Results of these programs are becoming evident.
Nyungwe National Park, for example, reports decreases in fires caused by beekeepers operating
in the park. In Akagera National Park (ANP), grazing cattle inside the park boundary has
decreased significantly (since the 2003 ETOA) with enforcement and public awareness.

Human/animal conflict is a problem in protected areas, particularly some sections of ANP, and
those types of threats exist on both sides of the boundary. One solution that is being tried is a 13-
km-long trench at the boundary. Another posited solution is an electric fence. Park staff members
are continuing to work with the local communities to identify and test alternatives.

Time will reveal the results of ORTPN’s latest experiment: leasing operational and management
authority of Akagera National Park to a private investment group: Dubai World Rwanda. The
company has experience managing protected areas in several African countries; it operates
several properties in Rwanda and is investing in several more. The company caters to high-end
tourists, with the intent of encouraging them to work to protect and enhance their investment.
Whether this will provide direct benefits to Rwandan citizens remains to be seen; however, the
results should be positive for protected areas.

4.2 Institutional weaknesses and inefficiencies

Forest and biodiversity. Gishwati and Mukura forest reserves, the only significant forested
areas remaining outside national parks, are extremely threatened. The fact that there are no
management plans or personnel permanently on site for their operation or monitoring does not
bode well for their futures. The few gallery forests that remain are also highly threatened and
will probably disappear. Also, the demarcation boundaries and land area of the protected areas
and gallery forests are unclear, as are the management of buffer zones and road policies inside
the parks. The Forest Service, under the Ministry of Agriculture, is charged with planning and
monitoring these resources; the just-created National Forest Authority (NAFA) will execute
programs; and a third entity, the National Protection Service, is responsible for the protection
function. Coordination without plans, labor, or a functioning forest policy likely will be difficult.

A Forest Law has been drafted that is somewhat in line with a 2004 forest policy, but it has not
been enacted. The 2004 policy itself is weak in many places. It fails, for instance, to address the
institutional coordination gaps in the management of the Forest Reserves or in the buffer zone
plantations, such as those that are so important to protect areas like Nyungwe NP. There is also
lack of clarity on the management of natural forests, particularly the need to balance the needs
for biodiversity and ecosystem services with production use functions (for structural lumber or
fuel wood). Other stakeholders like ORTPN are not even considered in the strategies. And, even
though fuel wood is a monetized resource, there is no cohesive plan for maintaining or
improving stocks from public and/or private suppliers in this nation that relies on wood as its

ETOA UPDATE 2008 43

primary energy source for fuel. The lack of adequate coordinated strategies and action plans
intensifies the threats to the forest resources, both from conservation and utilization perspectives.

In addition to the inherent institutional structures for protecting and managing forests there is, as
in many Rwandan institutions, still a paucity of trained manpower in the forestry sector for
furthering action agendas and getting necessary operations in place.

Despite these institutional weaknesses, the EDPRS plans to increase the proportion of protected
areas for biodiversity preservation from 8 percent to 10 percent in 2012. Forest and agroforest
coverage is scheduled to increase from 20 percent to 23 percent of the total surface land area, and
annual wood consumption is due to be reduced by 30 percent from the 2002 figure.

Watersheds and wetlands. Similar to the forest sector, a draft wetlands policy was developed in
2004 as part of Rwanda’s Vision 2020 strategy, but it is still on the shelf waiting for a detailed
inventory and categorization of wetlands for production and protection.
Conflict among institutions, and lack of coordination, also poses a threat to overall health and
protection of Rwanda’s wetlands. There is a Focal Point for the RAMSAR Convention in
REMA who is charged with wetlands issues, but this person is not involved in day-to-day
management of wetlands. The MINAGRI seems to have a strong grip on wetlands management
in the absence of a clear legal or institutional framework for wetlands management by either the
Ministry of Natural Resources or REMA. Nonetheless, REMA has used provisions of the 2005
Organic Law on environmental protection and Ministerial instructions to ban activities in
wetlands except those identified by MINAGRI for cultivation of rice and other cereals.

Lakes, rivers, and streams also support a fisheries resource. This too remains threatened by a
lack of protection and a clear policy governing the aquatic resources in the country. Too few
fisheries experts and a lack of experienced fisheries personnel also mean that a new Fisheries
Bill passed in mid-2008 won’t, in the short term, have enforcement teeth nor the institutional
capacity to monitor concessions, and the fact that some of the fishing communities have been
excluded by privatization.2 MINAGRI developed and is using ministerial orders for private
sector fisheries concessions, and in some areas, fisheries have been leased by local associations.
For the lakes within the Akagera protected area, however, the jurisdiction is under the ORTPN
(Office of Tourism and National Parks), which has no fisheries staff.

A main problem is the fact that, despite the existing resource endowment and its potential,
fisheries remain among the lowest priority natural resource sectors in terms of public investment
support. Correspondingly, its contribution to GDP is inadequately recorded, and there is limited
policy, legislative and institutional support.

2
REMA/UNEP/ UNDP – Bugesera Integrated Ecosystem Assessment. 2007. Prepared under the Poverty-
Environment Initiative.

44 RWANDA 2008 ETOA

4.3 Energy pressure

The Rwanda energy picture is dominated by traditional fuel use (firewood, charcoal, and
agricultural residues) making up 95 percent of the total national energy requirement, 1 percent by
electricity and the remaining 4 percent by petroleum and other products. Most of the energy used
is by households, followed by industry, commerce and agriculture. Approximately 90 percent of
households are dependent on wood for cooking and kerosene for lighting. Access to electricity is
low, with about 4 percent of urban households and 1 percent of rural households being connected
(Poverty Environment Initiative, 2006). Even where available, electricity is considered expensive
and costly for household cooking use.

The rate of households using fuel wood will continue to grow before the exploitation of methane
gas from Lake Kivu is developed. There are no other feasible alternatives for cooking needs, and
a large percentage of people will not be able to afford modern energy services in the medium
term without large investments. The GOR has focused more efforts on reforestation yet the
demand still out weighs the supply. This deficit in supply will exacerbate the already critical
state of deforestation unless a sustainable supply of fuel wood is ensured.

4.4 Degradation of wetlands and lack of clean water

Rwanda’s territory is a significant source of water for both the Nile and Congo River watersheds;
its water resources are important not only for Rwandans, but also for the Great Lakes Region and
many others downstream on the continent. How Rwandans manage and treat their water is
important: Threats to the quality and availability of clean water increase as the population grows,
demand goes up, and the GOR’s economic policy agenda creates gaps in coordination and
communication among users of environmental services.

Causes and consequences of wetland degradation. Wetlands degradation in Rwanda is closely

linked to development in urban centers countrywide (see Box 4.1). The most outstanding threats
of wetland stability are industrial pollution, agriculture, drainage activities and over harvesting of
wetland resources (Rwanda Development Gateway, 2008). Many construction activities being
carried out require inputs from wetlands, which degrades these resources. High demand for brick
making coupled with sand mining has led to the misuse of wetlands throughout the country. This
results in the creation of pits which accumulate stagnant water for habitats of diseases carrying
vectors like mosquitoes and snails encouraging health problems to occur.

The location of industries within wetlands, such as the Gikondo industrial area, garages
operating near wetlands and poor garbage disposal also degrade wetlands and affect the normal
functioning of wetlands as filtration systems for clean water. The discharge of toxic chemicals,
hazardous oils and unwanted metals pose a serious threat to the biodiversity that are vital to the
health of a wetland ecosystem. The impact of wetland resource use has lead to the reduction of
permanent streams and the disappearance of permanent springs leading to low ground water
levels.

ETOA UPDATE 2008 45

The lack of coordination between the Ministry of Environment and urban planning authorities
has led to the degradation of various wetlands in and around Kigali. To this effect, concerned
authorities have established clear linkages to enable smooth running of policies regarding
wetland conservation in the country.

Availability of clean water. At present, even though less than a quarter of the withdrawal
capacity of the resource is used annually, the systems that collect, store, and release water are
quite threatened. In low-lying and wetland areas, pressure for agricultural space and
inappropriate marsh cultivation has caused stream flow changes, increased water evaporation,
and reduced water tables and groundwater recharge (Odada et al., 2004). As of 2005, at least
93,754 ha of the total 164,947 ha of wetland surface area have been cultivated (Kanyarukiga and
Ngarambe, 1998). In Bugesera District (Lakes Cyohoha, Bugesera and Rweru) and Kirehe District
(Lake Mugesera regions), reclamation, siltation, flood damage, and water weed infestation from
invasives such as water hyacinth have severely decreased and degraded wetlands. In Bugesera
District, Gashora marsh was drained for food emergency assistance in 2000 (FAO, 2001).

The extreme cases of deforestation, Box 4.1 Possible Adverse Effects of Infrastructure
especially in the higher elevations along Development in and beside Wetlands
the Congo-Nile Crest, have also decreased • Filling in certain marshlands would destroy their
the ability of watersheds to hold and ecological integrity and role.
restore water. In addition the large • Water, soil, and sediment would be polluted by
quantities of precipitation in the rainy increased use of chemicals.
season cause water run-off problems when • Soil fertility would be reduced by poor management of
hillsides and marshlands and the intensive use of the
high-volume water flows, inundate soil without replenishing nutrients.
exposed soil, cause sedimentation, and • Silting of canals could lead to flooding.
point and non-point sources of pollution. • Health issues could arise if the marshlands are
modified in a way that is conducive to the breeding of
Point and non-point pollution. Because malaria-transmitting mosquitoes (Anopheles
the watersheds and wetlands are a complex gambiance).

web of microsystems on the Rwandan • Flooding is likely downstream due to reduced retention
of water in the canals; it would be necessary to
landscape, their capacity to provide fresh, increase the size of canals and construct buffer zones
clean water can be very vulnerable as was at intervals to hold excess water.
noted above. Pollution, either from • There is the threat of loss of biodiversity through
sedimentation due to erosion or from man- reduction of habitat, particularly for birds, reptiles, and
amphibians.
caused events and sources, is an increasing
• Soil biodiversity would also be reduced by habitat
problem, as land use intensifies and modification and loss through use of pesticides and
unregulated runoff from urban areas agrochemicals, which affect soil microorganisms. This
continues. Tea plantations located high up will in turn affect soil fertility, which is dependent on
these microorganisms.
in the watersheds use significant amounts
• Reduction in atmospheric moisture would raise
of herbicides and pesticides and jeopardize ambient temperatures.
the water resources if proper precautions • A loss of traditional materials for thatching and craft
and steadfast monitoring are not manufacture.
maintained. Source: 2003 ETOA.

46 RWANDA 2008 ETOA

Similarly, under the EDPRS, even the admirable goal of economic development can have
deleterious consequences if planning and coordination across sectors are not properly considered.
As an example, the government’s policy to make specialty coffees a global brand and (hopefully)
an economic mainstay for the country is likely to put at risk the nation’s watercourses and the
people that rely upon them.

4.5 Agricultural inefficiencies and soil erosion

The main environmental threat to Rwanda’s farming systems is erosion, stemming from the fact
that most agriculture is done on slopes so steep that they occasionally approach 100 percent.
MINAGRI sources indicate that around 37 percent of the land in Rwanda needs to be managed
before being cultivated, and overall, an estimated 39.1 percent of the land has a high erosion risk.
Steep hillsides are likely to erode whenever protective vegetative covering is removed or the
surface is disturbed; the hillsides typically suffer the least erosion in their natural state as forests
or grassland. Regularly disturbing the soil and leaving large portions of it without protective
covering — as happens with agricultural row crops — promotes erosion. Estimates of soil loss
from cropped hillsides vary, but may be as much as 80 to 100 m3 per ha per year. MINAGRI
sources indicate that erosion is responsible for soil nutrient losses estimated at 945,200 tons of
organic materials, 42,210 tons of nitrogen, 280 tons of phosphorus, and 3,055 tons of potash
annually. Fields may become infertile after only three or four years, resulting in environmental
impacts downstream, including silting of streams and rivers.

The GOR does recognize soil erosion as a major problem. The EDPRS plans to increase the area
to be protected against soil erosion from 40 percent of the agricultural land area in 2006 to 100
percent in 2012. The soil erosion issue was reported in the 2003 ETOA, and mitigation actions
were discussed as part of the ongoing national development strategy of the period, the 2002
Poverty Reduction Strategy Plan. Then as now, terracing, reforestation, and wetlands
management were seen as actions that could be taken. Arguments continue today about whether
radical terracing, involving the physical movement of soil into contoured benches, is best. Some
argue that a more passive and slower option, vegetative contour bunds, is more effective (and
sustainable). USAID, through its Food Aid program, has participated in the GOR’s progressive
terracing program. Given the controversial nature of the radical terracing technique, the findings
of several studies and discussions with the ETOA Team and USAID/Rwanda at the time of this
report was moving toward removing this specific type of assistance from its Food Aid program.

Land tenure issues, if not properly resolved, are also a significant threat to agriculture and
agricultural production. Since the 2003 ETOA there has been improvement in this area, but more
remains to be done. Legislation (see Section 2.3 and Annex F) has been promulgated and is
beginning to become operational in some areas of the country. The strong move to
decentralization in 2006 has also had a significant positive benefit, placing the decision-making
and conflict resolution responsibilities in the hands of local/district officials.

ETOA UPDATE 2008 47

4.6 Climate change

In Rwanda, degradation of environment and ecosystems is not only human-made but caused by
climate disturbances. According to the National Adaptation Programs of Action to Climate
Change (GOR, 2006b), serious floods linked to “El Niño” in 1997-1998 destroyed a large
number of agricultural plantations and swamps of Nyabarongo and Akanyaru river basins. From
1999 to 2000, a prolonged drought seriously affected Bugesera, Umutara, and Mayaga regions.

Like the famous Ruzagayura famine during 1943 to 1945, such disasters are provoked by climate
change, as well as, the landslides in the north (Gakenke, Cyeru, Rulindo, Butaro, and Kinihira)
and the west (Nyamesheke, Karongi, and Ngororero) of the country in 2001-2002. Due to the
steep relief, western and northern regions are prone to landslides and flooding and consequently
sensitive to erosion. In 2007, floods killed 15 people and left about 1,000 people homeless. In
September 2008, a similar incident occurred and destroyed 1,982 houses and 106 schools.

Heavy rains, floods, and frequent landslides affect the ecosystem negatively through water
pollution, invasion of exotic aquatic species, loss of soil fertility by leaching, increase of
sediments on arable land and wetlands, and soil erosion. Negative effects of climate change in
Rwanda are also driven by increases in temperature, prolonged droughts, and high evapo-
transpiration. Rwanda has experienced low river flows and low water levels at Lake Kivu and the
hydroelectrical stations at Ntaruka and Mukungwa. Drinking water levels in Kigali have also
been affected due to the reduced intake flow of the Yanze River.

Faced with the challenges of climate change, Rwanda has started to adopt national strategies of
integrated watershed management. There have been several efforts to make the discussion more
prominent so that all Rwandans can participate in helping reduce the country’s vulnerability to
this global threat (Uwizeye and Hammill, 2007). Other fora are being planned and organized by
local NGOs like ACNR with assistance from the MacArthur Foundation (which has been
funding similar discussions throughout Africa). The GOR is also reported to be organizing
climate change discussions.

4.7 Waste disposal issues

There are two areas of concern for waste disposal in Rwanda: medical and industrial waste.

Medical waste. In exploring different possibilities for disposal of the Indoor Residual Spraying
waste in relation to the Presidential Malaria Initiative, USAID found that medical incinerators in
Kigali do not meet safety and environmental requirements.

The incinerator at Kibagaba Hospital was visited by the ETOA team and USAID and it was
agreed that the incinerator should not be considered as a potential solution to dispose of wastes.
It is located too close to the patient ward and needs to be repaired/upgraded by installing a new
filter to reduce the air pollution. There is also a need to equip the incinerator operators with

48 RWANDA 2008 ETOA

Personal Protection Equipment (PPEs) and provide them with training on safe operation of the
incinerator.

USAID health projects being implemented in Rwanda adhere substantially to international

standards and best practices regarding the disposal of waste materials. Activities are not
permitted to move forward unless best practices are in place. For example, USAID denied
approval to empty pesticide plastic sachets, hand gloves, nose masks, and carton packaging that
had been in contact with pyrethroid insecticide during the Presidential Malaria Initiative/Indoor
Residual Spraying (IRS) project that started in 2007. The IRS waste is currently waiting for a
safe and environmentally safe disposal.

Industrial waste (particularly in the coffee sector). Specialty coffees have washing/depulping
stations that often operate without adhering to recognized standards and best practices for
effluent discharge. The typical washing station in Rwanda discharges 100 tons of pulp in a
season. Coffee washing wastewater, high in carbohydrates and organic matter, is typically
discharged untreated directly into streams. Usually this takes place in a season when stream flow
is decreasing. The waste stream can quickly reduce available oxygen in the receiving water
(stream or wetland), affecting downstream fishponds, drinking water sources, and fragile
wetlands/swamps that are key to water management (see Box 4.2). In 2008, the GOR set a goal

Box 4.2 Wastewater Pollution at Coffee Washing Stations

Coffee processing produces large quantities of organic residue-pulp and skins. (1T of parchment coffee produces
nearly 5T of pulp; e.g., more than 80 percent of the coffee cherry weight is waste organic matter or water
contained therein.) Wet processing also demands large amounts of water beyond that contained in the cherry
itself in the absence of water recycling, approximately 15-17 liters/kilo of cherry.
Processing wastewater containing pulp and skins is characterized by very high BOD (biological oxygen demand)
and COD (chemical oxygen demand). If discharged directly to surface waters, this effluent has severe impacts on
downstream water quality and aquatic life. Unlike sewage or discharge from animal feeding or slaughtering
operations, coffee processing wastewater is not a source of fecal-oral route pathogens; however, wastewater may
provide a growth medium for existing pathogens. In addition, the anaerobic environment facilitates the growth of
some harmful micro-organisms.
Natural or assisted biological activity in mucilage-containing wastewater results in a thick crust of digested
mucilage floating over acidic (pH 4 or less) water. This crust exacerbates the highly anaerobic conditions brought
on by the decomposition, increasing odor problems and inhibiting further biological decomposition.
Coffee wastewater, even when of high clarity, will also tend to take on a dark-green/brown/black color. This color
is derived from the chemical constituents of the red color of the coffee cherries, but is not itself toxic or a
significant contributor to BOD/COD. However, off-colors can understandably be a source of concern for
downstream communities utilizing the water. When separated out of wastewater, coffee pulp and skins can be
composted and used as a soil amendment (If dried, but not fully composted, pulp and skins can also be used as
mulch.) If unmanaged pulp piles can create significant odor and fly problems, and provide rodent habitat. Run-off
from compost piles is also a potential source of surface water contamination.
Finally, wet coffee processing employs large numbers of people and also attracts sellers to the processing site.
This creates a significant biological waste stream composed of foodstuffs and bodily wastes. Poor management
of bodily wastes, in particular, can result in surface water contamination and the potential for oral-fecal disease
transmission.
Sources: Gibson et. al., 2002.
Natural Resources Defense Council at: http://www.nrdc.org/health/farming/ccc/chap4.asp

ETOA UPDATE 2008 49

to double its number of coffee-washing stations to more than 250. This could potentially have
serious negative effects on streams and wetlands throughout the country if pollution standards
for these sites are not set, monitored, and enforced. (See also Section 5.C and Section 6.)

Several of the USAID-financed washing stations have not incorporated environmentally sound
design elements in their construction plans to mitigate the impacts of coffee processing on the
surrounding environment and untreated wash water is entering water sources directly. Other
stations have incorporated environmentally sound design elements but are poorly managing
liquid and solid effluent disposal. In addition to the negative environmental consequences of
poor waste management, non-compliance with best environmental practices can compromise the
ability of stations to gain revenue-enhancing certifications (i.e. fair trade, preferred supplier, or
organic). (Chemonics, 2006)

On other USAID-financed economic growth activities, such as small business development in

essential oils and in coffee production, environmental safeguards are currently points of serious
discussion. Mitigation of any environmental hazards are planned and acted upon, but
implementation challenges still exist.

This section has discussed a number of the major threats to tropical forest conservation,
biodiversity, and Rwanda’s natural environment. Human population pressures on the
environment and weak institutional structures and laws are seen as the two greatest threats at the
time of this assessment. Section 5 examines ongoing and planned environment sector initiatives
in Rwanda that have a strong link to biodiversity and tropical forests.

50 RWANDA 2008 ETOA

SECTION 5
INITIATIVES IN THE ENVIRONMENT SECTOR
This section discusses recent and ongoing initiatives that have impacts in the environment sector.
First is a brief look at progress and important strategies and actions undertaken by GOR
institutions, followed by a snapshot of donor-funded activities with environmental components.
A more specific analysis of USAID-funded activities, including a look back at what the 2003
ETOA recommended, completes this chapter.

5.1 Government Institutions

Sections 2.C and 2.D summarized the government institutions and the political/legal context
related to Rwanda’s environment. Section 4 also pointed out how weaknesses in these
institutions and policies actually jeopardize the well being of important components of the
environment sector in Rwanda. It is also necessary to highlight the fact that substantial progress
has been achieved since the 2003 assessment in actions related to mitigating environmental
issues and addressing concerns.

The establishment of REMA as the environmental watchdog is most significant among these.
REMA is still a young organization and is finding its way in the maze of issues, conflicts about
jurisdiction among ministries and their departments, and the important task of building capacity
within its own ranks. REMA leadership at the time of this assessment is strong, and its staff is
dedicated. It has a broad mandate, however, and inadequate skilled staff to cover the range of
topics and issues for which it is responsible. The agency is doing its best, but outside operational
assistance and practical, targeted training that targets would be most helpful. Having an in-house
GIS and mapping capability would also be valuable in helping REMA with almost all of its
tasks.

The GOR decentralization efforts since the last ETOA are also having a significant impact on
activities related to the environment at the local level, where Rwandans are most benefited. Staff
members at Nyungwe National Park reported that they work closely with district officials and
that decision-making that involves local community activities tied to the protected area is
operational. The recent recruitment of environmental officers at the district level will provide
another important service, and in some instances, this cannot happen soon enough. The
Environment Office would be better located in the Directorate of Planning rather than
Infrastructure (where its currently located), in order to reflect the crosscutting nature of
environmental mandate.

Significant gaps in important areas of policy guidelines continue to exist. There are still no
operational policies for forested land outside of protected areas, nor for wetlands. The national
wildlife policy drafted in 2007 remains on the shelf, and does not address issues of wildlife
outside of protected areas (e.g., the three national parks). Coordination and communication
among the various ministries and agencies involved with environmental issues/activities are still
serious problems at the central level, albeit less so at the district level.

ETOA UPDATE 2008 51

The primary development strategy, the EDPRS, touts the environment as an important
crosscutting issue. But because it is labeled as a crosscutting rather than a single issue, it is often
neglected in favor of something with a budget line item. The strategy is an improvement over
previous government programs, but lack of personnel, experienced professionals, and the
necessity to often move in unfamiliar directions make progress slow. Operational assistance,
training, and practical guidance for specific actions remain areas where outside assistance could
be most effective.

5.2 Donors and the Environmental Landscape

Development assistance to Rwanda’s environment sector is small. Recent government

documents (Government of Rwanda, 2008b, 2008c) reported that 11 bilateral donors were
supporting 165 separate projects/programs in the country, and only 10 had links to the
environment. Similarly, six multilateral sources of funds were engaged in more than 60 different
programs and only 12 had environmental connections. Most of the funding for environment-
related initiatives is focused on Rwanda’s protected areas and is sourced through international
NGOs and university-related research efforts. Private sector investment in activities linked
directly to Rwanda’s biodiversity and protected areas is growing. Dubai World Rwanda, a South
Africa-based company, has reported planned investments of more than USD 250 million in
Rwanda, most in properties that cater to high-end tourism and ecotourism in and around the
country’s national parks, as well as recreation infrastructure in Kigali City.

A specific inventory of ongoing environment-related projects and programs coordinated and

linked to GOR partners is found in Table 5.1.

Table 5.2 illustrates activities undertaken by international and national NGOs in Rwanda. The
majority are most active in the protected areas, especially Volcano National Park, and focus on
gorilla conservation. National environmental NGOs are small (in terms of their professional and
budget capacities) but they play important roles, especially in local communities.

NGOs, with government support, have been instrumental during the last several years,
particularly since the 2003 ETOA, in raising awareness about environmental issues in Rwanda.
The 2003 assessment recommended pointedly that the international NGO community be more
proactive in coordinating its activities and in communicating its goals and objectives to
Rwandans and among one another. Most of them listened; these groups’ actions are much more
effective today.

Active social marketing and themed campaigns have made a significant difference in citizens’
perceptions of environmental issues, biodiversity, and the role/importance of Rwanda’s protected
areas. A good example is the annual Kwita Izina campaign, which promotes gorilla conservation
and is organized by ORPTN with support from NGOs and other sources. It has grown to festival
proportions and its week-long agenda is highlighted on radio, on television, and in the printed
press. In 2008, it provided the backdrop for the first-ever Conservation Conference that provided

52 RWANDA 2008 ETOA

a forum for NGOs, government, researchers, and donors to tout the importance of Rwanda’s
biodiversity, its national parks, and investments in conservation.

Table 5.1 Ongoing Environmental Projects in Rwanda with Links to GOR Partners
Implementation
Funding source & Period and
Project Amount (US$) Thematic scope
Partner
Destination Nyungwe USAID 2006-2009 Capacity building of NNP staff,
Project US $ 5.0 million ORPTN ecotourism infrastructure and
marketing; community health
Strengthening the national and
Integrated Management of GEF/World Bank 2005-2009 decentralized capacity for
Critical Ecosystems (IMCE) US $4.3 million REMA protection, conservation and
sustainable use of critical watershed
areas, focusing on wetland
rehabilitation, conservation and
sustainable management.
Rural Sector Support World Bank One component focuses on
Project Phase 2 US $37 million 2008-2012 marshlands and hillside
rehabilitation and development
aimed at expanding irrigated areas
in cultivated marshlands (3,500 ha)
and increasing use of sustainable
land management practices on
associated hillsides (9,900 ha) to
accelerate the pace of intensified
agriculture.
Projet d’Appui a AfDB Institutional support to REMA/
l’Ínstitutionelle Gestion UA 1million (US $ 2004 – 2008 environmental management,
Environnement au Rwanda 1.6m) REMA including development of public-
(PAIGER) private partnerships in
environmental management;
UNEP/UNDP Focuses n improving understanding
Poverty and Environment (Ireland) 2007 – 2009 of the poverty-environment links;
Initiative (PEI) US $ 2.3 million REMA and supports decentralization.
Builds on PEI phase
UNEP (Belgium 2006-2008 Institutional capacity building for the
Rio MEAs Synergies Fund) REMA implementation of MEAs, and
US $ 358,000 provision of micro-grants for
grassroots activities
Decentralization and UNDP/Netherlands 2004-2007 Institutional strengthening of
Environmental Manage- US $3,536,100 REMA national and decentralized entities in
ment Project (DEMP)¹ environmental policy formulation
and implementation
UNHABITAT/UNDP/ 2005-2006 Urban wetlands conservation/
KIEM² UNEP US$ 150,000 REMA rehabilitation by relocating industrial
& commercial activities from the
wetlands.(Prep studies only to date)
Protected Areas Institutional capacity building for
Biodiversity Conservation GEF/UNDP 2006-2011 protection & conservation of
(PAB) US $ 5,45m REMA biodiversity in/around protected
areas of Nyungwe National Park
and Volcano National Park
African Environment UNEP 2008-2010 Start-up process for a project to
Information network (AEIN) US$ 25,000 REMA improve the state of environment
reporting – and harmonizing national

ETOA UPDATE 2008 53

 Implementation
Funding source & Period and
Project Amount (US$) Thematic scope
Partner
reporting systems with other
regional states in the context of
African Environment Outlook
formats.
Montreal Protocol Multilateral MEAs Since 2003 Support the implementation of the
Implementation Programme Fund REMA Montreal Protocol on ODSs
US $ 662,925 (Substances that Deplete the Ozone
Layer).
Strengthening the Forest Belgium Technical April 2008- Institutional capacity building of the
Sector Project Cooperation December 2012 forest sector, including support to
Euros 3 million (US $ Forest Unit/ afforestation activities in 6 districts
4.5 million) MINIRENA of Ngoma, Kirehe, Bugesera
(Eastern Province) and Gakenke,
Gicumbi and Rulindo (Northern
Province). Inventory of forest
resources and tree nursery
establishment.
Rwanda Forest African Development June 2002- Forest rehabilitation; establishes
Management Support Bank December 2007 district tree nurseries; trains
Project (PAFOR) UA 8.9 million (US$ Forestry Unit/ personnel and provides institutional
14.24) MINIRENA support to the Forestry Dept. and
district forest offices.
Capacity Development and Addresses land degradation due to
Mainstreaming Sustainable GEF/UNDP 2007 – 2012 poor cultivation hilly agro-ecological
Land Management in US$ 900,000 RADA zone. Invests in terracing;
Rwanda strengthens agricultural extension
services and provides institutional
support.
Institutional Support to the African Development MINITERE/ Rural Expansion of water supply systems
Directorate of Water and Bank Water Supply in rural areas; improving hygiene
Sanitation US$ Unknown and sanitation.

