WUNRN

http://www.wunrn.com

 

http://www.gnwp.org/resources/naps

UN SC Resolution 1325 in Action: Lessons Learned and Reflections on 1325 National Action Plans - Panel

By Mavic Cabrera-Balleza - July 8, 2013

H.E. Mr. Tsuneo Nishida, Permanent Representative of Japan to the UN; Secretary Dharanidhar Khatiwada of the Ministry of Peace and Reconstruction (MoPR) of Nepal; Mr. Naoto Hisajima, Minister, Permanent Mission of Japan to the UN; Ms. Hilde Klemetsdal Councellor, Permanent Mission of Norway to the UN; Ms. Anne-Marie Goetz, UN Women’s Chief Advisor on Peace and Security; distinguished guests and friends, good afternoon!

Special thanks to the Permanent Mission of Japan to the UN for co-sponsoring this event with our organization, the Global Network of Women Peacebuilders.

This is one of the few meetings on 1325 where the male and female ration in the audience is not 98 percent women and 2 percent men. It’s a little more than that. However, we want to see a 50-50 representation in our next meeting on 1325.

GNWP is actively involved in supporting NAP processes in a number of countries including the Philippines, Nepal, Burundi, Sierra Leone, Guatemala, Afghanistan and South Sudan. Our involvement is through the provision of technical support in drafting of NAPs,

development of indicators and establishment of Civil Society Working Groups or Task Forces on 1325. GNWP’s main mandate is to support civil society so that they can meaningfully and effectively engage in the development and implementation of the NAPs. While our work is focused on enhancing civil society capacity, when requested, we also provide support to governments and in countries like Nepal, the Philippines and Sierra Leone, we have very close and successful collaboration with government actors. In our work in Localization of 1325 and 1820, a key element is partnership with local government units; and national government actors.

Gains

There have been a lot of gains in civil society’s work on UNSCR 1325. Resolution 1325 has become an organizing and mobilizing instrument for many women around the world—next to the Beijing Platform for Action and CEDAW, Resolution 1325 is the only global policy that has galvanized women in many parts of the world. Globally, women CSOs are taking action to raise awareness and knowledge of the resolution; demand their inclusion in peace processes and in decision-making; urge improvements in Demobilization, Disarmament and Reintegration programs; mobilize towards security sector reform; protest against arms trade; and work towards resolving and preventing conflicts. Most of this work has actually been done before—prior to 1325 adoption. But Resolution 1325 has given women peace activists a higher platform; it amplified their voices even more—and with NAPs, women have stronger instruments which they use to hold their governments accountable to institutionalizing the women and peace and security agenda. 2

The work on 1325 NAPs allowed civil society and other stakeholders to challenge and influence traditional peacebuilding processes in a positive way. As we know, most of the traditional peace building and mediation processes are also the most patriarchal—from the Bodong in the Philippines; Palava Hut in Liberia; to the indigenous conflict resolution in Colombia. The work on 1325 in these countries are transforming these male dominated traditional ways of peacebuilding into more egalitarian practices.

Specific to the Philippines, the work on NAP has contributed to the inclusion of women in peace processes particularly in the peace talks between the Philippine government and the MILF. The Framework Peace Agreement that came out of this peace talks contain provisions that promote "the right of women to meaningful political participation, and protection from all forms of violence; and right to equal opportunity and non-discrimination in social and economic activity and public service…" The Transition Commission which is the group tasked to form the Bangsamoro Basic Law that is part of the Framework Peace Agreement also has women members—three of whom are from WE Act 1325, a civil society coalition that is a member of GNWP. Facilitating and mediating countries like Norway which facilitates the peace talks between the Philippine Government and the Communist Party of the Philippines-National Democratic Front-New People’s Army, also play a critical role in encouraging negotiating parties to ensure women’s participation in peace processes and integration of women-specific agenda in peace talks.

In countries like Liberia and the Democratic Republic of Congo, women’s groups have used 1325 NAPs to lobby for women’s participation in elections. The election results may not have been that positive because of many institutional and socio-cultural barriers that women confront, but the fact that the resolution again became an instrument to assert women’s rights to be represented in governance structure is very promising.

Local actors are owning the NAPs. In countries like Nepal, Philippines and Sierra Leone, we have had some success in integrating the NAPs into local development plans. In Colombia where there is no NAP, localization has become an alternative mechanism for implementation.

Gaps and Glitches

There are now 42 countries with NAPs; and a number of countries are in the process of drafting. This is less than 50% of the total number of Member States but I would like to stay positive and see this as good news—considering that in the first 5 years of the resolution, there was only one NAP.

However, a good number of the 42 countries went from NAPping to sleeping. The NAPs went to sleep. Like many policies, they were kept on the shelves of the bureaucracy after they were adopted. The following are some of the factors that contributed to this:

1)Lack of ownership and political will particularly by the government agency/ies that are supposed to lead the implementation - Changes in leadership is common in governments; sometimes too many and too often—these happen after an election, a cabinet revamp; or horse trading among political parties. When the NAP is not the "baby" of the new 3

leadership meaning it was developed or adopted by the preceding Minister, the new Minister is not enthusiastic about implementation. The new leadership doesn’t own it and it goes to the bottom of the priority list.

