Environmental Research Group Oxford Limited |
Study Commissioned by the International Fund for Agricultural
Development
on behalf of the Government of Rwanda
Rwanda: Umutara Livestock/Range Development
and Environmental Protection Project
Pro-active Environmental Assessment of
Investment Options
August 1999 |
|
Summary
|
|
Rwanda faces immense challenges of post war rehabilitation,
resettlement and reconciliation, but at the same time must look to the future and take
steps towards achieving the ultimate goal of sustainable human and economic developmentAs
proposed in the Arusha Accords, Umutara Prefecture was established in 1996 from the
degazetted lands of the Akagere National Park, the former Mutara Game Reserve and three
communes from adjoining prefectures in eastern Rwanda. Since then, an internationally
supported resettlement programme has resulted in a major influx of returnees and their
livestock from neighbouring countries. Arable and agro-pastoral farming systems
predominate in the old communes, which collectively account for two-thirds of the human
population and 15% of the cattle. Pastoral and agro-pastoral farming systems predominate
in the seven new communes, which account for a third of the human population and 85% of
the cattle. In these new communes, there are ten times as many cattle per person than in
the old communes.
With and without project scenarios for old and new communes are presented, which, given
the recent history and established trends, highlight the adverse environmental
consequences of not proceeding with the proposed project.
A wide variety of environmental concerns are identified and a series of intervention
options are considered. There is a clear and urgent need to address immediate community
concerns, but there is also a general requirement for institutional strengthening and
capacity building, and the formulation of planning guidelines with a vision of Umutara in
decades to come. |
Proposed Objectives
|
|
A twin-track approach to the development of the Umutara region is
proposed, with the following complementary objectives:
 |
Reducing poverty and dependency, through the promotion of
sustainable livelihoods, farming systems and land management at household and commune
levels; and
|
 |
Institutional strengthening and capacity-building for resource
assessment, regional planning, project implementation, monitoring and evaluation at
prefecture level.
|
|
Proposed Target Groups
|
|
PRA studies identified three specific target groups:
 |
Small scale arable farmers: have less than one hectare of
land for cultivation and no livestock. Most live in the old communes, where soils have
been degraded by years of cultivation and fertility is low; yields and revenues are
insufficient to cover food and basic needs.
|
 |
Small to medium scale pastoralists, owning up to 50 head
of cattle, with limited pasture and no permanent source of water. Such families have
little or no cultivation and practice seasonal transhumance in search of dry season water
and pasture.
|
 |
Small-scale agro-pastoralists:
practicing mixed
agriculture, with 1-2 hectares of land and 1-3 cattle, sheep or goats. Limited means of
production, but lack inputs and labour to exploit available resources to best advantage,
and thus escape form poverty.
|
|
Interventions options
|
|
 |
Promote community based natural resource management and land use
planning;
|
 |
Promote soil and water conservation practices;
|
 |
Promote agrarian reform and equitable land allocation;
|
 |
Promote further integration of livestock and crop production;
|
 |
Promote leguminous crops, nutritious grasses, alley cropping and
live fencing;
|
 |
Promote plant nurseries for both indigenous and exotic species
and fuel efficient cooking;
|
 |
Promote marketing of crop and livestock products;
|
 |
Promote alternative employment/income generating opportunities;
|
 |
Promote primary education, further training and appropriate
extension messages;
|
 |
Promote sustainable animal health care delivery, especially in
remoter regions;
|
 |
Promote livestock and wildlife co-existence in rangelands around
Akagera National Park.
|
|
Strategic planning recommendations
|
|
In view of the substantial environmental risks and financial costs
associated with resettlement, infrastructural development and livestock production in
semi-arid regions, and the general paucity of reliable information about land and water
resources in Umutara, it is recommended that the programme/project should commence with an
information collection and planning phase. Preliminary activities should include:
 |
Commissioning
a comprehensive hydro-geological survey of the prefecture and evaluation of piping water
from the various lakes, reservoirs, rivers and groundwater sources to supply stock and
domestic water. |
 |
Commissioning
aerial photography and production of new topographic maps of the prefecture at a scale of
1:50,000, for water resource development, infrastructure planning and facilitating
cadastral surveys of land allocations; |
 |
Preparation
of a comprehensive development plan that integrates infrastructural development (roads,
water supplies, schools, clinics), with anticipated/proposed settlement patterns and
projected population growth, market access, regional trade, telecommunications etc.. |
 |
Examination
of possibilities for implementing a voluntary de-stocking scheme, whereby herders in
Umutara Prefecture might sell animals to the GoR, or some other intermediary, for
distribution in communes in the south and west, where numbers are low. |
 |
Collaboration
with other stakeholders to safeguard the Akagera National Park and to ensure dry season
grazing and watering by large numbers of cattle is prohibited within the Park; and that
wildlife that leave the confines of the park are not indiscriminately killed. (It is
recognised, however, that rogue animals, which persistently kill domestic stock, raid
crops or endanger human life must be controlled and if necessary eliminated.) |
 |
Conduct a
detailed survey to gather spatial and statistical information for the whole prefecture,
and provide an objective basis for planning and the formulation of a master plan for the
future development of the prefecture. |
|
|
|
| |
|