Phase 4 SocioEcon Study Report First Draft NV S

RW2-2-8
First Draft
Preparation of Rwanda Land Use and Development Master Plan

Socio-Economic Study of Ecologically Sensitive Areas
November 2009
Table of contents
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS................................................................. 4
1 SUMMARY.................................................................................................... 5
2 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................... 7
3 CONTEXT AND METHODOLOGY .............................................................. 8

3.1 Context..............................................................................................................................................8
3.2 Methodology ....................................................................................................................................9
4 ECOLOGICAL BACKGROUND................................................................. 10
4.1 General situation ...........................................................................................................................10
4.2 Ecological importance of Rwanda’s national parks..................................................................11
5 SOCIO-ECONOMIC BACKGROUND........................................................ 15
6 CURRENT LAND MANAGEMENT IN THE NATIONAL PARKS.............. 17

6.1 Akagera National Park (ANP).....................................................................................................17
6.1.1 Description of the Park...............................................................................................................17
6.1.2 Key Issues...................................................................................................................................18
6.2 Nyungwe National Park (NNP) ...................................................................................................20

6.2.2 Key Issues...................................................................................................................................21
6.3 Volcanoes National Park (VNP) ..................................................................................................23

6.3.2 Key issues...................................................................................................................................24
7 FIELDWORK FINDINGS ............................................................................ 25

7.1 Similarities between ANP and NNP............................................................................................25
7.2 Differences between ANP and NNP ............................................................................................26
7.3 Comparisons with VNP ................................................................................................................28
7.4 Key lessons and issues arising from current land and resource management and livelihoods
development strategies and practices ........................................................................................................30
7.4.1 Current strategies and practices .................................................................................................30
7.4.2 Opinions about future strategies ................................................................................................32
8 INTERNATIONAL BEST PRACTICE ........................................................ 35

8.1 Community Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM)...............................................36
2 (49)
8.2 Integrated Land Use Planning including Integrated Water Resource Management ...........37
8.3 Community involvement in Tourism..........................................................................................37
8.4 New initiatives - Payment for Ecosystem and Watershed Services (PEWS) and Reduction
of Emissions through Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) .................................................38
8.5 Good park management practices ..............................................................................................39
9 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................... 40

9.1 Lessons from international best practice....................................................................................40
9.2 Specific recommendations arising from the fieldwork .............................................................41
10 REFERENCES ........................................................................................ 43
APPENDIX 1 - TORS......................................................................................... 46
APPENDIX 2 - LIST OF PEOPLE CONSULTED.............................................. 48
3 (49)
Abbreviations and acronyms

ANP Akagera National Park
EDPRS Economic Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy
CBNRM Community Based Natural Resource Management
CBWM Community Based Wildlife Management
IGAs Income-Generating Activities
IUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature
MINALOC Ministry of Local Government
MININFRA Ministry of Infrastructure
NAFA National Forestry Authority
NLC National Land Centre
NNP Nyungwe National Park
NTFPs Non-Timber Forest Products
ORTPN Rwandan Office for Tourism and National Parks (French acronym) (now
RDB)
PEWS Payments for Eco-System and Watershed Services
RDB Rwanda Development Board
REDD Reduction of Emissions through Deforestation and Forest Degradation
REMA Rwanda Environment Management Agency
RWA Rwanda Wildlife Agency (part of RDB)
SDUTA Rwanda Land Use and Development Master Plan Project (French
acronym)
VNP Volcanoes National Park
WCS World Conservation Society
WCS/PCFN World Conservation Society – Project Conservation de Forêt de
Nyungwe
WWF WorldWide Fund for Nature
4 (49)
1 Summary
Sound and sustainable land management is a major objective of the 2004 National Land
Policy and 2005 Organic Law Determining the Use and Management of Land in
Rwanda (the Organic Land Law). To this end, the SDUTA Project of the Ministry of
Natural Resources (MINIRENA)/National Land Centre (NLC) has been tasked with the
preparation of a Rwanda Land Use and Development Master Plan (‘the Plan’).
The Plan, which is currently being prepared through a broad consultative process, will
present a national planning framework with a range of options and choices for the
decentralised authorities to select from in the pursuit of improved land and natural
resource management and livelihoods development in their areas. The planning
framework is based on the achievement of Rwanda’s development goals as set out in
Vision 2020 and the Economic Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy (EDPRS).
These require the development and diversification of non-farm and off-farm livelihoods
and a shift from being a predominantly rural economy to a much more urban-based one.
This report makes relevant recommendations with regard to land and natural resource
management and livelihoods development in the areas surrounding Rwanda’s three
national parks, for use in the preparation of the Plan. Socio-economic aspects of land
management relating to sensitive ecological zones such as shores, riversides, natural
forests and mining areas have been earlier addressed (SDUTA Project, 2009.a). Report
on Collection of Existing Data, March 2008) It is written in response to, and fulfilment
of, the required socio-economic and ecological studies within the Project TORs’ ‘4th
Phase: Specific studies and data analysis’, with a clear focus on the end product – Plan
preparation – with the full support of the NLC.
The report draws on scoping work carried out in the field by the SDUTA Project Socio-
Economist and Project Ecologist between April and June 2008, on subsequent desk-
based literature review and analysis (of the Rwandan case and of international best
practice), and on a targeted field visit made by the Project Socio-Economist to
communities around Akagera National Park (ANP) and Nyungwe National Park (NNP)
in October 2009, carried out in cooperation with the Rwanda Wildlife Agency (RWA)
and Rwanda Development Board (RDB).
The report’s recommendations are primarily based on this recent fieldwork, but the
report also draws on the findings of a separate fieldwork-based socio-economic study of
communities around Volcanoes National Park (VNP) that was carried out independently
by the SDUTA Project Socio-Economist in 2008 for Great Forest Holdings Ltd.
The report covers the context and methodology of this assignment, provides short
summaries of the ecological and socio-economic background, and sets out the latest
ecological and land management situation in the national parks through a brief review
of the current park management plans. The fieldwork findings are discussed in detail,
including analysis of similarities and differences between the different areas and of key
lessons from current land and natural resource management and livelihoods
development strategies and practices. Relevant international best practice is reviewed,
and the report concludes with a summary of recommendations for the preparation of the
Plan.
Although Rwanda is a small country, it encompasses a level of geographic diversity and
includes a number of different ecologically-sensitive areas. The field-based scoping
5 (49)
work carried out by the SDUTA Project Socio-Economist and Project Ecologist
between April and June 2008 assessed and identified the different types and locations of
ecologically-sensitive areas, including the three national parks. From this work, the
need for more detailed analysis and assessment of the situations of people living in
areas neighbouring Rwanda’s national parks emerged, with an emphasis on
recommendations and solutions for community involvement in livelihoods
development, land management and conservation in buffer areas near the parks, for
consideration in Plan preparation. This has included looking at the socio-economic
issues relating to the people living in ‘potential buffer zone’ areas with the aim of
providing incentives to make people respect the park boundaries (limit illegal or
unsustainable fuel wood collection, fishing and poaching, charcoal production or
grazing in the parks and also work to limit the need for additional agricultural land,
which is creating pressure to degazette national parks, etc) as well as to solving any
management issues related to the already existing buffer zone around the NNP and in
the ANP and VNP boundary zones. This report thus discusses park boundary and buffer
zone conservation issues, potential solutions, opportunities and mechanisms, and makes
recommendations to address both ecological and socio-economic concerns.
The methodology of this assignment involved both targeted structured interviews and
focus group discussions, through a series of discussion meetings with members of the
public living near different parts of the Nyungwe and Akagera park boundaries, as well
as interviews with a range of key stakeholders including sector and district authorities,
NGO staff, members of local livelihoods development associations, and RDB staff in
the parks and at headquarters. This fieldwork has been complemented by literature
review and analysis of the Rwandan case and international best practice.
Detailed findings are as set out in the main body of the report, where the specific
recommendations to have emerged from the fieldwork are set out by way of conclusion.
6 (49)
2 Introduction
This report makes relevant recommendations with regard to land and natural resource
management and livelihoods development in the areas surrounding Rwanda’s three
national parks, for use by the SDUTA Project in the preparation of the Rwanda Land
Use and Development Master Plan (‘the Plan’). It is written in response to, and
fulfilment of, the required socio-economic and ecological studies within the Project
TORs’ ‘4th Phase: Specific studies and data analysis’. Socio-economic aspects of land
management relating to sensitive ecological zones such as shores, riversides, natural
forests and mining areas have been earlier addressed (SDUTA Project, 2009.a).
The report draws on scoping work carried out in the field by the SDUTA Project Socio-
Economist and Project Ecologist between April and June 2008, on subsequent desk-
based literature review and analysis (of the Rwandan case and of international best
practice), and on a targeted field visit made by the Project Socio-Economist to
communities around Akagera National Park (ANP) and Nyungwe National Park (NNP)
in October 2009. This recent fieldwork (on which the recommendations in this report
are primarily based) was conducted with the full support and cooperation of the staff of
the Rwanda Wildlife Agency (RWA) and Rwanda Development Board (RDB), and we
remain deeply grateful to the Executive Director of RWA for assisting in the smooth
facilitation of our work.1 The report also draws, with kind permission of Great Forest
Holdings Ltd, on a separate fieldwork-based socio-economic study of communities
around Volcanoes National Park (VNP) that was carried out independently by the
SDUTA Project Socio-Economist in 2008.2
Appendix 1 sets out the TORs for the present assignment and report. Time and resource
constraints necessitated a careful review of the original broad project TOR in order to
develop a very specific and focused TOR for this work, in agreement with the National
Land Centre (NLC). We are particularly grateful to the NLC Director General for his
support in ensuring that this assignment maintained a clear strategic focus on the Project
end product – the preparation of the Rwanda Land Use and Development Master Plan.
The report is structured as follows. Section 3 explains the context and methodology for
the assignment. Section 4 and Section 5, respectively, provide short summaries of the
ecological and socio-economic background, drawing on the 2008 scoping work and
subsequent literature review. Section 6 then sets out the latest ecological and land
management situation in the national parks through a brief review of the current park
management plans. Section 7 discusses the fieldwork findings, including analysis of
similarities and differences between the different areas and of key lessons from current
land and natural resource management and livelihoods development strategies and
practices. Section 8 provides an overview of relevant international best practice. Section
9 concludes with a summary of recommendations for the preparation of the Plan.3
1
Following central government restructuring earlier in 2009, the former Rwandan Office of Tourism and National Parks
(ORTPN) was merged into the new RDB. This report makes reference mainly to RDB in the text to reflect the current
institutional structure, but the term sometimes refers to policies or practices of the former ORTPN.
2
See Daley, 2008, based on fieldwork carried out with the full support of the then ORTPN.
3
In addition to the already acknowledged support of RDB and NLC colleagues, we would like to thank the SDUTA
Project Team Leader, Nils Viking, and our other SDUTA colleagues including Rhona Nyakulama and Fred Kalema, for
their assistance with this assignment. Jacques Cyubahiro, Interpreter, and Amigo, Driver, deserve a special mention for
all the hard work they put in during the October 2009 fieldwork. We are of course also deeply indebted to all the people
we consulted with while carrying out this assignment, who willingly agreed to give of their time to share their views and
answer our many questions. All photo credits in this report belong to E Daley, including the cover photo.
7 (49)
3 Context and Methodology

