Don’t Miss a Story: Subscribe to PassBlue
Sign up to get the smartest news on the UN by email, joining readers across the globe.
Robert Mugabe, the only head of state that Zimbabwe had known since independence in 1980, was forced out of office by an unexpected coup in November 2017, and citizens of the economically battered country are now forced to tally the costs of his dictatorship. One of them is a health system in collapse.
A report in the British medical journal The Lancet describes the situation facing the country and its new president, Emmerson Mnangagwa:
“Hospitals have been without basic supplies, and health workers regularly strike over unpaid wages and poor working conditions. There are several causes: governmental neglect and a broader economic breakdown that has left little funding for health care, but also administration policies that repelled donors and aid agencies. . . . [T]here are now crucial questions about how quickly the new administration can turn the health system around — or whether it will.”
The health system in Zimbabwe — formerly the British colony of Southern Rhodesia — was once one of the best in Southern Africa. But as the Mugabe government led the country into economic decline, health went with it.
Public spending on health as a total percentage of gross domestic product fell from 7 percent in 2000 to 4.4 percent by 2007, according to the World Bank, The Lancet reported. Mugabe had antagonized donors with a land reform program that allowed poor black, often politically connected, farmers to invade and seize thousands of mostly white-owned farms. The Lancet report said that beginning in 2000, data showed Zimbabwe receiving far less assistance than neighboring countries like Zambia and Malawi. Money from outside began to be channeled into nongovernmental programs, but that was not sufficient.
The rates of HIV rose. Throughout most of the 2000s, life expectancy remained below 50 years, according to the World Health Organization. When a cholera outbreak began in 2008, the fatality rates were 10 times as high as the international norm, The Lancet reported. Rates of malaria, tuberculosis and neglected tropical diseases are also high.
After the swearing-in of a post-Mugabe administration, health officials said they needed $1.1 billion annually to begin restoring the system. They have been disappointed by President Mnangagwa. Only $408 million was allocated to health in a new budget.
10 Rivers in Asia and Africa Dump Most Plastic Into the Seas
A German Research Institute looking for the sources of the most plastic and other trash that is threatening sea life around the world has determined that about 90 percent of the waste originates in 10 large river systems. The results of the study, led by Christian Schmidt, a hydrologist at the government-funded Helmholtz Center for Environmental Research-UFZ in Germany, were first published last year in the Environmental Science and Technology journal. Eight of the ten polluters were in Asia and two in Africa.
The rivers that Schmidt and his colleagues found to be the major sources of plastic in ocean debris are, in order of magnitude, the Yangtze, Indus, Yellow, Hai He, Nile, Ganges, Pearl, Amur, Niger and Mekong.
The Yangtze, Yellow, Hai He, Pearl and Amur are in China; the Mekong in Southeast Asia; the Ganges and Indus in South Asia, and the Nile and Niger in Africa. All are heavily polluted.
In a news release from the German research center in October 2017, Schmidt explained that researchers analyzed scientific studies of the plastics carried by dozens of rivers and then converted the results of the studies into mutually comparable datasets and determined the ratio of these figures to the quantity of waste that is not disposed of properly in the respective catchment areas.
“We were able to demonstrate that there is a definite correlation,” Schmidt said in the news release. “The more waste there is in a catchment area that is not disposed of properly, the more plastic ultimately ends up in the river and takes this route to the sea.”
Schmidt said the next step is to determine how long the plastic takes to reach the sea once it gets into rivers. “It is important to be aware of this as the impact of a measure becomes apparent only with a corresponding time delay as existing pollution has yet to be washed into the sea,” he said. “Only when we are aware of roughly how long plastic debris remains in the respective river system will it also be possible to assess a measure to improve the waste management system in the catchment area.”