¹A second phase of the project has been approved for 5 years with approximately US $ 6 million. ²Kigali Industrial-Environmental
Management Project was implemented with funding from UNHABITAT.

54 RWANDA 2008 ETOA

Table 5.2 NGOs Involved in Conservation and Environment Activities in Rwanda
NAME MAIN INTERVENTION FOCUS
International NGOs
Diane Fossey Gorilla Foundation International Gorilla conservation focusing mainly on research with the
(DFGFI) support to the Karisoke research center
Gorilla Organization (GO) ( former Diane Fossey Gorilla conservation focusing mainly on community
Gorilla Foundation Europe ) conservation activities
Mountain Gorilla Veterinary Project (MGVP) Gorilla conservation focusing mainly on gorilla health

International Gorilla Conservation Programme Gorilla conservation focusing on institutional enterprises

(IGCP), a coalition of AWF, WWF & FFI development with community and transboundary collaboration

Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) Nyungwe NP conservation support: research and monitoring,
community conservation and ecotourism
CARE International Environment conservation in the region: CARE in partnership
with IGCP are implementing a transboundary project“ Equity,
Enterprise and Environment in the Great Lakes Region” in the
Virunga-Bwindi Region funded by Buffet Foundation
World Vision Increasing agriculture production through terracing and
marshland reclamation (drainage and irrigation)
Help Age Rwanda Agroforestry program

ACDI/VOCA Agroforestry program in partnership with ICRAF

Local NGOs
Association pour la Conservation de la Nature au Nature Conservation (biodiversity in general) and
Rwanda (ACNR) environmental education
Association Rwandaise des Ecologistes (ARECO- Environmental protection
RWANDA NZIZA)
Rwanda Environmental Conservation Organization Conservation, agroforestry, eco-tourism and environmental
(RECOR) former Rwanda Wildlife Clubs-RWC education
Association Rwandaise des Journalistes Promotion of environmental reporting in different media in
Environnementaux (ARJE) Rwanda
SERUKA ASBL Gender and environmental protection

ISUKU ASBL Hygiene and environmental protection

Association Rwandaise pour le Développement Development and environmental protection

Intégré (ARDI)
Rwanda Rain Water Harvesting Association Rain water harvesting

Rwanda Development Organization (RDO) Rural development and reforestation

Association Rwandaise pour l’Environnement et le Environmental protection integrated development

Développement Intégré (AREDI)
Rwandese Health Environment Project Initiative Environmental health and protection
(RWEPI)
Duharanire Amajyambere y’Icyaro or Action pour le Marshland reclamation to increase agriculture production by
Développement Rural Intégré (DUHAMIC-ADRI) irrigation and drainage and in the reforestation program

ETOA UPDATE 2008 55

Another area where NGOs have provided cutting-edge assistance and gained valuable lessons in
the process is the transboundary cooperation, engendered mainly though the International Gorilla
Conservation Programme (IGCP). IGCP is a coalition of three organizations: World Wildlife
Fund (WWF), African Wildlife Foundation (AWF) and Fauna and Flora International (FFI).
Pooling resources and even working through periods of conflict, environmental leaders from
Rwanda, Uganda, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo envisioned, developed, and put
into operation a 10-year transboundary management plan (IGCP, 2006) for a region of the
Albertine Rift, one of the richest areas of biodiversity in the world. Others have already started to
capitalize on this experience. Nyungwe National Park staff reported that it was using the lessons
learned from IGCP’s work to liaise and work with staff in Kibira National Park in Burundi that
shares a boundary with NNP. Others are also looking for ways to cooperate with Tanzania to
improve Akagera National Park’s eastern boundary issues with that country.

Finally, one other important improvement established since the last ETOA has been the design
and implementation of active and useful management plans for each of the three national parks.
These are important steps in the overall conservation and protection of critical habitats and
resources. Discussions with staff of two of the three parks indicated that the management plans
were in active use and not just sitting on park office shelves. The lessons learned from using the
plans in the implementation of activities are valuable for future efforts and in engaging the local
communities whose livelihoods rely significantly on the parks’ healthy existence.

5.3 USAID-funded environmental activities

The primary environmental activity supported by USAID/Rwanda at the time of this assessment
is the “Profitable Ecotourism through Improved Biodiversity Conservation in Rwanda Project,”
better known as the “Destination Nyungwe Project.” It is funded primarily with biodiversity-
earmarked monies and supplemented with funds from USAID’s health program. Destination
Nyungwe falls within the USAID Rwanda’s Economic Growth Strategic Objective, SO7. The
project is being implemented by IRG, Ltd. supported by a significant partnership with the
Wildlife Conservation Society, and with Family Health International and CLUSA as additional
subcontractors. The depth of IRG’s international experience in environment and protected area
projects and WCS’s history with Nyungwe provides a solid team to implement the goals of the
project.

The Destination Nyungwe Project, which will be implemented through 2009, has activities in the
three components listed in Table 5.3.

56 RWANDA 2008 ETOA

Table 5.3 Major Components and Tasks of the Destination Nyungwe Project
COMPONENT
Ecotourism and Rural Enterprise
Biodiversity Conservation Development Health
Nyungwe National Park Product Development & Marketing
• Complete mapping and
• Strengthen ORTPN’s park • Nyungwe and community ecotourism health needs assessment
management capacity product development • Strengthen clinical and
• Develop sustainable financing • Ecotourism infrastructure and community capacity in
mechanisms services development providing a continuum of
• Monitor key species, illegal activities, • Marketing ecotourism (dropped in care for maternal and child
ecotourism impacts second year of implementation) health
• Strengthen clinical and
community capacity in
Communities & Conservation Rural Enterprise Development providing and promoting
• Implement community outreach • Identify and support small scale rural family planning
program enterprises through the Small Grants
• Mainstream environmental and Program
sustainable use issues into district • Identify markets, develop business
development plans and marketing plans for natural
• Design pilot implementation plan for products, arts and handicrafts
buffer zone management in Banda
and Kitabi (dropped in second year of
implementation)

Source: International Resources Group, Ltd., 2007.

The goals and activities of the project meld well with the GOR’s emphasis on economic growth
and the strengthening of the NNP’s management capacity and infrastructure. Destination
Nyungwe will also complement the private sector investments being made by Dubai World
outside the park’s boundary. (One is the construction of a 30-plus-bed eco-lodge at the edge of
one of the tea estates that buffer the park.) The health component bolsters community
participation through investments in that sector; other community efforts and planning also
engage the local population in its investment to
make certain that NNP remains an integral part of Box 5.1 Anticipated Results from USAID’s
the region’s economy. The overall goal of these Destination Nyungwe Project
investments is to bring more tourism and • Threats to biodiversity will be demonstrably
awareness to NNP as a viable destination in mitigated over the life of the project.
Rwanda. Box 5.1 details the anticipated results of • Benefits to local communities will include
the project. income generation, shared park revenues,
employment, diversification of income sources
and/or increased access to community
Other SO7 projects supported by USAID/Rwanda services including health and other relevant
also have environmental considerations, but these services.
are neither as primary nor direct as in the • Number of visitors to and revenues generated
from Nyungwe Forest National Park increase.
Destination Nyungwe Project. Two are focused
• Increased number of women participating in
on small enterprise development. The SPREAD rural enterprises development activities and in
(Sustaining Partnerships to Enhance Rural key positions in their communities.
Enterprise and Agribusiness Development)
Project is concerned with promoting and Source: International Resources Group, Ltd.,
2006
improving specialty coffee in Rwanda.

ETOA UPDATE 2008 57

Environmental concerns stem directly
from the coffee-washing station and the
de-pulping activities. The wastewater
effluent at these stations can seriously
hamper the oxygen capacities of the
receptive water bodies and can
potentially impact downstream users. The
assessment team examined one example
near Butare and observed a prototype
settling-pond intended to remove the
solids before discharge. The prototype
had design flaws: it was not large enough
and was poorly sited; heavy rainfall
would cause surface soil sediments to
flow directly into it. The SPREAD
project is aware of the pollution issue
(see Section 4.2) and is experimenting
with corrective measures.

In discussions with project staff, the

assessment team recommended that
international standards for pollution
control and monitoring of coffee stations
be explored and that best practices be
adopted. (The East Africa Fine Coffee
Association should also be in a position
to provide guidance, as should other
USAID-supported coffee projects, e.g. Settling pond at Cyarumbo coffee washing station
See USAID, 2005b.) It is important that (Southern Province)
USAID and SPREAD “get it right” in
terms of environmental standards and monitoring. An excellent reason to develop a good model
is the GOR’s policy to double the number of coffee-washing stations in the next year.

The Essential Oils Project (Ikirezi Natural Products) is also a small enterprise receiving
USAID/Rwanda support. Widows and orphans are employed to grow natural products that are
used to extract specialty oils for an export market. Environmental issues come into play on the
fields that used a progressive terrace scheme (as opposed to the GOR’s controversial radical
terracing). This approach not only provides a better growing medium for the product plants
(according to the owner), but is highly beneficial to the site and the soil. Erosion is mitigated and
soil fertility is improved.

There are additional issues involved with cutting and burning wood to distill the product (as well
as the proper/safe disposal of the residual distillate by-product). The USAID environmental
officer calculates that once the specialty oils initiative is fully operational, it will consume up to

58 RWANDA 2008 ETOA

Radical terracing in eastern Rwanda

5 hectares of eucalyptus fuel wood plantations per year. If wood is to remain the main energy
source for this operation, USAID needs to work with Ikirezi to ensure that a deliberate and well-
planned strategy is developed soon for local wood sources. This issue is discussed further in the
next section.

There is also a Food Aid program supported by USAID in conjunction with Catholic Relief
Services (assisted by World Relief, CARE, and Caritas), World Vision (assisted by ADRA), and
ACDI/VOCA (assisted by Africare) — all international NGOs. These programs help construct
schools, provide grants that promote food security, and make direct grants to HIV-affected
households for home gardening, etc. Some of the food is monetized to help with agroforestry
plantings, such as shade coffee on individual farms; and for constructing terraces to combat soil
erosion and improve soil fertility.

Some of the terracing techniques being promoted by the GOR, as mentioned in Section 4.B, are
controversial. Even though its Food Aid program is scheduled to end in September 2009 (the
ACDI-VOCA contract extends to January 2010), USAID should use its participation to raise
awareness about best practices, help to resolve the debate, and work to develop the employment
of effective and sustainable terracing strategies.

ETOA UPDATE 2008 59

 The staff of USAID/Rwanda’s SO7 group also interacts with the democracy and governance
team (SO5), and with the health team (SO7). The health SO constitutes a little more than 90
percent of USAID/Rwanda’s entire budget. The SO7 team has had some oversight of activities
that are undertaken by the health team. One notable example has involved the disposal of plastic
sacks that contain the chemical lambdeacylathorin (trade name ICON), a biodegradable pesticide
used by the Indoor Residual Spraying Program for malaria control. Until the time the assessment
team visited the country, an acceptable method for disposing the sacks was not available.

One alternative discussed was to incinerate them at the Kigali Central Hospital’s incinerator.
However, a site visit to the incinerator raised more questions than it answered. The equipment
was properly rated, but the facility’s proximity to a nearby school and hospital patients raised
concerns in light of the lack of burn control, poor attention to monitoring, and overall lack of
security at the facility.

The 2003 ETOA noted several activities that USAID/Rwanda might undertake to help meet
significant forestry and biodiversity conservation needs in the country. It provided USAID with a
list of specific recommendations to pursue in the short term and medium term. Table 5.4 lists
these, shows the action taken since 2003, and provides a brief discussion on the original
recommendation and the follow-through. This analysis is based on the information made
available to the 2008 assessment update team in the form of reports and discussions with staff,
and does not claim to be fully complete.

Table 5.4 Examination of 2003 ETOA Recommendations to USAID/Rwanda

Recommendation Action taken Comments
Move beyond environmental Provided The Economic Growth team has integrated several actions
compliance to maintain and active support that go beyond environmental compliance as a part of its
restore “natural resources upon activities: Support Biodiversity Conservation and
which economic growth Ecotourism Promotion in Nyungwe National Park ($
depends” 5,000,000); Support conservation and economic
development goals through ecotourism in area adjacent to
the afromontagne Forests of Volcanoes National Park
(Kinigi) ($180,000); Together with the Democracy and
Governance team, assist in establishing the new Organic
Land law and other associated laws of land valuation and
expropriation.
Push for REMA legislation and Provided REMA is established, understands its mission and is
help REMA to get up and active support operational, active and visible in the environment sector
running
In agribusiness projects help Provided Support was given during the LOPs of the contracts in place
partners maintain a key focus active support at the time of the 2003 ETOA. SO7 today continues to be
on ensuring that engaged with USAID-funded projects to ensure that issues
producers/processors are of environmental compliance are properly addressed.
aware of supply chain
requirements for environmental
and social values

60 RWANDA 2008 ETOA

SO6, Health and HIV/AIDS: Provided Family planning and HIV/AIDS programs have been
Strengthen family planning active support integrated into the USAID biodiversity conservation and
programs in environmentally ecotourism development project in and round Nyungwe
sensitive areas; develop National Park, one of the environmentally sensitive areas of
program for medical waste the country. Small medical waste incinerators were built in
disposal; and conduct follow-up the health centers supported around Nyungwe Forest. But in
survey of users of treated general, medical waste management remains a concern. An
mosquito nets. amended pesticide evaluation report and safer use action
plan was done in 2004 in relation to the insecticide treated
nets.
SO7, Economic Growth: Provided Bee keeping and handicrafts businesses have been
Increase off-forest timber active support supported by USAID funded projects in 2006 such as ADAR
production and enhance the and IESC. The small grant programs under the Destination
market potential of non-timber Nyungwe Project aim at supporting non timber forest income
forest products; promote forest- generating activities for the communities around the Park.
plantation-based small-scale DAPs are no longer involved in radical terracing based on
industries; support additional the ETOA 2003 recommendations.
studies on biodiversity and
better integration of terracing
on farms; and modify
development assistance
projects (DAPs) to better reflect
current socioeconomic and
environmental reality.
Provided more input in major Unknown The mission has put its efforts on Nyungwe given its
biodiversity issues (ETOA gave endemic, rich and endangered biodiversity. ORTPN is
Akagera National Park crafting and implementing a park management plan, has
rehabilitation as an example) moved ANP significantly along the path to rehabilitation. The
Park is now managed and operated by a private company
under a 49-year lease agreement with the GOR/ORTPN.
Work with East Africa Regional None Most resettlement has already occurred. Environmental
Office to help create taken strategies are needed in numerous sectors and should be
resettlement environmental applied country-wide. According to UNHCR report, refugees
strategy and returnees’ camps are still threats to environment in
Rwanda.
Build local capacity to conduct Some support IEE trainings were held and there is some capacity, but
IEEs and EIAs none with the EIAs. More training is needed
Continue to promote a Some support SO6 Health and SO7 Economic growth do work with
balanced and accountable programs under the democracy and governance SO5; The
system of governance across GOR decentralization initiatives have helped this. Examples
SOs of collaboration include: land reform initiative supported
conjointly by the three SOs decentralized health services at
district level, putting together SO6 and SO5, and PEPFAR
Wraparound activities in the Democracy and Governance
SO 5.
Conduct economic and a socio- None taken The debate over radical terracing continues to boil; although
economic analyses of terracing there have been improvements to the practice there is still
techniques an important place for USAID to help resolve the issues and
identify best practices that ensure techniques that are
effective and sustainable
Provide additional support to Some support The GIS unit at NUR is now pushing for more decentralized
NUR GIS/GPS capacity in GIS for the institutions that use it/need it the
most, i.e., REMA, Forestry Department, other planning
agencies using spatial data to make decisions
Limit involvement in Lake Kivu Unknown A US-based firm is now prepared to invest in an electrical
methane extraction to the generating plant that will use methane from the lake;
development of environmental environmental guidelines need to be in place
guidelines

ETOA UPDATE 2008 61

Support for environmental programs by USAID/Rwanda continues to be very limited by budget
constraints. Some activities have been funded by successfully leveraging monies from other SOs.
There are still many areas where technical assistance can help the country address issues that
have important impacts on the environment. Several of these are highlighted as entry points and
opportunities in Section 6. A generic list also appears in Annex C.

62 RWANDA 2008 ETOA

SECTION 6
POTENTIAL ENTRY POINTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This section discusses opportunities for investment and assistance to Rwanda’s environmental
sector that donors may wish to consider based on the findings and analyses presented in this
assessment. These recommendations are meant as entry points: ideas that warrant additional
discussion or maybe even case study investigations by donors and/or local counterparts in
government, NGOs and the private sector. The section also provides specific recommendations
for USAID presented in light of the agency’s past and current activities in Rwanda, its
experience in the region, and the comparative advantage it brings in specific instances based on
its development assistance around the world.

In general terms, the opportunities discussed here are aimed at addressing the main threats
identified in Section 4. These included:

• Population pressure
• Institutional weaknesses and inefficiencies
• Energy pressure
• Degradation of wetlands and lack of clean water
• Agricultural inefficiencies and soil erosion
• Climate change
• Waste disposal issues

The assessment and analyses in this assessment pointed out that Rwanda’s rapidly growing
population is resulting in unsustainable use of renewable natural resources in the country: that is
the number one threat.

Lack of capacity in government institutions charged with establishing standards, guidelines, and
the enforcement of policies governing the use, protection, and conservation of renewable
resources is the number two threat. These two threats have changed slightly since the 2003
ETOA. For example, regulatory institutions such as REMA and the Bureau of Standards have
been established but have yet to develop sufficient staffing and institutional capacities.

However, the country is now far better equipped to mitigate these threats and is moving as
quickly as it can to close the gaps. The donor community, and NGOs especially, have helped
ORTPN and the Rwanda Environmental Management Authority to make substantial progress
with protecting and managing the nations protected areas, particularly the three national parks.
Government programs such as the EDPRS and the positive course of decentralization, along with
some rigorous private sector investment, have also aided in mitigating the two primary threats to
biodiversity and tropical forestry conservation.

ETOA UPDATE 2008 63

6.1 General Entry Points

The two primary threats cited above are part of a much longer list; much work remains to be
done. The assessment team for this 2008 ETOA update has noted that there are four entry points
in particular where investments in technical assistance can be most effective in assisting the
environment sector in Rwanda. These are:

1. Additional and continued assistance to REMA, ORTPN, and other institutions engaged in
environmental protection and conservation

2. Directed assistance to developing legislation and policies focused on safeguarding the

environment and more importantly, help with applying the policies

3. Continued strengthening of the development of environmental public-private partnerships

and their links to local communities

4. Continued support for public education and raising awareness about environmental issues
and for engaging decentralized entities in environmental management

REMA, ORTPN, and others.

REMA is a young institution with a
well-led and enthusiastic staff;
however, it lacks professional depth
and experience. Assistance with
specific technical training,
developing guidelines (applying and
enforcing regulations, for example),
developing effective websites, and
even conducting periodic in-house
reviews on topics such as
management-by-objectives
approaches would be helpful.
Installing a GIS lab within REMA ORTPN staff trained in interpretation at Uwinka, Nyungwe
and providing technical training for National Park
staff and management training for
production flow are necessities. An environmental management authority needs this capability in
house in order to perform effectively.

Other GOR institutions that work directly in the environment sector, (Forest Service, ORTPN,
etc.) can also benefit from similar assistance, including having their own GIS capabilities.

Practical approaches to policy implementation. Too many environment policies formulated

under the Vision 2020 rubric (Forest Law, the Wildlife Policy, the Wetlands Policy) are
languishing unfinished or have not been passed. Additional policies and legislation still must be

64 RWANDA 2008 ETOA

developed. Leadership is needed at several levels to correct the situation and create movement,
because often it is simply a lack of directive experience that prevents action. In many instances,
practical approaches can be provided that will help make legislation and policies operational.
These approaches include “how-to” manuals, guidelines for developing norms and standards,
and guidelines for applying those standards and monitoring the process or results. The
experience of other institutions and countries have in environment sector policy application
needs to be leveraged. Lessons learned in other situations can be examined for their utility in
Rwanda. Hands-on training or participation in short-term assignments that allow for
environmental issue discussions and debate is always valuable for staff in growing institutions.
The objective with this set of opportunities is to aim at the practical and to gain the experience
that comes with trying to apply laws and policies.

Applying the policies will remain difficult as long as institutional coordination remains a key
challenge for government offices responsible for the environment. Communication among and
within environmental agencies is poor, especially at the central government level. As
management systems are reformed, assistance should also be targeted to make coordination
smoother and more efficient.

Strengthening community and private/public partnerships. The recent successes with

private-public partnerships should continue to be encouraged, and current experiences used to
strengthen these efforts. The NGO cooperation and communication associated with the Volcano
National Park is exemplary. Using this model elsewhere in Rwanda can be a significant
complement to the institutions that designed them and, more significantly, to the communities
that have taken the risks to participate in them. Nyungwe National Park and the communities
surrounding it are becoming engaged in partnerships that appear to be moving forward. There
will always be conflicts, but with a forum to discuss them and to work together, most of the
issues can be solved. The infrastructure planned with community and ORTPN assistance, and the
private sector investments taking place outside NNP, should provide lessons that can be applied
elsewhere. The experience gained by ORTPN in working with Dubai World Rwanda ought to be
used in attracting similar outside investors to diversify the results. (Although there are already
rumblings about the capacity to do so in such a small country.)

There are still significant opportunities in and around Rwanda’s protected areas for technical
assistance by donors and/or the private sector to communities and government institutions to
create partnerships that are mutually beneficial. Table 6.1 provides a list of what some of these
more specific entry points might be for additional donor assistance in Rwanda’s environment
sector. The list is by no means exhaustive and is provided here merely to stimulate discussion.

6.2 Opportunity Areas and Recommendations for USAID Involvement

Protected areas. Budget constraints have limited USAID/Rwanda’s role in the country’s
environment sector, but the main focus on biodiversity and ecotourism infrastructure and
marketing in Nyungwe National Park is a good and successful one. Future actions and strategies

ETOA UPDATE 2008 65

should continue to build on the present experience and work to make NNP a destination that is
equal to Volcano National Park in terms of overall tourist numbers.

USAID needs to continue its work to strengthen the professionalism and capacity of ORTPN
staff in NNP. Equally important is to maintain the ties to the surrounding communities through
the health activities and to build on the goodwill to work with district-level staff to help resolve
conflicts.

USAID can also investigate with other private sector investors, including Dubai World Rwanda,
to ensure cooperation on ecotourism activities, complementarities of investments, and assurance
that all Rwandans can have visiting access to their protected areas. (Akagera National Park is
now under Dubai World Rwanda management. ANP has not had the benefit of working with
outside technical assistance to the degree that the other two parks have. Lessons learned in PNV
and NNP, especially those that involved working with local communities, might be extended to
Dubai World as it undertakes its management responsibilities and begins to become acquainted
with its neighbors.)

Policy assistance. USAID’s environmental policy experience around the world and in the region
certainly qualifies it to sit closer to that table in Rwanda. Practical advice on implementing
environmental policy, developing guidelines and providing expertise on monitoring and
standards are areas that USAID can render assistance.

Wetlands are without a guiding policy or legislation in place. Water is Rwanda’s greatest natural
resource and it is increasingly at risk from improper use, outright destruction of the resource, and
lack of any concrete policy to regulate and monitor its health. One case in point shows up in the
GOR’s development strategy, the EDPRS, where planning aims to stimulate growth and secure
infrastructure by increasing irrigated agriculture and also creating more electrical capacity by
constructing numerous small, micro-hydro power centers. Both actions will result in a significant
increase in the consumption of water resources and the use of wetlands and other riparian
resources. But nowhere in the strategy is there concern about impacts on these water-related
resources or plans to monitor the effects of such actions.

An up-to-date, unbiased assessment of watersheds is needed and can also provide an entry point
(The last assessment was done with regard to agricultural development.) A water quality
monitoring system also needs to be established and implemented. REMA and other Ministry of
Environment staff would also be involved in such efforts. Targeted restoration projects of some
wetlands identified as critical sites might also be an additional component. There is a significant
opportunity for USAID to work with the GOR and other donors in order to draw attention to
these threatening gaps, help raise awareness about the importance and fragility of water in
Rwanda, and help implement local strategies that are more environmentally friendly.

66 RWANDA 2008 ETOA

Fuel wood. USAID’s experience
and knowledge gained in its
essential oils project, especially as
it pertains to the energy
requirements for obtaining the
distillates, can be an important
entry point to help address
Rwanda’s fuel wood crisis. The
anticipated demand of this small
business when it becomes fully
operational is estimated to the
equivalent of 5 hectares of 15-year
old eucalyptus grown in a
plantation, per year. Demands such
as this one are reported to be small
relative to the residential Field site of Ikirezi Natural Products, USAID Essential Oils Project
population demand that requires
more than 90 percent of its energy needs to come from fuel wood. The GOR has issued stopgap
environmental “directives” in an attempt to address threats from over cutting, but a
comprehensive and enforceable policy is desperately needed. USAID’s global and regional
experience, combined with the lessons being learned in Rwanda, should be called upon to help
the country resolve this issue that directly impacts the lives of almost every single citizen.

USAID/Rwanda’s current and planned budgets are very small. The funded activities do
contribute to mitigating some of the threats to the environment, biodiversity, and tropical forestry
conservation in the country. But given the opportunities for addressing an even wider range of
threats, and USAID’s global leadership in the environment sector and its leveraging possibilities
with CARPE and other African experiences, more funding for environment-related activities in
Rwanda would have an important and visible impact. And with its experience in natural
resources governance and public-private partnerships, there is also an opportunity to step into a
leadership role and to leverage action among donors and private sector participants in Rwanda’s
environmental sector.

Pollution abatement. REMA can also benefit from USAID assistance in the form of targeted,
practical advice and training. Under the SPREAD project, for example, the efforts to assist
small-scale, specialty coffee entrepreneurs yield social, technical, and political know-how in the
operation of their coffee-washing stations as well as more knowledge about public/private
partnerships in the sector. These stations discharge significant amounts of effluent into streams,
usually untreated. In addition to helping mitigate the effluent issues by researching and
constructing cost-effective settling ponds, USAID can also help inform Rwanda and coffee
entrepreneurs about the dangers and risks associated with point source pollutants and also about
acceptable world standards associated with coffee-washing. As the GOR policy to double the
number of these coffee washing stations is implemented the adoption of these techniques and

ETOA UPDATE 2008 67

standards can only help to make Rwanda’s specialty coffees more acceptable in the world
market. It is recommended that USAID work with REMA to find workable, cost-effective
solutions that adhere to international standards to resolve the pollution issue at coffee-washing
stations. REMA gains practical experience in regulating polluters, the GOR maintains the high
road while it pursues the Rwandan Specialty Coffee Brand, and USAID promotes a model for
small enterprises that can be replicated elsewhere and gains an ally with REMA.

Public awareness and education. As in the coffee-washing example just mentioned, public
education is a significant, direct opportunity for USAID and other donors. USAID is an
established “brand” in the country, primarily associated with assistance in the health sector. This
brand can be used to work with districts, communities, other government institutions, and other
donors to support continued educational efforts and public relations efforts aimed at
environmental issues.

