Figure: Western Rwanda Landscape. Photo by Ping Sun.

The following is a repost from the blog, ‘Ecologically Speaking’. It has been lightly modified to fit our own formatting requirements. The original post was written by Jacqueline Poertner, William Apollinaire, and Vicky Temperton and can be found here. 

_________  

“If you want to go fast – go alone. If you want to go far – go together.” 

– origin unknown, often attributed to an African proverb 

There is something very exciting going on in the realms of ecosystem restoration and you (yes, you!) should know about it! Last year, the research team of A living lab for social-ecological restoration in western Rwanda, part of a larger project dedicated to social-ecological systems informing ecosystem restoration in rural Africa, launched its living lab in Rutsiro. 

There’s even an article on this blog about the launch! You’ll find it here along with more info on the background and the previous stages of the project (it might be helpful to read that article first to get the full picture). But now, let’s catch you up on recent happenings and give you a glimpse of what’s in store for the project’s future. So, lean back and enjoy the journey through the process of the living lab in Rutsiro! 

A quick recap anyway

If you’ve read the launch article, you’ll know that the living lab is all about bridging science and practice in Rwanda’s efforts for ecosystem restoration and reconnecting local communities with native tree species within an Agroforestry setting. For that, the team is following a process of co-creation to implement social-ecological experiments on farmers’ land in Rutsiro, that essentially involves planting trees as part of an Agroforestry approach to restoration. 

Who is behind the team? There are around 50 transdisciplinary stakeholders from across sectors working together in two different roundtables, each of which is based on two governance models, each representing a distinct restoration community of practice. One group is NGO-driven, uniting representative restoration actors from government, NGOs, academia and the private sector. The other one is almost entirely farmer-driven: local farmers, who are also traditional healers, beekeepers, teachers or carpenters, alongside community leaders and local extension officers. 

The communities have been involved in regular workshop sessions in which members first started by establishing codes of conduct, strategies on how to communicate, expectations and potential contributions. What’sespecially interesting for us now is what happened in the last workshops in February this year. 

Setting the scene: The grand selection of tree species

In February, each group had a workshop in which they co-designed the restoration experiments by ranking and prioritizing the native and exotic trees species suitable for the area for the restoration experiments. As a result, both governance models now have a list of prioritized tree species. These species are around 80 % native and 20 % exotic, which is quite radically different compared to the fact, that so far, most trees planted in western Rwanda are not native, which leads to loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services and depauperate landscapes (Nyiramvuyekure et al. 2026). 

Interestingly, the two groups did the same workshops in parallel, but came up with a slightly different list of tree species they want to plant. Each governance model is assigned to a specific region with living lab sites having been selected for doing the restoration experiments – including the tree planting. 

Let us walk you through the workshop day by day

William Apollinaire, Vicky Temperton and (for one day) Stefan Sieber attended the workshops, as scientists and principle investigators of the Rwanda research project. 

The first day of the workshop – held on separate dates for each governance model – took place in a conference room. This was where the magic of selecting and prioritizing the tree species happened based on the values stakeholders assigned to each species. The values ranged from ecological to socioeconomic criteria, survival rates, availability of planting material and compatibility with the most commonly grown crops in western Rwanda. At the end, the ranked list of tree species the groups want to plant saw the light of day. 

Enjoy the following impressions of how the first day looked like for both governance models: 

Government, NGOs, Academia, Research institutions and the Private Sector are discussing the value of each of the agroforestry trees.

The next day, the groups got into action out in the field. They went out to their living lab sites and met with the local landowners of the land where the trees are going to be planted, including meeting up with scientists involved in the research project, some of whom were visiting the living lab to connect to this aspect of the overall research project. 

Group photo of Living Lab Roundtable community members with landowners of the Living Lab site and the scientists of the Rwanda Restore Project.

These field meetings were crucial, first for the communities to connect to the scientists but also to agree with landowners on the selected species as well as the proportion of native and exotic species to be used in the living lab experiments. After some comments, suggestions and adjustments, a final agreement was reached. And there it was – the blueprint of the living lab experiments, co-created between local stakeholders and scientists! 

