10 Environment Steering Com Mite Ed Raft

8/7/2019 10 Environment Steering Com Mite Ed Raft

1/53

R W A N D A N A T I O N A L L A N D U S E D E V E L O P M E N T M A S T E R P L A N - E N V I R O N M E N T

10_Environment_SteeringCommiteeDraft 3/29/20100


2/53


3/53



Overview 12.1Rwandas natural environment is one of the countrys most valuable assets.More than 50% of the countrys GDP comes directly from environmentalservices. In 2009 alone, ORTPN earned more than $200m from tourism to onenational park. This value is significantly more if ecosystem services such aswater and soil protection are accounted for.

Despite its value, many natural assets are degraded and under considerablepressure. Demand for land, food, water and energy resources are the maincause of environmental degradation. As the population and income grows,these pressures are becoming acute.

Failure to address environmental challenges is likely to see an irreversibledecline in the health and viability of ecologically valuable areas, fertileagricultural land, wetlands and water bodies. This will reduce the biodiversity ofthe country, retard its development capacity and exacerbate already scarceenergy, food and water resources. Further degradation of Rwandas naturalenvironment will also increase the countrys vulnerability to climate change.

Rwandas ability to sustainability manage its environment will be stronglyinfluenced by the type of energy, agriculture and urban development strategies

adopted. Environmental outcomes will depend more on the management of human

impacts and economic growth than conservation strategies.

Biodiversity / Natural Values 12.2

Present Situat ionTable 1: Protected Areas in Rwanda

Conservation Area Status Responsible Authorit yArea(ha)

Akagera National Park ORTPN 108,500

Nyungwe /Cyamudongo National Park ORTPN 101,900

Volcanoes National Park ORTPN 16000

Gishwati Forest Forest ReserveMINIRENA/NAFA/DistrictAuthorities 700

Mukura Forest Forest ReserveMINIRENA/NAFA/Rutsiro DistrictAuthority 1,600

Buhanga Forest Protected Area MINIRENA/NAFA/MusanzeDistrict Authority 100

Akanyaru Other Area* 15388

Rugezi Other Area* 1200

Mutara Other Area* 15913

Nyabarongo River Other Area* 14262

TOTAL 284,900

Official legal status including legal boundary is not known

Figure 1: Protected Areas 2010 (next page)


4/53

10_Environment_SteeringCommiteeDraft 3/29/2010 3


5/53


6/53



of these forests is improved and the area of habitat expands6. The small size of

remaining areas also makes these sites highly vulnerable to naturaldisturbances such as droughts, storms and fires.

The absence of a systemic approach to protecting natural areas is also anissue. Conservation has often been applied in a piece-meal fashion, targetingspecific outcomes without regard for the wider context. For example, many ofthe problems facing wetlands stem from problems occurring much higher inthe water catchment (such as land clearance). Because of this, regulatingactivities in and around wetlands will not prevent their further degradation.Similar problems apply to forest conservation. Attempts to address erosion andreduce illegal use of protected areas have seen the plantation of unstableslopes and forestry buffers with Pines and Eucalypts. This has reducing someland use problems but is creating new ones. Forest mapping across Rwandashows that exotic forests cover roughly the same land area as natural forests.Eucalypts and Pines are highly flammable and their proximity to native forestsincreases the risk of habitat destruction from wildfires. Furthermore, the abilityfor Eucalyptus to regenerate rapidly after fire means that these trees canrapidly invade native forests when fires occur.

6 Source: http://www.worldwildlife.org/bsp/publications/africa/145/Rwanda-English.htm

Figure 2: Eucalyptus are a fast growing tree suitable for Agroforestry but can

increase fire risk and invade natural habitat

Figure 3: Unprotected Areas of Conservation Value 2010

Figure 4: Deforestation in Gishwati Forest Reservation

Figure 5: Deforestation in Mukura Forest Reservation (next 3pages)


7/53



8/53


9/53



10/53


10_Environment_SteeringCommiteeDraft 9

3/29/2010

Challenges and strategies

Addressing resource scarcityFigure 6 No more natural forest will be found 2020 if illegal cuttingcontinues in the same way as

today Lo

Long-term biodiversity protection depends on people having access to alternative energyand food sources. Agriculture, grazing and wood collection are powerful drivers of habitatdestruction. Addressing these issues will not only reduce impacts on existing habitat butalso increase the effectiveness of habitat regeneration projects.


11/53


12/53


3/29/2010

settlements. If planned well, environmental impacts from grazing, treeclearing and cultivation can be reduced if Umudugudu villages arepositioned further from remaining protected areas. A buffer of 3 km isrecommended. This would reduce the frequency of opportunisticexploitation. However, community support programs would also be needed;a greater distance between settlements and protected areas could seeillegal activities increase as their detection becomes more difficult.

