|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
  |
 |
  |
RWANDA
Activity Data Sheet
>> AFR Regional Overview >> Rwanda Overview PROGRAM: RWANDA
TITLE & NUMBER: Increased Rule of Law and Transparency in Governance, 696-001
STATUS: Continuing
FY 2001 PLANNED OBLIGATION AND FUNDING SOURCE: $1,000,000 DA
FY 2002 PROPOSED OBLIGATION AND FUNDING SOURCE: $923,000 DA
INITIAL OBLIGATION: FY 1997; ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: FY 2003Summary: Prospects for fostering democratic processes and good governance in Rwanda must be analyzed in the context of significant mitigating circumstances. The manipulation of ethnic tensions that fueled the genocide persist and remain potentially divisive. Second, there continues to be a major security threat having its primary locus in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Third, the lack of an educated citizenry means that the Government of Rwanda (GOR) needs to work extremely hard at the grassroots level to create popular awareness and participation in the workings of local governments. Finally, a weak economic base feeds popular dissatisfaction and will remain a potential source of instability. Against this backdrop, USAID works with the government and people of Rwanda to strengthen the institutional capacity to build confidence in the rule of law and to end the cycles of ethnic violence and impunity that have plagued the country since independence. The purpose of this strategic objective is to strengthen those institutions that form the foundation of a sound legal and judicial system and to promote national development based on the rule of law and good governance. It provides the main bulwark of support for the U.S. goal, to assist Rwanda in its transition to a fully democratic system in which ethnic tolerance, respect for human rights and the rule of law are instituted. Progress towards achievement of this goal ultimately benefits all Rwandans and is critical for the realization of justice and the prospects for enduring peace.
FY 2001 DA Democracy and Governance resources ($1,000,000) will fund a second year of assistance to the Rwandan legislature and will begin a new activity to support fiscal decentralization.
Key Results: In 2001, the GOR held the first secret ballot elections in 35 years to elect leaders for newly formed district councils in a reorganized system of local government. Ninety-six percent of the electorate participated in the elections which are a significant element in the GOR's ambitious decentralization policy and a precursor to national elections in 2003 or 2004.
USAID is helping to increase the capacity of the justice system to deal with the processing of the massive genocide caseload. Material support and training of jurists are beginning to pay dividends as the efficiency and quality of juridical work begins to improve. In 2000, more genocide cases were resolved than in any prior year: 120 category one detainees (those accused of genocide crimes involving planning, inciting and executing genocide and rape) were processed and all prisoners released who were juveniles at the time of the genocide (1,500), as were 600 prisoners without dossiers containing sufficient evidence. Fifty-three (of whom one-fifth are women) of the 120 graduates of USAID-funded legal training are employed at the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) and the others work with other ministries, human rights organizations, and the private sector.
Decentralization in Rwanda is built upon the foundation laid by USAID's Local Governance Initiative that enables local communities to determine their own development priorities. Since 1997, community identified development projects have been implemented in 66% of the districts (formerly communes).
Performance and Prospects: USAID and the Department of Justice (DOJ) redesigned an agreement in response to the GOR's decision to transfer the bulk of the genocide caseload (roughly 111,000 persons) to the African inspired adjudication process - gacaca - as a way to realize justice for the accused and victims of the genocide. The new agreement focuses on the resolution of the Category One genocide cases -- 1,500 prisoners in Rwanda accused of leading the genocide who will be tried in the existing court system. An implementation plan is now in place, training of prosecutors has begun, and equipment to improve caseload management is being procured. Recently, a USAID contractor began working with the MOJ to improve its overall functioning through assistance in administration, file preparation and management, research capability, and communications.
USAID recently completed a baseline survey to measure public perceptions pertaining to gacaca and will follow up with another survey in May 2001. USAID is spearheading a multimedia awareness campaign to establish popular understanding of the gacaca law and communal roles and responsibilities within it. The survey data indicated that there is overwhelming willingness among the public to participate in the election of gacaca judges and the presentation of evidence before the tribunals. The public awareness campaign is a limited but crucial ingredient ensuring the viability of the gacaca process.
The Rwandan public's understanding of and appreciation for the justice system is being augmented by ongoing USAID support for the coverage of the trials of leading genocide suspects in Arusha, Tanzania at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. For several years, USAID has funded the placement of Rwandan journalists in Arusha and in FY 2001 began supplementing this activity with a one-year grant to increase popular awareness of these trials through radio and television coverage. Documentaries and video footage of the trials are now being produced and shown in villages throughout Rwanda.
