REPUBLIC OF

RWANDA LAND MANAGEMENT AND USE AUTHORITY

LAND USE AUDITING REPORT ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF LAND USE MASTER PLANS 2018-2019

August, 2019

1

LAND USE MONITORING REPORT 2018-2019

1. INTRODUCTION The present 2018/2019 land use monitoring report summarises (1) Urban audit findings in 14 districts and City of , (2) desk land use assessment in key sectors (urbanisation, rural settlements, industrial and agriculture) and (3) Compilation of received annual District reports on the use of lands. The main objective is to assess the progress of the implementation of the urban development plans and to monitor the land use management in districts. This was the second monitoring following the one done in 2016/2017 in 22 districts. The 2018/19 conducted monitoring focused on Kigali City (3 districts level and CoK level), secondary cities (Muhanga, Huye, Rusizi, Rubavu, Musanze, and Nyagatare) and their surrounding emerging district centres (Kamonyi, Bugesera, Nyamasheke, Gicumbi and Karongi).

The land use monitoring also conducted an observation assessment of key sectors that consume lands heavily mainly urbanization, housing, settlements, industrial and agriculture; their impact on land and spatial planning in general. The monitoring was conducted by a joint team from the Ministry of Infrastructure (MININFRA), Ministry of Environment (MoE), Ministry of Agriculture and Animal Resources (MINAGRI), Rwanda Land Management and Use Authority (RLMUA) and Rwanda Housing Authority (RHA) in collaboration with the district One Stop Centres (OSCs) of the respective districts.

2. LAND USE MONITORING OBJECTIVES

Specifically, the monitoring team had the objective to assess the following against the legal framework in effect: - To assess the progress of the implementation of previous audit/monitoring recommendations; - To assess the strategies/ measures put in place by the District to overcome some challenges and gaps identified during the prior monitoring. - To evaluate the development management practices and compliance (permitting, inspection, enforcement) - To assess the implementation of land use plans (conceptual plans, detailed physical plans, urban infrastructure development…) - Check compliance with the NLUMP guidelines, urban zoning regulations and planned land uses; - One Stop Centre Staff in place, qualifications (number, experience and knowledge on policies, laws and regulations) and tools use in master plan implementation available. - To identify challenges in local urban development management and draw recommendations on way forward - To assess the urban sprawl at the surrounding of the City.

2

3. METHODOLOGY

- Meeting with District authorities - Assessment of permits application files, inspection conducted - Desk analysis of master plan files and satellite images interpretation - Queries and feedback from one stop centre staff - Sampling of the projects to be visited, field visit and direct observation for random inspection - Presentation of findings to District Authorities. - Analysis of received districts reports on land use.

4. TOOLS

The tools used in this exercise are mainly the monitoring templates, ArcGIS software, Satellites images, GPS, field observation, cameras, interviews, land use plans and zoning regulation, districts reports, among others.

5. SCOPE: DISTRICTS ASSESSED AND EVALUATED

Fig 1: Land use monitoring and urban audits status

3

6. GENERAL FINDINGS

6.1. Compliance to existing tools for land use planning in districts - The districts have the conceptual master plans approved by the district/city councils but in general no detailed physical plans covering priority areas for development in most of the Districts. - The compliance of local land use plans to National Land Use and Development Master Plan (NLUDMP) is very critical. For example, implemented urban boundaries are 10 times bigger than the ones proposed by NLUDMP of 2011, umudugudu concept is not well being implemented, densification guideline not well implemented, etc). - Missmatching between the national industrial plan and district industrial zones. - All districts have detailed physical plans on a very small area of the urban setting, about 500Ha only. The permitting and constructions are done basing on conceptual plans which create a planned disorder/sprawl and mismanagement of land. - The average of 53% of construction permits are issued respecting the zoning plan and average of 47% of issued permits are not respecting the planned zoning. - Land use classes are not harmonized in all land use plans and regulations that create implementation challenges.