Table 6.1 Recommended Entry Points for Donor Assistance Aimed at Mitigating Threats
to Rwanda’s Environment

Threat Recommended Entry Points Analysis

• Support community-based projects that link Population, Health • USAID has experience
and Environment (PHE) around protected areas; • This is a cross-sector
• Support income generating projects to provide alternative livelihoods; issue and communication
• Develop market infrastructure to encourage further income and collaboration are key
generation and alternative livelihoods; • Utilize and build on
• Support projects that remove people’s reliance on forest by GORs decentralization
Population engaging them in commercially viable projects (i.e. sericulture, strategy and also the
Pressure on apiculture, cultivation of medicinal plants); resources at the district
biodiversity • Promote community forest plantations with native species; and community levels
resources • Promote agricultural intensification away from forest blocks; • Continue to utilize and
and protected • Promote agro-ecological techniques in agricultural production to build on NGO expertise
areas help reduce forest loss; in Rwanda
• Promote environmental education;
• Encourage behavioral changes from traditional practices to
holistic approaches;
• Support food security projects, particularly related to agriculture
intensification, diversification, and commercialization to decrease
pressures on resources; and
• Encourage family planning and education endeavors to
complement such efforts, as well as social programs to mitigate
migration effects.
• Continue to support ORTPN capacity building for its protected • USAID has experience
area staff in management and technical areas; that it can leverage
• Support District Environmental Officers in community liaison, • USAID strength
conflict resolution and planning; • Other donors are present
• Work with ORTPN, REMA and the Forest Department to resolve who can participate and
Institutional conflict and inaction that pertains to the use and management of provide expertise
weaknesses buffer zone plantations around Nyungwe National Park;
and • Support practical training and continued education in ecological
inefficiencies monitoring, watershed monitoring, policy reform, and sustainable
financing;
• Assist central regulatory agencies with crafting (and then
implementing) hands-on (how-to) instructions for implementing

68 RWANDA 2008 ETOA

 Threat Recommended Entry Points Analysis
rules and regulations, monitoring processes, chain of custody,
etc. to make them less dependent and vulnerable to outside
assistance;
• Work with the government institutions responsible for protecting
forest resources and conserving biodiversity in providing clear
and easily understood language related to policies and laws;
• Assist institutions charged with conserving and protecting the
environment to develop strategies and action agendas that can
resolve the problems that the GOR has (usually) inadequately
addressed by issuing “environmental instructions”;
• Provide assistance in acquisition and training of GIS hardware
and software to regulatory agencies to make them self-sufficient
in using these tools and generating their own maps, overlays and
analyses; and
• Assist with practical management training aimed at conflict
resolution, communication and coordination
• Support intensive reforestation programs through environmental • United States has
education and awareness-raising activities; expertise in this area
• Support policy and legislative action that promotes fuel wood • USAID has experience
plantations on private land; • Private sector has
• Assist in the development of a strategic action plan for forestry experience
and forest management in areas outside of protected areas; • Lessons , ideas and
Energy • Promote the sustainable use of forest products for the benefit of policies from other
pressure local communities; African nations need to
• Improve forest sector governance, especially at the district level; be in the picture
• Help the forestry industry become more competitive and
sustainable;
• Assist in the development and enforcement of legal texts
connected to forest exploitation and that comply with
environmental impact assessment provisions;
• Support local pilot forestry projects;
• Support carbon sequestration schemes;
• Support public and private efforts to safely tap the methane
resources under Lake Kivu;
• Support strategies that examine other alternative energy sources
or technologies that will reduce dependence on fuel wood for
cooking; and
• Alternative fuel sources and tree plantations should be promoted
to alleviate energy consumption pressures.
• Assist government efforts to develop and implement a • USAID strength
comprehensive watershed and wetlands strategy and monitoring • USAID has experience in
system; country and around the
• Promote best practices for the treatment of wastewater from world
coffee washing stations and work with the GOR to establish • GEF project is currently
standards and monitoring procedures for wastewater flushed into working to classify four
Degradation watercourses from these stations; wetland areas
of wetlands • Help establish community-based management schemes for • Other donors are present
and lack of wetlands; with experience
clean water • Disseminate better agricultural practices and soil conservation • Private sector
techniques, especially those associated with terracing involvement is key in
techniques; some instances
• Work with the public and private sector to undertake actions that
will stop channelization in wetlands, rivers, and streams; and
• Help public and NGO efforts to raise awareness of the
importance of wetland conservation and watershed protection.

ETOA UPDATE 2008 69

 • Work with community organizations and district level • USAID has extensive
environmental and agricultural officers to discourage the use of experience
pesticides, chemical fertilizers and herbicides; • Other donors are present
• Promote crop diversification, integrated pest management and with experience
rational soil conservation techniques; • Draw on knowledge and
Agricultural • Disseminate better agricultural practices and soil conservation lessons from other
inefficiencies techniques; countries in the region
and soil • Help to mitigate risks associated with radical terracing techniques
erosion and encourage the GOR to promote alternatives that are more
sustainable and less labor intensive;
• Engage district-level and national interests to actively
communicate and participate in cooperative food security
planning;
• Support soil conservation practices, especially on upland areas;
and
• Support tree nurseries, reforestation projects, and tree
plantations to counter deforestation.
• Explore Rwanda’s participation in carbon sequestration trading • United States has
projects; expertise in this area
• Adaptation measures need to be explored and discussed for • Rwanda has begun to
Rwanda’s most vulnerable areas to prepare for climate change; address the issue, most
Climate • Support measures to plant trees; and notably in relation to its
change • Continue to provide assistance in emergencies and disasters energy sector
provoked by climate disturbances (population displacement due • Other donors have
to floods or drought). experience and there are
grant funds available as
seed money for
developing strategies
• Need to use experience
and lessons learned from
other African nations that
have started to address
the issue
Waste disposal at coffee washing stations
• Work with REMA to find cost-effective solutions that adhere to
international standards to resolve pollution issues;
• Promote new pulping machines that minimize water consumption
without comprising the quality of coffee processing;
Waste • Promote sustainable waste water management of coffee washing
disposal stations by scaling up the Cyarumbo coffee washing station (see
issues Section 5); and
• Institute compost management training to coffee washing station
owners to ensure efficient use of coffee pulps and enhance soil
characteristics.
Medical waste management
• Ensure incinerators at all USAID assisted clinics meet the safety
and environmental requirements (site selection, construction,
emissions, burned residues maintenance, and protection of
operational staff);
• Provide USAID assisted health centers and clinics with
incinerator maintenance manuals and training to operational staff
manipulating medical waste on a daily basis; and
• Find a sustainable and safe way to dispose of Presidential
Malaria Initiative Indoor Residual Spraying waste in concert with
PMI Washington.

70 RWANDA 2008 ETOA

RESOURCES CONSULTED
Documents, Reports, Articles

Albertine Rift Conservation Society. 2005. Albertine Rift Strategic Framework, 2004 – 2030.
Kampala, ARCOS/DFGFI/ITFC/IGCP/WCS/WWF/MUIENR Steering Group 25p.

Associates in Rural Development. 2005. Tropical Forestry and Biodiversity (FAA 118 and 119)
Analyses: Lessons Learned and Best Practices from Recent USAID Experience. USAID. Bureau
for Economic Growth, Agriculture and Trade, Office of Environment and Natural Resources.
PN-ADE-195. 74p.

Biscoe, M. and S. Yade. 2007. Pesticide Evaluation Report and Safe User Action Plan
(PERSUAP) for Indoor Residual Spraying (IRS) for Malaria Control in Rwanda. RTI
International. 54p.

Briggs, P. and J. Booth. 2007. Rwanda. Guilford (CT), Global Pequot Press: Bradt Travel
Guides, Ltd. 264p.

Chemonics International Inc. 2006. Assessing USAID’s Investments in Rwanda’s Coffee

Sector- Best Practices and Lessons Learned to Consolidate Results and Expand Impact. USAID.
44p.

Chemonics International, Inc. 2005. Best Practices for Biodiversity and Tropical Forestry
Assessments. USAID. Bureau for Economic Growth, Agriculture and Trade, Office of
Agriculture. PN-ADE-673. 28p.

Evans, A., L-H. Piron, Z. Curran and R. Driscoll. 2006. Independent Evaluation of Rwanda’s
Poverty Reduction Strategy 2002-2005 (PRSP 1), Final Report. London, ODI/IDS. 118p.

Gapusi, R.J. and C. Mugunga. 1997. Especes Rares ou en Extinction dans la Flore Rwandaise.
Kigali, ISAR Ruhande. 124p.

Gibson, D., G. Bikwemu and J. Lichte. 2002. Rwanda : Quality and Environmental
Management Incentives for Agricultural Trade. Submitted to USAID/Rwanda by Chemonics
International. Contract PCE-I-00-99-00003-00, TO 807.

Global Environment Facility. 2006. Project Implementation Document: Strengthening

Biodiversity Conservation Capacity in the Forest Protected Area System In Rwanda.
GEF/UNDP/Government of Rwanda. 37p.

Gray, M., A. McNeilage, K. Fawcett, M. Robbins, B. Ssebide, D. Mbula, and P. Uwingeli. 2005.
Virunga Volcanoes Range Mountain Gorilla Census, 2003. Joint Organizers Report.
UWA/ORPTN/ICCN. 96p.

ETOA UPDATE 2008 71

Government of Rwanda. 2008a. Akagera National Park Lease Agreement between the
Government of Rwanda/ORPTN and Dubai World Rwanda-Akagera National Park Limited –
Executive Version. Kigali, ORPTN. 33p.

Government of Rwanda. 2008b. Development Projects Implementation Report – Annual Report,

2007, Vol. 1, Multilateral-funded Projects. Kigali, Ministry of Finance and Economic
Planning/CEPEX. 416p. +annex.

Government of Rwanda. 2008c. Development Projects Implementation Report – Annual Report,

2007, Vol. 2, Bilateral, UN agencies and NGO-funded Projects. Kigali, Ministry of Finance and
Economic Planning/CEPEX. 159p. +annex.

Government of Rwanda. 2007a. Economic Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy

(EPDRS), 2008 – 2012, Final Draft. Kigali. Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning. 169p.

Government of Rwanda. 2007b. Intensification of the Sustainable Production Systems Sub-

programme. Kigali, Ministry of Agriculture & Livestock. 94p.

Government of Rwanda. 2007c. Millennium Development Goals: Towards Social and Economic
Growth. Country Report. Kigali, National Institute of Statistics of Rwanda. 68p.

Government of Rwanda. 2007d. National Wildlife Policy DRAFT. [Not yet adopted]. Kigali,
ORPTN. Var. pages.

Government of Rwanda. 2006a. Environment and Land Use Management – Joint Sector
Review. Kigali, Ministry of Lands, Environment, Forestry, Water and Mines (and Development
Partners). 31p.

Government of Rwanda. 2006b. National Adaptation Programmes of Action to Climate Change.

85p.

Government of Rwanda. 2005a. Initial National Communication under the UN Framework

Convention on Climate Change. Kigali, Ministry of Lands, Environment, Forestry, Water and
Mines. 82p. +annexes.

Government of Rwanda. 2005b. Organic law determining the modalities of protection,

conservation, and promotion of the environment in Rwanda, No. 04/2005 of 08/04/2005. Kigali,
Official Gazette of the Republic of Rwanda, Year 44 No. 9.

Government of Rwanda. 2004a. National Forestry Policy. Kigali, Ministry of Land,

Environment, Forestry, Water and Mining. 31p.

72 RWANDA 2008 ETOA

Government of Rwanda. 2004b. National Land Policy. Kigali, Ministry of Land, Environment,
Forestry, Water and Mining. 48p.

Government of Rwanda. 2003a. National Strategy and Action Plan for Biodiversity Conservation
in Rwanda. Kigali, Ministry of Lands, Resettlement and Environment. 80p.

Government of Rwanda. 2003b. Rwanda’s National Great Apes Survival Plan, 2003-2008.
Kigali, Ministry of Lands, Environment, Forestry, Water and Natural Resources. 42p.
Government of Rwanda. 2003c. The Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda. Kigali. Ministry of
Justice and Institutional Relations. 55p.

Government of Rwanda. 2001. National Decentralization Policy. Kigali. Ministry of Local

Government and Social Affairs. 41p.

Gurrieri, J., J. Gritzner and K. Westerman. 2008. Technical Assistance Report on: Continued
support to the IGCP in analyzing the Virunga-Bwindi (Uganda) Region watersheds for water
supplies to local communities. USFS International Program, Addendum to the 2005 report. 41p.

Gurrieri, J., J. Gritzner and K. M. Chivas. 2005. Technical Assistance Report on: Continued
support to the IGCP in analyzing the Virunga-Bwindi Region watersheds for water supplies to
local communities. Republic of Rwanda, Republic of Uganda and Democratic Republic of
Congo. USFS International Program. 44p.

Hitimana, J. A. Namana, T. Sengelama and J. Nyirimana. 2006. Community-Based Natural

Resources Management (CBNRM) Plan – Kinigi Area, Rwanda. Kigali, IGCP. 80p. + annexes.

Rwanda-Akagera National Park Limited and Government of the Republic of Rwanda through
ORPTN, Executive Version. 33p. +annexes

Hofmeyr, Hersten and Gihwala, Inc. 2008. Akagera National Park Lease Agreement entered into
between Dubai World Rwanda and the GOR, ORTPN.

International Gorilla Conservation Program. 2008. Unpublished data (Volcano National Park).

International Gorilla Conservation Program. 2007. IGCP Program Profile, October 2007.
WWF/AWF/FFI. 8p

International Gorilla Conservation Program. 2006. Ten-year Transboundary Strategic Plan.

Central Albertine Rift Transboundary Protected Area Network. Kigale. Transboundary Core
Secretariat. WWF/AWF/FFI. 55p.

International Gorilla Conservation Program. 2004a. Final Report of Community Consultation for
the Community Conservation Programme – Parc National des Volcans – General Management
Planning. Kigali, ORPTN/PADDEP. 51p. +annexes.

ETOA UPDATE 2008 73

International Gorilla Conservation Program. 2004b. Parc National des Volcans – Plan
d’Amenagement et de Gestion, 2005-2009. Kigali, ORPTN. 114p.

International Resources Group. 2008. Quarterly Report, FY2008 – 2nd Quarter: January-March
2008. Profitable Ecotourism through Improved Biodiversity Conservation in Rwanda. USAID
Contract No. 696-C-00-06-00170-00. 11p. + annexes.

International Resources Group, Ltd. 2007. First Year Work Plan (Revised), October 2006 –
September 2007 – Profitable Ecotourism Through Improved Biodiversity Conservation in
Rwanda. USAID Contract No. 696-C-00-06-00170-00. 61p.

International Resources Group, Ltd. 2006. Performance Monitoring Plan – Profitable Ecotourism
Through Improved Biodiversity Conservation in Rwanda. USAID Contract No. 696-C-00-06-
00170-00. 19p.

International Travel Maps. 2007. Burindi and Rwanda, 1:300,000. Vancouver, ITMB.

Kayitare, A. 2008. Transboundary Natural Resource Management in the Virunga/Central

Albertine Rift. Kigali. IGCP. Unpublished PowerPoint presented at the Conservation
Conference, 19 June 2008.

Kanyarukiga, S.G. and V. Ngarambe. 1998. Wetland characterization and classification for
sustainable agricultural development – Rwanda case study. Rome, FAO Document Repository.

Masozera, M. 2008. Valuing and capturing the benefits of ecosystem services of Nyungwe
Watershed, Southwest Rwanda. Kigali, WCS/IRG. 49p.

McKay, A., M. Stode, C. O’Brien, and G. Greenwell. 2007. EICV Poverty Analysis for
Rwanda’s Economic Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy. Oxford Policy Management.
90p.

Mpyisi, E, J.Nyarwaya, E. Shingiro, D. Clay, and V. Kelly. 2000. Food Security Survey: Phase
1: Agricultural production and land use season 2000A. Kigali: Rwanda Ministry of Agriculture,
Animal Resources, and Forestry. 19 p.

Munanura, I., F. Mulindahabi, N. Barakabuye, and D. Mukakamani. 2006. Mukura Forest

Biodiversity Survey – Draft Report. Kigali, ARECO/WCS. 25p. +annexes.

Musahara, H., T. Musabe, and I. Kabenga. 2007. Economic analysis of natural resource use in
Rwanda with a case of land and water resources use in Rugezi Wetlands. Kigali.
REMA/UNEP/UNDP. 97p.

74 RWANDA 2008 ETOA

Odada, E.O. 2004. Global International Water Assessment, Regional Assessment 47, East Africa
Rift Valley Lakes. Kalmar, University of Kalmar/UNEP. 180p.

ORC-Macro. 2006. Rwanda Demographic and Health Survey. 2005. Kigali, Institut National de
la Statistique, Ministere des Finances et de la Planification Economique. 256p. + annexes.

Office Rwandais du Tourisme et des Parcs Nationaux. 2006. Akagera National Park
Management Plan, 2006-2010. Kigali, ORPTN. 143p.

Office Rwandais du Tourisme et des Parcs Nationaux. 2005. Nyungwe National Park General
Management Plan – Draft Copy, 2006-2010. Kigali, ORPTN. 90p.

Office Rwandais du Tourisme et des Parcs Nationaux. 2004a. Plan Stratégique, 2004-2008.
Kigali, ORPTN. 77p + annexes.

Office Rwandais du Tourisme et des Parcs Nationaux. 2004b. Tourism Revenue Sharing in
Rwanda – Provisional Policy Guidelines. Kigali, ORPTN-Rwanda Wildlife Agency. 27p.

Plumptre, A.S. M. Masozera, P.J. Fashing, A. McNeilage, C. Ewango, B.A. Kaplan, and I.
Liengola. 2002. Biodiversity surveys of the Nyungwe Forest Reserve in Southwest Rwanda.
New York, WCS Working Paper No. 19. 95p.

Plumptre, A.S., A. Kayitare, H. Rainer, M. Gray, I. Munabura, N. Barakabuye, A. Asuma, M.

Sivha, and A. Namara. 2004. The Socio-economic Status of People Living near Protected Areas
in the Central Albertine Rift. WCS, IGCP, CARPE. Central Albertine Rift Technical Report No.
4. 127p.

Poverty Environmental Initiative/Rwanda. February 2006. Mainstreaming environment in energy

strategies to address poverty in Rwanda. 12p.

Resch, T. 2008. Personal communication, 12 June 2008. USAID Africa Bureau Environmental
Advisor.

Rwanyiziri, G. and E. Kayijamahe. 2005. Parc National des Volcans Plan de Zonage. Kigali,
ORPTN/GIS Centre/IGCP/PADDEP. 112p. +annexes

Seyler, J. and J.M. Mugemana. 2003. Environmental Threats and Opportunities Assessment,
118/119 Assessment. Kigali. Chemonics and USAID/Rwanda. 135 p. + annexes.

Smith, D. 2007. Devastating floods sweep across Africa. WSWS News. September 29, 2007.
WSWS.org.

ETOA UPDATE 2008 75

Tietze, K. 2000. Lake Kivu Gas development and Promotion-related Issues: Safe and
Environmentally Sound Exploitation – Final report. Kigali, Ministry of Energy, Water and
Natural Resources. 110p.

Twesigye, C. 2007. Poverty Environment Indicators and Strategy for Monitoring them within the
Framework of the EDPRS. Rwanda Environmental Management Authority. Kigali, Economic
Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy. 50p.

UNDP/UNEP. 2007a. Economic Analysis of Natural Resource Management in Rwanda. Kigali,

Poverty and Environment Initiative Project (PEI)/REMA. 60p.

UNDP/UNEP. 2007b. Pilot Integrated Ecosystem Assessment of Bugesera. Kigali, Poverty and
Environment Initiative Project (PEI)/REMA. 94p.

UNDP/UNEP. 2007c. Rwanda Guidelines for Mainstreaming Environment in the Economic and
Poverty Reduction Strategy. Kigali, Poverty and Environment Initiative Project (PEI)/REMA.
86p.

UNDP/UNFPA. 2007. Country Programme Document for Rwanda. New York,

DP/FPA/RWA/6. 7p.

UNGASS. 2008. United Nations General Assembly Special Session on HIV/AIDS Country
Progress Report: Republic of Rwanda. Draft. January 2006-December 2007. 73p.

US Agency for International Development. 2008. Africa Bureau Overview. PowerPoint June 4,
2008. Washington, DC. Not published.

US Agency for International Development. 2005a. Biodiversity Conservation: A Guide for

USAID Staff and Partners. Washington, BIOFOR IQC (ARD) Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-
00013-00, Task Order 2. 197p.

US Agency for International Development. 2005b. Initial Environmental Examination (IEE),

Timor Economic Rehabilitation and Development Project (TERADP). Washington, DC. ANE
05-10 IEE East Timor. 20p.

US Agency for International Development/Ghana. 2006. Environmental Threats and

Opportunities Assessment, 118/119 Assessment. Accra. 73p. +annexes.

US Agency for International Development/Rwanda. 2005a. Environmental Analysis (Annex 1 of

the 2006 Rwanda Strategy Statement Environmental Analysis by W. Knausenberger, REDSO
REA). 10p.

US Agency for International Development/Rwanda. 2005b. Annual Report. 9p.

76 RWANDA 2008 ETOA

US Agency for International Development/Rwanda. 2004. USAID/Rwanda Integrated Strategic
Plan, 2004 – 2009, Unrestricted Version. Kigali. USAID. 92p.

Uwizeye, J.C. and A. Hammill. 2007. Preparation of the implementation plan for Phase 2: 2007-
2009—Workshop Report for Reducing the Vulnerability of Rwanda’s Energy Sector to the
Impacts of Climate Change. Kigali, UNEP GEF Pilot Project. KIST/IISD/ACTS. 14p.

Vinck, P. 2006. Rwanda Comprehensive Food Security and Vulnerability Analysis (March-April
2006). Rome. World Food Programme. 58p.

Wong, C., M.Roy, and A.K. Duraiappah. 2005. Connecting Poverty and Ecosystem Services: A
Series of Seven Country Scoping Studies, Focus on Rwanda. United National Environment
Programme and the International Institute for Sustainable Development. 33p.

Internet Web Sites

Africa Wildlife Foundation, African Heartlands Programme page. 2008. Accessed June 2008.
http://www.awf.org

Albertine Rift Project. 2008. Accessed June 2008.

http://www.albertinerift.org

Birdlife International Factsheet on Cyamudongo forest from its World Bird Database. 2008.
Accessed July 2008.
http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/species/index.html?action=SitHTMDetails.asp&sid=6778&m=
0

CIA World Fact Book, Rwanda page. 2008. Accessed June 2008.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/rw.html

Climate change in Rwanda. 2008. Accessed July 2008.

http://www.rwandagateway.org/article.php3?id_article=3493
http://www.iisd.org/climate/vulnerability/adaptation rwanda.asp
http://www.macfound.org/site/c.lkLXJ8MQKrH/b.1013753/k.5E4/International Grantmaking
Conservation__Grantmaking_Guidelines.htm

Dian Fossey Conservation Programme. 2008. Accessed June 2008.

http://www.gorillas.org

Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund International. 2008. Accessed June 2008.

http://www.gorillafund.org

Dubai World Africa webpage. 2008. Accessed June 2008.

http://www.dubaiworldafrica.com/website/content/globalpresence.html

ETOA UPDATE 2008 77

Eastern African Fine Coffee Association webpage. 2008. Accessed July 2008.
http://www.eafca.org/index.asp

Environmentally Sound and Management Capacity-Building for Partners and Programs in Africa
(ENCAP) biodiversity and forestry analysis page. 2007. Accessed June 2008.
http://www.encapafrica.org/biodiversity.htm

Fauna and Flora International – support to IGCP. 2008. Accessed June/July 2008.
http://www.fauna-flora.org/mountaingorillas.php

Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) Document Repository site for Rwanda wetlands
classification paper. 1998. Accessed July 2008.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/x6611e/x6611e02c.htm

Geographic Information Systems and Remote Sensing Centre, National University of Rwanda.
2008. Accessed July 2008.
http://www.cgisnur.org/

Gishwati Forest Reserve, miscellaneous pages. 2008. Accessed July 2008.

http://www.rwandagateway.org/article.php3?id_article=8405

Gishwati Forest devastation results in deadly landslides by D. Smith. 2007. Accessed July 2008.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/sep2007/afri-s29.shtml

International Gorilla Conservation Program (IGCP). 2008. Accessed June 2008.

http://www.igcp.org
http://www.mountaingorillas.org

International Monetary Fund (IMF) page on Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative (HIPC).
2008. Accessed June 2008.
http://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/facts/hipc.htm

International Union for the Conservation of Nature. 2008. 2008 IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species. Accessed November 2008.
http://www.iucnredlist.org/

Kigali City Master Plan page. 2008. Accessed July 2008

http://www.kigalicity.gov.rw/spip.php?article67

“Kigali Sewage Problems Still Lack Solution”. New Times article, 11 Jan 08. 2008. Accessed
July 2008.
http://allafrica.com/stories/200801110272.html

78 RWANDA 2008 ETOA

Lake Kivu’s methane gas resource. 2008. Accessed July 2008.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-lake23-2008may23,0,5609738.story

MacArthur Foundation, Conservation and Sustainable Development page. 2008. Accessed July
2008
http://www.macfound.org/site/c.jjJYJcMNIqE/b.2004531/k.F18/Conservation_and_Sustainable_
Development.htm

Managing for Development Results (MfDR) homepage. 2008. Accessed June 2008
http://www.mfdr.org

Millennium Challenge Corporation Rwanda page. 2008. Accessed June 2008

http://www.mcc.gov/countries/rwanda/index.php

National Institute of Statistics of Rwanda (NISR) page. Rwanda Demographic and Health
Survey. 2005. Accessed July 2008.
http://statistics.gov.rw/images/pdfdemography/01.intro_edsr.pdf

Natural Resources Defense Council site on environmental dimensions of coffee growing. 1996.
Accessed July 2008.
http://www.nrdc.org/health/farming/ccc/chap4.asp

Office Rwandais du Tourisme et des Parcs Nationaux (ORPTN). 2008. Accessed June 2008.
http://www.rwandatourism.com

Rwanda Development Gateway. Site sponsored by National University of Rwanda. 2008.

Accessed July 2008.
http://www.rwandagateway.org/article.php3?id_article=894

Rwandan Forest Mapping Project. 2005. Accessed July 2008.

http://www.cgisnur.org/article.php3?id_article=42

Rwanda (road/travel) maps. Accessed June 2008.

http://www.itmp.com

Rwanda’s perspective on global warming. 2007. Accessed July 2008.

http://www.rwandagateway.org/article.php3?id_article=5735

The World Law Guide. Legislation Rwanda. 2008. Accessed July 2008.
http://www.lexadin.nl/wlg/legis/nofr/oeur/lxwerwa.htm

UNAIDS. Regional Support Team for Eastern and Southern Africa: Rwanda. 2006. Accessed
July 2008.
http://www.unaidsrstesa.org/countries/rwanda/rwanda.html#global report

ETOA UPDATE 2008 79

UNDP homepage. 2008. Accessed June 2008.
http://www.undp.org/

UNEP/WCMC. 2008. Protected areas of the world. Accessed June 2008.

http://www.unep-wcmc.org/protected_areas/data/pa_world_text.html

UNEP-WCMC. 18 July, 2008. UNEP-WCMC Species Database: CITES-Listed Species.

http://www.unep-
wcmc.org/isdb/CITES/Taxonomy/country list.cfm/isdb/CITES/Taxonomy/country list.cfm?dis
playlanguage=eng&Country=RW&submit=Go

UN Rwanda sites. 2008. Accessed June/July 2008.

http://www.unrwanda.org
http://www.undp.org.rw

USAID homepage. 2008. Accessed June 2008.

http://www.usaid.gov/missions/mg/about/biodiversity.html

USAID FRAME, Rwanda page. 2008. Accessed June 2008

http://www.frameweb.org/ev_en.php?ID=1087_201&ID2=DO_TOPIC

USAID Rwanda website.2008 Accessed May, July 2008.

http://www.usaid.gov/locations/sub-saharan africa/countries/rwanda/

Wetland management in Rwanda. 2005. Accessed July 2008.

http://www.rwandagateway.org/article.php3?id_article=894

Wildlife Conservation Society, Rwanda page. 2008. Accessed June 2008.

http://www.wcs.org/international/Africa/rwanda

World Bank homepage. 2008. Accessed May 2008.

www.worldbank.org

World Resources Institute. 2003a. Biodiversity and protected areas. Accessed June 2008.
http://earthtrends.wri.org/pdf_library/country_profiles/bio_cou_646.pdf

World Resource Institute. 2003b. Earthtrends: Country Profile: Forests, Grasslands and
Drylands: Rwanda. Accessed July 2008.
http://earthtrends.wri.org/text/forests-grasslands-drylands/country-profile-153.html

WWF Rwanda page. 2008. Accessed July 2008.

http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/where_we_work/africa/where/rwanda/index.cfm

80 RWANDA 2008 ETOA

 .

