So what your saying is there should be less tourism budget and more conservation budget.From a very low base. Unlike South Africa Rwanda has limited income from tourism.
Rwanda is a fairly small country with limited attractions (mountain gorillas, Lake Kivu, Genocide Museum). I loved Rwanda, especially my very close encounter with a gorilla (it stepped on my foot). And I defy anybody not to be moved by the Genocide Museum; IMO far more poignant that Auschwitz. But it will never be a major tourist attraction.
South Africa, on the other hand, is a major tourist destination with its abundant wildlife, stunning scenery, vibrant cities and glorious beaches. It is badly affected by corruption. After saving the white rhino from extinction in the 60s and 70s, poacing is now rife. Last time I was in the Kruger Park, a ranger told me that they were losing a rhino every day. From a population of zero rhino in the Kruger in 1971, the population grew to 4000+ (rhino were re-located from Zululand) by 2000. The population is now in the hundreds and falling. The sponsorship money could be better spent on conservation, otherwise it is danger of losing its safari business, like its neighbour Mozambique did after most of its wildlife was wiped out during the Civil War.