Housing policies particularly in developing countries are big challenges. This is no longer the case of Rwanda as majority of its rural households joined the innovative and practical rural urbanization strategy.

1. RWANDA COMMUNITY SETTLEMENTS; A
NEW LIFE MODEL IN KAMONYI
DISTRICT.
Submitted By:
Name : Minani Leodegard
Position : Researcher
Organization : Kampala International University.
Telephone: 256775048575
Email: mileodegard@yahoo.ca
March, 2015
Innovative and Practical Housing Project
submitted at Building and Social Housing
Foundation (BSHF) for Word Habitat Award
(WHA), 2015 Cycle.

2. 2
About Kamonyi District
Kamonyi is a district (akarere) in Southern Province, Rwanda. Its capital is
Kamonyi, also sometimes known as Rukoma.
Kamonyi district is divided into 12 sectors (imirenge): Gacurabwenge, Karama,
Kayenzi, Kayumbu, Mugina, Musambira, Ngamba, Nyamiyaga, Nyarubaka,
Rugalika, Rukoma and Runda.
Key Information
Country Rwanda
Province Southern
Capital Gacurabwenge
Area
• Total 655 km2 (253 sq mi)
Population (2012 census)
• Total 340,501
• Density 520/km2 (1,300/sq mi)
Project commencement
In Kamonyi District, Community Settlements as the housing policy in the
whole country of Rwanda locally known as Imidugudu or agglomeration plan
came as an idea of the Arusha peace agreement of 1993, between government
of Rwanda at the time and refugee representative party of RPF Inkotanyi, a
project that was aiming at finding homes to hundreds of thousands of refugees
who were being expected to return back in their home country after Arusha
peace agreement.

3. 3
Implementation of this new policy started with the 1994 new government, with
extension of the list of beneficiaries to include genocide survivors whose houses
were demolished during the period of genocide against Tutsi in Rwanda. The
programme since 1997 has been modified and extended to target the entire
rural population: all scattered households in the country had to be regrouped
in villages. The programme was implemented with substantial support from
international organizations such as the UNHCR, UNDP, ECHO, LWF, USAID,
CARE-UK, World Vision, UNWFP, world bank and many others. What began as
a response to an emergency crisis became a massive scheme for the country
community transformation and innovative and practical low cost housing plan
for housing problem for the Rwandan community. Up to 2009, 876,623 houses
were constructed in 30 districts of the country.
Initiator of the project?
The project was initiated by Government of Rwanda and UN agencies (UNHCR,
UNWFP and UNDP), and European Union as a solution to finding shelters of
returning refugees at the time.
The main purpose of the project.
The Rwandan community settlement policy generally aims at achieving a good
control and good management of habitation through planning and execution
and stopping anarchical construction of buildings and the extension of
unplanned residential areas in Rwanda.
In particular, the new resettlement policy is expected to focus on finding
adequate housing for a category of households such as the homeless, often
poor and vulnerable widows, orphans and persons with disabilities.
The new settlement policy also aims at bringing all the homes in settlements
programme to an acceptable level in terms of housing and access to social and
economic standards. The policy further aims at rationalizing the use of land to
avoid its fragmentation in small portions needed for both agriculture and
housing.

4. 4
Project Description
Key features of the project for appropriate and affordable
building standards.
The issue of settlement in Rwanda should be understood within the framework
of the Arusha Accords (1992-93). The Protocol on repatriation of refugees
identified the type of settlement agreed upon as the village grouped type of
settlement to encourage the establishment of development centres in rural
areas and break with the traditional scattered housing. The current policy on
resettlement in rural areas is thus based on the Arusha agreement. The village
settlement type described in the agreement is now commonly known as
umudugudu.
Under the new Government, in 1994, the first effort at spelling out a national
policy was a Ministerial Decree released in January 1997 by the Ministry of
Public Works and Energy (MINITRAPE). The purpose of the Decree was to
regulate housing construction in both urban and rural areas, with the objective
of stopping unplanned settlements, and of promoting the development of
imidugudu as the only acceptable type of rural settlement.
The underlying rationale for imidugudu sought to address some of the
structural challenges of
Rwandan rural economic and social organization that had likewise been
fundamentally altered
by the war and massive displacement of so many people.
The Government of Rwanda in 1997 prepared a Thematic Consultation on
community settlements which should help to better define the country's
settlement needs and future strategies. This work was fully supported by the
UN's Joint Reintegration Programming Unit, a joint planning and co-ordination