3.1 Context
Rwanda is the most densely populated country in Africa, comprising an estimated 8.1
million people and just over 2.6 million ha of land, of which around 60 per cent is
arable (Government of Rwanda, 2002, 2004). Population growth is high, at around 2.7
per cent per annum (United Nations Secretariat, 2009), and physical population density
on arable land is estimated at around 309 persons per km2, with a physiological density
of 417 persons per km2 (Government of Rwanda, 2004). Rwanda’s rapid increase in
population density has resulted in smaller and more fragmented landholdings,
increasing pressure on marginal land, shorter fallow periods and longer cultivation
periods (Liversage, 2003). As a result, sound and sustainable land management is a
major objective of the 2004 National Land Policy and 2005 Organic Law Determining
the Use and Management of Land in Rwanda (the Organic Land Law) (Government of
Rwanda, 2004, 2005).
To this end, the Government of Rwanda-funded SDUTA Project has been tasked with
the preparation of a Rwanda Land Use and Development Master Plan. The Plan, which
is currently being prepared through a broad consultative process, will present a national
planning framework with a range of options and choices for the decentralised authorities
(district and local governments) to select from in the pursuit of improved land and
natural resource management and livelihoods development in their areas. The planning
framework is based on the achievement of Rwanda’s development goals as set out in
Vision 2020 and the Economic Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy (EDPRS)
(Government of Rwanda, 2000, 2007). These require the development and
diversification of non-farm and off-farm livelihoods and a shift from being a
predominantly rural economy to a much more urban-based one.
Although Rwanda is a small country, it encompasses a level of geographic diversity and

includes a number of different ecologically-sensitive areas. This means that land use
choices and options in the Plan must be sufficiently broad and also sufficiently
appropriate so as to cover all Rwanda’s land management needs. Between April and
June 2008, the SDUTA Project Socio-Economist and Project Ecologist carried out field-
based scoping work to assess and identify the different types and locations of
ecologically-sensitive areas, including the three national parks (Akagera, Nyungwe and
Volcanoes). From this work, whose full results are reported in the Project’s Report on
Collection of Existing Data and its separate Social Infrastructure annex (SDUTA
Project, 2009a, 2009b), the need for more detailed analysis and assessment of the
situations of people living in areas next to Rwanda’s national parks emerged.
While Rwanda contains other ecologically-sensitive areas than just those in and around
the three national parks, the populations living in proximity to the park boundaries is
substantial, not least because of the sheer physical length of their total perimeters.
Twelve of Rwanda’s 30 districts border a national park, as do a total of 40 sectors out of
the country’s 416 sectors (at sub-district level) – six sectors border Akagera, 11 border
the Volcanoes and 23 border Nyungwe. In addition, time and resource constraints have
necessitated a clear strategic focus on the Project end product, the Plan, which has
resulted in less study of ecologically-sensitive areas away from the national parks than
was otherwise hoped at the time of the original scoping work. This report therefore
8 (49)
focuses on the key issues of sustainable land and natural resource management and
livelihoods development among communities neighbouring the three national parks, in
the ‘potential buffer zone’ areas. It is also weighted towards Akagera and Nyungwe,
which are currently less developed for tourism.
As per the specific assignment TOR set out in Appendix 1, the overall emphasis is on
recommendations and solutions for community involvement in livelihoods
development, land management and conservation in buffer areas near the parks, for
consideration in Plan preparation. This includes looking at the socio-economic issues
relating to the people living in ‘potential buffer zone’ areas with the aim of providing
incentives to make people respect the park boundaries (limit illegal or unsustainable fuel
wood collection, fishing and poaching, charcoal production or grazing in the parks and
also work to limit the need for additional agricultural land, which is creating pressure to
degazette national parks, etc) as well as to solving any management issues related to the
already existing buffer zone around the NNP and in the ANP and VNP boundary zones.
This report thus discusses park boundary and buffer zone conservation issues, potential
solutions, opportunities and mechanisms, and makes recommendations to address both
ecological and socio-economic concerns.
3.2 Methodology
To consult as widely as possible in the limited time available for the October 2009
fieldwork, a methodology of targeted structured interviews and focus group discussions
was adopted. This involved a series of discussion meetings with members of the public
living near different parts of the Nyungwe and Akagera park boundaries, as well as
interviews with a range of key stakeholders including sector and district authorities,
NGO staff, members of local livelihoods development associations, and RDB staff in
both parks and at headquarters. Appendix 2 provides a list of all those consulted.
Questions were designed to elicit appropriate information from the different types of
stakeholder consulted, but with similar broad questions being asked of all interviewees
and discussants. Some of the questions for the focus group discussions matched those
asked during similar discussions carried out during the separate Volcanoes Social Study
(Daley, 2008) – this was in order to be able to draw comparisons between the findings
of both sets of fieldwork in the three areas.
The fieldwork was supported by a review of existing studies and relevant literature,
including both the Rwandan case and international best practice.
9 (49)
4 Ecological Background
4.1 General situation
As a result of Rwanda’s high population growth and density and related land pressures
in recent years, biodiversity loss has become severe. This is mainly due both to the
progressive disappearance of national parks and protected areas and to large-scale
habitat destruction. For example, between 1990 and 2000, forest cover in Rwanda
declined by 78 per cent, while the country is also experiencing an acknowledged loss of
its agro-biodiversity and wetland biodiversity (World Resources Institute, 2003). A
recent mapping inventory of forests with a surface area of 0.5 ha or higher and with
coverage of more than 20 per cent indicated that Rwanda had an estimated 240,746 ha
of forests in 2007. This is approximately 10 per cent of the total dryland area and
compares with 19 per cent cover (nearly double) in 2004 (REMA, 2009).
Biodiversity loss is closely linked with the loss of ecosystem services, of which water
catchment functioning (quantity and quality of water) is one of the most important. This
in turn is linked to deterioration in people’s day-to-day well-being (if access to safe
water supplies reduces), and to potential problems for Rwanda’s tourism sector as the
natural ecosystems provide important habitats for wildlife and birds.
Ecosystems and habitats of special ecological importance in Rwanda which need to be

considered in the preparation of the Plan include:
• Wetlands, rivers and lakes;
• Remaining natural forests (national parks and forest reserves);
• Remaining natural habitats; and,
• Rivers and riparian vegetation.
Current drivers of biodiversity loss in Rwanda, including habitat loss, are complex but
can nonetheless be summarized within the three broad categories of:
• Population pressure and movements;
• Economic and social conditions (poverty, limited access to electricity leading to
fuel wood dependency etc); and,
• Policy and legislation (conflicting sectoral policies, such as land redistribution
and livestock development vs conservation, lack of enforcement etc).
The combined impact of these drivers can be seen both in land conversion of natural
areas and loss of forest, through the recent need to degazette some protected areas for
human settlement and the actual reduction of forest cover that has occurred. Limited
availability of arable land, and population pressure upon it, has also driven farmers to
cultivate steep slopes, increasing the risk of erosion, and wetlands, destroying important
bird habitats and affecting water resources and quality. It has been estimated that soil
erosion already results in a loss of 1.4 million tons of soil per year. This represents a
decline in the country’s capacity to feed 40,000 people annually (REMA, 2009).
Climate change is likely to further exacerbate the current situation as erratic weather
patterns begin to affect land use options more and more.
10 (49)
With so much of the land area in Rwanda of necessity being used by people, it therefore
makes the remaining natural habitats, mainly found within the national park boundaries,
especially important to protect and conserve, and the goal of the development and
diversification of non-farm and off-farm livelihoods and a shift from being a
predominantly rural economy to a much more urban-based one more urgent, particularly
for communities living in close proximity to the parks.
4.2 Ecological importance of Rwanda’s national parks

Three eco-regions of global biodiversity conservation importance can be found in
Rwanda, as shown in Figure 1. They are:
1 Albertine Rift Highland Forest – Tropical and subtropical broadleaf forest

2 East African Moorlands – Tropical montane grasslands and savannas
3 Rift Valley Lakes - Lake and closed basin freshwater ecosystems.
Global 200 Ecoregions in Rwanda
East African moorlands
Albertine Rift highland forest
Rift Valley Lakes
Figure 1 - Global 200 Eco-regions in Rwanda

Source: WWF, National Geographic4
Due to the high population density in Rwanda, intact representations of these eco-
regions can only really be found now within the three national parks, which correspond
with the eco-regions (as shown in Figure 2, below) as follows:
4
Global 200 Eco-regions are defined by the WorldWide Fund for Nature (WWF) based on their outstanding terrestrial,
freshwater and marine habitats and are therefore of global conservation interest.
11 (49)
1 Albertine Rift Highland Forest – Nyungwe National Park (NNP)

2 East African Moorlands – Volcanoes National Park (VNP)
3 Rift Valley Lakes – Akagera National Park (ANP).
Figure 2 - Location of National Parks in Global 200 Eco-regions

