 To raise an awareness and help for the protection with an income generation to the communities. But the Rwanda case for the Revenue Sharing came very recently, as you will see in one of our slides. Just to explain where is Rwanda. Rwanda is just below Uganda in the heart of Africa and Rwanda has three countries. Up here, it's one of the portion of the Virunga Massif. We have the Volcano National Park in Rwanda and the other side, here you have the Virunga in the Archongos. And this is a portion of the Gainga Park. That's the home range for the mountain gorilla. Down here, we have the largest mountain forest in Africa with what we call the Park Nyungwe, which is on the crates of the Congo and the Nile. And then we have this Savannah type park. I'm not going through the rational, I think, unexplained about the Revenue Sharing on the community around the National Park, which can bring support to the park in terms of integration, collaboration, in planning, undergoing the problem from the National Park on co-prolating. They should also get direct benefits from the National Park, providing an enabling environment for good relationship with the National Park. That's how we thought that we could integrate the National Park management and the conflict management. So that the Revenue Sharing has an incentive to solicit their active role in conservation. The objective, as you know, and this was explained, is to improve the socioeconomic livelihood and increase the community's responsibility for sustainable conservation. The mechanism, and I think that's the most important thing for, as a way of sharing our experience, we in Rwanda are giving back to the community around the park 5% of the total revenue allocated to the community project around the park. But we gave 40% to what we call PNV, which means Stand for Volcano National Park, where we have the gorilla. 30% to the Akagena National Park, we have the savannah type park in the eastern part, and 30% in the Nyungwe National Park. The principle is that the revenue sharing is not a substitute to the traditional financial structure. The revenue sharing is a source for development of irradiation. The structure of the revenue sharing is made by a committee, and the chair of the committee is what we call the Chief Park or the CPW. There is also a representative from the district and the sector level, which are those local entities on the local level. There is also a representative of what we call the CC Partner NGOs, the Community Conservation Partner NGOs, and of course we have an implementation group. We do have criteria to select the project, and those are the criteria to select the project. One, of course, it's the proximity so that the people just directly around the park could benefit. The second thing is the feasibility because the team selects the project and submits it to the local authority and the park people. We look also forward on the sustainability. We also look on the positive impact on the national park conservation, and of course the livelihood of the communities. We also involve the local participation, if sometime when it should co-fund. We look on the importance, on the distribution and equity, and we'll see it in one of the tables that I'll present very soon, and then impact. There is, of course, the integration of RADB means Rwanda Development Board, which is the park authority and the district plan. The main achievement that can be recorded up to now, as you could see, has been increasing. Our contribution from the 5% was 42 million, then 71 up to 242 million a year recently. We have support infrastructure development, including school, health facilities, water supply. As Augustin, I suppose, from the Democratic Republic of Congo, explained, water supplies is a major problem around the Virunga Massive. And of course, we do build some rainwater collection for the people around the park. We also intervene on the road and bridge. There is also support to the local entrepreneurship, including the beekeeping, which is very familiar, if you know the region, not only around the Volcano National Park in Rwanda, but also in Uganda and in Congo. And it is here to probably stress that we are organised within the three countries with what we call a Transboundary Secretariat, who has been facilitating community around the park, in terms of support, training, funding. And one of them is, for example, the community-based tourism that has been developed. We have this mushroom growing and handicraft that we see, not only in the Volcano National Park, but we can also see in the previous presentation. Those are some of, you know, an example of the 2010 project that were funded and the amount of money by million. I want to stress more on a PNP, which stands by the Volcano National Park, where we have 69 projects, and this is the amount of money. And those are the sector, 12 sectors, and the 12 sectors for the four districts. And this is the total. This is a more exhaustive list of districts, number of projects, and amount. And here you have this graph that can show the sharing from 2005 when we start the revenue sharing with the Volcano National Park, having the 40%. I explained Akagera with less and a younger National Park where we have the Chimp. This is in terms of millions of Rwandan francs. Here it's a distribution by districts from 2005 to 2010. Again, it's in terms of millions of Rwandan francs. And this is an example of categories of projects that have been funded through infrastructure, then agriculture, equipment. We do, of course, have some challenges, and I think we probably talk about the same thing. The first challenge, I think you will notice, is that we give 5% of the total amount of money generated by tourism. We want to increase now. We are in the process of increasing. So we need to have a green light from the high hierarchy. There's a little contribution compared to the demand. The process is delaying the disbursement because of the administration. There is an efficiency of ourness from the beneficiary. There's a sufficient collaboration from the local administration. Lower importance given to the revenue sharing project and to the conservation. Because the people from the local government look more for their development project more than the project that can have an impact on conservation. There is this dual between the revenue sharing and the performance contract. The performance contract is a contract that every public servant needs to sign. Of course, those local authorities tend to have those priorities funded by this revenue sharing. We do also have the problem between revenue sharing and the compensation of wildlife damage. We still need for improvement or more satisfaction and subsequent implications of ourness and collaboration. We need for complementary sources of funding. We still call for our partners including the International Gorilla Conservation Program. Of course, we need to learn from other experiences. That's why I think we are here and we are learning. Thank you very much.