Gakenke District

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Gakenke District REPUBLIC OF RWANDA RWANDA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT AGENCY (RTDA) FEEDER ROADS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (FRDP) REHABILITATION, UPGRADING AND MULTI-YEAR MAINTENANCE WORKS OF SELECTED FEEDER ROADS IN GAKENKE DISTRICT (LOT 1, 2&3 (69KM) UPDATED RESETTLEMENT ACTION PLAN GAKENKE DISTRICT April, 2020 Page 1 of 155 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Government of Rwanda (GoR) has received Additional Financing form Multi Donor Trust Funds (MDTF) for the Feeder Roads Development Project for rehabilitation of selected feeder roads in the six districts, namely Gatsibo, Nyagatare, Nyaruguru, Gakenke, Rutsiro and Nyabihu. In March 2017, the project prepared the Resettlement Action Plan for Feeder Roads rehabilitation in Gakenke district, however with the new contract approach of Design Build and Maintain (DBM) where contractor has to conduct detailed design, it was found necessary to update the initial RAP to take into consideration of the detailed design conducted by the contractors that have been hired in June and September 2019. This updated RAP identified new and old PAPs, their affected assets/properties, their value and provides a strategy for resettlement compensation to ensure that the PAPs’ livelihoods are restored or improved. The rehabilitation of the feeder roads requires the preparation of the Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) to ensure that the planned activities are socially implemented in full compliance with Rwanda’s and the World Bank’s social policies and regulations. In this regards, RTDA/FRDP through Gakenke District employed JV CSC & EC, FAIR CONSTRUCTION and CHICO for updating the Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) of the selected feeder roads of Gakenke, District. The present RAP report presents the main findings from Gakenke District. The objectives of this RAP were to provide a baseline with regard to the socio- economic conditions of PAPs after field investigation, to identify the national and international legal framework to abide with as well as the institutional arrangements, to assess the potential impacts and their mitigation mechanisms; to estimate the cost necessary for compensation and to conduct public consultations with PAPs and other project stakeholders through raising awareness of the project and its consequence’s among the public in general. The methodological approach used to achieve the objective of the assignment, include the desk review of existing reports on feeder roads in Rwanda and socio-economic data on Gakenke District, field visit, consultation meeting with different stakeholders and understand their review the Page 2 of 155 review of the existing national policies and legal instruments governing the resettlement compared to the Word Bank standards and requirements, among others. Furthermore, the contractor conducted public participation through Consultation meetings and field visits to collect needed data. The study findings revealed that the population living or having properties within 10.5 m right of way is 20% females and 80% males grouped into 1071 families. During the socio-economic survey that was conducted in Gakenke it was revealed that 69 households composed by 300 people will be relocated and they are grouped in these categories: those whose houses have bigger plot and they will build in the same parcel, they are also people who have other houses in the neighborhood and preferred cash for compensation and a small number of 8 households will totally move to the closer settlement in the selected same village. People who move will get the displacement assistance. A total number of 202 were identified vulnerable people in 150 vulnerable household; To mitigate relocation issue the project together Gakenke district will assist them finding new location near the model villages where basics needs (electricity, water schools) are easy to be provided. The survey conducted in Gakenke district has shown that people are vulnerable divided into 2 categories (1. very old and 2. Need special attention) The population affected by the rehabilitation of the 1st priority feeder roads is 5552 PAPs grouped into 1071 families of which 20% are females and 80% males. About 82.1% of the affected community is literate, with mostly primary education level. Majority of the affected families have 4 to 6 people/ household and the vulnerable people represents 18.8 % of the total affected families. This category of people will be given opportunity to get jobs in construction social infrastructures, guarding construction materials. As the project caters for environmental component through vegetation the vulnerable people will be the priority to do the nurseries related activities. It is worth to note