ANNEX A
SCOPE OF WORK FOR USAID/RWANDA ENVIRONMENTAL THREATS
AND OPPORTUNITIES ASSESSMENT WITH AN EMPHASIS ON TROPICAL
FORESTRY AND BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION

1. PURPOSE

The purpose of this work is to deliver to USAID/Rwanda a countrywide Environmental Threats and
Opportunities Assessment (ETOA) with a special focus on Tropical Forestry and Biodiversity
Conservation needs and related issues analysis that will inform the Environmental Compliance Annex
of the USAID/Rwanda Operational Plans (OP) in the coming years, under ADS 201.3.4.11 and ADS
204.5. Based on the results of this two-fold assessment, this work will provide recommendations to
USAID/Rwanda on how to efficiently contribute to the conservation needs identified.

The last ETOA of USAID Rwanda was conducted in February 2003 when the Mission was writing its
five-year Integrated Strategic Plan (ISP 2004-2008). This Environmental Assessment included the
Mission’s last FAA Section 118 Tropical Forests and 119 biodiversity conservation analyses. The
document investigated the causes and severity of environmental problems in Rwanda and how these
relate to the condition of tropical forests and to the conservation of biodiversity (TF&BD). The 2003
ETOA recommended how activities under the intermediate results (IRs) of the Mission’s SOs could
promote the conservation of TF&BD. In November 2005, the Regional Environmental Officer together
with the mission updated the FAA 118 Tropical Forest and FAA 119 Biodiversity Analyses for the
environmental compliance purpose while the mission was writing its 2006 Strategy Statement and
recommended to revise by 2008 the ETOA along with the FAA118/119.

2. BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION

Updating ETOA and revisiting FAA 118/119 analyses are justified by three reasons:

The first reason is related to the strategic and operational planning process requirements. The
ETOA is a useful programming tool which will help the USAID Rwanda to update its data and
assumptions on Rwanda environment as a whole and better integrate environment concerns into its
overall program during the annual operational planning (OP) processes. Since January 2007, the
USAID Rwanda’s ISP (2004-2008), as modified by the OP and its associated guidance and elements
budgets, was extended indefinitely until further notice. 1 The ETOA occurs while the country has just
adopted its Economic Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy (EDPRS) for the period of 2008
through 2012 which integrates environment across the programs as one of the key cross-cutting
actions 2 . The ETOA will help the Mission in aligning its Operational Plans and the upcoming Country
Assistance Strategy with the GOR’s EDPRS mainly in the area of environment mainstreaming. This
alignment of the USAID’s Rwanda programs with the EDPRS will signal support for the GOR and
enhance synergy with its programs.
The second reason is linked to the environment requirements. The core environmental requirements
of USAID operating unit strategic plans are spelled out in 201.3.4.11.b Technical Analysis for Strategic

1
Interim Guidance on the Status of USAID Strategic Plans Under the New Foreign Assistance Framework ( January 11,
2007 USAID Notice)
2
MINECOFIN, EDPRS 2008 -2012, p.39

SCOPE OF WORK A-1

Plans, Environmental Analysis, and are derived from provisions of the Foreign Assistance Act (FAA)
of 1961:

ƒ FAA 117 on “Environment and Natural Resources,” dictates that operating units will
implement their programs with an aim toward maintaining (and restoring) natural resources
upon which economic growth depends, and to consider the impact of their activities on the
environment. USAID/Rwanda recognizes that protection of the environment and wise
management of the natural resources base are absolute requirements of any successful
development program. The legal requirements of the FAA are reflected in USAID’s ADS
Chapter 204 “Environmental Procedures,” which provides essential procedures and policy on
the application of 22 CFR Part 216. This regulation codifies the Agency's procedures "to ensure
that environmental factors and values are integrated into the USAID decision making process."
Further, 22 CFR 216.5 requires USAID operating units to conduct their assistance programs in
ways that are sensitive to the protection of endangered or threatened species and their critical
habitats.

ƒ Sections 118 “Tropical Forests” and 119 “Endangered Species” of the FAA codify the more
specific U.S. interests in forests and biological diversity. These two provisions require that all
USAID Missions conduct a periodic country analysis of the conservation and sustainable use of
tropical forests and biological diversity. Specifically, FAA Sections 118 and 119 require that all
country plans include: (a) an analysis of the actions necessary in that country to achieve
conservation and sustainable management of tropical forests (118) and conserve biological
diversity (119); and (b) the extent to which current or proposed USAID actions meet those
needs. By mandating these analyses, Congress is recognizing the fundamental role that tropical
forests and the conservation of biodiversity play in sustainable development 3 .

The third reason concerns the new developments in Rwanda’s environmental context which need to be
taken into consideration at programmatic level. Since the last 2003 ETOA, there have been significant
developments in the legal and policy framework governing environmental management and inspiring
implementation initiatives in Rwanda:

At policy level, the National Environment Policy has been put in place by the Government of Rwanda
since 2003. Key areas on target by this policy are natural resources protection: water resources, forest
and protected areas, lands, soil and underground soil, wetlands and other numerous elements of the
biodiversity. The National Environment policy has political and strategic options regarding population and
regional planning, management of the use of natural resources and other socio-economic sectors with
necessary provisions to the implementation of the policy. It constitutes a framework of conciliation of the
three pillars of sustainable development which are the environment, the social and the economic set up.
This way, it falls under the policy of poverty reduction while ensuring the quality of life and environment

Other policies or strategies have also been adopted by the Government of Rwanda: National strategy
and Action plan for biodiversity conservation ( April 2003), Land Policy (2004), National Policy on
Forestry (2004), National Policy on Water and Sanitation (2004), the national biosafety framework for
Rwanda in final draft (2005), ICT policy statement and Action Plan ( 2006-2010) in environment
related issues.
With regards to the legal framework, many laws or presidential/ministerial orders have been enacted in
relation to the environment:

3
http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/environment/biodiversity/118_119_analyses.html

A-2 ANNEX A
 .

ƒ The organic law N° 04/2005 of 08/04/2005 determining the modalities of protecting, safeguarding,
and promoting the environment in Rwanda:
ƒ The law N° 16/2006 of the 03/04/2006 on organization, operation and attributions of the Rwandan
Environment Management Authority (REMA) and the agency is operating since June 2006. REMA
is now a functional agency beginning to forge roles at both the national and District levels, and
it oversees the compilation of State of the Environment Reports and the development and
implementation of Environmental Action Plans.
ƒ The Law n° 14/2003 of 23/5/2003 related to production, quality control and commercialization of
plant seeds,
• The Rotterdam International Convention on the establishment of international procedures
agreed by states on commercial transactions of agricultural pesticides and other poisonous
products, signed in Rotterdam on 11 September 1998 and in New York from 12 November
1998 to 10 September 1999 was approved by Presidential Order n° 28/01 of 24 August 2003
approving the membership of Rwanda;
• The Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous wastes and
their disposal as adopted at Basel on 22 March 1989 was approved by Presidential Order n°
29/01 of 24 August 2003 approving the membership of Rwanda;
• The Montreal International Convention on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, signed in
London (1990), Copenhagen (1992), Montreal (1997), Beijing (1999), especially in its Article
2 of London amendments, and Article 3 of Copenhagen ,Montreal and Beijing amendments
was approved by Presidential Order n° 30/01 of 24 August 2003 related to the membership of
Rwanda,
• The Cartagena protocol on Biosafety to the Convention of Biodiversity signed in Nairobi from
May 15, to 26, 2000 and in New York from June 5, 2000 to June 4, 2001 was authorised to be
ratified by Law n° 38/2003 of 29 December 2003;
• The Kyoto Protocol to the Framework Convention on Climate Change adopted at Kyoto on
March 6, 1998 was authorised to be ratified by Law n° 36/ 2003 of 29 December 2003;
• The Ramsar International Convention of February 2, 1971 on Wetlands of International
importance, especially as waterfowl habitats was authorised to be ratified by Law n° 37/2003 of
29 December 2003;
• The Bonn Convention opened for signature on June 23, 1979 on conservation of migratory
species of wild animals as authorised to be ratified by Law n° 35/2003 of 29 December 2003 ;

At ministerial levels, various environmental instructions have been promulgated:

• Ban of cutting threes before maturity ( Instruction N° 01/2003 dated on July 14, 2003)
• Ban of fuel wood use in making brick and tiles ( Instruction N° 0001/2004 dated on July 16,
2004)
• Authorizations required for cutting and transporting threes at maturity (Instruction n° 001/2006
dated on February 3, 2006.
• Site selection and construction requirements for coffee washing stations ( Instruction n° 001/06
dated on February 24,2006)
• Ministerial directive of the 9/8/2004 taken by the Minister of Lands, Environment, Forestry, Water
and Mines relating to the use and the manufacture of plastic bags,

To implement the environmental conventions that Rwanda has ratified, different projects and initiatives
have been undertaken and financed jointly by the Ministry in charge of Land, Environment, Forests,

SCOPE OF WORK A-3

Water and Mines (MINITERE) and United Nations Agencies as well as the Global Environmental
Fund (GEF): Persistent Organic Pollutant (PoPs); National Initial Communication on Climate Change;
National Action Programs for Adaptation to Climate Change (PANA), Poverty and Environment
Initiative (PEI), Institutional Support Project to Environmental Management in Rwanda (PAIGER),
Decentralization and Environmental Management Project covering the Western Province (DEMP) and
Protected Areas Biodiversity ( PAB). All these projects through various studies carried out have drawn
lessons that could be useful to any development agencies engaged in the environment fields.

3. USAID PROGRAMS IN RWANDA

USAID programs in Rwanda fall into 3 program areas

ƒ Governing justly and democratically

ƒ Investing in people
ƒ Economic growth

The Economic Growth program encompasses agriculture, private sector competitiveness and
environment. In the country where ninety percent of Rwandan population depends on agriculture for
their livelihood, USAID seeks to support the Government of Rwanda (GOR) priorities to transform
agriculture from subsistence into a viable commercial activity to promote economic growth and reduce
poverty. Efforts are tailored to strengthen the capacity of private sector institutions, with the goal of
making these institutions sustainable and independent of donor assistance within a five year period.

As to private sector competitiveness component, USAID works with entrepreneurs in agro-processing

and tourism and encourage continued reform of regulations on customs clearing operations.
Concerning environment where in the past 40 years, Rwanda has lost 95% of its natural forests and
43% of its national parks, significant source of tourism income and ecosystem services, efforts are
aimed at spurring Rwanda’s economic growth while protecting its environment and biodiversity. Focus
is put on the improved management of the biodiversity within the Nyungwe National Park. This
mountain rainforest is a biological hotspot, with more than 75 mammal, 278 bird, 120 butterfly, 100
orchid, and 200 tree species. Protection of such rich biodiversity, and the source of 70% of the nation’s
water, is critical. Local populations, both women and men, surrounding the park will also be targeted
for income generation and conservation activities.

In Investing in People program area, USAID Rwanda intervenes in health, education and socio-
economic services and protection for vulnerable populations. In health sector, initiatives are taken to
establish an effective and equitable health system that provides sustainable access to basic health
interventions at scale through PEPFAR, PMI complementing Child Survival and Health Funds. It is
anticipated that declining fertility will relieve pressures on land and natural resources, and reductions in
maternal and infant mortality will result in a healthier and more productive workforce that will propel
Rwanda from a developing to a transforming country. In Education, USAID will implement a youth
employability program that will develop employable skills in youth that are desired by employers and
link them with employment opportunities. With regards to Social and economic services and protection
for vulnerable populations, USAID uses Title II program to address chronic and transitory food
insecurity among targeted vulnerable populations including PLWHA, elderly people, the handicapped
and OVCs. The five year goal is to strengthen public and private institutions to provide social
assistance with less donor support so that Rwanda can move from the development to transformational
country category.

A-4 ANNEX A
 .
Through “governing justly and democratically”, USAID seeks to:
ƒ protect human rights, and to ensure that the country makes progress towards the transforming
category by building the country’s legal aid framework which will lead after 5 years to a robust
legal aid system able to assist the vulnerable populations throughout the country
ƒ help Rwanda develop sound decentralization policies and strengthen capacity of local
governments to deliver high quality health care and other services in accountable manner.
ƒ strengthen the ability of civil society organizations (CSOs) to work independently, advocate for
policy changes, oversee government activities and in coordination with the GOR promote
inclusive reconciliation and consensus-building processes.

4. STATEMENT OF WORK

The assessment team shall perform the following activities organized into 3 steps:

4.1. Data collection

4.1.1. Pre-travel informational meetings and information gathering.

Prior to traveling to the field, the assessment team is expected to:

ƒ Hold meetings with the Bureau Environmental Officer (BEO) in the appropriate USAID
Washington bureau to ensure full understanding of USAID environmental procedures, the role
of the regional bureau in environmental compliance, and purpose of this assignment. This
would include policy decisions and approaches that the BEO and agency environmental advisor
are taking as per their authority under Reg. 216.

ƒ Gather and get acquainted with existing background information on Rwanda such as the
country’s natural resources, geographical, ecological and biological specificities, current status
of environment and biodiversity, institutional organization on entity and state level, key
stakeholders and donors in environment and biodiversity, legislation related to the environment
and biodiversity, and other relevant information required for the country assessment.

ƒ Meet or speak with key stakeholders or managers at the World Bank, USDA Forest Service,
US Fish & Wildflife Service and U.S.-based organisations including, International Resources
Group, Wildlife Conservation Society, World Wildlife Fund or other organizations involved in
biodiversity conservation in RWANDA or relevant regional efforts.

ƒ While travelling to Kigali, make a stop in Nairobi to meet with the Regional Environmental
Adivers and get their guidance because they are the ones who first look at the USAID/Rwanda
environmental documents before their submission to the BEO.

4.1.2. After arrival in the field

The field team will conduct an overview and general analysis of the country’s environment , forestry
and biodiversity and their current status. Upon arriving in Rwand, the team will:

ƒ Meet with USAID/Rwanda ( Mission Service Center and SO7) to get a solid understanding
of Mission program goals and objectives under its current Operational Plan; perspectives of

SCOPE OF WORK A-5

 this assignment and specific interests for the team, including advice and protocol on
approaching USAID partners and host country organizations with respect to this assignment.
The team shall be aware of sensitivities related to an assessment exercise (i.e., the potential
for raising expectations, and the need to be clear about the purpose of the assessment) and
respect Mission guidance. The team will discuss organizations to be contacted and any
planned site visits with the Mission and coordinate as required. SO7 Team will facilitate
meetings with other USAID Strategic Objective teams ( SO6-Health/PEPFAR/PMI, SO5-
Democracy and Governance)

ƒ Hold meetings with donor organizations (e.g. Dutch Cooperation, UNDP/GEF), international
NGOs(IGCP/AWF, DFGFI, WCS, ) and local ( ARECO, AREDI), relevant government
agencies such as ORTPN and REMA, and other organizations that are knowledgeable about
environment, biodiversity and tropical forestry conservation or are implementing noteworthy
projects and gather information locally.

ƒ Conduct at least three priority site visits which would supplement understanding of USAID’s
programs , or of environment and biodiversity issues that arise in interviews and literature or
would confirm information in previous assessments.One visit shall include the Destination
Nyungwe Project whereby initiatives of integrating Health-Environment/biodiversity-
Ecotourism are taking place in the Mountain Forest National Park. The site(s) for other field
visits will be determined by the team during the assessment in consultation with USAID.

4.2. Analysis

ƒ Evaluate how the recommendations of the previous ETOA (2003) and the updated FAA
118/119 assessment (2005) have been implemented by USAID/RWANDA and draw the
lessons for the new ETOA and FAA 118/119 assessments.

ƒ Assess and summarize the needs for environment, biodiversity and tropical forestry
conservation in Rwanda based on key threats and opportunities and analysis of country, donor
and NGO responses to meet these needs.

ƒ Prepare a report on the status of environment, biodiversity, tropical forestry and conservation
efforts in Rwanda and potential implications for USAID or other donor programming and
environmental monitoring which shall define the actions necessary for conservation.

4.3. Report

This report will provide details on the threats and opportunities and major participants in the
environment, biodiversity and forest conservation sectors of Rwanda, as well as information on current
U.S. Foreign Assistance and USAID programming, with recommendations on actions necessary to
conserve environment, forests and biodiversity. This document would contribute to meeting the legal
requirements of FAA 118/119. That is why it shall include the following:

• The current status of environment, biodiversity and tropical forests in Rwanda based on current
and available information. At the environment level, the report will document the state of key
natural resources by quantifying trends in their management, biophysical condition,
productivity, abundance, and distribution and by identifying threats (e.g., degradation,

A-6 ANNEX A
 .
depletion, pollution) to which they are subjected. The status of biodiversity will include major
ecosystem types, highlighting important, unique aspects of the country’s biodiversity, including
important endemic species and their habitats, genetic diversity, agricultural biodiversity,
ecological processes and ecosystem services, and values and economics of biodiversity and
forests. A map of potential natural vegetation and of land use or land/forest cover should be
provided if available.
• Descriptions of natural areas of critical importance to biodiversity conservation, such as forests
and wetlands critical for species reproduction, feeding or migration, if relevant. Particular
attention should be given to critical environmental services and non-commercial services they
provide (watershed protection, erosion control, soil, fuel wood, water conservation and amenity
and recreation). It will also summarize how current land tenure arrangements affect
conservation in Rwanda .
• An overview table and map of the status and management of protected area system in Rwanda
including: an inventory of all declared and proposed areas (national parks, wildlife reserves and
refuges, forest reserves, sanctuaries, hunting preserves and other protected areas).
• The inventory will identify the institution responsible for the protection and management of
each decreed area, its date of establishment, area, and the protection status of each (i.e., staff in
place, management plan published, etc.) In addition to this summary of the current protection
and management status of each protected area, an overview of the major threats and
challenges facing protected areas in Rwanda including vulnerability of areas to predicted
changes in climate, and a brief summary of any recognized economic potential of these areas
(including productive assets, environmental services and recreation and tourism opportunities)
should be provided.
• Descriptions of plant and animal species that are endangered or threatened with extinction.
Endangered species of particular social, economic or environmental importance should be
highlighted and described, as should their habitats. Technical information resources such as the
IUCN red list and their websites should be referenced for future Mission access as required.
This section should not emphasize species counts, but look at the relation of endangered species
and important habitat conservation areas and issues, and evaluate the pressure on those areas,
including vulnerability to predicted changes in climate, and current efforts to mitigate pressures,
including the participation and compliance with CITES and other international efforts.
• Recent, current, and potential primary threats to environment and biodiversity, whether
they are ecological (i.e., fire, pests), related to human use (i.e., agriculture, contamination), or
institutional (i.e., failed policy) or trans-boundary issues, as appropriate. These should emerge
from a general assessment of national policies and strategies and their effectiveness, issues
related to institutional capacity, trade, private sector growth, participation in international
treaties, and the role of civil society.
• Conservation efforts, their scope and effectiveness. This section also should include recent,
current and planned activities by donor organizations that support biodiversity and tropical
forestry conservation, identification of multilateral organizations, NGOs, universities, and other
local organizations involved in conservation, and a general description of responsible
government agencies. A general assessment of the effectiveness of these policies, institutions,
and activities to achieve biodiversity conservation should be included. Priority conservation
needs that lack donor or local support should be highlighted.

SCOPE OF WORK A-7

 • Analysis of the current legislations and policies related to the environment, forestry,
biodiversity. This section should include identification of laws and policies related to protection
and management of biological resources and endangered species. It should also point out any
differences in laws and policies that require further harmonization. This section should also
review international treaties signed and ratified, as well as those that Rwanda needs to sign in
order to conserve and manage its biological resources more efficiently.
• An overview of the major environment,biodiversity and tropical forest conservation activities of
the commercial private sector to identify ways to better foster private sector alliances. Of
interest are the norms and standards followed by those commercial entities most engaged in
management and use of Rwanda’s tropical forests and tracts near protected areas, including
tourism developers and tea producers. Consideration of policies promoted by the key relevant
governmental ministries should also be included.
• An assessment of how USAID’s programs and operational plans meet the needs for
environment, biodiversity and tropical forestry conservation, consistent with Mission program
goals and objectives, through strategic objectives. The assessment shall include
recommendations on where U.S. comparative advantages and capabilities are likely to have
the greatest impact. These issues and recommendations should be prioritized to identify those
requiring the most immediate attention. This section shall identify opportunities and entry-
points for USAID-Rwanda efforts that would positively influence the conservation of the
environment, tropical forests and biodiversity and improve environmental management.

5. Expertise required

A three-person team with the following composition and expertise is required to conduct this analysis:

International Technical Assistance (2 persons):

ƒ Senior Level Natural Resources and Environmental Management Specialists with post-graduate
qualifications in biology, zoology, forestry or closely related field in natural resource
management or natural resource economics.
ƒ Background in tropical biodiversity and natural resource conservation.
ƒ Knowledge of USAID Strategic Planning process related to related to Environmental Threats
and Opportunities Assessment and Tropical Forestry and Biodiversity (FAA Sections 118 and
119).
ƒ Knowledge of 22 CFR 216 and of FAA 117 is also desirable.
ƒ Significant experience in integrating health, environment, population and poverty reduction
issues is desirable.
ƒ Demonstrated expertise in assessing development programs for impacts on environment and
tropical ecosystems.
ƒ Demonstrated expertise in the design and production of environmental impact assessments
(EIA).
ƒ Experience in Eastern or Central African region and in Rwanda desirable.

Local Technical Assistance (1 person).

ƒ Senior Level Natural Resources and Environmental Management Specialist or Environmental

Policy Analyst with demonstrated experience in Rwanda environmental law, the policy and

A-8 ANNEX A
 .
legal frameworks governing environmental management and biodiversity/forestry conservation
in Rwanda and the analysis of relevant policies.
ƒ Good contacts within Rwanda government agencies, NGOs, international donors, and private
sector preferred.
ƒ Proficiency both in English and French

6. DELIVERABLES:

The main deliverable is an Assessment Report (40 to 60) pages without appendices) for
USAID/Rwanda that examines the environmental threats and opportunities, the biodiversity and the
tropical forests conservation and other management related issues and identifies contributions and/or
potential contributions to meeting identified conservation needs by the Mission’s operational plans.

Other deliverables are the following:

ƒ Work plan/schedule within two working days of start date.

ƒ A copy of the draft report will be left with USAID/Rwanda at the out briefing prior to departure
from Rwanda, in electronic as well as hard copy.
ƒ Following a one week comment and review period, a revised final report incorporating all
comments will be submitted within two weeks of the field work.
ƒ Five copies of the bound final draft will be made available when the final is approved by the
Mission.
ƒ A short (10 pages) Environmental Annex to Annual Operational Plans, which consists of a
summary and syntheses of the findings and recommendations of the full ETOA and FAA 118-119
analysis. The introduction to the Summary will include this statement: "The Environmental Annex
is an analysis that examines environmental threats and opportunities inherent to the Mission’s
strategy and assesses the extent to which the Mission’s strategy incorporates or addresses tropical
forests and biodiversity concerns. This assessment does not substitute for the Initial Environmental
Examination (IEE). The Mission is responsible for ensuring that an IEE or a Request for a
Categorical Exclusion is conducted for all activities funded by USAID."

8. ANTICIPATED LEVEL OF EFFORT

The LOE for this assignment is a total of 55 person-days, to be allocated as follows:

Pre– travel meetings: 2 persons x 3 = 6 person-days

Travel : 2 persons x 2 = 4 person-days
Field-work : 3 persons x 12 =36 person-days
Report : 3 persons x 3 = 9 person-days
Total =55 person-days

The consultancy will be carried out within the period of June 9 through June 21, 2008. About 15 days
will be in-country, three days preparation and wrap-up, and 4 days travel. The international consultants
will oversee the work of the local-hire consultant. The international consultants will work under the
technical direction of the Bureau Environmental Officer. The Senior Regional Environmental Officer
based at USAID/REA, Nairobi and the Mission Environmental Officer will have an advisory role.

SCOPE OF WORK A-9

9. Schedule and Logistics

Meetings in Washington, DC, will take place between April 7, 2008 and April 11, 2008. The team will
coordinate logistical arrangements with the USAID/Rwanda Mission Environment Officer. The
Mission will assist the team by providing key references and contacts as well as logistical support
where necessary. USAID/Rwanda’s Program Office will also help facilitate meetings with other
Mission SO Team Leaders or their staff to fully brief the team on USAID's program and future vision
for their strategy.

Field work in Rwanda will take place from April 14 to April 25, 2008. The report is due within 2
weeks after the field work.

10. 6. SELECTED REFERENCE DOCUMENTS

In order to build on the work that has already been done, the assessment team is encouraged to consult
the following documents:

ƒ GOR (2005), Environment Organic Law N° 04/2005 OF 08/04/2005

ƒ GOR (2005), Land Organic Law N° 08/2005 of 14/07/2005
ƒ GOR (2006), Law N° 16/2006 of the 03/04/2006 on organization, operation and attributions of
REMA
ƒ MINECOFIN (2007), Economic Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy
ƒ MINITERE -The Ministry of Lands, Environment, Forestry, Water and Mines (2003):
Environment Policy
ƒ MINITERE (2003), National Strategy and Action Plan for the Conservation of Biodiversity in
Rwanda,
ƒ MINITERE (2003), Rwanda’s National Great Apes survival plan 2003-2008 ( Final Draft)
ƒ MINITERE (2004), National Land Policy
ƒ MINITERE (2006), Natioal implementation plan of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent
Organic Pollutants (POPs) in Rwanda( 2007-2025)
ƒ MINITERE (2005), The national bio-safety framework for Rwanda ( Draft)
ƒ MUSAHARA H (2007), Economic Analysis of Natural Resource Management,
PEI/REMA/UNEP/PNUD.
ƒ NISR (2005), Demographic and Health Survey.
ƒ NISR and World Food Program (2006) Comprehensive Food Security and Vulnerability
Analysis (CFSVA)
ƒ NISR (2006), Rwanda Development Indicators
ƒ ORTPN (2005) National Park Management Plans
ƒ REMA/Poverty-Environment Initiative (2007), Pilot Ecosystem Assessment of Bugesera,
UNEP/UNDP
ƒ REMA/Poverty Environment Initiative (2007), Rwanda Guidelines for Mainstreaming
Environment in the Economic Development and Poverty Reduction Study,
ƒ REMA/Poverty Environment Initiative ( 2007), Poverty –Environment Indicators & Strategies
for monitoring them within the framework of the EDPRS,
ƒ Twagiramungu Fabien (2006), Environmental Profile of Rwanda, European Commission in
Rwanda
ƒ USAID/Rwanda (2003), Environmental Threats and Opportunities Assessment.
ƒ USAID (2005), Biodiversity Conservation, a guide for USAID staff and partners
http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf docs/Pnade 258.pdf

A-10 ANNEX A
 .
ƒ USAID (2005), Tropical Forestry and biodiversity( FAA118 and 119) analyses: lessons learned
and best practices form recent USAID experiences.
ƒ USAID ( 2005), Best practices for Biodiversity and tropical forest assessments
ƒ WCS/CARE/IGCP(2005), The socio-economic status of People living near protected areas in
the Central Albertine rift,
ƒ WCS (2003), The Biodiversity of the Albertine Rift

List of useful websites

ƒ Albertine Rift Programme – WCS http://www.albertinerift.org

ƒ Convention on Biological Diversity http://www.biodiv.org
ƒ Environmental Alert http://www.envalert.org
ƒ Institute of Tropical Forest Conservation http://www.itfc.org
ƒ IUCN Red List (2006) http://www.redlist.org
ƒ National Forestry Authority http://www.nfa.org.ug
ƒ MINITERE www.minitere.gov.rw
ƒ Ramsar Convention on Wetlands http://www.ramsar.org
ƒ ORTPN http://www.ortpn.gov.rw,
ƒ United Nations Environment Program www.unep.org
ƒ Convention on Biological Diversity http://bch-cbd.naturalsciences.be/rwanda/
ƒ USAID/Rwanda http://www.usaid.or.ug
ƒ Wildlife Conservation Society - WCS http://www.wcs.org
ƒ Great Ape Trust of Iowa www.greatapetrust.org
ƒ ENCAP http://www.encapafrica.org/biodiversity.htm.
ƒ National Institute of Statistics www.statistics.gov.rw

SCOPE OF WORK A-11

ANNEX B
FOREIGN ASSISTANCE ACT SECTIONS 118 AND 119

Part I, Section 118\73\ - Tropical Forests

(a) Importance of Forests and Tree Cover.--In enacting section 103(b)(3) of this Act the
Congress recognized the importance of forests and tree cover to the developing countries.
The Congress is particularly concerned about the continuing and accelerating alteration,
destruction, and loss of tropical forests in developing countries, which pose a serious
threat to development and the environment. Tropical forest destruction and loss--

(1) result in shortages of wood, especially wood for fuel; loss of biologically productive
wetlands; siltation of lakes, reservoirs, and irrigation systems; floods; destruction of
indigenous peoples; extinction of plant and animal species; reduced capacity for food
production; and loss of genetic resources; and

(2) can result in desertification and destabilization of the earth's climate. Properly
managed tropical forests provide a sustained flow of resources essential to the economic
growth of developing countries, as well as genetic resources of value to developed and
developing countries alike.