USAID supports students who are orphans of the genocide through a $2 million program of education assistance to the National Assistance Fund for the Survivors of the Genocide (GSF). Management problems at the GSF led USAID to reduce the number of schools where students are funded from 65 to 15, though it increased the overall number of students eligible for assistance from 2,500 to 3,200 of whom 67% are girls. In FY 2000, USAID received the first of two tranches of funds ($1.3 million altogether) from the Dutch Government to manage on behalf of a further 1,800 students. These resources will also be used to fund management improvements at the GSF.
Improvement in personal security has been marked in Rwanda, particularly since the end of the insurgency in the Northwest in early 1999. Better-disciplined and equipped police forces have been a contributing factor. The formation of a National Police Force in 2000 was an opportunity to raise the level of professionalism within the police ranks.
Local government has been a major focus of USAID assistance since 1997. A recent evaluation of the USAID community development program supplied evidence that there is an improved understanding and practice of participatory development in communes where there has been USAID assistance. USAID also provided more than $600,000 in commodity assistance for the recent district elections. Institutional and human capacity at the Ministry of Local Government is being strengthened through the building of a computer network linking the central ministry with offices in the provinces. USAID supported preliminary work to facilitate local government revenue and expenditure functions and plans to implement a three-year program beginning in FY 2001 to aid fiscal and financial decentralization.
The balance of power among Rwanda's branches of government is heavily skewed towards the executive. Judicial independence continues to be weak and is expected to remain so until after the gacaca trials. However, USAID is encouraged by the progress made by the Transitional National Assembly (TNA) since 1994. In January 2001, a new one- to two-year activity began to strengthen the institutional capacity of the TNA in the areas of legislative drafting, informed debate, and executive oversight.
Another key USAID activity to improve accountability and transparency in governance includes fostering national dialogue on sensitive, but critical post-genocide issues. In FY 2000, USAID provided assistance to the fledgling Unity and Reconciliation Commission (URC), including support for a widely attended National Unity and Reconciliation Summit. The URC is now firmly established as a national institution and is capable of attracting other donor support as needed. USAID is also supporting the Center for Conflict Management at the National University of Rwanda through a partnership with the University of Maryland.
Civil society has emerged as a key theme over the past year as USAID re-examined its sector strategy, achievements, and expectations through the end of FY 2003. In FY 2000, USAID solicited proposals for small grants that resulted in the selection of a local non-governmental organization to train women for conflict resolution skills leading up to gacaca. This followed on a highly successful international conference concerned with the role of women in peace building that was a joint program of USAID and the U.S. Embassy. An assessment of civil society is underway with a view towards identifying opportunities for a strategic intervention.
Possible Adjustments to Plans: USAID may fund a significant intervention in civil society based on an assessment that is underway. Funding for community development projects will be reconsidered in the light of recent evaluation findings.
Other Donor Programs: The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and the European Union (EU) provide technical and budgetary support to the justice sector while the Netherlands, Canada, Belgium, Germany, Denmark and Switzerland lend technical assistance. UNDP, the Netherlands, and Canada also support building refurbishment. UNDP and Switzerland have projects with the TNA. UNDP, the World Bank, the EU, the Netherlands and Switzerland assist the decentralization process.
Principal Contractors, Grantees, or Agencies: The U.S. Department of Justice, the University of Quebec at Montreal, Africare, Johns Hopkins University, Management Sciences for Development, Internews, International Rescue Committee, State University of New York and University of Maryland.