that 59% of the total affected families own at least one type of livestock and survive from agriculture. All PAPs and other stakeholders consulted are in favor of the proposed project. The rehabilitation of all feeder roads in Gakenke District will need an average of 31.05ha of additional land to have 10.5 m right of way, of which 82 % is agricultural Page 3 of 155 land. The potential land acquisition is likely to lead to loss of houses and live fence, crops and forests and approximately trees with at least cm of girth size. water valve chambers and water taps are also likely to be affected. All the affected properties will be compensated. The resettlement and compensation of crops, trees, houses and land will be made as per Rwandan law and the World Bank’s policies (OP 4.12); the latter will prevail. MoE, MININFRA, MINAGRI, MINALOC, MINECOFIN, RTDA, RDB, RLMUA, and District of Gakenke are the key implementers of this RAP. Compensation of PAPs affected properties will be done before the beginning of any kind of civil works. Grievance redresses committees at the Subproject and road level were established to supervise the safeguards compliance throughout the project period and resolve related issues that may arise during or after the project works. A strong monitoring system will be put in place to receive and resolve PAPs issues raised. The estimated budget/cost of RAP for the interventions to improve the feeder roads in Gakenke District is Frw 568,696,195. The Cross- cutting issues like GBV, VAC and SEA as they affect human being are costless but there is mitigation measure of raising the awareness campaign by the local service provider as stated in the signed contract in Gakenke district. The Government of Rwanda will disclose this RAP report locally and will authorize the World Bank to disclose it electronically through its Info Shop. In view of the RAP results, it could be concluded that the project will bring a lot of benefits to Gakenke community. The resettlement impacts are within the manageable limits and can be mitigated with the proposed resettlement management plans. However, for the successful implementation of planned development activities, the timely implementation of the proposed mitigation measures is required. BASIC DATA OF THE RAP S/Nº Description Impacts in Quantity 1 District Gakenke 2 Province Northern Province 3 Planned activity Rehabilitation /upgrading and maintenance of Roads, Drainage and Bridges 4 Priority Roads in Numbers 3 5 Road names Lot 1 Buranga- Kamubuga –Base (32km) Page 4 of 155 Lot 2(˜ 18Km): Kivuruga-Mbatabata:8.4Km Kabyaza-Nuro-Kanyiramenyo:5.16Km Base-Masoru-Mukaje:4.76Km Lot 3(˜19Km): Gashenyi-Karambo-Kinoni:11Km Ruhanga-Biziba:7.8Km 5 Length of Roads in Km 69Km 6 Average additional width in 10.5 meters 4.5 m 7 Average additional width in 6 meters 1.3 m 8 Number of households who will lose 69 house fully 9 Number of households who will lose None house partially 10 Private live fences affected in meters 1 (10m) 11 Number of institutional buildings None affected fully 12 Loss of lands permanently in hectares 31.05 13 Loss of Crops in ha 12.74 14 Loss of trees in numbers (with at least 16076 30cm girth size) 15 Water Taps 1 16 Electrical poles 3 17 Water pipes 100m 18 Total number of affected households 1071 19 Total number of vulnerable HH 150 20 Total number of vulnerable people 202 21 Number of affected Persons 5552 22 Estimated Budget/cost for the RAP and 568,696,195 GRC budget included (in Frw) Page 5 of 155 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 2 List of Tables ................................................................................................................... 9 List of Figures ................................................................................................................ 10 List of Annexes .............................................................................................................. 10 ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................ 11 Definition of Terms ................................................................................................... 12 1.1 BACKGROUND .............................................................................................. 18 1.2 RESETTLEMENT ACTION PLAN OBJECTIVES .......................................... 22 1.3 APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY ............................................................ 23 1.4 FORMAT OF THE REPORT ........................................................................... 24 2. POLICY, LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONA FRAMEWORK .................................. 25 2.1. NATIONAL RELEVANT POLICIES AND STRATEGIES .................................. 25 2.1.1. National Land Policy, 2019 ............................................................................