(b) Priorities.--The concerns expressed in subsection (a) and the recommendations of the
United States Interagency Task Force on Tropical Forests shall be given high priority by
the President--

(1) in formulating and carrying out programs and policies with respect to developing
countries, including those relating to bilateral and multilateral assistance and those
relating to private sector activities; and

(2) in seeking opportunities to coordinate public and private development and investment
activities which affect forests in developing countries.

(c) Assistance to Developing Countries.--In providing assistance to developing countries,

the President shall do the following:

(1) Place a high priority on conservation and sustainable management of tropical forests.

(2) To the fullest extent feasible, engage in dialogues and exchanges of information with
recipient countries--

(A) which stress the importance of conserving and sustainably managing forest resources
for the long-term economic benefit of those countries, as well as the irreversible losses
associated with forest destruction, and

FOREIGN ASSISTANCE ACT SECTIONS 118 AND 119 B-1

(B) which identify and focus on policies of those countries which directly or indirectly
contribute to deforestation.

(3) To the fullest extent feasible, support projects and activities--

(A) which offer employment and income alternatives to those who otherwise would cause
destruction and loss of forests, and

(B) which help developing countries identify and implement alternatives to colonizing
forested areas.

(4) To the fullest extent feasible, support training programs, educational efforts, and the
establishment or strengthening of institutions which increase the capacity of developing
countries to formulate forest policies, engage in relevant land-use planning, and
otherwise improve the management of their forests.

(5) To the fullest extent feasible, help end destructive slash-and-burn agriculture by
supporting stable and productive farming practices in areas already cleared or degraded
and on lands which inevitably will be settled, with special emphasis on demonstrating the
feasibility of agroforestry and other techniques which use technologies and methods
suited to the local environment and traditional agricultural techniques and feature close
consultation with and involvement of local people.

(6) To the fullest extent feasible, help conserve forests which have not yet been degraded,
by helping to increase production on lands already cleared or degraded through support
of reforestation, fuelwood, and other sustainable forestry projects and practices, making
sure that local people are involved at all stages of project design and implementation.

(7) To the fullest extent feasible, support projects and other activities to conserve forested
watersheds and rehabilitate those which have been deforested, making sure that local
people are involved at all stages of project design and implementation.

(8) To the fullest extent feasible, support training, research, and other actions which lead
to sustainable and more environmentally sound practices for timber harvesting, removal,
and processing, including reforestation, soil conservation, and other activities to
rehabilitate degraded forest lands.

(9) To the fullest extent feasible, support research to expand knowledge of tropical forests
and identify alternatives which will prevent forest destruction, loss, or degradation,
including research in agroforestry, sustainable management of natural forests, small-scale
farms and gardens, small-scale animal husbandry, wider application of adopted
traditional practices, and suitable crops and crop combinations.

(10) To the fullest extent feasible, conserve biological diversity in forest areas by--

B-2 ANNEX B
(A) supporting and cooperating with United States Government agencies, other donors
(both bilateral and multilateral), and other appropriate governmental, intergovernmental,
and nongovernmental organizations in efforts to identify, establish, and maintain a
representative network of protected tropical forest ecosystems on a worldwide basis;

(B) whenever appropriate, making the establishment of protected areas a condition of

support for activities involving forest clearance of degradation; and

(C) helping developing countries identify tropical forest ecosystems and species in need
of protection and establish and maintain appropriate protected areas.

(11) To the fullest extent feasible, engage in efforts to increase the awareness of United
States Government agencies and other donors, both bilateral and multilateral, of the
immediate and long-term value of tropical forests.

(12) To the fullest extent feasible, utilize the resources and abilities of all relevant United
States Government agencies.

(13) Require that any program or project under this chapter significantly affecting
tropical forests (including projects involving the planting of exotic plant species)--

(A) be based upon careful analysis of the alternatives available to achieve the best
sustainable use of the land, and

(B) take full account of the environmental impacts of the proposed activities on
biological diversity, as provided for in the environmental procedures of the Agency for
International Development.

(14) Deny assistance under this chapter for--

(A) the procurement or use of logging equipment, unless an environmental assessment

indicates that all timber harvesting operations involved will be conducted in an
environmentally sound manner which minimizes forest destruction and that the proposed
activity will produce positive economic benefits and sustainable forest management
systems; and

(B) actions which significantly degrade national parks or similar protected areas which
contain tropical forests or introduce exotic plants or animals into such areas.

(15) Deny assistance under this chapter for the following activities unless an
environmental assessment indicates that the proposed activity will contribute
significantly and directly to improving the livelihood of the rural poor and will be
conducted in an environmentally sound manner which supports sustainable development:

(A) Activities which would result in the conversion of forest lands to the rearing of
livestock.

FOREIGN ASSISTANCE ACT SECTIONS 118 AND 119 B-3

(B) The construction, upgrading, or maintenance of roads (including temporary haul
roads for logging or other extractive industries) which pass through relatively undegraded
forest lands.

(C) The colonization of forest lands.

(D) The construction of dams or other water control structures which flood relatively
undegraded forest lands.

(d) PVOs and Other Nongovernmental Organizations.--Whenever feasible, the President

shall accomplish the objectives of this section through projects managed by private and
voluntary organizations or international, regional, or national nongovernmental
organizations which are active in the region or country where the project is located.

(e) Country Analysis Requirements.--Each country development strategy statement or

other country plan prepared by the Agency for International Development shall include
an analysis of-

(1) the actions necessary in that country to achieve conservation and sustainable
management of tropical forests, and

(2) the extent to which the actions proposed for support by the Agency meet the needs
thus identified.

(f) Annual Report.--Each annual report required by section 634(a) of this Act shall
include a report on the implementation of this section.

B-4 ANNEX B
Part I, Section 119\75\ - Endangered Species

(a) The Congress finds the survival of many animal and plant species is endangered by
overhunting, by the presence of toxic chemicals in water, air and soil, and by the
destruction of habitats. The Congress further finds that the extinction of animal and plant
species is an irreparable loss with potentially serious environmental and economic
consequences for developing and developed countries alike. Accordingly, the
preservation of animal and plant species through the regulation of the hunting and trade
in endangered species, through limitations on the pollution of natural ecosystems, and
through the protection of wildlife habitats should be an important objective of the United
States development assistance.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

\75\ 22 U.S.C. 2151q. Sec. 119, pars. (a) and (b) were added by sec. 702 of the
International Environment Protection Act of 1983 (title VII of the Department of State
Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1984 and 1985, Public Law 98-164; 97 Stat. 1045).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) \75\ In order to preserve biological diversity, the President is authorized to furnish
assistance under this part, notwithstanding section 660,\76\ to assist countries in
protecting and maintaining wildlife habitats and in developing sound wildlife
management and plant conservation programs. Special efforts should be made to
establish and maintain wildlife sanctuaries, reserves, and parks; to enact and enforce anti-
poaching measures; and to identify, study, and catalog animal and plant species,
especially in tropical environments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

\76\ Section 533(d)(4)(A) of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related
Programs Appropriations Act, 1990 (Public Law 101-167; 103 Stat. 1227), added
``notwithstanding section 660'' at this point.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

(c) \77\ Funding Level.--For fiscal year 1987, not less than $2,500,000 of the funds
available to carry out this part (excluding funds made available to carry out section
104(c)(2), relating to the Child Survival Fund) shall be allocated for assistance pursuant
to subsection (b) for activities which were not funded prior to fiscal year 1987. In
addition, the Agency for International Development shall, to the fullest extent possible,
continue and increase assistance pursuant to subsection (b) for activities for which
assistance was provided in fiscal years prior to fiscal year 1987.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FOREIGN ASSISTANCE ACT SECTIONS 118 AND 119 B-5

\77\ Pars. (c) through (h) were added by sec. 302 of Public Law 99- 529 (100 Stat. 3017).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

(d) \77\ Country Analysis Requirements.--Each country development strategy statement

or other country plan prepared by the Agency for International Development shall include
an analysis of-

(1) the actions necessary in that country to conserve biological diversity, and

(2) the extent to which the actions proposed for support by the Agency meet the needs
thus identified.

(e) \77\ Local Involvement.--To the fullest extent possible, projects supported under this
section shall include close consultation with and involvement of local people at all stages
of design and implementation.

(f) \77\ PVOs and Other Nongovernmental Organizations.-- Whenever feasible, the
objectives of this section shall be accomplished through projects managed by appropriate
private and voluntary organizations, or international, regional, or national
nongovernmental organizations, which are active in the region or country where the
project is located.

(g) \77\ Actions by AID.--The Administrator of the Agency for International

Development shall-(1) cooperate with appropriate international organizations, both
governmental and nongovernmental;

(2) look to the World Conservation Strategy as an overall guide for actions to conserve
biological diversity;

(3) engage in dialogues and exchanges of information with recipient countries which
stress the importance of conserving biological diversity for the long-term economic
benefit of those countries and which identify and focus on policies of those countries
which directly or indirectly contribute to loss of biological diversity;

(4) support training and education efforts which improve the capacity of recipient
countries to prevent loss of biological diversity;

(5) whenever possible, enter into long-term agreements in which the recipient country
agrees to protect ecosystems or other wildlife habitats recommended for protection by
relevant governmental or nongovernmental organizations or as a result of activities
undertaken pursuant to paragraph

(6), and the United States agrees to provide, subject to obtaining the necessary
appropriations, additional assistance necessary for the establishment and maintenance of
such protected areas;

B-6 ANNEX B
(6) support, as necessary and in cooperation with the appropriate governmental and
nongovernmental organizations, efforts to identify and survey ecosystems in recipient
countries worthy of protection;

(7) cooperate with and support the relevant efforts of other agencies of the United States
Government, including the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park
Service, the Forest Service, and the Peace Corps;

(8) review the Agency's environmental regulations and revise them as necessary to ensure
that ongoing and proposed actions by the Agency do not inadvertently endanger wildlife
species or their critical habitats, harm protected areas, or have other adverse impacts on
biological diversity (and shall report to the Congress within a year after the date of
enactment of this paragraph on the actions taken pursuant to this paragraph);

(9) ensure that environmental profiles sponsored by the Agency include information
needed for conservation of biological diversity; and

(10) deny any direct or indirect assistance under this chapter for actions which
significantly degrade national parks or similar protected areas or introduce exotic plants
or animals into such areas.

(h) \77\ Annual Reports.--Each annual report required by section 634(a) of this Act shall
include, in a separate volume, a report on the implementation of this section.

FOREIGN ASSISTANCE ACT SECTIONS 118 AND 119 B-7

ANNEX C
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS — RWANDA

(Based on the Environmental Threats and Opportunities Assessment, July 2008)

I. Introduction

USAID/Rwanda is required to periodically examine its programming and planning through

an environmental lens and specifically biodiversity and tropical forestry conservation. Such
an examination is a mandatory technical requirement of operating units strategy statements
(see USAID’s Automated Directive System, ADS 201.3.4.11). The last analysis of this type
completed in Rwanda was the initial 2003 Environmental Threats and Opportunities
Assessment (ETOA) with an update annex added in 2005. In June 2008 biodiversity and
tropical forests were again scrutinized under an updating exercise. The 2008 ETOA Update,
building on the 2003 assessment and the 2005 Annex, describes the status of and actions
necessary to conserve and protect biodiversity and tropical forests in Rwanda.1

This Annex examines environmental threats and opportunities inherent to the Mission’s
strategy, and assesses the extent to which that strategy incorporates tropical forests and
biodiversity concerns. It is not a substitute for an Initial Environmental Examination (IEE).
Each SO team is responsible for ensuring that a relevant IEE, or Request for a Categorical
Exclusion, is conducted at the SO-level for all USAID-funded activities.

II. Background

A. FAA Section 118 Requirements - Tropical Forest Conservation. In response to the

accelerated loss of tropical forests worldwide, the U.S. Congress enacted Section 118 of the
FAA, which acknowledges the important role tropical forests and tree cover play in
developing countries (in the daily lives of their people, and in their economies overall).
Section 118 recognizes the financial value of tropical forests; it also cites benefits that are not
directly financial in nature: forests as wildlife habitats, as diverse genetic resource pools, and
as protection against erosion and siltation of waterbodies and loss of soil fertility and floods.

Section 118 states that USG support to developing countries shall, to the fullest extent
feasible: help end destructive agricultural practices; help conserve forests that have not yet
been degraded; support activities that will conserve and rehabilitate forested watersheds;
support training, research, and other activities that will lead to sustainable practices for timber
harvesting; and support research to develop alternatives to forest destruction.

B. FAA Section 119 Requirements - Biodiversity. The U.S. Congress enacted Section 119
of the FAA in response to the irreparable loss of plant and animal species occurring in many
developing countries, and the environmental and economic consequences of that loss. Section
119 addresses biodiversity conservation concerns by encouraging USAID to furnish
assistance to protect and maintain wildlife habitats, develop sound wildlife management and
plant conservation programs, establish and maintain wildlife sanctuaries, enforce anti-
poaching measures, and identify and study animal and plant species.

1
This Annex was prepared for USAID/Rwanda’s planning purposes; it consists of a summary and synthesis of
the findings and recommendations of the ETOA. The complete ETOA can be obtained by contacting Timothy
Karera, Mission Environmental Officer, USAID/Rwanda.

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS C-1

Section 119 states that USAID’s ongoing and proposed actions shall not inadvertently
endanger wildlife or critical habitats, harm protected areas, or have other adverse impacts on
biological diversity. It also says that USAID programs shall, to the fullest extent feasible,
support policies, training and education, and long-term agreements and other types of
cooperation efforts that will result in the conservation of biodiversity.

III. Rwanda’s Biodiversity and Tropical Forests

Biodiversity. From a biodiversity perspective, Rwanda boasts some of the most biologically
significant areas on the African continent, with the majority of these areas protected in three
national parks. For vertebrate species, the Albertine Rift -- including Volcano (PNV) and
Nyungwe National Park (NNP) in Rwanda -- is the richest area in Africa. This region ranks
first out of 119 terrestrial eco-regions of Africa for its endemic vertebrate species (species
that occur nowhere else) and second in terms of threatened species. The entire Albertine Rift,
from northwest Uganda through Rwanda, Burundi, Western Tanzania and eastern Democratic
Republic of Congo (DRC), is recognized as an "Endemic Bird Area" by Birdlife International
and as a biodiversity “Hotspot" by Conservation International. The Central Albertine Rift
(CAR) is the focus of a Tripartite Declaration (Rwanda, DRC, Uganda) for natural resources
management.

The third national park, Akagera, in the country’s southeast, also protects a wide range of
flora and fauna diversity. It is predominately a savanna ecosystem with numerous small lakes
that are recharged by wetlands and rivers, and has a range of vertebrate species that rival
other more known regions of East and Southern Africa.

Rwanda shelters 2,150 species of plants, and the assumption is that the degree of endemism is
quite high. The UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre lists eight species of trees as
either threatened or of “conservation concern” in its tree conservation database. The
American Museum of Natural History lists 87 species of amphibians and reptiles in Rwanda.
The only reptile species listed with concern is a tortoise. Rwanda is one of Africa’s top
birding countries; an incredible 670 different species have been recorded. Four species of
birds are threatened with extinction: the shoebill stork found in Akagera; Grauer’s rush
warbler found in PNV, Nyungwe, and the swamps of Rugezi; the kungwe apalis found in the
Nyungwe; and the African or Congo bay owl.

Rwanda contains 151 different types of mammal species, 11 of which are currently
threatened and none of which is endemic. The country is particularly well known for its 14 to
16 species of primates, most prominent among them the world’s most endangered ape, the
mountain gorilla found in PNV. Others are the mountain monkey in the Nyungwe National
Park, the endangered chimpanzee in Nyungwe and the golden monkey, endemic at a certain
altitude in PNV.

Forests. Rwanda’s afro-montane forests include Nyungwe National Park (newly conferred
status), the Gishwati and Mukura Forest Reserves, and the Volcano National Park (PNV).
Because Gishwati and Mukura have been used for cattle grazing and resettlement, only small
isolated patches of forest remain there, in inaccessible areas. Nyungwe National Park is
globally, as well as nationally, important for the conservation of several restricted-range
species found only in the Albertine Rift eco-region in Africa. The reserve is home to 13
species of primate, 1,068 plant species, 85 mammal, 278 bird, 32 amphibian, and 38 reptile
species. In all 62 species of fauna and about 250 plant species are endemic to the Rift.

C-2 ANNEX C
Nyungwe’s socioeconomic importance is as significant as its biological importance. The
Park’s area is the watershed for over 70 percent of Rwanda; its streams feed both the Congo
and the Nile basins. It thus protects the watershed of not only surrounding communities but
also communities much further downstream. The buffer zone around the forest has been
planted with economically important species and is a source of building poles and firewood
for local populations. Honey production and the harvesting of medicinal plants are other
important economic activities. Commercial tea plantations adjacent to the national park also
add a valuable buffer zone to the forest resource within the boundary.

Volcano National Park (PNV) is one of the oldest protected areas in Africa—established by
King Albert of Belgium in 1929 in an effort to set aside the Virunga Mountains in the DRC,
Rwanda, and Uganda to save the habitat of the last representatives of the mountain gorilla.
Over half the world’s mountain gorilla population is found in the three national parks that
share the Virunga Mountain massif. The PNV contains 245 species of plants, 115 species of
mammals, 187 species of birds, 27 species of reptiles and amphibians, and 33 species of
arthropods. Among the plants, 17 species are threatened, of which 13 species of orchids are
internationally protected. Many plant and animal species in the park other than the gorilla
have gone unstudied. On the Rwanda side of the Park there is no buffer area and local
community farmlands offer a very visible contrast to forests that align the protected area’s
boundary.

Gallery forests are strips of forest along watercourses or extending from wetlands. In Rwanda
their area has been significantly reduced by clearing for agriculture, bush fires, and cutting for
fire and construction wood. Gallery forests are now found only in the east along the Akagera
River system, covering an area of less than 200 ha. The largest are found within the Akagera
National Park boundary. Gallery forests contain a number of rare, endemic species, some of
which have potential for modern and traditional medicine, but their commercial exploitation
could have negative environmental consequences if no safeguards are put in place.

Rwanda's national parks are not only a significant source of income for the country, but also
provide invaluable ecosystem services for the Rwandan people. In terms of hydrological
cycling, for example, they ensure clean water, erosion control, climate regulation, etc. One
recent estimate of Nyungwe’s value for its ecosystem services (watershed and biodiversity
protection, carbon sequestration and storage, recreation and tourism) was more than US $285
million. Clearly, the maintenance of healthy and functioning national parks, with their
associated biodiversity and surrounding areas, is key to a sustainable future for Rwanda.

Overall, Rwanda’s protected areas cover more than 8 percent of its territory. The majority of
the natural forests and biodiversity lie within the protected areas. The extent and location of
the remaining forest land and the protected areas are illustrated in the figures and table that
appear at the end of this annex.

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS C-3

IV. Tropical Forestry and Biodiversity Conservation in Rwanda

Since 2003 Rwanda has made significant progress to establish a stronger foundation for its
conservation policies and environmental activities. Some of the important changes that have
impacts on forests, biodiversity and the environment include:
• Passage of the Organic Law No. 04/2005;
• Establishment of the Rwanda Environmental Management Authority (REMA) under Law
No. 08/2006;
• Implementation of a government Decentralization Policy and legislation;
• Development and implementation of a land reform process;
• Establishment and implementation of a revenue sharing fund for communities adjacent to
protected areas, and
• Provision to the public and private sectors with tools that require the environment to be an
integral part of the solutions to critical economic issues with the implementation of the
Economic Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy (EDPRS) following the
recommendations of the 2020 Vision.

The Organic Law is the most significant baseline conservation legislation since 2003. It
declares Rwanda’s adherence to at least 10 international conventions concerning biodiversity,
endangered species and habitat, climate change, persistent pollutants, pesticides, bio-safety,
etc. This law serves to:
• Conserve the environment, people and their habitats;
• Set up fundamental principles related to protection of environment;
• Discourage any activities that may degrade the environment;
• Promote the social welfare of the population while considering equal distribution of the
existing wealth;
• Consider the durability of the resources with a special emphasis on equal rights to present
and future generations;
• Guarantee to all Rwandans sustainable development which does not harm the
environment and the social welfare of the population; and
• Establish strategies of protecting and reducing negative effects on the environment and
improving/restoring the degraded environment.

The Rwanda Environmental Management Authority (REMA) is, since late 2005, functional,
under solid leadership and with a dynamic staff. It is forging relationships and establishing
roles at both the national and district levels. It oversees the compilation of State of the
Environment Reports and the development and implementation of Environmental Action
Plans. It has also established relationships with international organizations as it is he focal
point for almost all international environment conventions that the GOR has ratified.

Decentralization of government authority and decision-making to the district levels is

allowing communities and community-based organizations (CBOs) to become more active in
conservation and has helped develop confidence in their participation and the positive
impacts it is having on their livelihoods. The establishment of the revenue sharing fund by
Rwandan Tourism and National Parks Office (ORTPN) has bolstered this impact to districts
bordering the three national parks. Five percent of all tourism revenues is allocated in the
following ratios: 40 percent to Parc National des Volcans, 30 percent to Akagera National
Park and 30 percent to Nyungwe National Park. These funds have been used to build schools,

C-4 ANNEX C
construct and extend water supply systems, provide health facilities and services, and the like.
Most importantly these are additional incentives for local communities to help protect and
promote the biodiversity and the other attributes that attract tourists to these protected areas.

NGOs have continued to play important roles for conservation and protection of Rwanda’s
natural assets, especially in and around protected areas. They are better coordinated than they
were five years ago. And they contribute substantially to raising public awareness about
critical environmental issue and fostering alternative livelihoods for communities that rely on
products and services from lands within the protected areas.

EDPRS has built on the foundation established by the land reform process, NGO savvy in
raising awareness, and decentralization to foster better public-private partnerships that benefit
the environment. The Government of Rwanda truly recognizes the importance of tourism,
and ecotourism as a critical part of the nation’s economic transformation and the fact that
without a viable conservation and protection strategy all of the country will suffer. It has also
recently signed a lease, via ORTPN, with a private investment company whereby Akagera
National Park will be operated and managed by that company under the terms of a 49-year
lease agreement.

Rwanda is party to several important transboundary agreements that impact on forest

conservation, biodiversity and water resources. One, with the Democratic Republic of the
Congo and Uganda, has provided valuable lessons in the process of transboundary
cooperation, engendered mainly though the International Gorilla Conservation Programme
(IGCP). Pooling resources and even working through periods of conflict, environmental
leaders from Rwanda, Uganda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo envisioned,
developed and put into operation a 10-year transboundary management plan for a region of
the Albertine Rift. Of equal importance is the fact that others have already started to
capitalize on this experience. Nyungwe National Park staff, supported by the Wildlife
Conservation Society and USAID, is also using the lessons learned from IGCP’s work to
liaise and work with staff in Kibira National Park in Burundi which shares a boundary with
NNP.

V. Main Threats to Biodiversity and Tropical Forests

Despite the important gains that have been made for conservation and biodiversity protection
in the past five years significant threats to their existence and well-being remain prominent.
The most significant threats from the 2003 ETOA remain and include:
• Population pressure
• Energy pressure
• Agricultural inefficiencies and soil erosion
• Waste disposal issues
• Institutional weaknesses and inefficiencies
• Degradation of wetlands and lack of clean water
• Climate change

Population pressure. Rwanda’s population growth over the last 4 decades has been
unprecedented – from approximately 2.6 million in 1960 to 8.2 million in 2002 (National
Census Service, 2005). In 2007, it was estimated at 9.3 million and is likely to reach 10.8
million in 2012. The annual population growth rate was 3.1% in 2002, one of the highest in

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS C-5

sub-saharan Africa, but declined to about 2.6% in 2007. Population density is about 343
people per km2, the highest in Africa, but in some districts such as Musanze in the north and
Huye in the South, it exceeds 500 people/km². Almost 60 percent of the population lives
below the poverty line and cannot meet their basic human needs. These facts mean enormous
pressure on the environment and make protecting, let alone conserving, the remaining forest
and biological resources a most formidable task. Soils for cultivating, trees for fuel and
shelter, biodiversity habitats for the genetic fabric of life, and water for everything are under
constant pressure for their use from just about everywhere.

Institutional weaknesses and inefficiencies. It was noted above that the legal and policy
framework for conservation and environmental protection has improved significantly during
the past five years. There are still enormous gaps, inefficiencies, and lack of practical
implementation experience. A new Forestry Law remains in draft form and is not operational.
A wildlife policy remains on the shelf, and there is not a strategy in place that protects and
regulates use of Rwanda’s critical water resources and wetlands. Without these important
resource governance tools ecosystems remain very vulnerable to the on-going misuse of their
products and services.

The institutions that are working to protect the environment and deal with the threat issues
typical of a growing economy are young, and for the most part, the people working in them
are inexperienced. They often come up short in terms of the professional training that is
required and the knowledge that experience usually brings. There is also lack of coordination
and communication as many of those charged with protecting the environment are trying to
cope with an overload of responsibilities that result from understaffing and a lack of
knowledge about effective management in general.

Energy pressure. The majority of Rwandans use wood for their energy needs. Factoring in
the population growth rate this means more trees are needed from less land area required to
grow them. And because of no comprehensive strategy to address the problem the
government has been taking an unsustainable band-aid approach. Even though Rwanda has
traditionally used a viable agroforestry approach in its farming systems, wood for fuel is
continuing to come up short. If this threat is to be mitigated, more needs to be done in terms
of managing and conserving remaining tree stocks outside of protected areas, tree planting,
strategies for harvesting and transport, and for more effective stoves for burning the fuel.

Degradation of wetlands and lack of clean water remain significant issues. A

comprehensive water and wetlands policy would do much to alleviate these problems and
enable the ecosystem services dependent on soils and water to function better. A particularly
significant threat is stream channelization to drain wetlands for agriculture. This causes
“downcutting” of the stream beds and significant increases in erosion and sedimentation.
Today, all downstream users are susceptible to more marginal water quality and greater risk
from water-borne pollutants that originate from urban areas and agricultural lands. There is a
government effort to curb erosion by creating bench terraces throughout the country’s
thousands of steep hills but it is subject to controversy due to its radical nature. Other aspects
of the debate include the bench terraces high cost, their environmental effectiveness and with
the continuous maintenance, their sustainability

Agricultural inefficiencies. Historically, Rwanda has traditionally had productive farming

systems coupled with complementary agroforestry techniques. Negative impacts today stem
from the extreme pressure on the soils, literally wearing them out, due to the very high level

C-6 ANNEX C
of people trying to eke an existence from smaller and smaller plots of land. Education and
awareness is needed today on farming systems that avoid use of chemical fertilizers and
pesticides, help maintain and support crop diversification efforts, promote rational soil
conservation techniques such as progressive terracing, use integrated pest management, and
encourages cooperative food security planning among local and district governments and
farmers.

Climate changes are apt to have important impacts on Rwanda’s existing forests and on
biodiversity. Small changes in temperature and rainfall could be devastating to flora and
habitats that are important to wildlife … critical components in the country’s equation for
drawing tourists, researchers and others. An erosion of any genetic diversity, or further
destruction of the environment will affect not only Rwandans, but also all those downstream
from Rwanda -- just about all of central and northeastern Africa that are part of the Congo
and Nile Basins. Rwanda’s protected areas are not only critical in terms of their flora and
fauna diversity, they are also fragile and most likely vulnerable to small changes in climate.
The GOR is working to address these risks and has started to develop strategies that might
help them cope when change comes.

Waste disposal issues. Medical and industrial waste also poses a threat not only to the
environment but also the physical health of Rwandans. An example is the medical waste in
the form of pesticide plastic sachets, hand gloves, nose masks, and packaging which has been
in contact with pyrethroid insecticide. Proper disposal is imperative to ensure the safety of the
environment and to mitigate the threat to human health. Industrial waste, in the form of
coffee washing/depulping stations discharge untreated waste which threatens watersheds with
high levels of carbohydrates and organic matter and reduces available oxygen in the receiving
water affecting downstream fishponds, drinking water sources, and fragile wetlands/swamps
that are key to water management.

