Human Development Index: Rwanda on the back of the pack
Nov 11th, 2011 | By Ruhumuza | Category: Economy, Top news
With a human development index of 0.429, Rwanda is classified 166th among 187 countries in the global human development index ranking in 2011, released on Wednesday, November 2, 2011 by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and is in the category of Countries with a low Human Development Index (HDI).
UNDP
The report which is published annually for 21 years aims at providing through 10 statistical tables an overview “of the main aspects of human development level in countries and regions of the world” such as poverty, educational level or access to health care.
Poverty
The report indicates that with regard to poverty, 50.6% of the Rwandan people live in extreme poverty while 63.5% of the Rwandan people have difficulties to access to clean water.
With regard to income, 8 Rwandans of 10 (76.8%) live with an income that is below $ 1.25 a day, the third worst record in the world right in front of Liberia (83.7%) and Burundi (81.3%), the latter being classified 185th (out of 187) at the global level. The DRC, which is last in the overall ranking (187/187), ranks better than Rwanda with regard to this indicator with some 59.2% of the population living with an income that is less than 1.25 dollars a day. According to the national poverty line, the Rwandan population living below the poverty line is 58.5% which is nearly 6 out of 10 Rwandans.
Childhood
One out of two Rwandan children under 5 years (51.7%) suffers from rickets and one in five (18%) suffers from malnutrition. At this level Rwanda ranks better than its neighbor Burundi with 63.1% and 38.9% respectively but worse than its neighbor DRC where 45.8% of children under 5 suffer from stunting while 28, 2% suffer from malnutrition. From a global perspective, the three countries are among the last in the world on the above indicators.
Evolution of the Human Development Index 1980-2011
With an average growth of 1.4% of the HDI, Rwanda is one of the countries which have recorded the highest increase in their HDI over the period spanning from 1980-2011. The largest increase occurred between 2000 and 2011, where Rwanda has the second highest growth in the human development index, with an average annual increase of about 2.92%. Progresses made in education, health and economy account for this significant improvement in the HDI in recent years.
Education
With a literacy rate of adults (15 years) of 70.7%, Rwanda receives one of the best performances among the countries with low human development, well ahead of Mali, (26.2%) but far behind Zimbabwe (91.9%), the model student of the category with regard this indicator.
The growing interest in technology and information partly explains the performance in terms of education in the country. With growth of 5900% of users between 2000 and 2008, the Internet seems to become a reality for more and more Rwandans. However, the country still has a long way to go given that only 3.1% of the people use the Internet and less than 0.5% of the people have a laptop computer (1).
At the pupil-teacher ratio, Rwanda is the dunce world with 68.3 students per teacher, just ahead of the Central African Republic (84.3), which is last with regard to this indicator. In terms of teacher training, however, Rwanda is an honorable score with 93.9% of teachers who received training in pedagogy.
Health
One Rwandan woman out of two (52%) was been assisted by a qualified personnel for her delivery. Rwanda ranks much better than Burundi (34%) at this level but is far behind the DRC (74%).
With 78.5 per million deaths due to malaria, Rwanda receive honorable performance at this level in terms of the average rate of death in the least developed countries (99 per million) but the rate is still very high at the global level.
Life expectancy is at 55.4 years, one of the lowest levels in the world, four years below the average of the low human development countries (58.7) and 15 years below the average worldwide (69.8).
Economic growth
Despite the significant improvement in health care and education, the impressive growth of gross domestic product (GDP) of Rwanda in the period spanning from 2000-2010 is the most important explanatory factor for such an increase in the HDI. Indeed, with a double-digit growth of GDP in some periods, the country had one of the fastest growing economies in the world over the past ten years.
Strong growth in national income swelled the HDI given the large proportion (one third) occupied by the GDP in the calculation of the human development index. However, it is important to note that in general this is not problematic as long as the country has an egalitarian system of income redistribution, which is not the case for Rwanda.
By applying the inequality indicator, the Human Development Index for Rwanda decreases from 0.429 to 0.276, representing a reduction of more than 35%. With a Gini index of 0.531, Rwanda is indeed one of the most unequal nations in the world.
However, some economists such as Kuznets claim that income inequality is an obligatory stop for any growing society. In their view, the GDP growth is associated with inequality to a certain level and then inequalities decline.
Nevertheless, governments need to create micro and macroeconomic policies to efficiently fight against inequalities between people, a scenario that seems not to be the case in Rwanda. Reducing inequality is not mentioned among the objectives of the “Vision 2020″.
Life satisfaction
From a global point of view, with regard to the index of life satisfaction, Rwanda has a score of 4, the maximum satisfaction being 10, which makes Rwanda one of the countries in the world with the highest level of dissatisfaction rate, the same for DRC (4) and just ahead of Burundi (3.8), all three countries being below the average level of perceived satisfaction in the least developed countries (4.4).