6.2. District Planning and implementation capacity - The districts leaders were more interested and aware on land use and management issues compared to the previous monitoring sessions. - The district One Stop Centre offices have good working environment and are accessible but have limited planning and implementation capacity of land use plans. - It has been noticed that the districts and city of Kigali don’t have the mechanism to evaluate the level of the implementation of their land use master plans. - None of the audited districts has all the staff on the structure in place and sometimes the key positions like building inspectors or permitting officers are missing. - The Building Permit Management Information System (BPMIS) is only used in the City of Kigali and its districts and in the secondary cities. Other districts still use manual subjective and manual construction permitting authorization. - Lack of phasing plan of the urban development plan implementation in most of the Districts for audited urban areas, resulting in urban sprawl. - There is no zoning regulation in most of plans (except Kigali City and Musanze), resulting in informal settlement.

4

7. FINDINGS FROM URBAN LAND USE AUDIT

7.1. Compliance with land use documents, progress of the implementation of urban plans and key challenges in implementation

- Existing adopted land use Master Plans are not aligned with the National Land Use and Development Master Plans (NLUDMP).Urban boundaries extended much out of urban delineations proposed by the NLUDMP for the period of 2010-2020; Most of them are neither aligned with the Urban Planning Code (UPC) proposed standards regarding the efficient use of land and mainly the plot size

Fig 2: Local Urban Development plans and proposed urban delineation from NLUDMP

LUDP: 12% NLUDMP: 1.4%

- The land use classes are not the same in all planning documents and tools such as the City of Kigali Master Plan and Local urban development plans in all districts, Urban Planning and Building Code and the presidential order determining procedures for land allocation and lease, the exact number of years of emphyteutic land lease and its renewal. This is a big challenge for the harmonization of master plans and legal tools which hinder also their integration with Land Administration Information System. This inconsistence in planning and regulatory tools also hinder an efficient land use planning and management.

5

Table 1: Land use types according to land use management and urban planning tools

- No detailed physical plans available for the main parts of the urbans areas in all districts, but the permitting and constructions are done basing on conceptual plans which create a planned disorder/sprawl and mismanagement of land. With the exception of Kigali, the other districts have on average only 500ha of detailed plans. Phasing Master plan implementation is lacking in most of the audited urban areas where the phasing plan has been provided in the approved Urban Master Plan. One example is the where phasing is not respected as the building permits are issued almost everywhere despite the phasing plan in place. This leads to poor land management and urban sprawl.

- The densification policy is not well implemented as the building permits for residential single houses are issued on plots exceeding the standard plot size of 300m2 as stipulated in urban planning and building code. i. Eg. Within the master plan of Nyamata town and Karumuna, the building construction plots are still very big compared to approved plot sizes from 2015, approximately average 750m2 per plot (25*30), which is more than double the size of a standard plot for one family residential house of 300m2 (15*20)

6

Fig 3: Single house residential building constructed on a plot of 750sqm (Very frequent case in )

ii. In Bugesera District it was observed that building permits are issued in areas not covered by the master plan - mainly in Cyugaro and Kanzenze of Ntarama Sector but also in some villages of Kayumba Cell of Nyamata sector iii. The densification concept is not well defined and applied in Bugesera Local Urban Master Plan where low, high and medium standing zones are mixed on the ground (16 housing units (HU)/ha which is far below the desired density of 40 to 80 HU /ha). iv. In order to promote the densification, the NLUMP of 2011 propose a standard maximum plot size of 600 m2 to host 12 dwelling units (families) for low income; three families for medium and 3 for high income. All income groups to settle on an area of 1ha in the following proportion: 50% for low income, 25% for medium income and 25% for high income group.

Table 2: proposed Housing Density by the NLUDMP (2011)

Contrary to the guideline above, the table below indicate that the Kigali City Master Plan adopted in 2013 has planned minimal plot sizes and number of floors. This standard later led to low densification and wide development of single family houses and horizontal development because there are no restrictions on maximum plot sizes and minimum floors for each zoning.