VI. Recommendations for Improved Biodiversity and Tropical Forest Conservation

In Rwanda

This section provides a list of suggested actions that can help to address the main threats
identified in the previous section. The lists are not intended to be exhaustive, but are topical
ideas for possible action. Many are discussed in the 2008 ETOA Update and in Section VIII.

Population pressure
• Support community-based projects that link Population, Health and Environment (PHE)
around protected areas;
• Support income generating projects to provide alternative livelihoods;
• Develop market infrastructure to encourage further income generation and alternative
livelihoods;
• Support projects that remove people’s reliance on forest by engaging them in
commercially viable projects (i.e. sericulture, apiculture, cultivation of medicinal plants);
• Promote community forest plantations with native species;
• Promote agricultural intensification away from forest blocks;
• Promote agro-ecological techniques in agricultural production to help reduce forest loss;
• Promote environmental education;
• Encourage behavioral changes from traditional practices to holistic approaches;

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS C-7

• Support food security projects, particularly related to agriculture intensification,
diversification, and commercialization to decrease pressures on resources;
• Develop market infrastructure to encourage further income generation and alternative
livelihoods; and
• Encourage family planning and education endeavors to complement such efforts, as well
as social programs to mitigate migration effects.

Institutional weaknesses and inefficiencies

• Continue to support ORTPN capacity building for its protected area staff in management
and technical areas;
• Support District Environmental Officers in community liaison, conflict resolution and
planning;
• Work with ORTPN, REMA and the Forest Department to resolve conflict and inaction
that pertains to the use and management of buffer zone plantations around Nyungwe
National Park;
• Support practical training and continued education in ecological monitoring, watershed
monitoring, policy reform, and sustainable financing;
• Assist central regulatory agencies with crafting (and then implementing) hands-on (how-
to) instructions for implementing rules and regulations, monitoring processes, chain of
custody, etc. to make them less dependent and vulnerable to outside assistance;
• Work with the government institutions responsible for protecting forest resources and
conserving biodiversity in providing clear and easily understood language related to
policies and laws;
• Assist institutions charged with conserving and protecting the environment to develop
strategies and action agendas that can resolve the problems that the GOR has (usually)
inadequately addressed by issuing “environmental instructions”;
• Provide assistance in acquisition and training of GIS hardware and software to regulatory
agencies to make them self-sufficient in using these tools and generating their own maps,
overlays and analyses; and
• Assist with practical management training aimed at conflict resolution, communication
and coordination

Energy pressure
• Support intensive reforestation programs through environmental education and
awareness-raising activities;
• Support policy and legislative action that promotes fuel wood plantations on private land;
• Assist in the development of a strategic action plan for forestry and forest management in
areas outside of protected areas;
• Promote the sustainable use of forest products for the benefit of local communities;
• Improve forest sector governance, especially at the district level;
• Help the forestry industry become more competitive and sustainable;
• Assist in the development and enforcement of legal texts connected to forest exploitation
and that comply with environmental impact assessment provisions;
• Support local pilot forestry projects;
• Support carbon sequestration schemes;
• Support public and private efforts to safely tap the methane resources under Lake Kivu;
• Support strategies that examine other alternative energy sources or technologies that will
reduce dependence on fuel wood for cooking; and

C-8 ANNEX C
• Alternative fuel sources and tree plantations

Degradation of wetlands and lack of clean water

• Assist government efforts to develop and implement a comprehensive watershed and
wetlands strategy and monitoring system;
• Promote best practices for the treatment of wastewater from coffee washing stations and
work with the GOR to establish standards and monitoring procedures for wastewater
flushed into watercourses from these stations;
• Help establish community-based management schemes for wetlands;
• Disseminate better agricultural practices and soil conservation techniques, especially
those associated with terracing techniques;
• Work with the public and private sector to undertake actions that will stop channelization
in wetlands, rivers, and streams; and
• Help public and NGO efforts to raise awareness of the importance of wetland
conservation and watershed protection.

Agricultural inefficiencies
• Work with community organizations and district level environmental and agricultural
officers to discourage the use of pesticides, chemical fertilizers and herbicides;
• Promote crop diversification, integrated pest management and rational soil conservation
techniques;
• Disseminate better agricultural practices and soil conservation techniques;
• Help to mitigate risks associated with radical terracing techniques and encourage the
GOR to promote alternatives that are more sustainable and less labor intensive;
• Engage district-level and national interests to actively communicate and participate in
cooperative food security planning;
• Support soil conservation practices, especially on upland areas; and
• Support tree nurseries, reforestation projects, and tree plantations to counter deforestation.

Climate change
• Explore Rwanda’s participation in carbon sequestration trading projects;
• Adaptation measures need to be explored and discussed for Rwanda’s most vulnerable
areas to prepare for climate change;
• Support measures to plant trees; and
• Continue to provide assistance in emergencies and disasters provoked by climate
disturbances (population displacement due to floods or drought).

Waste disposal issues

• Waste disposal at coffee washing stations

— Work with REMA to find cost-effective solutions that adhere to international
standards to resolve pollution issues;
— Promote new pulping machines that minimize water consumption without comprising
the quality of coffee processing;
— Promote sustainable waste water management of coffee washing stations by scaling
up the Cyarumbo coffee washing station (see Section 5); and

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS C-9

 — Institute compost management training to coffee washing station owners to ensure
efficient use of coffee pulps and enhance soil characteristics.

• Medical waste management

— Ensure incinerators at all USAID assisted clinics meet the safety and environmental
requirements (site selection, construction, emissions, burned residues maintenance,
and protection of operational staff);
— Provide USAID assisted health centers and clinics with incinerator maintenance
manuals and training to operational staff manipulating medical waste on a daily basis;
and
— Find a sustainable and safe way to dispose of Presidential Malaria Initiative Indoor
Residual Spraying waste in concert with PMI Washington.

VII. Current USAID Interventions to Conserve Tropical Forests and Biodiversity

USAID provides very little direct support to biodiversity and forest conservation efforts in
Rwanda. The USAID/Rwanda operating budget is dominated (more than 90%) by programs
within the health sector (SO6) and this is unlikely to change in the short-term. Under its
Economic Growth Objective (SO7), USAID/Rwanda gives direct support to the Increased
Rural Incomes through Improved Biodiversity Conservation program, better known as the
“Destination Nyungwe Project”. Activities are intertwined in three components: biodiversity
conservation, ecotourism and rural enterprise development and health. The total budget is
US$5.0 million over the 2006 to 2009 life of the project. (The total USAID/Rwanda budget
request for FY 2009 is US $162 million; US $110 million of this is for HIV/AIDS
programming.)

The biodiversity component of the project is aimed at increasing the professional capacity of
ORTPN staff that manages Nyungwe National Park (NNP) and working with the Park’s
neighboring communities to mainstream environmental and sustainable use issues into
district development plans. The health component works with these same communities to
strengthen clinical and community capacity in providing and promoting family planning and
maternal and child health. The ecotourism component also works with the communities and
districts to bolster and coordinate ecotourism planning for NNP with ORTPN, local
government and private sector investors. There is also direct assistance for ecotourism
infrastructure, its planning, construction and use inside the Park boundary.

Environmental concerns within other activities funded under the Economic Growth SO are
being addressed. Pollution from coffee washing stations (assisted under the SPREAD project)
in the form untreated organic solids is dumped into streams from the wash water. Very little
has been tested and organized to treat this effluent that severely reduces oxygen content and
water quality downstream during the season when stream flows are waning. More (see the
next section) needs to be done to mitigate this problem. Within the Essential Oils project,
USAID funds help to employ widows and orphans to construct passive progressive terracing
to control erosion and sedimentation and to increase soil fertility using improved cropping
techniques. The use of fuel wood for obtaining distillates under this project is also a concern
that needs to be addressed more strategically. And food aid distributions under SO6 are being
used to construct terraces that the GOR is promoting, but of a type that is controversial due to
questions about their impacts and their sustainability. Although the food aid program is due
to end in 2009 the debate is real and USAID needs to be a part of the discussion to help
resolve the issues related to radical terracing technology.

C-10 ANNEX C
SO7 also works with other Mission SOs to facilitate IEEs and to address other relevant
environmental issues on an “as needed” basis in other projects.

VIII. OPPORTUNITIES TO CONSERVE TROPICAL FORESTS AND BIODIVERSITY

The 2008 ETOA Update notes that there are four specific opportunity areas in the
environment where technical assistance could be effective in present-day Rwanda. These are:

• Increased assistance to the Rwanda Environmental Management Authority (REMA);

• Directed assistance to developing legislation and policies focused on safeguarding the
environment and more importantly, assisting with applying them; and
• Continued strengthening of the development of environmental public-private partnerships
and their links to local communities.
• Continued support for public education and raising awareness about environmental issues
and for engaging decentralized entities in environmental management

Historically, USAID’s assistance to environmental management authorities, at least on the

scales attempted, has not always been successful. REMA, today, has focused and motivated
leadership and, with the recent recruitment of a number of staff, is actively engaged in
developing a talented and idealistic group of professionals. It does still need technical and
organization assistance to streamline and promote its mission and clarify staff
responsibilities. can still use guidance and assistance with its mission and with the majority of
its major tasks. But, for the most part REMA knows what it is about and is working hard to
get there. USAID assistance would be most valuable in the practical application of models,
the implementation of regulations and the “how-tos” of actually monitoring compliance and
working those lessons into its own management structure. Continued training of its
professional cadre, especially to bolster its numbers, is sorely needed. REMA, as well as
other institutions with environmental jurisdictions could use straight-forward assistance in
acquiring, training and using GIS software and peripherals to generate spatial information in-
house. Not only would this facilitate and reinforce its regulatory role, but also do away with
the current costly (and sometimes inefficient) practice of using outside contractors to collect
and produce this information.

Worldwide, USAID has developed a comparative advantage in the practical application of

governance tools and techniques. These hands-on, practical approaches can be invaluable to
fledgling institutions that are trying to grasp the implications and ins and outs of
implementing environmental policies. The Destination Nyungwe project, ORTPN and local
district officials are currently “learning by doing” while they work with local communities.
These experiences and lessons have direct application in other areas of Rwanda and USAID
has a responsibility to promote and distribute these lessons. They can also be of value to
central government institutions and there needs to be a greater effort to coordinate and
communicate these lessons can benefit all parties. The experiences and lessons learned under
the Democracy and Governance SO should also be of value here, too.

The ETOA points out that activities of the Destination Nyungwe Project help address
opportunities associated with population growth, energy use (from forest plantations), and
professional capacity building within ORTPN. Efforts here to work with the private sector to
coordinate investment opportunities and working with communities are very valuable and go
a long way to strengthening development efforts. USAID has a significant opportunity to help

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS C-11

expand these efforts to other districts adjacent to protected areas and to build on the lessons
acquired in NNP.

Similarly under the SPREAD project, the efforts to assist small-scale, specialty coffee
entrepreneurs yield social, technical and political know-how in the operation of their coffee-
washing stations as well as more knowledge about public/private partnerships in the sector.
These stations discharge significant amounts of effluent into streams, usually untreated. In
addition to helping mitigate the effluent issues by researching and constructing cost-effective
settling ponds, USAID can also help inform Rwanda and coffee entrepreneurs about the
dangers and risks associated with point source pollutants and also about acceptable world
standards associated with coffee-washing. As the GOR policy to double the number of these
coffee washing stations is implemented the adoption of these techniques and standards can
only help to make Rwanda’s specialty coffees more acceptable in the world market. And they
will also help reduce the risks to the environment and all those using the water downstream.
USAID should be directly engaged in helping to address these issues as the coffee washing
stations increase on the landscape.

Public awareness and education, such as in the coffee-washing example just mentioned, is a
very definite opportunity for USAID and other donors. USAID is an established “brand” in
the country, primarily associated with assistance in the health sector. This awareness can be
used to work with districts, communities, other government institutions, and other donors to
support continued educational efforts and public relations efforts aimed at environmental
issues.

In no area is this more important than with water and wetlands. Water is Rwanda’s greatest
natural resource and it is increasingly at risk from improper use, outright destruction of the
resource and lack of any concrete policy to regulate and monitor its health. One case in point
shows up in the GOR’s development strategy, the EDPRS, where planning aims to stimulate
growth and secure infrastructure by increasing irrigated agriculture and also creating more
electrical capacity by constructing numerous small, micro-hydro power centers. Both actions
will result in a significant increase in the consumption of water resources, the use of
wetlands, and other riparian resources. But no where in the strategy is there concern about the
impacts on these water-related resources or plans to monitor the effects of such actions. There
is a significant opportunity for USAID to work with the GOR and other donors, not just to
draw attention to these threatening gaps, but also to help educate and raise awareness about
the importance and fragility of water in Rwanda and to help implement local strategies that
are more “environmentally friendly”.

USAID’s experience and knowledge gained in its essential oils project, especially as it
pertains to the energy requirements for obtaining the distillates, can be an important entry
point to help address Rwanda’s fuel wood crisis. The anticipated demand of this small
business when it becomes fully operational is estimated to the equivalent of 5 hectares of 15-
year old eucalyptus grown in a plantation, per year. Demands like this one are reported to be
small relative to the residential population demand that requires more than 90 percent of its
energy needs to come from fuel wood. The GOR has issued stopgap environmental
“directives” in an attempt to address threats from over cutting, but a comprehensive and
enforceable policy is desperately needed. USAID’s global and regional experience, combined
with the lessons being learned in Rwanda, should be called upon to help the country resolve
this issue that directly impacts the lives of almost every single citizen.

C-12 ANNEX C
USAID/Rwanda’s current and planned budgets are very small. The funded activities do
contribute to mitigating some of the threats to the environment, biodiversity and tropical
forestry conservation in the country. But given the opportunities for addressing an even wider
range of threats, USAID’s global leadership in the environment sector, its leveraging
possibilities with CARPE and other African experiences, more funding for environment-
related activities in Rwanda would have an important and visible impact. And, with its
experience in natural resources governance and public-private partnerships there is also an
opportunity to step into a leadership role and to leverage action among donors and private
sector participants in Rwanda’s environmental sector.

IX. CONCLUSION

This annex is a summary and synthesis of the Environmental Threats and Opportunities
Assessment (ETOA) conducted in June 2008 for USAID/Rwanda. Most the nation’s forested
lands and its biodiversity lies within the borders of protected areas that cover slightly more
than 12 percent of the land area. There have been significant gains in efforts to conserve and
protect natural resources in the past five years; much of this coming with proactive
institutional initiatives, revenue sharing with communities and public-private partnerships.
Important threats remain mostly due to Rwanda’s high population density, the population
growth rate and extreme levels of poverty that result in the unsustainable uses and demand on
natural resources. In addition, the environmental institutions that oversee these resources are
weak due to their youth, inadequate number of trained professionals and their poor
communication and coordination skills/experience.

There are important opportunities for donors to provide assistance. USAID, with its extensive
global experience in biodiversity and protected areas, forest management planning, and
natural resources governance, is well-placed to work with the GOR, NGOs and the private
sector to lead efforts aimed at resolving these threats.

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS C-13

Figure 1. The location of protected areas in Rwanda

Table 1. Rwanda’s Protected Area System

Manage- Latest
IUCN ment Date Area Manage- No. of
Name cate- Respon- Estab- (km²) Location ment Staff
gory¹ sibility lished Plan
Dubai 1.45’00 S
Akagera National Park II World² 1934 1,085 30.38’00 E 2006 78

2.30’00 S
Nyungwe National Park II ORTPN 2005 1,013 29.14’00 E 2005 108
1.28’41 S
Volcano National Park II ORTPN 1929 140 29.30’00 E 2004 103
1.47’00 S
Gishwati Forest Reserve IV For Dept 1933 61 29.23’00 E - -
1.59’00 S
Mukura Forest Reserve IV For Dept 1933 20 29.31’00 E - -
¹ IUCN defines protected areas based on management objectives. The two categories into which Rwanda’s pro-tected areas
fall are:
• Category II: National Park: protected area managed mainly for ecosystem protection and recreation. Definition: Natural
area of land and/or sea, designated to (a) protect the ecological integrity of one or more ecosystems for present and future
generations, (b) exclude exploitation or occupation inimical to the purposes of designation of the area and (c) provide a
foundation for spiritual, scientific, educational, recreational and visitor opportunities, all of which must be environmentally
and culturally compat ble.
• Category IV: Habitat/Species Management Area: protected area managed mainly for conservation through
management intervention. Definition: Area of land and/or sea subject to active intervention for management purposes so
as to ensure the maintenance of habitats and/or to meet the requirements of specific species.
² The GOR, through ORPTN, signed a 49-year lease agreement with Dubai World Rwanda in 2008 to conduct the management
of ANP as well as the operation of the tourism facilities within the Park boundary.

C-14 ANNEX C
Figure 2. Extent of forest cover in Rwanda, 2005

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS C-15

ANNEX D
BIOGRAPHIES OF THE 2008 ETOA UPDATE TEAM

Dr. Steve Dennison. Dr. Dennison has more than 30 years experience in evaluations, project
management, and natural resources conservation and protection in Southeast Asia, Central
and South Asia, Africa, North America, the Caribbean and Eastern Europe. He has been the
Team Leader for this ETOA Update and has served in a similar capacity on eight other
evaluations and assessments including four multi-disciplinary teams for USAID projects in
the Central Asian Republics, Madagascar, Nigeria and the Philippines. He served as a team
member on almost a dozen others. Dr. Dennison has also been directly responsible for
managing long-term USAID contracts and projects for other donors. The majority of his
technical assignments have focused on protected area planning and assistance to local
community groups and institutions that rely on natural resources and sustainable conservation
practices for their livelihood and economic well-being.

Lance Gatchell. Mr. Gatchell is a hydrologist with the United States Forest Service. He
holds a Bachelor’s degree in agricultural engineering and a Master’s degree in bio-resource
engineering from Oregon State University. Mr. Gatchell’s career includes several years of
international experience in Palau, Indonesia and Morocco where he worked in water
resources management and eco-tourism development. His scientific expertise includes
surface water hydrology, groundwater hydrology, watershed restoration, and wetlands
function. His work focuses on resolving resource conflicts that have resulted from economic
development pressure on ecosystem services.

Anecto Kayitare. Over the past 18 years, Anecto Kayitare has worked with environment and
development programs in the Great Lakes region of Africa. His expertise includes building
partnerships for conservation with a broad range of stakeholders, management of multi-donor
projects, strategic planning, organizational development and project implementation. Mr.
Kayitare has assisted development and humanitarian projects with numerous donors
including the World Bank, UNDP and several international NGOs. He holds a degree in
agronomy from the University of Kisangani (DROC) and has a Masters degree in
Environmental and Development Policy from the University of Sussex/UK. Mr. Kayitare is
currently the Regional Transboundary Officer and Rwanda Country Representative for the
International Gorilla Conservation Program.

Stephanie Otis. Ms. Otis is a resource management specialist with seven years experience in
conservation, natural resource policy, and integrated community development in Central
America and Africa. Her areas of technical experience include agriculture, agroforestry,
wildlife management, and local participation in the forms of economic development projects
and co-management of protected areas. She has led field research of human-wildlife conflict
around four protected areas in Kenya in collaboration with the Kenya Wildlife Service in
order to revise park management plans and to develop land-use management plans in
surrounding communities. She is currently working at Chemonics International as an
Associate in the Africa Region.

Charles Twesigye-Bakwatsa. Mr. Twesigye-Bakwatsa is a natural resources management

specialist with 12 years experience in environmental development projects. Working
predominantly in Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda and Uganda, he has led and participated with
teams undertaking trans-boundary environmental analyses, project design for natural

ETOA UPDATE TEAM BIOGRAPHIES D-1

resources interventions, assessments of environmental governance frameworks and
institutional capacity; and evaluation related to poverty reduction policies. Mr. Twesigye-
Bakwatsa has provided training on poverty reduction strategies, youth livelihoods and
women’s participation, and in an academic setting, lectured on land use planning and EIAs.
At the time of this assessment he was capitalizing on his professional interests in natural
resources governance, rural development and decentralization to help operationalize the
national development plans of Rwanda (EDPRS) and Uganda (PEAP/NDP).

D-2 ANNEX D
ANNEX E
PERSONS CONSULTED/INTERVIEWED 9-27 JUNE 2008
(Last updated: 14 July 2008)

Africa Wildlife Fund, Washington, DC

Kaddu Sebunya, Director of Program Design ksebunya@awf.org

Association pour la Conservation de la Nature au Rwanda (ACNR)

Emmanuel Hakizimana, President ehakaiamana@yahoo.fr
Serge Joran Nsengimana, Executive Secretary nsengimanaserge@yahoo.fr

Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund International

Clare Richardson 2help@gorillafund.org

Ikirezi Natural Products

Nicolas Hitimana, Managing Director nicolas@ikirezi.com

Indoor Residual Spraying Project – Rwanda Program

Valens Kayumba, Logistics Manager vkayumba@rti.org
John Ruziga Rushalaza, Technical Director jruziga@rti.org
Anna Thompson, Task Manager, IRS Program (Washington) annathompson@rti.org

International Gorilla Conservation Program (IGCP)

Anecto Kayitare, Regional Transboundary Officer and akayitare@igcp.co.rw
Country Representative

IRG, Ltd. (Destination Nyungwe Project)

Glen Anderson, Senior Manager ganderson@irgltd.com

National University of Rwanda

Stefan Kappeler, Head, Kigali GIS Centre stefan.kappeler@cgisnur@org

Office Rwandais du Tourisme et des Parc Nationaux (ORPTN)

Roger Gakwerere, Tourism Warden, Akagera N.P. gakerere2002@yahoo.com
Louis Rugerinyange, Chief Warden, Nyungwe N.P. nyange23@yahoo.com
Oreste Ndayisaba, Tourism Warden, Nyungwe N.P. ndayisabao@yahoo.fr
Jean Yves Ntwali, Tour Guide, Nyungwe N.P. ntwaliyves@yahoo.com

Sustaining Partnerships to Enhance Rural Enterprise and

Agribusiness Development (SPREAD) Project
Jean Claude Kayisinga, Deputy Director jckayisinga@spread.org.rw
Jean Marie Irakabaho, Chief Agronomist jmirakabaho@spread.org.rw

Rwanda Environmental Management Authority (REMA)

Aimée Mpambara, Biodiversity Programs and EIA Officer ampambara@yahoo.fr

PERSONS INTERVIEWED/CONSULTED E-1

Rwanda Institute for Sustainable Development
Annie Kairaba, Director kairaba@risd.org.rw

US Agency for International Development (USAID), Washington, DC

Timothy Resch, Africa Bureau Environmental Advisor tresch@usaid.gov
Doreen Robinson, EGAT/NRM/B drobinson@usaid.gov

US Agency for International Development (USAID), Nairobi

David Kinyua, East Africa Region Office (Nairobi) dkinyua@usaid.gov
Chris Dege, East Africa Region Office (Nairobi) cdege@usaid.gov

US Agency for International Development (USAID), Kigali

Dennis Weller, Rwanda Mission Director dweller@usaid.gov
Timothy Karera, Rwanda Mission Environmental Officer tkarera@usaid.gov
Guillaume Bucyana, Governance Specialist gbucyana@usaid.gov
Tye Ferrell, SO5 (D&G) Team Leader tferrell@usaid.gov
Victoria Gellis, Rwanda Mission Deputy Program Officer vgellis@usaid.gov
Kristina Lantis, SO6 (Health) Team Leader (Acting) klantis@usaid.gov
Diogene Ndazigaruye, Program Office dndazigaruye@usaid.gov
Venant Safali, Food Aid Manager vsafali@usaid.gov
Carl Seagrave, Rwanda Mission Program Officer cseagrave@usaid.gov
Wayne Stinson, Malaria Advisor wstinson@usaid.gov

United Nations Development Program/GEF

Rapael Mpayana, Coordinator, PAB Project (Rwanda) rmpayana@googlemail.com

The Wilderness Society

Amy Vedder, Senior Vice President kanga.vedder@gmail.com

Wildlife Conservation Society, Washington, DC

Graeme Patterson, Assistant Director Africa Program, gpatterson@wcs.org
Wildlife Conservation Society

Wildlife Conservation Society, Rwanda

Nsengiyunva Barakabuye, Director nbarakabuye@wcs.org
Ian Munanura, Chief of Party, Destination Nyungwe Project imunanura@wcs.org

World Wildlife Fund (Washington, DC)

Allard Blom, Deputy Director, Congo Basin, Namibia,
Madagascar allard.blom@wwfus.org

E-2 ANNEX E
ANNEX F
ENVIRONMENTAL LEGAL AND POLICY FRAMEWORK IN RWANDA

(Reviewed from 2003 ETOA report)

A. The National Environmental Policy Framework

A1. The National Policy Framework for Environmental Management

Rwanda’s policy framework for environmental management is grounded in four key documents:
the National Environment Policy 2003, the Economic Development and Poverty Reduction
Strategy (EDPRS), Vision 2020, and the Land Policy 2004, which are reviewed below. As this is
a foundation for environmental management in Rwanda, there is an urgent need to build
sufficient institutional and human resource capacities to effectively implement these policies.
The implementation mechanisms should also include economic incentives and disincentives and
stricter enforcement.

A1a. Historical Perspective

Initiatives on environmental conservation and protection began in 1920 under colonial

administration with large-scale tree planting, followed by creation of Volcano National Park in
1925 and Akagera National Park in 1935. Campaigns to conserve soil through terracing began in
1949 but were abandoned immediately after independence due to the negative connotations
associated with the use of forced labor to build the terraces.

In 1975, National Tree Day was institutionalized and in later years the GOR set annual
environmental themes: habitat (1977), animal husbandry (1978), soil protection and conservation
(1980), rural water supply (1981), anti-erosion (1982), tree planting (1983), and rehabilitation of
war-damaged areas (1992).

In April 1992, the Ministry on Environment and Tourism (MINETO) was created to coordinate
all the environmental activities being carried out by different ministerial departments.
Rwanda’s first National Environmental Strategy and Action Plan were approved on May 21,
1991. This document guided the MINETO until the tragic events of 1994, which affected the
course of all programs in Rwanda, not just environment.

A2. The Current National Environmental Strategy

In light of the changes that followed the 1994 war and genocide, the National Environmental
Strategy was amended in June 1996. Building on this, a new National Environment Policy and
National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan were formulated in 2003. This strategy
enumerates the principles and priorities of environmental management, notably:
• Alleviating poverty, food insecurity, and the energy crisis
• Planning development in light of the characteristics and potential of the ecosystems
concerned
• Minimizing deforestation and promoting biodiversity

ENVIRONMENTAL LEGAL AND POLICY FRAMEWORK F-1

 • Dealing with the question of the future of the wetlands
• Managing ecological, biological, and climatic changes at the national level
• Managing the urban environment and controlling pollution

The immediate objectives of this strategy are to:

• Stop the degradation of lands and forests and enhance their regeneration through a
sustainable, balanced ecological approach
• Fight against urban and other pollution and eliminate sources of illnesses caused by the
environment
• Maintain sufficient resources to insure the food security of the population in both the
short and the long term
• Regenerate, renew, and diversify domestic sources of energy

To reach these objectives, this policy is guided by the following principles:

• The importance of the environment as a whole

• The importance of taking into account the human and social environment
• The necessity of both a long-term vision and a proactive approach
• The obligation to establish practical priorities
Given these, the strategy has the following objectives:
• Assign responsibilities, mobilizing all partners
• Integrate environmental concerns into all decisions, particularly those related to
resources and land
• Manage natural resources and land sustainably
• Restore and maintain a safe environment
• Promote environmental knowledge in general, with special attention to how it affects
both people and nature, emphasizing the ecological, cultural, and economic roles of the
environment
• Use environmental management approaches adapted to the particularities of different
regions of Rwanda.

A3. Rwanda’s Poverty Reduction Strategy (PRSP)

As Rwanda emerged from the transitional period characterized by emergency humanitarian work
and adhoc projects not grounded in clear policy or action plans, one of the priority issues was to
streamline and coordinate development activities through clear policies, strategies and plans. The
first Poverty Reduction Strategy paper (PRSP) was approved in 2001, which was a
comprehensive participatory bottom-up planning process from 1999 – 2001. The PRSP was
expected to address environmental concerns through its six priorities for public action:

1. Rural development and agricultural transformation. Activities that directly affect the
capacity of the poor to increase their incomes, those that affect agriculture and
environment, land, nonagricultural development, loans, rural energy, and rural
infrastructure, and rural public works that are highly labor-intensive.

