Some initiatives are effective in combating female genital mutilation; others are less effective or difficult to implement everywhere.
How can female genital mutilation (FGM) be effectively combated? Recalling the context, history and recent figures, a study recently published by the AFD (French Development Agency) takes stock of the responses that have been considered or are currently being tested.
It is true that, in response to the persistence of the practice and in line with the rise of the international human rights agenda, numerous interventions have been proposed, funded and implemented in recent years by local organisations, donors, international NGOs and states in an attempt to reduce the prevalence of FGM. ‘However, due to the complexity of the problem and an often fragmented understanding of the practice, these interventions have not always been effective,’ acknowledges Florence Chatot, the author of the study. The study aims to examine the uniqueness of each case in order to draw general lessons. Although initially intended for Chadian actors, the recommendations made can be beneficial to all countries concerned.
At first glance, the report advises against standardising interventions. This is because the factors contributing to the persistence of the phenomenon vary considerably depending on the geographical and socio-ethnic contexts in which it occurs. Solutions must therefore take these differences into account and break with a certain standardisation of interventions, which is often ineffective. In other words, ‘we need to understand the phenomenon before we can attempt to change it.’
The author’s research in Chad highlights the specific socio-ethnic factors that influence the persistence of the practice and the need for organisations to provide an appropriate response. For example, activities to retrain excisers, which are regularly implemented in different contexts, may have a limited impact.
Avoiding stigmatising discourse
They are based on an attempt to compensate for the income derived from excision by involving excisers in income-generating activities in exchange for abandoning the practice. In a country where poverty is endemic, excisers are tempted to combine two sources of income rather than one. It is better to devote funds to awareness-raising and advocacy interventions, which are more effective and work towards long-term behavioural change.
Secondly, the study continues, it seems necessary to break with ‘Western-centric’ discourse. Stigmatising discourse can be counterproductive and sometimes reinforces the conservative positions of those who defend the practice. “Although denunciation is important in the fight against FGM, the scope of the messages and the rhetoric used are paramount, as Western accusations against African customary practices rarely resonate with the populations concerned. ”
In fact, interventions have more impact when they are supported by local associations and national feminist movements, sometimes backed by local personalities (artists, sportspeople), because it is primarily women in the countries concerned who have the legitimacy and expertise to fight FGM. This is the case in Chad, for example.
Thirdly, the study recommends a ‘holistic approach’ to combating FGM. An overly medical approach leads to a reduction in the suffering caused by the surgical procedure, which makes excision ‘acceptable’ to a certain section of the population. Reducing the immediate risks is not enough to stem the phenomenon.
Similarly, criminalising the practice is undeniably a step forward in terms of public health and respect for rights. But it also has the perverse effect of driving it further underground, thereby increasing the risks for young girls. “Raising awareness before punishing therefore seems to be a more appropriate strategy. ” In addition to health and legal issues, interventions must address other types of consequences, such as the impact on family finances, mental health, the well-being of couples and the education of young girls. Hence the idea of raising awareness among all stakeholders in the same terms and encouraging them to work together through networks.
Involving men
Fourthly, the report recommends identifying collective perceptions of FGM through a ‘rumour approach’. By engaging in direct dialogue with communities, it is possible to better understand their motivations and to establish a typology of stereotypes associated with FGM.
However, ‘it is through knowledge of the social representations associated with a practice that actors in the field are able to adapt their communication and awareness-raising activities,’ insists the author.
Furthermore, the report explains how important it is to inform and involve men in the fight against FGM. Contrary to popular belief, men are not necessarily the biggest advocates of female genital mutilation.
Finally, the study recommends supporting freedom of speech ‘by all means’. ‘While reducing FGM in Chad and other countries where it is practised is a long-term commitment, one of the encouraging factors that emerges from the interviews is the emerging freedom of speech and the willingness to speak out.’ The distribution of books containing personal accounts is an encouraging step.
‘All these strategies are relevant and have already proven their worth. However, they require a long-term commitment, which is essential for changing practices and social norms. International donors, who finance projects, and local actors, who fight against FGM, should therefore consider the best way to ensure the recurrence and sustainability of this funding,’ the study concludes.