An impression of the second day out in the fields:

Dr Apollinaire William is facilitating a discussion between Actor-based Living Lab Roundtable members (NGOs, Government, Academia, Private Sector) with landowners at the Kamaranzara site, one of the sites in Teba Cell, in Rutsiro District, where some of the Living Lab experiments will be conducted in September-October 2026.

What made these workshops special

Not only was this trip key in determining the ongoing process of the restoration experiments, but it was also, and maybe even first and foremost, very valuable in terms of interpersonal exchange. When you hear Dr. William Apollinaire, the Postdoc researcher and coordinator of the living lab research in western Rwanda, speaking about his highlights of the workshops in February, it soon becomes clear that the workshops as well as the whole process mean a lot to everyone who is involved in the living lab. The true jewel was seeing how much the stakeholders are engaged. The participatory process, the involvement and empowerment of the people. Moments like spontaneously singing and dancing together, enjoying and exchanging cultural aspects. All of this leads to a successful co-creation. According to Dr. William Apollinaire, the stakeholders are fully engaged and eager to see the outcome of the living lab. “It was interesting to see how, if people are empowered enough, they can engage actively in the collaborative or participatory process.”

But how do you get to this point of engagement?

It wasn’t difficult to get people on board and sustain their engagement long-term, as the initiators of the living lab selected people for the roundtable who have already been involved in restoration activities. The key, however, is to value everyone who is part of the process. To value everyone’s voice. This way, an empowering environment was created in which every stakeholder could feel respected. Part of this is also organizing the logistics to make sure that everyone is involved, for instance, by facilitating communication. Understanding everyone’s expectations and goals. Every stakeholder being part of the design as well as the planning and implementation process: That is how co-creation works. That is how this momentum of engagement came to life.

What’s in store for the future?

Now you know what’s currently going on in the living lab, but we certainly don’t want to withhold the exciting next steps that are coming up our way. Right at this moment, the trees, which the two governance models have decided on, are developing in a nursery of local restoration stakeholders. They are growing and waiting to be planted in October this year, but before the planting happens, the farmers will learn how to prepare the land for the planting in September. The kick-off of the planting campaign in October will be a big event where the trees will go into the ground and we’re going to hear different speeches from people from the government and local communities. Excitingly, the national media is going to be invited to cover the event and who knows, maybe you might even read an article about it on this blog, so stay tuned!

While the trees are growing

In the meantime, the stakeholders will, together with the scientists, define socio-ecological indicators of success to be measured during the experiments and how those are going to be monitored. Examples of these indicators of success might be improving the nutrition of local communities as well as reducing medical costs. Ecosystem restoration is not just about the trees but also about shrubs and other plants that are incorporated alongside them, with nutritional and medicinal value. Species that have these values and are going to be planted include, for instance, Albizia gummifera, Carapa grandiflora, Vernonia amygdalina, Milletia dura, Ricinus communis, passion fruit, local papaya, avocado, lemon, myrianthus, and chayote.

Attention! The initiators of the living lab are also writing a book about agroforestry trees in Western Rwanda and their many benefits and uses. It will highlight especially native species and their potential but also include non-native species which are still useful for ecosystem restoration. Watch this space in the future for more information on the book. The aim in publishing this book is to contribute to connecting local people and NGOs to the wide array of, especially native trees they have in at their disposal.

What happens after the planting?

Don’t forget that the planting of around 80 % native species in the experiments is very different to the usual non-native tree planting in Western Rwanda. Therefore, it will be very interesting to see the outcome of the experiments. After some time, the two governance models will be compared, and the stakeholders will continue to be engaged by learning how to monitor the sites. The overarching goal is for the communities to have full ownership of the restoration in the end and that they keep monitoring it themselves in the future.

One last thing we want to give you to take with you on your way

Let’s go back to this sentence you already read at the beginning:

“If you want to go fast – go alone. If you want to go far – go together.”

As you probably noticed from this article, the co-creation of ecosystem restoration is, most importantly, a joint learning process. This might take a long time. But it will be most definitely worth it! Only by including everyone involved, designing and walking the path together, will the outcome match what everyone envisioned. Or, to say it in the words of Dr. William Apollinare: “That is how we achieve success in scaling up and upgrading the restoration experiments from research to practice!”.

Thank you for reading and hopefully, you’ll be back for the next update of the living lab in Rutsiro!