F-2 ANNEX F
 2. Human development. Activities that influence the quality of life of the poor in such
areas as health, family planning, education, water, and habitat. Habitat is particularly
important because it is so closely related with water provision.
3. Economic infrastructure. Roads, energy, and communication to support economic
development in both urban and rural areas.
4. Governance. Security, constitutional reforms, judicial systems, decentralization,
departmental strategies, responsibility and transparency, and public service reform.
5. Private sector development. Promoting investment, reducing costs and business risks
and promoting exports.
6. Institutional capacity building. A priority that affects all sectors to which the concept
of institutional structure applies and that promotes competitiveness in both public and
private sectors.

The strategy goes on to define fundamental programs for reducing poverty and protecting the
environment as part of the first domain of priorities for agricultural transformation. In particular
the first fundamental program promotes support to agriculture and animal husbandry and related
environmental protection activities. In this program, intensive agricultural and environmental
activities must be carried out together in order to manage water resources, control soil erosion,
and improve soil fertility.

The PRSP was implemented during 2002-2005 and the independent evaluation concluded that
although environment was indicated as crosscutting, it did not receive sufficient attention. These
lessons were instrumental in designing the second poverty reduction strategy, the Economic
Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy (EDPRS).

The Economic Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy (EDPRS)

Rwanda’s EDPRS (2007 – 2012) builds on the relatively impressive achievements in human
capital development during the PRSP 1. But it also represents a rapid departure from the PRSP 1
which focussed on social sectors (health, education, water and sanitation), by giving greater
priority to economic growth sectors, hence economic development and poverty reduction. The
rationale for the shift was that focussing on social sectors was not sustainable without generating
an economic growth to support them. The EDPRS has three flagship programmes, which provide
strategic guidance to general and sectoral priority setting; resource mobilisation and public
expenditure allocations; and coordination of policy implementation.

a) Sustainable Growth for Jobs and Exports will be driven by an ambitious, high quality
public investment program aimed at systematically reducing the operational costs of
business, increase the capacity to innovate, and widen and deepen the financial sector.
This means heavy investment in “hard infrastructure” by the GoR to create strong
incentives for the private sector to increase its investment rate in subsequent years.
b) Vision 2020 Umurenge – is essentially about decentralisation and the main mechanism
for delivering poverty reduction through integrated interventions. It will accelerate
poverty reduction by promoting pro-poor actions at the grassroots especially in rural
areas. Already, 30 sectors (the poorest sector in each of 30 districts) have been selected
for piloting the Concept of Vision 2020 Umurenge, borrowing from the Millennium
Villages concept. Planned integrated activities include labour intensive public works,

ENVIRONMENTAL LEGAL AND POLICY FRAMEWORK F-3

 cooperatives development, provision of productive skills and enhancing access to
productive skills, among others.
c) Participatory and democratic Governance will provide an anchor for pro-poor growth by
building on Rwanda’s reputation as a country with a low incidence of corruption and a
regional comparative advantage in “soft infrastructure”. This will help create efficiency
and effectiveness in service delivery including securing property rights and reducing the
cost of doing business, which will ultimately accelerate growth and stability.

In order to implement the EDPRS strategy, the sectoral allocation of public expenditure will be
distributed to maintain momentum in the social sectors– education, health and water and
sanitation– while also targeting agriculture, transport and ICT, energy, housing and urban
development, good governance and rule of law, proper land use management and environmental
protection.

Thus the main targets for the EDPRS during the period 2007-2012 draw from the PRSP I lessons
and entail: accelerating growth and poverty reduction; widening and deepening the financial
sector; developing skills for a knowledge-based society, so as to reduce employment in
agriculture; promoting science, technology and innovation for economic growth; raising
agricultural productivity and ensuring food security; scaling up manufacturing and services
sectors’ contribution to overall economic growth; managing the environment and natural
resources optimally and sustainably; and building economic infrastructures including roads and
power stations.

A4. Vision 2020 Umurenge

In Rwanda’s Vision 2020 Umurenge, environment is among the priorities; it addresses

sustainable management of national holdings, the environment, and such natural resources as
soils, water, energy, and biodiversity. For managing and protecting natural resources and the
environment, Rwanda plans to reach the following goals by 2020:
• Reduce the percentage of the population dependent on agriculture from 90 to 50 percent
• Increase and update environmental protections adapted to sustainable management of
natural resources
• Reduce by up to 60 percent the rate of morbidity related to environmental degradation
• Decrease the number of fuel wood users from 50 to 24 percent.

To reach this objective, Vision 2020 states that Rwanda has to:

• Integrate an environmental aspect into all official policies and decision-making

processes, and into all education, public awareness, extension, and development
programs
• Promote participation by members of local communities, especially women and youth,
in environmental protection and management
• Use the principle of prevention to alleviate negative environmental effects of
socioeconomic activities
• Diversify energy sources and make them more accessible to the population to alleviate
the pressure on biomass

F-4 ANNEX F
 • Establish the principle that “polluter pays” for environmental damage, and strengthen
punitive measures to insure compliance and environmental safety
• Assess the environmental impact of any proposed project or development program
• Plan for the development of industrial sites to better control their effects on the
environment and the population
• Promote nonpolluting technologies for transport, storage, and elimination of industrial
products and waste
• Apply environment-related legislation to mining and mineral debris
• Rehabilitate old mining areas
• Reinforce the institutions concerned with local and imported product quality control and
standards
• Build a statistical database on natural resources and the environment and a quick alert
system to help mitigate natural disasters, and create a fund to support victims of natural
disasters
• Institute and appropriately fund the Rwanda Environmental Management Authority
(REMA)
• Cooperate with other nations and international institutions for environmental protection
• Ensure that public institutions, the private sector, civil society, donors, and local
communities collaborate to more efficiently manage natural resources and protect the
environment.

A5. National Environment Policy

The National Environment Policy was approved in 2003, and is the basis, alongside the Organic
Law on Environment, for environmental protection and conservation activities in Rwanda.

Chapters 1 through 4 of the policy set the scene. They sketch in the history of environmental
policy in Rwanda and outline environmental protection and conservation in such key sectors as
soils, climate, vegetation, natural resources, protected areas, energy and water resources, land,
and demography. The principal current threats to the Rwandan environment are also analyzed
and key terms (e.g., environment, biotope, waste, natural resources, and sustainable
development) are defined.

A5a. Policy Objectives

Chapter five outlines the objectives and principles of Rwanda’s national environmental policy.
The major objectives are to improve the standard of living and the sustainable use of natural
resources and to protect and manage natural areas for balanced and sustainable development. The
specific objectives of the environmental policy are to:
• Improve the health of the Rwandan people and promote their socioeconomic
development through the sustainable management and utilization of natural resources and
the environment
• Integrate environmental aspects into all policies, planning, and implementation
activities carried out at the national, provincial, and local levels with total participation of
the population
• Conserve and restore ecosystems and maintain dynamic ecology and systems health,
especially national biological diversity

ENVIRONMENTAL LEGAL AND POLICY FRAMEWORK F-5

 • Optimize sustainable use of natural resources
• Sensitize the population to environmental values and the relationships between the
environment and development
• Ensure the participation of both individuals and communities in activities aimed at
improving the environment, with particular attention to women and young people
• Ensure that the basic needs of Rwandans today and those of future generations are
satisfied

A5b. Underlying Principles

The principles on which the policy is based are that

• Each person is entitled to live in a safe environment and has a duty to maintain the
environmental welfare of all.
• The economic development of Rwanda must be based on sustainable use of natural
resources.
• The right to the land is a priority for sustainable management of natural resources.
• Long-term food security depends on sustainable management of natural resources and
the environment.
• Use of nonrenewable resources must be minimized and recycling used where possible.
• Technologies that are socially accepted and accessible must be disseminated if natural
resources are to be used efficiently.
• The costs of environmental damage and degradation must be taken into consideration in
planning for public and private investments and must be minimized wherever possible.
• Socioeconomic incentives and disincentives must go hand in hand with legislative
measures to convince the people to invest in a sustainable environment.
• Legislation to promote capacity building must be a priority if natural resources and the
environment are to be managed sustainably.
• Activities that favor incentives for the rational use and sustainable management of
natural resources and environment must be given priority.
• Planning for environmental management must be integrated and multisectoral.
• A system must be created for environmental monitoring and evaluation and information
obtained through this system must be disseminated to the public.
• Opportunities for communities and individuals to sustainably manage their resources
must be facilitated.
• Women and young people must be encouraged to become active in formulating policy,
planning programs, making decisions, and managing programs.
• Both government and public awareness and understanding of environmental issues must
be promoted.

A5c. Political Options and Strategic Actions

Chapter six addresses political options and strategic actions for various sectors, among them:
• Population and territory management
• Land management
• Water resources management

F-6 ANNEX F
 • Valleys
• Agriculture
• Animal husbandry
• Fishing
• Forests and protected areas
• Energy
• Gender and environment
• Transport and communication
• Mines
• Industry and commerce
• Sanitation and health
• Education, information, and research
• Climate and natural catastrophes
• Macroeconomics
• The institutional and judicial domain
• International cooperation

A5d. Institutional and Judicial Arrangements

Chapter seven proposes institutional and judicial arrangements for implementing the
environmental policy. This chapter proposes the creation of:

• The National Environmental Council, as a political instrument for coordination

• The Environmental Authority, as an implementing instrument – REMA was established
in accordance with the provisions of article 67 of the Organic Law No. 4/ 2005.
• The Environmental Fund
• The Environmental Tribunal, as an instrument of conflict resolution
• Environmental Committees from Provincial and District levels down to sector and cell
levels. These committees have recently been established, and REMA has organized
training, sensitization and orientation activities for them.

A6. Organic Law (No. 4/2005)

The Organic Law is a comprehensive piece of legislation that outlines almost all standard
procedures and actions to protection, promote conservation of environment and natural resources
in Rwanda. It was prepared with the assistance of the United Nations Environment Program
(UNEP through UNDP). This law outlines the major principles of environmental management
and protection; it is in part inspired by international conventions that Rwanda has signed. Thus,
the protection and rational management of the environment and natural resources are based on
the following principles:

• Precaution. Preventive steps should result from an environmental evaluation of

programs, projects, or other socioeconomic activities, to avoid useless expenditures and
environmental degradation, which is often significant and irreversible.
• Lasting and fair allocation of natural resources between generations
• Polluter pays
• Public participation

ENVIRONMENTAL LEGAL AND POLICY FRAMEWORK F-7

 • International cooperation.

Certain aspects of this legal framework may affect USAID and other donor activities, among
them:
• Article11, which regulates the management and use of agricultural land
• Article 14, which regulates imports and exports of any animal or vegetable products
• Article 19, which addresses the control of substances contributing to air pollution
• Article 24 and 25, which establish standards for managing waste (especially sewerage,
hospital, and other dangerous wastes).
• Article 36, 37, and 38, which impose on project developers the obligation to perform
environmental impact assessments (EIAs) and detail how they must be organized (these
articles specify that the expense of an EIA will be born by the project promoter).
• Article 45, which stipulates standards for environmental protection and for imported
products—though the document does not specify whether these are existing standards or
how they will be defined. (The standards do not apply to exported products.)
• Article 72, 73, 74 and 75, which prohibit all types of waste in wetlands and rivers

The Organic law does authorize criminal prosecution for violators, but it does not cover:
• Biosafety and genetic transfer
• Environmental standards for commercial activities
• Management of pesticides and their environmental impact
• Quarry management and environmental norms for mining operations

The general observation is that the Organic Law on environment provides comprehensive
mechanisms to safeguard protect and conserve the environment. The main concern, however, is
that formulation of subsidiary legislations to effectively operationalize various provisions of the
law is slow; the institutional capacity to enforce the law in a way that is transparent, participatory
and pro-people, is yet to be developed. Equally, the ETOA team, as some of the stakeholders
consulted, is concerned that there is insufficient awareness about the environmental laws and its
subsidiary instructions are issued and enforced without sufficient preparation and awareness
raising, which impact on livelihoods and rights of the population that are forced to comply.

A7. Forest Policy and Legislation

A7a. The National Forestry Policy

The ETOA team noted that despite the importance of forest and tree resources to the livelihoods
and economy of Rwanda, the country had never had a forest policy until 1988 (National
Forestry Policy, MINITERE 2004), when the first one was enacted. This was, however, not
implemented because of the war and genocide. The present policy was formulated in 2004, a
year after the end of the transitional government. It also came into effect after the country had
lost two-thirds of the forest estate in 4 decades which was attributed to weak forestry
governance and over-dependency on forest resources.

The vision of the Forestry policy, 2004 is to meet, on a sustainable basis, the population’s needs
for wood and other forest products and services. The main targets are forest cover to comprise at

F-8 ANNEX F
least 30% of the national territory; and to have at least 85% of farmland under agro-forestry by
2020. An interesting aspect of the present forest policy is the focus on promoting gender,
fostering public-private partnerships and enhancing international cooperation in forest
management. It also creates the national Forest Protection Service, which will deal with forest
encroachment and extension.

A7b. Forestry Legislation

Law N° 47/1988 announced on December 5, 1988 and officially published on February 1, 1989
is still governing forestry activities. This law covers soil protection, conservation, and
restoration, which could play an important role in watershed protection, particularly where
reforestation is required. Article 4.2 specifies the contents of communal forest plans and requires
an inventory of communal lands threatened by erosion or degradation that may require
reforestation as a means of conservation and restoration. Unfortunately, because this inventory
has never been done, this provision does not play the role envisioned for it in protecting
watersheds. Article 28 stipulates that national parks, the banks of lakes and streams, and marshes
with woody vegetation belong to the national forest estate, but has no implementing regulations
to identify how it might be applied.

The decree of 18 December 1993 requires that prior authorization from the Forestry Department
before wood is cut and sold. The decree specifies sanctions for offenders and taxes to be paid
before a permit is issued to cut and sell.

A7c. Draft Forestry Legislation

As part of the implementation of the 2004 forest law, two draft legislations have been prepared –
one comprehensive law on forestry, and a law establishing the National Forestry Authority
(NAFA). The law establishing NAFA has been approved and is undergoing final signature and
awaiting gazettements by the Ministry of Justice. The draft law on forestry is going through the
consultative process before it is sent to cabinet. The ETOA team could not access the draft
legislations as their circulations are still limited.

A8. Laws on Fishing and Aquiculture

A8a. Existing Legislation

A draft law on fisheries management was passed by Parliament at the beginning of July 2008.
The laws now in force are from the colonial period and mainly regulate fishing and the
introduction of new fish species and the importation of water hyacinth. Specifically,

• Ordinance N° 325/Agri (1947) prohibits introduction of exotic fish species into bodies
of water in Rwanda.
• Ordinance N° 51/162 (1955) prohibits retention, culture, multiplication, sale, and
transportation of the Eichornia crassipes, the water hyacinth.
• O.R.U. N° 52/55 (1955) prohibits using narcotics to catch fish in the lakes and rivers of
Rwanda.

ENVIRONMENTAL LEGAL AND POLICY FRAMEWORK F-9

 • O.R.U. N° 52/160 (1955) states that in all the lakes of Rwanda, it is prohibited to fish
with nets with a mesh less than 4 cm in size of with nets of more than 1 km long. It is
also prohibited to lay a dormant net less than 50 m from the bank.
• O.R.U. N° 552/97 (1959) prohibits fishing with seines in the interior lakes of Rwanda
except in Lake Kivu, although fishing with seines may be authorized for research
purposes.
• In Circular N° 1900/07024 (1997) MINAGRI regulates fishing as follows:
Before fishing every person or every association must have a license issued by
the Director of Regional Agricultural Services for that area.
This license is valid for one year; it is bought by paying 2000 FFW to the public
revenue authority.
Every boat used in fishing must be registered and easily identified;
No fishing nets may be used with meshes less than 4 cm in size.
No dormant nets may be laid less than 25 m from the bank.
No fish may be caught by beating or by using narcotics or nets whose
dimensions are prohibited.
A8b. Draft Legislation

A draft law on fishing and aquiculture has been passed by the Chamber of Deputies (lower house
of parliament) and is due to be approved by Senate. The draft law has been prepared with support
from the Inland Lake Fisheries Management Support Project (PAIGELAC) funded by the
African Development Bank. The draft law and details of its formulation process were inaccessible.

A9. Water Resource Management Legislation

A9a. Existing Legislation

Several ministries have responsibility for managing water resources- Ministry of Water Energy
and Natural Resources (MINERENA) (hydroelectricity, food, and potable water), Ministry of
Agriculture and Animal Resources (MINAGRI) (irrigation and drainage for agriculture,
aquaculture, and fishing), and the Ministry of Lands, Environment, Forestry and Mines
(MINITERE) (environmental management). There is no law regulating management of water
resources except one dating from January 7, 1974 on pollution and the contamination of springs,
lakes, and rivers. This ordinance requires the territorial authority to determine the zones of
protection of lakes, rivers, or parts of rivers used as, or having the potential to be used as, potable
water sources. MINIRENA has finalized drafting a new water law but the draft has yet to be
approved by Cabinet. The one additional law that applies in this area is :

The protection and management or lakes and their shorelines, rivers and streams and stream
banks are provided for in the Organic Law determining the protection and conservation of
environment.

F-10 ANNEX F
A10. Land Resources Legislation

A10a. Organic Law determining the use and management of land in Rwanda 1

The Organic Law No 08/2005 determining the use and management of land in Rwanda is
probably the most comprehensive legislation on the management of one of Rwanda’s most
valuable natural resource – land. Chapter 2 categorizes rural and urban land for purposes of
developing it and provides for the management and use of land, including institutional structures
for land governance. Article 8 establishes land commissions at national, provincial, Kigali city,
districts/ towns and other decentralized levels. Article 20 provides for land consolidation for
purposes of rational and optimal use of rural land for production. It is perhaps this provision that
is guiding the ongoing green revolution and the planned re-organization of rural settlements to
clustered (Umudugudu) settlements.

An important part of this legislation for ETOA, is article 12 which provides for reserved public
lands for purposes of environmental and natural resources conservation – lakes and water ways;
lands accommodating natural water sources and water points; public lands for environmental
protection such as natural forests, national parks, public botanical gardens, and tourist sites,
among others. Others relate to public utilities such as roads and related infrastructures. In
addition, Article 55 waves any rights of land owners to mineral resources buried in his/ her land
as well as other natural resources found in the sub-soil, and gives exclusive rights over those
resources to the state. Article 67 imposes land tax to land owners.

Another area of interest is in transfer of land rights through sale, lease, mortgage or otherwise
provided for in articles 33-35. The law addresses concerns for women and children in the
decision making regarding disposal or transfer of family land. Article 35 requires consent of all
family members in case a representative (usually the household head) is disposing off or
transferring the property.

Over the last 2 years, the Government has implemented a land reform program (mainly with
support of DFID) focusing on land tenure, land access and increasing the commercial
transactions relating to land. A National Land Centre was established in 2007 and is piloting the
land registration and titling. It targets to have all land registered and titled by 2010.

A10b. Subsidiary Legislation

A Presidential Order N°53/01 establishing the National Land Centre and providing for its
functioning created the Registrar of Land Titles in Rwanda and empowers him/ her to manage
the Land Centre. A series of other Presidential and Ministerial Orders operationalizing the Land
Law are being drafted. Most of these relate to registration and transfer of land; and
operationalization of Land Tribunals at district and lower levels. .

A11. Protected Areas Legislation

1
Official Gazette of the Republic of Rwanda Year 44 No. 18. September 15, 2005. Law No. 08/2005 of July 14, 2005. Organic
Law determining the use and management of land in Rwanda.

ENVIRONMENTAL LEGAL AND POLICY FRAMEWORK F-11

A11a. Existing Legislation

• The Decree of 26 November 1934 (Belgian Congo National Parks Institute) creating
Akagera National Park consists of a single article, “Is reserved, under the name of
Akagera National Park, the part of Rwanda territory whose boundaries are indicated in
the appendices of the present decree.”
• ORU N° 52/48 (1957) created the hunting area of Umutara in Byumba territory, and
gave responsibility for regulating hunting in this game reserve to the General Vice
Governor or a delegate. The use of traps and guns with silencers is prohibited.
• Ordinance N° 52/175 (1953) prohibits bush and grass fires.
• The Decree of 26 November 1934 established the boundaries of the National Park of
Albert, which became Volcano National Park.
• ORU N°83 (1933) created the forest reserve of Nyungwe.
• Law decree of 26th /04/197 confirmed and modifying the ordinance of 1973 that
created the Rwanda Office of Tourism and National Parks (ORTPN), which was the
successor to the colonial National Parks Institute and Office of Tourism. The two major
objectives of ORTPN are to:
Promote tourism and put into practice all means necessary to built tourism
Ensure that nature is protected, particularly fauna and flora and promote
scientific research and encourage tourism in such a way that these two activities
are compatible with the protection of nature.
• Decision N° 3 of the Cabinet Meeting of July 29, 1997, following recommendations of
the Inter-ministerial Commission changed the boundaries of the Akagera National Park,
reducing its area from 250,000 ha to 90,000 ha.

A12. Specific Legislation for Wildlife and Protected Areas Management

The Office of Tourism and National Parks (ORTPN) has been restructured, creating separate
Agencies under it, for Wildlife management and Tourism Development. The restructuring
process was facilitated by the International Gorilla Conservation Project (IGCP) at the request of
the Ministry of Commerce, Industry, Cooperatives and Tourism. The objective was to improve
ORTPN’s management capability and performance by creating two separate institutions within
the agency to address: (1) protected area management (the Rwanda Conservation Agency); and
(2) tourism promotion (the Rwanda Tourism Agency). A wide range of stakeholders took part in
the process, initiated in January 2002. In the final report, submitted in June 2002, one of the key
recommendations was that priority be given to the legislative process for establishing these two
institutions. In the law responding to this recommendation the most important provisions are:
• The ORTPN now consists of two independent agencies: the Rwandan Tourism Agency
and the Rwandan Conservation Agency, both under the authority of the Board of
directors.
• The ORTPN has legal status and financial and administrative autonomy.
• It is under the authority of the Ministry of Commerce, Industry, and Tourism
(MINICOM). Though its headquarters are in Kigali, the Rwandan capital, they can be
transferred anywhere within the country if necessary.
• The objective of the Rwandan Tourism Agency objective is to promote tourism using
whatever means will make the greatest contribution:
Establish the presence of Rwanda in international exhibitions.

F-12 ANNEX F
 Publish catalogs and site cards.
Promote a network of people to accompany tourists in important markets.
Use information technology to promote Rwandan tourism.
Build partnerships with operators of international and regional travel agencies.
Communicate with travel agents who specialize in the Rwanda experience.
Begin, coordinate, and facilitate tourism-related research.
Implement actions based on the strategic vision and policies identified by the ministry
and multisector-based national plans.
Manage tourism to conform to national strategies and policies.
Create tourism plans.
Promote and diversify tourism services by identifying priority areas.
Promote community activities related to tourism.
The objective of the Rwandan Conservation Agency is to preserve the countryside and
manage national parks and natural reserves, in particular:
Ensure effective economic planning of tourist services in protected areas.
Facilitate community tourism in territories close to protected areas.
Begin the search for primates.
Ensure tourist services for safaris and discovery of protected areas.
Ensure good departments of reception, interpretation, and useful information for tourists
from within as well as outside Rwanda.
Ensure the efficiency and sustainability of tourist activities in protected areas.
Ensure the efficient management of all tourist services, infrastructures, and activities in
protected areas.
Maintain the standards and operational efficiency of the public sector that insures
tourism services inside protected areas and surrounding regions.
Ensure the safety of tourists.
Organize community tourism services for people living near protected areas.
Ensure good communication with tourist agencies.

A13. National Land Policy

The GoR elaborated a comprehensive land policy in 2003 and an Organic Law. These
incorporate the following policy provisions:
• All Rwandans enjoy the same rights of access to land (implying that there can be no
ethnic or gender discrimination).
• Title to all land should be registered so that it can be traded, except where doing so
would fragment the land into plots less than 1 ha in area.
• Land use should be optimal. Households will be encouraged to consolidate plots to
ensure that each holding is not less than 1 ha. There will also be a maximum size of
50 hectares allowed for any individual landowner. Families will be required to hold land
in common to avoid fragmenting the land into parcels that are too small.
• Land administration will be based on a reformed cadastral system
• The rights of occupants of urban land will be recognized on condition that they conform
to established rules.

The Organic Law on land specifies that:

ENVIRONMENTAL LEGAL AND POLICY FRAMEWORK F-13

 • Persons occupying less than 2 ha and those with customary holdings of between 2 and
30 ha will be recognized as the rightful owners if they have a project and a development
plan.
• Title deeds can only be transferred with the consent of all family members.
• A land tax will be imposed.
• Undeveloped land reverts to the state after three years.
• Holders of ubukonde land (originally distributed by the clan head) will have the same
rights as other customary owners.

The objective of the land policy and law is to improve land management while giving occupant
of the land security. The land policy calls for a minimum threshold of 1 ha for land holding
although the law does not say so explicitly. The policy and law seek to reduce poverty by
encouraging production efficiencies through a modern commercialized agriculture sector. This is
already being implemented through a program termed “Green Revolution”. They make two
critical assumptions: (i) families will pool land fragments together to create parcels large enough
to qualify for development subsidies or receive special legal consideration and (ii) land will be
further concentrated through sales.
Those who have reviewed the drafts in detail point out that:

• It is unclear whether lands under 1 ha in size will be eligible for title registration.
• The proposed policy forbids the allocation of “agro-pastoral” land to
“nonprofessionals.”

Both these provisions could have major implications for Rwanda’s poor, but discussions with
GoR officials and the land policy advisor for the Department for International Development
(DFID) suggest that the policy and legislation are still very much in draft and have been subject
to comment by a variety of organizations and individuals. Such discussions also suggest that the
GoR will at first focus on land reform in urban areas, “where there is a greater desire for such
action, and more willingness to pay.”

It is clear that while the GoR has made efforts to broaden the consultative process in planning for
critical issues of land use, consultations and communications are often one way, from
government to those who will be affected. While the GoR says consultation is taking place,
many NGOs active in rural development and civil society activities have not actually seen the
draft policy or law. There is thus an urgent need for the consultative process to be expanded to
assure widespread input from local populations, NGOs, and others working at the grass roots
before basic policy decisions are reached.

A14. Wetlands Related Legislation

Although wetlands are among the most important natural resources for Rwanda– both in terms
of productivity and ecological functioning, they have been severely degraded and there is
insufficient legal framework to protect them. A draft wetlands policy developed in 2004 by
MINITERE was shelved pending detailed inventory and categorization of wetlands for
production and protection. A master plan for marshlands exploitation developed by MINAGRI
is more exploitative and focuses mostly on production.

F-14 ANNEX F
Despite the absence of specific legislation on wetlands, there is increased protection of wetlands
since the Organic Law on Environment was passed in 2005. Some activities (such as brick
making) were outlawed in wetlands, and even where wetlands are under production,
environmental impact assessment (EIA) is required. In the Gikondo valley, Kigali city, there are
initiatives to re-locate industries and other economic activities. In effecting these activities,
REMA is using the following provisions of the Organic Law on Environment;

Articles 67 and 68 require all activities likely to have significant environmental impacts to
undergo EIA. Articles 83 – 85 prohibit dumping any waste in wetlands. Article 86 regulates
pastoral and agricultural activities in/ around wetlands. In particular, such activities must be
located a distance of at least 10 meters from the river or stream banks and 50 meters away from
the lake shores. Cattle Kraals are restricted to at least 60 meters away from stream or river
banks and at least 200 meters from lake shores. Article 87, prohibits construction of houses in
wetlands (which are deemed to include rivers, lakes and stream banks). Construction of houses
must be at least 20 meters away from swamp boundaries/ banks; and for tourism purposes, any
building or structure requires the authorization of the Environment Minister, the Minister is also
empowered to gazette swamps where construction and other activities are completely
prohibited.

REMA has used these and other provisions of the organic law on environment to ban activities
in wetlands but still has difficulties to regulate large scale farming where MINAGRI is
promoting cultivation of rice, cereals, horticultural crops and other farming activities.

There is a Focal Point for the RAMSAR Convention in REMA who is in-charge of
coordinating wetlands management issues but it appears that activities going on/around
wetlands are not being actively monitored on a regular basis. The ETOA team is concerned
that the MINAGRI seems to have a strong grip on wetlands management in the absence of a
clear legal or institutional framework for wetlands management under the Ministry of natural
resources or REMA, and that institutional coordination between important stakeholders notably
MINIRENA, MINAGRI, ORTPN and districts, is weak, often leading to contradictions in
policy formulation and implementation.

