17

CEDAW Impact Study

The First CEDAW Impact Study

OVERVIEWOverview

This crucial and timely work, the evaluationof our impact, our successes and failures, aswomen’s rights advocates, is being undertakenwith regard to all areas of our work, not justCEDAW. It is important to place ourselveswithin the context of the global project. Forexample, some advocates have suggested thattargets and benchmarks are useful: they makeprogress visible and measurable; they allowmonitoring of trends to see if there is progress;they translate idealistic goals into realisticstages; they provide incentives for sustainedefforts; they help determine responsibility forachieving targets and they allow progress tobe rewarded by recognition.1

The recent work in preparing for the Beijing+5 process has seen many women’s rights ac-tivists acknowledging the need to incorporatethe importance of targets and indicators forholding governments accountable for thefulfillment of commitments made in theBeijing Platform for Action.2

Implementing the CEDAW Convention:The Results of the Investigation3

At the CEDAW Impact Seminar in January1999, the National Correspondents orallypresented the highlights of the results of theirstudies into the impact of the CEDAW Conven-tion in their respective countries.3 The twomain questions guiding the 50 participantswere: to what extent has the CEDAW Conven-tion made a difference in their respectivecountries and what are the most importantfactors influencing the successful and unsuc-cessful invocation of CEDAW’s provisions? Inshort, what is working and what is not? Theanalysis of that question was developed un-der four main headings from the Impact Study

Questionnarie (see Appendix A).1) NGOs’ current awareness of the CEDAW

Convention and reporting procedure andtheir capability to use the Convention at theinternational and national levels;

2) Description of the events before and af-ter ratification in each State;

3) The extent of NGO participation in thepreparation of States Parties’ reports;

4) The use of the CEDAW Convention in thecourts, by the media, in constitutional andlegislative initiatives, by the non-profit sec-tor, and in aspects of government policy re-form.

Despite the many challenges facing wom-en’s human rights advocates, the generalstance of the National Correspondents waslargely optimistic. The seminar consideredthat the CEDAW Convention had the potentialto be an important instrument in monitoringthe realisation of women’s equality rightsthrough the persistent efforts of NGOs andnational governments. At the same time, how-ever, it was recognised that translating CEDAW

principles into practice is a tall order, and thatefforts to do so very often run into resistancefrom governments and the broader commu-nity. Nevertheless, the underlying argumentwas that NGO advocacy, and monitoring ofnational governments can stimulate a rela-tionship with government officials and helpthem to recognize that integrating govern-ment objectives with CEDAW principles pro-duces beneficial socio-economic conse-quences.

The national reports and subsequent dis-cussion highlighted the fact that the processof effectively deploying the CEDAW Conven-tion at the national level requires action atmany levels and by many actors. The circum-

MARILOU MCPHEDRAN, SUSAN BAZILLI, MOANA ERICKSON, ANDREW BYRNES

18

Overview

The First CEDAW Impact Study

stances which contribute to its effective utili-sation include:

1) Widespread awareness of and knowledgeabout the CEDAW Convention;

2) NGO use of the reporting process;3) Constructive dialogue between govern-

ment representatives, CEDAW CommitteeMembers and NGOs;

4) NGO and Government utilisation of Con-cluding comments and General recommen-dations in holding national governments ac-countable to their people in relation to theirlegally binding obligations under the CEDAW

Convention;5) Governments recognizing how policy

goals can be adapted to implement their statedcommitments to social, political and eco-nomic equality under the CEDAW Convention;

6) NGOs recognizing the value of using hu-man rights treaty bodies to their full advan-tage, including: the CEDAW Convention, CEDAW

General recommendations, CEDAW Conclud-ing comments, other human rights treaties,the Vienna Declaration and Programme ofAction (1993), and the Beijing Platform forAction (1995);

7) Given the complex dy-namics of domestic politics, theforce which one Declaration,Covenant or Convention mayhave over another at different“political moments,” changes.Recognising which interna-tional obligation holds themost influence and at whichtime, is an important nuancewhich NGOs would be well-ad-vised to monitor. Equally im-portant is knowing whom toinfluence with such informa-tion at the grassroots, national,and international levels;

8) The systematic use ofcross-cultural, gender-specificindicators to appraise existinggovernmental policies, laws,and budgets, while taking intoconsideration the recommen-dations of civil society institu-tions in contributing to suchgovernmental appraisals.

Specific barriers to achieving satisfactoryimplementation of the CEDAW Conventionwhich were explored in the discussion be-tween national correspondents anddiscussants included the following:

1)The marginalised position of NGOs in thepolitical system;

2)The alienation of national governmentfrom civil society;

3)The lack of support from governmentofficials;

4)The difficulty in executing proposed gen-der-integrated policies;

5)The lack of media awareness of the CEDAW

Convention and the reporting process;6)NGO financial shortages.Despite the difficulties, the participants con-

sidered that the CEDAW Convention is makingan impact, though its extent varies consider-ably from country to country. While the paceof reform is not always constant, and aware-ness of its potency as an instrument to amenddomestic legislation is often limited, progressis being made.

Given the advantages of living in an infor-mation age, the exchange of informationabout “realisable objectives,” “effective strat-egies,” and “successful outcomes” is becom-ing increasingly easy for those who have ac-cess to the Internet. This sharing of “CEDAW

stories” is an important element in under-standing its practical implementation, a factwhich clearly emerged in the oral reports andis still evident in the final country papers.