Despite having one of the fastest growing of the HDI over the past 10 years and one of the fastest growing GDP in the world, most Rwandans still live in an extremely precarious situation, with nearly eight Rwandans out of 10 living with income that is below $ 1.25 a day and more than one Rwandan out of 2 living in extreme poverty. The overall level of performance of Rwanda is meanwhile still very low. Rwanda is among the 25 countries with the lowest human development index in the world.
This paradox is partly due to the widening gap each year between the rich and the poor.
As an illustration, between 2010 and 2011, the Gini coefficient increased from 0.467 to 0.531 which represents an upward variation of more than 13.7%. When one considers that the Gini index measures inequality of income in a given region (0 means perfect equality and 1 means that the wealth of the country belongs to one person), one may realize that there is a growing gap between the rich and the poor in Rwanda.
Will this gap between the rich and the poor continue to widen or will the government take drastic measures aimed at fighting against this problem? Is Rwanda heading towards an inequal system with the Gini coefficient of 1 or will it regain its 1985 level, where the Gini coefficient was 0.2892)?
Time will tell.
Translated by Amani Tuyishime
Rank 32? Not us, Rwanda tells Index team
By KEZIO-MUSOKE DAVID
October 19, 2009
Photo:
A street in Kigali. Officials say data discrepancies in three of five categories weakened Rwanda’s scores. Photo/FILE
The Rwanda government has dismissed the 2009 Mo Ibrahim Index on African Governance released this month, terming it baseless and incredible.
Referring to research carried out locally at different institutes — including the Rwanda Governance Advisory Council and the National Institute of Statistics of Rwanda — officials said the Mo Ibrahim Index was not indicative of the facts on the ground.
The 2009 Ibrahim Index measures the delivery of goods and services to citizens by governments.
It was released in Cape Town, South Africa, early this month.
The findings were based on the latest available data for each of the 84 indicators of governance from either 2007 or 2008.
The governance indicators are grouped in four overall categories: Safety and security; participation and human rights; sustainable economic opportunity; and human development.
Rwanda was categorised under the East African region. It was ranked 32 out of 53 African countries in Governance.
According to the Index, Rwanda scored 48.5 out of 100.
Within Eastern Africa — which includes Burundi, Comoros, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Seychelles, Somalia, Sudan, Tanzania and Uganda — Rwanda was ranked sixth.
However, a statement by Prof Anastase Shyaka, executive secretary of Rwanda’s Governance Advisory Council, said the Mo Ibrahim Index Report should have used locally generated and authentic sources.“Local opinion surveys on governance should be given more importance in the Index. The surveys would show people’s appreciation of governance...” the statement said.
“Given its importance in, and its challenge to, governance in Africa, the corruption weight need to be revisited and better represented in the related category. Another option to address that issue would be to consider corruption (and transparency) as a category on its own,” it added.
This is the second time Rwandan officials have expressed scepticism about of the Mo Ibrahim Index findings.
In January this year, government officials met Index experts who travelled from Harvard University for an in-depth discussion on last year’s index.
The meeting was organised by the Ministry of Finance and Economic Development and the Ministry of Local Government in collaboration with Rwanda’s Governance Advisory Council.
It concluded that data discrepancies in three of five categories weakened Rwanda’s scores.
Research done jointly by Prof Shyaka, Yusuf Murango and Dr Mohammed Alibata of the National Institute of Statistics, indicates that the results of the Index do not reflect poor performance on the ground as suggested.
According to the statement, the comparison reveals that in the categories affected by data discrepancies, some values match those from locally done research.
“Governance in Rwanda keeps improving and stakeholders continue to be mobilised for good governance. The security and safety indicator is likely to maintain its high level or even increase, especially after the recent adoption by parliament of the National Policy on Small Arms and Light Weapons,” the statement says.
“The 2008 parliamentary elections have conferred 52.5 per cent of the seats to women, which makes Rwanda the only country in the world with more women than men holding parliamentary seats. This is likely to improve Rwanda’s score in the participation and human rights category,” it added.
A study commissioned by the Regional Centre on Small Arms shows 96 per cent and 94 per cent of Rwanda’s civil society and the general public already have a high level of trust and satisfaction in the country’s security organs.
The officials also said Rwanda’s standards in categories such as human development and sustainable economic opportunity should increase.
It cited the ongoing reforms and campaigns for girl-child education, improved health conditions, and the vibrant PRO-private sector reforms being carried out by the newly established Rwanda Development Board.
The index shows that half of Africa’s 10 best performing countries are in Southern Africa.
Eastern Africa is ranked third in two categories — Participation and Human Rights and Human Development.
It is ranked fourth in two other categories — Safety and Rule of Law and Sustainable Economic Opportunity.
While the region’s 12 countries include Seychelles and Tanzania (which are ranked third and 12, respectively), they also include Eritrea, Sudan and Somalia (all in the bottom 10).