A15a. Existing Legislation

• The Decree of 6 June 1952 related to ground water, lakes, and swamps and their use.
It emphasizes the importance of water and provides measures to conserve water.
• The Ordinance of 1 July 1914 on contamination of springs, lakes, and wetlands. This
ordinance requires administrators to determine the zones of protection for wetlands that
provide potable water and forbids the public to construct houses, industries, or schools in
those areas or to fill them in with soil, stones, etc.

A15b. Draft Legislation

• A draft bill on the development of swamplands was written as early as 1988. Its
objective is to increase the amount of lands used for agriculture; to increase agricultural
productivity by intensifying agriculture especially on land that lends itself to it; to

ENVIRONMENTAL LEGAL AND POLICY FRAMEWORK F-15

 improve farmer quality of life; to encourage farmer group activities and private
initiatives; and to contribute to the general economic development and progress of the
country.
The bill sets forth the larger task of preparing the marshes for preliminary implementation o
environmental impact studies, but these cannot begin until the results of a baseline study have
been published. The bill also calls for classification of marshes according to their location, area,
hydraulic potential and ecological importance. Such a classification would determine the choice
of swamps to be fitted out and swamps to be preserved for their crucial role in the conservation
of biodiversity—swamps are the preferred and sometimes the only environments that support
certain species of mammals, birds, and reptiles.

• A Draft Wetlands Policy on the conservation and management of wetlands presented in

January 2003 supersedes the draft 1988 bill and to some extent responds to World Bank
Rural Sector Support Project (RSSP) concerns about wetlands development in Rwanda.
The bill, which is fairly comprehensive, addresses conservation and rational use issues in
much more detail than the 1988 version.

The bill contains five titles:

1. General capacities, definitions, fundamentals, and objective principles

2. The legal status of wetlands
3. Institutions.
4. Incentive, preventive, and enforcement capacities
5. Final capacities.

Among aspects of the legislation that apply to the current ETOA study:

• Article 1 of Title 1 fixes the general legal framework for conservation and the
management of wetlands in Rwanda.
• Article 2 makes the wetlands part of the common patrimony of the Rwandan nation and
the world. Their conservation and management are necessary to maintain natural balances
and are therefore of general interest.
• Article 3 makes the wetlands a priority for the Rwandan Government because of their
great economic, cultural, aesthetic, scientific, and recreational value, the disappearance of
which would be irreparable.
• Article 6 emphasizes that every person on Rwandan territory has the duty to contribute
to the conservation and rational use of wetlands for their fundamental economic and
ecological roles as regulators of water systems and biodiverse environments and as
economic, cultural, aesthetic, scientific, and recreational resources.
• Article 7 sets out the principles underlying the conservation and the durable
management of wetlands:
The wetlands must be used in ways that are compatible with their natural functions and
hydrological and ecological value.
An environmental impact study is required before any activity can be undertaken that
may have a negative impact on the wetlands.

F-16 ANNEX F
 Special measures must be taken to protect wetlands, which are important globally and
locally as ecosystems supporting a variety of species of fauna and flora, as well as for
their cultural and aesthetic values, tourism potential, and irreplaceable hydrological and
ecological functions.
The sustainable use of wetlands must be integrated into national and local approaches to
managing natural resources through education of the public.
The conservation of wetlands and their flora and their fauna can be insured by
integrating long-term national policies with international action through regional and
international cooperation.
Every person whose behavior or activities may damage wetlands is subject to a tax or a
royalty and would by implication be responsible for all measures of restoration, on the
principle that the polluter pays.

• Article 8 makes it clear that the draft law is intended to:

Promote the conservation and rational use of wetlands
Establish the fundamental principles of conservation and rational use and protection of
wetlands against any form of degradation
Insure the rational use of wetlands by protecting their ecological, economic, cultural,
scientific, and recreational functions
Protect the capacity of the wetlands to stock waters and control floods
Regulate public access to and use of wetlands
Promote research on wetlands
Minimize and control pollution of wetlands
Set up institutional mechanisms to check present and future progressive infringements
on wetlands
Promote regional and international cooperation in conservation and in sustainable
management of wetlands

• Article 9 applies the draft law to:

Swamps
Lakes
Permanent rivers, streams, and brooks
Seasonal, occasional, or irregular rivers, streams, and brooks
Seasonal, occasional lakes, including the puddles of the flood plains
Ponds and swamps
Peat bogs
Water sources
Geothermal waters
Fish-farming ponds;
Irrigated land, including irrigation channels and rice fields
Seasonally flooded agricultural land
Reservoirs, dams, and other water-restraining areas
Excavations, gravel and clay pits, sand quarries, mine shafts, and ballast
Waste-water treatment sites, including sewage farms, sedimentation ponds, and
oxidation ponds

ENVIRONMENTAL LEGAL AND POLICY FRAMEWORK F-17

 Canals and drainage ditches

This bill, however, appears to have been shelved and wetlands legislation has been initiated
again with the inventory of wetlands commissioned under the World Bank funded Integrated
Management of Critical Ecosystems (IMCE). Under this project, four Ministerial Orders
(subsidiary legislations) are being drafted to regulate utilization, conservation and protection of
wetlands.

B. Local Government

B1. The National Policy of Decentralization

The National Policy of Decentralization adopted in May 2000 is based on the following
principles:
• Ensure national unity, indivisibility, and balanced development. This principle is
designed to avoid use of decentralization policy as an excuse to foster national
disintegration and discriminatory development.
• Ensure autonomy and local identity, interests, and diversity. This principle encourages
people to participate in identifying needs and local interests when plans are prepared so
as to satisfy and mobilize the resources and energy required for executing the plans.
• Separate political from administrative and technical authority. By clearly defining roles
and responsibilities, this principle aims to help avoid conflicts of interest and
concentration of powers.
• Harmonize responsibilities with the transfer of financial, human, and material
resources. Harmonizing the responsibilities and functions transferred with the human,
financial, and material resources transferred will make the decentralization policy
meaningful by rendering local communities answerable to their own planning initiatives,
and the activities of managers answerable to their developmental plans.

The GoR’s National Policy of Decentralization aims at empowering the Rwandan population to
take responsibility for managing and utilizing resources, including natural resources and the
environment. The policy requires that all objectives and duties be undertaken with respect for the
environment. In fact, the purpose of principle (iii) of this policy is explicitly to:

Reinforce the awareness of the local environment as well as the capacity of the public
administration to intervene to address environmental issues by availing itself of the
planning, finances, management and control of activities where these services are
provided and by making local leaders capable of developing structures and organizational
capacities that take into consideration the environment and local needs.

Like the national environmental policy, the policy framework is adequate for decentralized
environmental management. Responsibilities for environmental management are well defined;
the policy clearly states that the district is in charge of water resources, tourism, and
environmental protection. Responsibilities for urban entities such as cities, towns and
municipalities are also defined; they include territory management, urban planning, road

F-18 ANNEX F
construction, water provision, sanitation, waste treatment and disposal, maintenance of green
spaces, and environmental protection and management.

Deepening decentralization
The first phase of decentralization (2001-2003) succeeded in creating democratic governance
structures at all levels up to village level- more than 10,000 people were involved in some sort of
elected leadership in 106 districts, 1500 sectors and 8000 cells throughout Rwanda. For a country
where governance was highly top-down and leaders appointed by higher authorities,
decentralization partly achieved its objective of empowering the population. The evaluation of
phase 1, however, concluded that the administrative units created were too weak and too costly
to sustain, hence the decision to amalgamate them into fewer, more viable units.

In the context of environmental governance, an important observation about the recent reforms in
the decentralization process is that until 2006, environment was largely not provided for in the
districts and provincial administration structures– only a small desk in the Directorate of
Infrastructures – but has now been established with an Environment Officer. According to
REMA Director General, plans have also been finalized to place environment portfolio in the
Directorate of Planning so that it is well positioned to oversee inclusion of environmental issues
into all sectoral activities.

Here, there are a few policy implementation issues, in particular:

• Districts’ financial and institutional capacity to prioritize environment within its

constrained budget resources; and the institutional machinery to implement all
environmental activities including education and awareness. This is an uphill task for one
technical officer in the districts.
• Capacity at the central Government level (e.g. REMA and Ministry of Natural
Resources) to support the district in building capacity, undertaking monitoring and
follow-up activities in environmental management, given that they are also constrained;
- Inadequate institutional/ sectoral coordination and limited funding both from donor
interventions and Government budget that go into environmental activities at district
and grassroots level – including such technical aspects as biodiversity conservation
and environmental impact assessment;

An important provision of the Environment Policy and Organic Law on Environment that has
been operational zed is the creation of provincial, district, sector and cell committees for
environmental management. These committees will be responsible for day-top-day planning,
follow-up and coordination of activities to protect and manage the environment and encourage
the direct and active involvement of the population in environmental activities. REMA has
embarked on efforts to train them, and orient them about their responsibilities.

C. Other Pending Environmental Legislation

C1. Plant Protection and the Use of Pesticides

A Law determining the modalities and mechanisms for plant protection and regulating the use of
pesticides has been approved by Cabinet and awaits parliamentary enactment. Originally

ENVIRONMENTAL LEGAL AND POLICY FRAMEWORK F-19

prepared by MINAGRI, it is now being spearheaded by RADA (Rwanda Agricultural
Development Agency). This draft law when finally approved by parliament will be of great
interest to several enterprises receiving support from USAID and other donors. It deals with:
• National phytosanitary monitoring and control
• Phytosanitary border inspections
• Regulation of pesticides
• Enforcement structures and their authority
• Criminal penalties for offenders.

MINAGRI annexed a presidential decree to the draft bill that specifies the membership of a
Pesticide Commission: high-level representatives of ministries dealing with plant protection, the
trade of imported plant products, environmental and human health, and the Bureau of Standards,
as well as importers and users of pesticides. This decree will facilitate implementation of the law.
Provisions regulating pesticides include:

• The approval process and authorization of products (Article.15, 16, 17, 19)
• Packaging and labeling (Article18)
• Prohibitions and exemptions (Articles 21, 22 and 23)

This bill gives all regulatory control of pesticides to MINAGRI, but it does not indicate that
phytosanitary certificates will be required, even though MINAGRI presently requires and
authorizes such certificates.

F-20 ANNEX F
ANNEX G
IUCN THREATENED ANIMAL AND PLANT SPECIES1

Species Population Trend

Critically Endangered (6)
Barbus ruasae Pop. trend: decreasing
Status: Critically Endangered B1ab(ii,iii)+2ab(ii,iii) ver 3.1
Chiloglanis ruziziensis Pop. trend: unknown
Status: Critically Endangered B1ab(iii)+2ab(iii) ver 3.1
Diceros bicornis (Black Rhinoceros) Pop. trend: increasing
Status: Critically Endangered A2abcd ver 3.1
Rhinolophus hilli (Hill's Horseshoe Bat) Pop. trend: decreasing
Status: Critically Endangered B1ab(iii,v)+2ab(iii,v) ver 3.1
Varicorhinus platystoma Pop. trend: decreasing

Status: Critically Endangered B1ab(i,ii,iii)+2ab(i,ii,iii) ver 3.1

Varicorhinus ruandae Pop. trend: decreasing
Status: Critically Endangered B1ab(ii,iii)+2ab(ii,iii) ver 3.1
Endangered (15)
Apalis argentea (Kungwe Apalis) Pop. trend: decreasing
Status: Endangered B1ab(i,ii,iii,v) ver 3.1
Ardeola idae (Madagascar Pond-heron) Pop. trend: decreasing
Status: Endangered C2a(ii) ver 3.1
Barbus acuticeps Pop. trend: decreasing
Status: Endangered A2bcd ver 3.1
Barbus claudinae Pop. trend: unknown
Status: Endangered B1ab(ii,iii)+2ab(ii,iii) ver 3.1
Bradypterus graueri (Grauer's Swamp-warbler) Pop. trend: decreasing
Status: Endangered B2ab(ii,iii,iv,v) ver 3.1
Chlorocypha molindica Pop. trend: unknown
Status: Endangered B1ab(iii)+2ab(iii) ver 3.1
Crocidura lanosa (Kivu Long-haired Shrew) Pop. trend: decreasing
Status: Endangered B1b(iii) ver 3.1
Gorilla beringei (Eastern Gorilla) Pop. trend: decreasing
Status: Endangered A4abcd ver 3.1
Haplochromis erythromaculatus Pop. trend: decreasing
Status: Endangered B1ab(iii)+2ab(iii) ver 3.1
Leptopelis karissimbensis Pop. trend: decreasing
Status: Endangered B1ab(iii) ver 3.1
Lophuromys rahmi (Rahm's Brush-furred Rat) Pop. trend: unknown
Status: Endangered B1ab(iii) ver 3.1

1
IUCN 2008. 2008 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. <www.iucnredlist.org>.
Downloaded on 12 November 2008.

IUCN THREATENED ANIMAL AND PLANT SPECIES G-1

Lycaon pictus (African Wild Dog) Pop. trend: decreasing
Status: Endangered C2a(i) ver 3.1
Marcusenius victoriae (Victoria Stonebasher) Pop. trend: decreasing
Status: Endangered A2bcde ver 3.1
Pan troglodytes (Common Chimpanzee) Pop. trend: decreasing
Status: Endangered A4cd ver 3.1
Phodilus prigoginei (Congo Bay-owl) Pop. trend: decreasing
Status: Endangered B1ab(i,ii,iii,v) ver 3.1
Vulnerable (35)
Acinonyx jubatus (Cheetah) Pop. trend: decreasing
Status: Vulnerable A2acd; C1 ver 3.1
Afrixalus orophilus Pop. trend: decreasing
Status: Vulnerable B1ab(iii) ver 3.1
Balaeniceps rex (Shoebill) Pop. trend: decreasing
Status: Vulnerable C2a(ii) ver 3.1
Callixalus pictus Pop. trend: decreasing
Status: Vulnerable B1ab(iii) ver 3.1
Cercopithecus hamlyni (Owl-faced Monkey) Pop. trend: decreasing
Status: Vulnerable A4cd ver 3.1
Cercopithecus lhoesti (L’hoest’s Monkey) Pop. trend: decreasing
Status: Vulnerable A4cd ver 3.1
Chloropeta gracilirostris (Papyrus Yellow Warbler) Pop. trend: decreasing
Status: Vulnerable C2a(i) ver 3.1
Cryptospiza shelleyi (Shelley's Crimson-wing) Pop. trend: decreasing
Status: Vulnerable C2a(i) ver 3.1
Delanymys brooksi (Delany's Swamp Mouse) Pop. trend: decreasing
Status: Vulnerable B1ab(iii) ver 3.1
Falco naumanni (Lesser Kestrel) Pop. trend: decreasing
Status: Vulnerable A2bce+3bce+4bce ver 3.1
Glaucidium albertinum (Albertine Owlet) Pop. trend: decreasing
Status: Vulnerable C2a(i) ver 3.1
Hippopotamus amphibius (Common Hippopotamus) Pop. trend: decreasing
Status: Vulnerable A4cd ver 3.1
Hyperolius castaneus Pop. trend: decreasing
Status: Vulnerable B1ab(iii) ver 3.1
Hyperolius discodactylus Pop. trend: decreasing
Status: Vulnerable B1ab(iii) ver 3.1
Lophuromys medicaudatus (Medium-tailed Brush-furred Rat) Pop. trend: decreasing
Status: Vulnerable B1ab(iii) ver 3.1
Muscicapa lendu (Chapin's Flycatcher) Pop. trend: decreasing
Status: Vulnerable C2a(i) ver 3.1
Nectarinia rockefelleri (Rockefeller's Sunbird) Pop. trend: stable
Status: Vulnerable D1 ver 3.1

G-2 ANNEX G
Ocotea kenyensis
Status: Vulnerable A1cd ver 2.3
Panthera leo (Lion) Pop. trend: decreasing
Status: Vulnerable A2abcd ver 3.1
Papilio leucotaenia (Cream-banded Swallowtail) (needs updating)
Status: Vulnerable B1+2c ver 2.3
Phrynobatrachus acutirostris Pop. trend: decreasing
Status: Vulnerable B1ab(iii) ver 3.1
Phrynobatrachus bequaerti Pop. trend: decreasing
Status: Vulnerable B1ab(iii) ver 3.1
Phrynobatrachus versicolor Pop. trend: decreasing
Status: Vulnerable B1ab(iii) ver 3.1
Praomys degraaffi (De Graaff's Praomys) Pop. trend: decreasing
Status: Vulnerable B1ab(iii) ver 3.1
Prunus africana (Red Stinkwood)
Status: Vulnerable A1cd ver 2.3
Rhinolophus ruwenzorii (Ruwenzori Horseshoe Bat) Pop. trend: decreasing
Status: Vulnerable B1a+2b(ii,iii,iv,v) ver 3.1
Ruwenzorisorex suncoides (Ruwenzori Shrew) Pop. trend: unknown
Status: Vulnerable B2ab(iii) ver 3.1
Secamone racemosa
Status: Vulnerable A2c ver 3.1
Sylvisorex lunaris (Moon Forest Shrew) Pop. trend: decreasing
Status: Vulnerable B1ab(iii) ver 3.1
Synodontis ruandae Pop. trend: unknown
Status: Vulnerable D2 ver 3.1
Thamnomys kempi (Kemp's Thicket Rat) Pop. trend: unknown
Status: Vulnerable B1ab(iii) ver 3.1
Thamnomys venustus (Charming Thicket Rat) Pop. trend: decreasing
Status: Vulnerable B1ab(iii) ver 3.1
Torgos tracheliotos (Lappet-faced Vulture) Pop. trend: decreasing
Status: Vulnerable C2a(ii) ver 3.1
Trigonoceps occipitalis (White-headed Vulture) Pop. trend: decreasing
Status: Vulnerable C2a(ii) ver 3.1
Tropodiaptomus kissi (needs updating)
Status: Vulnerable D2 ver 2.3

IUCN THREATENED ANIMAL AND PLANT SPECIES G-3

ANNEX H
RWANDA SPECIES ON CITES APPENDICES I AND II1
Animal
Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name Common Name
Miniopterus schreibersii Common Bentwing Bat Civettictis civetta African Civet
Perodicticus potto Potto Gibbon Felis silvestris Wild Cat
Galago demidoff Demidoff's Dwarf Galago Leptailurus serval Serval
Galago matschiei Dusky Bushbaby Panthera leo Lion
Galago senegalensis. Lesser Bushbaby Panthera pardus Leopard
Galago thomasi Thomas's Dwarf Galago Profelis aurata African Golden Cat
Otolemur crassicaudatus Greater Bushbaby Orycteropus afer Aardvark
Otolemur monteiri Silvery Greater Galago Loxodonta africana African Savannah
Elephant
Cercopithecus ascanius Black-cheeked White-nosed Diceros bicornis Black Rhinoceros
Monkey
Cercopithecus denti Dent's Monkey Hippopotamus Hippopotamus
amphibius
Cercopithecus doggetti Silver Monkey Cephalophus Yellow-backed Duiker
silvicultor
Cercopithecus hamlyni Owl-faced Monkey Damaliscus korrigum Topi
Cercopithecus kandti Golden Monkey Hippotragus equinus Roan Antelope
Cercopithecus lhoesti L'Hoest's Monkey; Mountain Philantomba Blue Duiker
Monkey monticola
Chlorocebus pygerythrus Vervet Monkey Tragelaphus spekii Sitatunga
Colobus angolensis Angola Pied Colobus Kinixys belliana Bell's Hinged Tortoise
Colobus guereza Eastern Black-and-white Kinixys erosa Common Tortoise
Colobus
Lophocebus albigena Grey-cheeked Mangabey Kinixys spekii Speke's Hinged
Tortoise
Papio anubis Olive Baboon Trionyx triunguis African Softshell Turtle
Papio hamadryas Hamadryas Baboon Pelomedusa subrufa African Helmeted Turtle
Piliocolobus tephrosceles Ugandan Red Colobus Pelusios castaneus Chestnut Terrapin
Gorilla beringei Eastern Mountain Gorilla Crocodylus niloticus Nile Crocodile
Pan troglodytes Chimpanzee Bradypodion Ituri Chameleon
adolfifriderici
Manis gigantea Giant Pangolin Chamaeleo anchietae Double-scaled
Chameleon
Manis temminckii Cape Pangolin Chamaeleo dilepis Flap-necked
Chameleon
Manis tetradactyla Black-bellied Pangolin Chamaeleo ellioti Mountain Dwarf
Chameleon
Manis tricuspis Three-cusped Pangolin Chamaeleo johnstoni Johnston's Chameleon
Anomalurus derbianus Lord Derby's Flying Squirrel Chamaeleo laevigatus Smooth Chameleon
Hystrix cristata Crested Porcupine Chamaeleo rudis Smooth Chameleon
Aonyx capensis African Clawless Otter Chamaeleo Schouteden's
schoutedeni Chameleon
Hydrictis maculicollis Speckle-throated Otter Varanus niloticus Nile Monitor
Ictonyx striatus Striped Polecat; Zorilla Python sebae African Rock Python
Mellivora capensis Honey Badger Trogonidae Trogons
Ardeidae All herons and egrets Meropidae Bee’eaters
Threskiornithidae All ibis and spoonbills Coracidae Rollers

1
UNEP-WCMC 18 July, 2008 UNEP-WCMC Species Database: CITES-Listed Species.
www unep-wcmc org/isdb/CITES/Taxonomy/country_list cfm/isdb/CITES/Taxonomy/country_list cfm?displaylanguage=eng&Country=RW&submit=Go

IUCN THREATENED ANIMAL AND PLANT SPECIES H-1

 Animal
Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name Common Name
Podicipitidae All grebes Upipadae Hoopoe
Falconidae All falcons, kites, eagles Phoniculudae Scimitar bills
Strigidae All woods hoopoes and scimitar Dicruridae Drongo
bills
Aegypiidae All vultures Oriolidae Orioles
Anhinga rufa African darter Paridiae Tits
Phalacrocoracidae All cormorants Remizidiae Penduline tits
Otididae All Bustards Timalidae Akalats,Bablers
Sagittarius serpentarius Secretary bird Campephagidae Cuckoo shrikes
Pelicanidae All pelicans Turidae Thrushes, Robins
Ciconidae All storks Sylvidae Warblers
Scopus umbretta Hanmerkop Muscicapidae Flycatchers
Gruidae All cranes Malaconotidae Boubous, Goneleks
Bucerotidae All hornbills Prionopidae Helmet shrikes
Alcadinadae All kingfishers Nectarinidae Sunbirds
Hirundinidae All swallows and martins Zosteropidae White eyes
Cuculidae Cuckoos Balaeniceps rex Shoebill
Caprimulgidae Nightjars

Plant
Family Scientific Name
ASCLEPIADACEAE Ceropegia nilotica
Ceropegia schliebenii
Ceropegia stenantha
Ceropegia stenoloba
CYATHEACEAE Alsophila manniana
Cyathea dregei
Cyathea manniana
LILIACEAE Aloe bukobana
Aloe dawei
Aloe lateritia
Aloe macrosiphon
Aloe myriacantha
Aloe secundiflora
Aloe secundiflora
Aloe volkensii
ROSACEAE Prunus africana
ZAMIACEAE Encephalartos septentrionalis

Note: There is a report by Gapusi and Mugunga (1997) which lists sixty different families of rare
or threatened plant species in Rwanda, yet it needs to be updated and confirmed with scientists.

H-2 ANNEX H
ANNEX I
ADDITIONAL MAPS

Map Map Title

Miscellaneous
I-1 The location of protected areas in Rwanda
I-2 Distribution of mountain gorillas
I-3 Study area of the Rugezi wetland
I-4 Old administrative areas of Rwanda
Akagera National Park (ANP)
I-5 Akagera National Park
I-6 Previous and current boundaries of Akagera National Park
Nyungwe National Park (NNP)
I-7 Nyungwe Forest National Park and principal ORPTN stations
I-8 Location of Nyungwe National Park
I-9 Management zones in Nyungwe National Park
I-10 Nyungwe National Park administrative and buffer zones
I-11 Conservation priorities and sensitive areas in Nyungwe National
Park
I-12 Endemic species richness in Nyungwe National Park
I-13 Human-caused degradation in Nyungwe National Park
I-14 Population pressure on Nyungwe National Park.
I-15 Uwinke trail network in Nyungwe National Park.
I-16 Distribution of chimpanzees in Nyungwe National Park
Volcano National Park (PNV)
I-17 Protected areas of the Central Albertine Rift.
I-18 Volcano National Park and adjoining districts in Rwanda
I-19 Elevation contours in Volcano National Park
I-20 Animal distribution in PNV
I-21 Population density adjacent to PNV
I-22 Tourist sites outside PNV
I-23 Tourist zones inside the PNV
I-24 Areas vital to gorilla ecotourism
I-25 Illegal activities tracked in PNV, 2007
I-26 Home ranges of gorilla groups in PNV, 2007
I-27 Illegal activities in PNV relative to gorilla group ranges, 2007
I-28 ORTPN patrol coverage in PNV, 2007

ADDITIONAL MAPS I-1

 Map I-1 The location of protected areas in Rwanda.

Map I-2 Distribution of mountain gorillas.

Source: Kayitare, 2008.

I-2 ANNEX I
Map I-3 Study area of the Rugezi wetland.

Studied area (Butaro&Cyeru

Sectors, Burera District)

Source: Government of Rwanda, 2007a.

ADDITIONAL MAPS I-3

Map I-4. Old administrative regions of Rwanda.

I-4 ANNEX I
Map I-5. Akagera National Park.

Source: ORTPN, 2006.

ADDITIONAL MAPS I-5

 Map I-6 Previous and current boundaries of Akagera
National Park.

Source: ORTPN, 2006.

I-6 ANNEX I
Map I-7. Nyungwe Forest National Park and principal ORPTN stations.

Cyanudongo

Adapted from: NASA Earth Observation Data satellite imagery

Map I-8 Location of Nyungwe National Park

RW ANDA
NDA
Kigali
#

BURUNDI
B RUND
N
Nnyungwe National Park

50 0 50 100 Kilometers

Source:IRG, Ltd., 2008.

ADDITIONAL MAPS I-7

 Map I-9 Management zones in Nyungwe National Park.

Source: ORPTN, 2005.

I-8 ANNEX I
Map I-10 Nyungwe National Park administrative and buffer zones.

Source: ORPTN, 2005.

ADDITIONAL MAPS I-9

 Map I-11 Conservation priorities and sensitive areas in Nyungwe National Park.

Source: ORPTN, 2005.

Map I-12 Endemic species richness in Nyungwe National Park

Source: ORPTN, 2005.

I-10 ANNEX I
Map I-13 Human-caused degradation in Nyungwe National Park.

Source: ORPTN, 2005.

ADDITIONAL MAPS I-11

 Map I-14 Population pressure on Nyungwe National Park.

Source: ORPTN, 2005.

I-12 ANNEX I
Map I-15 Uwinke trail network in Nyungwe National Park.

Source: ORPTN, 2005.

ADDITIONAL MAPS I-13

Map I-16 Distribution of chimpanzees in Nyungwe National Park. (The larger the
circle, the higher the population density.)

Source: Government of Rwanda, 2003.

I-14 ANNEX I
Map I-17 Protected areas of the Central Albertine Rift.

Source: IGCP, 2006.

ADDITIONAL MAPS I-15

 Map I-18 Volcano National Park and adjoining districts in Rwanda

Source: Rwanyiziri and Kayijamahe, 2005.

Map I-19 Elevation contours in Volcano National Park.

Source: Rwanyiziri and Kayijamahe, 2005.

I-16 ANNEX I
Map I-20 Animal distribution on PNV

Source: Rwanyiziri and Kayijamahe, 2005.

Map I-21 Population density adjacent to PNV.

Source: Rwanyiziri and Kayijamahe, 2005.

ADDITIONAL MAPS I-17

 Map I-22 Tourist sites outside PNV.

Source: Rwanyiziri and Kayijamahe, 2005.

Map I-23 Tourist zones inside PNV.

Source: Rwanyiziri and Kayijamahe, 2005.

I-18 ANNEX I
 Map I-24 Areas vital to gorilla ecotourism.

Source: Rwanyiziri and Kayijamahe, 2005.

Map I-25 Illegal activities tracked in PNV, 2007.

Source: ORTPN, 2008.

ADDITIONAL MAPS I-19

 Map I-26 Home ranges of gorilla groups in PNV, 2007.

Source: ORTPN, 2008.

Map I-27 Illegal activities in PNV relative to gorilla group ranges, 2007.

Source: ORTPN, 2008.

I-20 ANNEX I
Map I-28 ORTPN patrol coverage in PNV, 2007.

Source: ORTPN, 2008.

ADDITIONAL MAPS I-21