Examples of the Implementation of theConvention at the National Level:The Use of CEDAW in OrganisingStrategies for the Achievement ofWomen’s Equality

The reports prepared by the National Cor-respondents detailed many instances in whichthe Convention and the output of the Com-mittee had been drawn on at the national levelin order to promote CEDAW’s objectives. Thosesummarised here represent a selection of someof the more striking examples, where the ac-tivism of the women’s advocates has resultedin the incorporation of CEDAW into nationalmachinery. However, in countries where there

The Conventionis making an

impact, thoughits extent variesfrom country to

country. While thepace of reform is

not always constant,and awareness

of its potency asan instrument toamend domestic

legislation is oftenlimited, progressis being made.

19

Overview

The First CEDAW Impact Study

OVERVIEW

has not been the political will to implementCEDAW to date, women are beginning to usethe Convention to organise activist strategies.

South AfricaA major feature of the new South African

Constitution, which came into effect on 4 Feb-ruary 1997, lies in its recognition of wom-en’s unequal social positions. The foundingassumptions of the new South Africa, as ar-ticulated in Chapter 1 of the Constitution,are that a democratic state is based upon val-ues of: a) human dignity, the achievement ofequality and advancement of human rightsand freedoms; b) and non-racialism and non-sexism. The Constitution contains a numberof other important clauses for the advance-ment of gender equality, foremost amongthem: (a) The equality clause in the Bill ofRights, which provides that:

the state may not unfairly discriminatedirectly or indirectly against anyone onone or more grounds, including race,gender, pregnancy, marital status, ethnicor social origin, colour, sexual orienta-tion, age, disability, religion, conscience,belief, culture, language, and birth;

(b) affirmative action, provided for in theclause which states that “legislative and othermeasures” may be taken to “protect or ad-vance” people who have been disadvantaged.

According to the first South African reportpresented to the CEDAW committee in June1998, “the provisions of CEDAW are thereforerelevant to the interpretation of all SouthAfrican laws even though there is no explicitlegislation.”4 Only the details of the nextShadow Report will see whether the commit-ments have been lived up to.

GermanyFollowing the UN mid-Decade World Con-

ference in Copenhagen in 1980, the FederalRepublic of Germany established many bod-ies and institutions as part of women’s na-tional machinery at the federal, the state andthe community level. These include: (a) TheGerman Women’s Council General Secretary,her staff, and Board Member for international

relations, are aware of CEDAW, follow the re-ports, and publish articles written by the Ger-man CEDAW member or by its internationalhuman rights correspondent (the readershipfor the Council’s publication is some 13 mil-lion). In 1992, the National Women’s Coun-cil organised a seminar on the United Nationsand the CEDAW process for approximately 30women. The Council has been aware of in-ternational efforts regarding the OptionalProtocol for CEDAW, and the amendment toCEDAW’s article 20, and has consistently lob-bied the federal government for support onthese issues.

Another important aspect in the case ofGermany is that when new and corrective leg-islation was passed in the late 1980’s and early1990’s,5 the drive for such legislation did notcome from CEDAW, but from European Com-munity Directives, anti-discrimination legis-lation in the U.K. or Scandinavian countries,and from the process of unification in whichwomen lobbied for the transmission of someof the anti-discrimination legislation of theformer German Democratic Republic to beincorporated into the legislation of the uni-fied Federal Republic.

JapanIn Japan, the ratification of

the CEDAW Convention withoutreservation in 1985 had animportant impact on Japaneselaw. For example, in employ-ment, Japan enacted the EqualEmployment Opportunity Law(EEOL), and amended the La-bour Standards Law to relaxrestrictions which were appliedto only women as protectivemeasures, also extending ma-ternity protection just beforeratification. Unfortunately, theEEOL did not prohibit discrimi-nation against women in re-cruitment, hiring, assignmentand promotion, and was criti-cised widely. Consequently, theEEOL was amended in 1998,and new amendments were tocome into force in April 1999.

Given the advantagesof living in an

information age,the exchange of

information about“realisable objectives,”

is becoming easyfor those who have

access to the Internet.This sharing of “CEDAW

stories” is animportant elementin understanding

its practicalimplementation.

20

Overview

The First CEDAW Impact Study

Unfortunately, theJapanese governmentrelies on the fact thatthe recommendationsof human rights treatybodies are not legallybinding, and thereforedo not necessarily im-plement such recom-mendations as a matterof course. Specifically,the Japanese Govern-ment has expressed theview that the imple-mentation of CEDAW

can be progressive, andthat a State party en-joys a large measure ofdiscretion in decidingwhat measures to

adopt to implement it, taking into accountthe country’s particular social and economicconditions.

In June 1999, a Committee was formed onInternational Relations for the Japanese As-sociation of International Women’s Rights.During this formative stage, there were threespecific tasks accomplished: a “Japan NGO Re-port on CEDAW Preparatory Committee”; col-lected opinions from the public for this re-port process; and a “Japan NGO AlternativeReport” for the “Beijing +5” Special Sessionof the UN General Assembly.

TurkeyIn Turkey, the invocation of the CEDAW Con-

vention has resulted in a number of encour-aging outcomes vis-a-vis the judiciary andstate agencies. For example, domestic violencelegislation (the Family Protection Law),which took both its ideological inspiration,and timing from the “face-to-face dialogueof the CEDAW Committee and State’s repre-sentatives during Reporting.”6

In 1998, a Parliamentary Commission wasconvened to inquire into the status of womenin Turkey—openly investigating how reser-vations could be withdrawn from CEDAW, andto what extent full implementation was be-ing achieved. The report of the Commissionasserted CEDAW’s role as a binding legal in-

strument, and reiterated its importance as ayardstick for all measures to be taken de jure,and de facto, in order to ensure the promo-tion and protection of women’s human rights.