Citation: 

Nyiramvuyekure, V., Fischer, J., Kaplin, B. A., Mukuralinda, A., & Temperton, V. M. (2026). Woody vegetation diversity remains low after extensive forest landscape restoration efforts in a western Rwandan landscape. Biological Conservation, 317, 111812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2026.111812

Figure: Western Rwanda Landscape. Photo by Ping Sun.

By Molly Parker, on Sun et al. (2026) Home‑garden connectivity rather than tree‑cover connectivity facilitates biodiversity in fragmented tropical forest landscapes, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-026-02352-9 (full citation at the bottom of this post). 
 

In tropical biodiverse landscapes, forest loss, fragmentation, and degradation are major drivers of biodiversity loss. Forest landscape restoration interventions, a popular strategy to address these issues, most often focus on tree planting and overlook other tree-rich systems such as home gardens (HG). This recent study in western Rwanda’s Afromontane rainforest landscape by Sun et al. (2026) aims to assess these two land use types and their respective roles in supporting landscape connectivity and biodiversity. 

The study area (Fig. 1), the Afromontane rainforest landscape of western Rwanda, has dominant land use types of tree plantations and HGs. This recent study by Sun et al. (2026) aimed to assess their (tree plantations’ and HGs’) respective roles in supporting landscape connectivity and biodiversity. Researchers collected data from 91 field sites to examine how connectivity of tree cover and HG connectivity related to the richness and diversity of woody plants and birds. 

Fig. 1. Study area in the Western Province of Rwanda, covering seven administrative districts from north to south: Rubavu, Nyabihu, Rutsiro, Ngororero, Karongi, Nyamasheke and Rusizi. The blue dotted line marks the Congo-Nile watershed divide (Congo-Nile Crest), while protected national park areas are highlighted in green color.

The results (Fig. 2) showed that tree cover connectivity was negatively correlated with the richness and diversity of woody plants and birds, suggesting that increased connectivity through mostly exotic trees didn’ttranslate to habitat connectivity for biodiversity. However, HG connectivity was positively correlated with the richness and diversity of woody plants and birds. 

Fig. 2. Scatterplots showing the relationships between tree-cover connectivity and home-garden connectivity, with (A) woody plant richness; (B) Shannon diversity index of woody plants; (C) bird richness; (D) Shannon diversity index of birds represented by a color gradient ranging from blue (low richness) to red (high richness). Points represent different land matrix types: circles for home gardens and triangles for tree plantations.

 

This is an important finding as the more common restoration practices are on increasing tree cover. This research challenges the usual approach, suggesting that maybe restoration should begin focusing on connectivity of HGs since their connectivity seems to function as a network of ecological steppingstones supporting both plant and bird communities across the fragmented landscape.  

The authors recommend that conservation efforts continue and that restoration be scaled up to address degraded forests. Specifically, they recommend protecting remaining natural forests, promoting the regeneration of secondary forests dominated by indigenous tree taxa, and actively expanding biodiverse agroforestry systems like HGs. The findings make a compelling case that incorporating HGs into restoration planning could be essential for maximizing forest landscape restoration effectiveness. 

Citation: 

Sun, P., Baumann, M., Kaplin, B. A., Kuemmerle, T., & Fischer, J. (2026). Home-garden connectivity rather than tree-cover connectivity facilitates biodiversity in fragmented tropical forest landscapes. Landscape Ecology, 41(5), 78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-026-02352-9 

Figure: Exemplary landscape at the sampling sites. Photo by Verene Nyiramvuyekure.

By Molly Parker, on Nyiramvuyekure et al., 2026, Woody vegetation diversity remains low after extensive forest landscape restoration efforts in a western Rwandan landscape,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2026.111812 (full citation at the bottom of this post). 

Rwanda, like many biodiversity-rich tropical countries, is facing land degradation, biodiversity loss, and climate change, all of which are exacerbated by anthropogenic disturbances and further driven by historical aspects which have placed enormous strain on the country’s landscapes and natural resources. With the aim of providing ecological and social benefits and mitigating climate change impacts, forest landscape restoration has been implemented country-wide. Despite these efforts, the extent to which these efforts are actually restoring the diversity, structure, and function of ecosystems has remainedlargely unknown. Nyiramvuyekure et al. (2026) examined this by looking at woody vegetation species structure and diversity across different land use types in western Rwanda, using Gishwati-Mukura National Park as a reference site. 

