PROCEEDINGS OF THE THREE-DAY CONSULTATIVE

WORKSHOP ON THE CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE ON

BIODIVERSITY OF RWANDA

Volcanoes

BY

GEORGE O. ESSEGBEY

EMMANUEL TWARABAMENYE

ELIAS BIZURU

LUIS GARNIER

NOELINE RAONDRY-RAKOTOARISOA

Lemigo Hotel, Kigali

13 – 15 December 2010

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT We are extremely grateful to UNESCO for the opportunity to facilitate the Stakeholders Consultative Workshop on the Centre of Excellence for Biodiversity held in Kigali from 13th to 15th December 2010. We thank UNESCO for the consultancy assignment and in particular Dr. Noeline Raondry-Rakotoarisoa for her constant support and advice. We thank the National Steering Committee set up in Rwanda to oversee matters relating to the establishment of the Centre of Excellence and thank all the representatives of the stakeholder institutions who made time to participate actively in the workshop. We are most grateful for their cooperation in ensuring a very successful workshop. We specifically mention Dr Christine Gasingirwa, the Director General in charge of Science and Technology of MINEDUC, Daya Bragante of UNECA and Mr. Albert Mutesa of the Rwandan National Commission for UNESCO (CNRU) for their commitment. It is our hope that the proceedings fully reflect what transpired at the workshop. We apologise for any errors or omissions. Thanks. Prof. Emmanuel Twarabamenye, National University of Rwanda Dr. Elias Bizuru, National University of Rwanda Luis Garner, Gestarse Inc., Costa Rica Dr. George O. Essegbey, Science and Technology Policy Research Institute of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR-STEPRI), Ghana

ii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ACNR - Association pour la conservation de la Nature au Rwanda ANAFE - African Network for Agriculture, Agroforestry and Natural Resources Education ARECO - Association Rwandaise des Ecologistes "ARECO - RWANDA NZIZA" AGRA - Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa ARCEB - Albertine Rift Centre of Excellence on Biodiversity ARR - Albertine Rift Region B.Sc. - Bachelor of Science CEESD - Centre for Environment, Entrepreneurship and Sustainable Development CoE - Centre of Excellence CTA - Centre for Technical Assistance EAC - East African Community EDPRS - Economic Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy GIS - Geographic Information System (Geographical Information System, Geospatial

Information System) GISRSC - Geographic Information System and Remote Sensing Centre GVTC - Greater Virunga Transboundary Collaboration H.E. - His Excellency ICIPE - International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology ICT - Information and Communication Technology IGCP - International Gorilla Conservation Programme INATEK - Institut d'Agriculture, de Technologie et d'Education INBio - National Institute of Biodiversity (Costa Rica) INES - Institut d’Enseignement Superieur IRST - Institute of Science and Technological Research ISAE - Institute for Agriculture and Animal Husbandry ISAR - Rwanda Agricultural Sciences Institute KCCEM - Kitabi College of Conservation and Environment Management KHE - Kigali Health Institute KIE - Kigali Institute for Education KIST - Kigali Institute for Science and Technology KRC - Karisoke Research Center MGVP - Mountain Gorilla Veterinary Project Program MINAGRI - Ministry of Agriculture and Animal Resources MINALOC - Ministry of Local Government MINEDUC - Ministry of Education MINELA - Ministry of Environment and Lands MINSTR - Ministry of Science, Technology and Research in the President's Office M.Sc. - Master of Science NAFA - National Forest Authority NGO - Non Governmental Organisation NUR - National University of Rwanda Ph.D. - Doctor of Philosophy RDB - Rwanda Development Board REMA - Rwanda Environmental Management Authority RENGOF - Rwanda Environmental Non Governmental Forum

iii

RUFORUM - Regional Universities Forum for Capacity Building in Agriculture SAU - Strategic Action Units Sida - Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency UK - United Kingdom UNE CA - United Nations Economic Commission for Africa UNESCO - United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization UPU - Umutara Polytechnic University WCS - Wildlife Conservation Society

iv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction His Excellency President Paul Kagame proposed the establishment of a Centre of Excellence (CoE) on Biodiversity when he addressed the First International Research Conference on Biodiversity and Sustainable Management of Natural Resources in 2007. Since the Conference, a number of actions have been taken for the realization of the vision. One such action was the organization of a Consultative Workshop held from 13th to 15th December 2010, for relevant stakeholders to deliberate on the establishment and operationalisation of the CoE. UNESCO and UNECA in collaboration with the Ministry of Education (MINEDUC) and the Ministry of Environment and Lands (MINELA) organised the workshop attended by about 60 participants. The overall goal of the workshop was to gather ideas from all stakeholders involved in biodiversity and natural resources management towards the establishment of a national CoE in Rwanda. The specific objectives were:

- Explain the outputs that have been validated about the governance and structure of the CoE at the national level;

- Analyze institutional capacity to be part of the CoE network; - Construct the elements needed to later analyze the institutional gaps and opportunities for CoE

establishment; - Determine the elements required by the institutions for effective participation in the CoE

network. During the three days the workshop proceeded through a sequence of activities that began with the presentation on pertinent concepts e.g. concept of excellence, structure of the CoE and roles of stakeholders and to group discussions of the processes, concrete elements and principles which have to be put in place or applied to operationalize the CoE. A field visit in three groups to the North and South of Rwanda and institutions in Kigali respectively, provided useful background for the discussions on the third day. Group discussions were also held on the third day. Day 1 Summary At the Opening Ceremony, the Guest of Honour, Dr. Rose Mukankomeje, the Director-General of REMA in her remarks referred to the task the President gave to establish a Centre of Excellence on Biodiversity. She said Rwanda is a country of rich biodiversity and despite its small size, it is covered by diversified ecosystems which accommodate a great diversity of flora and fauna wealth. Biodiversity loss is an obvious threat in the country. She emphasized the benefits of conserving biodiversity as a large proportion of Rwanda’s population is directly dependent upon biological resources for subsistence purposes. Several industries are also directly dependent upon the use of local species for economic gain. In this regard there is need for knowledge-based management of the biodiversity and natural resources of Rwanda. There were presentations to elaborate on the concept of the CoE, the configuration and roles of the stakeholders, the biodiversity resources in Rwanda and the experience of biodiversity exploitation and management in Costa Rica. The participants discussed the presentations to clarify issues pertaining to the establishment of the CoE. Among the points discussed was the concern that there seemed to be an exclusive focus on biodiversity whereas originally, the CoE was meant to be a CoE on Biodiversity and Natural Resource Management. The point was made that even though the name may suggest that there

v

was an exclusive focus on biodiversity, issues of natural resource management would invariably be addressed. It was emphasized that there could be no effective biodiversity management without natural resource management. On the first day, the participants were put into four groups according to their functions to discuss the stakeholder roles in the operationalisation of the Centre of Excellence (CoE). Another aim of the group discussion on Day 1 was to use it as a method of gathering information from stakeholders, supplementary to a survey being conducted to assess institutional capacity, which most institutions were yet to complete the questionnaires sent to them. The groups were also to identify key processes for the CoE. Group 1 comprised of representatives from higher learning institutions; group 2 comprised of those from research and development institutions, group 3 international organizations and Albertine Rift countries; and group 4 was made of representatives of governmental institutions. The groups’ reports clarified a number of issues relating to the roles of institutions, the constraints and the key processes the CoE need to engage in. The processes highlighted include bioinformatics development, offering access to information, education and training, execution of research programmes, bioprospecting, networking, among others. Day 2 Summary On the second day of the workshop, the participants were organised into three groups for field visits to the relevant biodiversity institutions. The field visit was to give participants the opportunity to see at first hand the capacities available in Rwanda for the operationalisation of the CoE. Group 1 went to the South of Rwanda, Group 2 remained in Kigali and Group 3 went to the North of Rwanda. The participants were to assess the institutions they would be visiting with specific reference to the available human resource, infrastructure, the institutional programmes, the strengths and weakness. Each of the groups had leaders who were focal points in their respective institutions. The leaders were tasked to prepare reports for the group for presentation on the third day of the Workshop. What emerged from the reports from the three groups was the fact that there is some capacity in Rwanda for the establishment of the CoE. However, there are deficiencies in terms of the institutional physical and human capacities and therefore there was need for capacity building to ensure that excellence reflects in the work of the CoE. Some laboratories need the requisite equipment to function effectively. Some institutions even need buildings to house their laboratories. Human resource development need to be carried out in the short and long term to ensure adequate and competent professionals in the institutions. Day 3 Summary On the third day of the Consultative Workshop, the participants were randomly split into three groups to undertake group discussions. The Day 3 Group discussions were meant to provide concrete inputs for the operationalisation of the Centre of Excellence. Whereas the concept of the CoE was developed and presented on the first day, there was the need to work out the details especially with reference to the institutions and capacities on the ground. The visits to the institutions constituted part of the process to go down to the fine details that needed to be addressed to get into operationalisation. The third day discussions were meant to fine-tune the details. The reports from the three groups brought out issues pertaining to operationalising the structures of the CoE. Each group made proposals for the setting up of the hub as well as the nodes. However, there were

vi

areas of consensus among the groups such as the proposal to establish the hub at the National University of Rwanda which seemed to have the highest institutional capacity for knowledge management. The institutions proposed for the nodes were those from higher learning, research and development, among others. Summary of the Recommendations and the Way Forward The key recommendations which emerged from the Workshop included the following:

The workshop proposed the creation of the hub of the CoE as an independant body hosted by an existing institution.

The existing institutions proposed to host the hub are in order of priority: NUR, REMA, IRST.

The institutions proposed for the nodes are the high learning institution, research institutions, and those in the areas of policy, NGOs, private sector and local communities. But the composition is dynamic and evolving.

The Board of Trustees of the CoE should be composed of representatives of the key stakeholders such as from high learning institutions, research and development institutions, policy institutions, private sector, NGOs, and local communities.

The collaboration between the Hub and the Nodes should be institutionalised through MOUs.

The national CoE should evolve into a regional CoE for the entire Albertine Rift region in the future.

On the scope of the Centre, the name may remain Centre of Excellence on Biodiversity. However, the scope of its work will extend to natural resource management.

There is need to formulate, enact and enforce laws regarding use of Biodiversity such as Bioprospection.

On the way forward, the team of consultants would prepare and finalise the Draft Project Document for the establishment of the CoE taking into account the inputs from the Workshop, analysis of the survey results as well as inputs from key informants such as from UNESCO, REMA, MINEDUC and MINELA. Secondly, there will be a presentation of the draft document to High Level Decision Makers early in 2011. The Final Project Document will be prepared and used as a basis for the mobilisation of resources. The Centre of Excellence can then start by 2012.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENT PAGE Acknowledgement -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- i List of Abbreviations and Acronyms -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ii Executive Summary -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- iii SECTION I: INTRODUCTION 1.0 Background -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1 1.1 Goal and Objectives -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 3 1.2 Workshop Participation -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 3 1.3 Workshop Methodology -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 3 1.4 The Organization of the Report -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 4 SECTION II: OPENING CEREMONY 2.0 Speech by UNESCO Representative -- -- -- -- -- -- 4 2.1 Speech by Director-General of Science and Technology, MINEDUC -- -- 4 2.2 Speech by Director-General of REMA -- -- -- -- -- -- 5 SECTION III: DAY 1 TECHNICAL SESSION AND GROUP DISCUSSIONS 3.0 Election of Chairman and Rapporteurs -- -- -- -- -- -- 8 3.1 The Concept of the CoE – vision, mission, and objectives and overview of the general structure – Kisioh Humphrey -- -- -- -- -- -- 8 3.2 The Stakeholders of the CoE: Roles and Capacities - Dr. George O. Essegbey -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 13 3.3 Overview of Capacities of High-Learning and Research institutions, Private Sector and NGOs involved in Biodiversity and Natural Resources Management in Rwanda – Prof. Emmanuel Twarabamenye -- -- -- -- 14 3.4 Overview of Biodiversity in Albertine Rift in General and Rwanda in Particular – Dr. Elias Bizuru -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 18 3.5 A Model of Biodiversity Management – the Case of INBio – Luis Garnier -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 20 3.6 General Discussions -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 23 3.7 Group Discussions on Day 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 24 3.7.1 Guidelines for the Group Discussion -- -- -- -- -- -- 24 3.7.2 Group 1 Report – High-Learning Institutions -- -- -- -- -- 25 3.7.3 Group 2 Report- Research and Development Institutions -- -- -- -- 26 3.7.4 Group 3 Report- International Organisations and Albertine Rift Countries -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 27 3.7.5 Group 4 Report- Governmental Institutions -- -- -- -- -- 28 SECTION IV: DAY 2 ACTIVITIES – FIELD VISITS

viii

4.0 Introduction -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 29 4.1 Field Trip Report of Group 1 (South) -- -- -- -- -- -- 29 4.2 Field Trip Report of Group 2 (Kigali)-- -- -- -- -- -- -- 33 4.3 Field Trip Report of Group 3 Report (North)-- -- -- -- -- -- 35 SECTION V: DAY 3 ACTIVITIES 5.0 Guidelines to the Group Discussions -- -- -- -- -- -- 38 5.1 Report by Group 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 38 5.2 Report by Group 2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 40 5.3 Report by Group 3 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 41 SECTION VI: SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS -- -- -- 6.0 Summary of Issues Arising from the Discussions and Group Reports -- -- 43 6.1 Summary of Recommendations -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 44 6.2 Conclusion and the Way Forward -- -- -- -- -- -- 45 REFERENCE -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 46 APPENDIX I: WORKSHOP PROGRAMME -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 46 Day 1: 13 December 2010 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 46 Day 2: 14 December 2010 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 47 Day 3: 15 December 2010 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 47 APPENDIX II – GUIDES TO GROUP DISCUSSIONS AND FIELD VISITS -- -- -- 48 Day 1 Guide for Group Discussions -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 48 Day 2 Guide for Group Discussions -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 49 APPENDIX III – MEMBERS OF GROUPS FOR THE FIELD VISITS-- -- -- -- -- 50 APPENDIX IV – LIST OF INTERNATIONAL PARTICIPANTS OF THE CONSULTATIVE WORKSHOP ON THE CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 51 APPENDIX V – LIST OF PARTICIPANTS OF CONCERTATION WORKSHOP ON CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE OF BIODIVERSITY & WORLD SCIENCE DAY 2010 CELEBRATION, Kigali, 13 - 16 December 2010 -- -- -- -- -- 52 APPENDIX VI: EVALUATION OF NATIONAL INSTITUTIONS IN RWANDA AIMING AT CREATING A CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE FOR BIODIVERSITY AND NATURAL RESOURCES -- -- -- -- -- -- 57

ix

Section 1: General Information -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 57 Section 2: Human Capital -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 59 Section 3: Infrastructure Capital -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 60 Section 4: Research and training programs -- -- -- -- -- -- 62 APPENDIX VII: THE TEXT OF THE SPEECH BY THE UNESCO REPRESENTATIVE DR. NOELINE RAONDRY-RAKOTOARISOA -- -- -- -- 66

x

FINAL DRAFT

PROCEEDINGS OF THE THREE-DAY CONSULTATIVE WORKSHOP ON THE CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE ON

BIODIVERSITY OF RWANDA

Section I: Introduction

1.0 Background

A crucial decision was made to establish a Centre of Excellence on Biodiversity on 23rd July 2007 when

the First International Research Conference on Biodiversity and Sustainable Management of Natural

Resources was held in Kigali. The Ministry of Science, Technology and Research in the President's Office

(MINISTR) organized the Conference in collaboration with other stakeholder organizations. The

Conference aimed at bringing together leading national and international conservation and resource

management professionals and to deliberate on the importance of knowledge-based approaches for the

long-term conservation of biodiversity.