Since 1994, the Constitutional Court ofTurkey has rendered four decisions with re-spect to the legal equality of men and women.In two of these decisions, the court specifi-cally and extensively made reference toCEDAW.8 Those decisions pertained to article159 of the Civil Code (eventually annulledon 29 November 1990), which had requireda husband’s permission for his wife’s profes-sional activity, and to articles 441 and 440 ofthe Turkish Penal Code defining adulterousacts of men and women on different grounds,leading to unequal punishment. The offend-ing provisions of these articles have now beendeclared void and, legally, adultery is nolonger a crime.

UkraineIn July 1995,the first Parliamentary Hear-

ings on CEDAW were held in the Ukraine. Thehearings were attended by representatives ofthe government, NGO’s, media; were broad-cast on national radio and press; and the find-ings were published as a text. This hearing“became one of the first political steps in at-tracting all levels of power authorities andstrata of the community to the discussion ofa particular international legal document”[emphasis from Report].8 Due to the directimpact of the basic CEDAW provisions, the par-liamentary hearings on CEDAW, and the BeijingPlatform for Action, the Committee for Wom-en’s Affairs was created under the authorityof the President. Another significant exam-ple of implementation of CEDAW principles inUkraine is their inclusion into the new Con-stitution, adopted in June 1998.

While no shadow report had been presentedto the CEDAW committee on behalf of Ukrainewomen’s NGO’s for any previous reports, oneof the outcomes of the process of participa-tion in this Impact Study is the beginning ofa collaborative process by NGO’s to plan forthe preparation of such a shadow report.

NepalAfter participation in an IWRAW Asia-Pacific

Left to right: Saprana Pradhan Malla,Olexandra Rudneva, Lara Karainan, CEDAW

Impact Study, Evaluation Session, Jan.1999, UN Headquarters, New York.

21

Overview

The First CEDAW Impact Study

OVERVIEW

and UNIFEM training on CEDAW, several keywomen’s NGO’s in Nepal had developed thecapacity to use CEDAW in their lobbying andactivist strategies. The Ministry of Womenand Social Welfare has formed a taskforce toreview all laws that are inconsistent withCEDAW, according to the National Plan of Ac-tion under the Beijing Declaration and thePlatform for Action. The Ministry will alsobe developing public awareness through themedia on CEDAW, to create support for the rati-fication of three other conventions on mar-riage and education, which critically affectwomen in Nepal. Two bills have been pre-sented to Parliament: the Bill Against Domes-tic Violence and The Family Courts Bill—bothaddressing violence against women.

CanadaWhile Canada has not adopted CEDAW into

any national legislation, Canada’s legislativecommitment to women’s equality is found inthe Canadian Charter of Rights and Free-doms. The Convention has been used in ar-gument in court cases at various levels, butarguably the most significant use of the CEDAW

has been in activist strategies. While Cana-dian NGO’s have not yet submitted a fully de-tailed Shadow Report, the concluding com-ments from the CEDAW Committee with regardto the last State report have been used bywomen’s groups to focus attention on the in-creasing inequality of women in Canada. Themost critical use of the concluding commenthas been in the Canadian NGO presentationsto the International Committee on Economic,Social, and Cultural Rights in Geneva in No-vember 1998, when Canada’s Third Reporton the implementation of the InternationalCovenant was being considered. This raisesthe critical point of using CEDAW to interpretother international conventions with regardto the equality rights of women. Much morework needs to be developed on the humanrights literacy of women’s domestic and na-tional NGO’s.

PanamaWomen’s NGO’s in Panama have been very

active in the use of CEDAW, especially since theIWRAW/ UNIFEM training in January 1998. The

main umbrella women’s organisations sub-sequently organised themselves to create theNGO shadow report, which was delivered tothe CEDAW Committee in June 1998. The Lawof Equality [Titles 1 and 2], January 1999, isbased in part on the provisions of CEDAW.There has also been the creation of nationalmechanisms for the advancement of womenin Panama, with the most influential beingthe National Council of Women which hasthe mandate to monitor implementation ofCEDAW and other international obligations. Itis important to note that, in Panama, the Na-tional Council of Women with multi-sectoralrepresentation and with the mandate to moni-tor implementation of CEDAW and other inter-national obligations, was already establishedby Presidential decree prior to the Beijing con-ference. Increased use and awareness of CEDAW

flowed from the empowerment of women’sNGO’s, the UN world conferences on womenand their follow-up, the changing interna-tional conditions, and the more stable socialand political conditions domestically. Impor-tant actions are being carried out within theframework of the National Plan of Action1996–2001, supported by Equality Oppor-tunity Promotion Program (funded by theEuropean Union and the Panamanian gov-ernment), the National Council of Womenand its secretariat, the National Directorateof Women, to monitor the nationwide imple-mentation of CEDAW, the Beijing Platform forAction, the evaluation of women’s humanrights, the status of rural women, and othergovernmental mechanisms for women.

NetherlandsThe Dutch parliament established an inde-

pendent committee to report on the imple-mentation of CEDAW, inspired by the criticalresponse of the CEDAW Committee to the 1992first report. The Groenman report, 1997, washighly critical of the government’s policiesregarding the status of women, and provided65 recommendations for legislative and policymeasures. Subsequent to a meeting in 1997to discuss what should be done, one of thecommitments made by the government wasto the direct application that CEDAW couldhave to legislation and policies. This process

22

Overview

The First CEDAW Impact Study

provided the background to the NGO Work-ing Conference on Women’s Human Rightsthat was held with Dutch NGO’s to assess theimpact of CEDAW, as part of this study, andthe discussion from that wide-based consul-tation formed the basis of the report.