7

Table 3: Planned residential areas in City of Kigali Master Plan 2013 CoK Residential type Area in Ha Min Lot size (m2) Max No Floors R1A- Mixed Single family residential 6079 250 G+1 R1B- Rural Residential District 2023 250 G+1+P R1- Single Family Residential District 1906 600 G+1+P R2- Low Rise Residential District 1753 600 G+3 R2A- Low Rise Residential District 2129 600 G+4 R3- Medium Rise Residential District 4550 750 G+7 R4- High Rise Residential District 171 4000 G+15 Total area for residential zone 10508

- The elaborated urban master plans are violated during the building permit issuance, this is observed mainly in violation of road reserves, green spaces, encroachment on agriculture land, protected areas, infrastructure and forests - According to the environment law of 13/08/2018 and to the NLUMP guidelines of 2011, rivers must have a buffer zone of 10 meters where any settlement, urban, industrial development and agricultural activities are prohibited for conservation purposes. However, settlements and agricultural activities are carried out in the buffer zone of Sebeya River in . - The master plans in different districts are being revised several times (at their discretion) without any approval documents and collaboration with the institutions in charge of Urban planning or land management this was observed in Bugesera, Kamonyi, , Gasabo, and Muhanga Districts. - The plot servicing implemented through local population initiative using the small budget allocated to master plan implementation in some districts were done, but it is not based on elaborated layout plans; This case was observed in (Nyagasozi in Gacurabwenge; Nyagagacyamu in Runda and Ntebe phaseI in Rugalika), Bugesera, Muhanga and Kicukiro. - Several permits in all audited districts are being issued as refurbishment without structure alteration while in reality they are new constructions (refurbishment permits are used for new construction). - In the City of Kigali, the districts issued the permits in the areas that they are not allowed, mainly R2, R3 and commercial zones which are not in their mandate allowing the applicants the construction of residential single houses for most of the cases as observed in Kigali Sector of ; Kagarama and Masaka of ; Gisozi and Kinyinya of . - Generally in all districts audited, the urban master plans are being implemented but there is no district OSC reports on the compliance level of the new development as well as socio-economic and environmental impacts in land management. - Lack of investors in affordable houses construction projects, apart from the districts of the City of Kigali there is no single project in residential housing which is very predominant in other Districts. - The audit has shown that some construction permits have been issued based on unchanged land lease information, mainly agriculture use. Equally, it was observed OSC have issued building

8

permits for big projects on unmerged plots which results in keeping a no updated land use information in the Land Registry - LAIS as well as impacting the mismanagement of land and increasing of urban horizontal development. - The field observations and google imagery’s analysis have shown several urban sprawling outside the planned urban areas mainly The City of Kigali, Muhanga, Rubavu, Bugesera, Musanze and Rusizi. This defines that there is no interconnection between the planned urban areas and their surrounding areas

8. FINDINGS IN KEY SECTORS

8.1. URBANIZATION

The 2011 NLUDMP provides that Districts Centres have to be established to meet people’s expectation on a life with quality. It proposes features for a modern District Centre by year 2020 regarding Location, Population, Housing, Education, Health, Administration, Commercial, Culture & Sport and recreation, Protection, Industrial, Transportation, ICT, Energy, Water, Sewerage, Solid waste, etc. 8.1.1. Urban areas site location assessment

The NLUDMP provides that, physical risk analysis should be conducted for site location and ecological considerations made. The physical derives from three sources which are the ground, the water and fire and risks deriving from ground conditions. There are macro scale risks, such as earthquakes, but the majority of ground related risks are more localized. These include the dangers associated with living on steep slopes, unstable ground (e.g. sinkholes) and marginal land (i.e. land that is poorly suited to human habitation, such as contaminated land or low-bearing capacity soils, whether natural or infill material). According to the NLUDMP directives and guidelines District urban areas should not be on slopes above 20 degrees. But due to the hilly topography of certain areas, some urban areas are planned in contrary to the location guidelines.Districts have planned and developed Urban Plans on slopes more than 30 degrees and even much steeper. This makes it very difficult to develop infrastructures, for instance in; Gakenke, Rulindo, Nyabihu, Ngororero, Rutsiro, Karongi, Nyamagabe, Nyaruguru, Rusizi, Nyamasheke, Gicumbi, Rubavu and Burera. (See map below).

