Assessments, Monitoring, and Evaluations - Women In International Security

Chantal de Jonge Oudraat, Ellen Haring, Diorella Islas, Ana Laura Velasco

Executive Summary

The Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda, launched by UN Security Council Resolution 1325 (UNSCR 1325) adopted in October 2000, brought renewed attention to the importance of the integration of a gender perspective for the effectiveness of military and police operations. It also pointed to the importance of increasing the participation of women in security (military and police) forces.^[1]

This report examines to what extent the WPS agenda, and more generally the principles of gender equality, have been integrated in the security sector (military and national police) in 14 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean.

The research was commissioned by the Women, Peace and Security Program at the US Southern Command (SOUTHCOM), with the objective: (a) to establish a baseline of data and best practices with regard to the integration of the WPS agenda in security forces in Latin America and the Caribbean; and (b) to provide a framework for future partnerships between US SOUTHCOM and security forces in the region. While US SOUTHCOM commissioned the research, the authors bear sole responsibility for the content of this report and any errors or omissions.

Our research draws on an assessment tool developed by Women In International Security (WIIS) that examines how countries have integrated the principles of gender equality and the WPS agenda in security institutions and operations.^{^[2]} More specifically, the tool defines indicators that measure: (1) the level of political commitment to gender equality and the WPS agenda; (2) how that commitment is translated into practice; and (3) what accountability measures have been adopted—that is, how well policy and practice are monitored and evaluated.

This report is based on desk and literature research in Washington, DC and field research conducted by 14 volunteer country research teams composed of active and retired members of the police and the military, academics, government officials, policymakers, and members from civil society organizations.

The findings of our assessment examining the level of integration of the principles of gender equality and the WPS agenda in the security forces in Latin America and the Caribbean are outlined below.

Overall Regional Assessment

The overall integration of the principles of gender equality and the WPS agenda in security forces in the region (all countries combined) is robust, with an average score of 64.6 (on a scale of 1-100).

Many countries in Latin America and the Caribbean have strong normative frameworks for gender equality in place, are party to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and have professed support to the WPS agenda. It provides a strong backdrop for the integration of the gender equality and WPS agenda in the security sector. That said, in most countries political rhetoric is often not matched by consistent implementation. In addition, most countries lack systematic monitoring and evaluation mechanisms (see Figure 1).

Figure 4: Overall

Average Regional

Scores

Of the 14 countries examined for this report, four countries scored above the average regional score.

Four countries scored around the regional average, and six countries fell below the regional average. What is common to the countries that scored high is that they have strong scores across all 3 categories of assessment. (See Table 1)

For many police and military organizations in the region, gender equality and the integration of the WPS agenda is focused on the number of women in the forces. That said, gender mainstreaming and the integration of the WPS agenda in military and national police forces requires more than just adding women; it also requires the integration of a gender perspective in operations and addressing gender norms and gender stereotypes in the organizations themselves. Military and police organizations are highly gendered—masculine—constructs. Introducing gender perspectives and increasing the number of women does not come naturally to these institutions. Change only comes about with strong leadership from the top and continuous and systematic attention at all levels of military and police organizations.

Country	Political Will	Policy & Practice Monitoring Reporting & Evaluation		Total Score
Argentina	98	90	68	90
Brazil	44	51	48	49
Chile	85	75	64	76
Colombia	51	47	68	50
Costa Rica	80	88	100	87
Dominican Republic	63	58	48	58
Ecuador	72	56	60	60
Guatemala	78	52	36	55
Mexico	60	59	40	58
Panama	62	63	60	66
Paraguay	67	68	44	66
Peru	58	57	60	57
Trinidad & Tobago	55	64	36	60
Uruguay	78	70	76	72
Region Average	68	64	57.70	64.60

Table 1: Average

National Scores by

Main Findings by Category

All countries were assessed using simple sets of indicators that measure political will, the institutionalization of WPS principles in policy and practice, and, whether monitoring and evaluation mechanisms have been put in place.

Political Will

The most important measure of political will is whether countries have adopted WPS National Action Plans (NAPs).

Of the 14 countries surveyed in our report, five have developed WPS National Action Plans and five are in the process of developing a WPS NAP.
In most countries the WPS agenda and WPS NAPs are seen in the context of external engagements, most notably UN peacekeeping operations. While most countries see the WPS agenda as applicable only to armed conflict, some countries in the region have integrated human security challenges, such as human trafficking (Argentina) or rights of refugees (Brazil).

Institutionalization (Policy and Practice)

NAPs are most effective when they are accompanied by detailed implementation plans.

Most countries lack specific implementation plans with clearly defined goals and resources for implementation.
In all countries in the region, women remain under-represented in the military and the police. Even fewer women reach senior ranks. Many security forces have policies that exclude or limit (through the imposition of caps) women’s participation in the police or military. Few countries have welldefined recruitment strategies or set targets to increase women’s participation in the security forces.
The prevention of sexual harassment and abuse is critical to create a women-friendly work place, but few countries have programs to address harassment or abuse in the ranks.
Knowledge about the WPS agenda remains limited, and training on gender and the WPS agenda is ad-hoc and unsystematic.

Monitoring and Evaluation

Monitoring and reporting are critical for learning and identifying progress. Monitoring and evaluation practices must be an integral part of any NAP and implementation plan and include all stakeholders, including civil society organizations in the planning and implementation stages.

Few countries in the region have robust monitoring and evaluation mechanisms that involve civil society.
Sex-disaggregated data about women in the military and police are not systematically collected or published.

Main Recommendations

The report concludes with two sets of recommendations. One is for governments in the region and their military and police forces. The other is for the region as a whole and identifies specific actions countries in the region and the US government (including US DoD and US SOUTHCOM) can take to advance the WPS agenda and solidify partnerships in the region.