During the opening ceremony, His Excellency the President of the Republic of Rwanda Paul Kagame

emphasized the importance of biodiversity for the country’s national development and stressed the

need for knowledge-based approaches for the sustainable management of the wealth of biodiversity

and natural resources in the Albertine Rift region. Specifically, Rwanda is a biodiversity hotspot country

facing severe threats such as from deforestation, droughts, climate change, conflicts, etc. Given that the

scientific community is in a position to put up practical solutions to address these biodiversity

challenges, he advocated for the creation of a Regional Centre of Excellence (CoE) in Biodiversity and

Natural Resources Management in the Albertine Rift region.

Since the Conference and the President’s call, a number of actions have been taken for the

establishment of the CoE with UNESCO playing a key role in collaboration with the relevant national and

international institutions. The first step, in 2008, was the feasibility study for the creation of the CoE

(Oteng-Yeboah, 2008). Taking into account the expectations of several stakeholders, the document

developed a vision and gave various options for establishing the centre of excellence. The document was

validated during a national multi stakeholder meeting in April 2009, during which some pending issues

were raised including the following:

1) what should be the activities of the centre?;

2) what should be the governance structure of the centre?;

3) how can the CoE be operationalised? (The Ministry of Science and Technology in the President’s

Office, UNESCO and Commission Nationale Rwandaise pour l’UNESCO (2009)

To follow up on these discussions, a second study was undertaken to examine specific aspects of the

issues in a more precise and manner. The study also aimed at narrowing the concept by assisting

stakeholders in developing a clear concept around which a national consensus can be built. The scope of

2

the Centre being regional, the study produced an advocacy strategy to assist Rwanda to host, to lead

and to spread the initiative throughout the Rift valley region. The final output of the study was a draft of

a two year project document that was expected to help the region to put in place the regional centre.

In 2010, based on these documents, UNESCO, UNDP and UNECA developed a joint programme for the

One UN Fund. The objective of the project is to move forward the establishment of a CoE through

Advocacy, Resource mobilization and identification of scientific institutions to be part of the CoE

Network. As a first step, the Government of Rwanda decided to focus on building a national CoE, which

could later be developed into a regional CoE with the basic concept being a central hub with nodes as

illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1: The Concept of the Centre of Excellence

There are challenges coming with the envisaged structure in Figure 1. Firstly, the institutional linkages to

ensure synergy and efficiency cannot be taken for granted. Participating institutions need to buy into

the concept and be committed to assigned roles and functions. Secondly, within each of the institutions

the necessary capacity building must occur to make the participating institutions capable of delivery on

their tasks. Thirdly, there are other stakeholders in the operations of the CoE e.g. policy makers,

Networks

National technical

agencies

Observatories

Private

companies

Economic bodies

NGOs

Local

Communities in

learning sites

Research

Institutions/

Universities/

Training Institutes

…..

HUB

NODES

3

researchers, biodiversity conservationists, natural resources planners, local communities, NGOs, private

firms, development partners, etc. It is important for them to identify with the establishment of the CoE

to ensure their continued support and engagement with the CoE. These challenges demand extensive

and structured consultation with the stakeholders.

In this regard, a Consultative Workshop organized by UNESCO and UNECA in collaboration with

MINEDUC and MINELA was held from 13th to 15th December 2010 at the Lemigo Hotel with the view of

bringing the relevant stakeholders together to deliberate on the specific issues which need to be

addressed to ensure the operationalisation of the CoE. The Consultative Workshop was facilitated by a

team of consultants. This report covers the presentations, discussions and activities of the three-day

consultative workshop.

1.1 Goal and Objectives

The overall goal of the workshop was to gather ideas from all stakeholders involved in biodiversity and

natural resources management towards the establishment of a national CoE in Rwanda. The specific

objectives were:

- Explain the outputs that have been validated about the governance and structure of the CoE at

the national level;

- Analyze institutional capacity to be part of the CoE network;

- Construct the elements needed to later analyze the institutional gaps and opportunities for CoE

establishment;

- Determine the elements required by the institutions for effective participation in the CoE

network.

1.2 Workshop Participation

The organizers of the workshop sent invitation to key representatives of the broad categories of

stakeholders especially the scientific community, the policy institutions, NGOs, private sector, regional

and international organizations and representatives of the Albertine Rift countries. The list of

participants is presented in Appendix V. The meeting gathered about 60 participants; unfortunately the

private sector was not represented.

1.3 Workshop Methodology

During the three days the workshop proceeded through a sequence of activities that began with the

presentation on pertinent concepts e.g. concept of excellence, structure of the CoE and roles of

stakeholders and to group discussions of the processes, concrete elements and principles which have to

be put in place or applied to operationalize the CoE. A field visit in three groups to the North and South

of Rwanda and institutions in Kigali respectively, provided useful background for the discussions on the

third day.

4

The group discussions were held on the first and third days of the workshop. On the first day, the groups

were constituted by clustering them according to their functions. Due to the absence of some of the

stakeholders, four groups eventually went into the discussion e.g. High Learning institutions, Research

and Development institutions, Policy institutions comprising governmental organization performing

roles in policy formulation, implementation, and monitoring and international organizations including

representatives of Arbertine Rift countries. The consultants prepared guidelines for the group activities

i.e. the group discussions and the field visits (see Appendix II).

1.4 The Organization of the Report

The report is organized into six main sections. Section I is the introduction giving the background, goals

and objectives of the workshop. The introduction also summarises the methodological approach and the

participation of the stakeholder institutions. Section II covers the Opening Ceremony and the highlights

of the speeches which were made. Section III is based on the technical presentations that were made,

the general discussion and the first group discussions of the Workshop. Section IV covers the reports

from the field visits and Section V covers the discussions of the groups on the final day of the Workshop.

Section VI summarises the issues and recommendations.

Section II: Opening Ceremony

2.0 Speech by UNESCO Representative

The Opening Ceremony was held under the chairing of of Ms Rose Mukankomeje, Director- General of

REMA. She invited the representative of the UN agencies involved in the project to address the

workshop.

In her address, Dr. Noeline Raondry-Rakotoarisoa, the representative of UNESCO Nairobi office,

recounted the steps in the process of establishing the CoE, tracing it from the beginning of the First

International Conference on Biodiversity and the keynote speech the President gave to participants of

the Conference. She highlighted the role of UNESCO and the collaborating institutions. She went on to

explain the objectives of the workshop and what the expectations were. She emphasized the

commitment of UNESCO and the collaborating agencies to the establishment of the CoE. The speech as

made in French is presented in the Appendix VII.

2.1 Speech by Director-General of Science and Technology, MINEDUC

Dr. Marie Christine Gasingirwa, the Director-General of Science and Technology in the Ministry of

Education, also made some remarks. She said she was pleased to be present at the Workshop given the

important subject of biodiversity which is the focus of the Workshop. She said the Centre of Excellence

is really needed as biodiversity in Rwanda is under serious threats. Rwanda and the entire Albertine Rift

region is a hotspot of biodiversity and therefore it is important that immediate steps are taken to

protect and conserve and ensure sustainable management of the biodiversity.

5

Making reference to the President’s keynote speech at the First International Conference on

Biodiversity, she emphasized the urgency of establishing the Centre of Excellence. She expressed the

hope that participants will use their wealth of knowledge and experience to provide concrete inputs for

establishing the national Centre of Excellence for Rwanda, which will later be developed into a the

Albertine Rift Regional Centre of Excellence.

2. Speech by Director-General of REMA

Dr. Rose Mukankomeje, the Director-General of REMA in her remarks as Guest of Honour referred to

the task the President gave to establish a Centre of Excellence on Biodiversity. She affirmed the resolve

of her Department to do whatever laid in their power to realize the achievement of the goal.

She placed the decision to establish the CoE in context. Rwanda is a country of rich biodiversity. Despite

its small size, Rwanda is covered by diversified ecosystems which accommodate a great diversity of flora

and fauna wealth. Yet biodiversity loss is an obvious threat in our country

The Director-General emphasized the benefits of conserving biodiversity. A large proportion of

Rwanda’s population is directly dependent upon biological resources for subsistence purposes. Several

industries are also directly dependent upon the use of local species for economic gain. One of the most

fundamental benefits of conserving biodiversity lies in the ecological services which it provides.

Rwanda had articulated its Vision 2020 and EDPRS. There is no gainsaying the fact that, wise

management and use of the environment and its assets are key goals of these policy documents. But

there are challenges. Above all there is the challenge to sustainably manage the biodiversity for present

and future generations, by better balancing human needs with those of the environment. The key issues

can be summarized as follows:

• Address threats and supporting sustainable use of biodiversity;

• The lack of a clear national level conservation-planning framework;

• Key stakeholders are not systematically involved in conservation and do not reap the full

benefits;

• Skills in conservation management are often insufficient;

• Insufficient institutional capacity to efficiently and effectively manage wildlife and conservation;

• Increasing degradation of ecosystems;

• Controlling of Alien Invasive Species;

• Addressing cross sectoral linkages;

• Integration of biodiversity considerations into land-use planning procedures and environmental

assessments.

6

In order to address the issues above, REMA with its stakeholders have developed the biodiversity policy.

This biodiversity policy underscores the point that protection and conservation of biodiversity is not

possible if knowledge is not available. Thus research is critical. It is against this background that we

welcome and strongly support the setting up of a Centre of Excellence on Biodiversity in Rwanda.

Box 1: The Text of the Speech by the Guest of Honour, Dr. Rose Mukankomeje, the Director-General of

REMA, on behalf of the Minister of Education

It is a great pleasure and honour for me to address you today conveying to you greetings, on behalf of

the Minister of Education, Hon. Dr. Charles Murigande, who would have liked to be here with you this

morning.

I would like to also recognize the presence among us of delegations from sister countries here-above

mentioned (members of the Albertine Rift Region) and extend my sincere welcome to them and request

them, if they do not mind, please to stand up and greet the audience.

You are all aware of the common destiny of the countries in this region which are often described,

erroneously of, with reason, as “poor” and yet they abound in immense and rich natural resources

particularly an inestimable “biodiversity”, classified as “hot spots”.

Albertine Rift countries are situated in a large geographic space with diverse geographic features,

stretching from the North with the lowest sea level (bordering the Red Sea) to among the highest world

summits (Mt. Kilimanjaro, Kalisimbi….). It disposes of a wide variety of species, both fauna and flora in

its remarkable and diversified ecosystems: From large to numerous small lakes (Lake Victoria,

Tanganyika, Kivu, Manyala, Albert, Edward, Malawi, Muhazi….)From dense and middle forests such as

Kawuzi Biega (DRC), Mabira and Buindi (Uganda), Nyungwe (Rwanda), Manyala and Ngorogoro

(Tanzania), etc. From large to small marshes and swamps like Rugezi in the North of Rwanda.

All these abound in a very rich cultural heritage with both flora and fauna capable of constituting the

potential for the world’s biggest and most beautiful biosphere reserve.

It is from these observations that was born the idea of the “Centre of Excellence on Biodiversity”. I would

like here to remind everybody here of the origin of this initiative3 which led to all the studies and

consultations carried out so far on the establishment of the “Centre of Excellence on Biodiversity”.

This originated from the speech by His Excellency the President of the Republic of Rwanda, Paul Kagame,

in his address to the First International Research Conference on Biodiversity and Conservation and

Sustainable Natural Resource Management in Kigali Rwands, in July 2007, where he made a

commitment to achieve socio-economic development while preserving Rwanda’s ecological integrity.

From this workshop issued a number of consultations and exchanges between the Ministry of Science,

Technology and ICT in the President’s Office on behalf of the Government of Rwanda and later the

Ministry of Education and different development partners with interest in the domain of Enviroment and

Biodiversity among which was UNESCO.

7

Many of these development partners responded positively and contributed their expertise in feasibility

studies and conceptualization of the project and indeed they came up with very interesting results. The

current study aims at analyzing institutional capacities of our Universities and Research institutes so as

to point out both strong and weak points as well as challenges in the establishment of the proposed CoE.

At the same time, as we approach the end of the year 2010, dedicated to the International Year of

Biodiversity, organizing this framework of exchange and consultations between scientists, researchers,

and specialists in the domain of environment from civil society and private sectors, was timely so that we

all get together to see how the Centre of Excellence in Biodiversity can be concretised.

The principal roles of this Centre of Excellence will be to build up pools of human resources of the entire

region, as rightly put in His Excellency’s speech, and adequately map and inventory the biodiversity of the

Albertine Rift, acknowledge this important internationally designated “Biological Hotspot” with the

framework that has efficient and appropriate status for knowledge and sustainable biological diversity.

This workshop is therefore an occasion for each one of us here to contribute his part (as stakeholders) to

the establishment of this institution to the service of the efficiency of the regional network for the best

coordination and harmonization of activities and share capacities and challenges.

We take this opportunity once more, to thank everyone, from far and wide, who committed this precious

time to come and contribute to this noble cause not only for today but also for the future contributions,

when called upon.

Likewise, we would like to register our appreciation to our partners, local, regional as well as

international in the framework of ONE UN and bilateral who have already given their support in terms of

resources as well as expert personnel towards operationalisation and realization of this project of our

common interest.

It is in this framework that we deemed it an opportune moment to celebrate, at the end of this great

workshop on Centre of Excellence in Biodiversity, the World Science Day (WSD), whose theme this year

was “Biodiversity education and conservation for sustainable development”.

Since I am not lucky to continue participating in the workshop up to its closure, I would seize this

opportunity to wish you all fruitful deliberations and to our guests from neighbouring countries, in

particular, good stay in Kigali. We look forward to your coming back to celebrate the launching of the

CoE, when completed, fruits of our endeavours.

Thank you very much for your attention.

8

Photo 1: Group picture of the participants at the Consultation Workshop on Biodiversity,

Lemigo Hotel, 13th – 15th December 2010

Section III: Day 1 Technical Session and Group Discussions

3.0 Election of Chairman and Rapporteurs

The participants elected a Bureau with Dr. Francois Naramabuye as the Chairman and Dr. Donat

Nsabimana as the Rapporteur (both of the National University of Rwanda). The Assistant Rapporteur

was Mr. Louis Rugerinyange of the Rwanda Development Board. The Chairman would steer the affairs of

the workshop over the three-day workshop. The team of consultants would facilitate the workshop

guiding the group discussions on the respective days. During the Technical Session, the following

presentations were made the relevant topics on concepts, the role of stakeholders, institutional

capacities and biodiversity resources of Rwanda.

3.1 The Concept of the CoE – vision, mission, and objectives and overview of the general structure –

Kisioh Humphrey

In recounting the sequence of events which has led to the Consultative Workshop, Mr. Kisioh Humphrey

noted that it began with the proposal by H.E. President Kagame, July 2007 for the establishment of CoE

for the Albertine Rift region. The Government of Rwanda followed up with a request to UNESCO for

support. UNESCO obliged and a feasibility study was carried out by and International Consultant in 2008.

A Bioinformatics Report was also prepared and submitted the former Ministry of Science and

9

Technology in the Office of the President in September 2008 by Maxine Levine, a Consultant of the

American Embassy. There was a Validation Workshop in April 2009 confirming the finding of the

International Consultant that a CoE for the region was feasible. Subsequently, there has been further

development of the concept.

Regarding the development of the concept there are three main components - the Conceptualization of

the COE, the Advocacy Strategy, and the Project Formulation. All this entail certain steps namely:

1. Developing and articulating a clear concept of COE;

2. Building consensus on the Concept in Rwanda;

3. Developing regional consensus;

4. Generate regional support for Rwanda; and

5. Mobilize resources for its establishment.

The Centre is meant to provide opportunities to forge unique partnerships aimed at applying knowledge

to conservation of biodiversity and natural resources and economic and social benefits for all people.

