Female Genital Mutilation in the European Union and Croatia
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Female genital mutilation in the European Union and Croatia Report This report is based on the ‘Study to map the current The work on this report was coordinated by Jurgita Pečiūrienė; situation and trends of female genital mutilation in 27 EU quality assurance was carried out by colleagues at the Member States and Croatia’. It was commissioned by the European Institute for Gender Equality: Barbara Limanowska, European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) in 2012 and Indrė Mackevičiūtė, Ligia Nobrega, Magali Gay-Berthomieu, was carried out by a consortium of researchers from the Magdalena Gryszko, Maria Schäfer, Maurizio Mosca, Monika International Centre for Reproductive Health (ICRH) and the Bystrzycka, Priya Alvarez and Santiago Moran Medina. Yellow Window Management Consultants. The study was carried out by a core team: Els Leye (project leader, ICRH), This report is accompanied by more publications related to Lut Mergaert (project leader, Yellow Window) and Catarina EIGE’s work on combating FGM. These resources can be found Arnaut, with the support from Jessika Deblonde, Annemarie at: http://eige.europa.eu/content/female-genital-mutilation Middelburg, Siobán O’Brien Green, Anke Van Vossole and 31 national researchers. The researchers were supported Neither the European Institute for Gender Equality nor any by four advisors: Elise Johansen, Rianne Letschert, Christine person acting on its behalf can be held responsible for the Loudes and Naana Otoo-Oyortey. use made of the information contained in this report. Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union. Freephone number (*): 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers or these calls may be billed. More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu). Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication. ISBN 978-92-9218-118-5 doi:10.2839/23199 © European Union, 2013 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. Printed in Belgium PRINTED ON ELEMENTAL CHLORINE-FREE BLEACHED PAPER (ECF) Female genital mutilation in the European Union and Croatia The European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) is an autonomous body of the European Union, established to con- tribute to and strengthen the promotion of gender equality, including gender mainstreaming in all EU policies and the resulting national policies, and the fight against discrimination based on sex, as well as to raise EU citizens’ awareness of gender equality. Further information can be found on the EIGE website (http://www.eige.europa.eu). European Institute for Gender Equality Gedimino pr. 16 LT-01103 Vilnius LITHUANIA Tel. +370 52157444 E-mail: [email protected] http://www.eige.europa.eu http://www.twitter.com/eurogender http://www.facebook.com/eige.europa.eu http://www.youtube.com/eurogender Foreword Foreword Female genital mutilation (FGM) is one of the most brutal hu- man rights violations of our time, deeply rooted in gender inequalities, as well as deliberate physical and psychological dominance over girls and women. This cruel form of gender- based violence cuts deeply at the heart of the European Un- ion’s values and fundamental rights; thus, the EU’s dedicated and tireless commitment towards putting an end to this phe- nomenon is of the utmost importance. Its commitment is af- firmed in the European Parliament’s resolutions, the Women’s Charter and the European Commission’s Strategy for Equality between Women and Men 2010−2015. The recently adopted Directive 2012/29/EU, which establishes the minimum stand- ards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, is an important instrument in support of women and girls who are victims of and at risk of FGM. EIGE’s research confirms that in the EU there is, unfortunately, a significant number of women and girls who are in jeopardy of becoming victims of FGM and/or have been subjected to FGM. Significant gaps in prehensive strategy, based on a gender-sensitive and human the area of data collection and support services, in the preven- rights-based approach, which empowers girls and women tion of and fight against FGM point to the need for coherent to be in control of their lives, and which balances protec- and continuous measures. tion, prevention and prosecution measures. Furthermore and equally important, attention is raised toward the need to in- This report aims to support policy makers and all relevant tensify efforts on behavioural change among FGM-practising institutions by providing them with reliable and comparable communities, decision makers and stakeholders in countries data for evidence-based actions and policy improvement in where FGM is practised. the area of FGM. It also provides recommendations on how to protect girls, women and the European society from this On behalf of the European Institute for Gender Equality, destructive and devastating expression of power, and on how I express my sincere gratitude to those who contributed to give sufficient support