National Actions:

All countries in the region have strong normative gender equality frameworks in place. This should provide a solid basis for governments in the region to apply the political will necessary to develop WPS NAPs. The most effective NAPs are whole-of-government efforts that engage all governmental and nongovernmental stakeholders and cover the entire range of security challenges, including human security and non-military security challenges.

All government agencies, including military and police forces, should develop implementation plans with clear goals and benchmarks for measuring progress.
Governments must back up their commitment to NAPs and implementation plans by pledging the necessary resources—personnel and financial—to ensure effective implementation.
Legislatures must become actively involved in the development of WPS NAPs. They should require the executive to present NAP updates at regular intervals and pass budgets with dedicated funding streams for NAPs and implementation plans.
Monitoring and evaluation mechanisms should be transparent and include members of civil society. Civil society actors are critical to ensuring transparency and providing expertise in the effective implementation of WPS NAPs.

The increase of the number of women in police and military organizations and the integration of gender perspectives in operations require actions at different levels.

Military and police organizations should develop organization-specific WPS implementation plans. This can be accomplished even in the absence of a nation-wide WPS NAP. Countries, such as Argentina and Colombia, have developed and effectively implemented military implementation plans before NAPs were developed.
In terms of gender balance, the military and police should remove all exclusions and caps that limit women’s full participation in the security forces. They should also develop recruitment programs and establish targets to increase the number of women in the ranks. Military and police should regularly collect and publish sex-disaggregated data on women in the ranks.
In terms of integrating gender perspectives in operations, and more generally the development of a gender mainstreaming strategy, the military and police should appoint Gender Advisors (GENADs). GENADs help with the development of organizational gender mainstreaming strategies, make sure that police and military exercises and operations have integrated a gender analysis, and advise on the education and training of soldiers and officers with regard to the WPS agenda. To be effective, GENADs should be located at the highest command level. In addition to GENADs, military and police organizations should appoint Gender Focal Points (GFPs) at lower levels of the organization.

GFPs are key to ensuring that implementation takes place at all levels.

International and Regional Actions:

There is a great deal of expertise in Latin America and the Caribbean that should be capitalized on for the good of the entire region. Unfortunately, the exchange and learning among security forces in the region is ad-hoc, uneven, and non-systematic. Countries in the region, including the United States government (US DoD and US SOUTHCOM), should create a WPS Center of Excellence for security forces (military and police) that can support the integration of the WPS agenda throughout the region. The Center—a multilateral governmental venture—should seek to actively engage non-governmental stakeholders. The Center would function as a regional hub to support military and police forces in the region. Areas of responsibilities would include:

Research: encourage national and regional collaborative research efforts and focus on topics supporting the integration of the WPS agenda into security forces, such as measures to eliminate barriers for women’s participation in military and police forces, monitoring and evaluation practices, collecting and publishing sex-disaggregated data on gender balances in the forces;
Education and Training: facilitate the development and delivery of WPS and gender curriculum and training for the military and police;
Convening of stakeholders: exchange best practices;
Technical support: for the development of WPS NAPs and implementation plans, particularly implementation plans for the military and police.

More specifically, the US government (US DoD and US SOUTHCOM) should embed WPS discussions in all engagements, including in all security and military senior leader engagements. They should also incentivize women’s participation in any externally funded training programs they provide to regional partners by requiring that a certain percentage of military and police women participate in the training.

Preface

The Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda launched in October 2000 by the adoption of UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1325 has been a key instrument in advancing the role of women in the peace and security arena.

The United States, including the US Department of Defense, has been engaged with the WPS agenda since 2011, when President Barack Obama launched the first National Action Plan (NAP) on WPS.^[3] The US Congress adopted the WPS Act in 2017, which directed the US government to develop a national WPS Strategy.^[4] The US WPS Strategy was released in 2019.^[5] Subsequently, in mid-2020, the US Department of State, the US Agency for International Development (USAID), the US Department of Homeland Security, and the US Department of Defense published agency-specific implementation plans.

In its 2020 Implementation Plan, the US Department of Defense outlined the following lines of effort:

Seek and support the preparation and meaningful participation of women around the world in decision-making processes related to conflict and crises;
Promote the protection of women and girls’ human rights, their access to humanitarian assistance, and their safety from violence, abuse, and exploitation around the world;
Adjust US international programs to improve outcomes in equality for, and the empowerment of, women; and
Encourage partner governments to adopt policies, plans, and capacity to improve the meaningful participation of women in processes connected to peace and security and decision-making institutions.^[6]

The advancement of the WPS agenda is a key objective of US military partnerships, including in the Southern Hemisphere.^[7] Yet there is very little data on how military and police forces in Latin America and the Caribbean have integrated women and gender perspectives in their operations and activities. As a result, the exchange and learning among security forces in the Western Hemisphere on how best to integrate gender perspectives in operations and activities is ad-hoc and non-systematic.

In the summer of 2020, WIIS was approached by the Gender Advisor of US SOUTHCOM, Lt. Col. (USAF) Duila M. Turner, to develop a tool that would provide baseline data on where security forces in the region stand with respect to the integration of the WPS agenda. The idea was to develop a tool that could structure and frame discussions on these issues with partner nations.

In consultation with the US SOUTHCOM Gender Advisor, we defined three main objectives for the WPS assessment tool:

Learning: Numerous studies show that there is still little awareness and understanding of the WPS framework. While there is an increasing awareness within security establishments that conflict affects men and women differently, military and police establishments have a hard time determining what this reality means for them in terms of operations and how to convey this to their security forces. By collecting data and examining best practices, the assessment tool should become a powerful analytical and hence educational and learning tool that helps develop a greater understanding of gender mainstreaming within military and police structures.