The ARCEB is proposed as an intergovernmental COE for the Albertine Rift region (ARR) to serve as the

central locus for collaboration in biodiversity. It provides an objective framework to support the

planning, management and wise use of biodiversity, ecosystems and ecological services at various

temporal and spatial scales.

In conceptualizing “excellence” Mr. Humphrey noted that “excellence” is not clearly defined nor widely

understood, therefore often-times it sounds more of a platitude. The first task was to define and

conceptualize the term, at various levels; excellence should reflect in leadership, expertise and

fulfilment. Excellence should relate to the combined abilities of individuals. It should be a Centre for

innovation which must be evident through the quality of its work and products. The Centre can

demonstrate excellence by:

Undertaking pioneering and / or original work

Showcasing quality management that displays promise for the future;

Its aspiration, guiding principle and a core defining value.

The quality and calibre of knowledge workers:

Creating, nurturing and sustaining an international brand, located in our Region,

Sharing a vision that enables and enhances the management teams’ capability.

There is need to benchmark excellence. This can be done through:

10

Designing institutions to achieve excellence in scientific and technological activities is a

knowledge based and intensive process.

need for clear indicators, benchmarks and external peer reviews to determine and monitor the

level of scientific excellence,

NEPAD CoE Programme,

Demonstrable high levels of scientific productivity and innovation on the basis of agreed upon

standards benchmarks,

Develop “Excellence Strategies”

Mr. Humphrey justified the setting up of the CoE. There is the ecological, economic and cultural

importance of ARR’s biodiversity for the societies of the region. The Centre when established would

promote regional collaboration at higher levels. With innovation there will be contribution of

biodiversity sustainable development through value addition; the Centre is meant to support innovative

research. It will also support large-scale conservation planning and network knowledge institutions on

biodiversity. It will develop an important bioinformatics Infrastructure for the region.

He explained the concept of the Albertine Rift Centre of Excellence on Biodiversity. It is autonomous

inter-governmental institution and requires a regional protocol to establish and operate it. It is a

knowledge management institution. It is envisaged to be based in Rwanda with several possibilities. The

structure of the Centre will consist of the following:

At the political level, will be established a Council of Ministers to provide overall policy direction

and oversight,

Board of Trustees will provide leadership at the strategic level, to be appointed by Member

States,

Scientific Advisory Council: will provide scientific leadership, comprising of eminent science

professionals and technical experts in various fields from academia, research, public, private and

civil society sectors.

The Secretariat headed by a Director General, which will be responsible for the overall

management and operations, supported by several operational directors, (Operations, Human

Resources, and Finance / Administration).

At technical level, leadership shall be provided by several directorates, supported by Thematic

Technical Teams. The network of nodes will be linked to the ARCOE through the thematic

Directorates.

Strategic Action Units and Working Groups will support the execution of technical programmes

and activities.

11

National Biodiversity Focal Points will provide in-country follow-up of projects.

The proposed mission and goal of the Centre were stated as follows

Mission: To evaluate and highlight the many values of biodiversity and put authoritative

biodiversity knowledge at the centre of decision-making on policy, resource management and

sustainable use.

Goal: Encourage, enable and support the ARR countries to generate and apply knowledge on

biodiversity for conservation and socio-economic development.

The roles and functions were:

Developing biodiversity science & its application,

Informing policy formation & development,

Networking and information sharing (real-time links with other COEs)

Dissemination of knowledge (publications, conferences)

Developing “Best Practices” in biodiversity management,

Promoting sustainable use “Innovation Centre” for R & D

To justify hosting by Rwanda, Mr. Humphrey Kisioh enumerated the following:

The proposal was initiated by Rwanda.

Initiated some development work with UNESCO

The proposal to establish the Centre and to locate it in Rwanda was unanimously endorsed

There is very strong political support and commitment within GOR

Rwanda is centrally located at the very centre of the AR,

Rwanda has improving infrastructure and world-class communication network. It is therefore

ideally placed to be able to provide the necessary coordination for the wide-ranging activities,

Currently, Rwanda, its leaders and Government are highly regarded internationally, especially

among the donor community; increased opportunities for funding.

Rwanda is currently in the process of expanding and upgrading its communication

infrastructure, with the construction of an internet backbone; large loads of data can be

transmitted easily and fast.

12

There is need for an implementation strategy and a National Coordination Committee to lead the

national process of establishing the Center. There need for a Communication plan; there is need to

coordinate and ensure quality and consistency of advocacy messages. There should be monitoring and

evaluation to learn and improve efficiency.

There is an on-going regional and international efforts to establish the ARCEB. To this end there is need

to raise funds for the establishment and initial operations. A total budget of about US$ 15 million over a

three-year timeframe is estimated. The Centre will be in Rwanda. The key results areas are the

following:

Create awareness, understanding and support for, and facilitate the establishment of the ARCEB

and to position Rwanda as the initiator, leader and host of the Centre.

Regional Processes and Systems for the Establishment and Management of ARCEB developed

and implemented.

Establish ARCEB as an institution structured and focused to provide biodiversity knowledge

in a manner that will enhance its incorporation into policies, decisions and conservation

practices at all levels.

Bioinformatics or information technology systems support for the management of biological

and ecological data

Partnerships and Collaboration developed through networking and information sharing

A Regional network of ARCEB’s nodes established, and functions as an integrated Regional

Centre of Excellence with active linkages with other regional and international organizations

with similar interests

Project effectively managed, monitored and evaluated.

Mr. Humphrey highlighted the role of UNESCO as being the agency through which the project will be

executed. It should provide technical assistance through CTA and other TAs; UNESCO should be a

Member of PSC, and SAC, (through CTA). There should be access to UNESCO’s Centres of Excellence and

other networks.

On project coordination and management, Mr. Humphrey said:

PSC – to provide policy guidance, oversight & coordination,

Technical Assistance Team comprising CTA, other long-term Technical Advisors and short-term

experts.

The Scientific Advisory Committee ( SAC) – provide scientific inputs,

Project Management Unit – PMU – day to day management: CTA, PC and Progamme Managers,

13

Interns: Annual trainee positions,

M &E, Annual audits and project reviews and External evaluation

3.2 The Stakeholders of the CoE: Roles and Capacities - Dr. George O. Essegbey

The presentation on the stakeholders began with reference to H.E. President Paul Kagame’s Keynote

Address at the First International Conference on Biodiversity in 2007. In anticipating the various

perspectives in the functions of the CoE, the President said:

“….We also require effective and efficient institutions, with the appropriate human and physical

infrastructure….Another key imperative is the scientific and research capacities to continuously monitor,

create new knowledge, as well as generate innovative solutions.”

It highlights the importance of the institutions and their capacities for the sustainable generation of

Knowledge to address biodiversity conservation, utilization and management. If the Centre will be an

effective CoE, then it has to conform to the hallmarks of excellence for key attributes:

Above any other – implicit comparison

The model

Dynamic progression

There must be capacity for “excellence”

Excellence implies an implicit comparison and in that comparison, this Centre must be above any other.

Thus it is a model institution which drives all efforts to generate knowledge and provide innovation

solutions to biodiversity and natural resource management. Given that the decision now is to establish a

national CoE and progressively develop it into a regional CoE for the Albertine Rift countries, there is

need to enhance the dynamism to ensure the realization of the ultimate dream. There is also the need

to ensure that there is excellence reflecting in the components of the CoE; excellence must reflect in the

four main components:

Human component;

Physical component;

Programme activities and operations;

Institutional framework.

The categories of stakeholders could broadly be stated as scientific knowledge actors, government

policy actors, private sector, civil society and development partners. The point was made that the

categories could be broadened to highlight the critical supply-demand functions which stakeholders

14

need to play in positively energizing the CoE to play its catalytic role in sustainable management of

biodiversity and natural resources. In detail, the functions were highlighted as in Table….

Table 1: The Critical Stakeholders – Roles and Functions

Domain Critical Stakeholders Functions

Policy Government (agencies e.g. Ministry of S&T, REMA, MINEDUC, RDB, MINOLOC, etc.)

Policy formulation and implementation on biodiversity; legislation; adjudication; planning and programming

Development actors (UNESCO, UN agencies, bilateral, etc.

Promotion of biodiversity/ conservation programmes; support for capacity building; access to funding and resources

STI Universities, Research institutions Knowledge generation, application and dissemination; innovation; supply of CoE products

Private Sector/ Civil Society

Enterprises/ businesses at all levels across all sectors of the economy

Bioprospecting; manufacturing; marketing products of CoE e.g. publications, documentaries, services; hospitality and tourism services

Local communities, NGOs, mass media Support conservation programmes, promote CoE activities.

The presentation emphasized the point that the four objectives of the workshop were to ensure

effective role-playing in the operations of the CoE. The workshop would harmonise understanding of the

CoE – structure, vision, functions, etc.; analyze institutional capacity to be part of the CoE network;

contribute to analyzing institutional gaps and opportunities for CoE establishment; and determine the

elements required by the stakeholders for effective participation. Participants were urged to complete

the survey questionnaires to ensure successful assessment of capacities.

The survey questionnaire (presented in Appendix VII) was explained to the participants. Each of the four

sections has important features and altogether the questionnaire was an important first step in creating

a database of institutions active in biodiversity and natural resource management. The first section dealt

with general information, the second dealt with human capital, the third was infrastructure and the four

the programme activities of the responding institution.

3.3 Overview of Capacities of High-Learning and Research institutions, Private Sector and NGOs

involved in Biodiversity and Natural Resources Management in Rwanda – Prof. Emmanuel

Twarabamenye

Prof. Twarabamenye’s presentation was a comprehensive overview of what capacities were available in

the various stakeholder institutions and sectors – the universities, research institutes, the private sector

and NGOs. He highlighted the fact that biodiversity and natural resources are basis of health, effective

functioning of ecosystems also wealth creation. However, biodiversity and natural resources are

threatened and are facing depletion. There are many factors contributing to biodiversity loss and natural

15

resources depletion. The conservation of biodiversity and natural resources have now assumed

worldwide concern with an emerging global consensus on efforts for biodiversity conservation and

natural resource management. Research, information sharing, wise decisions and advocacy are needed.

In Rwanda, many institutions have contributed to the knowledge of biodiversity and NRM but still there

is long a way to go. It is against this background that the overview of capacities of the respective

institutions is being presented.

There are nine High-Learning and Research institutions Involved in Biodiversity and Natural Resources

Management in Rwanda. These are:

– National University of Rwanda (NUR)

– Kigali Institute for Science and Technology (KIST)

– Institute for Agriculture and Animal Husbandry (ISAE)

– Umutara Polytechnic University

– Kigali Health Institute (KHE)

– Kigali Institute for Education (KIE)

– Institut d'Agriculture, de Technologie et d'Education (INATEK)

– Institut d’Enseignement Superieur (INES)

– Kitabi College of Conservation and Environment Management (KCCEM)

For these institutions the mission is to teach, research and service communities. To this end the

institutions undertake programmes including the following in relation with biodiversity and NRM. There

are high-learning programmes in:

– Botany / Zoology / Biology Conservation

– Biotechnology

– Environmental Sciences (Environmental Chemistry, Environment Management, Soil and

Water Management, Forestry and Nature Conservation, etc.)

– Animal Production and Crop Production

– Geographic Information Systems

– Education, etc.

In terms of capacity, the institutions have

16

Infrastructure: Classrooms, laboratories, internet facilities, computer labs, library, experimental

sites, etc

Staff (Scientific, technical, administrative)

Partnership with other universities and research institutions especially

Capacity for mobilizing and managing funds

High capacity for research : Staff and Students

There are specific centers for research. For example, the National University of Rwanda has research

centres and research is an important component of the university programme such as Research

Commission, CEESD, CGIS. The following is a listing of research institutions, policy and other institutions

in Rwanda:

Rwanda Environmental Management Authority (REMA)

RDB /Tourism and Conservation Department

Rwanda Agricultural Sciences Institute (ISAR)

Institute of Science and Technological Research (IRST)

National Forest Authority (NAFA)

Karisoke Research Center (KRC)

International Gorilla Conservation Programme (IGCP)

Greater Virunga Transboundary Collaboration (GVTC)

Mountain Gorilla Veterinary Project Program (MGVP)

Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS)

The presentation highlighted the missions of the various research institutions. It provided a summary of

the existing strengths of these institutions. These are:

Clear mandates in relation with biodiversity and natural resources management

Operate all over the country or locally

ISAR: 15 stations

IRST: 7 stations

Clear research programs

17

Good infrastructure (Offices, laboratories, computer equipment, internet facilities, library, etc)

Well staffed institutions

Capacity for conducting research, disseminating research findings through publications,

international conferences,

Capacity for mobilizing and managing funds

Networked with various partners

The dissemination of research findings is a crucial activity. This is done through:

Publications in scientific journals

Participation in national and international scientific conferences and seminars

NUR organises annual international scientific conference since 2008

Website where to post research findings, biodiversity and NRM events and other events

Some of the NGOs operating in the area of biodiversity and natural resource management are the

following:

Association pour la conservation de la Nature au Rwanda (ACNR)

Association Rwandaise des Ecologistes "ARECO - RWANDA NZIZA"

Rwanda Environmental Non Governmental Forum (RENGOF)

The problem with most of the NGOs is that they have limited financial resources, infrastructure and

staff. However, some can conduct studies and contribute to creating public awareness when financed.

Most of them implement project conservation initiatives making important contribution to biodiversity

conservation and management.

Prof. Twarabamenye concluded that there are many learning and research institutions involved in

biodiversity conservation and natural resource management. They have broad mandates for some and

specialized mandates for others. Governmental institutions and oldest institutions have more

capacities. There is significant networking. Whereas the international organizations have adequate

resources, local NGOs have very limited capacities. The private sector is not really involved in

biodiversity and natural resource management but it should be involved. Good management of the

respective institutions will impact greatly on sustainable biodiversity and natural resources

management.

3.4 Overview of Biodiversity in Albertine Rift in General and Rwanda in Particular – Dr. Elias Bizuru

18

Dr. Elias Bizuru began with an illustration of the global biodiversity. In the case of vascular plants, the

Albertine Rift region is one of the richest. The region has the highest number of endemic vertebrates in

Africa including birds, reptiles and mammals. See pictures below. The largest mammal biomass recorded

is also in the region.

Photo 2, 3, 4: Pictures of Endemic Vertebrates of the Albertine Rift Region

However, the biodiversity in the region is being threatened as shown in Table 2. For example for the

mammals as many as 35 are endangered and most of them are endemic. The region has 41 endemic

birds and 25 endangered species of birds (see Table 2).

Table 2: Biodiversity of the Albertine Rift Region

Type Number of species Number of endemic species

Endangered species

Mammals 402 34 35

Birds 1,061 41 25

Reptiles 175 16 2

Amphibians 118 34 16

Insects 117

Fishes 366+

Plants 5,793 567 40

Source: Plumptre et al., 2003

The question is, why such a high biodiversity? Firstly, there is the high variability of ecosystem and

secondly the past climate events account for this. For example in the past there have been volcanoes in

the region creating a rich diversity of ecosystems across the Albertine Rift countries – Rwanda, Uganda,

19

the Congo and Burundi. The volcano mountains, the Montane forests, the low and medium forests, the

wetlands, the lakes and rivers provide a rich base for biodiversity.

There are many threats to biodiversity currently including climate change, the growth in human

populations and human settlements, demand for agricultural land, conflicts and poaching of wildlife.

The impact of climate change is visible in the decreasing ice caps on the top of the mountains as

measured in 1906, 1958, 1992 and 2008.

The region is currently experiencing forest losses. The case of forest fragmentation is also clear.