Source: Swedesurvey
Together, Rwanda’s three national parks currently make up about 8 to 9 per cent of
Rwanda’s total land area, or 223,390 ha (WDPA, 2009). Since the 1994 Genocide, there
has been a reduction in size of formally protected areas (national parks and forest
reserves) of about 40 per cent, from 417, 000 ha to 255,000 ha (Government of Rwanda,
2004, and WDPA, 2009). The Nyungwe and Volcanoes parks form part of the Albertine
Rift biodiversity 'hotspot' (Myers et al, 2000) and have been ranked as high-global
priority conservation sites, both for their species richness and for endemic and IUCN
listed threatened species (Plumptre et al, 2003).
The economic value of maintaining national parks may not generally be obvious apart
from the tourism revenues that they generate. However, in the Rwandan context their
real value lies in their provision of ecosystem services, including watershed protection,
which are often taken for granted and in any case are very difficult to price.5 From a
biodiversity conservation point of view it is important that the protected areas remain
large enough to sustain their populations of wildlife, birds and plants. In a rainy and
5
The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Ecosystems and Human Well-being: A Framework for Assessment Report,
2003, groups ecosystem services into four broad categories: provisioning, such as the production of food and water;
regulating, such as the control of climate and disease; supporting, such as nutrient cycles and crop pollination; and
cultural, such as spiritual and recreational benefits.
12 (49)
mountainous country like Rwanda, it is also important to try to maintain forest cover to
avoid soil erosion, degradation and landslides. Deforestation in Rwanda has
traditionally been driven by the need for food, medicine, charcoal and timber, especially
for commercial products, and the constant demand for fuel wood and charcoal means
that the pressure on Rwanda’s forests continues. Deforestation has serious
environmental consequences, yet the financial costs are not always obvious. The three
national parks in Rwanda have all had their areas severely reduced in the past to cater
for human settlement, and whereas it would be unreasonable now to consider expanding
the park boundaries to cater for growing populations of wildlife, it is nonetheless
important that the current boundaries are not further reduced for human resettlement to
maintain the ecological integrity of the three parks and to protect Rwanda’s remaining
primary forests.
Although Rwanda’s three national parks face specific issues, discussed further in
Section 6 and Section 7 below, some general issues affecting them all emerged in the
scoping work (cf SDUTA Project, 2009a), and include:
Individual land tenure around the park, which limits the scope for traditional
community conservation initiatives (as practised in other countries with communal
land areas).
Population pressure and fuel wood dependency continuing to put pressure on the
park boundaries, aggravated by lack of adequate buffer zones to protect park
boundaries and allow for maximum community utilization of park resources.
The proximity of farming land to the parks, resulting in human/wildlife conflict and
negative local perceptions of the parks. (It is important to recognise however that
wildlife damage management is as much a human management issue as a park
management issue, and that there is a need for local solutions to these local
problems in which risk is individualized.)
Limited engagement of local communities in parks management.
The value of formal land protection in Rwanda can be particularly appreciated when
compared to what has happened in non- or less-protected biodiversity areas. For
example, satellite images released by NASA show a loss of 99.4 per cent - near
complete destruction - of Rwanda's Gishwati Forest between 1986 and 2001, largely as
a result of subsistence harvesting and cultivation by refugees in the aftermath of the
1994 Genocide (Mongabay.com, 2009). In early 2000, the World Conservation Society
in Rwanda (WCS/PCFN) organized a survey of what was left of Gishwati and Mukura
forests (both classified as forest reserves and located within the Albertine Rift
Highlands) to assess the current status of the natural forest and to determine whether it
would be useful to encourage conservation efforts. Findings from the survey were
bleak, with little of the original forest remaining in Gishwati – only a few stands of trees
of less than 1 ha in size. Mukura had also been severely degraded, with only
approximately 800 ha remaining. It was, however, found that even these small forest
remnants contained several Albertine Rift endemic birds of biodiversity conservation
importance, although it is unlikely that these populations will remain viable in the long
term within such a small area of habitat. Therefore, Nyungwe Forest and the Volcanoes
national parks are the only sites where these species are now likely to survive for any
length of time (Plumptre et al, 2001).
Even though Gishwati and Mukura forests were theoretically protected through their
13 (49)
forest reserve status, this example shows that this was not enough when competing with
national short-term social and economic needs. As a result, important biodiversity areas
and wildlife habitats have been lost for good. During the same period, the national parks
were much less affected due to their stronger conservation status and consequently
greater national resource allocation towards their protection. Given that serious
reduction of forest cover outside of the national parks is continuing, this underlines the
importance of maintaining the national park boundaries and the forest cover and
biodiversity levels within the parks both for continued provision of ecosystem and
watershed services and also to provide viable habitats for birds and wildlife. At the
same time, history has shown that the degazetting of protected areas and destruction of
forests and biodiversity for social and economic reasons can only be a short-term
solution, and that, therefore, alternative livelihoods, land use and energy models need to
be found for a more sustainable future.
14 (49)
5 Socio-Economic Background
Against this background of severe land pressure and biodiversity loss, and the need for
sound and sustainable land management in the pursuit of Vision 2020 and EDPRS goals,
appropriate livelihoods development for communities neighbouring the national parks is
paramount. The 2008 socio-economic scoping work identified seven key sets of issues
around different ecologically-sensitive areas within Rwanda (SDUTA Project, 2009b),
as follows:
• Lake Shores and Fisheries – general issues of sustainable fisheries and access to
the shore line, impact of silting from erosion affecting fish stocks and local
farming, also tree-planting, farming constraints and tourism development around
lake shores;
• Wetlands with Clay, Peat, Sand, Gravel and Rock Extraction – general issues of
sustainable extraction of raw materials for house construction, pottery and fuel;
• Steep Slopes, Forests and Farming – general issues of sustainable land use
including terracing and tree-planting;
• Tea Plantations and Export Agriculture – general issues of sustainable livelihoods
and land management, including change of land use and marketing issues on tea
farms;
• Imidugudu, Planning and Livelihoods – general issues of participatory planning,
especially with reference to how sustainable livelihoods can be developed within
‘artificial’ communities such as refugee resettlement areas;
• National Parks of Akagera, Nyungwe, Volcanoes – general issues of community
management, tourism development, human-wildlife issues such as animal
encroachment and poaching, and livelihoods and poverty issues; and,
• Gishwati Forest – general issues of forest depletion, cattle-keeping, appropriate
land use and land management.
In general, five main conclusions emerged from that work, concerning:
• Problems arising from intensive use of land and environment;
• Land as insurance and continued dependence on land-related activities;
• Livelihood diversification and perceived start-up constraints;
• Duplication and lack of specialisation; and,
• Little starvation but potential vulnerability.
The areas around Rwanda’s three national parks emerged as requiring further study as
follows: “…the study should seek to identify the particularities of the situation on the
ground in each place relevant to the formulation of alternative land use and
development master plan scenarios. The study methodology should utilise rapid
appraisal methods in the field, involving interviews and discussions with local
government officials, ORTPN staff and members of local communities. Existing land
management practices should be assessed and suggestions made, as required, for
sustainable and participatory strategies for more effective land management and
conservation in these areas. Lessons and best practice from other countries should also
be drawn on.” (SDUTA Project, 2009b).
15 (49)
The starting point for the present report is what is already known about the socio-
economic situation of communities neighbouring the national parks. For example, a
recent assessment of food insecurity in Rwanda indicates that, between the three parks,
food insecurity is relatively highest among the populations living around Nyungwe,
followed by those around Akagera and then those living around the Volcanoes
(MINECOFIN, 2006). A detailed socio-economic survey of people living around
Nyungwe and the Volcanoes found high levels of poverty and high mortality rates and
high rates of outward migration by adults in pursuit of economic opportunities, thus
leaving limited human resource capacity for involvement in park and conservation
management activities (Plumptre et al, 2004). People neighbouring Nyungwe and the
Volcanoes also include communities of abasigajwe inyuma ny’amateka, who are among
Rwanda’s poorest people (Daley, 2008, Plumptre et al, 2004). However, around
Akagera, there is poverty of a different kind, as many recent refugees have settled in
that area after arriving in Rwanda with few resources with which to develop new
livelihoods (SDUTA Project, 2009b).
Section 7 describes in detail the findings from the fieldwork carried out in the areas
surrounding the national parks, including discussion of similarities and differences
between the different areas and of key lessons from current land and natural resource
management and livelihoods development strategies and practices. Next, however, we
provide a summary of the latest ecological and land management situation in the three
national parks through a brief review of the current park management plans.
16 (49)
6 Current Land Management in the National Parks

The three national parks in Rwanda - Akagera, Nyungwe and Volcanoes – are all very
different in terms of ecosystems and scope, including their current and prospective
revenue generating capacity, and they therefore require different strategies with regard
to land and natural resource management and livelihoods development among their
surrounding communities. The current management and ecological situation in each
park is briefly discussed in turn below.
6.1 Akagera National Park (ANP)
Photo 1 - Buffaloes Grazing in Akagera

Source: E Daley
6.1.1 Description of the Park

Location: North-eastern Rwanda, along the Tanzania border.
Area: 103,000 ha (WDPA, 2009) from 267,000 ha in 1960. Reduced in size by
two thirds in 1995.
IUCN Class6: II
History: Founded in 1934. Reduced dramatically in size after the 1994 Genocide
to accommodate the land needs of returning refugees.
Current Management Plan covers the period 2006-10 (ORTPN, 2005a)
6
IUCN Category II = National Park: protected area managed mainly for ecosystem protection and recreation.
17 (49)
The Akagera National Park combines both wetland and savanna habitats. More than 900
species of plants, including 60 internationally protected orchids can be found in the park
(Government of Rwanda, 2003). However, it is the fauna that constitutes the park’s
major attraction. This comprises elephant, African buffalo, lion, giraffe, zebra and eland
and various antelopes (ORTPN, 2005a), more than 500 species of birds (Birdlife, no
date), 35 species of fish (ORTPN, 2005a), nine species of amphibians and 23 species of
reptiles (Government of Rwanda, 2003).
In 1994, two thirds of Akagera National Park and the adjacent Mutara Hunting Area
were degazetted to allow for a resettlement programme for returning refugees, leaving
behind a reduced size Akagera National Park (sometimes referred to as New Akagera
National Park). With these people came a large number of cattle and other livestock that
were also accommodated in the former Park and Hunting Area; most of the degazetted
area is thus given over to grazing. As a result, there is now a ‘hard edge’ between the
park and surrounding areas used for intensive livestock rearing and farming, which has
been more clearly demarcated since the 2006 land sharing process got underway and
government policy simultaneously began to encourage individual plot fencing and zero-
grazing.
Wildlife populations both inside and outside the ANP have drastically reduced –
population levels of some species have declined by 50 to 90 per cent – due to grazing
and cultivation as well as heavy hunting pressure since the large areas were degazetted
(Lamprey, 2002). High livestock stocking rates have also led to severe habitat
degradation in places. The demand for land for farming and grazing, together with
conflicts between wildlife and agriculture, continues to put a strain on conservation
efforts in and around the ANP.
6.1.2 Key Issues

Cattle vs wildlife. According to the PRORENA project (PRORENA, 2002), developing
a livestock industry in the area poses the greatest threat to the future of the ANP due to
the competition for land. Park authorities are under continuous pressure to control
wildlife movements into the farming areas in order to prevent diseases such as foot and
mouth, while there is continuous pressure in the opposite direction from pastoralists
who want to use the park for grazing and water, particularly in times of drought.
Buffer zone. The issue of a establishing a buffer zone around the ANP has been long
discussed and a potential delineation was proposed by the PRORENA project in 2002
(Williams and Ntayombya, 1999, PRORENA, 2002), as shown in Figure 3, below.
The PRORENA project envisaged that the buffer zone would be combined with a
‘community based wildlife management’ (CBWM) programme, which would assist the
communities around the park to utilise the wildlife populations occurring in the buffer
zone for CBWM programmes such as sport hunting and/or the development of
ecotourism. However, it would be extremely difficult to reverse the current allocation of
individual plots in the districts adjacent to the ANP and, given the advanced stages of
the resettlement programme, it was subsequently decided that it is probably not feasible
to implement the proposed buffer zone (ORTPN, 2003).
18 (49)
Figure 3 - Proposed buffer zone around Akagera National Park

Source: PRORENA
Fencing of the park boundary. Fencing of national parks is at times a controversial

issue and not always a desirable solution, but in the case of the ANP the need to fence
the boundary of the park to control the movement of wildlife, cattle and people has been
agreed. Fencing of the park has recently gone out to public tender. The new fence will
protect wildlife populations in the park, but will also limit the contact between livestock
and wildlife and thus reduce the risk of disease transfer. While the fencing is being
erected, there are plans to drive those animals living outside the park back into it,
therefore simultaneously serving to re-stock the game populations in the park which
should help with future tourism development.
Tourism revenue to support park management. Tourism revenue from the ANP is
currently too low to sustain effective park management by itself (Robford Tourism,
2002). To attract visitors, especially when competing with better known safari
destinations in the wider East African region, there is a need to increase wildlife levels,
which requires further improvements in park management. To facilitate this, the
19 (49)
Government of Rwanda is in the process of signing a management agreement with

African Parks Foundation7, a non-profit making organization that uses a business
approach to rehabilitate parks economically and financially. Management techniques
include involving neighbouring communities in the management of the park and various
ways of sharing park income – although the initial efforts will be put into rehabilitation.
6.2 Nyungwe National Park (NNP)
Photo 2 - Nyungwe Forest, Looking Towards Kibira, Burundi

Source: E Daley

Location: South-western Rwanda, along the Burundi border
Area: 102,000 ha (WDPA, 2009) (101,900 ha in Management Plan, and
970,000 ha in some documents), which together with Kibira National
Park in Burundi forms the largest contiguous block of lower montane
rainforest in central Africa.
IUCN Class8: IV
History: First gazetted as a forest reserve in 1933. Upgraded to a National Park in
2004.
Current Management Plan covers the period 2006-10 (ORTPN, no date)
Nyungwe is one of the most biologically important montane rainforests in central Africa
(Plumptre et al, 2002), with more than 260 species of trees and shrubs (Dowsett, 1990),
including 100 species of orchids (Kanyambiwa, 1998). Together with Kibira National
Park in Burundi, Nyungwe forms one of the largest contiguous blocks of lower montane
7
http://www.africanparks-conservation.com/apffoundation/index.php
8
IUCN Category IV = Habitat/Species Management Area: protected area managed mainly for conservation through
management intervention.
20 (49)
forest in Africa (Vedder et al, 1992). It provides habitat for 13 species of primates,
including some of the world’s most threatened species, such as the eastern chimpanzee
(Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii), the Owl-faced monkey (Cercopithecus hamlyni) and
possibly the golden monkey (Cercopithecus mitis kandti), as well as 260 species of
birds (Dowsett, 1990), of which a large number are endemic to the area (ORTPN, no
date). The park is not only important because of its biodiversity but is also a crucial
water catchment area for Rwanda and contributes 70 per cent of the water in the country
(Masozera, 2002).
Tourist visitor numbers have been low since 1994 and not enough income is generated
from tourism to cover park management costs, but the visiting numbers are slowly
increasing and RDB has began a process of developing tourism within the NNP, in line
with its broader tourism development strategy. One exciting development is the current
construction of a canopy walk and a visitors’ interpretation centre at Uwinka, the main
tourist campsite in the park.
6.2.2 Key Issues