FY 2002 Performance Tables
Performance Measures:
Indicator FY97 (Actual) FY98 (Actual) FY99 (Actual) FY00 (Actual) FY00 (Plan) FY01 (Plan) FY02 (Plan) Indicator 1: Freedom House Index - political rights 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 Indicator 2: Freedom House Index - civil liberties 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Indicator 3: Percent of districts where there are participatory community development projects 8 28 49 66 70 90 100 Indicator 4: Category 1 detainees processed annually NA NA 158 NA 200 250 300 Indicator 5: Anglophone lawyers trained NA 0 75 120 164 NA 170 Indicator Information:
Indicator Level (S) or (IR) Unit of Measure Source Indicator Description Indicator 1: IR Annual changes in ratings for political rights (PR) Freedom House, Freedom in the World Survey conducted annually Ranking is on a scale of 1-7 (7 is the worst rating). The ranking is determined by a Freedom House team that consults a wide range of sources including foreign and domestic news reports, NGO publications, think tank and academic analyses and individual professional contacts. The dimensions of political rights and civil liberties indexes are specific and systematic. Indicator 2: IR Annual changes in ratings for political rights (PR) and civil liberties (CL) Freedom House, Freedom in the World Survey conducted annually Ranking is on a scale of 1-7 (7 is the worst rating). The ranking is determined by a Freedom House team that consults a wide range of sources including foreign and domestic news reports, NGO publications, think tank and academic analyses and individual professional contacts. The dimensions of political rights and civil liberties indexes are specific and systematic. Indicator 3: IR Number of communes where LGI methodology is being implemented Ministry of Local Government The LGI methodology has been accepted as successful in USAID's original targeted communes. USAID has expanded the number of communes in the LGI activity and other donors are implementing the LGI methodology in an increasing number of communes. Replication of a pilot activity is an accepted measure of impact, and the indicator shows replication in absolute terms. The indicator has been modified to reflect the percent of communes (now called districts) rather than the number where LGI methodology, i.e., participatory community development projects is being implemented because of local government reorganization that reduced the number of communes from 154 to 106 districts. Indicator 4: IR Number (a percentage is not an appropriate indicator, as the denominator is expected to increase when the gacaca process or further arrests increase the number of Category 1 detainees) Revised CY 1999 figure based on estimates obtained from Avocats Sans Frontieres and LIPRODHOR (human rights NGO). Category 1 detainees are defined in the organic law passed in August 1996 that divides those accused of participation in the 1994 genocide into 4 categories based on the seriousness of the crimes of which they are accused. Category 1 detainees are the Rwandans accused of being implicated in planning, inciting and executing the 1994 genocide. Most of them held office in the pre-1994 government, army or political parties. Category 1 cases will be tried by the regular court system, not through the community-based gacaca alternative. Indicator 5: IR Number (cumulative) UQAM This indicator measures the increased availability of legal expertise as a result of the training and graduation of lawyers from the National University's Law School. The tremendous shortage of skilled legal assistance and the huge legal needs associated with the processing of the genocide caseload assure that legal graduates will be contributing directly to the achievement of the result. The target number of 250 graduates by 2002 will not be met. Although there will not be a graduating class in 2001, fifty to sixty graduates beyond the 120 that have already graduated are expected to complete their degrees by 2002.
U.S. Financing
(In thousands of dollars)
Obligations Expenditures Unliquidated Through September 30, 1999 9,995 DA 3,205 DA 6,790 DA 0 CSD 0 CSD 0 CSD 11,100 ESF 185 ESF 10,915 ESF 0 SEED 0 SEED 0 SEED 0 FSA 0 FSA 0 FSA 15,454 DFA 11,193 DFA 4,261 DFA Fiscal Year 2000 1,871 DA 2,397 DA 0 CSD 0 CSD 4,500 ESF 2,741 ESF 0 SEED 0 SEED 0 FSA 0 FSA 99 DFA 1,971 DFA Through September 30, 2000 11,866 DA 5,602 DA 6,264 DA 0 CSD 0 CSD 0 CSD 15,600 ESF 2,926 ESF 12,674 ESF 0 SEED 0 SEED 0 SEED 0 FSA 0 FSA 0 FSA 15,553 DFA 13,164 DFA 2,389 DFA Prior Year Unobligated Funds 0 DA 0 CSD 0 ESF 0 SEED 0 FSA 0 DFA Planned Fiscal Year 2001 NOA 1,000 DA 0 CSD 0 ESF 0 SEED 0 FSA 0 DFA Total Planned Fiscal Year 2001 1,000 DA 0 CSD 0 ESF 0 SEED 0 FSA 0 DFA Future Obligations Est. Total Cost Proposed Fiscal Year 2002 NOA 923 DA 0 DA 13,789 DA 0 CSD 0 CSD 0 CSD 0 ESF 0 ESF 15,600 ESF 0 SEED 0 SEED 0 SEED 0 FSA 0 FSA 0 FSA 0 DFA 0 DFA 15,553 DFA
 |
|||
Last Updated on: May 29, 2002 |