9

Figure 4: Urban suitability and slope and landslides analysis findings

The topography of some Districts is dominated by high slopes that do not easily allow establishment of infrastructures for urban development. Some of them are among the 6 selected secondary cities like Rubavu and Rusizi. It was assessed that, they need a special study on how they should be developed as most of them are contrary to the guidelines of NLUDMP implementation of land development. Other urban areas, mostly in Eastern Province and South as indicated on map in green color, were found to be complying with the NLUDMP guidelines not only having slope less than 20 degrees but also flat and can favor all types of land uses especially agriculture and infrastructural development.

Rulindo Local Urban Development Plan was approved in 2013 and is being implemented on three disconnected sites, located in Shyorongi, Rusiga and Bushoki Sectors.This disconnection poses risks of increasing urban sprawl in rural areas in between not covered by urban plan. Gakenke Local Urban Development Plan was approved in 2015 on a site located in Gakenke and Nemba Sectors. Considering factors like topography, soil physical properties, and the annual quantity of precipitation, Gakenke urban center is on soil prone to landslide as indicated in the map below.

10

Figure 5: Risk land slide erosion analysis of the planned urban areas of Gakenke

Source: Slope GIS analyses of Gakenke Urban Plan of RHA by the assessing team Gakenke Urban Centre is located in high risk zone, during assessment it was found that most of development activities were being carried out on an unstable ground with low-bearing capacity soils, the area planned for urban development is difficult to be developed basing on the nature of the topography. Since most of areas are on steep sloppy areas of land above 60 degree, people contacted expressed ideas of not able to further develop and invest their resources on such nature of topography which cannot easily accommodate infrastructures like roads as indicated in the photographs below.

Figure 6: Gakenke urban area on the steep slopes that contradicts with NLUDMP

Source: Photographs taken from the field

From the above photographs taken, it was assessed that the urban development of is characterized by a lot of impediments resulting from not only the nature of topography but also prone to high land slide. The study of establishing an urban area in such place did not consider the nature of soil composition. Such disastrous areas are normally most suitable for forestry cover in order to avoid continuous soil loss.

11

Figure 7: Map showing all sites location of approved urban areas in Rwanda and their boundaries

Source: RLMUA map using data from Districts and RHA The map in figure 7 demonstrates the big proportion of the urban plans developed across the Country, and particularly condensed around Kigali and their neighboring Districts in the attempt to accommodate sprawled houses in former remote and rural areas. The most affected neighboring areas and Districts are Karumuna in Bugesera, Muyumbu in Rwamaga, Shorongi/Rulindo and from Ruyenzi to Musambira in Kamonyi District as a result of implementing Kigali Master Plan regulations. Other local urban development (LUDP) are under elaboration and the terminology of “Satellites Cities “recently emerged and being used in Rwanda urbanization to accommodate uncontrolled newly emerged sprawl settlements.

8.2. URBAN SPRAWL

Urban sprawl is defined as the spreading of urban developments (as houses and shopping centers) on undeveloped land near a city. It also describes the expansion of human populations away from the out central urban areas into previously remote and rural areas. (www.Merriam-Webster.com/ Dictionary) Urban sprawl was found to be a big issue observed during this assessment and confirmed by all interviewed in almost all Districts except Burera, Gatsibo, Gisagara and Kirehe. Identified Causes of urban sprawl

The main reasons given that may cause urban sprawl are the following:

Lower Land Rates: Land and houses cost less in the outer suburbs of the cities, because the centres of urban development have really made people want to stop settling in these areas and want to venture further out. 12

Search of affordability in housing development: Regulation on construction development and other land uses in general that is applied in urban areas as well as high price of construction materials, force some people to go where the price is lower and those laws are not enforced or don’t simply exist.

Lack of Urban planning implementation capacity by CoK and Districts: Population is growing faster than district and City of Kigali authorities are developing new sites for housing and resettlement with required infrastructures and facilities. More effort is seemingly put in demolition of illegal constructions than in preparation of new housing sites.

Rise in Population Growth: Another factor that contributes towards urban sprawl is rise in population growth. As number of people in a city grows beyond capacity, the local community continues to spread farther and farther from city centres

Lower properties rental fees: Cities will usually have high property rental fees, and you can usually avoid these fees by living in the outer suburbs because they are usually lower than they would be in other situations.