South KoreaAfter members of Korean Women’s Asso-

ciation United (KWAU) attended an IWRAW Asia-Pacific and UNIFEM training program on CEDAW,advocates were able to prepare a shadow re-port to the 19th Session of the CEDAW. Whilethe government has not responded to KWAU

and the NGO’s with regard to the concludingcomments, the women activists in South Ko-rea have been able to focus the government’sattention on CEDAW. The Impact Study proc-ess facilitated women’s capacity to build onthe critical training and support offered byIWRAW and UNIFEM.

Discussion and Analysis

The discussion which followed the presen-tation of reports by National Correspondentsand which continued in the afternoon sessionconsidered both the more general questionof the best strategies to adopt to maximisethe implementation of the CEDAW Conventionand, more particularly, what steps needed tobe taken to complete the CEDAW Impact Study

in a way which would finalise the countrystudies, disseminate their results and encour-age the more effective use of the Convention.

Factors/Contexts Enhancing theImpact of CEDAW

A number of participants attempted to iden-tify the forces or strategies that had contrib-uted to the CEDAW Convention bringing aboutreal change in individual countries. Identifi-cation of this would, it was hoped, help ad-vocates to identify a practical plan of actionto maximise their intervention at the nationallevel.

The importance of world conferences andother international events was noted: the vari-ous women’s world conferences since 1975had stimulated ratifications of the Conven-tion, the removal of reservations, the prepa-ration of reports, and in general a greaterawareness of its existence and potential (es-pecially among activists). It is a tribute to theparticipatory nature of the Beijing processthat the Beijing Platform for Action, an in-strument of a non-binding character, is oftenbetter known than the CEDAW Convention.

Other circumstances in which the CEDAW

Convention could be seen to have had animpact were when:

1)The reporting process had been effectivelyused by NGOs at the national level to raise is-sues of concern and then to follow up CEDAW’sconcluding comments with subsequent na-tional lobbying and other forms of action;

2)The output of CEDAW in the form of con-cluding comments or general recommenda-tions was persuasively argued and soundlypresented;

3)The legal profession and the judiciarywere aware of the Convention and were re-ceptive to arguments based on the relevanceof international treaties to the task of inter-pretation and application of national law (thiswas most effective where there was adequateknowledge of the international standards andinformed and vigorous advocacy);

4)In cases where the Convention has beenexplicitly or implicitly incorporated as an in-tegral part of policy-making in government,a process which required both knowledge and

From left to right, Ferida Acar, Turkey; Hannah Beate Schöepp-Schilling, Germany; Ite van Dijk, and Alide Roernik (standing),Netherlands; CEDAW Impact Seminar, January 1999, N.Y.

23

Overview

The First CEDAW Impact Study

OVERVIEW

commitment on the part of government offi-cials; and

5)The contribution of the media—whichseemed to represent a particular challenge, inhow to interest the media in the story of CEDAW

implementation.

Strategies for Action

The country papers in this Final Reportdetail successes and failures—necessary infor-mation for evidence-based advocacy. Partici-pants in the CEDAW Impact Seminar were keento develop strategies for future activism basedaround or drawing on the Convention. Manywere concerned that the efforts they, and oth-ers undertake are not executed in a vacuum,and expressed the need to be connected to awider network of activism. Suggestions weremade as to how this might be achieved, in-cluding the establishment of an email distri-bution list which would maintain links. Thiswould go beyond the initial country rap-porteurs and the on-line discussion that washeld at the beginning of the Impact Studywork. The CEDAW-in-action listserv that UNIFEM

was able to host in 1999, when the resourceswere available, is an important indication ofthe need for such an ongoing place for thesharing of information, strategies and net-working around the use of the CEDAW Con-vention.9

Key strategies are reflected in the followingpoints raised in country papers and at theCEDAW Impact Seminar:

•How can we make the CEDAW process moreparticipatory and how can the principles ofthe CEDAW Convention be made accessible toand relevant to women in all walks of life,especially at the grassroots level? Because spe-cific outcomes often take years to achieve, thesmall steps of progress which the CEDAW proc-ess foments, are vitally important. It is thatprocess of widespread participation whichCEDAW frequently fails to command at the lo-cal/grassroots level. The Beijing Platform forAction (PFA)has been an effective lobbying in-strument because it dealt with critical issuesin a participatory way and is more visible atthe grassroots level. CEDAW has to be presentedas an instrument which can be used in a prag-

matic fashion to change national strategiesand policies on women. The Beijing PFA shouldbe used as a legal interpretative aid to CEDAW.

•What can be done to maintain a consist-ent level of NGO and civil society engagementin countries in which political regimes are un-stable?

•How do we organise information and an-ecdotes of success into coherent strategies forachieving change? We need to identify whathas worked and why, the resources (informa-tional and other) that are available to help usin our task, to supplement them and to makethem widely available.

•The dissemination of information, espe-cially via the Internet, is extremely important.This requires more information and betterlinks between institutions. The greater thenetwork of links, the greater visibility, accessand resources advocates have to draw upon.For example, setting up a list serve aroundCEDAW, would be a useful resource.