Recommended publications
  • RWANDA Poverty Assessment
    RWANDA Poverty Assessment April 2015 Public Disclosure Authorized Poverty Global Practice Africa Region Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized April 2015 1 ׀ RWANDA Poverty Assessment April 2015 ׀ RWANDA Poverty Assessment 2 RWANDA Poverty Assessment Poverty Global Practice Africa Region April 2015 3 ׀ RWANDA Poverty Assessment Table of Contents ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ................................................................................................10.... I ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................................... VIII11 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..............................................................................................................................12 IX 1. A Snapshot of Poverty in Rwanda ..........................................................................................................................12ix Rwanda‘s Poverty Profile: The Expected… ............................................................................................................13 x And the Rather Unexpected … .............................................................................................................................15 xii Inequality is high, driven by location, education, and occupation .......................................................................16 xiii Strong performance in health and basic education ................................................................................................17
    [Show full text]
  • Bugesera District Burera District Gakenke District Gasabo District
    Progress, but more effort Target achieved / on track Not on track N/A No data required Increase from last period Decrease from last period Proportion of Measles & Percentage of Proportion of Percentage of women Percentage of Rubella 2nd Delivery in Percentage of Newborn who new-born not Neonatal teenage receiving ANC 1 during ANC 4th mothers who dose (MR2) facility mother who received PNC 4 breathing service case delivery (19 postpartum 1st trimester standard visit Penta 3 received coverage, all coverage (w/ received PNC 4 Visit at 6 weeks successfully fatality years and Family coverage coverage BCG coverage coverage Iron+folic acid ages (BCG census-based Visit at 6 weeks after birth_new resuscitated rate_new under) planning (based on CBR) (based on CBR) (census-based) (census-based) during ANC denominator) target) 51.7 52.7 50.3 7.9 7.2 41.4 52 42.3 117 118.4 91.5 112.8 108 Bugesera District 76 75.3 84.3 5.3 8.3 71.6 51.7 40.5 84.8 87.4 96.7 121.2 69 Burera District 59.2 59.5 60.3 6.7 10.4 39.6 55.4 37.8 78.7 81.9 99.9 116.8 83 Gakenke District 24.4 24.5 70.7 4.4 3.3 28.3 52.8 35.7 123.2 117 59.6 87.7 124 Gasabo District 78.6 78 73.4 9.1 9.1 55 41.1 38 86.5 98.5 89.7 107.6 84 Gatsibo District 63.1 64.1 82 17.1 6.8 85.4 48.2 39.3 87.4 90.7 99 110.4 91 Gicumbi District 78.4 78.3 85.4 10.5 5.5 46.3 70.2 53.1 100.3 108.7 100 114.4 94 Gisagara District 61.6 63.2 68.2 15 4.4 64.5 50.8 36.1 91.5 89.8 100 101.1 95 Huye District 56 57.2 82.2 14.6 6.9 73.2 34.6 26.4 74.2 79.9 75.7 122.5 59 Kamonyi District 52.9 53 74.4 2.7 5.6 61.2 33.1 24
    [Show full text]
  • Final Draft Report
    ITAU AUDITORS LTD RWANDA ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY Evaluation of National Environment Youth Project(NEYP) Final Draft Report ITAU AUDITORS LTD Kigali, January 2013 1 CONTENTS CONTENTS................................................................................................................................... 2 LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ 5 LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... 7 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 9 1.1 PURPOSE OF THE EVALUATION .............................................................................................................. 9 1.2. KEY ISSUES ADDRESSED ......................................................................................................................... 9 1.3. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................... 10 1.3.1. Secondary Data collection ................................................................................................................ 10 1.3.2. Primary Data collection ....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Search for Common Ground (SFCG): Land Programming in Rwanda
    1 Search For Common Ground (SFCG): Land Programming in Rwanda Final evaluation « Umurage w’Ejo, the Legacy for Tomorrow project: Land and Livelihood in Rwanda » European Union Midterm evaluation « Strengthen citizen participation around sensitive issues in order to prevent conflict in the Great Lakes Region » Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs March 2015 Compiled by: Florence Ferrari 2 Content 1. Executive summary ..................................................................................................................... 4 1.1. Project Overview .................................................................................................................. 4 1.2. Objectives of evaluation ....................................................................................................... 4 1.3. Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 4 1.4. Key findings ......................................................................................................................... 4 1.5. Recommendations ............................................................................................................... 7 2. Background information .............................................................................................................. 8 2.1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 8 2.2 Projects overview .................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Mapping Landslide Susceptibility and Analyzing Its Impact on Community Livelihoods in Gakenke District, Northern Rwanda
    Journal of Geoscience and Environment Protection, 2020, 8, 41-55 https://www.scirp.org/journal/gep ISSN Online: 2327-4344 ISSN Print: 2327-4336 Mapping Landslide Susceptibility and Analyzing Its Impact on Community Livelihoods in Gakenke District, Northern Rwanda Mucyo Jean Claude, Nsanzumukiza Vincent Martin*, Maniragaba Abias, Mukasekuru Francoise, Uwemeye Johnson, Kagame Tonny, Uwera Martine Department of Environmental Economics and Natural Resources Management, Faculty of Environmental Studies, University of Lay Adventists of Kigali, Kigali, Rwanda How to cite this paper: Claude, M. J., Abstract Martin, N. V., Abias, M., Francoise, M., Johnson, U., Tonny, K., & Martine, U. This study spatially distributed landslide susceptibility and assessed its impact (2020). Mapping Landslide Susceptibility and on community livelihoods in Gakenke district of Rwanda. The Global Posi- Analyzing Its Impact on Community Live- tioning System (GPS) located recent landslides from which inventory map lihoods in Gakenke District, Northern was built. Six conditioning factors: elevation, slope, land use and land cover, Rwanda. Journal of Geoscience and Envi- ronment Protection, 8, 41-55. rainfall, soil texture and lithology were analyzed by Geographic Information https://doi.org/10.4236/gep.2020.85003 System (GIS) to map landslide susceptibility. The results showed that Janja, Muzo, Kamubuga, Kivuruga and Muyongwe sector are highly susceptible to Received: March 27, 2020 landslide. The elevation, slope, poor land management and rainfall are the Accepted: May 5, 2020 Published: May 8, 2020 key drivers to landslide in this area. The findings indicated that the residents are not aware of landslide causal factors due to low level of education and Copyright © 2020 by author(s) and trainings.