Rise in Standard of Living: There are also increases in standards of living and average family incomes, which means that people have the ability to pay more to travel and commute longer distances to work and back home.

Consumer Preferences: People in high income groups have stronger preferences towards larger homes, more bedrooms, bigger balconies and bigger lawns. This also causes urban sprawl as this option is not available in crowded cities. People generally look out for low-density residential areas where they can get home according to their preference.

Some maps using aerial photos from RLMUA and Google Earth are illustrating that urban sprawl phenomenon is occurring and developing inside and outside planned urban areas and rural settlements in different visited districts.

Some cases

Due to the proximity with the City of Kigali, Kamonyi, Bugesera, Rwamagana and Rulindo Districts registered a high rate of encroachment on agricultural lands which are among the land use most threatened by urban sprawl. Indeed, facility to obtain land due to the lower land rates and lack of construction regulations or their implementation push continuously people in Rwamagana areas near Kigali city boundary, along the main road Kigali-Rwamagana where a large unplanned urban area is being developed on agricultural land.

13

Fig. 8: Urban sprawl in the vicinity of Kigali – Muyumbu and Nyakariro, in

Rulindo District at Rutonde and Kijabagwe in Shyorongi Sector areas neighboring to Nyarugenge District City of Kigali the growing urban sprawl is at accelerated rate and according to local population and District Official in charge of urbanization; it has been mainly occupied by the people who were relocated from Kimicanga slum. Fig. 9: Urban sprawl in the vicinity of Kigali – Rutonde in

14

Figure 10: Urban sprawl in Kamonyi District, Nyarubaka Sector, Nyagishubi Cell (near Muhanga Connection of urban Sprawls in Kamonyi and Muhanga Districts

The above map has been created using Muhanga Urban Master Plan and Kamonyi District Land Use Plan overlaid on Google Earth photo. This urban sprawl is continuously increasing powered by the flow of people fleeing construction development regulations and land rates that are applied in Muhanga urban centre, they simply cross the administrative boarder and undertake housing development in neighboring Kamonyi rural area.

Increased Urban Sprawl in Rubavu District The Mahoko site in Kanama and Nyakiriba Sectors is observed to be developing in an unplanned manner, where developers do not have construction permits and densities are low and roads are zig zag as people construct before plot servicing.

Fig. 11: Urban Sprawl in mahoko, Rubavu District

15

8.3.RURAL SETTLEMENTS

Planned rural settlement is one of the government policies for improved human settlement and efficient reach of services and facilities to Rwandan population. Efficient rural settlement is one of the tools for effective utilization and proper management of scarce land resources.

8.3.1. Sites and condition of Umudugudu village (% and number) and degree of population living in Imidugudu villages

The guidelines of NLUDMP specifies that, all Imidugudu sites should be well demarcated and having their layout plans to facilitate their physical development. As formulated in Vision 2020 document, it is envisaged that by the year 2020, 70% of the rural population will be living in planned villages/imidugudu. Every year Districts report on Households relocation from scattered and High Risk Zones areas. Up to 2008, only 22% of the population was living in Imidugudu. The EICV5 results show an increase of ten percentage points for households living in Imidugudu from 49% in 2013-14 to 59% in 2016-17.

The 2017-18 Land Use and Urban audit found that the levels of rural planned settlements/Imidugudu are improving though some Districts are not yet meeting 70% of the National target. In assessing each Umudugudu, there was concentration on services and facilities connectivity, such as clean water supply, roads, health centres, market, primary schools and layout plans.

According houses spatial data presented by figures in the table 4 below, though most of Districts have made a remarkable progress in relocating people to Imidugudu settlements, some of them are still struggling to achieve the national target.