•Engagement with the media at the localand national level is an extremely importantpart of the CEDAW process. Accurate report-ing from sources other than government of-ficials about the status of governmental poli-cies and the CEDAW Report, is critical in mak-ing CEDAW a more participatory process.

•Awareness raising and resource-capacitybuilding is important to the development oflegal principles. Legal work should also in-corporate strategies from other disciplineswhen seeking to address human rights griev-ances.

•Another important point to make is theconcern expressed with regard to the imple-mentation of CEDAW within the EuropeanUnion. Developments should be monitoredat a European level in applying CEDAW to pro-tect women’s interests. A permanent focalpoint for action could be instrumental in ini-tiating contacts, distributing information,maintaining links and coordinating action onthe European level.10

Beijing Platform for Action

Most National Correspondents noted thatactivist work with regard to CEDAW must belinked to the Beijing Platform for Action and

24

Overview

The First CEDAW Impact Study

the “Beijing +Five” process. Similarly, the par-ticipants in the preparatory and regionalmeetings in the follow-up to the Beijing proc-ess also noted that the local, regional andinternational advocacy to implement the Plat-form must include the use of the CEDAW Con-vention. The Platform is directly linked tothe Convention.

The centrality of the Convention to wom-en’s advancement and the achievement ofequality is underlined in critical area I of thePlatform for Action, [Human Rights ofWomen], which sets as its first strategic ob-jective the promotion and protection of thehuman rights of women through the imple-mentation of all human rights instruments,especially the Convention. The Commissionon the Status of Women has the primary man-date for monitoring the implementation ofthe Platform for Action. However, the Plat-form makes it clear that the CEDAW Commit-tee also has an important role in this regard.For example, the Committee has commendedgovernments for their plans for women’s ad-vancement, national action plans or othermechanisms to implement the Platform. Strat-egies to implement the Platform developedin cooperation with non-governmental or-ganisations have been particularly welcomed,as has the inclusion of non-governmentalorganisations in monitoring implementation.Mention has also been made of innovative

approaches to implementation. Just as sig-nificantly, the Committee has noted wheregovernments have failed to address the Plat-form for Action in presenting their reports,and has sometimes suggested that plans forimplementation are inadequate.13

There are two very critical areas where theCEDAW Committee has commented on theimplementation of the CEDAW Convention andthe Platform for Action. The Committee hasreviewed the challenges for implementationand suggested recommendations for acceler-ated implementation.

First, the challenges for implementationhave included new and emerging issues, suchas the adverse economic consequences forwomen as a result of transition to a marketeconomy, particularly in regard to employ-ment, health and social services, economicrecession, the impact of structural adjust-ment, economic restructuring and privitisa-tion, modernisation, liberalisation, andglobalisation. Deepening poverty of women,armed conflict, trafficking in women, exploi-tation of prostitution, traditional practicesand customs, abuses of migrant women, dis-criminatory laws, increasing stereotypicalattitudes, coexistence of legal systems, on-going violence against women … are all citedby the Committee as continuing challengesto implementation. Full details of these chal-lenges are outlined in the CEDAW Committee’sreport on the implementation of the Platformfor Action as submitted to the Commissionon the Status of Women for the Prep Com ofMarch 1999.11

Specific recommendations for acceleratedimplementation were made in the same re-port, including measures of affirmative ac-tion, special measures and programmes, lawreform, sex disaggregated data, human rightseducation, multifaceted and coordinatedmeasures to address violence against women,monitoring of the impact of privitisation ofhealth services on health care for women,gender equality in employment, national ma-chinery, poverty eradication strategies, reviewtrafficking and prostitution of women.

We have just begun to grapple with the is-sues of methodology that confront us in de-veloping ways of assessing the impact of

From left to right, National Corespondents, Silma Pinilla Díaz,Panama; Lee Waldorf, Canada; Feride Acar, Turkey; and HannaBeate Schöepp-Schilling, Germany; CEDAW Impact Seminar,January 1999, New York.

25

Overview

The First CEDAW Impact Study

OVERVIEW

CEDAW (both Convention and Committee). Wemust determine effective impact assessmenttools for evaluating the implementation of thePlatform for Action, integrally linked in ouranalysis, activism, strategy, and evaluation ofCEDAW.

Methodological Issues and FutureApplications of Impact Study Models

In evaluating the pilot Impact Study, somecorrespondents noted that the issues raisedby the questionnaire were wide-ranging andthat it had been difficult to attempt to an-swer all the questions in adequate depth. AllNational Correspondents noted that respond-ing to the questionnaire had required consid-erable additional research into the situationin their country. A number also pointed to themethodological problem of determiningwhether in fact CEDAW had caused or contrib-uted to change, in view of the many other forcesand influences at work in any given case.

A number of questions about the method-ology of the study were raised. Clarificationon the criteria for selection of the ten coun-tries for which reports were prepared andwhether those chosen were a representativeor otherwise useful sample of States. The lim-ited resources for the pilot study kept involve-ment to ten countries, distributed among theregions of the United Nations. The questionwas also raised whether the goal of the projecthad been to develop a series of social sciencestudies which used similar methodologies andwhich would prove a basis for close compari-son of the experience of the different coun-tries selected, since not all the studies adheredto the same format. The purpose of the CEDAW

Impact Study was to discover what type ofmethodological, logistical and financial prob-lems arose in trying to assess the impact ofthe CEDAW Convention. While noting that theNational Correspondents adopted differentapproaches within the overall framework ofthe questionnaire and thus might not cohereas a traditional social science study, one criti-cally important aspect of the process had beenthe unearthing of some of the impact of CEDAW

at the national level. The exchange of infor-mation among advocates from different coun-

tries of information about strategies that did(and did not) work effectively is facilitatedby this kind of study. Nevertheless, it wasagreed that these conceptual and methodo-logical issues need to be examined closely inthe light of the experience of the pilot study,in the hope that further expansion of theStudy can be undertaken and improved upon.