to the girls and women who have in the compilation of this report, especially to the Euro- fallen victim to this crime. pean Commission Directorate-General for Justice and EIGE’s staff. Despite a lack of prevalence data, EIGE’s research mapped the current scale of female genital mutilation in the 27 EU Mem- Today, it is still regrettably apparent that all of us need to unite ber States and Croatia, providing a thorough analysis of iden- our efforts in ensuring that girls and women victims of FGM in tified data; legislative and policy measures; support services; the EU receive sufficient support in order to prevent any girl coordination and inter-sectoral cooperation. Our findings or woman from having to face this traumatic, life-devastating show that to effectively combat FGM, the EU needs a com- expression of violence ever again. Virginija Langbakk Director European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) Female genital mutilation in the European Union and Croatia 3 Acknowledgements Acknowledgements The European Institute for Gender Equality would like to thank the following people for their involvement in the study. Core research team Advisory Board – Anke Van Vossole (International Centre for Repro- – Christine Loudes (END FGM European Campaign, ductive Health) Ireland) – Annemarie Middelburg (INTERVICT, University of – Elise Johansen (WHO, Geneva) Tilburg, Netherlands) – Naana Otoo-Oyortey (FORWARD, United Kingdom) – Catarina Arnaut (Yellow Window Management Consultants) – Rianne Letschert (INTERVICT, University of Tilburg, Netherlands) – Els Leye, project leader (International Centre for Reproductive Health) – Jessika Deblonde (International Centre for Repro- ductive Health) – Lut Mergaert, project leader (Yellow Window Man- agement Consultants) – Siobán O’Brien Green (independent research con- sultant) 4 Female genital mutilation in the European Union and Croatia Acknowledgements National researchers (countries covered for the study are in parentheses) Desk study In-depth study – Els Leye and Anke Van Vossole (Belgium) – Maria Adam Nyangasa (Germany) – Ralitsa Golemanova (Bulgaria) – Siobán O’Brien Green (Ireland) – Maxime Forest (Czech Republic, France, – Alba Alonso Álvarez (Spain) Luxembourg) – Maxime Forest (France) – Lise Rolandsen Agustín (Denmark) – Annalisa Butticci (Italy) – Feleknas Uca and Leylan Uca (Germany) – Els Leye (Netherlands) – Kadri Aavik (Estonia) – Catarina Arnaut (Portugal) – Siobán O’Brien Green (Ireland) – Jonna Arousell (Sweden) – Maria Kyprianou (Greece) – Eiman Hussein (United Kingdom) – Alba Alonso Álvarez (Spain) – Anne marie Middelburg (international and – Maja Mamula (Croatia) EU level) – Maria Sangiuliano (Italy) – Maria Kyprianou (Cyprus) – Marita Zitmane (Latvia) – Dovilė Rimkutė (Lithuania) – Monika Pacziga (Hungary) – Antoinette Camilleri Grima (Malta) – Els Leye (Netherlands) – Elke Beneke (Austria) – Małgorzata Maria Miazek (Poland) – Yasmin Gonçalves (Portugal) – Monica Stroe (Romania) – Katarina Župevc (Slovenia) – Zuzana Ocenasova (Slovakia) – Satu Lidman (Finland) – Sara Johnsdotter (Sweden) – Eiman Hussein and Josephine Hombarume (United Kingdom) – Anne marie Middelburg (international and EU level) Female genital mutilation in the European Union and Croatia 5 Contents Contents Abbreviations 8 Glossary 9 Executive summary 12 Introduction 18 1. Facts on female genital mutilation 20 1.1. Definition and typology of FGM 21 1.2. Consequences of FGM 22 1.3. Context of the practice of FGM 23 2. Measuring the extent of FGM in the EU-27 and Croatia 24 2.1. Prevalence estimates 25 2.2. Administrative records 27 2.2.1. Hospital and medical records 27 2.2.2. Child protection records 27 2.2.3. International protection records 28 2.2.4. Police and criminal justice records 28 2.3. Challenges and trends in data collection on FGM 28 2.3.1. Prevalence estimates and data collection on girls at risk of FGM 28 2.3.2. Limitations of census data 29 2.3.3. Lack of comprehensive data collection and collation 29 2.3.4. Insufficient funding and monitoring 30 2.4. Concluding remarks 30 3. International standards related to FGM 32 3.1. United Nations legal and policy framework 34 3.2. Council of Europe legal and policy framework 35 4. European Union legal and policy framework 36 4.1. Important European Union legislation and policies 37 4.2. European Parliament 38 4.3. Council of the European Union 39 4.4. European Commission 39 4.5. The Daphne Programme 40 4.6. Concluding remarks 41 6 Female genital mutilation in the European Union and Croatia Contents 5. Legislation at Member State level 42 5.1. General and specific criminal laws on FGM 43 5.2. Child protection laws 45 5.3. International laws related to protection 46 5.4. Professional secrecy provisions 47 5.5. Concluding remarks 48 6. Policy development, implementation and actors at Member State level 50 6.1. Overview of policies and policy makers 51 6.1.1. National action plans on FGM 51 6.1.2. Broader national strategies covering FGM 52 6.1.3. The role of partnerships 52 6.1.4. Regional action plans 53 6.1.5. Other relevant policies 53 6.1.6.