Buffer zone. The park has a narrow buffer zone including plantations of exotic pine
trees and some tea plantations, although it does not cover the whole park boundary area,
as Figure 4 (below) shows. The buffer zone provides some opportunities for community
use (collection of fuel wood, etc), and areas containing tea and pine plantations act as an
effective barrier to primate encroachment onto neighbouring farms, but it is does not
currently extend wildlife habitats or provide wider opportunities for community
livelihoods development.
Threats to biodiversity. The NNP is located in one of the most populated parts of
Rwanda with an average of 400 inhabitants per km2. The proximity of people to the
park means that there is constant pressure from encroachment, in the form of illegal
harvesting of bamboo and fuel wood, illegal cropping (including of illegal drugs such as
marijuana), charcoal burning and poaching. Poaching has been an ongoing threat and, as
a result, elephants and buffalos have recently become locally extinct in the park
(ORTPN, no date). With limited big game around nowadays, poaching has turned to
smaller mammals.
In the past, mining within the park boundaries also contributed to biodiversity damage
when large numbers of miners ascended on the park. Wild bush fires are a severe threat
and are often caused by human activity, particularly from smoking out bees to collect
wild honey, although this has reduced in the past few years through major conservation
education efforts. In addition to these human induced threats, invasive plant species,
native and alien, are increasingly competing with the natural flora in the park.
Tourism. Although visitor numbers are reported to have increased in recent years, the
tourist revenues currently do not cover the park management costs by themselves.
21 (49)
Figure 4 - Nyungwe National Park buffer zone

Source: ORTPN, no date
22 (49)
6.3 Volcanoes National Park (VNP)
Photo 3 - Gahinga and Muhabura Volcanoes

Source: E Daley

Location: North-western Rwanda, along the DRC and Uganda borders.
Area: 18,364 ha (WDPA, 2009) contiguous to Virunga National Park in DRC
and Mgahinga Gorilla National Park in Uganda. The park was halved in
area in 1969.
IUCN Class: II
History: The park was first gazetted in 1925. It is currently protected under a
Decree of 24 April 1974 and was accepted as a Biosphere Reserve in
1983.
Current Management Plan covers the period 2005-9 (ORTPN, 2004b)
Vegetation in the VNP varies considerably due to the large altitudinal range, from the
bamboo forest (at 2300 – 2600m) to the afro-alpine vegetation resembling that of the
tundra from 4200m right up to the summit of Karisimbi (4507m). High altitude, high
rainfall and cool temperatures result in a diversified flora and fauna. The VNP is home
to approximately 245 species of plants, of which 13 are internationally protected
orchidaceas, 115 species of mammals, 185 species of birds (with at least 13 species and
16 subspecies endemic to the Virunga and Ruwenzori Mountains), 27 species of reptiles
and amphibians and 33 species of invertebrates (Government of Rwanda, 2003). The
park is also of global importance as it provides a sanctuary for mountain gorillas
(Gorilla gorilla beringei) and hosts half of the world population of mountain gorillas, as
23 (49)
well as the golden monkey (Cercopithecus mitis kandti).
6.3.2 Key issues

No buffer zone leading to encroachment into the park causing habitat destruction.
The VNP has no official buffer zone and people live and farm crops right up to the park
boundary. High population density and land shortage mean that there is tremendous
pressure to move into the park. There is currently no real opportunity to create a buffer
zone but there have been some recent discussions about private sector leasing of land
from landowners bordering the park in order to increase the forested area and develop
income streams through tourism development and carbon trading.
Human / wildlife conflict. As a result of the proximity of people to the park boundaries
crop raiding is a problem in the VNP, particularly by buffaloes. Although a wall has
been built, there are still gaps and some poorly maintained sections where buffaloes can
get through.
Poaching and harvesting in the park. Encroachment into the park for poaching,
harvesting of traditional medicines and water collection all occur, the latter being a
particular problem in areas near the park with limited natural water supplies.
Tourism revenue to support park management. Due to the exclusive gorilla tracking
tours, the VNP generates more income than any of the other parks in Rwanda and is
therefore a net contributor to RDB’s revenue sharing programme, discussed further in
Section 7 below.
24 (49)
7 Fieldwork Findings
This section sets out the key findings in relation to land and natural resource
management and livelihoods development from the October 2009 fieldwork in Akagera
and Nyungwe among communities living near the national parks, drawing also as
required on relevant literature and on the findings of the separate Volcanoes Social
Study carried out in 2008 (Daley, 2008). The section concludes with a discussion of
some of the key lessons and issues arising from current land and natural resource
management and livelihoods development strategies and practices in the national parks
in Rwanda.
7.1 Similarities between ANP and NNP

Human/wildlife conflict. Human/wildlife conflict was the key issue to emerge in all
structured interviews and discussions held in the field. Animal encroachment, of park
animals onto people’s land, is a major problem, with animal destruction of human food
crops a major contributing factor to local poverty. The problem is worse in some areas
than others. For example, people living along the north-western boundary of Nyungwe
describe themselves as ‘living with monkeys’, being constantly plagued by numerous
primates who come out of the forest to eat fruit from their banana trees. Various
squirrels and rodents also feast on local people’s food crops around Nyungwe. Around
the lakes just outside Akagera, crop trampling by hippopotami is a big problem.
In one sector neighbouring the NNP, fervent requests were made by public and local
authorities alike for RDB to take back its animals and put them all back inside the park.
In order to reduce animal encroachment and crop raiding, local people in both parks are
firm supporters of improved buffer zones and of fencing in particular – or trenches or
ditches where fencing is not practical.
Illegal activities. Illegal activities appear to take place quite widely throughout both the
ANP and the NNP. While no-one could actually admit to having illegally entered a
national park, interviews with park staff revealed the extent to which evidence of these
activities can be found. In Nyungwe, for example, anti-poaching patrols often come
across abandoned encampments where crops have been farmed, honey gathered, and
mining has taken place. This has implications for consideration of allowing any kind of
controlled access to non-timber forest products (NTFPs), as the pattern of human
encroachment appears to be that many different activities are pursued by the same
individual once they have gained illegal entry, and limited human resources compared
to the size of the forest make policing even controlled access potentially very
problematic. In fact, both parks are currently very hard to police – whether by RDB or
through community efforts. This is partly because of the length and porosity of their
perimeters (which include international boundaries – in the middle of the forest in the
case of Nyungwe). However, it is also partly because of what appears to be an
underlying (subconscious?) and unspoken social legitimacy that still holds for some
illegal activities, perhaps justified morally on account of poverty, insufficient direct
benefits from the parks (relative to demand), and irritation and anger with the animal
encroachment situation.
There is a discernible difference between the main reasons for and nature of illegal
activities in both parks, however. In the ANP, human / wildlife conflict is more pressing
25 (49)
– pastoralists allow their cattle to cross the very narrow buffer area for access to
pasturage and water, while angry farmers whose crops have been destroyed by wild
animals go into the park to poach for meat. Furthermore, the area is drier and crops do
not grow as well, so the individual impact of animal encroachment on people’s farms is
far greater than in the more fertile areas around the NNP. Poaching is therefore a much
bigger problem in the ANP. In the NNP, the density of the forest and its size enable it to
be entered illegally in numerous ways, including across the Burundian border, and the
resources it offers (bamboo, honey, charcoal, fuel wood, minerals, medicines, and
animals) are very tempting to people living in relatively remote and poor areas of the
country, far from main roads and markets.9
Poor infrastructure. Both the ANP and the NNP are less developed for tourism than the
VNP, and they therefore have fewer tourist facilities and poorer infrastructure. This is
an issue for people living near these parks, as they (correctly) do not understand how
tourism can be developed sufficiently to raise substantial revenues if the infrastructure
remains poor. Even the main tarmac road which runs from Kigali to Cyangugu and
passes right through Nyungwe is in very poor condition in the park section, which
negatively impacts on the scope for tourist access to the park’s attractions. Repair,
however, is in the hands of MININFRA, not RDB.
Reservations about the current implementation of RDB’s revenue sharing

programme. Among the members of the public consulted in both the ANP and the
NNP, there were a number of concerns expressed about the current implementation of
RDB’s innovative revenue sharing programme (ORTPN, 2005b). The programme is
widely supported – albeit that it is seen as not providing enough direct benefits to
people living near the parks at the moment – but the concerns turn on the mechanisms
through which funds are distributed to local infrastructure and income-generating
projects. For legal reasons, funds have to be channelled through auditable entities, and
thus they are sent by RDB to the districts for onwards distribution. In all cases, the
districts are seen by people as being too far away from the actual sectors neighbouring
the park where specific projects are being funded, and there were a number of reported
problems with delays in the distribution of funds, and of some discrepancies between
the funds expected and those actually received.
7.2 Differences between ANP and NNP

Apart from the differences between the main types of and nature of illegal activities in
the ANP and the NNP, noted above, the main differences between the respective socio-
economic situations in Nyungwe and Akagera relate to the different histories of the
parks. The areas around Nyungwe are more remote and inaccessible and there are
greater levels of visible poverty; the populations are also longer-standing, despite the
upheavals of the 1994 Genocide, which saw great movements of people through the
area under cover of Operation Turquoise. On the other hand, there is a longer history of
tourism development and conservation education and sensitisation through the efforts of
the WCS-PCFN in Nyungwe, which managed to maintain some of its operations even
during the difficult years around the Genocide. People are therefore more aware of the
actual and potential benefits of living near a national park in Nyungwe, and more
sensitised to the importance of conservation. People and park staff in Nyungwe have
observed real behavioural changes in recent years as conservation concerns have been
9
See ORTPN, 2004a, for a detailed analysis of the locations of various types of illegal activities around the NNP.
26 (49)
more emphasised in public policy. For example, we were told that now when fires break
out in the forest, people go straight away themselves to fight them, while sending
someone to notify the park authorities, whereas in the past they would wait to be
summoned to help by the park authorities.
Photo 4 - Chimpanzee Protection Poster in a Sector Office