The format of the CEDAW Impact Seminardid not really provide sufficient time for thein-depth analysis of the detailed country re-ports. This analysis will now be possible, us-ing the Final Report, in identifying possiblestrategies to move forward the implementa-tion of the Convention in individual coun-tries. All participants in the CEDAW ImpactStudy agreed that it was important to ensurepublication of the papers, not merely as anacademic exercise, but as a means of enhanc-ing activism around the Convention. Whileit was acknowledged that the available fund-ing was very limited, the dissemination of theFinal Report on the Impact Study has been asignificant concern. To be effective, the Im-pact Study needs to be printed, available on-line, translated into local languages, and sum-marised for succinct reference.

Conclusion

This CEDAW Impact Study has demonstratedseveral important and fundamental lessonsfor the use of CEDAW, and the monitoring ofits impact. Training and capacity building ofwomen’s NGOs working on women’s nationaland international human rights is a criticalpre-requisite for the use of the Convention.Without the advocacy of the women’s humanrights activists who have been described inthis report, little or none of the pressure onnational States Parties would have resultedin the adoption of CEDAW principles, let aloneits ratification.

The goal of the global women’s movementwith regard to States that have ratified CEDAW

is to translate the avowed commitment intopolicy and practice leading to women’s equal-ity. The inception of this Impact Study dem-onstrated that the request for the informationitself was able to assist in organising the workthat was done in the various countries to give

26

Overview

The First CEDAW Impact Study

voice to women’s concerns about CEDAW, andto facilitate their development of strategies forits use to further women’s equality.

While the framework of women’s humanrights and the use of conventions, treaties,agreements, conference reports, CEDAW Com-mittee reports, and many other mechanismshave been extremely useful in efforts to lobbyfor legislative and policy changes at all lev-els, it is arguable that it is at the grassrootslevel of organizing that these tools have beenmore effective. Women all over the world areseeking to use, change, adopt and enforce anyand all mechanisms available through crea-tive strategies for advocacy and activism toachieve equality and human rights for wo-men. In order to ensure that we are assistingwomen to realise their human rights, we needto develop creative and fluid methodologiesto adapt to evaluating the effectiveness of thiswork—and the very victories that women’sactivists have achieved. We hope that this pi-lot study can be used, re-shaped, built upon,and developed to become one more practicaltool. For example, it is now clear that muchmore information needs to be gathered aboutthe impact of the CEDAW Committee Conclud-ing Comments to reporting countries as well asCEDAW General Recommendations that strengthenparticular articles of the Convention.

The information gathered on the BeijingPlatform for Action strategies was an addi-tional advantage from this Impact Study, and,some of the country report information, hasnow been incorporated into the latest IWRAW

consultative work.13

By elaborating the meaning and scope ofdiscrimination against women, the Conven-tion provides a valuable tool for promotinghuman rights for women. Together, the Con-vention and the work of the Committee, par-ticularly in its formulation of General Rec-ommendations, constitute a benchmark interms of the establishment of an internationalhuman rights framework that is relevant tothe majority of the world’s women.14 TheCommittee has reached an important junc-ture in its work—it has established a proce-dural framework, examined many country re-ports, explored its broader powers, and ad-dressed itself to the Platform For Action. It is

our hope that this impact study can assist withthe task of continuing to develop a methodo-logical framework to analyze the impact ofthe work of the Committee and the implemen-tation of the Convention in the day-to-day re-ality of the lives of women and girl children.

Endnotes

1Patricial Flor, Chair, UN Commission on theStatus of Women, NGOs for Women 2000,1999.2UNIFEM, Targets and Indicators, Selectionsfrom Progress of the World’s Women, June2000.3Presentation of working papers by the Na-tional Correspondents at the CEDAW ImpactSeminar, 24 January 1999 in New York. Thissection of the final report is based on the ini-tial draft by the Rapporteur for the Seminar,Andrew Byrnes, with Moana Erickson andHeather Northcott.4South Africa Final Report, p.8.5Schöepp-Schilling, Germany Final Report,“Non-discrimination labor legislation in theprivate and public sector, Equal Opportuni-ties Legislation, Recognition of Child Rear-ing, Taking care of older/disabled persons inthe social security system, Legal claim for aplace at a child-care center, Abortion legisla-tion, Additional clause in the Constitution onthe responsibility of the state to promoteequal opportunities for women.”6See Report on Turkey, Appendix D.7Ibid.p.7.8Ukraine report p.39IWRAW-Asia Pacific plans to continue this im-portant on-line work, while the host of thelistserv has not yet been determined.10The Netherlands Report, p.8.11Progress in the implementation of the Plat-form for Action base on the review of repotsto the Commission on the Status of Womenof States parties to the CEDAW Convention, E/CN.6/1999/PC/4, 19 February 1999, p. 4.12Ibid13IWRAW – The CEDAW Convention and theBeijing Platform for Action: Reinforcing thePromise of the Rights Framework, January2000.14A/CONF.177/7 Op. Cit.

27

Overview

The First CEDAW Impact Study

OVERVIEW

The following questionnaire was designed bythe International Advisory Committee andwas distributed to the CEDAW Network of Na-tional Correspondents. The questionnaire isintended as a guide for National Correspond-ents in their data collection efforts.