This study took place across four districts in western Rwanda (Rubavu, Nyabihu, Rutsiro, and Ngororero) which were further classified into five social-ecological clusters (Fig. 1).  

Fig. 1. Study area and identified clusters; Cluster 1: Mountain pastures; Cluster 2: Lowland roads; Cluster 3: Houses and trees; Cluster 4: High mountains; Cluster 5: Remote regions.

Using a quasi-experimental design, the researchers surveyed 159 sites across four land use types within the study: agriculture mosaics, tree patches, pastures, and homegardens. Species composition was documented by classifying each species as native or exotic and assigning it to one of three functional groups: pioneer, forest specialist, or generalist. An initial hypothesis by the authors, based on known patterns of management intensity and planting history in the region, was that different land use types would restore woody vegetation diversity and structure to varying extents.  

The findings showed significant variation in woody species richness and compositions across land use types. The reference sites within the national park had 100% native woody species, which was significantly more native species than the other land use types (Fig. 2). 

Fig. 2. Woody species classification based on the origin (native or exotic species).

 

Of the non-reference sites, homegardens had the highest species richness and diversity, while agricultural mosaics and pastures showed intermediate richness, and tree patches had the lowest (Fig. 3).  

Fig. 3. (Figure 5 in article) Boxplot of species richness within land-use type: A: Agriculture Mosaic, H: Homegardens, P: Pastures, and T: Tree patches.

 

Regardless of extensive restoration efforts, the landscape in western Rwanda continues to be dominated by exotic species such as Eucalyptus and Pinus. Although these species provide numerous crucial socio-economic benefits (timber, fuel, erosion control, etc.), these often come at the cost of biodiversity and ecological resilience. Homegardens stand out in this study as they are traditionally overlooked in restoration initiatives, but here they showed the highest native woody species richness of the non-reference land use types. This suggests there may be a greater role for homegardens to play in conservation strategies.  

The study highlights the complexities of forest landscape restoration in western Rwanda. It shows that woody species richness remains low in restored sites compared to reference sites even after significant restoration. Based on their findings, the authors recommend using more native species in restoration efforts, including homegardens in restoration strategies, and conducting additional research on the drivers of species selection in restoration. It is not news that balancing biodiversity conservation efforts with socio-economic needs of local communities is a major challenge. It is, however, becoming clear that more inclusive and adaptive restoration approaches are needed not only in Rwanda, but in other regions facing similar pressures and problems.  

Citation: 

Nyiramvuyekure, V., Fischer, J., Kaplin, B. A., Mukuralinda, A., & Temperton, V. M. (2026). Woody vegetation diversity remains low after extensive forest landscape restoration efforts in a western Rwandan landscape. Biological Conservation, 317, 111812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2026.111812 

 

Restoration landscape in Rwanda’s Western Province.  Image: Clémence Mukankuriza

Agroforestry, woodlots, and terraces were at the heart of our latest data collection round for the RESTORE project. How did we study them? Find out through stories from our research team in Western Rwanda. 

This article was collaboratively written by: Emma Marie Niyigena, Delphine Mpayimana, Clémence Mukankuriza, Jeannette Uwitonze, Pacifique Niyodushima, Anatholia Mizero, Faustin Mbarubukeye, and Laura Kmoch.

. . . 

Using photos to start conversations 

Which benefits do rural people derive from restored sites? Which emotions — good and bad — do they associate with different intervention types? How do they feel about encountered challenges, and what could be improved? 

We are about to find out, through our latest data collection round in Rwanda’s western highlands. A photo-elicitation survey was our tool to engage residents from 35 villages in structured conversations about three restoration types: agroforestry, woodlots and terraces. 

“This method relies on photos as conversation starters. Each respondent reflects on a set of images that show the restoration types from different perspectives: close up, mid-range, and at a landscape-scale.”

It’ll take a while until we can share the full results of our statistical analysis. Our respondents’ first-hand accounts moved the entire enumerator team, however, and triggered reflections. Read on for their stories of what stood out.