Fragmentation increases the pace of forest losses as it increases edge effects. The Kibira forest is

undergoing this process and already has fragments such as Mabayi Fragment, Rwegura Fragment and

Bugarama-Teza fragment apart from the principal fragment. Studies of the Montane Forest since 1931

through the 1970s, 1980s to present have shown the evolution process with a continuous reduction in

forest coverage.

The characteristics of the species make the species vulnerable to fragmentation. These include the

following:

• Species with specialized habitat needs;

• Species with limited dispersal abilities;

• Species with low fecundity;

• Species vulnerable to hunting;

• Species that are arboreal;

• Co-evolved species;

• Ground nesters vulnerable to predators.

Dr. Bizuru explained the importance of landscapes in forest management. A landscape consists of three

main components - a matrix (which is the dominant feature), patches, and corridors. If one understands

these components and their interrelationships, one can make better management decisions at the

landscape level. For the Albertine Rift region there are several unconnected patches of mountain

forests, low land and medium forests, lakes and wetlands.

The agriculture systems make the matrices. The matrix, the dominant component in the landscape, is

the most extensive and connected landscape type, and it plays the dominant role in landscape

functioning. If we try to manage a habitat without considering the matrix, we will likely fail to provide

what wildlife need in that area. If for instance land use change reduces habitats in the unprotected

portion of the ecosystem, ecosystem function and biodiversity may be degraded within the Protected

Area. If the goal of the protected area is to maintain native species and the ecological processes that

20

they require, then the spatial extent of the effective ecosystem includes the area that strongly

influences these species and processes (Grumbine, 1994).

One of the answers to the challenge of biodiversity conservation in the Albertine Rift region is capacity

building. There must be enhanced capacity for matrix conservation, PA conservation and regional and

trans-boundary collaboration. The creation of a regional CoE will greatly facilitate this.

3.5 A Model of Biodiversity Management – the Case of INBio – Luis Garnier

The presenter outlined the objectives of the presentation as i) sharing a model for biodiversity

management; ii) highlighting some lessons learned; iii) enumerating some benefits for the people

through the application of the model.

The road to biodiversity management in Costa Rica began with the enactment of a decree in 1989

forming a high-ranking commission of scientists to establish the National Institute of Biodiversity. The

commission then created a non-profit Institute under Costa Rican laws with the government declaring it

as being of national interest.

In terms of governance structure, the Institute had the following:

An International Technical Board: This is a consultant body that guides the institution on

strategic actions and seeks funds or projects for the institute.

Associates Assembly: As required by law, this is group of individuals or institutions that

approves all the actions, budget and appoints the board of the institution.

Institution Board: The Board is elected by the Associates Assembly. It executes the budget and

programs and legally represents the institution through its president.

The salient features of the Institute

A political level, composed by the General Assembly and the Board of Directors;

A strategic leadership level, that is conducted by the Directorate composed by an executive

director and four thematic directors, whom are supported by three managers (Operations,

Human Resources, and Financial-Administrative).

An operating level, made up of the Strategic Action Units (SAU) that are in charge of the

execution of technical processes.

The institution is supported by a Services Center, which operates along all the processes in order

to facilitate the administrative and financial issues.

21

Twelve Strategic Action Units, conducted by institutional leaders. Three of these units

(INBioparque, Editorial and Bioprospecting) are led by managers, which have to conduct not

only technical but business processes.

The structure allows also the creation of temporary units to carry out specific projects in a

specific time frame.

The stated mission of INBio is to promote a greater awareness of the value of biodiversity as a means to

ensure its conservation and to improve the quality of life of the people of the society. INBio’s vision is to

make nature the central axis of the nation’s culture, educational processes and competitive strengths. It

will become a hub of scientific development that will guide the use of Costa Rica’s natural capital,

becoming the most prestigious institution in Latin America in its field. The Institute holds up the values

of Commitment, Service, Transparency, Integrity, Respect, Equity and justice, Environmental

responsibility, Innovation and leadership. The basic concept of collaboration among the actors in

biodiversity is explained simply as Save-Know-Use:

Save involves the conservation ex situ or in situ of representative samples of Costa Rican

biodiversity;

Know aims to have information on the ecology, on diversity of species (taxonomy) and

ecosystems of the country

Use has the purpose of searching for sustainable uses of the items and resources

provided by Costa Rican biodiversity.

The point is that INBio fulfills its mission through the integration of three main areas namely: generation

of knowledge and information; organization and administration of knowledge and; transfer of the

knowledge to society. These areas of work are developed through five core processes - Inventory and

monitoring (taxonomic function), Biodiversity informatics, Bioprospecting, Education and

Communication and lastly Conservation. The following are the institute’s programmes:

National Biodiversity Inventory: it is responsible for generating information on species,

their taxonomy, distribution and natural history.

Biocomputer science: it systematizes and administers all the information generated by the

various INBio units on the institutional database known as ATTA, which is available to the

public through the Institute’s website.

Communication and Education: it promotes bioliteracy and the use of information on

biodiversity for intellectual and cultural purposes. Much of this effort is carried out through

the INBiopark.

22

Biodiversity management: it promotes the development of planned processes in matters of

handling and conservation of biodiversity. It is responsible for co-ordination with the

National Conservation Area System.

Bioprospecting: it deals with the search for sustainable uses from genetic and biochemical

resources of biodiversity.

In recent years there have been new developments in INBio. One initiative is Bioinnovar, a branch of

INBIO aimed at promoting innovations related to biological resources (developed through its own

programmes and those of third parties). This recent approach requires in turn the development of a

sound institutional policy with INBio employees and third parties (suppliers, contractors, etc.) in relation

to trademarks, trade names, copyright and related matters, among others.

The key strengths of INBio are;

Sophisticated set of laws dealing with biodiversity issues.

25% of the country is under protected areas that contain very good samples of the biodiversity

of the country

Scientific capacity to generate information

Community involvement in their inventory process with the informal taxonomist program

Flexibility adaptation due to its private structure

Agreements with the government , companies, universities and NGO

Development of negotiation skills and partnerships with third parties to negotiate contracts

Secure state of the arts laboratories through partnerships and negotiation with pharmaceutical

companies.

Knowledge of operational norms and of the changes and transformations taking place in the

business sector, as well as the scientific and technological innovations that underlie these

transformations.

The weaknesses are:

Secure financial sustainability of the institution: model change

Market the scientific information generated: no clear policy

Initial secrecy in some of their activities caused bad environment

Lack of clear network to work within the country to leverage cost and overhead.

23

From the above, some of the key lessons are:

1. There must be a clear institutional policy for the criteria demanded in prospecting contract

negotiations.

2. The existence of national scientific capabilities, and consequently, the possibilities of adding

value to biodiversity elements, increases the negotiating strengths and benefit sharing

stipulated in contract agreements.

3. Knowledge of operational norms and of the changes and transformations taking place in the

business sector, as well as the scientific and technological innovations that underlie these

transformations, helps to define access and benefit mechanisms.

4. It is important to have internal capacity for negotiations, which includes adequate legal and

counseling skills about the main aspects of commercial and environmental law.

5. It is often critical to adopt a proactive focus according to institutional policies.

6. It is necessary to understand national and local needs in terms of technology, training, and joint

research. International strategic alliances must be struck.

7. For prospecting to succeed, so-called macro policies have to exist that is to say, there must be

clear rules about the “bio-prospecting framework,” which requires biodiversity inventories,

information systems, business development, and technology access.

8. There is no perfect time to start…except now.

The benefits the people of Costa Rica gained from INBio’s operations include bioliteracy among the

population and community engagement in biodiversity management. There were taxonomic programs,

promotion of sustainable rural tourism, capacity and competence development and access to scientific

information. Besides, there were royalties for product development through research and scientific

work in the laboratories. A CoE is critical to providing these and other benefits to the people of the

country.

3.6 General Discussions

After the presentations, participants were given opportunity to seek clarifications from the presenters

or make contributions towards the addressing the challenge of establishing the CoE. The Chairman

noted the rich background of the participants and encouraged them to share their views on the theme

of the Workshop.

There was a comment that there seemed to be a contradiction between the objective of the Workshop

and the original concept as floated at the First International Conference on Biodiversity. H.E. President

Paul Kagame called for a setting up of a regional Centre of Excellence. This workshop was focused on a

national centre. It was explained to participants that the approach to achieve the original idea was to

24

start with a national centre and develop it later into a regional one. Moreover, Rwanda is ready to

implement the concept and therefore there was need to proceed and take advantage of the

momentum.

There was concern that there seemed to be an exclusive focus on biodiversity whereas originally, the

CoE was meant to be a CoE on Biodiversity and Natural Resource Management. The point was made

that even though the name may suggest that there was an exclusive focus on biodiversity, issues of

natural resource management would invariably be addressed. It was emphasized that there could be no

effective biodiversity management without natural resource management. The two are intractably

linked. However, participants have opportunity during the group discussions to decide whether to

maintain “natural resource management” in the name of the centre.

A question was raised regarding the role of local communities as key stakeholders in the operations of

the CoE. They seemed not to feature in the categories of stakeholders in the presentation. It was

explained that local communities are critical stakeholders. They have been subsumed in the category of

NGOs but then it is necessary to highlight their role precisely.

The point was made that, there appeared to be a neglect of the role of private sector in the

conceptualization of the CoE. Much as the knowledge institutions would drive the operations of the

centre, the private sector has a crucial role to play in ensuring effective functioning of the centre. The

tourist companies, wood industries, advertising agencies are all examples of stakeholders that should be

factored into the concept of the CoE. Participants were informed that, the role of the private sector was

being factored into the concept of the CoE and therefore, private sector companies were also invited to

the workshop. Their role will be institutionalized in the structure and operations of the CoE.

There was a question regarding the weaknesses of the institutions as the presenter highlighted

strengths and was silent on the weaknesses. The response was that a clear overview of the institutional

strengths and weaknesses will be captured when the questionnaires sent out to the institutions through

the institutional focal points are returned.

3.7 Group Discussions on Day 1

3.7.0 Guidelines for the Group Discussion

On Day 1 of the Workshop, provision was made for participants to discuss the stakeholder roles in the

operationalisation of the Centre of Excellence (CoE). In the preceding sessions, there were presentations

by the facilitators highlighting the concepts of the CoE, the importance of the stakeholders, an overview

of existing institutions in Rwanda, biodiversity and natural resources and some lessons of the case of

INBIO. These presentations constituted the background to the Day 1 discussions, which were intended

to obtain feedback from participants on how to ensure that the stakeholders could play effective roles in

the operations of the CoE. Thus the formation of the groups along functional clusters (e.g. high learning,

Research and Development (R&D), private sector, NGOs, etc.) was to enable the groups to identify core

issues relating to their roles in operationalising the CoE.

25

Another aim of the group discussion on Day 1 was to use it as a method of gathering information from

stakeholders, supplementary to the survey being conducted, which most institutions were yet to

respond to. The discussions in the various clusters would produce important qualitative information

which would be useful in analyzing gaps in the respective national capacities.

The groups were also tasked to identify four to five key processes for the CoE and further to i identify

some specific actions as part of those processes . A process is a series of steps designed to produce a

product or service. The product or service could be received by an external customers (key processes) or

to internal customers (support processes). Identifying key processes is critical to design efficient

processes and ensure there is capability and motivation among the human resource. Examples of

potential processes of the envisaged CoE for Rwanda are:

Bioinformatics development

Generate information

Offer access to information

Execute Research Programs

Education

Training/Certify Professionals

Bioprospecting (development of products based on biodiversity)

National Policy Creation

Networking

Touristic Services

The groups were to report using the formats appropriately designed for summaries. They all reported at

the plenary session before the close of the day’s activities.

3.7.1 Group 1 Report – High-Learning Institutions

Group I comprising participants from the high-learning institutions presented their report beginning

with a summary of the strength of their stakeholder category in terms of human resources –

qualifications, disciplines and numbers. The group underscored the point that core human capacity for

their institutional programmes comprises masters and Ph.D. degree holders. A summary of the numbers

across the disciplines was given as in Table 3.

Table 3: The Core Human Resource Capacity in High Learning Institutions in Rwanda

Discipline Qualification Number

26

GIS and RS Ph.D. M.Sc.

2 (NUR) 18 (NUR), 1(IN)

Geography Ph.D. M.Sc.

5(NUR), 3(KE) 2(NUR), 3(KE)

Biology Ph.D. M.Sc.

6(NUR), 1(IS), 6(KT), 1(UP), 1(IN), 5(IS), 4(KE) 9(NR), 3(KT), 6(KH), 1(UP), 1(IN), 4(IS), 6(KE)

Environmental Sciences Ph.D. M.Sc.

2(KT) 1(KT), 1(IS), 1(UP), 1(UNA)M 1(IN)

Agriculture Sciences Ph.D. 16(NUR), 1(UNA), 1(IS), 6(UP) 17(NUR), 2(UNA), 1(KT), 7(UP), 1(IN), 15(IS)

Veterinary Ph.D. M.Sc.

2(IS), 12(UP), 8(UP), 1(KT), 8(IS)

Chemistry Ph.D. M.Sc.

6(NUR), 5(KT), 1(UNA) 4(NUR), 2(IS)

Bioinformatics Ph.D. M.Sc.

1(NUR), 1(IN)

Applied Mathematics Ph.D. M.Sc.

9(NUR), 9(KT) 6(NUR), 3(IS), 10(KT), 3(IN)

Water Resources, Hydrology Ph.D. M.Sc.

3(NUR) 4(NUR), 2(IS)

The report indicated that most of the human resources have work experience averaging more than five

years. The group referred to the websites of the institutions to obtain information on the infrastructure

facilities and programmes being implemented since time did not allow the group to complete the

exercise. The group noted that the examples of the potential CoE processes discussed by the presenter,

applied to the Rwandan situation. The group added to the examples, the management of water and

water resources and geochemistry.

3.7.2 Group 2 Report- Research and Development Institutions

Group 2 was made up of participants from research institutions. They began their discussions by

identifying the key processes in their institutions. The results of their discussions are summarized as in

Table 4 and Table 5.

Table 4: Key Processes, Outputs and Activities of the CoE

Key Processes Outputs Steps/ Activities

Creation of collaborative framework

Biodiversity Task Force Assessing the mandate of each institution; highlight similarities and differences; identify specific data held in each institution; assess the existing gaps.

Capacity building Qualified staff; appropriate Training and education; fund-

27

infrastructure and equipment raising

Programme development Operational and thematic working groups; biodiversity databases

Research activities; generation of data; access and share data

Knowledge, innovation and technology transfer

Publications; technologies Use of research outputs by local and international communities; extension of technologies to users

Table 5: Strengths, Constraints and Recommendations

Strengths Constraints Recommendations for Addressing Constraints

Government support (will, financial, human and political)

Limited budget; less priority on biodiversity

Strengthening biodiversity policy and regulations; institutional improvement

Stakeholders’ willingness Lack of information; less networking; duplication of efforts

Create joint biodiversity database; enhance coordination

Diversified hotspots Insufficient awareness of the values of biodiversity

Raise awareness; ensure sustainable use

3.7.3 Group 3 Report- International Organisations and Albertine Rift Countries

Group 3 was composed of participants from International organisations and the neighbouring Albertine

Rift countries. The Group identified key aspects of the strength of the international organisations and

the neighbouring countries. These include:

Existence of strong regional integration process

• Existence of a strong integration process;

• Existence at different levels of expertise and experience in neighbouring countries, which can

help move the process of creating a regional Centre of Excellence. For example, there is a

National Biodiversity Data Bank in Uganda and Tanzania Biodiversity Facility ( hosted by

Tanzania Commission on Science and Technology);

• Existence of trained personnel in the neighbouring countries;

• Existence level of cooperation for management of transboundary ecosystems is high;

• Existence political stability and favourable cooperation among states in the region;

• Existence of strong institutional infrastructure for research, education and management of

biodiversity.