Questionnaire is divided into four main cat-egories:

I NGO InvolvementII Ratification ProcessIII Reporting to the UN

IV Use of CEDAW

I. NGO Involvement

1. What is the current awareness of NGOs withregards to CEDAW at different levels: grassroots,regional and national?

2. Assess the capability of NGOs to use CEDAW

and give examples of how CEDAW has beenused and /or describe any plans or strategiesfor using CEDAW that are being considered.

3. Describe the problems/solutions for NGOsin the use of CEDAW, such as efforts and meth-ods employed to remove country reservations,education needs, advocacy needs.

II. Ratification Process

4. What was the motivation for ratification?How was this motivation communicated—by written announcement, media coverage,spoken statements (on record or unofficial).Please include dates, citations and clippingswherever possible.

Appendix A: Questionnaire

5. Describe the steps taken in your countrytowards ratification.

6. Following ratification, how did you learnthat your country had in fact ratified CEDAW?What follow-up measures were taken by thegovernment, by others? Please describe asfully as possible.

III. Reporting to the United Nations

7. What is the level of NGO participation inthe preparation of state parties’ reports?

8. Describe any NGO “shadow reports,” in-cluding which NGOs were involved in theirpreparation. Please include a copy whereverpossible.

9. Have NGOs received any guidelines andtraining on CEDAW? Who provided this? Whathave the results been?

10. What are the areas of information pro-vided by NGOs that were included in the mem-ber country report to the UN? Was anythingprovided excluded? Please describe and pro-vide samples wherever possible.

IV. Use of CEDAW

11. Describe the use of / reference to CEDAW

in: courts, media, constitutional and legisla-tive Initiatives, non-profit sector, or by advo-cates for development policy reform.

12. Are you aware of the CEDAW concludingcomments in response to the countryreport(s)? Have the CEDAW Committee con-cluding comments been implemented? How?

28

Overview

The First CEDAW Impact Study

Please provide samples wherever possible.

13. Are there any other ways that cedaw hasbeen used, i.e. interpreting a point of publicpolicy or administrative law?

14. Describe any conscious effort taken toincorporate CEDAW in domestic legislation asopposed to, for example, using the Conven-tion to create clarity in domestic legislation/tool for statutory interpretation.

15. Describe Government/institutional ar-rangements in implementing CEDAW.

16. Who/what are assigned as key implement-ers?

17. What are the strengths/weaknesses ofthese arrangements?

18. Identify who/which category of people isusing the Convention in any particular way,for what purposes?

From top to bottom, (left to right), SapanaPradhan Malla, Nepal: Similla Pinilla Díaz,Panama; Alide Roerink and Ite van Dijk,Netherlands; Lesley Ann Foster, South Africa;Marilou McPhedran, Canada; SapanaPradhan Mall, Nepal; CEDAW Impact Study,Evaluation Session, Janurary 1999, New York.

29

Overview

The First CEDAW Impact Study

OVERVIEW

Appendix B:CEDAW Impact Seminar

HELD JANUARY 24, 1999FOLLOWING THE IWRAW CONSULTATION, NEW YORK

Morning Agenda

9:00Welcome

Savitri GooneskereChair

IntroductionsMarilou McPhedran,

Director, CEDAW Impact Study

9:30 – 12:00

Presentations by National Correspondents in the CEDAW Impact Studyfollowed by

a brief “Q and A” session for clarification after each presentation.

Lesley Ann Foster of South AfricaOlexandra Rudneva of the Ukraine

Youngsook Cho of South KoreaLee Waldorf of Canada

Silma Pinilla Díaz of Panama

Left to right, Savitri Gooneskere, Chair, Morning Session; Marilou McPhedran, Director, CEDAW Impact Study;National Correspondents, Youngsook Cho, South Korea; Lesley Ann Fosrter, South Africa; CEDAW Impact Seminar.

30

Overview

The First CEDAW Impact Study

Top to bottom: Jane Connors,Chief, Women’s Human Rights,UN-DAW; Shanthi Dairiam andAndrew Byrnes, Co-Facilitators,Strategy Session.

CEDAW Impact Seminar Jan. 24, 1999Presentations by National Correspondents:

Sapana Pradhan-Malla of NepalAlide Roerink and Ite van Dijk of the Netherlands

Feride Acar of Turkey Masumi Yoneda of Japan

Hanna Beate Schoepp- Schilling of Germany

12:00 – 1:20 p.m.Luncheon

Afternoon Agenda1:30 p.m.

Jane ConnorsChief, Women’s Rights Unit,

United Nations Division for the Advancement of WomenChair of the Afternoon Session

1:40 p.m.Open Discussion

Co-facilitators:Shanthi Dairiam

Director, International Women’s Rights Action Watch-Asia Pacific

Andrew ByrnesDirector, Centre for Comparative and Public Law,

University of Hong Kong

Discussants will explore the impact of CEDAW in their own countries andthose of the national correspondents, taking into consideration the

Beijing Platform for Action and human rights treaty bodies in theUnited Nations system. Recommendations will be developed oneffective implementation of CEDAW from four main perspectives:

NGOs and Civil Society Organisations, States Parties, Governments

3:00 –3:15 p.m.

The CEDAW Convention and CommitteeThe United Nations

3:45 – 4:00 p.m.Closing Remarks and Adjournment

4:15 – 5:00 p.m.

Technology Training: Kelly MannixIWRP “Webwoman”—Using the web for activist research.