. . . 

Emma Marie: Rebuild bonds and roasted maize 
“Yes, restoration is about land, but it’s also about people, resilience, and shared joy.”

My name is Emma Marie Niyigena. I work as an enumerator for the RESTORE research project in Western Rwanda. My job is to talk with people in different communities, and to learn how land restoration is changing their lives.

I have been interviewing locals about woodlots, agroforestry, and terraces. Only a few people shared challenges — most of them expressed joy, because these activities increase their productivity and bring both food and cash crops to their families.

Emma Marie, engaged with an interviewee (left), landscape with forest, tea, and pastures in the study area (middle), maize snack sweetening the team’s long drive (right). Images: Clémence Mukankuriza and Emma Marie Niyigena. 

“For me, this work is personal because I grew up seeing how land degradation affected people’s daily lives. Now, I am proud to be part of a mission that not only restores the environment but also gives hope to families for a better future.”

We listen to their stories, understand their challenges, and collect information that helps guide better solutions. This work supports efforts to bring back healthy soil, protect the environment, and improve livelihoods for the future.

“Beyond the survey, it was amazing to see stunning terraced hills and the warmth of villagers who often invited me for lunch.”

Sadly, I was usually rushing to the next interview. And also, the routes were tough sometimes, far from the main road and slippery with rain. But the smiles, stories, and teamwork made it worth it. And the nice moments with the team after work, when we used to buy roasted maize and laughed over the day’s adventures and shared the day’s stories.

“Restoration is more than planting trees. It’s about rebuilding the bond between people and the land, creating a sustainable future for the next generation.” 

. . . 

Delphine: Honesty and open conversations 

This is the third week of my data collection on how terraces, woodlots and agroforestry trees support rural livelihoods. Every day is a good day — I never get used to how rural people are overwhelmed to welcome us, with smiles on their faces, excited to have an open conversation on the research. 

“The most interesting part about this journey: Rural people are honest in their answers. You can tell, based on how you try to challenge or prompt them, their answers still remain the same. This is a good thing in research — it shows how trustworthy the results will be.”

Tea farms in Rutsiro District (left and right), and Delphine talking to a survey respondent (middle). Images: Laura Kmoch.

Good enough, many of them want to see more restoration practices in their farmlands, because they have seen how beneficial they are. Due to those restoration practices, a lot has changed and a lot still needs to be done as they said in their responses. 

. . . 

Clémence: Restoration, but at what cost? 

As a research enumerator, I thought I understood restoration. Yes, I had seen it in action: Farmers building terraces, planting trees on bare hills, digging trenches to fight off erosion, bending their backs day after day to care for land that gives so much and asks for more. 

“But one question from a farmer, after we finished our interview on restoration, stopped me in my tracks: ‘We are told to protect the land. But who protects it from them?’”

At first, I didn’t understand. But then he pointed to the road above his plot — cracked, unpaved, and built without drainage. Every rainy season, it sends torrents of water roaring down the hill, flooding his terraces, sweeping away soil, and undoing years of backbreaking work.

Terraced farmland — maintained through smallholders’ hard work (left), Clémence in dialogue with a respondent (middle), team members crossing a bridge — this stream will greatly swell during the rainy season (right). Images: Clémence Mukankuriza and Laura Kmoch. 

Also, he wasn’t just speaking for himself. He was voicing what so many rural farmers feel — that they are praised when things go well, but left alone when the system fails them. 

“‘They say restoration is for our good’, the farmer told me. ‘But what good is it if I’m too tired and powerless to protect what I’ve restored?’”

This experience challenged everything I thought I knew. Restoration isn’t just about planting trees or digging terraces — it’s about systems, decisions, and accountability. It’s about listening to farmers’ lived realities, not just policies on paper.

. . . 

Jeannette: How agroforestry benefits farmers and the environment

It was fantastic to speak with farmers, with experiences in various restoration techniques! They talked about their feelings after learning about various types of restoration, such as terraces, agroforestry, and how they help to maintain their livelihoods:

. 

“As a farmer, I used to struggle with soil erosion and low crop yields. But since I started integrating trees into my farm through agroforestry, I’ve noticed a huge difference.”