Source: E Daley
In contrast, in the areas around Akagera, the local populations are more recent and less
settled, even including some of the refugees who came across from Tanzania in 2006.
The nature of the human / wildlife conflict is also fundamentally different, with people
living near Akagera at more direct risk of being physically harmed or killed by big
mammals such as buffalo, hippopotami and elephants. Neither WCS nor any other
conservation NGO presently operates in the areas around the ANP, so there is less
overall sensitisation and awareness of the real and potential benefits of living near a
national park, nor of the importance of biodiversity conservation in general. In part
because of this, and in larger part because of the animal encroachment issues, relations
between people and park appear at present to be worse around Akagera than Nyungwe
(see below).
Buffer zone issues. A further important difference between the ANP and the NNP is the
situation as regards buffer zones. In the ANP there is a narrow boundary area but no real
buffer zone to speak of. This means that not only do animals cross unimpeded between
the park and people’s farms and grazing areas, in both directions, but that there are
limited opportunities for livelihood development activities in the buffer zone. Because
of the recent resettlement of refugees in the area, there is clearly limited scope to extend
27 (49)
the boundary area (as noted above). Fencing, and the accompanying efforts to round up
and drive wild animals currently roaming outside the park back in, are therefore the
most realistic solutions to the animal encroachment problem. Along one part of the
ANP a wall is being constructed, and trenches and ditches have also been built in some
areas, but a proper electric fence – as currently being tendered – will provide a much
more sustainable solution. Current attempts to organise community protection in parts
of the ANP have also been relatively successful at dealing with animal encroachment,
although these will become less important once the fence is in place. In one sector, for
example, local guards work together to chase wild animals away from farms
neighbouring the park, using drums and other means to scare them off. Local people
contribute RWF 100 per month per household to provide a limited remuneration to the
people taking part in the guarding work, while RDB has contributed with equipment
and training.
However, in future, even with the new fence, it is important that no further resettlement
of people takes place in the areas closest to the park boundary, as this would only serve
to put increasing pressure on the park and local resources. MINALOC should consider
this in particular when planning for any more refugee resettlement, and in deciding on
the sites of new imidugudu.
The situation in the NNP is quite different. As noted above, there is a buffer zone
around a lot of Nyungwe. This was created in the 1970s and 1980s through tree and tea
plantation projects. However, the buffer zone is insufficient in depth in many areas to
prevent animal encroachment and does not exist in some perimeter areas at all. A
current pilot project to extend tea plantations onto people’s land near Kitabi is having
some success and may be a model for an approach to extending the buffer zone more
widely, hand in hand with livelihoods development. The pilot project gives farmers jobs
in the Kitabi tea factory until the tea bushes planted on their land are ready for
harvesting.
With regard to areas of the NNP buffer zone planted with trees, there is potential scope
for livelihoods development here too, but this is presently constrained by the lack of
RDB control over these parts of the buffer zone, which are instead all managed by
NAFA and subject to national environmental policies. Thus, any projects to allow
access to NTFPs or to potential timber and fuel wood resources in the buffer zone will
be dependent on NAFA’s engagement in the local livelihoods development process.
7.3 Comparisons with VNP

In order to be able to draw comparisons between the findings of the October 2009
fieldwork in the ANP and the NNP and those of the separate Volcanoes Social Study
carried out in 2008 (Daley, 2008), the same questions were posed to people taking part
in some of the various focus group discussions about their perceptions of their
relationship with the parks. People were asked to indicate whether they considered their
and their household’s relationship with their respective park to be good, average, bad or
indifferent. Results of this exercise in Akagera and Nyungwe are as set out in Table 1
and Charts 1 and 2 below. Results from the earlier study of the Volcanoes are as set out
in Table 2 and Chart 3 below.
28 (49)
Table 1 – Perceptions of Household Relations with the ANP and the NNP Among People Consulted by
SDUTA Project (October 2009)
Nature of Relationship Number of People from Number of People from Total Number
with the Park/RDB Focus Groups in the ANP Focus Groups in the NNP
Good 0 11 11
Average 19 19 38
Bad 18 0 18
Indifferent 1 0 1
Totals 38 30 68
Table 2 – Perceptions of Household Relations with the VNP Among People Consulted by Volcanoes
Social Study (June 2008)
Nature of Relationship Number of People from Number of Households Total Number

with the Park/ORTPN Focus Groups from Survey
Good 31 25 56
Average 0 6 6
Bad 29 8 37
Indifferent 1 1 2
Totals 71 40 111
The differences between the three parks can be more clearly seen in the three charts
below. There is a clear correlation between levels of tourism development and NGO
activity around conservation issues and the strength of positive feeling about the
national parks – expressed in terms of households having a good relationship with
RDB/former ORTPN and the Park. Whether or not this is a causal relationship is hard to
assess, but it points to the importance of increasing efforts to develop tourism around
the ANP and the NNP as part of land and natural resource management and livelihoods
development strategies. Conversely, the reported high levels of bad relationships in the
ANP and the VNP as compared to the NNP would appear to correspond to the greater
severity of the animal encroachment issue in those two parks, particularly on the part of
the big mammals which pose a real and direct threat to human well-being and
livelihoods.
Chart 1 – Perceptions of Household Relationships with the ANP
Good
Average
Bad
Indifferent
29 (49)
Chart 2 – Perceptions of Household Relationships with the NNP
Good
Average
Bad
Indifferent
Chart 3 – Perceptions of Household Relationships with the VNP
Good
Average
Bad
Indifferent
7.4 Key lessons and issues arising from current land and resource
management and livelihoods development strategies and practices
7.4.1 Current strategies and practices

During the October 2009 fieldwork, information was obtained about some of the
various land and natural resource management strategies and livelihoods development
activities currently taking place in the ANP and the NNP, particularly as part of RDB’s
innovative revenue sharing programme (ORTPN, 2005b). Projects generally take two
forms – support for infrastructure developments like the construction of school
classrooms in the sectors neighbouring the parks, and support to income-generating
activities (IGAs) pursued by local associations whose members live near the park
boundaries. Such activities are related to conservation efforts. For example, some funds
in the areas around Nyungwe go to associations which are developing non-traditional
forms of bee-keeping outside of the park, or transplanting bamboo rhizomes from the
park into income-generating bamboo plantations outside the park. In other words, the
30 (49)
funds are supporting activities which enable the local people to develop their
livelihoods through the local natural resources, but in such a way as to preserve the
integrity of the protected park area and reduce illegal activities within its boundary.
Similarly, another project supported by RDB, in collaboration with WCS-PCFN,
provides funds to a community of abasigajwe inyuma ny’amateka living near the
Cyamudongo Forest to develop a pottery project making decorative pots for the tourist
market at Gisakura. (See photos below.)
Around Akagera, funding from the revenue sharing programme also goes towards
infrastructure and association-based IGAs. In addition, as noted above, RDB is also
supporting efforts by some local communities to form patrols to protect their farm land
and livestock from animal encroachment, and to help them build a protective wall in the
current absence of an electric fence.
At the same time, however, there are some tensions in Akagera between people and the
park over the current policy of fining people whose cattle trespass into the ANP. The
policy is in force in the NNP as well, but it is a bigger issue in the ANP due to the
greater numbers of livestock in the area. The policy has been very successful in
reducing instances of encroachment into the park by cattle, but it draws attention to the
current lack of a compensation policy to assist people whose crops, livestock or own
persons have been damaged by wildlife. A formal compensation policy is therefore
currently in preparation at RDB headquarters, but until it is agreed and implemented,
with the backing of the appropriate legislation, some people may continue to feel that
their grievances are not being addressed.
Photo 5 - Non-traditional bee-keeping outside Nyungwe

Source: E Daley
31 (49)
Photo 6 - Pottery-making near Cyamudongo, outside Nyungwe

Source: E Daley
7.4.2 Opinions about future strategies

The revenue sharing programme has only been running since 2006 and is due to be
reviewed soon by RDB. With this in mind, people’s opinions were sought during the
October 2009 fieldwork in the ANP and the NNP about how the programme is currently
working and what changes might be welcomed. The programme is clearly appreciated
by local people and authorities alike and fully supported by RDB staff, who clearly
understands its importance in the development of a long term proactive and positive
relationship between the parks and their neighbouring communities. Nonetheless, the
funds available are constrained by the overall amount of revenue being generated from
the national parks, and the need to reserve enough money for park management and
conservation before any can be distributed in the form of revenue sharing with
communities. It was clear that people would welcome more funds for more projects, but
at the same time they appeared to understand that this would depend on there being
greater overall revenue and hence more tourism development.
In the three years 2006 to 2008, the total funds distributed across all three parks
amounted to only RWF 523, 806, 452, or approximately USD 0.9m.10 When it is
considered that these funds are spread across projects in 12 districts, the concerns noted
earlier about problems with the current distribution mechanisms become easier to
understand. The districts themselves, dealing with much greater budgets for overall
district development efforts, can be forgiven for not prioritising the effective delivery of
10
At approximately USD 1 = RWF 580.
32 (49)
revenue sharing monies to agreed projects, and there was widespread support expressed
for greater partnership between RDB and the sectors in the administration of the
revenue sharing programme, to cut out the middlemen (the districts) and ensure more
effective and efficient use of the available resources. However, this will only be
possible in so far as it might fit with the overall organisational policy of decentralised
government in Rwanda, currently in the process of review and change
During some of the focus group discussions, people were also asked to explain what
sort of projects they thought the revenue sharing programme should support, including
infrastructure projects, association-based IGAs, and direct cash transfers (especially to
the poorest households and those whose crops were damaged by animal encroachment
from park animals). The indicative results are given in Table 3 below:
Table 3 – Opinions about how Revenue Sharing Funds should be Spent
Type of Potential Projects Number of People from Number of People from Total Number
Focus Groups in the ANP Focus Groups in the NNP
Infrastructure 11 2 13
Association-based IGAs 2 19 21
Direct Cash Transfers 9 25 34
Totals 22 46 68
Some very interesting discussions took place on this issue. People were well aware of
current government policy to promote and encourage livelihoods development through
associations, and generally supported this. However, due to the remoteness and lack of
infrastructure in many of the areas neighbouring the national parks, there were also
concerns that revenue sharing funds should be going towards infrastructure
development projects that a wider number of people could then derive benefit from. On
the other hand, given the seriousness of the animal encroachment issue, and the current
lack of a formal compensation policy, many people expressed an interest in seeing
revenue sharing funds being distributed directly to individual households, especially
poorer ones and those whose crops (or persons) had been damaged by animal
encroachment, in the form of cash transfers or even food.
In connection with this possibility – which is not very practical given the large
populations living near the park and the current size of the available revenues –
discussions also covered the issue of payments for ecosystem and watershed services
(PEWS – see description in section 8 below), especially in Nyungwe where people
could easily relate this concept to the presence of the local tea factories and electricity
generating stations. It appeared that PEWS would be popular, so long as the funds
raised could be earmarked for further infrastructure and livelihoods development
projects among communities living nearest the parks, and not simply added to the
overall national government budget.
Another subject on which people’s opinions were sought was that of community
involvement in policing and patrolling the park boundaries, as a means of potentially
dealing with the animal encroachment issue. Despite some successes in this vein in one
of the sectors neighbouring the ANP, as noted above, there was a general reluctance on
people’s part to commit themselves to voluntary involvement in any kind of park
management efforts like these. This was mainly because of perceived poverty, as well
as the (related) limited availability of manpower due to high levels of outwards
migration in search of economic opportunities away from the parks, and should it be
33 (49)
possible to pay or otherwise incentivise local people to take part in these kinds of
management activities that would be a different matter.
The final issue on which people’s opinions were sought was that of allowing some kind
of limited and regulated access to the national parks for livelihoods development
utilising NTFPs. Generally speaking this was not supported, as people were well aware
of the many problems that could occur in terms of policing limited access, especially
around Nyungwe, and because of widespread awareness that the national parks are
protected and thus entry into them in pursuit of livelihood activities is quite justifiably
illegal.11 Instead, there was widespread support for further efforts to bring park
resources outside and develop them that way, as with the current bamboo project and
the non-traditional bee-keeping projects.
11
This understanding is not necessarily in contradiction to the above-mentioned apparent and unspoken / subconscious
social legitimacy of some illegal access and activities because of frustration at the scale and severity of the animal
encroachment issue and the limited direct benefits currently going from parks to local communities – the two positions
somehow seemed to sit side by side, if a little uneasily.
34 (49)
8 International Best Practice