Partnerships: Many security challenges require regional and international cooperation. The development of military partnerships is a key objective of the US Combatant Commands. For states to work well together they need to share common standards. By exchanging data and best practices on gender mainstreaming, states will be able to work together in a more efficient and effective way across the region.

Monitoring and evaluation: The assessment tool should encompass a simple set of indicators that will allow states to evaluate how well they are implementing the principles of gender equality and the WPS agenda in their security structures and operations.

To develop the assessment tool, WIIS drew on its experience with the 1325 NATO Scorecard project.^[8] WIIS adapted the tool from the NATO project to reflect the reality in Latin America and the Caribbean. Given the broad tasks of the military and the police in most countries in the region, and the fact that police in the region are sent to UN peacekeeping operations, we decided to include the police—that is, police that work at the national level and may be called upon to respond to cases of civil unrest, to protect the borders, or deal with in-country humanitarian emergencies.^[9]

We organized three workshops between August and November 2020. The objectives of the workshops were threefold:

Identify people in the region interested in the integration of the WPS agenda in national security forces;
Create volunteer research country teams; and
Review progress, identify gaps, and develop national and regional recommendations for how best to advance the WPS agenda in security forces.

Our initial invitation to join this project and our first workshop led to the development of a diverse list of over 100 participants from government (military, police, defense, foreign affairs, women’s and gender equality ministries), academia, and civil society from 16 countries and the creation of 14 country research teams.

In total, over 90 people from 16 countries have participated in this project at various points. Initial findings were presented at the third workshop in November 2020. At this workshop, Ambassador Jean Manes, Foreign Policy Advisor and the Civilian Deputy to the US Southern Command Commander, made remarks. In her remarks, she signaled the strong commitment of US SOUTHCOM to this effort.

Over the course of the project, WIIS created a listserv for people involved and interested in the project. The listserv was formalized into a WIIS WPS Latin America and Caribbean network at the end of the third workshop.^[10] For more information or to become a member of the network, visit: https://www. surveymonkey.com/r/GLSS6S8.

As societies and nations across the world face unprecedented challenges to gender equality, human security, and lasting peace, implementation of the WPS agenda is more important than ever. Indeed, research shows that societies are more peaceful and prosperous when women and men enjoy the same rights, liberties, dignities, and access to resources.^[11]

Policymakers around the world have made gender equality a top policy priority. This WPS assessment report highlights steps Latin American and Caribbean countries have taken to implement the WPS agenda and ensure gender equality. The need is to expand these efforts in the face of growing evidence of the strategic and operational advantages such an agenda presents to military and police forces in a country. However, the report also shows that while there is much rhetoric, there is little follow-though in implementation. The time to match rhetoric to action is now.

Acknowledgements

This project would not have seen the light of day without the support and help of many people. The project directors would like to thank key people whose support has been critical for the success of this project. First, we would like to thank Lieutenant Colonel (USAF) Duilia M. Turner, the Gender Advisor for US Southern Command, who first came to WIIS with the idea of this project and provided us with support to carry it out.

We would also like to thank all the participants in our three workshops. Over 90 participants from

16 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean brought an array of perspectives from government (military, police, defense, foreign affairs, women’s and gender equality ministries), academia, and civil society. A very special thanks goes out to those who actively participated in the 14 research country teams. They were generous in sharing their expertise, time, and resources. This project would not have been possible without the dedicated support of these volunteers. They used their considerable government and non-government contacts to gather much of the data for this report. (See Annex I)

Special thanks is also due to Dr. Paula Drumond, Assistant Professor at the Pontificia Universidade

Catolica do Rio de Janeiro; Dr. Renata Giannini, Senior Researcher at the Igarapé Institute in Rio de

Janeiro; Dr. Fabiana Sofia Perera, Assistant Professor at the William J Perry Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies at the National Defense University in Washington, DC; Dr. Tamya Rebelo, Professor at the Escola Superior de Popaganda e Marketing and the Centro Universitario Belas Artes de Sao Paulo, and Dr. Cristina Rodriguez-Acosta, Assistant Director of the Jack D. Gordon Institute for Public Policy at the Steven J. Green School of International and Public Affairs at Florida International University, for their advice and support. We also thank Patricia Cepero of the Jack D. Gordon Institute for helping to navigate the administrative part of the project.

At WIIS, thanks is due to WIIS Fellows Dr. Diorella Islas and Ana Velasco. Many thanks also to Program Manager Kayla McGill and Program Assistants Allyn Anderson and Madison Beltz for their valuable research support. Lastly, thanks to WIIS member and retired Colonel Cornelia Weiss and Dr. Karin Johnston, Senior Fellow at WIIS, for their invaluable editorial support.

While this report is the product of a collective effort, we, the authors of this report, are responsible for any errors and omissions.

Dr. Chantal de Jonge Oudraat, President, WIIS

Dr. Ellen Haring, Senior Fellow and Project Director

Washington, DC, USA

November 2020

Introduction

Gender equality has been recognized as a core principle of human rights in foundational international, regional, and national legal texts. The UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) set human rights standards that explicitly apply to every human being “without distinction of any kind, such as (…) sex.” ^[12] Latin American diplomats, legal scholars, and activists have been at the forefront of the development of these global human rights frameworks.^[13]

These legal instruments, as well as the 1979 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of

Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and the 1994 Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence Against Women (Belem do Para Convention), have been the basis for the economic, social and political empowerment of women, including their entry in national security forces—defined here as constituting the military and the police.^[14]

Support for the increased participation of women in the security sector received an important boost in 2000 when the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1325 (UNSCR 1325). The resolution called on all UN member states to:

Increase the representation and participation of women in conflict prevention and conflict resolution processes, including in security institutions (military and police);
Integrate gender perspectives in the analysis of peace and security issues; and
Adopt special measures to protect women and girls from all forms of sexual and gender-based violence in conflict settings.