Related Materials:
Mo Ibrahim Index Misleading, the Rwandan Government Claims
BY EDMUND KAGIRE
The New Times
October 13, 2009
Locally done studies have found the recently released Mo Ibrahim Index on Good Governance wanting-and not indicative of what the real facts on the ground ought to be.
A statement issued by the Government in response to the country’s poor ranking in 3 Sub-Sub Categories (SSC) of the index accuses the authors of the index of deliberately ignoring locally conducted-but credible studies before ranking the country.
The Index released earlier this month ranks Rwanda twice second last and last in the Sub-Sub Categories of Human Development, Sustainable Economic Opportunity and Rule of law, transparency and corruption.
The 9-page response authored by Prof. Anastase Shyaka, the Executive Secretary of the Rwanda Governance Advisory Council, Yusuf Murango and Dr. Mohammed Alibata of the National Institute of Statistics, indicates that the results of the index do not reflect poor performance on the ground as suggested.
“They don’t only match up, but also some times their difference is very big. And in almost all the cases, the index values are lower than local values,” the Government response states.
The authors of the Government report also wonder why the Addis Ababa-based foundation went on to rank Rwanda poorly in the 3 Sub-sub categories despite an earlier recommendation that local data sources be relied upon.
At the beginning of this year, a workshop on the Mo Ibrahim Index was held in Kigali and the authors of the annual index admitted data discrepancies-citing the use of old data as one of them, thereby agreeing to be consulting local sources.
However, according to government, there was no effort at all to use some of the latest data collected and certified by different government bodies responsible for research and data collection during this year’s ranking, hence the credibility of the findings of the index questioned.
According to local studies, results of index found similar or close to local data are mainly values of SSC of the category of safety and security.
A study commissioned by the Regional Centre on Small Arms (RECSA) has shown 96 percent and 94 percent respectively of Civil Society (CSO) and the General Public (GP) declare high level of trust and satisfaction about security organs and their effectiveness in providing security to citizens.
The comparison also reveals that in the categories affected by data discrepancies, some SSC’s values match up with local sources.
However overwhelming data discrepancies are cited in the annual GDP per capita growth where the Index for African Governance gives Rwanda a score of 2.74 while values from the national source put it at 14.6, a difference of almost 12%.
In the Human Development category the index gives Rwanda a score of 45.6 for Life Expectancy at birth and the national figure stands at 51 while child mortality per 1000 scores 167.1 in the index but national values are at 152.
“In our view, although there might be slight differences in how some of the indicators are calculated locally versus in the index, the data discrepancy (data source) can explain poor scores for Rwanda in some categories of the Index of African Governance.”
“It is quite evident that if the index used these updated local data, the score of Rwanda on this category could have significantly improved and her overall score as well,” the Government report reads.
Also contested is category of the Rule of Law, Transparency and Corruption which the report says it was an oversight to merge the them as they are major components of governance, suggesting that they would rather have been split into two-with the Rule of Law on One hand and Corruption and Transparency on the other.
Meanwhile, President Paul Kagame last week questioned the credibility of the index, which he says would have been of great value if its authors took the real values of what is on the ground and not engage in non-issues.
Related Materials:
Who's doing well in Africa? Look south
The full 2008 Ibrahim Index
Africa: Rwanda Named World's Top Business Reformer
Rwanda: World Bank (WB) agrees with International Monetary Fund (IFM): Rwanda is off track to attaining most of its millennium development goals (MDG)
Who's doing well in Africa? Look south
By The Economist
October 1, 2009
The latest report on the continent’s progress has some surprising findings.
Two countries will be disappointed. In 2007 the first Mo Ibrahim prize, worth $5m for Africa’s best leader, went to a former president of Mozambique, Joaquim Chissano. He may have helped to heal the wounds of civil war in his country, but it has fallen from 20th to 26th in three years. And another country doing less well than it likes to proclaim is Rwanda. It has barely shifted in the index yet claims to be pioneering a new development model in central Africa. Its economic improvement under President Paul Kagame seems to have stalled; it gets ever-lower marks for freedom and civil rights.
AFTER only three years, the annual publication of the Ibrahim Index of African Governance has become a bit of a ritual. Compiled by the Mo Ibrahim Foundation, which was set up by a British Sudanese-born telecoms magnate turned philanthropist, the index gives a progress report on Africa’s 53 countries. Mr Ibrahim made his name by championing democracy and good government on the continent, but his index includes economic indicators too. He lists four main criteria in measuring overall progress: safety and the rule of law; participation and human rights; sustainable economic opportunity; and human development.
This year’s results, albeit based on statistics from 2007 to 2008, show little change at the top. Islands still do best. Mauritius again comes first, followed by the Cape Verde Islands and the Seychelles. Botswana and South Africa are fourth and fifth. For the first time since the index came out, the five north African countries (Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Morocco and Tunisia) are included for comparison with their sub-Saharan peers. Across the continent, Africa-watchers will eagerly note which countries have gone up or down in the pecking order (see
Ibrahim index of African Governance and the above chart).