People do not degrade biodiversity for no reason. They do so because their situation and
circumstances provoke them to do so. There is therefore currently widespread
agreement in international conservation circles around the need to involve communities
living in and around protected areas in conservation decision-making and benefit-
sharing in order to achieve sustainable land and natural resource management and
livelihoods development.
Land use decisions at community levels ultimately come down to economics, and the
challenge is to identify land use activities that benefit both biodiversity and people.
Leading international conservation organisations agree that protected areas will survive
only if they are seen to be of value, in the widest sense, to the nation as a whole and to
local people (Beltran, 2000). In Rwanda, people living near the national parks are
readily able to identify the benefits to the country as a whole that the parks bring, but
they were less able to identify direct benefits to themselves as park neighbours. It is
therefore important that the national parks demonstrate their value to neighbouring
communities as compared to other land uses and that appropriate economic incentives
for biodiversity conservation are in place so as to influence people’s behaviour by
making it more desirable for them to conserve, rather than to degrade or deplete,
biodiversity within the national parks in the course of their economic activities.
However, some negative land use choices do also arise from lack of information, and
communities thus need to be made aware through continuing careful sensitisation about
alternative options for developing the economic potential of their areas.
A range of interventions can be used as incentives for biodiversity conservation. These

can be broadly divided into direct incentives that encourage people to use and manage
particular biological resources or ecosystems more sustainably and indirect incentives
that, by strengthening and diversifying rural livelihoods, make people rely less on or
move away from exploiting biodiversity and national park resources.
Examples of direct livelihood incentives include interventions to promote efficient

harvesting techniques, to train people in processing skills or to investigate new products
and technologies. Indirect livelihood incentives include a wide range of rural
development activities and support to social infrastructure and employment generation,
ie development of alternative livelihoods (Emerton, 2000).
A recent survey (Rutagarama and Martin, 2006) has found that there is a willingness
amongst a wide range of stakeholders in Rwanda to be further involved in protected
area management and that a more broadly based network of stakeholder partnerships
could be a strategy for restructuring conservation management in Rwanda.
Rwanda is already doing many of the right things. However, in order to better inform
both RDB’s own forthcoming reviews of the various park management plans and the
NLC-led preparation of the Rwanda Land Use and Development Master Plan, and
subsequent selection by the decentralised authorities (districts and sectors), in
partnership with RDB, of the most relevant and appropriate recommendations for
application in their areas, it is useful to examine some examples of international best
practice relating to the creation of community incentives, protected areas management,
and land use planning.
35 (49)
8.1 Community Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM)

CBNRM is an approach to conservation and development that recognises the rights of
local people to manage and benefit from the management and use of natural resources in
protected areas. It entails transferring access and use rights back to communities,
empowering them through legislation and devolved management responsibility,
building their capacity and creating partnerships with the public and with private sector
organisations to develop programmes for the sustainable use of a variety of natural
resources in and around national parks. Although CBNRM was traditionally focused on
wildlife, the approach is now expanding into other areas of natural resource
management.
Where it has proven successful in the Southern African context, especially in Namibia,
CBNRM is usually based on the premise of availability of communal land and
structures and institutions of local community land ownership. Thus, while some
management examples could be transferred to the Rwandan context, the lack of
communal land and the more individualised land tenure in present day Rwanda means
that many typical CBNRM activities would not be suitable. The principles behind
CBNRM are nonetheless instructive.
CBNRM requires enabling policy and legislation, which should demonstrate the
following characteristics (Jones, 2004):
i Policy and legislation should be enabling rather than restrictive. It should aim
to promote positive actions rather than rely on punishments as a deterrent to
‘wrong’ behaviour.
ii CBNRM policy and legislation should provide incentives for appropriate
actions by resource users rather than be coercive. Policy and legislation need to
provide a broad framework within which landholders and resource users can take
decisions themselves without always having to have decisions endorsed or
sanctioned by government. If legitimate wildlife or natural resource use entails
excessive bureaucracy, ultimately landholders will turn to land uses where
transaction costs are much lower.
iii Policy and legislation should be flexible and not prescriptive. CBNRM policy
needs to be flexible in order to take into account the diversity of cultures and
practices of social organisation and local economic development within each
country. CBNRM policy and legislation should enable local communities to find
the best way to order their own affairs within their own local contexts, rather than
trying to prescribe uniform solutions.
Examples of CBNRM activities include community owned and run lodges or camps
(with joint ventures with tourism companies usually a good start), and community
involvement in wildlife monitoring and enforcement in connection with hunting
concessions and national parks. Some direct examples of how communities have been
encouraged to contribute to the conservation effort internationally include:
• In Zambia, a farming co-operative, Community Markets for Conservation
(COMACO)12, has helped subsistence farmers and hunters to transfer their
labours to new, more sustainable trades. They have become organic farmers,
beekeepers, gardeners, carpenters, and jewellery-makers, turning snares once
12
http://www.itswild.org/
36 (49)
used to trap elephants, lions, and leopards into one-of-a-kind bracelets,

necklaces, and earrings called ‘Snarewear’. The Snarewear and other community
based products are traded under the It’s Wild! Trademark.
• In the East Usambara Mountains in Tanzania communities are farming and
exporting butterfly pupae to butterfly houses around the world as part of the
Amani butterfly project13. The butterfly pupae are sold for between USD 1 and
USD 2.50. On average the butterfly project has increased household incomes by
about 25 per cent and has provided a strong motivation for the farmers to
actively protect the forests around them.
Whereas there are many examples of successful CBNRM initiatives, there are also
instances where these schemes have failed. CBNRM initiatives require start up finance
and long-term community support. The most sustainable CBNRM initiatives appear to
be those which are based on some joint venture basis, where communities and private
enterprise or NGOs are working as partners. In Rwanda, it is to be anticipated that the
forthcoming management of the ANP by the African Parks Foundation will open up lots
of possibilities for these kind of initiatives among people living near the ANP in
particular.
8.2 Integrated Land Use Planning including Integrated Water Resource

Management
This is a locally based and cross sectoral planning process involving all local
stakeholders and relevant sector representatives, aiming at sustainable planning
solutions which produce tangible benefits and sustainable access to resources today
(land, water, grazing) while simultaneously conserving resources for future generations.
Land use has to be planned for the community as a whole because the conservation of
soil, water and other land resources is often beyond the means of individual land users.
This process would suit the planning of buffer zones, to ensure that wildlife, cattle
grazing and farming interests are all satisfied.
In terms of watershed planning, Integrated Water Resource Management is widely

promoted internationally as the way forward. It includes the setting up of local water
user management structures and should provide incentives for good land management,
including reforestation and suitable agricultural practices. Such principles can already
be seen in some of RDB’s water development projects around Rwanda’s national parks.
8.3 Community involvement in Tourism

Tourism has for a long time been the most obvious way to generate income from
national parks and other protected areas. In the past, income from tourism activities
within protected areas has almost exclusively benefited the state or the private
enterprises running tourism operations, but there is an increasing trend to involve local
communities and residents more in the planning and running of these enterprises in
order to gain support for protected areas among neighbouring communities.
In addition to actually running lodges and tours, nature-based tourism can also benefit
surrounding communities if it generates a demand for crafts and cultural activities. In
Rwanda such demand (and supply) is most established around the VNP. However, there
is a lot of competition around tourism in Africa in general and thus in order to compete
13
http://www.amanibutterflyproject.org/
37 (49)
in the longer term, Rwanda will need to offer a more diversified range of high quality or
unique tourism products, beyond the current main draw of the gorilla tours. Such
initiatives as the canopy walk currently under construction in Nyungwe are a good
example of this kind of needed diversification, which is well recognised by RDB.
Specialised tourism activities such as big game hunting are also known for having the
potential to generate high incomes, and running hunting concessions is the main source
of income for many CBNRM initiatives in Southern Africa. Rwanda used to have a
vibrant sport hunting industry prior to 1990, but with the Mutara Hunting Area having
been degazetted there is little or no hunting today. The PRORENA project has
suggested that ORTPN should consider zoning the area north of Lake Gishanju in the
ANP as a sport hunting area for a limited period during the year (Robford Tourism,
2002 and ORTPN, 2003). In order to attract hunters, wildlife populations would first
have to increase, but this will be addressed by the planned round up and movement of
animals back into the park when the fence is erected. Sport hunting would quickly
generate an economic return for the ANP and demonstrate that this form of wildlife
utilisation is a viable way of raising revenue.
8.4 New initiatives - Payment for Ecosystem and Watershed Services

(PEWS) and Reduction of Emissions through Deforestation and
Forest Degradation (REDD)
Payment for Ecosystem and Watershed Services (PEWS) is a relatively new
conservation concept which is currently being tried and tested around the world, mainly
around freshwater provision, where large scale water users (companies) downstream
pay upstream communities for managing catchments by, for example, keeping their land
forested and adopting suitable agricultural methods This concept is especially
interesting with regards to the NNP, which plays an essential water catchment role
within Rwanda, and could also be used more widely in Rwanda to create incentives to
keep riverbanks and steep hills forested and wetlands intact.
To fight climate change and curb CO2 emissions, a mechanism to reduce deforestation
and forest degradation in developing countries, the so-called Reduction of Emissions
through Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD and REDD+)14 schemes have
also been developed under the auspices of the United Nations. While REDD is
specifically designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and
degradation it is also likely to provide multiple benefits such as biodiversity
conservation , water regulation and improved timber supplies. There is as yet no formal
mechanism for REDD with international recognition under the Kyoto Protocol, but
voluntary REDD projects are starting around the world based on financial transfer
mechanisms such as carbon trading, or direct payments for forest management. The
Government of Norway has recently pledged 52 million USD for the scheme (Climate
Funds Update, 2009). However, it has already become clear that to be effective,
payments needs to be tailored to address specific national and local drivers of
deforestation over time. The mechanism is also geared towards existing forests.
14
REDD without the plus focuses only on reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. REDD+ goes
further by rewarding activities that improve forest health; including better forest management, conservation, restoration,
and afforestation. Not only will this enhance carbon stocks, it will improve biodiversity, water quality, and provide other
vital environmental services.
38 (49)
8.5 Good park management practices

Modern park management practices these days always include some kind of benefit
sharing with surrounding communities. There are many examples from around the
world of how benefits can be effectively distributed. The scale of the benefits of course
will depend on the revenue generating capacity of the parks, and in Rwanda only the
VNP generates surplus income today – which is why the current revenue sharing
programme pools the revenues from all three parks before distribution. However, future
benefits from Rwanda’s parks obviously depend on continued and increasing revenue
generation across the board.
Support to local communities through good park management can include:

• Direct employment as scouts, guides etc;
• Direct payouts at household level when wildlife populations are nurtured and
thrive;
• Targeted investments in infrastructural projects such as contributions toward
boreholes, school classrooms, clinics, rural libraries, livestock drinking troughs,
etc;
• Provision of schooling and scholarships to surrounding communities;
• Support to IGAs – like access to sustainable use, or harvesting of selected
natural resources, such as bamboo, reeds, thatching grass, firewood etc by the
neighbouring communities, and for activities as described above under CBNRM
approaches;
• Rewards for information that prevents poaching, the surrender of weapons, etc;
and,
• Compensation payments for wildlife damage to crops and livestock.
Many of these kinds of support and activities are already in place in Rwanda, as has
already been described in this report. What therefore remains is to continually refine and
improve strategies and approaches to land and natural resource management and
livelihoods development around the national parks through continued attention to and
learning from international best practice.
39 (49)
9 Conclusions and Recommendations