5. 5
mechanism of UNHCR and UNDP to assist the Government of Rwanda during a
transition period from relief to development, to ensure a co-ordinated and
planned use of resources in the reintegration program for returnees, survivors
of the genocide, vulnerable groups and war/genocide affected population.
During that time, that unit was extended incorporating other NGOs and guided
by a Steering Committee chaired by the Ministry of Land, Human Resettlement
and Environmental Protection.
Lately this Steering committee has been a kind of a forum where the
Government, Donors, UN system and NGO's have developed a dialogue on
human settlement policy. Through this committee concerns of Donors and UN
Agencies on imidugudu policy and practice have been discussed and clarified.
Thus, in January 1997, the Government decreed that any new rural
construction must be in the form of imidugudu or grouped village settlements,
Imidugudu were the only recommended and promoted form of settlement in
rural areas.
Up to 1997, the Rwandan government human settlement policy was viewed in
a context of a response to emergence situation of homeless households. Since
then, the policy was changed to be a scheme for government to gradually
transform the existing housing system; scattered houses in rural areas be
replaced by grouped houses in sites across the whole country. The policy
focusing on group settlement the government hoped to solve the problem of
land scarcity at the same time.
This policy targeted the establishment of specific residential areas in each
village in efforts to enhance proper land utilisation and the provision of basic
services. These Imidugudu settlements were mainly built in the rural areas to
encourage development in these locations, since the concept of Imidugudu was
seen to offer many advantages to the population. Under this programme, the
government focused on the provision of services such as health, education,
water, electricity and sanitation. In addition, the government also aimed at
providing roads and other communication networks, market access and
agricultural extension services.

6. 6
Thus, more than one million people had been placed in the Imidugudu
settlements up to 1999.
When Imidugudu scheme was in its eighth year, many donors remain skeptical
about the programme; citing reports of "coerced" relocations, the lack of
popular participation in the process of home design, plot-size, decision-making
and other aspects of planning and resettlement-policy implementation, that the
government did not seek the opinion of the local population before embarking
on this project and as a result, many of the present occupants were forced into
these group settlements. In justification of this statement, government officials
said that the emergency phase called for the urgent resettlement of thousands
of the returnees and displaced persons that led to the development of many
sites by numerous organisations without adherence to clearly defined building
standards.
After all those accusations, the government immediately updated its settlement
policy, specifying where houses can be built, how many units they should
contain, the size of the houses, the location of recreational centres and other
social services in the Imidugudu. The new policy was in line with the
government's overall approach to structural reforms of human settlement
related to the land tenure system, community welfare standards and
environment.
Officials said the new policy aimed at the development of sustainable human
settlements through improved land management, measures for poverty
reduction, measures against hunger and measures to protect the environment.
A draft law on the land and housing policy was passed by parliament, focusing
on improving and redesigning settlement patterns in urban and rural areas
which are followed today. Officials declared that despite some shortcomings in
implementing the policy, the government still firmly believes that Imidugudu
represents the only feasible alternative to Rwanda's land population equation
for the foreseeable future. Thus, Based on the participation of the local

7. 7
communities, site selection and construction for Imidugudu have to follow
specific standards. These include specifications such as maximum size of the
house, which should not be more than 400 square metres; minimum size of a
house, which should be 42 square metres; mud blocks, which will be used for
home construction instead of wooden poles in order to protect forests; blocks of
grouped houses, which should contain no more than 50 plots (to give enough
space for agriculture and other social services and also ease congestion);
agricultural or mixed farming fields, which should be no farther than 2-3 km
from the site; and there must be proximity to basic services, either already in
existence, or the ready potential for those services to be provided. For this
matter, sites where group settlement is to be carried out has to be determined
by grassroots leaders indicating the surface area, the rough boundaries and
the existence of a development plan and approved by district councils in
accordance with the district development plan.
For the government, the target is to have all Rwandans living in Imidugudu in
urban areas or the rural settings, being a voluntary process whereby people
move slowly into the newly established villages.
Details of the evidence of its impact.
Also called ”dynamic cities, engines for growth”, Imidugudu in Rwanda are
envisaged as becoming "rural development centres," that is, attractive centres
where basic services (health care, formal and informal education, electricity
and water supply) are readily available, and sustainable livelihoods are made
more possible (via agricultural production schemes, cooperative movements
and saving and credit services). Following this logic, grouped settlements offer
the opportunity for more efficient and cost effective service delivery. This, in
turn, enhances the social welfare of villagers, who have better access to better
services. In addition, grouped settlements facilitate population mobilisation for
meetings, infrastructure sharing, community work and socioeconomic services