Improving regulation and management of protected areasThe lack of detailed environmental laws and standards, and poor allocationof agency responsibility needs to be addressed.

In particular:Boundaries of conservation areas are not defined or enforced;

There is no clear definition which activities are allowed in National Parks, ForestReserves and Protected Areas;Buffer zones are not defined or enforced;No laws specify the activities allowed or not allowed in buffer areas.

Forest Reserves have been least protected, suggesting the responsibleagencies do not have the capacity and resources to regulate illegal land

use or develop effective management strategies. Coordination between the DistrictAgencies,MINIRENA and NAFA may also be a problem.


13/53


14/53



3/29/2010

Figure 7: Approximate Location of the Gishwati-Nyungwe Habitat

Corridor

Source: GreatApeTrust.org12

The proposed expanstion of Volcanoes National Park [see next figure]would help reduce pressure on one of Rwandas most valuable naturalassets.

Figure 8: Proposed Expansion of Volcanoes National Park (next page)


15/53


3/29/2010


16/53


17/53


3/29/2010

Land Degradat ion and Urbanization

12.3

Present Situat ionLand degradation is a major environmental problem in Rwanda. 1.4 milliontonnes of soil are lost/year due to erosion and large areas suffer fromreduced soil fertility. Water bodies and wetlands are widely polluted as aresult and land productivity has fallen in many areas. The heavy silt-load inmost waterways is reducing river and wetland habitats and negativelyaffecting the operation of hydro generation plants.

Figure 9: Steep, erosion-prone land is widely cultivated

Land degradation is linked to widespread land clearance, over cultivation and a lack oferosion control. More land is cultivated than can sustain agriculture. While 14000 km2 isconsidered arable, 16000 km2 is under cultivation with a further 4700 km2 used for grazing.

Figure 10: Percentage of District Areas at Risk of Erosion (next page)


18/53


3/29/2010


19/53


20/53



3/29/2010

According to MINAGRI around 40% of Rwanda is at high risk of erosion with an

additional 37% requiring careful maintenance. This limitation is not reflected incurrent land use practices. Slopes in excess of 55 degrees are cultivated in someareas. Studies in Rwanda note that slopes of more than 5 degrees require erosioncontrol while erosion increases markedly above 15 degrees, with 25 degreesconsidered the steepest land that can be sustainable cultivated14. Other studiessuggest slopes up to 55 degrees with deep soil may be used as a last resort ifextensively terraced15. Based on slope, the Districts most vulnerable to erosion liein the north and west of the country. The map below shows the Districts of Gicumbi,Gakenke, Nyambihu, Rulindo and Muhanga as having the greatest proportion of

land above 13 and 25 degrees.

14 Clay and Lewis (1996)

15 Verdoodt and van Ranst (2003)

Energy scarcity is also a contributor to land degradation. Widespread tree

clearance has largely been driven by household needs for cooking and lighting.This has reduced soil stability and left areas more exposed to water erosion. Inmany areas the lack of any fuel wood means people use crop residues as anenergy source. This has the double impact of reducing much needed soil nutrientsand soil structure while increasing soil exposure to erosive forces such as rain.

Urban development is a small but growing threat to land productivity. Theconversion of agricultural land to housing and built infrastructure is mainly aproblem in and around Kigali, although increased urbanization around districtcentres will also pose a risk to good agricultural land in other areas.

Figure 11: Urban Sprawl in Kigali (next 2 pages)


21/53


3/29/2010


22/53



3/29/2010


23/53


3/29/2010


24/53


25/53


26/53


27/53



3/29/2010


28/53


3/29/2010


29/53



3/29/2010


30/53



3/29/2010

Waste Management 12.4Present Situat ion

Solid wasteEstimates from 2006 put the amount of municipal solid waste generated in Kigali at0.6kg, / person / day. If this figure is extrapolated across all urban centres, theannual generation of municipal waste is approximately 940 Tonnes/day17. Around75% of all household waste in Kigali is organic18. No data exists for wastegeneration, collection or handling outside Kigali. It is assumed that in rural areas,

organic waste makes up a larger proportion of the waste stream.Figure 14: The land-fill at Nyanza collects around 100 tons of waste per day

All solid waste is disposed of without adequate treatment or site preparation. Fewurban centres have any for m of centralised collection. In Kigali, around 40% of all

17 In reality per capita waste generation at most urban centres is likely to be lower than Kigali.The main issue is not the exact figure but the order of magnitude of waste generation and thethreat from poor waste management and rising material consumption.18 http://www.ard-rwanda.org.rw/solidwaste.htm

municipal waste is collected. Only one landfill (Nyanza) exists. This has not beendesigned to prevent environmental contamination and causes a number ofproblems including dispersal of leachates, emission of methane gas and frequentburning of waste19.