Against a general assumption that the Arab northerners are more developed than countries south of the Sahara, the index shows that in overall terms the northerners lag slightly behind. North Africa generally scores well on economic criteria but badly on “participation” (ie, elections) and human rights. On such counts, Libya drags the north right down. Southern Africa does quite well on governance and human rights; five of the top ten overall best performers hail from that region. West Africa trails north Africa, followed by east Africa. The central region, dominated by shambolic Congo, is at the bottom.
The index gives a fillip to several post-conflict countries. The most improved is Liberia, which, under President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, has been recovering from terrible civil strife. Countries can move up the list fast, especially if they start near the bottom. Angola, Burundi and Sierra Leone are big risers. Sierra Leone is still dirt-poor but has had two fairly good elections since peace returned in 2002. By contrast, Nigeria and Kenya had bad elections—and have dropped down the list.
Conversely, countries seem to decline more slowly than they improve. Eritrea has slipped fastest: it has a dreadful human-rights record. Zimbabwe continues to fall, though its national-unity government that took office this year may stem that slide by next year. Somalia remains at the very bottom of the table.
Two countries will be disappointed. In 2007 the first Mo Ibrahim prize, worth $5m for Africa’s best leader, went to a former president of Mozambique, Joaquim Chissano. He may have helped to heal the wounds of civil war in his country, but it has fallen from 20th to 26th in three years. And another country doing less well than it likes to proclaim is Rwanda. It has barely shifted in the index yet claims to be pioneering a new development model in central Africa. Its economic improvement under President Paul Kagame seems to have stalled; it gets ever-lower marks for freedom and civil rights.
Related Materials:
UK aid to benefit Rwanda which is accused of acts of genocide in Democratic Republic of Congo
By Ambrose Nzeyimana
The Rising Continent
November 17, 2010
A persistent unanswered question has been on the lips of everyone who has been observing conflicts and politics in different parts of the world. What are the criteria the Department for International Development (DfID) follows to distribute British taxpayers’ money as aid to different countries? Unless you assume there are hidden pointers that ordinary Westerners aren’t allow to know, no one would understand for example how Rwanda led by Paul Kagame could be one of the favourite beneficiaries, knowing that its record of human rights abuse is unprecedented.
Let’s forget the UN/ Gersony report of October 1994 or the Garreton report of 1997 which, though covered up and therefore not followed up, documented killing of thousands of Hutu population the first in Rwanda and the second in Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). But the
UN report published on October 1st, thanks to its leaking by the newspaper Le Monde a month earlier, accuses openly the Rwandan Patriotic Army and its AFDL partner in war of having committed acts of genocide in DRC. Since October 14th, 2010, the President of Rwanda has imprisoned Ms Victoire Ingabire, leader of FDU-Inkingi, an important opposition personality on Rwandan ring-fenced political space, and this occurring without any clear condemnation from the international community.
On the
Mo Ibrahim Index Rwanda scores 47.2% and stands at no. 31 out 53 African countries. For a reminder, this index measures annually four parameters across the continent. These are safety and rule of law, participation and human rights, sustainable economic opportunity, human development. Overall the country has moved backwards by 2.2% from previous period of 2007/8. There has as well been a significant decrease in safety and rule of law by 8.4%, while in terms of sustainable economic opportunity, a 2.2% increase had been registered.
In its press freedom index,
Reporters without Borders indicates that Rwanda was ranked 157th out of 175 countries in the 2009 listing. The country was featured among the four lowest African scorers of the record. Eritrea, Somalia and Equatorial Guinea were the only countries below Rwanda in the ranking.
Transparency International has on the other hand referred to Rwanda as the least corrupt country in East Africa. But it is arguable because, according to the country’s critic, there may not be official corruption following the fact that Rwanda is a police state. As Transparency itself points it out, ‘it was unable to produce a comparison of how Rwanda’s institutions fared because reports of bribery were so low – and no Rwandan organization was included in the regional comparison.’ For example, the
South African newspaper Sunday Times uncovered in February 2010 the case of two luxury jets worth around one hundred millions of US $ belonging to the Rwandan president, and this may only be the tip of the iceberg.
At a time of drastic measures that the British government is currently taking to deal with its massive deficit, very few departments have seen their budgets increased. International development is among the handful winners. Apparently the department budget is ring-fenced, but even there fundamental changes may be planned in its spending. Anne McElvoy, writing in The Evening Standard, seems to be sceptical about supposed changes. ‘Ring-fencing of spending of international development, (which) means that less rigour will be applied there than in other areas – and in a department whose inefficiencies are legendary in Whitehall,’ she argues.