8. 8
exchange. In details, community settlements in Rwanda have shown the
following positive social impacts;
 Urgent need for shelter; The practice of imidugudu started in 1995 with
the grouped settlement of old caseload returnees. Although the
Government had not yet articulated a formal decree concerning grouped
settlement, there was a general understanding among humanitarian and
development assistance actors that grouped settlement was the
Government preference based on Arusha accord. Given that the "old
caseload" returnees had neither homes nor land, the policy of imidugudu
was seen as a rational and expedient solution. Following the huge influx
of New Caseload returnees late 1996, the Government declared
imidugudu as the official settlement policy for returnees. This has
resulted the quickest way to address the population in large and to
stimulate local sustainable development.
 Security: personal and national; The broad rationale here was that
village settlements will enhance the security of people in rural areas. In
practice, this issue of security had two quite different dimensions. The
first was linked to genocide survivors, often widows, and old caseload
refugees who returned in 1994-95. These groups had genuine fear of
returning to, or building new, isolated homes, and preferred to live close
together for mutual support. The second dimension was linked to the
situation in the Northwest and the rise in insurgency during 1997-98. As
more and more people fled to communal centres and public places to
escape the fighting, the impact of imidugudu then has been an
alternative way of both protecting the population from the insurgents,
while depriving the infiltrators of hideouts and covert support.
 National reconciliation; Although new sites of houses of a "mixed"
population with ethnic background and without enough clear
information on the profile of occupants, sharing common needs,

9. 9
infrastructure in settlements, promoted a reconciliation among Rwandan
community after the 1994 genocide.
 Access to clean water; The distribution of clean water to scattered
houses was a big burden to government without any other means than
grouping households into settlements. In some cases only water of very
poor quality was available and in other cases very long distances had to
be covered (up to 10 km) to get to the nearest water station. With the new
government 2020 vision, there is an objective of water and electricity for
all, the implementation of this plan used settlements for facilitating the
achievement of the plan.
 Health Facilities; Even though each settlement site does not have its
health centre, there has been an effort by government to locate a health
centre in each of 2150 cells (the lowest administrative institution) and
their technical analysis starts with the placement in community
settlements.
 Educational Facilities; With the new government policy of 12 years
basic education for free, each cell must have a public primary and
secondary school based in the place not other than the settlement, and
each settlement must have a nursery school.
 Public services decentralization; Local and central government are
gaining from the grouped housing model by facilitating the mass
mobilisation for information sharing, decision making, priority making,
participatory policy plan and implementation, security issues, collective
public services delivery, workshops, …
 Support to poor families; Government and other stakeholders, in this
programme, easily reaches families in need to provide assistance to them
including constructing houses to those who cannot afford the costs.
These include orphans, widows, returnees, people with disabilities, elders
and poor people.

10. 10
 Facilitation of land consolidation: Within the new policy of land
consolidation adopted by the government of Rwanda, where an extensive
agriculture is practiced on large scale land according to the appropriate
and selected seed, settlements have helped in availing the land for this
agriculture policy.
 A new and good look of the country; After the construction of settled
houses, a look of estates brings an image of cities even in rural areas of
the country.
 Better access to services; Following the logic providing basic public
services in settlement sites, grouped settlements offer the opportunity for
more efficient and cost effective service delivery. This, in turn, enhances
the welfare of villagers, who have better access to better services.
 Rationalisation/transformation of the productive sector; Another
important consideration of settlements in terms of financial
sustainability is that the Government’s assertion that imidugudu
represent a partial "exit strategy" from Rwanda's overwhelming poverty
and dependence on semi-subsistence agriculture. Thus, with good
planning, grouped settlements allowed more rational distribution and
use of land, thereby enhancing farm productivity levels, while affording
the opportunity to develop markets, agro-industries and off-farm
incomes.
 Markets and commercial infrastructures; The new national housing
model of settlements has also resulted in creation of new opportunities
like trading shops, ICT services jobs creation, mobile moneys agencies,
bank services individual agents, the mass market places and micro
financing institutions, which also generate households income and taxes
for government.

11. 11
The main beneficiaries of the project.
As mentioned, the project started as a response to housing for 800,000
returnees after 1994 genocide. These were Rwandan refugees who were living
in exile most of them since 1959. The project has been amended to include
other new categories such as genocide survivors whose houses were
demolished. Most of these genocide survivors included the widows and orphans
without ability to build their homes. Up to now the program is extensively
developed to incorporate all Rwandans especially those living in rural areas.
The current census indicators reveal that 70% of the population; that is
8,000,000 people in Rwanda lives in rural areas. According to the national
institute of statistics, 32% of the population is the youth; that is around
3,700,000, people in between 21-35 years, the time most of them express the
need for their own homes, since majority of them lives in rural areas. Thus,
this category has become the target of interest for the government community
settlement policy, where they join sites willingly to benefit a wide range of
infrastructure provided.
Sites are scattered across the country, where each of 2,150 cells (the basic
administrative institution), decides the number of sites and their locations for
its population and approved by the districts housing division. Thus, as early
2009, there were more than 6,000 sites across the whole country with nearly
1,000,000 houses, managed under the government administrative structure
(from cells to sectors to districts to provinces and lastly to national level), as a
result of being the government initiative.
The cost of the project and/or planned future funding of the project.
The cost of setting up a family house in community settlements is estimated to
the average of US$5000 per family. This cost can go high or low depending on
the nature of stakeholders contributions. At the early project phase, costs were
covered by contributions from all stakeholders of the project; During the
Arusha Accords, already, UNHCR was involved in the discussions and they
promised to provide shelter to the stated beneficiaries. They agreed at that time