Since 2000, the UN Security Council has adopted nine more resolutions that have reinforced and refined what is now known as the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda.^[15]

Regional and security organizations as diverse as the African Union (AU), the European Union (EU), and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) have developed organizationwide policies and action plans to incorporate guidance from the WPS agenda into their deliberations and actions.^[16] The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was an early adopter of the WPS agenda and issued Action Plans and Strategic Directives that committed to the WPS agenda.^[17] For the Americas, the Organization of American States (OAS) has not yet formally adopted the WPS framework. However, the Inter-American Commission of Women has worked on all aspects of the WPS agenda, most notably the participation of women in political life, women’s human rights and gender violence, women’s economic empowerment, and a gendered approach to human or citizen security.^[18]

At the national level, some 86 countries have developed National Action Plans (NAPs) and legislation to implement and advance the WPS agenda. In Latin America and the Caribbean, six countries (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Paraguay) have developed NAPs.^{^[19]} Chile was an early adopter and global leader when it published one of the world’s first NAPs in 2009 and a second NAP in 2015. Costa Rica, Ecuador, Mexico, Trinidad and Tobago, and Uruguay are in the process of developing a NAP.

Military and police security forces are important partners in the implementation of these NAPs. Indeed, the spread of NAPs in Latin America and the Caribbean has been spurred by increasing participation of countries in the region in UN Peace Operations.^[20] Many countries and military leaders, particularly those who have been deployed in UN missions, have recognized that a more diverse force in terms of gender and gender perspectives increases operational effectiveness and readiness.^[21] For many countries in the region, the adoption of the WPS framework has also meant greater attention to the role of women in their own security forces from both an operational and a rights points of view. In addition, many civil society organizations have advocated for NAPs that reflect a more inward-looking approach. This is particularly important in a region that no longer has traditional armed conflicts, yet faces high rates of violence, particularly against women and girls.^[22]

Gender Balance, Gender Perspectives and Gender Mainstreaming

When considering gender equality and the WPS agenda within the security sector, three issues are key:

First, gender balance—that is, the equal representation of women within the force. Research has shown that more diverse organizations are more effective organizations.¹² Military organizations are no different.^[23] Yet, women remain grossly under-represented in security forces around the globe, including in Latin America and the Caribbean. The United Nations has repeatedly lamented the lack of women soldiers and police in its peacekeeping operations.^[24] It is important to recognize the cultural and institutional barriers women may face in military and police forces.

Second, gender perspectives—that is, overlaying a lens that reveals gender differences when planning, executing, or evaluating military and police security force activities. The integration of a gender perspective involves the systematic and continuous process of assessing gender-based differences of men and women as reflected in their social roles and interactions. As explained by a commanding officer in the multi-national force deployed in Afghanistan, “a gender perspective is much more than female members in the team. It is about having and using knowledge about the gender roles and situation of both men and women in all activities of the mission.”^[25] A good gender analysis before activities start will greatly enhance situational awareness that, in turn, will enhance operational effectiveness.

Third, gender mainstreaming—that is, an integrated strategy by which organizations implement the concepts of gender balancing and gender perspectives across their organizations and operations. NATO, for example, has defined gender mainstreaming as “a strategy to achieve gender equality by assessing the implications for women and men of any planned action, including legislation, policies and programs in all areas and at all levels.”^[26] In other words, “gender mainstreaming is a set of specific, strategic approaches as well as technical and institutional processes adopted to achieve the goal of gender equality.”^[27]

The Latin American and Caribbean WPS assessment tool helps to measure how security forces are doing along those three axes. More specifically, it measures gender balance, gender perspectives, and gender mainstreaming at two different levels: the political level and the institutional and operational level. Lastly, it measures to what extent practices of good governance—that is, monitoring and evaluation—have been integrated.

The Latin American And Caribbean WPS Assessment Tool

The Latin America and Caribbean WPS assessment tool measures progress along three main levels: political will, institutional policy and practice, and monitoring and evaluation. For each we defined a limited set of key indicators.

The political level is a necessary first step. Is there political will and commitment to integrate the principles of the WPS agenda in the security forces—that is, is there political will to advance gender equality and gender perspectives in military and police forces? Political will can be measured in several ways. A first indicator is whether principles of gender equality have been incorporated in a country’s laws and regulations. In addition, we can measure to what extent political leaders refer to the principles of gender equality and the WPS agenda in their speeches. For the purposes of our project, a critical indicator of political will is whether a country has adopted a WPS NAP and whether implementation plans for the security sector have been drafted. From our research on the integration of WPS principles in NATO countries, we know that countries that mention the defense department as a principal actor and those who outline clear lines of responsibility through an action or implementation plan generally score higher on implementation than countries whose plans fail to specifically call out the military as an implementing agency. Lastly, we examine whether any resources have been allocated. Indeed, the allocation of resources is often a good measure of political intent.