28

Group 3 identified the constraints as:

• Differences in policies between countries;

• Political regional groups do not coincide with bioregional areas ( Albertine Rift);

• Possibility of competition among countries for Centres of Excellence;

• Different Standards between Countries regarding data collection.

In order to address the challenges associated with the constraints, the group strongly recommended

that there should be harmonisation of data collection standards. This will ensure that within each

country the same methods of collection are used. There should be exchange of personnel to work on

records and share information. There should be rotation of the presidency of regional COE.

Group 3 noted that there are weak linkages both at individual and institutional levels and that the

linkages and networking are only needs-driven. But in the operationalisation of the COE, linkages and

networking must be strongly fostered and that there is need to strengthen and streamline greater

cooperation between institutions.

3.7.4 Group 4 Report- Governmental Institutions

Group 4 comprised of participants from RDB, REMA, MINIFOM, MINELA, MINEDUC, which are the

government institutions.

Table 6: Summary of Strengths, Constraints and Recommendations from Governmental Institutions

Strengths Constraints Recommendations for addressing constraints

Political will; Policy and regulatory framework (e.g. biodiversity, wildlife, environmental law/policy); Institutional framework (e.g. RDB, REMA and the relevant ministries) Physical infrastructure; Clear vision;

Lack of coordination and linkages in policies; Inadequate staff; Lack of policy engagement for private sector; Lack of efficient monitoring framework and human capacity; Lack of baseline; Scattered information – poor information management and sharing of information; Not enough allocation of budget for biodiversity management.

The operationalisation of the SWAP, joint sector review and extending mandate to coordination; The CoE should carry out training in different areas of biodiversity; The CoE should develop scientific tools for monitoring and the relevant expertise in the different areas; CoE should put on one place all existing data; There should be an information sharing policy.

Section IV: Day 2 Activities – Field Visits

4.0 Introduction

29

The field visit organized on the second day of the Workshop was to give participants the opportunity to

see at first hand the capacities available in Rwanda for the operationalisation of the CoE. The

participants were put in three groups. Group 1 went to the South of Rwanda, Group 2 remained in Kigali

and Group 3 went to the North of Rwanda. The participants were to assess the institutions they would

be visiting with specific reference to the available human resource, infrastructure, the institutional

programmes, the strengths and weakness. Each of the groups had leaders who were focal points in their

respective institutions. The leaders were tasked to prepare reports for the group for presentation on the

third day of the Workshop.

Photo 5: Cattle grazing at the ISAR Station at Songa

4.1 Field Trip Report of Group 1 (South)

Group 1 on the field visit to the South visited the following institutions: ISAR stations at Songa, Rubona

and Ruhande; NUR Departments of Biology, Faculty of Agriculture, CEESD and CGIS; and IRST (National

Herbarium of Rwanda and the Phytomedicine Department).

ISAR Songa Animal Genetic Improvement

The main programs of the centre are:

– Conservation of genetic resource (indigenous Ankole Cattle)

– Breeding for disease resistance & higher milk productivity

30

– Research (forage, milk, health, & genetic improvement)

In implementing these programs it has a core human resource of eight scientists and five technicians

distributed in four stations. Two of the staff are on training.

The infrastructure comprise of 300 hectares of land including land for grazing for the 400 heads of

cattle. There are laboratory facilities at the Centre.

There is collaboration with the Rwanda Animal Resources Development Authority and the International

Livestock Research Institute based in Nairobi.

The strengths of the Centre is in the government policy of one family one cow and the also the policy of

a litre of milk per child per day. Its weakness is the lack of equipment for embryo transfer.

ISAR Rubona Agricultural Station

The main programs are agricultural technology transfer (rice, mushrooms, silkworm, water and soil

conservation); mass multiplication of high quality planting material; research on coffee, bananas,

passion fruit, sweet potato, tomatoes, etc; disease indexing (viruses); plant production. There are 34

research programs.

The human resource capacity comprises seven scientists in the Tissue culture Laboratory. For

infrastructure, there is the Agriculture Technology Demonstration Centre and the Tissue Culture

Laboratory.

Collaboration exists with 37 international organizations and 14 local organizations.

The strengths of the Station are in the local demand for TC materials and the student Internship

program. The weaknesses are in the inadequate staff, limited budget and the absence of a clear policy

on biotechnology.

National Gene Bank of Rwanda

The main programs are germplasm conservation, seed testing and disease indexing. Given that it is not

yet operational, the core human resources are not yet at post. But there is some infrastructure with

facilities for long term (-20 degrees Celsius) and short term storage and a microbiology laboratory.

ISAR –Ruhande Agroforestry Institute

The main programs are forest management, wood technology, agroforestry, soil and water

management, etc. There is a large arboretum and a tree seed centre for seed multiplication and

propagation.

There is a core human resource comprising more than 10 scientists with about five in forestry. The

infrastructure is made up of a library, seed banks and a National Gene Bank. There is also a 200-hectare

of land for its operations. The Institute collaborates with local and international organizations.

31

The strengths come with the over 300 indigenous and exotic species of trees conserved at the Institute

and the potential for recreational facilities. Its weaknesses are in the limited budget and understaffing.

National University of Rwanda – Department of Biology

The main programs entail training at the first degree level in Botany and Conservation, Zoology and

Conservation and Biotechnology. At the master’s degree level, there is a program in Conservation

Biology scheduled to start in January 2011. There is also a Biology Conservation Education Project as

well as the Albertine Rift Network for Conservation Educators with 34 Institutions participating.

The core human resource comprise of 22 staff including six Ph.D. holders, ten M.Sc. holders and six

bachelor’s degree graduates. There are visiting lecturers to still augment the staff. The infrastructure

comprises good biology lab, chemistry lab, biotech lab and adequate ICT facilities.

There are collaborations with among others McArthur Foundation, Belgium Cooperation and some

regional institutions in Uganda, Tanzania, Burundi and Kenya. UNESCO is also an important supporting

agency and there are MOUs with KRC, IGCP, WCS, Antioch University, ISAR, IRST. The other resources

are the two vehicles for field visits.

The main strengths of the Department are the good laboratories and good ICT facilities. It also has a

good science education policy. The weaknesses are the limited office space and high staff turnover,

which though is in a positive way e.g. promotion to government positions still impacts on the

Department negatively.

Institute of Scientific and Technological Research (IRST)

The Institute’s main programs are in Applied Sciences (renewable energies and environmental sciences);

Arts and Humanities; Phytomedicine and Life Sciences; Biodiversity Conservation, Biotechnology and

Natural Vegetation Maps.

The human resource capacity is quite impressive with more than 50 scientists; four of the scientists work

in Herbarium. The infrastructure consists of the Phytochemistry laboratory, Biofuel laboratory, the new

IRST Laboratory which is under construction, a National Herbarium, medicinal plant conservation

gardens. There are ICT equipment.

Collaboration is with the Royal Botanical Gardens, UK, EA Herbarium, International Herbaria Network,

Makerere University, Copenhagen University, Botwana University of Agriculture and the World

Agroforestry Centre. The national collaborators include NUR, ISAR, INES, UPU, ISAE and various local

districts.

The strength of the Institute is in being able to undertake active collections (of wild plants and medicinal

plants of Rwanda). Currently it has over 18000 collections of species of flowering plants. There is an

Intellectual Property Officer available at IRST. There is student internship programmes.

32

The weakness is that there are only a few taxonomists. There is also insufficient laboratory equipment

which is soon to be supplied.

NUR Faculty of Agriculture

The main programs are the B.Sc. programs in agriculture and M.Sc. programs in Agro-forestry and Soil

Management. There is farm level agro-forestry research.

The core human resource capacity comprises 16 Ph.D. holders and 17 M. Sc. Holders. The infrastructure

comprises of Soil Science laboratory, green houses and field stations.

There is extensive collaboration with local and international organizations including ISAR (Board

member), MINAGRI Institutes (Board member), ISAE, REMA, the University of Waginegen, RUFORUM,

ANAFE and ICIPE.

The main strengths are the strong training program and the regional collaboration. The weakness mainly

has to do with the funding constraints.

Centre for Environment, Entrepreneurship and Sustainable Development (CEESD)

The CEESD’s main programs are the interdisciplinary R&D on Environment, Entrepreneurship and

Sustainable development. The Centre also has training programs. The human resource capacity consists

of six permanent scientists and ten part-time scientists (using 50% of their time as the Centre). There are

post-graduate students.

The Centre uses NUR facilities including laboratories and green houses. There is also a Consultancy Unit.

Collaboration exists with a wide range of institutions such as REMA, RENGOF, NGOs, departments of

various universities, Sida, AGRA and VW. There is a strong regional collaboration.

The strengths of the Centre is in its interdisciplinary research capacity, strong regional collaboration and

close collaboration with the Research Commission of NUR and its Faculty of Agriculture. Its main

weakness is the limited stakeholder involvement in their operations.

Geographic Information System and Remote Sensing Centre (GISRSC)

The main programs are in training, research and client-driven work. The human resource comprises

more than 10 staff. Its infrastructure comprises state of the art GIS products/solutions, second

generation Meteosat and remote sensing images. It has collaboration with ESRI, ITC, the National Land

Centre among others.

The Centre’s main strengths are the easy access to latest satellite images, latest GIS software solutions

and its program to GIS into education. Its main weakness is that it has no data sharing policy.

4.2 Field Trip Report of Group 2 (Kigali)

33

The group visited six key institutions in the Kigali capital. These are IRST Kigali Station, KIE, KIST, IGCP

Offices, GVTC Secretariat and KHI.

IRST Kigali Station

The IRST Kigali Station is specialized in the research areas biodiesel production from plant oil such as

palm and Jatropha. It is developing Jatropha outgrowers. Its program also includes an establishment of a

Botanical Garden in Nyandungu.

The core human resource capacity is composed of seven persons from different scientific and technical

disciplines. For infrastructures, IRST Kigali Station has got

o Laboratory, which is well-equipped and is in the process of being widen;

o Fuel Station: generating income

o Biodiesel Plants: producing oil for biodiesel.

It has a wide range of institutional collaboration with local scientific institutions and is supported by

ICRAF and the government of Rwanda. The IRST Kigali Station has got numerous donors

Its main strengths are the political support from government, project management skills,

decentralization of their activities, advocacy and the orientation to the private Sector.

Its weaknesses include the limited funds for expansion, lack of qualified staff in areas such as taxonomy,

poor waste management and its inability to convince Rwandan People to grow biodiesel crops. It was

recommended that the Station extends its research on alternative species for the biodiesel production.

Kigali Institute of Education (KIE)

The main programs of KIE are teaching, research, community services and E-Learning. In the

implementation of its programs there is the core human resource made up of four Ph.D. holders and six

master’s degree holders.

For infrastructure, there are four laboratories for the subject areas of Zoology, Botany, Geography,

Microbiology and Biotechnology. The World Bank has provided some equipment to facilitate its

operations.

There is institutional collaboration and partnership with all institutions in Rwanda such as KRC, Great

Apes Iowa Trust and, NUR. There is also international collaboration with UK Universities and South

African Universities.

The main strength of KIE is the Plant and Animal Taxonomist on the academic staff. Its weaknesses

include lack of skilled staff, inadequate research funds, laboratories which need equipment and a

herbarium which is not well managed. Indeed the group recommends that there should be fundraising

for the herbarium.

34

Kigali Institute of Science and Technology (KIST)

KIST also has as its main programs teaching, research and community services. A new program being run

began with the Tama Art University of Japan introducing banana textile technology in Rwanda.

For its core human resources capacity, there are five Ph.D. holders. There are biostatisticians. Its

infrastructure comprise of 11 fully equipped laboratories; four labs for Food Sciences, one for Zoology,

three for Microbiology and four for Chemistry. KIST has other facilities such as a Health Center and ICT

centers.

On institutional partnership and collaboration, KIST has collaboration with other universities such as

NUR and KHI. It collaborates with MIDA ( in Lab Technicians Training), Rockefeller Foundation, Lake Kivu

Project, MIT(Climate Observation) and Technical University of Munich.

KIST’s strengths are in its numerous collaborations and very modern facilities. Its weaknesses are the

limited number of technicians, inflexible administration, the under-utilized instruments and limited

funds for research. The group recommended that KIST should make all efforts to exploit the potential of

the modern equipment.

International Gorilla Conservation Program – Kigali Office

The thrust of the program is gorilla conservation. It undertakes community development in the process.

The core human resource capacity comprises 25 persons with a program staff of 10. The infrastructure

comprises fully equipped offices; five offices have been set up in the regions.

The are a number of institutional collaborations including with the Africa Wildlife Foundation, World

Wildlife Foundation, Fauna and Flora International, UNESCO, ICCN, UWA, RDB and others.

The main strengths are the good collaboration and strong partnerships with other agencies and good

and long experience in Gorilla Conservation. There is a strong trans-boundary collaboration into the

Albertine Rift countries. The weaknesses are the difficulty in working with the local communities and the

small size of its staff in relation to its responsibilities and ambitions. There is also the loss of qualified

staff and currently there is reliance on RBM.

Great Virunga Transboundary Cooperation Secretariat (GVTC)

The main programs are coordinating and fund-raising for the activities of stakeholders, Community

Empowerment, data collection through partners and formulating the strategies for projects

implemented.

On the question of what capacity is there, there is a human resources capacity of five professional staff.

The infrastructure is the office building. There are institutional partnership and collaboration with the

Netherlands Embassy, US Forest Service, US Embassy and RDB.

35

The strengths include political support from the three countries (Rwanda, Uganda, DRC), the high

interest of donors in the region’s rich biodiversity and the experience in coordinating the regional

collaboration. Its weakness is working with partners who draw their own programs.

Kigali Health Institute

The main programs of the Kigali Health Institute are - teaching, research and community outreach. In

terms of capacity, there is a core human resource capacity comprising one Ph.D. in Environmental

Sciences and four M.Sc. and six B.Sc. graduates. The infrastructural capacity is made up of

environmental laboratories, which are not well equipped and instruments such as two water testing kits.

There is institutional collaboration with the Ministry of Health, UNICEF (Water Testing Kits), NUR, KIST,

Makerere University and others.

Its strength lies in its strong partnership with the Ministry of Health and with UNICEF. Its weaknesses are

the lack of qualified staff and inadequate research funds.

4.3 Field Trip Report of Group 3 Report (North)

The group visited two higher-learning and two research institutions in the North of Rwanda namely for

the higher learning institutions, ISAE (French acronym translated as Higher Institute of Agriculture and

Animal Husbandry) and INES (French acronym translated as National Institute of Higher Education); for

the research centers, KRC (Karisoke Research Center) and ISAR ( French acronym): Rwanda Agricultural

Research Institute.

ISAE

The main Institutional programs relating to the CoE are Forestry and Nature Conservation and Water

and Soil Management. ISAE has extensive local and international collaboration. Locally they collaborate

with NUR, KIE, KIST, KHI, ISAR, IRST, INES, SOPYRWA, MINAGRI and others. Externally, ISAE collaborates

with Wageningen University, Michigan State University, ANAFE, ICRAF,ASARECA, NUFFIC, etc.

There is extensive infrastructure including laboratories for the following:

Chemistry and Soil laboratory

Physics laboratory

Microbiology laboratory

Plant Biology and tissue culture Laboratory

Animal Biology (Parasitology lab)

Computer lab

36

Apart from this there are relevant technological resources such as agricultural machinery e.g. tractors,

power tillers, tillage equipments, post harvest equipments, irrigation equipments and alternative energy

devices. There is also a well-equipped meteorological center. Other resources include an auditorium,

two big buses, a bakery and large farms.