12. 12
on providing 8 sheets of roofing materials per family for the first phase of the
project.
UNDP set up agglomeration sites, and 65 sites having 50 houses each were
fully constructed under the cost covered by UNDP.
ECHO worked through implementing partners only. They financed the building
of 6000 houses, costing 1.100 ECU each.
USAID had donated US$ 25 million for rehabilitation programs through
implementing partners.
To now, in case the need for having a house in umudugudu arises without
ability, the government or any other stakeholder intervention comes for
necessary costs such as availing sites for plots on public land, construction
master plan and authorizations, iron sheets, cement, engineering costs, doors
and windows to assist those who cannot afford the costs; orphans, widows,
returnees, people with disabilities, elders and poor communities. The selection
of these aided beneficiaries refers to the already existing categories of social
classes as determined by government guidelines known locally as Ubudehe,
where each person falls under a certain category depending on the property
and income level.
Involvement of the local community in the project.
In regard of the community involvement in the project, it is known that
Rwanda is the only country with the community service, where the last
Saturday of every month, all community members meet on the administrative
cell level to give back to the community, mainly performing activities of public
infrastructure maintenance services. These include hygiene and sanitation
services, education infrastructure maintenance, health infrastructure
maintenance, housing construction for poor and genocide survivors. It is in

13. 13
this context of the monthly community service that many settlements have
benefited the contribution of local communities.
Another important point is the contribution of the army forces in what is called
the “Army week activities” that take place every year where the plan of activities
also includes the assistance to settlement houses.
Beneficiaries have also actively participated in the construction works. Many
have been involved in land-clearing, brick-making, assisting masons to carry
construction material and cutting poles for the rooves.
Future plans (if any) are there for the project.
Currently, as the policy is imposed to all new housing practices in the whole
country, new wed couples are forced to have their houses in imidugudu.
Innovation and replication.
What are the key innovative aspects of the project?
Innovative aspects of this project are given by the following determinants;
 Low cost housing system; An estimate of US$ 5,000 is the average cost
per household shelter. This low cost, compared to the normal cost of
building a house, is relatively low, being a result of contribution of
different factors, the key factor being the contribution of stakeholders
where government, donors, local community and beneficiaries each
contributes in either direct cost or indirect costs.
 Close cooperation between stakeholders; from the policy design to
different stages of implementation, there was a joint cooperation between
all the stakeholders, which probably made the project to run smoothly.
 Access to infrastructure; Social infrastructures like health care
services, clean water, electricity, schools, roads and development
infrastructure like common market, ICT service centres, financial

14. 14
institutions, …provided by the government , near by the community is
also a critical determinant of innovation for this project.
 Easy follow up of construction activities; it becomes easier to control
and evaluate activities for different houses grouped in a single place
(site).
 A new and good look of the country; After the construction of settled
houses, a look of estates brings an image of cities even in rural areas of
the country.
 Sustainability for the long term; Issues of longer-term sustainability of
imidugudu in Rwanda include impact of the site on the environment,
space for the future expansion of the village and security of the site
location. Thus, these suggested "categories of sustainability" have to be
followed during the comprehensive site survey and, where possible,
measurable indicators - both quantitative and qualitative -- be developed.
Project replication either locally, nationally, or internationally.
Up to 1997, the Rwandan government human settlement policy was viewed in
a context of a response to emergence situation of homeless households. This
phase has been considered as a pilot initiative that was going to consolidate the
reality and experience of the project for the next phases. After this phase, the
policy was changed to be a scheme for government to gradually transform the
existing housing system; scattered houses in rural areas be replaced by
grouped houses in sites across the whole country.
Thus, more than one million people had been placed in the Imidugudu
settlements up to 1999. Sites were scattered across the country, where each of
2,150 cells (the basic administrative institution), decides the number of sites
and their locations for its population and approved by the districts housing

15. 15
division. Thus, as early 2009, there were more than 6,000 sites across the
whole country with nearly 1,000,000 houses, managed under the government
administrative structure (from cells to sectors to districts to provinces and
lastly to national level), as a result of being the government initiative.
Therefore, the experience of this innovative and practical solution to housing in
Rwanda can be shared to other nations having housing problems.
Sample photos of Imidugudu in Kamonyi District.