    [Show full text]
  • Farmers' Perceptions, Production and Productivity Constraints
    HORTSCIENCE 50(1):36–43. 2015. There are varied preferences and needs by end users for crop cultivars. For instance, for industrial starch production, sweetpotato cul- Farmers’ Perceptions, Production and tivars are required to have high dry matter content, whereas cultivars for human con- Productivity Constraints, Preferences, sumption should have other traits such as attractive skin and flesh color, good cooking and Breeding Priorities of Sweetpotato quality, and high b-carotene, among others. Sweetpotato cultivars intended for animal feed should have high protein content (Lebot, in Rwanda 2009). Therefore, sweetpotato breeding should Rukundo Placide1, Hussein Shimelis, and Mark Laing involve the needs of stakeholders in the de- African Centre for Crop Improvement, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Private veloping of new cultivars and new agricultural technologies to meet their diverse requirements Bag X01, Scottsville 3209, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa (Atlin et al., 2001; Rees et al., 2003). Daphrose Gahakwa Agricultural technologies developed through participatory research have a greater chance of Rwanda Agriculture Board (RAB), P.O. Box 5016, Kigali-Rwanda adoption and diffusion by farmers because they Additional index words. breeding priorities, farmers’ preferences, production constraints, are developed in response to local constraints sweetpotato and meet end users’ needs and preferences (Ashby and Lilja, 2004). Various research Abstract. The role of farmers and their production constraints and preferences are approaches have been reported in participatory important for sweetpotato breeding and adoption of cultivars and agronomic production breeding of new crop cultivars, including con- packages. The objective of this study was to assess farmers’ perception, production sultative approaches, collaborative approaches, constraints, preferences, and breeding priorities of sweetpotato in selected agro-ecologies collegial approaches, and farmer experimenta- of Rwanda.
    [Show full text]
  • Organic Law No 29/2005 of 31/12/2005 Determining The
    Year 44 Special Issue of 31st December 2005 OFFICIAL GAZETTE OF THE REPUBLIC OF RWANDA Nº 29/2005 of 31/12/2005 Organic Law determining the administrative entities of the Republic of Rwanda. Annex I of Organic Law n° 29/2005 of 31/12/2005 determining the administrative entities of the Republic of Rwanda relating to boundaries of Provinces and the City of Kigali. Annex II of Organic Law n° 29/2005 of 31/12/2005 determining the administrative entities of the Republic of Rwanda relating to number and boundaries of Districts. Annex III of Organic Law n° 29/2005 of 31/12/2005 determining the administrative entities of the Republic of Rwanda relating to structure of Provinces/Kigali City and Districts. 1 ORGANIC LAW Nº 29/2005 OF 31/12/2005 DETERMINING THE ADMINISTRATIVE ENTITIES OF THE REPUBLIC OF RWANDA We, KAGAME Paul, President of the Republic; THE PARLIAMENT HAS ADOPTED AND WE SANCTION, PROMULGATE THE FOLLOWING ORGANIC LAW AND ORDER IT BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE OF THE REPUBLIC OF RWANDA THE PARLIAMENT: The Chamber of Deputies, in its session of December 2, 2005; The Senate, in its session of December 20, 2005; Given the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of June 4, 2003, as amended to date, especially in its articles 3, 62, 88, 90, 92, 93, 95, 108, 118, 121, 167 and 201; Having reviewed law n° 47/2000 of December 19, 2000 amending law of April 15, 1963 concerning the administration of the Republic of Rwanda as amended and complemented to date; ADOPTS: CHAPTER ONE: GENERAL PROVISIONS Article one: This organic law determines the administrative entities of the Republic of Rwanda and establishes the number, boundaries and their structure.