9.1 Lessons from international best practice
While Rwanda can learn from international best practice and from experiences from
around the world, circumstances in Rwanda are of course unique. Given Rwanda’s high
population density levels and current limited natural land areas, the only long-term
solution to biodiversity loss and degradation of ecosystem and watershed services is to
develop alternatives to land-based livelihoods – as clearly recognised by the
development goals set out in Vision 2020 and the EDPRS (Government of Rwanda,
2000, 2007). This also includes working to limit dependency on fuel wood by investing
in alternative energy sources and energy saving devices. These are major long-term
undertakings, which include reducing poverty and investing in education. They must
remain foremost during the preparation of the Rwanda Land Use and Development
Master Plan, particularly so as to provide a range of land and natural resource
management and livelihoods development options and choices for districts and sectors
neighbouring the national parks to select from, in consultation with local communities
and with RDB, according to what seems most appropriate in their areas. At the same
time, however, it is also important to try to ensure that existing natural ecosystems are
maintained and further deterioration prevented, and the value and benefits of
conservation land use options must continue to be made clear to people through the
government’s conservation education and sensitisation efforts.
In the short term, to maintain the remaining biodiversity in the country, there should be
no further reduction of national park areas. Also needed are more incentives to reduce
deforestation rates and encourage reforestation activities and promotion of fuel wood
plantations and alternative energy sources outside of protected areas. Rwanda’s national
parks are already involving surrounding communities in some of their activities and
these efforts, including some limited access to some park resources, need to be
continued and expanded together with finding innovative solutions to generate income
from land on a non-subsistence basis, for example by leasing land to the protected areas,
setting up PEWS payments for good land management etc. This will require continued
collaboration with NGOs and CSOs, following the precedent already set in Nyungwe by
the successful collaboration between RDB and WCS/PCFN
Furthermore, while establishing large buffer zones around the ANP and the VNP is not
practical, it could nonetheless be of value to draw a virtual buffer zone around these
parks and to start engaging people at the imidugudu level in discussions around
CBNRM type land use activities.
The importance of having enabling policies and a legal framework which will
encourage an effective mix of state, community and private sector involvement, is
already clear. It is also important to bear in mind that sustainable partnerships need to
be built from existing institutional capacities and interests rather than an idealized
conception of functions (Rutagarama and Martin, 2006). The varying settings and issues
around Rwanda’s national parks indeed call for well nuanced and differentiated
individual or tailor-made approaches.
40 (49)
9.2 Specific recommendations arising from the fieldwork

In addition to these general points, a number of more specific recommendations
emerged during the fieldwork, particularly with regard to the ANP and the VNP, which
should be fed into the menu of options and choices included within the Plan preparation.
These include, in no particular order:
• Increasing the total funds available for distribution through the revenue sharing
programme, for both infrastructure projects and association based IGAs,
including community tourism and improved marketing of products such as
pottery, wild honey etc;
• Consideration of changing the distribution of the total revenue sharing funds to
give Nyungwe a greater share that is more in line with the relatively greater size
of its neighbouring population;
• Establishing more community-based guarding and patrolling arrangements to
address animal encroachment issues, with careful attention to how they should
be paid or incentivised (and by whom);
• Greater and more effective marketing to boost revenues from tourism from the
ANP and the NNP, along with continued efforts to create unique and diversified
tourist attractions to make these two parks more competitive within the region,
in line with RDB’s marketing strategy which is already moving towards
marketing the product and experience rather than the parks themselves (birding
in Nyungwe and Akagera, primate viewing in Nyungwe, game drives in
Akagera, gorilla trekking in Volcanoes, nature walk in Volcanoes and Nyungwe
etc);
• More infrastructure development using the community, such as community run
safari lodges or traditional villages;
• Improving partnerships with sectors, for conservation education but also for the
administration of the revenue sharing programme, such that, as far as the new
government decentralisation policy allows, sectors might be more directly
involved in the distribution and accounting of funds to reduce delays and
transactions costs currently associated with having the districts as ‘middlemen’;
• Working to improve cooperation and partnership for local development within
national government, with the NLC and REMA but also in particular with
MININFRA, MINALOC and NAFA on specific issues around infrastructure
development, resettlement and imidugudu creation and location, and the use of
the buffer zone forests (around Nyungwe);
• Start allowing more regulated access to the parks for local people for
development of livelihoods activities involving NTFPs (and fishing in Akagera),
based on careful consultation as to the sorts of products and access that would be
most feasible and practicable to allow, and how these activities would then be
regulated and policed;
• Detailed investigation of the overall feasibility of establishing PEWS, initially
from the tea companies and Electrogaz with respect to Nyungwe, with
consideration of how to then earmark these revenues so as to ensure the greatest
benefit to people living near the parks, including careful study of the feasibility
of direct cash payments to the poorest households among communities
neighbouring the parks and consideration of how this could/should be linked to
41 (49)
compensation for animal encroachment or reward for good land management

and conservation behaviours;
• Allow limited sport hunting in Akagera as soon as the fence is in place, and as
soon as it becomes feasible from a wildlife management point of view
(including after the planned restocking from animal movement during fencing);
and,
• Explore a wide range of good economic uses for the buffer zone around
Nyungwe (and possibly increase the ANP buffer a little when the fence goes up
to allow greater community use of that area too), in conjunction with
establishing greater community opportunities for IGAs in the buffer zone.
Although these recommendations have emerged from the October 2009 fieldwork in
Akagera and Nyungwe, many of them also apply to the Volcanoes, such as the
importance of continuing to develop local livelihoods and seek to reduce the severity
and impact of human/wildlife conflict.
The recent fieldwork has clearly demonstrated the value of continuing consultation with
all stakeholders that have interests in the protection of the national parks, the
conservation of Rwanda’s remaining biodiversity, and the improved land and natural
resource management and livelihoods development of communities neighbouring the
national parks and in other ecologically-sensitive areas of Rwanda, in fulfilment of the
objectives of the National Land Policy and Organic Land Law and the national
development goals set out in Vision 2020 and the EDPRS. As the lead stakeholder in
this, RDB must continue to play a central and proactive role, and must work in close
cooperation with the NLC in the forthcoming development of Rwanda’s National Land
Use and Development Master Plan. However, of central importance to long term
success, will be building into the Plan the necessary consultation mechanisms for the
districts and sectors to involve the communities neighbouring the parks themselves in
the selection of the most locally appropriate strategies for land and natural resource
management and livelihoods development in their local areas.
42 (49)
10 References
Beltrán, J. (Ed), 2000. Indigenous and Traditional Peoples and Protected Areas:
Principles, Guidelines and Case Studies. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and
Cambridge, UK and WWF International, Gland, Switzerland. xi + 133pp [Pre-
publication]
Birdlife. IBA Fact sheet. No date.
http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/sites/index.html?action=SitHTMDetails.asp&s
id=6775&m=0. Retrieved on 30 October 2009.
Climate Funds Update: http://www.climatefundsupdate.org/news/whatsnew-july2009.

Retrieved 8 November 2009.
Daley, E, 2008. Rwanda – Volcanoes Social Study. Final Report at 2 June 2008, for
Great Forest Holdings Ltd, Rwanda.
Dowsett RJ, 1990. Enquete Faunistique et Floristique dans la Foret de Nyungwe,

Rwanda, in Biodiversity Survey of Nyungwe Forest Reserve, Wildlife
Conservation Society Working Paper no. 19, Kigali, Rwanda
Emmerton, L, 2000. Using economic incentives for biodiversity conservation. IUCN
Economics and Biodiversity Programme. LAE@iucnearo.org
Government of Rwanda, 2000. Rwanda Vision 2020. Kigali: MINECOFIN.
Government of Rwanda, 2002, Census 2002 in Brief. Kigali: MINECOFIN and

National Census Commission.
Government of Rwanda, 2003. National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan. Kigali:
MINITERE.
Government of Rwanda, 2004. National Land Policy. Kigali: MINITERE.

Government of Rwanda, 2005. Organic Law N° 08/2005 of 14/07/2005 Determining the
Use and Management of Land in Rwanda. Kigali: MINITERE.
Government of Rwanda, 2007. Economic Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy,
2008-2012. Kigali: MINECOFIN.
Jones, B, 2004. Summary Report: Lessons learned and best practices for CBNRM
policy and legislation in Botswana, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Zambia and
Zimbabwe. Prepared for WWF SARPO Regional Project for Community-based
Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) Capacity Building in Southern
Africa.
Kanyambiwa, S, 1998. ‘Impact of war on conservation: Rwandan environment and

wildlife in agony’, Biodiversity and Conservation, 7, pp1399-406.
Lamprey, RH, 2002. Akagera – Mutara Aerial Survey, Rwanda. Unpublished Report -
PRORENA – GTZ, Kigali, Rwanda.
Liversage, H, 2003. Overview of Rwanda’s Land Policy and Land Law and Key
Challenges for Implementation. Briefing Document prepared by MINITERE,
43 (49)
Government of Rwanda, and the UK Department for International Development

(DFID).
Masozera, M, 2002. Socio-economic impact analysis of the conservation of Nyungwe

Forest Reserve, Rwanda. Gainesville: University of Florida.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2003. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: A

Framework for Assessment. Island Press. pp 1–25.
http://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.765.aspx.pdf.
Retrieved on 3 November 2009.
MINECOFIN, 2006. Comprehensive Food Security and Vulnerability Analysis:

Executive Summary. Kigali: MINECOFIN.
Mongabay.com, 2009. http://rainforests.mongabay.com/20rwanda.htm. Retrieved on 28

October 2009.
Myers, N, Mittermeier, RA, Mittermeier, CG, da Fonensca, GAB and Kent, J, 2000.
‘Conservation priorities for biodiversity hotspots.’ Nature 403, pp 853-8.
ORTPN, 2003. An Analysis Of The Economic Potential Of Akagera National Park And
The Proposed Buffer Zone. Prepared for Protection des Resources Naturelle
Project (PRORENA) on behalf of ORTPN by V.R. Booth, WSP Walmsley
Environmental Consultants, Zimbabwe.
ORTPN, 2004a. Nyungwe National Park Zonation. 16 October 2004 Draft.
ORTPN, 2004b. Parc National des Volcans: Plan d’Aménagement et de Gestion, 2005-
2009.
ORPTN, 2005a. Parc National de l’Akagera: Plan d’Aménagement et de Gestion,

2006-2010. Kigali, December 2005, ORTPN.
ORTPN, 2005b. Tourism Revenue Sharing in Rwanda – Provisional Policy and

Guidelines. Kigali: September 2005.
ORTPN, no date. Nyungwe National Park Management Plan. Draft. 2006-2010..
Plumptre, AJ, Masozera, M, and A Vedder. 2001. The Impact of Civil War on the
Conservation of Protected Areas in Rwanda. Washington, DC: Biodiversity
Support Program.
Plumptre, AJ, Masozera, M, Gashinga, PJ, McNeilage, A, Ewango, C, Kaplin, BA, and
Liengorla, I, 2002. Biodiversity surveys on Nyungwe forest reserve in SW
Rwanda. WCS working paper No 19.
Plumptre, A, Behangana, M, Ndomba, E, Davenport, T, Kahindo, C, Kityo, R, Ssegawa,

P, Eilu, G, Nkuutu, D and Owiunji, I, 2003. The biodiversity of the Albertine Rift,
Albertine Rift Technical Reports No. 3, Wildlife Conservation Society,
Washington DC.
44 (49)
Plumptre, AJ, Kayitare, AH Rainer, M Gray, I Munanura, N Barakabuye, S Asuma, M