The operational level is about gender mainstreaming and institutionalization, that is, how gender equality and WPS principles are integrated in institutional and bureaucratic processes. Institutionalization is critical, in that it safeguards gender equality and WPS initiatives from political turn-over and turmoil.^[28] Gender mainstreaming is about gender balance and gender perspectives. To what extent is women’s equal participation and integration in military and police forces a priority, and to what extent are institutional processes in place that are conducive to the integration of women in the military and police? This requires collecting baseline data about gender in the ranks. It also means examining measures taken to address gender imbalances, including the lifting of structural barriers and barriers related to the work environment. Three types of indicators are particularly important in this respect: first, whether all jobs are open to women; second, the existence of policies that deal with family issues (in particular, pregnancies and child care); and third, the existence of policies that deal with harassment and abuse. To what extent gender perspectives are integrated in operational policies and plans can be measured by examining strategic operational documents, field manuals, and other similar publications. The appointment of Gender Advisors (GENADs), as well as their standing and position in the force, is an important indicator for institutional support for gender mainstreaming. From our research on gender mainstreaming in NATO militaries, we know that a Gender Advisor is a commander’s best resource for ensuring the integration of gender perspectives into the planning, execution, and evaluation of military operations.^[29] Lastly, gender mainstreaming requires attention to training and education. Are soldiers and senior leaders being taught how to do a gender analysis, and are they aware of the national and international legal frameworks?

The last step in ensuring institutionalization of gender equality and WPS initiatives is monitoring and evaluating progress over time. The WPS assessment tool measures to what extent policies and operations are subject to monitoring and evaluation processes. Monitoring and evaluation are key to capturing best practices, establishing realistic benchmarks, identifying gaps in resources and structural challenges, framing strategic planning efforts, and supporting accountability measures. Two key indicators include the systematic collection of sex-disaggregated data and to what extent outside actors, including civil society organizations, are involved in assessment efforts.

The WPS assessment tool, by examining military and police forces from the political to the operational and from the strategic to the tactical levels, measures the progress of military and police organizations comprehensively. Assessments like these work best when they become part of iterative processes that allow for dialogue and learning among countries in the region.

Methodology

In early August 2020, WIIS held its first Latin America and Caribbean WPS research workshop to assess interest in applying the assessment tool to countries of Latin America and the Caribbean. The workshop also allowed us to review the draft assessment tool. Over 70 people from the region joined the workshop and eventually formed 14 volunteer research country teams. These research teams were composed of active and retired members of the security forces (military and police), government officials (foreign affairs, defense ministries, women’s agencies), the legislative branch, academics, and civil society. Each team elected a team coordinator who served as the main point of contact with WIIS.

As a result of the discussions at the workshop, the WIIS team further refined and adjusted the indicators of the assessment tool. (See Figure 1 and Annex 1) The revised assessment tool, containing 51 indicators, was subsequently sent to each of the country teams.

WPS Assessment Tool for Security Forces In Latin America and the Caribbean

Category Indicators I: National Importance and Political Will 11 II: Institutional Policies and Practice A. Strategy, Plans and Policy 14 B. Gender in the Ranks 6 C. Training, Education and Exercises 6 D. Work Environment 8 III: Monitoring, Reporting and Evaluation 6

Figure 1: WPS Assessment

Tool for Security Forces in Latin

America and the

Caribbean

By the end of September 2020, we had received data from 14 country teams. With that data, we were able to generate a scorecard for each country. That is, responses to the questions on the assessment tool received a predetermined numerical value following a scoring protocol.^[30] These scores were then used to evaluate the relative importance attached to certain issue areas and to establish regional and national averages.

In addition to the quantitative assessment, we also prepared a qualitative assessment for each country. The qualitative assessment allowed us to contextualize the collected information. It also offers an overall assessment of where the country stands with regard to implementation of the gender equality and WPS agenda. Lastly, the qualitative reports contain a set of country specific recommendations detailing how the country and its security sector might move forward. The elaboration of quantitative and qualitative reports included many follow-up interviews with the country teams to ensure that we were accurately interpreting the data they provided. All country teams reviewed final country quantitative and qualitative reports.^{^[31]}

Figure 2: Sample Quantitative Assessment Tool

Figure 3: Sample Qualitative Report

Colombia – Summary Report WPS National Action Plan (NAP) Status: Colombia has not developed a NAP. That said, the November 24, 2016 peace agreement includes many gender provisions. Additionally, in 2018 the Ministry of Defense (MoD) published its own transversal (intersectional) gender implementation plan for uniformed personnel in Colombia. Overall Assessment: Colombia has a robust civil society network dedicated to advancing the WPS agenda, and many are lobbying the Colombian government to adopt a WPS NAP.¹ Although the national government has made statements in support of gender equality and the MoD recognizes UNSCR 1325 and the WPS agenda, no NAP has been developed. National Importance/Political Will: Gender equality is enshrined in the Colombian Constitution (See Articles 40 and 43).² Colombia also has a Presidential Council for Women’s Equity, which collects and analyzes information related to the situation of women in Colombia. Gender equality, women’s rights, and the empowerment of women are also referred to in the 2018-2022 National Development Plan, an allinclusive policy document that addresses foreign and domestic security policies.³ In Colombia, the army, the air force, the navy, and the national police all fall under the authority of the (MoD). The MoD guidelines and policies apply to all four services. Its 2018 report, Public Policy for a Cross-Gender Approach for the Uniformed Personnel of the Public Force, explicitly refers to UNSCR 1325 and its related resolutions.⁴ The report, developed as a requirement of the 2016 peace agreement, is referred to as the military’s WPS implementation plan, and it includes the police under the umbrella term “public force.” It calls on the military and the police to make sure that women have equal access and opportunities. It also sets up Gender Observatories at the level of the MoD and General Command, as well as inside each military branch and the police. See Humanas Colombia, 20 Años Exigiendo que el Gobierno Colombiano se conecte con la Paz y la Seguridad de las Mujeres, Pronunciamiento (Bogotá, Colombia: Humanas, July 2020), at https://www.humanas.org.co/alfa/dat_particular/arch_contenidos/i_e_73153_q_PRONUNCIAMIENTO_R1325.pdf; Also from Humanas Colombia, see Observatorio Mujeres, Paz y Seguridad (a group actively lobbying for a WPS NAP), Cumplimiento del Estado Colombiano con la Resolución 1325 de 2000: Informe de monitoreo del año 2017 y primer semestre de 2018, (Bogotá, Colombia: Humanas, December 2018), at https://www.humanas.org.co/alfa/dat_particular/ar/ar_9042_q_R1325informe.pdf.. See Corte Constitucional, Constitución Política de Colombia 1991, Actualizada con los Actos Legislativos a 2016, (Bogota: Corte Constitutional), at https://www.corteconstitucional.gov.co/inicio/Constitucion%20politica%20de%20Colombia.pdf See Departamento Nacional de Planeación (DNP), Colombia en la Escena Global: Política Exterior Responsable, Innovadora y Constructiva, (Bogotá: DNP, May 2019) at https://www.dnp.gov.co/DNPN/Plan-Nacional-deDesarrollo/Paginas/Pilares-del-PND/Legalidad/Colombia-en-la-escena-global.aspx; and also from DNP, Plan Nacional de Desarrollo 2018-2022 at https://www.dnp.gov.co/DNPN/Paginas/Plan-Nacional-de-Desarrollo.aspx Ministerio de Defensa, Política Pública Sectorial de Transversalizacion del Enfoque de Genero para el Personal Uniformado de la Fuerza Pública 2018-2027, (Bogotá: MinDefensa 2018), at https://www.justiciamilitar.gov.co/irj/go/km/docs/Mindefensa/Documentos/descargas/Prensa/Documentos/politica_ genero.pdf 1