It has been announced that aid budget will mainly focus on ‘fragile states’ such as Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen and other countries deemed important for Britain’s national security, with less for prosperous nations such as India and China. The aim is seemingly to tackle underlying problems, such as poor education, governance and healthcare, which are exploited by militants seeking recruits for terrorism acts. However, such prioritisation supposes that hopefully, there won’t be any recruit from Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi or Democratic Republic of Congo who will come to London to blow himself with other members of the public, since some of these countries could be as well called fragile states, when considered the total absence of political space for dissent voices.
Tim Whewell’s film, ‘What is the true price of Rwanda’s recovery’, which was shown on Newsnight in March 2010 on BBC Two, explained that whoever between Labour and Tories British political parties would’ve won the general elections, support to Paul Kagame’s regime would’ve remained. As for Britain’s role in supporting Rwanda, Mr. Cannon, British ambassador in Kigali, says that: ‘Although there are aspects of the country’s human rights that are not perfect – certainly we wouldn’t be here or doing what we’re doing if we didn’t think there was a commitment on the part of the government to the values we share.’ He points in particular to a shared commitment to pro-poor policies – thanks in part to British aid, the proportion of poor Rwandans fell from 70% of the population to 57% between 1994 and 2006. He however forgets to mention that in 1990, before the guerrilla war led by Paul Kagame, that proportion of poor Rwandans was according PNUD only 47%.
The particular treatment of Rwanda responds to a number of specific interests the country represents or defends for Britain in the Great Lakes region. French was replaced by English as national language, without any public consultation, despite the consequences of such decision on thousands of Rwandan public servants who had been educated in French for several generations. The Rwandan president was rewarded admission of his country to the Commonwealth though Rwanda and countries of the ex-British empire didn’t share any common heritage. Such admission maybe could’ve been tolerable at least if Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative and other human rights organisations hadn’t vigorously denounced the level of human rights abuse by the Rwandan president.
But this was without considering current cuts that the coalition government Lib. Dem/ Conservatives would impose to the British nation or the exposure to compelling evidence of Paul Kagame’s crimes to the public which had turned a blind eye on his excesses because of his country’s recent history. Despite an increasing and unprecedented record of abuses of human rights particularly against Rwandan politicians from the opposition, Kigali doesn’t look worried to loose the support of Britain, this even after the publication of the UN report on crimes committed in DRC. The fact of pointing an accusatory finger to Paul Kagame seems to have rather radicalised his attitude towards his opponent politicians: Victoire Ingabire from the FDU-Inkingi and Me Bernard Ntaganda from Socialist Party Imberakuri are paying with tortures and imprisonment for the frustration of the Rwandan president. But this may not apply for Andre Rwisereka, vice-president of the Green Democratic Party of Rwanda who was apparently assassinated by the regime’s handlers in July 2010 for political reasons. On this particular case, Kigali has refused an independent inquiry into the death of this politician, but instead imprisoned probably innocent people to calm pressing calls for justice.
At the Conservative conference held a few months ago, the issue of human rights in Rwanda was apparently raised but couldn’t find any ear ready to listen to the point of concern. Those who tried to highlight the question found it played down because Rwanda is seen as a flagship for Britain in the matters of aid to development. But what the whole picture of support to Paul Kagame doesn’t tell is how that provided financial support enables Rwandan authorities to get a hand on Eastern Congo mineral resources with the complicity of private companies based in Western countries, or to oppress and legally discriminate among its citizens, and spread internationally its propaganda of being a success story in the midst of an African continent marred with conflicts and all sorts of negative clichés. Another hidden reality was uncovered by UN experts on the consequence of aid in the Great Lakes region. They found that, for example in the case of Uganda, ‘(it) gave the Government room to spend more on security matters while other sectors, such as education, health and governance, are being taken care of by the bilateral and multilateral aid,’ asserts the UN report of 2001 on ‘Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources and Other Forms of Wealth in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.’
In the light of current cuts, would British taxpayers continue to see their money which would have helped them or else to deal with ongoing tough times be spent as aid to development of dictatorial and oppressive governments such Rwanda, without asking pertinent questions to their leaders? I don’t think they would knowingly. As international aid budget is scheduled to increase during the current parliament, British public should be more attuned to asking from their ministers a minimum of criteria of human rights and press freedom, and democratic credentials, beneficiaries of British aid should comply with rigorously.
Rwanda and its ghosts
By Hakizimana Emmanuel
L'AUT JOURNAL
May 12, 2010
[Article translated from its original French version by Mamadou Kouyate. Only the French version shall prevail.]
The author has a doctorate in economics. He is specialist in international finance and a lecturer at the University of Quebec at Montreal.
During the controversial visit of Governor General Michaelle Jean in Rwanda, the journalist Agnes Gruda published a series of articles on this country in the newspaper La Presse.
