Economic development and environmental protection, a fine line

THE environment has become a key priority for many countries, but with the economic crisis in the United States and now in the Eurozone, the issue of climate change has been pushed to the wayside while the financial underpinnings of the world are sorted out first.However, with World Environment Day on June 5, Rwanda’s role between economy and environment is an essential balancing act to promote proper development, the Government says.“Environment always goes with economics. When you have a woman who has to walk five or six hours to get drinking water instead of going to school, that has an impact,” says Dr. Rose Mukankomeje, Director General of the Rwanda Environment Management Authority (REMA).Rwanda is developing fast economically, and as the most densely populated country in Africa, the environment could easily take a toll, Mukankomeje says.“Most of us rely on natural resources—whether it’s for agriculture, for firewood, for whatever. And when you look at all farm activities, we still have to do a lot. When you look at population growth and natural resource use, there is an imbalance. This is the challenge we have,” she says. “When it comes to development, as a country we are saying the equity between generations is so key for us.”However, this being said, the balance is not always easy to find. While environmental protection is key for long-term sustainability, reports say the first to suffer are the poorest in the country, who rely on natural resources such as firewood and wetlands for their livelihoods—areas that are now vigilantly protected.In Kayonza district, which borders Akagera National Park, animals used to stray from the park and destroy local crops, says Mayor John Mugabo. According to Rica Rwigamba, head of Tourism and Conservation at the Rwanda Development Board (RDB), the road to finding the balance to solve these local economic problems while still protecting the environment has not necessarily been an easy one. But the RDB sharing programme has helped.Compensation, for instance, is now paid to farmers whose crops have been damaged by stray animals. In total, five per cent of revenue from the national parks goes back to communities to be used towards various development projects, says Rwigamba.“Most poor people live beside the national parks. They are not allowed to get anything from the national parks for their livelihood, but they are the people who are most affected when the animals come out. So, they have an extra challenge of dealing with the fact that they have the parks nearby,” Rwigamba says.Since the revenue sharing project started in 2005, Rwf1.4 billion has been given towards community development projects such as infrastructure, construction of school classrooms, agriculture education and teaching handicrafts, among other activities. Consequently, all areas that contribute to diversifying an economy have relied so heavily on natural resources.“Some have lost jobs such as poaching, where they made money—which was an issue. Today they are still making money, but from a different job now,” Rwigamba says.Mugabo says the diversification through the programme has greatly helped the community to get on its feet by constructing schools, roads and a health care centre, for instance. The Government has also constructed a fence around the park to keep animals from straying into the fields.However, Rwigamba says the challenge is still trying to get the message to the community about the benefits of conservation, where some still don’t see the link between environmental protection and them getting a portion of the profits. In the past, Government policy has also had an impact on local economies in wetland areas, but Mukankomeje said the larger economic impact of clean wetlands is more important.A report on REMA’s site stated that in 2005, in order to protect wetlands and limit using wood as a fuel source, the Wetlands Protection Legislation led to brick kilns shutting down and banning brick making in wetland areas. Although the legislation was well intentioned, the local economic impact affected many people’s livelihoods.Mukankomeje says that the brick kilns moved uphill, and that wetland protection has wider and potential positive economic impacts.“They (wetlands) need total protection because of their global component, because of the degradation of climate, filtration of water, diversity, which are not only good for us, but also good for others,” she says. Gishwati reforestation is another example of where they are displacing people and the local economy to foster reforestation efforts, she says.During and after the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi, people moved into the forests and started to cut them down. “Now, it is a mess – landslides, people dying, so what the Government has done is moved them,” Mukankomeje says. “Environmental protection will be able to create a much more stable community in the long term.”With Rwanda’s population growing and the use of resources increasing, environmental protection is the only way to uphold the economy and make sure the boom doesn’t crash the environment.“We don’t have any right to destroy the environment,” REMA’s DG says. “If we don’t pay attention, we are going to be in trouble.”

Insight

Economic development and environmental protection, a fine line