    [Show full text]
  • State of Hydrogeological Risks in Northwestern Rwanda
    East African Journal of Science and Technology, Vol.6 Issue4, 2016 Dibanga B et al (P.1-25) STATE OF HYDROGEOLOGICAL DISASTERS IN NORTHWESTERN RWANDA Dibanga B. Placide*1, Manirakiza Vincent*1; Gatera Frederic1, Bavugayundi Dominique2 1. University of Rwanda – College of Education, PoBox 5039, Kigali - Rwanda. 2 Catholic Institute of Kabgayi *Corresponding authors: Emails: [email protected] ; [email protected] Abstract About fifty people lost their lives in the recent disasters that occurred on May 8, 2016 and which affected mainly districts of Northern Province, particularly Gakenke District. Similar disasters take place yearly and they are likely to continue, even to a higher extent, unless serious studies and measures are taken for their prevention. This study was conducted to that end. It focused on landslides and floods in Northwestern part of Rwanda. The study reveals that these disasters result from the combination of the factors related to rainfall, topography, vegetation cover, bedrock, soil development and human activities. Deep analysis shows a big effect of unsuitable land use. The study proposes appropriate preventing measures. Key words: Disaster, Hydrogeological disaster, Northwestern Rwanda, landslide, flood. 1. Introduction In Rwanda high population density in rural and increases soil erosion (Moeyersons, areas (415 in hab/km²) is mainly associated 1991; Rossi, 1991). with subsistence agriculture (80 %) which Disasters constitute a huge threat to constitutes the backbone of the livelihood population lives, settlements, various and economy. This form of land use is infrastructures as well as economic practiced on steep slopes, marginal land (60 activities and national economy especially %), and insufficient land (with less than 0.7 in mountainous regions of Rwanda ha) (MINECOFIN, 2012; 2013).
    [Show full text]
  • World Bank Document
    REPUBLIC OF RWANDA Public Disclosure Authorized RWANDA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT AGENCY (RTDA) FEEDER ROADS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (FRDP) REHABILITATION, UPGRADING AND MULTI-YEAR MAINTENANCE Public Disclosure Authorized WORKS OF SELECTED FEEDER ROADS IN GAKENKE DISTRICT (LOT 1, 2&3 (69KM) UPDATED RESETTLEMENT ACTION PLAN Public Disclosure Authorized GAKENKE DISTRICT Public Disclosure Authorized April, 2020 Page 1 of 155 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Government of Rwanda (GoR) has received Additional Financing form Multi Donor Trust Funds (MDTF) for the Feeder Roads Development Project for rehabilitation of selected feeder roads in the six districts, namely Gatsibo, Nyagatare, Nyaruguru, Gakenke, Rutsiro and Nyabihu. In March 2017, the project prepared the Resettlement Action Plan for Feeder Roads rehabilitation in Gakenke district, however with the new contract approach of Design Build and Maintain (DBM) where contractor has to conduct detailed design, it was found necessary to update the initial RAP to take into consideration of the detailed design conducted by the contractors that have been hired in June and September 2019. This updated RAP identified new and old PAPs, their affected assets/properties, their value and provides a strategy for resettlement compensation to ensure that the PAPs’ livelihoods are restored or improved. The rehabilitation of the feeder roads requires the preparation of the Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) to ensure that the planned activities are socially implemented in full compliance with Rwanda’s and the World Bank’s social policies and regulations. In this regards, RTDA/FRDP through Gakenke District employed JV CSC & EC, FAIR CONSTRUCTION and CHICO for updating the Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) of the selected feeder roads of Gakenke, District.
