There is a sectoral approach to data collection and manage- ment with specific institutions having the mandate for par- ticular types of data. However, there are instances where certain institutions are carrying out activities that are of- ficially mandated to other organisations. Currently many national mapping activities are being undertaken by the CGIS-NUR and the Rwanda National Institute of Statistics (NISR) (Mugabo 2009), yet it is the Rwanda National Land Office (under MINELA) that is in charge of national map- ping activities. NISR has the legal mandate for all census data while CGIS-NUR is a Geographic Information Systems and Remote Sensing National and Regional Outreach Cent- er within the National University of Rwanda (NUR). If these activities are being undertaken without an official memo- randum of understanding they could potentially open up avenues for conflict between institutions or create problems related to coordination, quality and standards. This was the case in Uganda as described Box 1.

Box 1: Who owns the data? Learning to work together

In Uganda, the National Environment Information Centre (NEIC) was established in 1990 to provide environmental information to support decision making for development by collaborating with sector institutions. Initially, NEIC’s ap- proach was to establish a Geographical Information System to carry out mapping activities; and to collect and store all available environmental data. This effort was partly aban- doned due to the huge amounts of data involved, but also because of the fact that storing data belonging to other in- stitutions was leading to inter-institutional conflict. NEIC’s authority to generate statistics and maps was disputed by the Department of Statistics and the Department of Sur- veys and Mapping . The two institutions claimed the sole mandate to generate the two outputs under contest. This situation was eventually resolved by the agreement by both institutions to actively and jointly participate in an environ- ment information network.

The sectoral approach implies that each institution gen- erates data and information using their own institutional standards and codes. Whilst there has been some progress in developing policies and strategies for environmental management in general, there are no policies that specifi- cally address the management and access to environmental information.

There are also a number of projects within the various in- stitutions that both collect and manage environment-rele- vant data. Although this may only be for a limited duration, they are still important. Some of these include the climate change project in REMA that is carrying out a greenhouse gas inventory, the wetlands inventory, the mineral certifica- tion project in OGMR, the “Projet d’appuie a la reforesta- tion” (PAREF) in NAFA, and a project to establish a Biodi- versity Information System in REMA.

Data classification

This report classifies environmental data according to five thematic areas. Each of these groups is then broken down into a list of data items for further clarity. This is so as to eliminate the use of overlapping terms. The five groups are:

• Land use – forestry, agriculture/livestock, fisheries, nature conservation, tourism, water, mining, energy, transport, urban planning, etc.

• Land cover/ecosystems – forest, woodland/scrub, grass- land, freshwater, coastal and marine, dryland/desert, highland/mountain, etc.

• Species/genes – mammals, birds, reptiles/amphibians, fish, insects, invertebrates, plants (higher/lower), etc.

• Social/economic/political – culture, health, land ten- ure, demography, policies, governance, trade and indus- try, sustainable development, etc.

• Physical features – hydrology, geology, soils, topogra- phy, climate, etc.

22