Homegarden in Rutsiro District (left), Jeannette in dialogue with a survey respondent (middle), sheep of a hillside farm (right). Images: Jeannette Uwitonze and Laura Kmoch.

The trees provide shade, stakes used to support agricultural crops, firewood, and on terraces they got fodder for livestock, and they keep the soil moist. The additional income from selling timber, fruits, and other tree products has significantly improved their family’s livelihood and reduced financial risks.

“It’s amazing how agroforestry has improved their livelihoods and health.”

. . . 

Pacifique: From offices to the field, from relying on secondary data to gathering primary data

My name is Pacifique Niyodushima — a Masters student in environmental economics and natural resources management. I was honored to be among the enumerators collecting primary data on the livelihoods of local people living in restoration areas in western Rwanda, under research being carried out by University of Göttingen in Germany. 

“This role was fully field-based, involving direct interaction with local community members through interviews and discussions as well as learning from their lived experiences.”

Cows on a silvo-pasture in northern Rutsiro District (left), Pacifique during an interview with a respondent from Nyabihu District (right). Images: Jeannette Uwitonze and Delphine Mpayimana.

I learned from the respondents how they perceived restoration projects in their initial stages, and how their perceptions have changed so far. By taking terraces as an example, in the early stages most of the people were unaware of the importance of terracing, but now it is totally different. Mainly due to the benefits they experienced from this type of restoration. 

“Most respondents I have interacted with suggest to initiate terraces on all mountainous landscapes, to create flood and erosion-resilient farms, as a way of maintaining soil fertility and to increase crop yields.”

. . . 

Anatholia: Woodlots in focus 

A woodlot is a parcel of woodland, mainly used for land restoration because of its capacity to prevent soil erosion, and for its main products — fuel wood and timber for building. Today I visited Rugari Cell, where I saw how beneficial woodlots are for the farmers. For example, they derive wood fuel, timber, leave mulch as fertiliser, and food for their livestock. 

Anatholia, talking to an interviewee (left), and trees on a hillside that may be used as fuel or construction timber one day (right). Images: Laura Kmoch. 

The challenges that the respondents met were that people in this area have planted many small woodlots, with tree seeds that they received from the government. But they planted those trees in their land for agriculture— where these trees take much water, and crops around them can’t grow — rather than on the hilltop. This leads to people gaining lower amounts of crops from their cultivation.

“The respondents told me that they would like to put woodlots in one side — mainly on hill tops — separate from their land used for agriculture, because when woodlots and crops are mixed, they compete for water and the crops can’t grow well.” 

. . . 

Faustin: From challenges to production

During the July/August 2025 survey most of the respondents acknowledged that the most effective approaches to soil restoration and conservation include: agroforestry, terracing, and woodlot establishment. 

Furthermore, the respondents expressed satisfaction with the discussions held during the survey process and indicated that they would appreciate future visits. 

Faustin, explaining about land management (left), new terraces in Ngororero District (middle), Faustin interviewing a respondent in Nyabihu District (right). Images: Laura Kmoch.

“At the beginning of the interventions, terracing and agroforestry challenged the farmers. They were thinking they lose their land for crops. But today they are happy, because they benefit from increased crop production with those methods.”

. . . 

At the end of our research stories lies this bridge: We invite you to cross it, to explore the restoration landscapes of Western Rwanda for yourself. The roads were not always easy — more than once we continued on foot. But kindness and thoughtful conversations always lay ahead. Image: Laura Kmoch.

Successful data collection depends on more than choosing the right method. It’s just as much about the group experience of the research team — the shared learning, growth, and quiet strength, arising when people with diverse skills and personalities collaborate. 

Thanks to the entire team — including our dependable drivers, the survey respondents who shared their time and knowledge, and many people, from cleaning to kitchen staff in the hotels, who cared for us — we can now dive into the analysis of our survey data. Stay tuned! 

. . . 

Further reading:

For details about the RESTORE project, visit our website: https://ecosystemrestoration.net/ 

An earlier blog post, on how we used photovoice to explore rural people’s restoration experiences, can be found here: https://ecosystemrestoration.net/tag/sp6/ 

Additional stories about forest-related research of the social-ecological interactions group can be found here: https://medium.com/people-nature-landscapes/forestday-f24dced220c5

Left Figure: Mukura National Park. Photo by Marina Frietsch.