    [Show full text]
  • Government of Rwanda (Gor) 2015 Local Government PEFA PFM
    Government of Rwanda (GoR) 2015 Local Government PEFA PFM Performance Assessment Gakenke District Final Report Prepared by AECOM International Team of Chinedum Nwoko (Team Leader) Stephen Hitimana Theo Frank Munya 31 July 2017 i Basic Information Currency Rwanda Franc = 100 cents Official Exchange Rate ((US $, June 2015) 765 RwF (Average) Fiscal/Budget Year 1 July – 30 June Weights and Measures Metric System Gakenke District Location Northern Province, Rwanda Government Elected Mayor (Chief Executive) and District Council Political arrangement Administrative decentralization HQs Gakenke Industrial/Commercial Cities None, Rural based district Population 338,234 (2012 census) Area 704 km2 Population Density 510 persons/km2 (2012 census) Official Languages Kinyarwanda, English, & French ii Gakenke District PEFA PFM-PR 2015 - Final Government of Rwanda – 2015 Local Government PEFA PFM Performance Assessment – Gakenke District – Final Report – 31 July 2017 The quality assurance process followed in the production of this report satisfies all the requirements of the PEFA Secretariat and hence receives the ‘PEFA CHECK’. PEFA Secretariat August 28, 2017 iii Gakenke District PEFA PFM-PR 2015 - Final Disclosure of Quality Assurance Mechanism The following quality assurance arrangements have been established in the planning and preparation of the PEFA assessment report for the District of Gakenke, Rwanda, and final report dated July 31, 2017. 1. Review of Concept Note - Draft concept note and/or terms of reference dated November 2014 was submitted for review on November 4, 2014 to the following reviewers: - 1) District of Gakenke - 2) Government of Rwanda - 3) World Bank - 4) Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau (KFW) - 5) Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) - 6) UK Department for International Development (DFID) - 7) EU Delegation - 8) Agence Belge de Développement (BTC) - 9) PEFA Secretariat Final concept note dated February 25, 2015 was forwarded to reviewers.
    [Show full text]
  • Farming for Impact – a Case Study of Smallholder Agriculture in Rwanda
    Farming for impact – a case study of smallholder agriculture in Rwanda Greenwich Academic Literature Archive (GALA) Citation: Willoughby, Robin and Forsythe, Lora (2012) Farming for impact – a case study of smallholder agriculture in Rwanda. Technical Report. Concern Worldwide. Available at: http://gala.gre.ac.uk/12560 Copyright Status: Permission is granted by the Natural Resources Institute (NRI), University of Greenwich for the copying, distribution and/or transmitting of this work under the conditions that it is attributed in the manner specified by the author or licensor and it is not used for commercial purposes. However you may not alter, transform or build upon this work. Please note that any of the aforementioned conditions can be waived with permission from the NRI. Where the work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by this license. This license in no way affects your fair dealing or fair use rights, or other applicable copyright exemptions and limitations and neither does it affect the author’s moral rights or the rights other persons may have either in the work itself or in how the work is used, such as publicity or privacy rights. For any reuse or distribution, you must make it clear to others the license terms of this work. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. Contact: GALA Repository Team: [email protected] Natural Resources Institute: [email protected] Farming for Impact – A Case Study of Smallholder Agriculture in Rwanda Contents Executive summary .
    [Show full text]
  • The Mineral Industry of Rwanda in 2015
    2015 Minerals Yearbook RWANDA [ADVANCE RELEASE] U.S. Department of the Interior May 2019 U.S. Geological Survey The Mineral Industry of Rwanda By Thomas R. Yager In 2015, Rwanda was the world’s leading producer of law established large-scale mining, small-scale mining, and tantalum. Rwanda also accounted for about 1% each of the artisanal mining licenses. Large-scale mining licenses, which world’s mined tin and tungsten production. The country also are valid for up to 25 years, are applicable to companies that produced beryl, cement, clay, crushed stone, dimension stone, intend to invest at least $22 million and to produce at least gemstones (such as amethyst, sapphire, and tourmaline), 180 metric tons per year (t/yr). Small-scale mining licenses, gold, lime, natural gas, peat, steel, and refined tin. Domestic which are valid for up to 15 years, are applicable to companies consumption of minerals was not globally significant (Anderson, that intend to invest at least $1 million during a 5-year period 2017; Papp, 2017; Shedd, 2017). and to produce at least 36 t/yr. Artisanal mining licenses, which In 2015, the manufacturing sector accounted for 4.8% of are valid for up to 5 years, are applicable to companies that Rwanda’s gross domestic product, and the mineral sector, intend to invest at least $100,000 and to produce at least 6 t/yr 1.4%. The mineral sector employed about 37,000 Rwandans in (International Tin Research Institute, 2015b). 2015 compared with 35,580 in 2014. Total exports (excluding In 2013, the Government passed the Upstream Petroleum re-exports) were valued at $381 million in 2015, of which Policy.
    [Show full text]