DOCSLIB.ORG

Ecosystems/Landscape Approach to Climate Proof the Rural Settlement Program of Rwanda

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ecosystems/Landscape Approach to Climate Proof the Rural Settlement Program of Rwanda Ecosystems/Landscape approach to climate proof the Rural Settlement Program of Rwanda Part I: Project Information GEF ID 10096 Project Type FSP Type of Trust Fund LDCF CBIT/NGI CBIT NGI Project Title Ecosystems/Landscape approach to climate proof the Rural Settlement Program of Rwanda Countries Rwanda Agency(ies) UNDP Other Executing Partner(s): Rwanda Environment Management Authority, Rwanda Housing Authority, District Authorities Gakenke and Kirehe Districts Executing Partner Type Government GEF Focal Area Climate Change Taxonomy Focal Areas, Climate Change, Climate Change Adaptation, Climate resilience, Least Developed Countries, Livelihoods, Community-based adaptation, Disaster risk management, Ecosystem-based Adaptation, Influencing models, Strengthen institutional capacity and decision-making, Demonstrate innovative approache, Transform policy and regulatory environments, Stakeholders, Local Communities, Civil Society, Non-Governmental Organization, Community Based Organization, Academia, Beneficiaries, Private Sector, SMEs, Financial intermediaries and market facilitators, Individuals/Entrepreneurs, Type of Engagement, Partnership, Information Dissemination, Consultation, Participation, Communications, Behavior change, Education, Awareness Raising, Public Campaigns, Gender Equality, Gender Mainstreaming, Sex-disaggregated indicators, Gender-sensitive indicators, Gender results areas, Capacity Development, Capacity, Knowledge and Research, Innovation, Knowledge Exchange, Knowledge Generation, Learning, Adaptive management, Theory of change, Indicators to measure change Rio Markers Climate Change Mitigation Climate Change Mitigation 0 Climate Change Adaptation Climate Change Adaptation 1 Submission Date 10/29/2018 Expected Implementation Start 1/26/2021 Expected Completion Date 12/31/2026 Duration 72In Months Agency Fee($) 793,786.00 A. FOCAL/NON-FOCAL AREA ELEMENTS Objectives/Programs Focal Area Outcomes Trust GEF Co-Fin Fund Amount($) Amount($) CCA-1 Reduce the vulnerability of people, livelihoods, physical assets and natural systems to the LDCF 6,800,000.00 16,000,000.00 adverse effects of climate change CCA-2 Strengthen institutional and technical capacities for effective climate change adaptation LDCF 1,555,638.00 6,860,000.00 Total Project Cost($) 8,355,638.00 22,860,000.00 B. Project description summary Project Objective To climate proof the Rural Settlement Program of Rwanda via Ecosystems/Landscape approach piloted in Gakenke and Kirehe Districts Project Component Financing Expected Outcomes Expected Outputs Trust GEF Project Financing($) Confirmed Co- Type Fund Financing($) Component 1: Capacity and Technical Outcome 1: Output 1.1: Training LDC 1,500,000.00 5,000,000.00 knowledge for Landscape Assistanc Institutional and programmes and their F approach and community e community capacities sustainability based adaptation for planning for mechanisms landscape approach designed and enhanced to climate- delivered to provide proof imidigudu: specialized technical skills and awareness INDICATED by i) on landscape changes in capacity approaches to climate scores (systemic, risk management for institutional, technical staff of all individual), as relevant Departments measured by the and community UNDP capacity groups; scorecards for RHA, Local Authorities of Output 1.2: Climate- Kirehe and Gakenke, risk assessments Cooperatives and methods and Production SACCOs, information provided Twigire Muhinzi to support adaptation serving the four planning as an on- landscapes (capacity going practice with a to support climate focus on the local proofing) level in the project areas (supported by ii) Number of plans skills developed under completed and output 1.1 and available (include: complimenting prototype climate activities already proofing model, EbA supported by NAP); plans, climate Output 1.3: Climate- information and proofed Imidugudu decision-tools); models developed in a science-led highly participatory process and piloted in four landscapes; Output 1.4: Four Ecosystems-based Adaptation Plans developed in a science-led and highly participatory process and implementation started; Output 1.5: Climate information based decision-making tools provided to support uptake of adaptation measures in the four project sites; Component 2: Resilient lives Technical Outcome 2: Output 2.1: Climate LDC 5,916,270.00 15,000,000.00 and livelihoods in targeted Assistanc Adaptation measures smart agricultural F landscapes e implemented in practices adopted to targeted landscapes increase and sustain following the food production under landscape-approach: uncertain climate scenarios in the four Indicated by; i) Ha of pilot areas land put under improved Output 2.2: management and/or Degradation hotspots protection