An invisible crisis – why female genital mutilation remains a challenge in Europe – EUobserver

Report on Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) in the European Union: A Challenge to Sustainable Development Goals

This report outlines the prevalence and challenges of addressing Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) within the European Union, analyzing the issue through the lens of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The practice represents a significant obstacle to achieving key targets related to gender equality, health, and justice.

FGM in Europe: Scope and Impact on SDG 5 (Gender Equality)

The presence of FGM in Europe is a growing concern that directly contravenes SDG 5, which aims to achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls. Specifically, it undermines Target 5.3: “Eliminate all harmful practices, such as child, early and forced marriage and female genital mutilation.”

Statistical Overview

• An estimated 600,000 women and girls in the EU are living with the consequences of FGM.
• An additional 190,000 girls are considered to be at risk.
• The number of affected women has increased from an estimated 500,000 in 2015, largely due to migration from regions where the practice is prevalent.

Root Causes and Gender Inequality

FGM is identified as a practice rooted in patriarchal societal structures aimed at controlling female sexuality. This aligns with the broader challenges addressed by SDG 5, as it constitutes a severe form of gender-based violence and a violation of the human rights of women and girls.

Challenges to SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions)

While FGM is illegal across the EU, significant gaps in legal enforcement and justice systems hinder progress toward SDG 16, particularly Target 16.2 (“End abuse, exploitation, trafficking and all forms of violence against and torture of children”) and Target 16.3 (“Promote the rule of law… and ensure equal access to justice for all”).

Legislative and Enforcement Issues

1. “Cross-Border FGM”: Families take girls to their countries of origin for the procedure, circumventing EU laws. This persists despite legislation in some member states that criminalizes the act even if performed abroad.
2. Low Conviction Rates: Despite strict laws, convictions are rare. In Ireland, the country’s first conviction was later overturned, raising questions about the justice system’s efficacy.
3. Underreporting: A lack of official data and systematic monitoring is a common problem. Victims often do not report due to fear, stigma, or lack of trust in institutions.

Country-Specific Justice System Challenges

• France: Punishes FGM with sentences up to 20 years, even if committed abroad, yet 28,521 girls are estimated to be at risk.
• Austria: Requires healthcare professionals to report suspected cases, but public statistics on reports or convictions are unavailable.
• Italy: Despite laws prohibiting the practice, convictions are rare among the estimated 87,000 affected women.

Barriers to SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being)

The failure to provide adequate support and healthcare for FGM survivors is a direct challenge to SDG 3, which seeks to ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all. The physical and psychological consequences of FGM require specialized care that is often inaccessible.

Inadequacies in Healthcare Systems

• Lack of Access: Healthcare is often inaccessible or inadequate for FGM survivors.
• Insufficient Training: Healthcare professionals in countries like the Netherlands and Germany report a lack of training in identifying and documenting FGM, as well as poor coordination between hospitals and support services.
• Systemic Failures: In Austria, a study revealed that only about three percent of women estimated to have undergone FGM appear in hospital records, indicating most cases remain hidden from the health system.
• Cultural and Language Barriers: Communication difficulties and a lack of cultural understanding prevent many women from seeking or receiving appropriate care. Many survivors do not perceive FGM as a medical problem but as part of their cultural identity.

Conclusion: An Integrated Approach for SDG Attainment

The prevalence of FGM in the EU highlights a critical intersection of failures in public health, justice, and gender equality policies. Addressing this issue requires a coordinated, multi-sectoral approach that aligns with the Sustainable Development Goals. The lack of comprehensive data, fragmented prevention efforts, and insufficient support for victims across member states demonstrate that current strategies are inadequate. Achieving SDG Targets 3.7, 5.3, and 16.2 necessitates stronger institutional commitment to data collection, professional training, victim protection, and legal enforcement to eliminate this harmful practice and support its survivors.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

   The article on Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) in Europe directly addresses and connects to several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The primary goals identified are:

   • SDG 5: Gender Equality: This is the most central SDG to the article. FGM is presented as a practice rooted in gender inequality, described as being associated with “traditional patriarchal societies that seek to restrict female sexuality and so to strengthen control over them.” The entire discussion revolves around a harmful practice that exclusively targets women and girls, making gender equality the core issue.
   • SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being: The article highlights the severe health implications of FGM. It mentions that women “suffer the consequences of FGM” and discusses the critical need for accessible and adequate healthcare. The text points out that “Health care is often inaccessible, professionals are not sufficiently trained,” and specialized centers in Vienna provide “medical and psychological care,” directly linking the issue to health and well-being.
   • SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: The article extensively discusses the legal and institutional responses to FGM in Europe. It mentions that the practice is “illegal in the EU” and that countries have laws with “tougher penalties for perpetrators.” However, it also highlights institutional weaknesses, noting that “convictions remain rare” and questioning “the justice system’s ability to protect victims and punish perpetrators.” The lack of “official data or systematic monitoring” in some countries further points to failures in institutional capacity.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

   Based on the issues discussed, the following specific SDG targets can be identified:

   • Under SDG 5 (Gender Equality):
     • Target 5.3: Eliminate all harmful practices, such as child, early and forced marriage and female genital mutilation. The article’s entire focus is on FGM, its prevalence in Europe, the number of women affected, and the efforts to prevent it. This target is directly and explicitly addressed throughout the text.
   • Under SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being):
     • Target 3.8: Achieve universal health coverage, including financial risk protection, access to quality essential health-care services and access to safe, effective, quality and affordable essential medicines and vaccines for all. The article implies a failure to meet this target for FGM victims. It states that “Health care is often inaccessible, professionals are not sufficiently trained,” and “a large proportion of women do not get adequate care,” indicating a clear gap in universal access to quality healthcare for this specific group.
   • Under SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions):
     • Target 16.2: End abuse, exploitation, trafficking and all forms of violence against and torture of children. FGM is a form of violence and abuse, often performed on minors. The article mentions that in Italy, approximately 7,000 minors live with the consequences of FGM, and in France, 28,521 girls are “currently at risk,” directly connecting the issue to the protection of children from violence.
     • Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all. The article’s discussion of laws against FGM, the rarity of convictions in countries like Ireland and Italy, and the lack of public statistics on convictions in Austria all point to challenges in implementing the rule of law and ensuring victims have access to justice.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

   Yes, the article mentions several quantitative and qualitative indicators that can be used to measure progress.

   • For Target 5.3 (Eliminate FGM):
     • Prevalence and Risk Data: The article provides numerous statistics that serve as direct indicators of the scale of the problem. These include: “approximately 600,000 women and girls in Europe suffer the consequences of FGM,” “another 190,000 are considered at risk,” and country-specific figures for Italy (87,000 affected), France (139,000 affected, 28,521 at risk), and Ireland (nearly 6,000 affected). Tracking these numbers over time would measure progress.
     • Existence of Data Collection Systems: The article implies that the existence of systematic monitoring is an indicator of progress. The statement that in the Czech Republic “no official data or systematic monitoring of genital mutilation exists” highlights a lack of progress, suggesting that establishing such systems is a key measure.
   • For Target 3.8 (Universal Health Coverage):
     • Access to Healthcare Services: The article provides an indicator for the lack of access. The finding from a study in Austria that “only about three percent of women who are estimated to have undergone female genital mutilation appear in hospital records” is a stark quantitative indicator of how few victims are reached by the healthcare system.
     • Capacity of Health Professionals: The qualitative statement that “professionals are not sufficiently trained” and that midwives “often do not recognise circumcision or record it” serves as an indicator of the healthcare system’s capacity to address the issue.
   • For Target 16.3 (Rule of Law and Access to Justice):
     • Number of Convictions: The article repeatedly uses the number of convictions as an indicator of justice system effectiveness. It states that “convictions remain rare” and specifically notes that Ireland’s “first conviction… was later overturned,” which measures the outcome of legal action.
     • Availability of Legal Statistics: The lack of “public statistics on reports or convictions” in Austria is presented as an institutional failure, implying that the public availability of such data is an indicator of transparency and progress.

SDGs, Targets, and Indicators Table

Source: euobserver.com