Sivha, A Namara. 2004. The Socio-Economic Status of People Living Near
Protected Areas in the Central Albertine Rift. Albertine Rift Technical Reports
Volume 4. WCS, International Gorilla Conservation Programme, and Care
International.
PRORENA, 2002. Options for the development of a Buffer Zone on the boundary of
Akagera National Park. Report of internal meeting held under the Minister of
MINICOM at Akagera Hotel, Akagera National Park, October 2002.
REMA, 2009. Rwanda State of Environment and Outlook Report. Kigali: REMA.
Robford Tourism, 2002. Tourism Development Plan for Akagera National Park:
Proposals for the short to medium term development of appropriate and
sustainable tourism products. PRORENA – GTZ, Kigali, Rwanda.
Rutagarama, E and A Martin, 2006. ‘Partnerships for protected area conservation in

Rwanda’. The Geographical Journal, FindArticles.com. 07 Nov, 2009.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_go2454/is_4_172/ai_n29316489/ Retrieved
10 November 2009.
SDUTA Project, 2009a. Preparation of Rwanda Land Use and Development Master
Plan - Report on Collection of Existing Data. RW2-4-5, First Draft. Kigali:
MINIRENA.
SDUTA Project, 2009b. Preparation of Rwanda Land Use and Development Master
Plan – Report on Collection of Existing Data – Annex 1, Social Infrastructure.
Kigali: MINRENA.
United Nations Secretariat, 2009. Population Division of the Department of Economic

and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat, World Population Prospects:
The 2008 Revision, http://esa.un.org/unpp Wednesday, November 04, 2009;
11:05:59 AM.
Vedder, A, Hall, J, Harcout, A, Monfort, A and R Wilson, 1992. ‘Burundi and

Rwanda’. In The Conservation Atlas of Tropical Forests: Africa. J Sayer, A
Harcout, CS and Collins NM, New York: IUCN and Simon and Shuster, pp102-
9.
WDPA, 2009. World Database on Protected Areas. http://www.wdpa.org/. Retrieved

on 25 October 2009.
Williams, SD and Ntayombya, P 1999. Akagera: An Assessment of the Biodiversity and

Conservation needs. Field Conservation and Consultancy, Zoological Society of
London, Regent’s Park, London in collaboration with the Ministry of Agriculture,
Livestock, Environment and Rural Development, Republic of Rwanda.
World Resources Institute, 2003. Earthtrends: Country Profile – Water Resources and
Freshwater Ecosystems: Rwanda.
http://earthtrends.wri.org/pdf_library/country_ profiles/wat_cou_646.pdf
45 (49)
Appendix 1
Appendix 1 - TORs
Broad Project TOR for ‘4th phase: Specific studies and data analysis’ re Socio-
Economic and Ecological Studies
• Socio economic studies of areas bordering, Akagera, Virunga and Nyungwe

national parks as well as sensitive ecological zones such as Lake Kivu shores and
riversides, natural forests, mine zones etc. The task to be accomplished shall be :
¾ Carry out an analysis of ecological parameters which contribute to sustainable
conservation of the parks biodiversity (animal migration, competition with other
domestic animals, carrying capacity, dynamics and viability of some species of
the populations;
¾ Identify and analyse all socio economic parameters in zones surrounding parks
(demographic, social infrastructures, population centres, conflicts with parks and
their causes, possible solutions etc…)
¾ Carry out consultations with all parties involved in conservation and
management of National Parks (local authorities, park managers, farmers,
pastoralists, craftsmen, etc.) so as to highlight problems and find appropriate
solutions.
¾ Propose management measures, which will lead to the sustainable conservation
of biodiversity in harmony with surrounding populations.
¾ Determine habitat zones and other land use.
Specific TOR for ‘4th phase: Specific studies and data analysis’ re Socio-Economic
and Ecological Studies’ for this Assignment
In conjunction with agreed inputs of the Project Ecologist, Birgitta Farrington, the
Project Socio-Economist, Elizabeth Daley, will be responsible for a report fulfilling the
broad Project TOR and with adjustments to allow for time and resource constraints and
shifts in Project priorities, ie to ensure suitable incorporation of relevant issues in 5th
phase on ‘Preparation of land use and development master plan (SDUTA)’.
This will be carried out through brief fieldwork and consultations in and around
Nyungwe and Akagera National Parks and by referral to previous studies and secondary
literature for Volcanoes National Park. The emphasis will be on production of a
practical report focusing on recommendations and solutions for community involvement
in land management and conservation in buffer areas near the Parks, for consideration in
Plan Preparation. Detailed discussion and analysis of ecological and socio-economic
parameters will not be required.
The study will concentrate on looking at the socio-economic issues related to the people
living in ‘potential buffer zone’ areas with the aim of providing incentives to make
people respect the park boundaries (limit illegal or unsustainable fuel wood collection,
fishing and poaching, charcoal production or grazing in the parks and also work to limit
46 (49)
Appendix 1
the need for additional agricultural land, which is creating pressure to degazette national
parks, etc.) as well as to solving any management issues related to the already existing
buffer zone around Nyungwe and in the Akagera and Volcanoes boundary zones. This
will involve consultation with RDB staff, local authorities and communities, as well as
review of existing studies and relevant literature, to establish park boundary and buffer
zone conservation issues, potential solutions, opportunities and mechanisms with RDB
and with communities who live within the virtual or planned buffer zones of each Park,
and, finally to propose solutions which would address both the conservation and socio-
economic concerns.
47 (49)
Appendix 2
Appendix 2 - List of People Consulted

Courtesy Meetings and Discussions at National and District Government Level
• Director General, National Land Centre
• Mayor and District Land Officer, Nyamagabe District
• Vice-Mayor (Finance and Planning) and District Land Officer, Nyamasheke
District.
Structured Interviews with Rwanda Development Board Staff

• Fidèle Ruzigandekwe, Executive Director, Rwanda Wildlife Agency
• Télesphore Ngoga, Community Conservation Manager, Rwanda Development
Board
• Louis Rugerinyange, Chief Park Warden, Nyungwe National Park
• Eugène Mutangana, Chief Park Warden, Akagera National Park,
• Peter Ntihemuka, Finance Administrator, Nyungwe National Park
• Norbert Karegire, Community Conservation Warden, Nyungwe National Park
• Elie Musabyimana, Community Conservation Warden, Nyungwe National Park
• Roger Hategekimana, Community Conservation Warden, Nyungwe National
Park
• Fidèle Sebatware, Community Conservation Warden, Akagera National Park.
Structured Interviews with Sector Authorities

• Isaie Bayizere, Agronome, Rangiro Sector, Nyamasheke District
• John Damascène Kwibuka, i/c Social Affairs, Rangiro Sector, Nyamasheke
District
• Gapiki Mushagara, i/c Civil Registration and Population, Rangiro Sector,
Nyamasheke District
• Audace Kamanzi, Agronome, Ndego Sector, Kayonza District
• Eric Kalinga, i/c Civil Registration and Population, Ndego Sector, Kayonza
District.
Focus Group Discussions / Public Meetings

• Munini Cell, Buruhukiro Sector, Nyamagabe District
• Gahurizo Cell, Kivu Sector, Nyaruguru District
• Gatare Cell, Nkungu Sector, Rusizi District
• Jurwe Cell, Rangiro Sector, Nyamasheke District
• Kageyo Cell, Mwiri Sector, Kayonza District
• Kiyovu Cell, Ndego Sector, Kayonza District
• Buhabwa Cell, Murundi Sector, Kayonza District.
48 (49)
Appendix 2
Structured Interviews with NGO Staff, Associations and Revenue Sharing Recipients
• Nsengi Barakabuye, Rwanda Country Director, World Conservation Society
• Etienne Niyitegeka, Trainer, and Members of Association de la Poterie de
Cyamudongo, Nkungu Sector, Rusizi District
• Ernest Ngendakimana, Animateur, Rachelle Uwizeyimana, Animatrice, and
Alfred Bimeyimana, Enseignant, Ecole Secondaire Rusasa, Nkungu Sector,
Rusizi District
• Members of Association Twitezimbere, Rwumba Cell, Bushekeri Sector,
Nyamsheke District.
49 (49)

Phase 4 SocioEcon Study Report First Draft NV S

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Phase 4 SocioEcon Study Report First Draft NV S

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

RW2-2-8

Preparation of Rwanda Land Use and Development Master Plan

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS................................................................. 4

3 CONTEXT AND METHODOLOGY .............................................................. 8

3.2 Methodology ....................................................................................................................................9

4.2 Ecological importance of Rwanda’s national parks..................................................................11

6 CURRENT LAND MANAGEMENT IN THE NATIONAL PARKS.............. 17

6.2 Nyungwe National Park (NNP) ...................................................................................................20

6.3 Volcanoes National Park (VNP) ..................................................................................................23

7 FIELDWORK FINDINGS ............................................................................ 25

7.2 Differences between ANP and NNP ............................................................................................26

7.3 Comparisons with VNP ................................................................................................................28

8 INTERNATIONAL BEST PRACTICE ........................................................ 35

8.3 Community involvement in Tourism..........................................................................................37

8.5 Good park management practices ..............................................................................................39

9 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................... 40

9.2 Specific recommendations arising from the fieldwork .............................................................41

APPENDIX 2 - LIST OF PEOPLE CONSULTED.............................................. 48

Abbreviations and acronyms

3 Context and Methodology

Although Rwanda is a small country, it encompasses a level of geographic diversity and

Ecosystems and habitats of special ecological importance in Rwanda which need to be

4.2 Ecological importance of Rwanda’s national parks

1 Albertine Rift Highland Forest – Tropical and subtropical broadleaf forest

Global 200 Ecoregions in Rwanda

East African moorlands

Albertine Rift highland forest

Rift Valley Lakes

Figure 1 - Global 200 Eco-regions in Rwanda

1 Albertine Rift Highland Forest – Nyungwe National Park (NNP)

Figure 2 - Location of National Parks in Global 200 Eco-regions

6 Current Land Management in the National Parks

6.1 Akagera National Park (ANP)

Photo 1 - Buffaloes Grazing in Akagera

6.1.1 Description of the Park

Current Management Plan covers the period 2006-10 (ORTPN, 2005a)

6.1.2 Key Issues

Figure 3 - Proposed buffer zone around Akagera National Park

Fencing of the park boundary. Fencing of national parks is at times a controversial

Government of Rwanda is in the process of signing a management agreement with

6.2 Nyungwe National Park (NNP)

Photo 2 - Nyungwe Forest, Looking Towards Kibira, Burundi

6.2.1 Description of the Park

Current Management Plan covers the period 2006-10 (ORTPN, no date)

6.2.2 Key Issues

Figure 4 - Nyungwe National Park buffer zone

6.3 Volcanoes National Park (VNP)

Photo 3 - Gahinga and Muhabura Volcanoes

6.3.1 Description of the Park

Current Management Plan covers the period 2005-9 (ORTPN, 2004b)

well as the golden monkey (Cercopithecus mitis kandti).

6.3.2 Key issues

7.1 Similarities between ANP and NNP

Reservations about the current implementation of RDB’s revenue sharing

7.2 Differences between ANP and NNP

Photo 4 - Chimpanzee Protection Poster in a Sector Office

7.3 Comparisons with VNP

Nature of Relationship Number of People from Number of Households Total Number

Chart 1 – Perceptions of Household Relationships with the ANP

Chart 2 – Perceptions of Household Relationships with the NNP

Chart 3 – Perceptions of Household Relationships with the VNP

7.4.1 Current strategies and practices

Photo 5 - Non-traditional bee-keeping outside Nyungwe