The article titled "
A country that runs faster than its ghosts" published on May 8, 2010 praises the economic development of Rwanda that president Paul Kagame and his supporters brandish as a success.
Mrs. Gruda writes: "10 years ago, the president [...] adopted his Vision 2020, a reform plan over 20 years aimed at making Rwanda a regional economic player in the foreground: An African version of Singapore with a touch of Silicone Valley.
But what is really Vision 2020? Before thinking at competing with Singapore, shouldn’t we ask ourselves how is Rwanda ranked compared to other African countries?
The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) performed a mid-term review of the Vision 2020 and found a pretty disastrous situation: poverty is gaining ground and hits 62% of the Rwandan population in rural areas, while this proportion was 50% in 1990. Nearly a third of the Rwandan population suffers from food shortages and the gap between rich and poor has reached an unprecedented record that puts Rwanda in the top 15 percentile of the most unequal countries in the world.
In comparison with other African countries, Rwanda is a laggard for many crucial factors of economic development. For example, according to the data from the UNDP and the World Bank, life expectancy in Rwanda is 44 years, which is below the African average of 46 years. Less than 45% of children in Rwanda complete elementary school, while the average for sub-Saharan Africa is 60%.
The gross rate for secondary school enrollment is 17% compared to 28% for sub-Saharan Africa. In 2009, the overall ranking of countries by Human Development Index, which encompasses life expectancy, living standards and education levels, the UNDP puts Rwanda among the last fifteen countries worldwide, behind the majority of the thirty-eight countries in sub-Saharan Africa.
In light of these data and knowing that Paul Kagame’s Rwanda is promoted by Western donors who provide a substantial assistance of $ 55 per capita nearly three times the African average of $ 20 per capita, the splendid Kigali City described by Mrs. Gruda has another face: the concentration of wealth and hoarding of the foreign aid in a tiny urban minority close to the current regime.
The absence of any trace of misery in Kigali City, unlike other African cities, is obtained at the cost of violating the rights of homeless and street children that are imprisoned for instance on the Iwawa island as this was revealed by the newspaper
The New York Times on May 1, 2010.
Worse still, the contrast between the splendor of the city and the misery of the rural areas is the result of ethnic discrimination than is stronger than ever before, as evidenced by the story of captivity by Professor Susan Thomson of the University of Ottawa, in a reeducation camp in Rwanda, story found on her blog [“
Democracy Watch - Rwanda 2010”].
One of the interlocutors of Mrs. Gruda, the Rwandan journalist Didas Gasana, confides that the Hutus, who comprise 84% of the Rwandan population, are almost totally excluded from power. They are considered collectively as "genocidaires".
The statistics speak for themselves about discrimination against the Hutus. Thus, the high command of the Rwandan army officer has a Hutu superior officer for every 1.59 million Hutu inhabitants compared to a Tutsi superior officer for every 34,600 Tutsi inhabitants.
Similarly, in Rwanda, there is a Hutu senior administrative official for every 500,000 Hutu inhabitants compared to a Tutsi senior administrative official for every 70,000 Tutsi inhabitants.
The Hutu orphans of the tragedy of 1994 are abandoned to their fate as opposed to Tutsi orphans who are supported by the assistance fund for genocide survivors. The slightest mention of the atrocities suffered by the Hutus is strongly repressed by vague laws on "divisionism" and "genocide ideology", which lead to arbitrary arrests.
Behind the make-up of urban modernity, Rwanda is more likely a volcano on the verge of an eruption rather than an island of prosperity in the midst of African poverty. This is the sad reality, no matter how unpleasant it may sound to the apologists of Paul Kagame’s regime.
Related Materials:
Rwanda: World Bank (WB) agrees with International Monetary Fund (IFM): Rwanda is off track to attaining most of its millennium development goals (MDG)
Rwanda Today: When Foreign Aid Hurts More Than It Helps
Striving for growth, bypassing the poor?A critical review of Rwanda’s rural sector policies
Rwanda: Economic Growth Sustained Through Free Labor
Rwandan peasants on the brink of extinction
On The Myth of Economic Prosperity in Rwanda
Rwanda: campaigners say the country is starving while the government says criticism is unfounded
Planting bio-fuels, in Rwanda, while Rwandans go hungry
More than 50% children in Rwanda are stunted
Rural poverty is dramatically increasing in Rwanda, Belgian researcher An Ansoms reveals
The genocide in Rwanda: The difficulty of trying to stop it happening ever again
The Two Faces of Rwanda
A new, green day dawns in war-wracked Rwanda
BY PERRY BEEMAN
Des Moines Register
December 20, 2009
Kigali, Rwanda- Drive even a couple of hours through the self-described "Land of a Thousand Hills" and it's hard to see this nation as an upstart environmental leader.
Hungry villagers have shorn slopes of trees to make room for crops, turning much of Rwanda's once-rolling rain forests into a patchwork of 2 1/2-acre garden plots, typically one per family. The land is farmed to the sky.