There is a certain level of human capital with the academic staff in the areas of forestry, biology,

environmental science, veterinary medicine, among others. Most of them are however M.Sc. holders;

six Ph.D. holders and 24 masters degree holders.

The group assessed the strength of ISAE as adequate infrastructure, adequate meteorological centre

with modern equipment and a very large space for experimentation and extension. The weaknesses

include inadequate financial support, inadequate laboratory equipment and inadequate teaching staff.

ISAE was rated B (very good) by the group.

INES

The next institution visited was INES. Its main institutional programs relating to the CoE were Land

Survey and Biotechnology. Overall, it has a core human resource comprising six Ph.D. holders and 26

M.Sc. holders with one M.Sc. holder in land management, one in GIS and one in Molecular Biology.

In terms of infrastructure the following are currently available:

Laboratories:

- GIS and land survey laboratory

- Microbiology and Tissue culture laboratories are under construction

Library

Classrooms

Students hostel

INES has institutional collaboration and partnerships comprising local collaboration with IRST, ISAR,

ISAE,RARDA, National Land Center, and others. There are international collaboration with Genoa

University( Italy), Nuffic, PISA University, MDF, SORANA, etc.

Its strengths are the apparent very good plan of the Institute and the very good management. Its GIS

department is well developed in terms of installation of modern equipment. The buildings are very new

and all infrastructures are being developed.

37

Its weaknesses include the narrow focus of its programs in relation to biodiversity and natural resource

management. It is a young university with inadequate teaching staff. The management of INES indicated

that these weaknesses will be corrected in the near future. Given the zeal and motivation characterizing

the leadership there, this is likely to happen.

The group rated INES B (very good).

Karisoke Research Centre (KRC)

The main Institutional programs relating to the biodiversity CoE are Research, Protection and

Monitoring, Education and Training and Ecosystem health and community development. It has four

Ph.D. holders and five M.Sc. holders constituting its core human resource. In all there is a research staff

of 20, about 60 to70 mountain gorilla trackers and an administrative staff of six.

Its infrastructure comprises a small library, a laboratory for DNA analysis and two houses. The other

resources are four vehicles and one small herbarium.

KRC has extensive institutional collaboration and partnerships. Locally, KRC collaborates with NUR, ISAE,

RDB and internationally, it collaborates with Max Planck Institute, Cambridge University, Texas

University and DFGFI.

Its strengths are the strong partnerships with external universities and organizations, fairly adequate

human capacity (for its focus), the long history work in ecological and behavioral studies of mountain

gorillas in Volcanoes National Park and its capacity to mobilize funds.

Its weaknesses comprise inadequate infrastructure and the narrow focus of its activities mainly on

mountain gorillas. In spite of this, the group rates it as an A (excellent) institution.

KINIGI ISAR Station

The main institutional programs relating to CoE on biodiversity are Sustainable Land Management,

Agroforestry, Forage, and Soil and Water Management.

The Station’s core human resources capacity is composed of two Ph.D. holders( in plant breeding and

genetics and in sociology) and seven M.Sc. holders.

For infrastructure the station has two main laboratories for tissue culture and plant pathology. There are

screen houses and aeroponic facilities for production of seeds. There are office buildings. There are

other resources such as the two vehicles belonging to the Centre.

The Station has institutional collaboration and partnerships locally and externally. It has international

collaboration with ICP, ICRISAT,AGRA, FARA, and others. It collaborates locally with NUR, INES, ISAE,

KIST.

38

The strengths of the Station are its capacity to generate income and mobilize funding and its very good

laboratory equipment. Its weakness is in the fact that biodiversity conservation is a new programme for

the Station and its narrow focus on crop agriculture. The group rates the Station a B (Very good)

institution in relation to CoE operations.

Section V: Day 3 Activities

5.0 Guidelines to the Group Discussions

On the third day of the Consultative Workshop, the participants were randomly split into three groups.

The Day 3 Group Discussions were meant to provide concrete inputs for the operationalisation of the

Centre of Excellence. Whereas the concept of the CoE was developed and presented earlier, there was

the need to work out the details especially with reference to the institutions and capacities on the

ground. The visits to the institutions constituted part of the process to go down to the fine details that

needed to be addressed to get into operationalisation. The groups therefore conducted the discussions

along the guidelines presented in Appendix II. Other issues not highlighted were also discussed such as

the CoE processes and products which were not fully concluded on the first day. The following reports

5.1 Report by Group 1

Group 1 began with the discussion of the CoE processes. The group came out with the following:

Networking;

Collecting, synthesising and sharing biodiversity information;

Promote education, training and skills development;

Commission research competitively based on identified priorities;

Bioprospecting and product development.

With regards to the structure of the CoE, the group reported that:

Centre should be established by Act of Parliament as an autonomous body; (possibly

under Ministry of Education, S&T or Ministry of Environ & Lands)

The hub should have a coordinating function, but also have the mandate to undertake

research and product development in a complimentary manner;

The hub should be linked with the CBD national focal point for effective domestication

of the convention provision or possibly be the NFP.

39

Each institution will be a node and will have a direct link with the hub in its area of

relevance and specialization, through some kind of MoU;

The hub shall advise on thematic areas where each node shall fit;

On the governance structure of the CoE, the group reported that the oversight body should comprise of

representatives from the Private sector, University, REMA, Civil Society, Research Organizations, Local

communities, Ministry of Education, S&T, Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Industry. Besides the

group proposed a scientific committee comprising representatives of all nodes. There should also be

institutional biodiversity committee.

On the question of what should be the governance relationship between the hub and the nodes, the

group suggested that through the Act, and through MoUs and letters of agreements the relationships

could be defined. The CoE will also advise on inter-nodal linkages.

The group considered the issue of staffing the CoE. Each node should retain its staff. But there should be

a liaison officer designated to link with the hub.

The group discussed the functions of the CoE and proposed that the CoE should have the key mandate

for coordination and specifically, the following key functions:

Operationalise networking;

Collecting, synthesising and sharing biodiversity information;

Promote education, training and skills development;

Commission research competitively based on identified priorities;

Bioprospecting and product development.

On the steps to take to operationalise the CoE, the group reported that firstly, UNESCO should finalize

the project document and submit to relevant ministry. Secondly, the relevant ministry should initiate

the Cabinet process towards the establishment of the CoE. The Cabinet may to establish a task force to

operationalise the centre.

The key issues to address to ensure that the CoE is effective in performing its functions are resource

mobilization, policy and its implementation plan and an overall strategic plan. Ideally, the CoE must be

operational in 2012.

The effective functioning of the nodes is critical for the overall success of the CoE. The group reported

that information and personnel are the specific contributions to be expected from the nodes.

5.2 Report by Group 2

40

Group 2 discussed which institutions could best serve as a hub for the COE. The group suggested the

following with reasons:

(1) NUR:

Skilled staff;

Best students;

Infrastructures are well defined;

Strong and diversified collaborations;

Multidisciplinary aspect, etc.

(2) REMA

Responsibility for elaborating biological policy;

Serves as the Focal Point of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)

Responsibility for Wetlands (RAMSAR), etc.

The group at the end of the discussion proposed that REMA should serve as the hub.

On the issue of which institutions should serve as nodes, the following were mentioned and their roles

elaborated as summarized in Table… with each node reporting to the Executive Secretary.

Table 7: Proposed Processes/ Activities and Institutions of the Nodes

Processes/ Activities Institutions

Genetic Resources, Agrobiodiversity, Phytomedicine ISAR, IRST

Forestry ISAR, NAFA

Capacity Building, Biosciences KIE,KIST,ISAE,NUR,INES

Protected areas,Transboundary RDB, GVTC

Conservation Policy/Advocacy REMA

Wetland Conservation REMA

Land Use NLC

Research IRST, ISAR, NUR, KIST, KIE, ISAE, etc.

Ecosystems Management REMA, RDB

On the issue of governance structure of the CoE, the group made certain proposals. There should be a

Management Board. There should be an Executive Secretary with a Director of Research and a Director

of Administration. The CoE should have an ICT specialist.

41

Concerning the steps to operationalise the CoE, firstly, there should be a Steering committee headed by

Director-General in charge of Science and Technology. Secondly, the National Coordinator of Rwanda

National Commission for UNESCO-RNCU should work with the steering committee to ensure

operationalisation. The steps to operationalisation should be from January 2011. The Terms of

Reference should be done by the RNCU.

Secondly, there should be a Technical Task force to work with various institutions with respect to among

other things, timelines, drafting of laws, defining criteria or indicators on how the CoE can be wok, etc.

The Task Force must work under the auspices of the steering committee.

Thirdly, there should be the passing of the legislation for the establishment of the CoE by the end of

August 2011. By the end of September 2011, the Centre should be created with the name Center of

Excellence for Biodiversity.

The group noted that the CoE requires enough funding to be functional and that a major constraint

would be the disconnection of information and knowledge. As a solution the group proposed that a

mechanism needs to be put in place to put together all the required information to enable the CoE to

run as soon as possible.

Key recommendations:

To put task force in place

Full time Permanent person to work with the steering committee on the recommendation of the

workshop.

5.3 Report by Group 3

Group 3 reported that their first choice for the hub was NUR (with reference to the presentations). The

second choice was IRST. As regards the question of which institutions should serve in the nodes, the

following were listed:

• 1st priority :ISAR ( it has a gene bank, seed center, stations around the country, staff, etc)

• 2nd priority : ISAE ( Human resources, proximity to natural ecosystem, large area for extension)

• 3rd KCCEM (proximity to NNP, Immediate role in conservation,)

• 4th Karisoke research center(adequate human capacity, long experience in biodiversity research)

To ensure cohesion and synergy, the group suggests there should be a clear policy and mandate for the

CoE. There should also be a clear structure of the center and clear guidelines for collaborations and

partnerships between the hub and the nodes.

42

There should be an oversight body comprising of a Board of Trustees appointed by government.

Members of the Board should come from private sector, civil society and identifiable scientific bodies.

The management system headed by Director-General and thematic directors and supporting

departments. There should be collaborative relationships in data and information sharing,

implementation of programs through MoUs between the Hub and Nodes. The following would be the

nodes specific contributions to the operations of the centre:

• Data collection and information sharing;

• Implementation of specific programs;

• Expertise contribution;

• Infrastructure and equipment.

On staffing of the CoE there should be a permanent staff and when the need arises, there can be

outsourcing of expertise. On the priority functions, the Group reported that, the CoE should:

• Develop biodiversity science and applications

• Networking and information sharing

• Dissemination of knowledge ( Publication and conferences)

• Inform policy formation and development

• Develop “best practices” in biodiversity management

The following steps were outlined for the operationalisation of the CoE.

Step 1: Finalising all the structure, mission, vision, mandate required for the creation of the center;

Step 2: Cabinet decision on creation of the center (stewardship by MINELA);

Step 3: resource mobilization for setting up and operationalization of the centre.

The key issues to be addressed to ensure effective functioning of the Centre are creating an

autonomous system for finance and administration; recruit key expertise to kick start the running of

such a center of excellence; and providing a reliable funding for the required budget. The shortest

possible time for the operationalisation for the group was 2012 due to the procedures and financial

implications.

There should be effective strategies for forging linkages and networking. To this end, there should be

collaborative agreements (MoU) between hub, nodes and other stakeholders. There should be joint

research programs and there must be a monitoring and evaluation framework. The key constraints in

sustaining institutional linkages are the conflicting interests that often arise in implementing

43

partnerships. There are also challenges in coordination. To overcome this, there should be clear

mandates for each stakeholder. The point of coordination should also be empowered to enforce

guidelines.

The approach to sustainable funding is that, there should be co-funding for joint programs, income

generation through research, Government financial support and support of donors. It is critical that the

Centre makes judicious use of funds. In this regard, there should be regular auditing on the use of

financial resources. Transparency and accountability should be the guiding principles.

The Group made the following recommendations:

• The CoE should have financial and management autonomy;

• A system which facilitates the sharing of information is required;

• Clear duties and responsibilities among all stakeholders in due time are highly recommended;

• A Technical Scientific Advisory Council should be in charge of monitoring and evaluation.

Finally the Group recommended that the name of the centre should be Centre of Excellence on

Biodiversity. It noted that natural resources should be considered as components that impact on

biodiversity conservation.

Section VI: Summary of Recommendations

6.0 Summary of Issues Arising from the Discussions and Group Reports

During the workshop, certain key issues were identified for consideration in the effort to operationalise

the CoE. Already some of the them were clarified to some extent, others need further discussion and

analysis. These are:

The type of CoE being established: There is the concern that right from the inception at the First

International Conference on Biodiversity in 2007, the decision was to built a regional COE to serve the

Albertine Rift region. However, this workshop is focusing on a national CoE for Rwanda. It was explained

that given the challenges involved in setting up a regional centre, it was found prudent to set up the

Rwanda CoE and then upgrade it to a regional centre especially as Rwanda is eager to have the centre

established.

The Scope of the Centre: It was also pointed out that from the outset, the CoE was meant to cover

Biodiversity and Natural Resource Management and this is reflected in the working document circulated

to participants. However, this workshop seems to be excluding natural resources management in its

focus as evidenced in the name of the Centre. It was made clear that natural resource management is

44

not completely excluded since the management of biodiversity will necessarily involved natural resource

management. However, the name of the Centre needs to have a very clear focus on biodiversity.

Agrobiodiversity: The point was made that there is needs to take account of agro-biodiversity since it is

at the heart of sustainable biodiversity management. It was explained that agrobiodiversity is integral to

the biodiversity under discussion. Given that there are other components, it would not serve any good

purpose to highlight one and not the other.

Private sector participation: It was emphasised that the role of private sector in the effective operation

of the CoE was crucial. Every effort should be made to engage the private sector actors and ensure that

they part of the process to establish the CoE.

Statement of Mission and Goal of the CoE: Participants were presented with a revised version of the

mission and goal of the CoE taking into account the comments made during the discussions. Further

comments were made but in principle, participants accepted that the statement of the mission and goal

reflected a common understanding.

Mission: To enhance the knowledge of biodiversity and natural resource management for

sustainable development.

Goal: Encourage, enable and support stakeholders to generate and apply knowledge on

biodiversity for sustainable development.

6.1 Summary of Recommendations

The following recommendations emerged from the Workshop:

Hub: The workshop proposed the creation of the hub as an independant body hosted by an

existing institution.

The existing institutions proposed to host the hub are in order of priority: NUR, REMA, IRST.

The institutions proposed for the nodes are the high learning institution, research institutions,

and those in the areas of policy, NGOs, private sector and local communities. But the

composition is dynamic and evolving.

The workshop defined to some extent the mission, functions and authority of the CoE, however

there is the need to fine-tune these taking into account the subsequent analysis of the data

from the institutions.

The Board should be composed with representatives of the key stakeholders such as from high

learning institutions, research and development institutions, policy institutions, private sector,

NGOs, and local communities.

45

There should be collaboration between the CoE and the organisation responsible for

international biodiversity conventions e.g. CBD and the Ramsar Convention.

The collaboration between the Hub and the Nodes should be institutionalised through MOUs.

The national CoE should evolve into a regional CoE for the entire Albertine Rift region in the

future.

On the scope of the Centre, the name may remain Centre of Excellence on Biodiversity.

However, the scope of its work will extend to natural resource management.

Agrobiodiversity should be taken into account, due to its relevance for the sustainable

agricultural practices of local communities.

There is need to formulate, enact and enforce laws regarding use of Biodiversity such as

Bioprospection.