Right Figure: Gishwati National Park. Photo by Marina Frietsch

By Molly Parker, on Reckmann et al., A coffee corridor for biodiversity and livelihoods: climatic feasibility of shade coffee cultivation in western Rwanda, 10.1016/j.tfp.2025.100941 (full citation at the bottom of this post).

In the Gishwati–Mukura Landscape of western Rwanda, ongoing agricultural expansion and deforestation are placing increasing pressure on an already fragile ecosystem. Once part of the vast Afromontane rainforest, this area has become highly fragmented due to decades of land-use change, population growth, and conflict. Now, it is split into two disconnected forest patches, separated by approximately 30 km of smallholder farmland.

These forests are under strain not only ecologically, but economically as well, raising an urgent question: how can farmers earn a sustainable income without further degrading this unique and threatened landscape?

Figure 1 of original article: Study area in Western Rwanda

A new study by Reckmann et al. (2025) explores whether shade-grown coffee could provide part of the answer.

The study focuses on three core questions:

  1. To what extent is shade coffee cultivation currently climatically feasible between the two disconnected forest patches of Gishwati and Mukura?
  2. How will climate change affect that feasibility under future scenarios?
  3. Which native tree species are suitable for supporting shade-grown coffee systems in this region?

Using climate suitability analysis, the researchers assess where this type of agroforestry system could thrive today and how that might shift in the coming decades. They also identified native species that could be used as shade trees in the area. The results suggest that it’s possible to establish a “coffee corridor” made up of climate-resilient, tree-shaded coffee farms that could link fragmented habitats, promote biodiversity, and support rural livelihoods.

Why is this important? 
With climate change, climatic suitability for Coffea arabica cultivation in the study area will increasingly shift upwards in the coming decades making shade coffee production increasingly viable. In agreement with the findings of this study, increased temperatures and especially maximum temperatures are understood to be major drivers of this uphill shift.  The overall effect of this in coffee suitability across the global coffee sector will likely also apply to Rwanda.

Creating a shade coffee corridor between Gishwati and Mukura forest patches could provide the study area with a boost in livelihood opportunities as well as biodiversity conservation perspectives. In terms of biodiversity benefits, incorporating native trees to the canopy could offer a wealth of opportunity including increased diversity, carbon sequestration, habitat provision, soil protection, soil fertility, erosion control, and more. Shade coffee plots could ultimately become a wildlife corridor helping to facilitate the movement of diverse species between the Gishwati and Mukura forest patches.

But the corridor’s success is conditional: it will only be viable if it offers tangible benefits to local farmers, which is something that aligns with national policy. Encouragingly, the Rwandan government supports the cultivation of Coffee arabica, recognizing its potential to reduce poverty and provide sustainable economic opportunities.

As smallholder farmers will be the primary cultivators, their input is critical for the adoption and long-term viability of the project. It is important that coffee cultivation is integrated into the existing livelihood activities in a way that is helpful for the farmers. 

Moving forward:
Reckmann et al.’s findings suggest that a shade coffee corridor between Gishwati and Mukura forest patches could reconcile livelihood security and biodiversity conservation. They recognize the importance of prioritizing the local communities’ needs, and actively sharing knowledge when applicable and relevant. 

A possible next step could be a continuation of the identification of suitable tree species for the shade corridor. Although much research has been completed, the researchers recognize that local knowledge is also essential and highly valuable. They suggest a transdisciplinary action such as a living lab in order to get communities involved and engaged. Using the research completed as guidance for implementation, practitioners and policy makers can also look to existing initiatives . 

In a cautiously hopeful conclusion, Reckmann et al. state: “ With climate change being inevitable and restoration being a high priority for the Rwandan government, the coffee corridor proposed in this paper should be carefully considered as a possible win-win for people and ecosystems.”

Citation: 

Reckmann, T., Frietsch, M., Schwenck, C., Mukuralinda, A., Duguma, D. W., & Fischer, J. (2025). A coffee corridor for biodiversity and livelihoods: Climatic feasibility of shade coffee cultivation in western Rwanda. Trees, Forests and People, 21, 100941. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tfp.2025.100941