"From the plane, the view of the problem is clear," said Fidele Ruzigandekwe, wildlife agency director at the Rwanda Development Board. "Every square inch is cultivated."
Such intense farming comes at a huge environmental cost — one that a small group of Iowans is working to address. Runoff has killed most streams, choked hydroelectric plants and fouled water supplies.
Yet President Paul Kagame has become an unlikely green crusader, one of Africa's strongest voices on environmental sustainability. Major global players such as the World Bank and former President Bill Clinton's Global Initiative have joined the cause, betting aid payments that this poverty-plagued nation, wracked by slaughter just 15 years ago, can become a model for developing a modern economy while sparing the environment.
In many developing countries, environmental protection barely ekes onto the radar. In many developed countries, voters and businesses push back against the cost of being green.
In Rwanda, authorities put visitors on notice at the airport that environmental protection is serious business: Airport workers confiscate travelers' plastic grocery bags, which are banned because of the litter they create.
"We are very committed to development, but sustainable development," said Vincent Karega, a top Kagame aide on environmental matters, working in his Kigali office.
In many developing countries, environmental protection barely ekes onto the radar. In many developed countries, voters and businesses push back against the cost of being green.
In Rwanda, authorities put visitors on notice at the airport that environmental protection is serious business: Airport workers confiscate travelers' plastic grocery bags, which are banned because of the litter they create.
"We are very committed to development, but sustainable development," said Vincent Karega, a top Kagame aide on environmental matters, working in his Kigali office.
"If we just look at economic aspects without taking into account the environment, then we might not achieve anything," Karega said. "The country is very hilly, so soil conservation is a must. And also there is still unexploited potential for ecotourism. So we can make money out of conserving nature rather than destroying nature."
Great Ape Trust and Earthpark, two of Des Moines businessman Ted Townsend's organizations, have joined with Rwandan federal and local governments to restore the shrunken Gishwati Forest, get Rwandans jobs planting trees or guarding woodlands, and set up craft and crop cooperatives to help boost local incomes.
Rwanda earlier this year issued its first environmental scorecard, a 137-page document that calls for fewer farm workers, better soil conservation, more renewable energy, modern landfills, recycling, better septic systems, expanded drinking-water systems and the country's first land-use plan.
Problems challenge nation's air, water, soil
Rwanda's monumental environmental challenges play into its drive to convert from subsistence agriculture to a stronger, more diversified economy in which more people work nonfarm jobs in ecotourism or in fields such as information technology. That would allow some hills to go back to grass, or perhaps tea, which can hold the soil and fight erosion.
Hillside farming sends a torrent of soil into lifeless rivers that run the color of creamed coffee, making them iffy drinking-water sources. Landslides killed 119 people in the past two years. The soil lost each year would grow enough crops to feed 40,000 people.
Other signs of trouble: Backhoes regularly dredge streams to keep the nation's top source of generated electricity — hydropower — online. Rwandans burn wood and charcoal for cooking, blurring the skies with a persistent haze. Sewage treatment is nearly nonexistent, as is tap water in many places.
The smell of eucalyptus — a nonnative tree nearly worthless for wildlife and damaging to other plants — wafts across the countryside. It's grown in large plots for firewood.
The soil is tired, producing lower and lower yields, according to the federal government. Few Rwandans can afford synthetic fertilizer or cattle, which would produce manure. The government has set goals that call for more fertilizer, more livestock, modern farm methods and fewer people working the landscape.
Crops have even crept up the mountains harboring the rare mountain gorillas that are the main attraction of the country's No.1 source of foreign cash — ecotourism.
The federal government is crafting the country's first comprehensive land-use plan, which could ban farming on some fragile slopes, said Natural Resources Minister Stanislaus Kamanzi.
In early October, a severe thunderstorm wiped out Kavumu village's crops and destroyed dozens of homes. Madeleine Nyiratuza, coordinator of the Iowa-linked effort to restore nearby Gishwati Forest, wonders whether the severe weather is tied to clearing of the forest and to climate change.
Extent of poverty increases challenge
Even on a continent known for its poverty, Rwanda poses a tough case. It's among the poorest of the poor, and it lacks the plentiful natural resources — oil, natural gas, gold, diamonds — of its neighbors.
The country's concentrated population, 10 million people crowded in an area a fifth the size of Iowa, is among the densest in Africa. Its per-person income of $500 is among the lowest. Still, that's a sharp rise from just a few years ago. The goal: $900 per person by 2020, a shade more than the current average income for sub-Saharan Africa.
The U.N. Development Programme's human development index, which attempts to measure the overall health of an area, ranked Rwanda 167th out of 182 countries this year. Rwanda's overall poverty index was the 100th worst out of 135. Rwandans have a 35 percent chance of not living until 40. Life expectancy overall is 51.