WPS In Latin American And Caribbean Security Forces:

Main Findings

In terms of the overall implementation of gender equality and WPS principles in the security forces, the region (all countries combined) had an average score of 64.6 (on a scale of 1-100). This robust showing is not surprising given the region’s strong adherence to international and regional legal human right instruments, such as CEDAW and the Belem do Para convention. The region has also been a strong supporter of the Beijing Platform of Action and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Particularly important in this regard is the Montevideo Strategy for Implementation of the Regional Gender Agenda within the Sustainable Development Framework by 2030, adopted in 2016 by countries of the region.^[32] In the last five years, countries in the region have also prioritized access to political participation. Most countries in the region have instituted political quotas, which has increased women’s participation in decision-making institutions throughout the government.^[33] Lastly, many countries in the region have established women’s or gender equality government agencies; in some cases, these agencies function at the ministerial level.

Despite a relatively strong score overall, many challenges remain. Indeed, this is a region where “patriarchal, discriminatory and violent cultural patterns remain in place, with gender stereotypes persisting in the education system, the media and political and cultural institutions.”^[34] The security sector is, of course, not devoid of these stereotypes. As Ellen Haring has noted in a recent publication, “national military organization are quintessentially masculine constructs that rely on notions of men as warrior-protectors and women as the protected. (…) National militaries are set up to optimize men’s participation and rely on patriarchal social structures where women perform traditional family duties centered around caregiving while men go to war.”^[35] Nicole Jenne and Fiorella Ulloa Bisshopp, in their study on the effectiveness of Chile’s efforts to promote a gender perspective in the military, emphasize how “resilient” gender stereotypes are in military organizations. For example, Chilean forces deployed in the UN peacekeeping operation in Haiti had a fair number of women. That said, the tasks these women were assigned hewed closely to traditional gender stereotypes: “Instead of performing the full range of peacekeeping tasks, women were often delegated to deal with issues concerning women and children and prevented from joining activities that were deemed to involve security risks.”^[36] Gender mainstreaming in security forces requires more than just adding women; it also requires cultural and organizational change.^[37]

When we examine the average performance of the region as a whole at the different levels of our assessment tool, the region scores highest at the political commitment level, with a score of 68. The score drops at the implementation level to 64 and at the monitoring and evaluation level to 57.7.

(See Figure 4)

Figure 4: Overall

Average Regional

Scores

Figure 5: Overall


49			76
49
50
50
	58 60 58	66 66	72 4.4


55


	57 60


		6
		6

Average National Argentina 90

Scores Brazil

Chile

Colombia

Costa Rica 87 Dominican Republic

Ecuador Guatemala

Mexico Panama

Paraguay

Peru

Trinidad & Tobago

Uruguay

Average

When we examine the overall performance of individual countries in the region, four countries scored above the average regional score. Four countries scored around the regional average, and six countries fell below the regional average. On the high side, Argentina, Chile, Costa Rica and Uruguay significantly outperformed other countries. What is common to these countries is that they have strong scores across all levels. (See Table 1)

Country Political Will Policy & Practice Monitoring Reporting Total Score & Evaluation

Argentina 98 90 68 90 Brazil 44 51 48 49 Chile 85 75 64 76 Colombia 51 47 68 50 Costa Rica 80 88 100 87 Dominican Republic 63 58 48 58 Ecuador 72 56 60 60 Guatemala 78 52 36 55 Mexico 60 59 40 58 Panama 62 63 60 66 Paraguay 67 68 44 66 Peru 58 57 60 57 Trinidad & Tobago 55 64 36 60 Uruguay 78 70 76 72 Region Average 68 64 57.70 64.60

Table 1: Average

National Scores by

National Importance/Political Will

National importance and political will measures three main issues: (1) whether gender equality is recognized in a country’s main laws and regulations; (2) whether a country has adopted a WPS NAP; and (3) whether political leaders in their statements provide strong support to the principles of gender equality and the WPS agenda.