Identify private sector members to take part of the process

6.2 Conclusion and the Way Forward

The establishment of the Centre of Excellence on biodiversity is a prerequisite for a knowledge-based

management of the biodiversity of Rwanda and the Albertine Rift region. The efforts to set the national

Centre in Rwanda are justified given the readiness and enthusiasm for the establishment and the

apparent political support. UNESCO and the collaborative partners must continue in their efforts to

support Rwanda to realize the vision of the Centre of Excellence in the shortest possible time. The local

collaborative partners as well as all the identifiable stakeholders – the scientific community, the private

sector, the NGOs and the local community – all have important roles to play to ensure the

operationalisation of the Centre of Excellence.

On the way forward, the team of consultants will prepare and finalise the Draft Project Document for

the establishment of the CoE taking into account the inputs from the Workshop, analysis of the survey

results as well as inputs from key informants such as from UNESCO, REMA, MINEDUC and MINELA.

Secondly, there will be a presentation of the draft document to High Level Decision Makers early in

2011. The Final Project Document will be prepared and used as a basis for the mobilisation of resources.

The Centre of Excellence can then start by 2012.

References

Oteng-Yeboah, Albert (2009)Centre of Excellence for Biodiversity and Natural Resource Management - A

feasibility study for the Albertine Rift countries of East and Central Africa, UNESCO, Nairobi.

46

The Ministry of Science and Technology in the President’s Office, UNESCO and Commission Nationale

Rwandaise pour l’UNESCO (2009) Proceedings of the Validation Workshop on the Feasibility Study,

Kigali.

Plumptre, A.J. Behangana, M., Davenport, T.R.B., Kahindo, C., Kityo, R., Ndomba, E., Nkuutu, D., Owiunji,

I., Ssegawa, P. and Eilu, G. (2003) The Biodiversity of the Albertine Rift, Albertine Rift Technical Reports

Series Number 3, Wildlife Conservation Society, pp.114.

Grumbine, R.E. (1994) What is Ecosystem Management? Conservation Biology, Volume 8, Number 1, pp.

27- 38

APPENDIX I: WORKSHOP PROGRAMME

Day 1: 13 December 2010

Time Activity Responsible /Speaker

08: 30 – 09 :00 Participants registration UNECA

09: 00 – 09: 00 Opening ceremony Guest of honour

09: 20 – 09: 40 Opening remarks by the representative of UNESCO Mrs Noeline

09: 40 – 10: 00 Opening remarks by the representative of UNECA Mrs Noeline

10: 00 – 10: 30 Coffee break

10: 30 – 11: 00 Concept of the CoE, and explanation of the already validated mission, vision and objectives. Overview of the general structure decided in Rwanda

Kisioh Humphrey

11: 00 – 11: 20 Explanation of the concept of stakeholder within the CoE. The importance of the participation and the expectation of data collection in this workshop to learn about the capacity and institutional Gaps.

Dr George Essegbey

11: 20 – 12: 00 Discussion

12: 00 – 12: 20 Overview on the capacity of high learning and research institutions, private sector and NGOs involved in biodiversity and natural resources management in Rwanda

Pr Emmanuel Twarabamenye

12: 20 – 12: 40 Overview on biodiversity in Albertine Rift in general and Rwanda in particular

Dr Bizuru Elias

12: 40 – 13: 00 Discussion

13: 00 – 14: 00 Lunch

14: 00 – 14: 20 Center of Excellence: The Case of INBIO Dr Luis Garnier

14: 21 – 14: 45 Explanation of the Session and Clarification on the concepts to be used in the workshop/ processes and activities

Dr. George Essegbey Dr Luis Garnier

14.45 – 15.00 Coffee break

15: 00 – 16:30 Group Discussions begins with election of Chairman and Rapporteur; preparation of group reports

George, Luis, Emmanuel, Elias

16: 30– 17:15 Small groups report presentation Group

47

Chairpersons and Rapporteurs

17: 15 – 17 : 30 Summary of the day Chairman of the Workshop

Day 2: 14 December 2010

The day 2 is allocated for field visit in various institutions of the country. Participants will be divided into

3 groups:

- The 1st group will visit institutions based in the Northern part of Rwanda (ISAE, KRC, INES, RDB

Kinigi, ISAR, IRST station)

- The 2nd group will be directed to the Southern province to visit NUR, IRST and ISAR

- The 3rd group will stay at Kigali where KIE, KIST, KHI and IGCP will be visited

N.B. - Every institution will be presented by the focal point

- Each group will have to make field visit results presentation on the 3rd day

Day 3: 15 December 2010

Time Activity Responsible

08: 30 – 09: 30 Field visits reports Group Representative

09: 30 – 10: 00 Discussion George, Luis, Emmanuel, Elias

10: 30 – 10: 30 Coffee break

10: 30 – 12: 30 Small groups’ discussion on the structure, governance, financial requirements of the CoE and node contribution to the CoE

Kisioh Humphrey

12: 30 – 13: 00 Group presentation Group Representative

13: 00 – 14: 00 Lunch

14: 00 – 15: 00 Group presentation Group Representative

15: 00 – 16: 00 Coffee break

16: 00 – 16: 30 Summary of the results Chairman of the Workshop

16: 30 – 17: 00 Recommendations Rapporteur/ Facilitators

17: 00 – 17: 15 Closing remarks Guest of Honour

APPENDIX II – GUIDES TO GROUP DISCUSSIONS AND FIELD VISITS

48

Day 1 Guide for Group Discussions

Election of Chairman and Rapporteur

There should be an election of a Chairman to moderate the discussions. In addition, there should be a

Rapporteur to cover the meeting and ensure that a report is prepared for the Group and presented at

the plenary session.

The Existing Strength of the Respective Stakeholder Group/ Cluster

How do participants assess the existing strength of the Cluster to ensure the operationalisation of the

CoE concept in terms of the following:

(a) Human resources (disciplines, level of qualification and competence, work experience,

(b) Institutional infrastructure

(c) Core cluster programmes e.g. high learning, R&D, policy/ planning, monitoring and evaluation,

etc.)

The Constraints in Effective Functioning of the Stakeholders of the Respective Cluster

What are the main constraints facing the stakeholders in performing their roles?

How may the constraints be addressed especially as to ensure a functional and effective CoE?

Collaboration and networking WITHIN the clusters relevant to operationalisation of the CoE

What are the existing linkages among the stakeholders in the respective clusters?

How may these be integrated and enhanced in the operationalisation of the CoE?

What recommendations would the cluster make from their functional perspectives towards the

effective operationalisation of the CoE and its efficiency? Rank these recommendations in terms of

priority.

Day 3 Guide for Group Discussions

Election of Chairman and Rapporteur

There should be an election of a Chairman to moderate the discussions. In addition, there should be a

Rapporteur to cover the meeting and ensure that a report is prepared for the Group and presented at

the plenary session.

Structure of the CoE

49

With reference to the proposed structure of the CoE (a central hub and outer nodes), what do you

suggest should be the composition? Discuss the institutions you suggest for the respective components

of the structure detailing their strength and capacities (human resources, infrastructure, institutional

programmes, etc.) and why they should be functioning in that particular component of the CoE.

(d) Component 1: Hub (Discuss two options indicating the first choice of the group.)

(e) Component 2: Nodes (Discussion all options ranking them in order of preference.)

Discuss how to ensure cohesion and synergy in the CoE?

Governance of the COE

What are the essential elements and guiding principles do we want to see in the governance of the

CoE? The following are examples to guide the discussions:

(a) An oversight body – Management Board? Who should be represented on it and why? Discuss

the institutions/ offices to be represented advancing reasons.

(b) The Hub – What should be the governance relationship between the hub and the nodes?

(c) Staff working in the CoE – Once the CoE becomes functional, the staff assumes a new identity

whether in already existing institutions or new institutions. How should this reflect in their

administration and conditions of service?

Functions

The functions of the CoE has been conceptualized and elaborated. (Refer to the earlier presentations.) In

your view how would you prioritise the functions and which once do we immediately address as we

operationalise the CoE?

How do you think we can get the CoE to become functional in the shortest possible time? Suggest the

key steps to take to make the CoE operational.

Step 1:…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Step 2:……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Step 3: …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

(Please add as many steps as you deem fit.)

Discuss the key issues which have to be addressed to ensure that the CoE is effective in performing its

functions.

50

What in your view is that “shortest possible time”? Next year? 2012? 2013? Other?

Nodes contribution to the CoE, Networking and Linkages

The effective functioning of the nodes is critical for the overall success of the CoE. What specific

contributions should we expect from the nodes stating specific contributions from proposed nodal

institutions (with reference to your discussions on the structure of the CoE).

What should be the strategies for networking and forging linkages among the stakeholders of the CoE?

What would be the key constraints in creating and sustaining institutional linkages and networking?

Please list the constraints and elaborate on them.

How may we overcome the constraints?

Funding

What should be the approach in ensuring that the CoE is funded on a sustainable basis?

Discuss the options for securing the financial resources to operationalise the CoE in the “shortest

possible time”.

MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE GROUP (3 or 4)

APPENDIX III – MEMBERS OF GROUPS FOR THE FIELD VISITS

Group 1: South of Rwanda Group 2: Kigali Group 3: North of Rwanda

Group Leaders: Dr NSABIMANA Donat , NUR Focal point Gapusi Jean, ISAR Focal point Group Members Theogene Habakubaho Karanganwa Papias Kalisa Callixte Rugerinyange Louis M.Laetitia Busokeye Djuma Nsanzimana Dr Kamatari Aloys Dr Naramabuye François Minani Vedaste Dr. Paul T. Schlte Masozera Michel Wivine Y. Ntamubano

Group Leaders Dr Antoine Nsabimana, KIST Focal point Ildephonse Habarugira, KIE Focal point Group Members Mike Hughes Mbonigaba Edouard Ms Murangira Hilda Bahizi Eliphaz Humphrey Kisioh Eugène Mutangana Dr Nsengimana Hermogene Dr Ndawayezu J.Baptiste Rurangwa Eugene Musabe Therese Nsengiyumva P. Celestin Daya Bragante

Group Leaders Nahayo Alphonse, ISAE Focal point Juan Carlos Bonilla, KRC Focal point Group Members Dominique Mvunabandi Dr Sostheme Habumuremyi Dr J. Felix Kinani Umulisa Eugenie Murekumbanze Gratien Telesphore Ngoga Uwingeli Prosper Raphael Mpayana Tushabe Rachael Dr Felicia Akinyemi Dr Rukazambuga Daniel Dr Mbuza francis

51

Dr M.J. Bigendako Ignatus N. Makumba Julius Ec uru Luis Garnier Martin P. Ongul

Musangabatware Clément Kagaaga Annett Lindah Elias Bizuru Uwimana Catherine Noeline R. Rakotoarisao

Dr Ndahayo Fidele William J. Kindeketa Vincent Muhitira Dr David L.N. Hafashimana Dr George O. Essegbey Prof Emmanuel Twarabamenye

APPENDIX IV – LIST OF INTERNATIONAL PARTICIPANTS OF THE CONSULTATIVE WORKSHOP ON THE CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE

13-16 December 2010 - Lemigo Hotel, Kigali, Rwanda

COUNTRY/ INSTTITUTIONS

No. Participants

TANZANIA 2 Mr. William Joseph Kindeketa Research Officer in Biodiversity Conservation and Management or Scientific Liaison Officer in Tanzania Biodiversity Information Facility P.O Box 4302 Dar es Salaam, Tanzania Tel: + 255 2700745/6 Mobile: +255787 922 447 or +255766 922447 E-mail: william.kindeketa@yahoo.com, wkindeketa@costech.or.tz

. Ms. Ntamubano Yolande Wivine Principal Environment and Natural resources Officer East African Community Arusha, Tanzania Tel : 255 27 2504253/8 / 765456111 Email : ntamubano@eachq.org

BURUNDI 2 Prof. Marie Josée Bigendako University of Burundi Bujumbura, Burundi Tel : 257 222255566/79922350 E-mail: jbigendako@yahoo.fr

Mr. Muhitira Vincent General Director National Institute for Environment and Wildlife Ministry of Environment and Water / INECN Gitega, Burundi Tel : 257 22403031/79984555 Email : muhiv@yahoo.fr

52

ZAMBIA 1 Ignatius N. Makumba Chief Natural Resources Management Officer Environment and Natural Resources Management Department Ministry of Tourism, Environment and Natural Resources 10101 Lusaka, Zambia Tel: 260 211 229410-13/966746841 Email : inmakumba@yahoo.com, imakumba@mtenr.gov.zm

UGANDA 2 Mr. Julius Ecuru Assistant Executive Secretary Uganda National Council for Science and Technology Kampala, Uganda Tel : 256 414 705500/772595233 Email : jbecurus@yahoo.com j.ecuru@uncst.go.ug

Dr. David L.N. Hafashimana Senior Research Officer (Ecologist/ Conservationist, National Agricultural Research Organisation, National Forestry Resources Research Institute Kampala, Uganda Tel : 256 782964358 / 392 300431 Email : davidhaf2000@yahoo.com

APPENDIX V – LIST OF PARTICIPANTS OF CONCERTATION WORKSHOP ON CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE OF

BIODIVERSITY & WORLD SCIENCE DAY 2010 CELEBRATION, Kigali, 13 - 16 December 2010

Institutions Number Names

PRESIREP/ MINISTR 1 Kanamuguire David Director General 0788304442 Email: dkanamugire@presirep.gov.rw

MINEDUC 3 Dr M.Christine. Gasingirwa Director General P. O. Box 622 Kigali, Rwanda Tel: 0785068350 Email: cgasingirwa@nur.ac.rw Mike Hughes Advisor to Minister Tel: 0788854929 Email: mikehughesuk@gmail.com Murangira Hilda Staff- STR P. O. Box 622 Kigali, Rwanda Tel: 0788 857534 Email: hildamura@yahoo.com

53

MINELA 1 Theogene Habakubaho Environmental Expert P. O. Box 3502 Kigali, Rwanda Tel: 0788643982 Email: htheogene@yahoo.fr

MINIFOM 1 Karanganwa Papias Carbon Market Expert P. O. Box 447 Kigali, Rwanda Tel : 0788656310 Email: karanganwapapias@yahoo.fr

CNRU 5 Murekumbanze Gratien Director Culture, Social & Human Sciences Tel : 0788749805 Email: murekugratien@yahoo.fr

RDB/Tourism & Conservation

4 Uwingeli Prosper Chief Park Warden Volcanoes National Park Tel: 0788535949 Email: prosper.uwingeli@rwandatourism.com Eugène Mutangana Chief park Warden Akagera National Park P. O. Box 1448 Kigali, Rwanda Tel: 0788623113 Email: mutaeuge@yahoo.com Rugerinyange Louis Chief park Warden, Nyungwe National Park P. O. Box 78 Nyamagabe, Rwanda Tel: 0788866624 Email: nyange23@yahoo.com Humphrey Kisioh Consultant, Technical Advisor P.O. Box 6239 Kigali, Rwanda Tel: 0783 375105 Email: hkisioh@gmail.com

REMA 2 Raphael Mpayana Coordinator PAB-GEF Project Telephone: 0788355616 P. O. Box 3080 Kigali, Rwanda Email: rmpayana@gmail.com Marie Laetitia Busokeye Dir.ai Planning & Policy Tel: 0788 530999 Email : mlbusokeye@yahoo.fr

NUR 9 Dr Ndahayo Fidele Dean Faculty of Science/NUR P. O. Box 117 Butare, Rwanda Tel : 0788540979