31

Overview

The First CEDAW Impact Study

OVERVIEW

Appendix C:List of Participants

CEDAW Committee Members

Feride AcarTurkeyNational Correspondent in the CEDAW ImpactStudy

Hanna Beate Schöepp-SchillingGermanyNational Correspondent in CEDAW ImpactStudy

Savitri GoonesekereSri LankaChair, CEDAW Impact Seminar

Yung-Chung Kim, South KoreaSouth Korea

Mavivi Y. L. Myakayaka-ManziniSouth Africa

Working Group on the Optional Protocalto CEDAW

Aloisia WörgetterChair, Working Group on the OptionalProtocol to CEDAW

First Secretary, Permanent Mission ofAustria to the United Nations

International Advisory Committee for theCEDAW Impact Study

Anne BayefskyYork UniversityToronto, Canada

Andrew ByrnesRapporteur, CEDAW Impact Seminar

in association with Moana Erickson, HeatherNorthcott and members of the InternationalAdvisory CommiteeFaculty of Law, University of Hong Kong

Jane ConnorsChief, Women’s Human RightsUN-DAW

New York, New York, U.S.A

Shanthi DairiamInternational Women’s Rights Action Watch(IWRAW) Asia PacificKuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Ilana Landsberg-LewisHuman Rights Programme Advisor,UNIFEM

Marilou McPhedranDirector, International Women’sRights ProjectCentre for Feminist Research, YorkUniversityToronto,Canada

Jessica NeuwirthExecutive DirectorEquality NowNew York, N.Y., U.S. A

Sapana Pradhan MallaDevelopment Law AssociatesKathmandu, Nepal

National Correspondents in the CEDAW

Impact Study

Feride AcarDepartment of Political Science

CEDAW IMPACT STUDY SEMINAR, JANUARY 24, 1999, NEW YORK

32

Overview

The First CEDAW Impact Study

Middle East Technical UniversityAnkara, Turkey

Youngsook ChoKorea Women’s Association UnitedSeoul, South Korea

Ite van DijkThe Netherlands

Lesley Ann FosterMasimanyane Women’s Support CentreSouth Africa

Silma Pinilla DíazWomen and Development ForumPanama, Republic of Panama

Alide RoerinkThe Netherlands

Olexandra (Sasha) RudnevaKharkiv Women’s Studies CentreUkraine, Kharkiv

Hanna Beate Schöepp-SchillingAcademic Women’s AssociationGermany

Lee WaldorfCanada

Masumi YonedaJapanese Association of International Wom-en’s RightsJapan

Funders

Cathy FeingoldThe Ford FoundationPeace and Social Justice ProgramNew York, N.Y., U.S.A

Ilana Landsberg-LewisUNIFEM

Helen NeuborneThe Ford FoundationPeace and Social Justice Program

New York, N.Y. U.S.A.

Nancy RuthNancy’s Very Own FoundationToronto, Ontario, Canada

CEDAW Impact Study CommunicationsManager

Kelly Mannix

Invited Discussants

Rupa AmolicAnti-Racism Multiculturalism NativeIssues CentreUniversity of TorontoToronto, ON, Canada

Fareda BandaSOAS, Law DepartmentLondon, U.K.

Carolyn BennettMember of Parliament, Canada

Christine A. BrautigamUnited Nations Division for the Advancementof Women

Fanny M. CheungEquality Opportunities CommissionWanchai, Hong Kong, China

Christine ChinkinLondon School of EconomicsEngland

Shelagh DayNational Association of Women and the LawCanada

Moana EricksonRecorder, CEDAW Impact SeminarCentre for Comparative and Public LawFaculty of Law, University of Hong KongHong Kong, China

Marsha FreemanDirector,International Women’s Rights Action Watch

33

Overview

The First CEDAW Impact Study

OVERVIEW

Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of PublicAffairsMinneapolis, Minn., U.S.A.

Felice GaerExecutive Director,Jacob Blaustein Institute for Human RightsNew York, N.Y., U.S.A

Amal Abd El Hadi Abou HalikaCairo Institute for Human Rights (CIHRS)Cairo, Egypt

Griselda KenyonInternational Federation of University WomenKent, U.K.

Sumaya KhanMetlhaetsile Women’s Information CentreMochudi, BotswanaSouth Africa

Rita Serena KolibonsoJakarta, Indonesia

Ai-Schuen LeeIWRAW Asia PacificKuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Chikeeva LupaKyrgyzstan

Mary McHughWomen’s National CommissionDurham City, U.K.

Helen W. MetzIndependence, Minn.

Kirsten MlacakHuman Rights, Humanitarian Affairs andInternational Women’s Equality DivisionDepartment of Foreign Affairs andInternational TradeGovernment of Canada

Lia NadaraiaFeminist Club of GeorgiaTbilisi, Georgia

Heather NorthcottRecorder, CEDAW Impact SeminarYork University,Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Miho OmiJapanese Association of InternationalWomen’s RightsYokohama, Japan

Indira RanaForum for Law and Development,Nepal Law SocietyKathmandu, Nepal

Aitmatova RozettaWomen Support CentreKyrgizsta

Jaya SagadeToronto, Ontario, Canada

Shaheen Sardar AliPakistan

Monica TabengwaMetlhaetsile Women’s Information CentreMochudi, Botswana, South Africa

Kunthi TridewiyantiLaw Faculty, Pancasila UniversityIndonesia

Valerie ZamberlettiZamberletti and AssociatesMinneapolis, Minn., U.S.A

Blank page no. 34