This is also true in some UN agencies—when another agency or consortium are already known to be leading the process, the heads of some agencies are not enthusiastic about the NAP because it is not their pet project. Sometimes the lack of support is also due to lack of capacity or lack of knowledge of the resolution, the NAP process itself and the issues.

This is where civil society’s role becomes all the more critical. Government leadership and UN leadership change. A strong civil society constituency ensures that whoever is in the leadership will be held accountable. In some cases, it is the CSOs who capacitate government and UN actors. A strong civil society will always be there to push for effective implementation.

2) Check list approach - Another challenge is when governments adopt a check list approach in developing a NAP. Some countries develop NAPs to comply with international norms without serious intent to implement. They assign a junior line agency staff person with no political clout in the government architecture. They don’t allocate funding for implementation –they rely completely on ODA. Once they are into the NAPping process, they tick it off the check list of their international obligations.

3) Lack or absence of funding for implementation - The lack or absence of funding for implementation is another major gap. Some countries develop NAPS with no budget in mind—We want to ask: what were they thinking? Isn’t the logical process is such that you plan, you budget, and if there is no funding available, you raise funds. In some cases when there are funds, CSOs do not have direct access to the funds even as they are active implementors of the NAPs. Norway is one f the donor countries that support CSOs directly. At the national level, thorough the embassies; and at the global level through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

4) Monitoring and evaluation - No monitoring and evaluation is being carried out is also a major gap. Even after the development of indicators by the UN, and by regional bodies like the European Union, monitoring and evaluation by Member States is still the exception rather than the rule.

5) Under-representation or exclusion of CSOs - The under-representation or exclusion of CSOs in official National Steering Committees for NAPs during development process as well as during implementation is yet another challenge. The contribution of CSOs is not acknowledged, recognized and valued. In many instances, lip service is often paid but CSOs are excluded from decision-making.

6) Weak messaging - Weak messaging on 1325 and 1820 is also a major gap. In most discussions on the resolutions, the protection pillar in 1325 and in 1820 is still explained as protection from sexual and gender-based violence only; but not protection of women and girls’ rights—which highlights their agency to protect themselves. Moreover, prevention is 4

focused on prevention of sexual violence in conflict but not the prevention of conflict itself. I’m happy to note that Japan’s NAP 1325 will be explicit on the prevention of conflict.

7) Yet another big challenge is that there are still Member States who argue that 1325 is only for countries that are in conflict or post-conflict; or those that are current members of the Security Council.

Recommendations and plans for the future

We have many but let me just mention a few.

1) Sustained and institutionalized awareness and knowledge raising on 1325, 1820 and the supporting resolutions—As I mentioned, government and UN leadership change so training and capacity building should be a constant component of staff development programs. It should not be optional.

2) We need to analyze the connection or disconnect between NAPs and the work of National Security Council/national defense councils. In a number of countries, the lead agencies for NAP implementation do not have a seat in the National Security Council. It is critical for the lead implementation agencies to have a seat in this highest decision making body on national security to ensure that security policies are informed by the principles of the NAP 1325. This could lead to broader and more constructive concepts of security.

3) Develop incentives (in the form of awards or citations) for Member States who are doing well in NAP implementation. We have an ongoing discussion with Peace Women on the possibility of operationalizing this incentive.

4) Continue to lobby for funding for CSOs work on NAPs 1325 including access to and representation in multi stakeholders financing mechanisms.

5) NAP 1325 should be mainstreamed across government agencies through internal action plan (e.g., What does the NAP mean for the National Housing Commission? For the Ministry of Justice?) We need to operationalize the whole of government approach. This should also come with the necessary funding.

6) Actualize the provisions and purposes of NAP1325 in all relevant circumstances and at all levels of governance, the UN and civil society’s work from local to global; and global to local.

Some of these recommendations are already being carried out by civil society and we hope to continue this work.

___________________________________________________________________

NATIONAL ACTION PLANS ON UN SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 1325

    1. Australia
    2. Austria
    3. Belgium
    4. Bosnia and Herzegovina
    5. Burundi
    6. Canada
    7. Chile english
    8. Cote d’Ivoire
    9. Croatia
    10. Democratic Republic of Congo
    11. Denmark
    12. Estonia
    13. Finland
    14. France
    15. Georgia
    16. Germany
    17. Ghana
    18. Guinea Guinea.2
    19. Iceland
    20. Ireland
    21. Italy
    22. Kyrgyzstan
    23. Liberia
    24. Lithuania
    25. Nepal Nepal.2 Nepal.3
    26. Netherlands
    27. Norway
    28. Portugal
    29. Philippines
    30. Rwanda
    31. Senegal
    32. Serbia
    33. Slovenia
    34. Sierra Leone Table of Contents and Executive Summary SiLNAP.2 SiLNAP.3 SiLNAP.4 SiLNAP.5
    35. Spain
    36. Sweden
    37. Switzerland
    38. Uganda
    39. United Kingdom
    40. United States