for climate (forests, hilltops and resilience (25,566 ), wetlands systems) ecologically sensitive identified by the EbA areas and agricultural plans are rehabilitated land put under to restore ecosystems improved services as the management (500 of cornerstone of each) ; resilient livelihoods – covering at least 500 ii) All four villages ha distributed across rating along the the 23,560ha; criteria set by the government for an IDP Output 2.3: Upgrading (see Table 1 of the of housing and Prodoc) improves to infrastructure around at least 0.7 Imidugudu to more climate smart iii) at least 50% versions in four improvement in the villages benefitting vulnerability index about 500 households iv) At least 40% men or 2500 people and 35% women and assuming 5 people 40% youth with per househild actual surplus produce for number of sale, combined with at beneficiaries least 25% increase in established at ppg); incomes for all groups Output 2.4: Rainwater who sell . harvesting and alternative energy v) Number of people options piloted to benefiting from the increase resilience of project: Direct livelihoods under the beneficiaries – Imidugudu 54,000 (50% women); programme; Indirect beneficiaries Output 2.5: – 107,651 (50% Beneficiaries of the women): People Imidugudu supported trained - 4,275 (at to utilize existing least 35% women) value chains to increase resilience via higher household incomes Component 3: Policy and Technical Outcome 3: Policy Output 3.1: Strategic LDC 400,000.00 1,500,000.00 coordination Assistanc frameworks and review of policies, F e coordination national and district strengthened to strategies, support climate- programmes and proofing of planning tools to Imidugudu; ensure they capture climate proofing of INDICATED by; i) Imidugudu in the number of policy, legal investment decision- and planning making processes; instruments revised to mainstream climate Output 3.2: Technical risk into rural and community settlements (at least institutions 4); (DIDMACs, SEDIMACs, JADF and ii) At least 75% of community staff of technical and institutions) trained to community improve their coordination effectiveness in the institutions trained. cross sectoral iii) REMA’s toolkit and coordination units and guidelines updated to networks recently mainstream climate created by the GoR risks Component 4: Knowledge Technical Outcome 4: Output 4.1: LDC 150,000.00 500,000.00 Management Assistanc Knowledge Development of F e management and participatory M&E M&E strengthened to plans and support iterative enhancement of adaptation planning, communities’ capacities to monitor, INDICATED by; i) learn and sustain the number of technically climate proofing superior knowledge initiatives; products generated and shared (including Output 4.2: Best lessons); ii) M&E practices, lessons information available collated and shared, and being used in the KM products codified reports (PIRs, annual and disseminated reports). Sub Total ($) 7,966,270.00 22,000,000.00 Project Management Cost (PMC) LDCF 389,368.00 860,000.00 Sub Total($) 389,368.00 860,000.00 Total Project Cost($) 8,355,638.00 22,860,000.00 C. Sources of Co-financing for the Project by name and by type Sources of Co-financing Name of Co-financier Type of Co-financing Investment Mobilized Amount($) GEF Agency UNDP Grant Recurrent expenditures 500,000.00 Recipient Country Government Rwanda Housing Authority In-kind Recurrent expenditures 4,000,000.00 Recipient Country Government Rwanda Housing Authority Grant Investment mobilized 6,000,000.00 Recipient Country Government Ministry of Agriculture and Animal Resources In-kind Recurrent expenditures 5,360,000.00 Recipient Country Government Gakenke District In-kind Recurrent expenditures 2,000,000.00 Recipient Country Government Kirehe District In-kind Recurrent expenditures 2,000,000.00 Recipient Country Government Rwanda Environmental Management Authority In-kind Recurrent expenditures 3,000,000.00 Total Co-Financing($) 22,860,000.00 Describe how any "Investment Mobilized" was identified RHA will provide US 6 million Grant – from its budgetary resources to build 500 houses under the Imidugudu programme. D. Trust Fund Resources Requested by Agency(ies), Country(ies), Focal Area and the Programming of Funds Agency Trust Fund Country Focal Area Programming of Funds Amount($) Fee($) UNDP LDCF Rwanda Climate Change NA 8,355,638 793,786 Total Grant Resources($) 8,355,638.00 793,786.00 E. Non Grant Instrument NON-GRANT INSTRUMENT at CEO Endorsement Includes Non grant instruments? No Includes reflow to GEF? Yes F. Project Preparation Grant (PPG) PPG Required PPG Amount ($) PPG Agency Fee ($) 200,000 19,000 Agency Trust Fund Country Focal Area Programming of Funds Amount($) Fee($) UNDP LDCF Rwanda Climate Change NA 200,000 19,000 Total Project Costs($) 200,000.00 19,000.00 Part
Load more

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]
  • 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.
    [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]