Female Genital Mutilation Has No Place Except in History: Here is How to Make that Happen

The 68th Session of the Commission on the Status of Women is under way at a time when the world is at a critical crossroad for gender equality. Because we are seeing that while remarkable progress is being made, on one hand, a stubborn continuation of practices that limit women’s and girls’ agency and empowerment, continues.  One such practice I want to speak about is Female Genital Mutilation or FGM.

FGM is a human rights issue that affects girls and women and endangers their physical and mental health and limits their potential to lead healthy and fulfilling lives. Around the world, more than 200 million girls and women, alive today, have undergone female genital mutilation. This year, nearly 4.4 million girls will be at risk of this harmful practice. This equates to more than 12,000 cases every day. And while we are winning some battles, we are losing the war against this terrible practice.  Compared to the data released eight years ago, there is a 15 per cent increase, or 30 million more girls and women whose bodily integrity and rights have been violated.

The largest share of the global burden is found in African countries, with over 144 million cases, followed by over 80 million in Asia and over 6 million in the Middle East. 

FGM is also practiced in small, isolated communities and among diasporas globally. A clear example of this can be seen in Kenya, where over the last half century a remarkable transformation has occurred. While female genital mutilation was once widespread, most of the country has now abandoned the practice. Yet, among the Somali community, concentrated in the Northeastern province of the country, there has been little change, and the practice remains nearly universal.

Several countries are making tremendous strides in reducing the practice of FGM. Countries like Sierra Leone, Ethiopia, and Burkina Faso have illustrated that progress is possible, even in places where levels of FGM were once very high. This was possible due to the collective political, religious and local leadership and action.

As on today, we are not on track to meet the SDG target of eliminating FGM by 2030. The rate of decline would need to be 27 times faster to meet the target. Or, put in another way, we are falling short. We are failing millions of women and girls. We must, and we collectively need to do better.

The world can help eliminate FGM through a 3 P approach:

Protection: Support comprehensive and integrated approaches and interventions at global, regional, and national levels with the aim of establishing policy and legal frameworks and measures to protect girls and women.

Prevention: Motivate and empower communities to abandon the harmful practice by providing adjacent health and supportive services, and generate data and evidence to better inform and influence advocacy and programme initiatives.

Partnerships: Galvanize partnerships to ensure girls’ access to education, healthcare and employment. Those are critical to accelerating the elimination of FGM and allowing girls to contribute to equitable social and economic development.

Let us not forget that assaults on women’s and girls’ rights in countries around the globe have meant that hard-won gains are in danger of being lost. Advancements in some countries have stalled or even been reversed due to changing ideologies as well as the fallout from instability and conflict, which can disrupt services to support those who have been cut and programmes aimed at preventing the practice.

We cannot allow our collective conscience to keep the practice of FGM alive today. History will judge us if we fail. And so will all those girls around the world as they suffer the consequences of inaction for the rest of their lives.

To know more and learn about country level progress, please see UNICEF’s latest report “Female Genital Mutilation: A Global Concern” here

You can also read a New York Times article: Female Genital Cutting Continues to Increase Worldwide - The New York Times (nytimes.com)