All countries in the region have enshrined gender equality in their constitutions, and many have also established gender equality and women’s empowerment agencies. That said, an important indicator of political commitment is whether a country has adopted a WPS NAP. (See Table 3)

Countries with NAPs Countries with NAPs Countries without NAPs under development

Argentina Costa Rica Colombia Brazil Ecuador Dominican Republic Chile Mexico Panama Guatemala Trinidad & Tobago Peru Paraguay Uruguay

Table 3: National

Action Plans –

Status

Argentina and Chile—both with top scores overall and at this level—have developed and implemented WPS NAPs. However, the presence or absence of a NAP is not necessary or sufficient to score high. For example, Costa Rica, despite not having a NAP, scored high overall due to the government’s strong political commitment to advancing gender equality across the country and within its institutions.^[39]On the other hand, Brazil fell below the regional average. Indeed, in the case of Brazil, a change in national level political leadership in 2019 resulted in diminished political will and commitment to gender equality and the WPS agenda.

The NAPs of the countries in the region have many similarities, but also significant differences. For most countries in the region, the WPS agenda is an external, rather than an internal, agenda. In most cases, the ministries of foreign affairs have lead responsibilities for the implementation of a NAP.^[40] The extensive gender equality machinery established under CEDAW, the SDGs, or regional gender equality commitments is often seen as distinct from the WPS agenda. Guatemala is the exception and has adopted a whole-of-government approach. In Guatemala, the Women’s Ministry plays an important role in the development of a new NAP. In Costa Rica, the development of a NAP involves many government agencies, not just in the security sector, but also in the legislature. In addition, its National Institute for Women works at a ministerial level and has taken innovative steps to tackle structural gender inequalities at home, including machismo culture.

Most civil society organizations in the region advocate for whole-of-government efforts as well as a broadening of the agenda beyond traditional armed conflict.^[41] They argue that the region grapples with many “gendered consequences of non-conventional armed violence,” and they point to high rates of femicide in the region.³² While several Latin American NAPs have integrated demands for a broader agenda, most remain very externally focused. Paula Drumond and Tamya Rebelo note that the Paraguayan NAP stands out with ambitious and long-term goals. The Paraguayan NAP defines one of its goals as “the elimination of cultural barriers that hinder the full participation of women in all areas of human society.”^[42] The Argentinian NAP includes issues related to human trafficking. The Brazilian NAP includes gender-sensitive initiatives focused on the rights of refugees and refugee seekers in the country. The Chilean NAP expanded the principle of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) to include the protection of women and girls from sexual and gender-based violence.^[43] The Argentinian, Brazilian, and Chilean NAPs all define protection as meaning not just physical security but also access to sexual and reproductive health.

UN Ranking Total Male Female

Uruguay 17 1,138 1,055 83 Argentina 42 304 276 28 El Salvador 45 292 263 29 Brazil 47 282 270 12 Peru 52 233 198 35 Guatemala 57 176 155 21 Paraguay 80 31 28 3 Chile 82 30 27 3 Bolivia 83 27 20 7 Mexico 94 13 6 7 Honduras 97 11 7 4 Ecuador 98 10 4 6 Dominican Republic 107 5 3 2 Colombia 108 4 3 1 Totals Region 2,556 2,315 241 Global Totals 81,820 76,596 5,328 Source: United Nations

Another positive driver for gender equality and the WPS agenda, including the development of a WPS NAP, is the extent of global—UN—engagements a country has. The participation in peacekeeping operations is particularly important in this regard. (See Table 4) For example, the Brazilian NAP expired at the end of 2018. Gender equality and the WPS agenda were not a priority for the new Brazilian administration that came to power in January 2019. Yet the administration decided to extend the NAP (developed under the previous administration) in March of 2019 for four years. Indeed, Brazil’s participation in UN peacekeeping operations was considered important and, in that context, the continuation of a NAP became significant.^[44]Table 4: Participation in UN Peacekeeping Operations by Countries from Latin America and the Caribbean-Military and Police Combined – August 2020

However, while UN peacekeeping involvement is positively impacting the military, it does not appear to have a similar impact on the national police. Indeed, the police generally scored lower in most countries than did the military regarding implementation of the WPS agenda.

The engagement of international actors in the Colombia peace agreements has also been an important factor in pushing forward a gender equality and WPS agenda. For example, the 2018 Colombian Ministry of Defense’s report Public Policy for a Cross-Gender Approach for the Uniformed Personnel of the Public Force was developed as a requirement of the 2016 peace agreement. It is considered the military’s WPS implementation plan. It calls on the military and the police to make sure that women have equal access and opportunities. It also sets up Gender Observatories at the level of the Ministry of Defense and General Command, as well as inside each military branch and the police.

Other examples of international engagements and commitments that advance a gender equality and WPS agenda at home include: Uruguay, which co-chairs, with Canada, the United Nations GFP Network and is currently working on a WPS NAP; the Dominican Republic, which during 2020, together with Germany, co-chaired the UN Security Council Informal Expert Group (IEG) on WPS; or Mexico, which, since 2019, co-chairs with France the Generation Equality Forum—a global civil society-centered gathering for gender equality. Its work on the Generation Equality Forum, and the fact that Mexico launched a Feminist Foreign Policy in January 2020 and is currently developing a WPS NAP, are certainly not unrelated. High-level international engagements also help civil society organizations at home to press their governments to progress on the gender equality and WPS agendas.

Policy and Practice

Policy and practice examines how political commitment to gender equality and WPS principles is translated into practical action in the security sector. We distinguish four main areas: (1) policy, planning, and staffing, in particular the appointment of GENADs and GFPs; (2) women’s participation in the security forces (gender in the ranks); (3) policies and programs that support women’s participation in the security forces; and (4) training and education on WPS principles.

Policy, Planning and Staffing

Although national level commitment is critical in advancing the WPS agenda, it is not sufficient to realizing better outcomes in terms of gender mainstreaming. Even in countries that have published NAPs, these NAPs do not always require the participating ministries and departments to develop detailed implementation plans. Without such plans, including bureaucratic procedures and processes that mainstream gender in security institutions, change will be fleeting and easily reversible with changing political leadership.