Table 4: Imidugudu with layout plans District Number Number of District Number Number of of settlement of settlement settlement sites with settlement sites with sites layout plan sites layout plan 1 Ngororero 258 - 10 Rwamagana 96 36 2 Nyabihu - - 11 Kayonza - - 3 Rutsiro 118 - 12 Gatsibo 526 - 4 Nyamasheke 251 118 13 Kirehe - - 5 Nyamagabe 444 114 14 Gakenke 52 - 6 Nyaruguru - 14 15 Rulindo 322 - 7 Gisagara 65 - 16 Gicumbi 47 - 8 Nyanza - - 17 Burera 137 137 9 Ruhango - 19 Source: District OSCs data 2017

Generally, according to existing guidelines of proposed number of Imidugudu sites per Cell, the existing and proposed rural settlements sites are extremely many and highly scartered in different areas. The need to re-adjust in planning of such settelements was highly recommended as the fact most of agricultural lands are totally lost for such settlements. This is also applied to other Districts but Nyagatare is most observed District to have more rural settlements than others.

16

Some of the observed challenges are a big number of imidugudu lacking access to basic infrastructures and layout plans, which results in inefficient land use.

Figure 12: Graph of imidugudu with layout plans by District

Number of settlement 500 sites 450 400 Number of settlement 350 sites with layout plan 300 250 200 150 100 50 0

Due to the lack of data in most of visited Districts, it’s very difficult to have the real information on the national performance in implementing umudugudu policy. However according to the data collected, the four districts indicated above, only performed better to have all settlements with layout plans. Others have not yet achieved even the half of the total settlements with layout plans.

8.3.2. Rural Settlement Planning and Current Status

Rural settlements – Umudugudu Policy- has been implemented since its adoption by the Government of Rwanda, and guidelines have been set by the Ministry of Local Governments. At local level sites have been selected by and approved by District authorities, In some District like Gakenke, the selection of sites has been conducted jointly by Government agencies in an effort to relocate and accommodate people to safe sites out of high risk zones. Rwanda Housing Authority provided technical and financial support to delineate settlement sites and preparation of rural settlement sites plans designating various land use zonings. To illustrate the distributions of houses in rural areas, we can draw from available geodatabases for three Districts from Northern, Eastern and Southern Province.

17

Table 5: Houses in sample Districts per Provinces

Number of Rural Houses out of settlement plans Total houses Districts urban areas settlement sites

Number Number Number Number Percentage Ruhango 3 170 71842 37209 52 Rutsiro 1 165 35973 18510 51 Nyanza 1 136 43920 20071 46 Kayonza 4 128 95295 31146 33 Rubavu 1 214 87458 16225 19 Rulindo 1 with 3 sites 226 53323 31706 59 Ngoma 4 139 80170 16969 21 Gatsibo 3 195 104281 38896 37 Total 572262 210732 37 Source: RHA and RLMUA The following maps illustrate only houses out of sites boundary in Sectors for each sampled Districts. Fig 13 : Scattered Houses out of settelement sites plans

18

As illustarted in the above maps and tables, contrarly to the collected and reported data by Districts, spatial analysis shows that many houses are still located outside the delienated settlement sites plans and much effort is needed for the Government of Rwanda to relocate and settle people in planned sites which are priority areas for infrastructure and facilities development.

In 2017-18 Districts reported to the Audit team Population accomodated in rural setllement sites is 93% while the spatial analysi with current land use plans (urban and rural villages sites) figures that 69.2% of houses are located outsides of existing plans.

Some settlement site have been found as a good example of efficient land management to be applied in rural settlements that is to say, local communities within that Umudugudu are living in 4 in 1 where much of lands are left for integrated activities.

Sample of good rural settlement practices across the country

Fig 14: Nasho IDP Model, Fig 16: Rukumberi IDP model,

The good practice for IDP model visited in Ngoma District was Rukumberi, but to get more efficient land use, it needs to switch into 4 in 1 as this model type may consume a lot of land. To solve the problem of scartered settlement and to relocate people from high risk zones, a 4 in 1 model villages have been established across the country. According to the NLUDMP, the trend should be to increase housing density in settleling people in 8 in 1 and 12 in 1. 19

Some challenges of IDP model villages identified while on the field: -Lack of shades for other livestock apart from cows such as pig, poultry, goat farming etc. Better to integrate the farming and keeping of other animals in the village. -It was also identified that, some of village models are on high risk zones hence not meeting the guidelines of NLUDMP.

