Rwanda | ABSCH-NR-RW-239117 | Interim National Reports on the Implementation of the Nagoya Protocol | Access and Benefit-Sharing Clearing-House

Loading...
Interim National Reports on the Implementation of the Nagoya Protocol (NR)
  |  
last updated: 01 Nov 2017


No country selected.
Rwanda Interim national report on the implementation of the Nagoya Protocol
CHM-NFP-RW-209512-1 ABS National Focal Point Mr. Emmanuel Rushema This document has been updated. This is not the latest published version. Click here to view the latest version of the record.
    Yes
    Yes
    The Nagoya Protocol was ratified by the Presidential order nº 109 ter/01 of 03 October 2011. The country has biodiversity policy and law with provisions on ABS  
    Yes
    No difficulties or challenges encountered in designating the national Focal Point  
    Yes
     
    No selection made
    No selection made
    Legal requirements on biodiversity permits have been developed but yet to be published in the Official Gazette  
    Not applicable, since no access requirements are in place
    No selection made
    Legal requirements on biodiversity permits have been developed but yet to be published in the Official Gazette
    Yes
    Legal requirements on biodiversity permits and monitoring procedures have been developed but yet to be published in the Official Gazette.
    No additional information provided
    ABS is a new protocol which requires international legal expertise and specialised skills to facilitate its implementation. It also requires the involvement of so many various stakeholders including the community (at different levels) who need to have the same uunderstanding of the benefits provided by genetic resources.
    Yes
    Yes
    There are rules on accessing genetic resources, especially for non-commercial research purposes.
    Yes
    Yes
    Provided for in the legal requirements on biodiversity permits yet to be published
    Yes
    Provided for in the legal requirements on biodiversity permits yet to be published
    0
    Permits in the framework on Nagoya protocol have not yet been issues because the related legal requirements are not yet published, hence, not yet enforced.
    Yes
    Provided for in the legal requirements on biodiversity permits yet to be published
      Yes
        Yes
        research results are shared and used.
    No additional information provided
    Yes
    Provided for in the legal requirements on biodiversity permits yet to be published
    No
    Not Applicable: The country hasn’t indigenous and local communities as defined by the CBD
    No
    The country has not indigenous local communities
    No additional information provided
    Yes
      No
      No
    The legal instrument that provides for compliance is yet to be gazetted
    No
      No selection made
      No selection made
    Not Applicable: the country does not have indigenous and local communities as defined by the CBD
    Yes
      The related legal instrument that provides for PI and MAT is yet to be gazetted
      No
    No case of non compliance identified so far
    Yes
      Other
      Rwanda has provided the information to relevant national authorities, but so far, there is no case involving others to the party providing PIC. The information is not yet on the ABS Clearing-House since it is at its early development
    Yes
    The related legal instrument that encourages users and providers to include provisions in MAT to share information on the implementation of such terms provides for PIC and MAT compliance is yet to be gazetted
    Yes
    No additional information provided
    None
    Not applicable, since no access requirements are in place
    Yes
    Yes
    Yes
    Yes
    No additional information provided
    No difficulties encountered so fat
    Yes
    Yes
    Yes
    Yes
    No additional information provided
    In the development of ABS legislation, the big challenge encountered was linked to the nature of the protocol, which is very complex, with limited jurisprudence and expertise in the country.
    No
    As per the CBD definition, Rwanda has not indigenous and local communities,
    Not applicable
    No selection made
    No selection made
    Not applicable
    Not applicable
    Not applicable
    Not applicable
      No selection made
      No selection made
      No selection made
    Not applicable
    Not applicable
    No additional information provided.
    Yes
    No answer provided
    Conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity is imbedded in biodiversity related policy and laws, however, it is too early to estimate the contribution of Nagoya protocol to conservation and sustainable use as as the legal instrument domesticating the Nagoya Protocol is not yet implemented because it is not yet published
    No additional information provided.
    None
    Yes
    Not Applicable
    Not applicable, since there are no indigenous and local communities in my country
    No selection made
    No additional information provided
    Yes
    Yes
    No additional information provided
    Yes
    Yes
    Trainings of different stakeholders on the protocol
    Yes
    Yes
    Capacity to develop domestic legislative and administrative measures on access and benefit sharing. Capacity to negotiate mutually agreed terms; Capacity of relevant stakeholders, including the business sector and the research community, in relation to the implementation of the Protocol
    Yes
    Rwanda has recently received financial support from UNEP and UNDP for the implementation of Nagoya protocol
    No
    No additional information provided
    Challenge to get local expertise for capacity building related to the implementation of the Nagoya protocol. The country has to outsource this expertise, which is difficult to get timely, because it is limited even worldwide.
    Yes
    Collaboration at this stage is done on non commercial research such as reseaches related to taxonomy
    No additional information provided
    None
    Yes
    Budget allocation is mainly co-financing of projects supported by development partners
      Yes
          Yes
              Yes
              Yes
Resource mobilisation procedures from the GEF are long
Funds mobilised so far are from UNDP and UNEP
    Yes

      Less than 5
    None
    The format is user friendly