Figure 15: The Nyanza land-fill is within several hundred meters of housesand cultivated land

Plans exist for the site to be shutdown by 2013 and a new waste dump built. Thenew site will apply a modern semi-aerobic landfill technique with the ability toharvest methane. The proposed site and progress of this project is unknown.

Toxic waste

Little is known about the location or extent of toxic waste. Sites of concern includethe Nyanza landfill, the major hospitals, coffee processing and manufacturing sites,and fertiliser and pesticide handling stations. See Figure below for a display ofknown risk areas.

19 REMA (2009)

Part of landfill site


31/53


3/29/2010

WastewaterAlmost all wastewater generated in Rwanda is untreated. Most households rely onpit latrines or septic tanks for human wastes. When septic tanks fill, they are eitheremptied manually nearby or transported by truck to unprepared and unmanageddumpsites. In many cases, wastewater collection systems empty into nearbydrains. Some small sewerage networks exist but data on the age, distribution andeffectiveness of these is not available. The limited testing that has been conductedshows water bodies are increasingly polluted by human and animal wastes. Thisposes a human health risk and threatens aquatic ecosystems.

Problems from wastewater are exacerbated by the fact that many of the poorerDistricts and unplanned urban areas occur close to water bodies and low-lyingcropping areas. People in these settlements have no ability to build sewers, socontamination of both surface and groundwater is common.

Experimental projectsIn recent years a number of projects have been set up and promoted to reduceproblems from waste. These include NGO supported recycling schemes and aprogram to convert dried organic waste to burnable pellets. Projects have a focus

on Kigali20

. Trials of decentralized sewerage facilities are in place in NyarugengeDistrict.

Figure 16: Known Sites of Pollution Risk (next page))

20 http://www.ardinc.com/projects/project.php?area=&tid=273


32/53


3/29/2010


33/53



3/29/2010


34/53


35/53


36/53


37/53


38/53


39/53


40/53


41/53



3/29/2010

Earthquake and Volcanic activi tySeismic activity poses a serious risk to parts of the country. Earthquakes are most

common in the west of the country around Lake Kivu. While most earthquakes areminor events with magnitude less than 3.5, larger events occur periodically. In2008 a magnitude of 7.6 in the neighbouring Republic of Congo killedapproximately 36 Rwandese and injured more than 600 around. A 6.2 magnitudeevent occurred in the same region in 2002.

Earthquake risk is exacerbated by the absence of disaster plans and buildingcodes. No buildings are designed or constructed to withstand shock events. Thehigh rainfall and steep terrain in around Lake Kivu increase the risk of landslides

triggered by earthquakes.The active volcanoes of Nyiragongo and Nyamuragira in the Republic of Congopose a risk to areas in Rubavu District particularly the Rubavu township. Bothvolcanoes have erupted frequently since records began in the 1880s. Their mainrisk stems from the unusually liquid lava they produce. This has been recordedtravelling at well over 10km an hour. In 2002, Lava flows from Mount Nyiragongoforced the evacuation of 400 000 people from the Congolese city of Goma.Studies indicate that lava flows from this volcano also pose a serious threat toRubavu, which is virtually contiguous with Goma. The possibility has also been

raised that emissions of lava from side vents of the volcano (and much closer toRubavu) also pose a risk. Studies show that Rubavu lies within the possible lavaflow path if a major eruption from Mount Nyiragongo occurred.

One associated risk is the possibility of a large gas release from Lake Kivu. Thelake contains a large quantity of dissolved carbon dioxide and methane, which ifreleased, would have a catastrophic impact on the population living around itsedge. This kind of event is considered to be possible but highly unlikely and could

only be triggered by a major volcanic eruption, landslide or earthquake in the lake.

Figure 19: Natural Hazards ( next page)


42/53


3/29/2010


43/53



3/29/2010


44/53


45/53


46/53


47/53


3/29/2010


48/53



3/29/2010


49/53


3/29/2010

Guidelines

Figure 22: Areas at Risk of Erosion

Figure 23: Population Living in Flood Prone Areas

(Next 2 pages)

Prevent channelization of wetlands

Review the feasibility and need for a lava shield wall in Rubavu

Develop fire prevention and minimization plans for all National Parks andforested areas.

All DDPs must take into account climate change when consideringdevelopment strategies and land use zoning.

Assess the feasibility of building local energy and water supply systems.

Maintain sufficient crop diversity within sectors to insure against the impacts ofmild droughts and flooding.

Increase community access to a diversity of food, income, energy and watersources.Aim for energy and water self-sufficiency in all District Centres usinga mix of local energy and water sources.

Require all new urban developments to minimise water runoff.


50/53


3/29/2010


51/53


3/29/2010


52/53


53/53


3/29/2010

10 Environment Steering Com Mite Ed Raft

Documents