8.4. Land consumption by extension of built-up areas and houses

Table 6: Changes in areas of built-up areas 2008-2017(ten year period) Increase in District 2009 2017 % Times Bugesera 1459.15 11131.95 763 8 Burera 249.43 1504.93 603 6 Gakenke 87.26 758.67 869 9 Kigali 9196.31 23549.14 256 3 Gatsibo 1240.13 5915.19 477 5 Gicumbi 318.5 2108.75 662 7 Gisagara 242 1344.63 556 6 Huye 1093.89 2697.56 247 2 Kamonyi 258.34 3118.89 1207 12 Karongi 326.82 846.69 259 3 Kayonza 1922 6934.98 361 4 Kirehe 2385.54 6741.96 283 3 Muhanga 518.68 1916.06 369 4 Musanze 1116.33 5533.08 496 5 Ngoma 1083.45 5736.43 529 5 Ngororero 194.98 950.07 487 5 Nyabihu 515.21 1979.83 384 4 Nyagatare 1519.48 6836.83 450 4 Nyamagabe 340.11 1271.02 374 4 Nyamasheke 134.56 2625.83 1951 20 Nyanza 369.48 1661.95 450 4 Nyaruguru 74.95 1097.66 1465 15 Rubavu 1820.61 4429.94 243 2 Ruhango 301.3 1794.88 596 6 Rulindo 120.03 1046.39 872 9 20

Rusizi 795.26 4251.76 535 5 Rutsiro 96.65 1150.25 1190 12 Rwamagana 477.2 7354.5 1541 15 RWANDA 28,257.65 116,289.82 412 4 Source: RLMUA, Digitisation – Orthophotos 2008, Google Earth 2017 Fig 15: Changes in built-ups areas from 2008/2009 to 2017

25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0

Built up area (ha) 2009 Built up area (ha) 2017 At country level, built-up areas extended more than four times, from 28,257.65 hectares in 2008/2009 up to 116,289.82 hectares in 2017. In a period of ten years, almost all District registered a high rate of increase of built-up areas. Extension of built up of Kigali City has doubled in 10 years, 2008-2017.

8.5. Planning of industrial parks and Special economic zones

The planning of industrial parks is not well coordinated. At the national level the Ministry in charge of trade and industry has planned the areas suitable for industries (light and heavy industries) across the Country. At the same time the districts also are planning industrial parks which are almost the double of the first one in terms of area covered and in different locations.

According to the Ministry of Industry and Commerce National Industrial Plan for Special Economic Zones. Ten (10) industrial parks totalising 1366.43 hectares have been planned according to the updated information of 2019. The map below indicates the location of industrial park and the respective areas and shows the progress on the stages of projects implementation.

21

Fig 16: Location of land allocated to Industrial Parks by MINICOM

Fig 17: Location of Industrial Parks in different Districts - land use plans

22

Table 7: Industrial sites planned by districts and MINICOM

District Name Type of Planned Industrial type as Planned area industry area as per per the national (Ha) as per district plan industrial plan National Industrial plan Heavy Rweru Special 1 Bugesera Industrial 370.52 Economic Zone 351.37 Heavy Masoro Special 2 Gasabo Industrial 1975.22 Economic Zone 489.64 Light 3 Gatsibo Industrial 13.89 - Heavy 4 Gicumbi Industrial 18.91 - Light 5 Gisagara Industrial 19.94 - Light Huye Industrial 6 Huye Industrial 12.62 park 52.31 Light 7 Karongi Industrial 9.61 - Light 8 Kayonza Industrial 8.17 - Light Gahanga Special 9 Kicukiro Industrial 827.89 Economic Zone 40.75 Light Muhanga 10 Muhanga Industrial 0 industrial zone 55.79 Light Musanze Special 11 Musanze Industrial 9.03 Economic Zone 85.69 Light 12 Ngoma Industrial 14.23 - Light 13 Ngororero Industrial 2.5 - Heavy Nyabihu 14 Nyabihu Industrial 67.22 Industrial park 51.49 Heavy Nyagatare Special 15 Nyagatare Industrial 158.27 Economic Zone 52.42 Light 16 Nyamagabe Industrial 0.45 - Light 17 Nyanza Industrial 2.07 - Light 18 Nyarugenge Industries 80.49 -