54

Email: fndahayo@ac.nu.rw Dr Naramabuye François Project Coordinator of CEED P. O. Box 117 Butare, Rwanda Tel: 0788874488 Email: fnaramabuye@nur.ac.rw Dr Nsabimana Donat Lecturer/NUR P. O. Box 117 Butare, Rwanda Tel : 0788741619 Email : dnsabimana@nur.ac.rw Dr Nsengimana Hermogene Deputy Dean Faculty of Science/NUR P. O. Box 117, Butare, Rwanda Tel: 0788416745 Email: hnsengimana@nur.ac.rw Dr Rukazambuga Daniel Dean Faculty of Agriculture/NUR P. O. Box 117 Butare, Rwanda Tel: 0788470945 Email: drukazambuga@nur.ac.rw Dr. Felicia Akinyemi Deputy Director & Senior Researcher GIS/NUR P. O. Box 4698 Kigali, Rwanda Tel: 0783 364802 Email: Felicia.akinyemi@gmail.com Dr. Elias Bizuru Lecturer/NUR P. O. Box 117 Butare, Rwanda Tel: 0783 437228 Email: elizuru@nur.ac.rw Prof. Emmanuel Twarabamenye National University of Rwanda P. O. Box 117 Butare, Rwanda Tel: 0788 856784 Email: etwarabamenye@nur.ac.rw Uwimana Catherine Student / President of RUCCB – NUR Rwanda University Club for Conservation of the Bio-diversity (RUCCB) P. O. Box 4652 Kigali, Rwanda Tel: 0788 691 063 Email: mitsu7kate@gmail.com

ISAE 1 Nahayo Alphonse Assistant Lecturer P. O. Box 210 Musanze Tel : 0782516819

55

Email: Nahayo1@yahoo.fr

INES 1 Dr. Sosthѐne Haubmuremyi Lecture 0788302561 h1sosthene@hotmail.com*

KHI 1 Mbonigaba Edouard Tutorial Assistant Tel : 0788891446 Email : mbonied@yahoo.co.uk

KIE 1 Ildephonse Habarugira lecturer Tel : 0788412922 Email: ildhab@yahoo.fr

KIST 2 Dr Antoine Nsabimana Focal Point CoEB Tel : 0788435561 Email : nsabimanant@yahoo.fr Martin Patrick Ongul Lecturer P. O. Box 3900 Kigali, Rwanda Tel : 0782 031662 Email : mp.ongul@kist.ac.rw

INATEK 1 Dr Kamatari Aloys H.O.D/Senior Lecturer P. O. Box 06 Kibungo Tel : 0788422770 Email : aloys.kamatari@gmail.com

Umutara Polytechnique

1 Dr Mbuza francis Director, Livestock Research P. O. Box 57 Nyangatare Rwanda Tel : (+250) 788 774300 Email : mbuza2000@yahoo.com

ISAR 1 Gapusi Jean Head of Ruhande Station Tel : 0788531388 Email: gapusirj@yahoo.fr

IRST 1 Minani Vedaste Head of research station Tel : 0788479619 Email: minaved@yahoo.fr

KRC/DFGFI 1 Dominique Mvunabandi KRC Research Assistant P. O. Box: 105 Musanze, Ruhengeri Tel: 0788222891 Email: mvunabandid@yahoo.fr

Regional & Inter. 5 IGCP

56

NGOs:

Rurangwa Eugene TBNR & advocacy Cordinator IGCP country Représentative for Rwanda P. O. Box 931 Kigali, Rwanda 0788305374 erurangwa@awfafrica.org SACOLA Mr Nsengiyumva P. Celestin Chairman, SACOLA Tel: 0788854067 Email: communitylodge@yahoo.fr / pcnsengiyumva@yahoo.fr RENGOF Umulisa Eugenie Programme Officer P. O. Box 6344 Tel: 0788 303390/ 0788 449738 Email: fenvironment@yahoo.com WCS Masozera Michel Country Director WCS P. O. Box 1699 Kigali, Rwanda Tel: 0788 300483 Email: mmasozera@wcs.org RWANDA BAMBOO SOCIETY Kagaaga Annet Lindah Field Officer Tel: 0788 836770 Email: rwandabamboos@yahoo.com DIAN FOSSEY GORILLA FUND INTERNATIONAL Joan Carlos Bonilla Vice President Tel: 0788 303435 Email: joancarlos.bonilla@yahoo.com

UN Agencies/ Rwanda 1 UNECA Daya Bragante Programme Officer Tel: 0783560345 Email: dbragante@uneca.org

UNESCO 3 Noeline Rakotoarisoa Programme Specialist Email: n.raondry@unesco.org Dr. George Owusu Essegbey Consultant - UNESCO (SIR-STEPRI) P. O. Box CT 519, Accra Ghana Tel: + 233 302773856 Email: goessegbeya@stepri.csir.org.gh Luis Garnier

57

Appendix VI: Evaluation of national institutions in Rwanda aiming at creating a

Centre of Excellence for Biodiversity and Natural Resources

QUESTIONNAIRE

1. Section 1: General Information

Name of the Institution:…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Correspondence (Telephone, Fax, email, website)…………………………………………………………………..

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Year of establishment: ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

1.1. Type of Institution (Please tick as appropriate):

Academic-------------------------------------

Research----------------------------------------

Public (government) -------------------------

Private (company) -----------------------------

NGO (national) ----------------------------------

NGO (international) -------------------------------

1.2. Name of final Decision Maker in the institution-------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.3. Name and title of the contact person/ respondent:--------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.4. Mission of the Organization--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consultant - UNESCO (Director Gestarse) Tel: +506 8854 60063 Email: luis.garnier@gestarse.org

58

1.5. Basic organizational structure of the organization (brief description and if possible attach an

organizational chart)

1.6. Legal document setting up the organization (e.g. legislative act or law, executive instrument,

registration certificate, etc.)

1.7. The supervisory ministry or public organization (if any)…………………………………………………………..

1.8. Main objectives of the organization

1.9. Main Areas of Work (Focus Areas)------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.10. Number of international sponsors---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.11 List the key clients of the organization---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 2: Human Capital

2.1. Total staff Number:

2.2. Number of scientists:

Please give the educational background of your scientific staff (add row if required)

Discipline Ph.D. degree Masters degree B.Sc./ Diploma Total

Botany

Zoology

Conservation

Natural resources management

GIS

59

Total

2.3. Number of administrative and support staff___________________________________________

2.4. Number of junior technical staff_____________________________________________________

2.5. Number of international staff_______________________________________________________

2.6 List training courses your staff have undergone during the past 5 years, the duration and the

respective training institution?

Training course Year completed/

duration

Training Institution Country

2.7. Assess the scientific staff for research in the institution:

Very adequate……… adequate……….average…………..poor…………….

60

Section 3: Infrastructure Capital

3.1. Estimated annual budget in 2010

3.2. Estimate level of funding in 2010 :

(a) Government________________________________________________________

(b) Foreign donors______________________________________________________

(c) Income or revenue from research grants_________________________________

(d) Private sector_______________________________________________________

(e) Income generation by the institution____________________________________

(f) Other_____________________________________________________________

3.3. Do you own or rent your building? Own………Rent…….

3.4. How many offices?

3.5. How many labs? Please specify them (add row if required)

Name Number

Botany

Zoology

Entomology

Chemistry

Soil science

Computer lab

3.5. Access to Internet? In all the offices………..In some offices………..No access…………….

61

3.6. Access to telephone? In all the offices…………….In some offices………….No telephone………………

3.7. Access to fax in the institution? Yes………..No……………..

3.8. Computers in the organization? In all offices………..in some offices……….None……….

Total number of computers in the organization?___________________________________

Number of computer server:____________________________________________________

3.9. Assess research infrastructure for research in the institution:

Very adequate……… adequate……….average…………..poor…………….

State what needs to be added (indicating numbers) to improve research infrastructure …………….. ……

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

3.10. Assess support infrastructure for research work e.g. photocopiers, printers, projectors, etc.:

Very adequate………….adequate……….average………..poor…………….

State what needs to be added to upgrade support infrastructure

3.11. How many vehicles for field work?...................

Section 4: Research and training programs

4.1. What research programmes in relation with biodiversity does your institution have?..........

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

4.2. Current main research projects in relation with biodiversity and natural resources management

a)

b)

62

c)

d)

e)

f)

4.2. Number and titles of Research Projects/Programs led and executed by the organization within the

past 5 years

a)

b)

c)

4.3. Collaborating institutions (add row if required)

Local International

4.4. Type and number of publications in 2010 (attach samples or indexes), scientific or non-academic

(could be bulletins for the public, etc.)

Peer reviewed journal articles------------

Books and book chapters--------------

Conference presentation-------------

Bulletin or newsletters for the public----------

Other (be specific) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

63

4.5. Does the institution have a scientific journal in relation with biodiversity and natural resources

management?

YES____

No_____

If yes, what’s the name of the journal?---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4.6. Does the institution have any other internal mechanism of research dissemination in relation with

biodiversity and natural resources management?

YES____

No_____

If yes, which mechanism?---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4.7. How many national or international scientific conferences organized by the institution during the

last 3 years? Enumerate them:

a)

b)

c)

d)

e)

f)

4.8. Assess research achievements in the institution:

64

Very adequate……… adequate……….average…………..poor…………….

4.9. State what needs to be met to improve research in the institution……………………………………………..….

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

4.10. List current institutional agreements or collaborations (add row if required)

Type of

agreement

Partner institution Field of collaboration

4.11. Indicate services provided or products made by the institution

Product or Service Detail

Bioprospection: Laboratory analysis

Inventory of species

Conservation and Protection

Patroling

Consulting

Text books

Training material

Training courses

65

Tourism services

Any other related to biodiversity management

4.12. Area of focus on biodiversity management (add row when necessary)

Area or focus Mark all appropriate

Bioprospecting

Monitoring

Protection of ecosystems

Restoration of ecosystems

Training

Park design and management

Species inventorying and monitoring

Policy making

Regulation design

4.13. List the locations of research/ projects of your institution in Rwanda----------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4.14. Any views on the establishment of the Centre of Excellence for Biodiversity and Natural

Resources? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

66

Note to the respondent: Please return filled questionnaire to Prof. Emmanuel Twarabamenye/ Dr. Elias Bizuru

National University of Rwanda Email: etwarabamenye@nur.ac.rw, emmatwara@yahoo.fr, ebisous@yahoo.fr

Phone: +250 78 885 67 84 (Emmanuel Twarabamenye) +250 78 857 60 52 (Elias Bizuru)

Appendix VII: The Text of the Speech by the UNESCO Representative Dr. Noeline Raondry-Rakotoarisoa

C’est un plaisir pour moi d’être aujourd’hui à Kigali dans le cadre de l’atelier de Concertation sur la

Structure du Centre d’Excellence en Biodiversité, et je voudrais vous souhaiter la bienvenue au nom de

l’UNESCO et de l’UNECA qui ont organise cet atelier de 3 jours en collaboration avec le MINDEDUC et le

MINELA. Cet atelier est finance par le fonds One UN au Rwanda dans le cadre d’un programme conjoint

mis en œuvre par UNESCO, UNECA et UNDP visant à appuyer le Rwanda pour la Création d’un Centre

d’Excellence en Biodiversité.

La Conférence Internationale sur la ‘Recherche en Biodiversité et Gestion durable des Ressources

naturelles’, organisée en 2007 par le Ministère en charge des Sciences, Techniques et de la Recherche de

l’époque, en collaboration avec les institutions nationales et la communauté internationale a été le point

de départ du Projet de Centre d’Excellence en Biodiversité. En effet, ce projet fait écho au vibrant

plaidoyer que son Excellence M. Paul Kagame avait fait lors de son discours d’ouverture, envers la

communauté scientifique afin qu’elle trouve des solutions pratiques au défi pose par la perte de la

Biodiversité au Rwanda, pays pourtant pays classe parmi les Hotspots de diversité biologique mondiale.

Le CoE est un des moyens qu’il avait suggéré pour apporter des réponses aux pressions qui s’exercent sur

la Nature et la Biodiversité telle que, parmi tant d’autres, la déforestation ou encore la sécheresse.

Depuis Juillet 2008, l’UNESCO vient en appui a cette initiative du Rwanda, en étroite collaboration avec

les Ministères concernes et les acteurs clés. UNECA et le PNUD nous ont rejoints en 2010.

Mesdames et Messieurs,

Du point de vu biogéographique, le Rwanda fait partie du Rift Albertin ; et c’est donc dans cette logique

que la première étude de faisabilité envisageait la création d’un centre régional pour le Rift Albertin.

Prenant en compte les aspirations et les attentes des parties prenantes au projet, cette première étude

développe une vision et donne diverses options quant au concept de Centre d’Excellence. Ce document a

été valide au niveau national en Avril 2009 mais plusieurs questions restaient en suspens telles que 1)

quelles sont les activités du centre ? ; 2) Quel type de structure de gouvernance pour ce centre ? 3)

comment démarrer un tel centre ? Par contre, les principes de bâtir le Centre d’excellence sur les

67

ressources institutionnelles, humaines, financières et logistiques existantes et de veiller a une

appropriation du processus au niveau national ont été clairement énoncés.

Sur la base des recommandations de l’atelier de validation, une seconde étude, plus ciblée, a été

entreprise. Elle visait a répondre aux questions encore en suspend et a focaliser la réflexion sur des

aspects critiques qui permettraient aux parties prenantes de s’accorder sur un concept clair. Cette étude

documentée par une enquête, par des interviews mais aussi par des études similaires menées par

d’autres au Rwanda, a permis d’aboutir non seulement a un Concept mais a définir tout ce qui s’y

rattache : la mission, les objectifs, les activités, les composantes…

Ce document intitule : Conceptualisation du Centre d’Excellence en Biodiversité du Rift Albertin est le

document de travail de cet atelier de concertation.

Le concept du Centre d’excellence vous sera présenté en détail dans la suite de ce programme.

Ce concept répondant aux aspirations et aux attentes des parties prenantes, il est temps maintenant

pour nous de l’opérationnaliser et de commencer à lui donner une réalité palpable.

Pour cela, la première étape est d’identifier les institutions qui feront partie du Centre d’excellence et de

définir les relations inter institutionnelles. C’est dans ce but que cet atelier a été organise afin de

recueillir vos avis d’experts sur la question.

En attendant que les autres pays du Rift Albertin se joignent à l’initiative, la portée du Centre

d’Excellence dont il sera question ici est national et ne concernera que les institutions nationales; il est

tres important de garder cela a l’esprit pendant nos discussions. Cependant, les collaborations entre pays

ayant des écosystèmes et des espaces biogéographiques en commun sont toujours tres utiles, pour ne

pas dire indispensables pour leur gestion durable des ressources naturelles partagées. C’ est pourquoi il

nous a paru important que des représentants des autres pays du Rift Albertin (Zambia, Tanzanie,

Ouganda, Burundi, RDC ?) soient des le départ associes a nos débats pour les enrichir de leur expériences.

De cette rencontre, je suis sure que nous allons bâtir des partenariats qui contribueront a la réussite du

futur Centre d’excellence. Je voudrais ici remercier les invites des autres pays du Rift Albertin d’avoir bien

voulu répondre à notre invitation et de nous faire l’honneur de leur présence.

Cet atelier de concertation s’inscrit dans la phase technique du processus de création du Centre d’

Excellence qui devra aboutir fin 2010 a l’élaboration d’un draft de document de projet qui sera soumis a

l’appréciation des décideurs politiques des le début de l’année 2011. Avec un document technique

réaliste et pragmatique et un soutien politique fort, la phase de mobilisation de ressource ne devrait pas

être un handicap insurmontable ; nous pouvons je pense nous permettre d’envisager le démarrage du

projet dans un avenir relativement proche : horizon 2012 ???

C’est avec cette note d’optimisme que je voudrais clore cette allocution.

Mesdames et Messieurs, Honorable assistance je vous remercie de votre attention.

68