Moldova ranks 99th out of the 169 countries covered by the 2010 Human Development Report. Introducing three new indices, the 20th anniversary edition of the Report documents wide inequalities within and among countries, deep disparities between women and men on a wide range of development indicators, and the prevalence of extreme multidimensional poverty in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, Info-Prim Neo reports. According to Deputy Resident Representative of UNDP Moldova Matilda Dimovska, Moldova is at a medium development level. She said the report shows that people today are healthier, wealthier and better educated than before. “The report reconfirms that the extension of the freedoms to live a longer, healthier and creative life is a basic human development conception. The people are both beneficiaries and the motric force of human development, as individuals and as a group,” she said. The report analyzes the development of Moldova between 1970 and 2010. Moldova’s Human Development Index for 2010 is 0.623, which means it has a medium development level. Moldova’s HDI increased from 0.616 to 0.623, up 1%. During 40 years, life expectancy in Moldova grew by one year on average, school enrolment rose by two years, while per capita GDP fell 25%. As to gender inequality, 22% of the seats in Moldova’s Parliament are held by women. 86% of the adult women have higher education, as against 92% of men. Women participation in the labor market is 53% compared to 56% for men. As regards multidimensional poverty, 2% of the population suffers from discrimination as regards education, health and living standards. The top 10 countries in the 2010 HDI are Norway, Australia, New Zealand, the United States, Ireland, Lichtenstein, the Netherlands, Canada, Sweden and Germany. At the bottom of the 2010 HDI rankings of 169 countries are, in order: Mali, Burkina Faso, Liberia, Chad, Guinea-Bissau, Mozambique, Burundi, Niger, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Zimbabwe. Country ranking changes in the HDI are now reported over a five-year comparative period, rather than on a year-to-year basis, to better reflect long-term development trends. Due to methodological refinements of the HDI formula, the 2010 rankings are not directly comparable to those in earlier reports.