23

Heavy 19 Nyaruguru Industrial 17.75 - Heavy 20 Rubavu Industrial 15.53 - Heavy 21 Ruhango Industrial 212.64 - Light 22 Rulindo Industrial 1.73 - Heavy Rusizi Special 23 Rusizi Industrial 54.92 Economic Zone 37.89 Heavy 24 Rutsiro Industrial 107.57 - Light Rwamagana 25 Rwamagana Industrial 10.65 industrial site 74.19 TOTAL 3,713.33 1,366.43

The above table indicates consumption of huge lands for concentration of industrial sites in areas like Gasabo, Nyarugenge and Kicukiro Districts yet SEZ zone is already in place which should be the centre zone for all Kigali Industries. Some Districts like Bugesera, Ruhango, Kamonyi, Nyagatare and Rutsiro also indicated to have huge and excess sites for industrial parks.

9. Capacity at City and District level and implementation of previous audit recommendations

- None of audited districts has required number of staff in One stope Centre but the recruitment process was ongoing regardless the high staff turnover in general; - OSC inspectors do not have enough capacity, tools and means like transport (some District OSCs do not have vehicle or have one vehicle used by all staff) and no inspection equipment. - One Stop centre offices are in good conditions and the documents (application files and inspection report) are well recorded; archiving is improving in the districts using the electronic system (BPMIS) or those still using the hard copies for permitting. However for the BPMIS, the system is having a lot of technical and internet issues that are hindering the smooth running of permitting and inspection activities. - In the City of Kigali and its districts, most of the recommendations from previous audit (zoning definition adjustment and harmonization of urban planning documents) are being addressed during the revision of City of Kigali Master Plan. - Inspection planning has improved ; in some districts weekly inspections are prepared and more or less followed but still they are not done systematically; most of the case they are done to chase the illegal constructions and do not reach the remote areas of the urban areas. - The master plan implementation has improved and the districts put much emphasize on the provision of basic infrastructures like roads, water, electricity, and informal settlement

24

upgrading ; but the focus should not only on master plan implementation but also preventing the loss of natural and agricultural resources outside of the master plans areas

Table 8: Summary analysis of the compliance for the audited districts District N. of Building Number of Building Compliance Zoning Permits issued Permits (BPs) assessed with the Compliance (%) planned Gicumbi 100 100 49 49.00 Musanze 443 20 4 20.00 Rubavu 379 40 38 95.00 Karongi 107 35 5 14.29 Nyamasheke 92 66 27 40.91 Rusizi 346 20 11 55.00 Muhanga 312 132 36 27.27 Huye 316 40 23 57.50 Kamonyi 306 203 184 90.64 Bugesera 323 45 3 6.67 Nyagatare 90 63 10 15.87 Nyarugenge 320 36 30 83.33 Gasabo 2066 35 20 57.14 Kicukiro 98 91 92.86 CoK 622 82 80 97.56

Figure 18: Level of compliance to Zoning Plan by District_2018

Level of compliance by District_2018 250 200 150 100 50 0

25

RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Promote and enforce high densification in urban & rural areas & use of professional real estate developers rather than individual constructions. 2. Implement the new National land policy and environment policy actions and related laws 3. Linking economic planning and budgeting with land use planning to ensure the efficiency in investment and in the use natural resources. Every budget allocated shall consider the location and land requirement of that investment. 4. Empower RLMUA capacities (financial +staffing) to oversight all land management issues. 5. Establish & enforce physical urban & rural settlement boundaries to ensure compact settlements. 6. To establish the NSDI & Land Use Monitoring system that will regulate the planning and monitoring process of land use (a digital solution and communication Chanel…) 7. To expand and increase the efficiency and transparency of the building permitting system in all districts. 8. Promote use of community based whistle blowers to report illegal constructions through incentives. 9. Meeting the high level relevant ministers and local level government to discuss on these issues

26