As overworked family farm plots lose productivity, almost a quarter of children under age 4 are underweight, the United Nations reports. And several million new residents are on the way in just the next decade.
Many Rwandan families of 10 eat only what they can grow on 2.5 acres. Mother, father and children work the land from sunrise to sunset, hauling crops and supplies on their heads, backs or bicycles down steep, rocky roads well into the evening. Women often carry a baby on their back, too.
The tiny country has to rely on neighbors for its goods, said Heather D'Agnes, population and environment technical adviser for the U.S. Agency for International Development in Washington, D.C. "In most places, they count hectares. In Rwanda, they count the number of bushes."
Outside investment boosts development
In 1994, Hutu government forces and their allies in Rwanda killed nearly 1 million Tutsis and politically moderate Hutus in one of the world's worst genocides. Many Rwandans face rebuilding their lives and their country while living in the same village as a person who killed their kin.
Yet against this backdrop of poverty and emotional pain, the amount of commercial development in Rwanda astonishes Craig Sholley of the nonprofit African Wildlife Foundation in Washington, D.C., who regularly visits Rwanda.
On the road from Gisenyi, where Iowa's ape trust scientists maintain an office, to Kinigi, the closest town to the famed mountain gorillas, Rwandan-style strip malls pop up at virtually every major corner. The malls boast craft shops, produce stands, bars and restaurants, some with names like "New Horizons" or "Hope," post-genocide references seen throughout the country.
Major roads in and out of Kigali, the capital city, are well-paved, if pocked with potholes. But Kigali lacks a central sewer system, good roads within the city and modern trash disposal. Many lower-end hotels struggle to offer steady power, hot water and cockroach-free rooms.
Kagame is determined to improve those services, not only to improve life in Rwanda but also to transform the country into an international trading partner. The country is looking to export dairy products, software, computer services, fruit and juices, silk and fresh-cut flowers in addition to the already in-demand coffee and tea.
Kigali seems destined to turn into a cosmopolitan city. It has an entertainment complex that draws hundreds of young urbanites every night. Upscale restaurants offer views of the country's signature hills. A Starbucks-style coffee joint downtown draws an international crowd. One night in October, a local company drew thousands to a beer fest, complete with live music, on an acreage overlooking the sweeping lights of the city.
Rwanda has drawn investment from companies as diverse as Costco, Microsoft and Starbucks, which opened an office in Kigali to train farmers to grow high-end coffee more efficiently. Leaders like Clinton, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and U.S. pastor and author Rick Warren lend time and attention.
The World Bank is involved, too. Some scientists, including Benjamin Beck of Great Ape Trust, have criticized the bank for its support of cattle farms, which contributed to the massive deforestation. But now the World Bank is making a big investment in Rwanda, while keeping an eye on the country's environment.
The bank arranged to funnel nearly $400 million into Rwanda over three years and has ruled the country eligible for loans.
Signs environmental push is working
Outsiders say aid organizations and foreign governments want to see environmental sustainability before they send cash, adding urgency to Kagame's push for stringent conservation measures.
He must help the country find ways to keep making money off the land, but to convert the most fragile lands to trees or grasses to hold the soil, said Rose Mukankomeje, director general of the Rwanda Environment Management Authority.
Mwangi Kimenyi, a Brookings Institution fellow in Washington, D.C., said Kagame appears willing to pay the price of environmental protection now for long-term prosperity.
"The approach by President Kagame is by … making these conservation efforts now, you will get more economic activity later," Kimenyi said.
Marie-Helene Bricknell, the World Bank's coordinator for Rwanda, sees evidence the approach is working.
"Rwanda is a darling in East Africa because they perform," Bricknell said.
"You cannot work fast enough for them. The country is so committed to moving beyond that terrible period," she said, referring to the genocide.
Some experts theorize international guilt prompts some of the investment flowing to the country.
"A lot of that money is government money from nations that ignored what happened in the '90s, and now they are going to pay them back out of guilt," said Sholley, of the African Wildlife Foundation.
Those motivations aside, the eco-mission makes sense, he said. It's one of the smallest countries in the world, placing a premium on keeping land productive, and its lack of oil forces it to look to renewable energy. "Rwanda is a great place to give this a shot."
Related Materials:
Rank 32? Not us, Rwanda tells Index team
Rwanda: World Bank (WB) agrees with International Monetary Fund (IFM): Rwanda is off track to attaining most of its millennium development goals (MDG)
Rwanda: campaigners say the country is starving while the government says criticism is unfounded
More than 50% children in Rwanda are stunted
Rwandan peasants on the brink of extinction
Planting bio-fuels, in Rwanda, while Rwandans go hungry
Rwanda: Cabinet approves US35m Bio-diesel project
The UDF-INKINGI condemn the decision to sell 10,000 hectares for bio-fuel production to the detriment of people's food security in Rwanda
