WUNRN
The
Lancet, Volume 383, Issue 9934, Pages 2021 - 2022, 14 June 2014
Until
recently, most data on sexual violence in conflict have measured rape of women committed
by combatants, using information from governmental, humanitarian, or human
rights organisations or facility-based reports. This documentation, while
informative, is likely to have captured only the most grievous cases4 and can
overlook the multiple and inter-related types of violence during conflict,
displacement, and post-war reconstruction.
What
is quietly emerging, but long known among humanitarian aid organisations, is
that alongside conflict-related rape, violence by intimate partners is also
highly prevalent and is likely to continue long after peace agreements have
been signed.
Although
gender-based violence in conflict has moved up the policy agenda, evidence on
what comprise effective responses to sexual and other war-time abuses is
limited.13 For example,
a systematic review of intervention evaluations in humanitarian crises found only
three published evaluations of projects that address violence against women.
Preventing Violence
Against Women & Girls in Conflict
As
the Global Summit to End Sexual Violence in Conflict takes place in London, UK,
on June 10—13, 2014, the international community faces a propitious moment to
address the horrors of sexual violence in conflict and other forms of
gender-based violence. Sexual violence in conflict has occurred throughout modern
history, including the targeted mass rapes and murders of women in Bangladesh's
Liberation War of 1971, the systematic rape of women in the Balkans and during
the Rwandan genocide in the 1990s, and current sexual abuses in the Democratic
Republic of Congo (DRC) and Syria.1—3
Until recently, most data on sexual violence in conflict have measured rape of
women committed by combatants, using information from governmental,
humanitarian, or human rights organisations or facility-based reports. This
documentation, while informative, is likely to have captured only the most
grievous cases4
and can overlook the multiple and inter-related types of violence during
conflict, displacement, and post-war reconstruction.
Photo by Tom Pilston/Panos
Increasingly,
population-based research is being used to document the wider scope of civilian
women's and men's exposures to sexual and other forms of violence in different
conflict settings. What is quietly emerging, but long known among humanitarian
aid organisations, is that alongside conflict-related rape, violence by
intimate partners is also highly prevalent and is likely to continue long after
peace agreements have been signed. For instance, our research on violence
against women in 12 rural districts of Côte d'Ivoire showed that 33% of women
surveyed reported an experience of sexual violence since the age of 15 years.5 When asked to
identify the perpetrator, 29% reported their husband or intimate partner, 10%
reported someone other than an intimate partner, and only 0·3% identified an
armed combatant. Importantly, 50% of women reported physical or sexual violence
from an intimate partner before, during, and after the conflict.5
Population-level data from the DRC indicates a similar trend: 35% of women
reported sexual violence from their intimate partner, 16% reported an
experience of non-partner sexual violence, and those women living in areas of
active conflict reported higher levels of sexual violence, both within and
outside their families.6,
7
In a recent systematic review of sexual violence experiences among female
refugees and internally displaced people in complex humanitarian emergencies
across 14 countries, 21% of women had experienced sexual violence (intimate
partner and non-partner rape).8
These patterns of violence against women underline the need for initiatives to
respond explicitly to the breadth of sexual and physical violence in conflict
settings.
Moreover,
it is increasingly acknowledged that civilian men and boys are also victims of
sexual violence in conflict. Recent research from the DRC, for example,
suggests that between 4% and 24% of men have experienced a sexual assault,9—11
with the variation in prevalence reflecting differences in study populations
and definitions of sexual violence. Our research in Côte d'Ivoire indicated
that 6% of men reported a lifetime experience of forced or coerced sex from a
non-partner.5 Patterns of
exposure to violence also differed between men and women. In our study, 27% of
men reported physical violence from other men—combatants, acquaintances,
strangers, and male family members. Among women, 24% reported experiences of
non-partner physical violence and they more often identified male and female
family members as perpetrators of abuse.5
Thus, responses to violence in conflict need to take account of different
patterns of vulnerability between women and men, especially the broader context
of gender inequality.
The
scale of violence in conflict-affected settings highlights that alongside
strengthened judicial, health, and social responses and accountability
measures, we need to invest in prevention. Gender-based violence prevention
programming is in its relative infancy, especially in conflict settings, but
innovative interventions are taking place. For example, interventions in
emergency settings, such as Syria, aim to prevent sexual exploitation and
forced marriage of young women by improving the economic situation of refugees.12
In refugee camps, prevention programmes work to improve women's and girls' safe
access to water, fuel, and sanitation facilities.13 In chronic
and post-conflict settings, targeted behaviour change interventions are possible,
including those that work directly with men.14
Rigorous
evaluation research from non-conflict settings suggests that violence against
women is preventable.15 At a
structural level, prevention measures need to challenge legal, economic, and
social structures that uphold and foster gender inequality. Within communities,
a growing number of programmes include women's economic and social empowerment
and participatory programming to foster gender equity between women and men.15 These
programmes often seek to promote critical reflection and discussion about the
causes and consequences of violence, challenge attitudes that condone violence
and stigmatise its victims, and build communication and conflict resolution
skills.15
Although
gender-based violence in conflict has moved up the policy agenda, evidence on
what comprise effective responses to sexual and other war-time abuses is limited.13 For example,
a systematic review of intervention evaluations in humanitarian crises found
only three published evaluations of projects that address violence against
women.16
Another review of sexual violence prevention interventions in conflict settings
identified three published evaluations which each indicated that improved
protection measures resulted in a reduction in sexual violence; these studies,
however, were assessed to be of low quality and none prospectively measured
incidence of sexual violence.13
Both reviews highlight that there are currently no robust evidence or consensus
on what prevention approaches should be prioritised in conflict settings.
Further research is needed to determine what works and where investment is
warranted.
As
the Summit brings the international community together to address sexual
violence in conflict, a broader, long-term vision is needed to prevent sexual
and other forms of gender-based violence. Measures should be taken not only to
eliminate impunity for perpetrators, but also to respond to the health and
safety needs of all victims. Investment in prevention can and should be made at
all stages of a conflict. To make high-level commitments meaningful to the
lives of conflict survivors, rhetoric must turn into action that not only
addresses the immediate consequences of sexual violence in conflict, but also
promotes gender equality and protects women from all forms of abuse.