Our analysis found that countries that developed military implementation plans even before or in the absence of a NAP have generally made significant progress in terms of gender mainstreaming. For example, in 2008 the Argentine Ministry of Defense adopted a WPS Action Plan (long before their 2015 NAP was published). It was developed in response to Argentina’s participation in UN peacekeeping operations and led to many “policy reforms in the field of defense and the armed forces.”^[45] Participation in UN peacekeeping operations helped to strengthen pre-deployment training on gender issues. It also required the military to establish GENADs and GFPs.³⁷

Indeed, a major indicator of progress with regard to the integration of gender equality and WPS principles is the appointment of GENADs and GFPs. They are critical in helping to mainstream the principles of the WPS agenda in all aspects of the operations of security forces. The role of a GENAD is to provide guidance and advice to senior level commanders on how to integrate gender perspectives into operations and missions, crisis and conflict analysis, concepts, doctrine, procedures, and education and training. GFPs are similarly trained but work at lower levels in the organization to mainstream the WPS agenda across occupational positions.^[46]

Only a few countries in the region are systematically appointing, training and employing GENADs and GFPs. (See Table 5) Argentina has a robust GENAD and GFP program. It also provides gender training through its regional peacekeeping center—trainings that are open to other countries in the region as well. Uruguay, a top regional UN troop contributor, co-hosts, with Canada, the UN GFP network. It has appointed GFPs in both the military and the police, but these GENADs are all double-hatted—that is, they have other responsibilities as well. Neither the military nor the police have appointed full-time GENADS. In some countries, for example in Mexico and Peru, the security institutions have established gender equality institutions that have certain GENAD functions. However, most often these institutions work more in the human resources sphere, rather than the policy and planning spheres. Most often, they do not report directly to the highest command levels.

Gender in the Ranks: Women’s Participation in the Security Forces

All countries in our survey have low women’s participation rates in their military and police forces. (See Table 6) The promotion rates for women are even lower. In general, women have made greater inroads in the police than in the military. In the national police forces, all positions are officially open to women. That said, some of our investigators also reported that the practice does not always align with the formal rules. In some countries, women are not assigned to work “on the streets.” In addition, as women have made inroads within the police, some countries have begun to impose caps, thereby limiting women’s access. Such is the case in Trinidad and Tobago, where no more than 30% of the force is allowed to be women. There is also a waiting list for women who want to join the police.

In four out of 14 countries, women continue to be officially barred from some military occupations. (See Table 7) In addition, even if in theory all positions are open, women often face restrictions in practice, particularly in terms of where they are utilized. Many teams reported that data on military deployments reveal that women are far less likely to be deployed on operational missions.

Country The country The country GENADs are The country has appointed has appointed assigned for has gender Gender Advisors gender focal pecific equality (GENAD). points (GFP). missions. offices/units.

Argentina Yes Yes Yes Brazil Yes Chile Yes Yes Yes Colombia Yes Costa Rica Yes Dominican Republic Yes Yes Ecuador Yes Guatemala Yes Mexico Yes Panama Yes Paraguay Yes Peru Yes Trinidad and Tobago Yes Uruguay Yes Yes Yes

Table 5: Gender Advisors and

Gender Equity

Offices

Country Military Percent of Senior Police Senior Women Military Police Deployed Women Women

Argentina 17.3% 8% nd nd nd Brazil 7.6% 8% nd 9% nd Chile 10% 10% nd 34% 15% Colombia 6% 1.5% 1% 9% 2% Costa Rica na na na 18.7% di Dominican Republic 20.8% 5.1%-8% 4% 15% 4.7% Ecuador 2.7% di nd 15% di Guatemala nd 8% nd 16% nd Panama na na na 16.2% 14.9% Peru 10% di .5% 18% .4% Paraguay nd 10% nd Nd nd Mexico 12.4% 1-3% 2.5% 10% 19% Trinidad & Tobago 14.3% na nd 29% nd Uruguay 11% 7% 1.7% 25.6% 3% nd=no data (data not provided or data not available) na=not applicable (these countries have no military forces or they do not deploy) di=data incomplete (not enough data to calculate percentage)

Table 6: Women’s

Participation as a Percentage of the

Total Force

Working on “the streets” and military deployments are generally career enhancing assignments; the restrictions women face in this regard likely contributes to them being less competitive for promotions. These restrictions may explain why few women are represented at the highest levels in the military or police.

Lastly, in terms of long-term policy and planning, we found that only four countries have active recruitment programs or set targets to raise the number of women in the force.

Table 7: Policy and Practice

Country Are all Are there Do they How much Is WPS Is positions recruitment provide paid gender Monitoring open to targets? uniforms & maternity/ training & Evaluation women (military/ equipment paternity provided ? conducted? in the police) adapted to leave military? women? is provided?

Argentina Yes Yes/UNK Yes 90 days/10 days Yes Yes Brazil No No. There are some caps/No. There are local caps No 180 days/5 days Yes No Chile No No/No Yes 126 days/UNK Yes Yes Colombia No No/No Yes 126 days/8 days Yes Yes Costa Rica Yes NA/No Yes 120 days/2 days Yes Yes Dominican Republic Yes Yes/Yes, but there are local caps No 98 days/7 days Yes Yes Ecuador Yes No/No No 80 days/15 days Yes Yes Guatemala Yes No/No No 84 days/UNK Yes No Mexico Yes Yes/No No 90 days/10 days No No Panama Yes NA/ No Yes 98 days/3 days Yes Yes Paraguay No No/No Yes 126 days/UNK Yes Yes Peru Yes No/No No 98 days/UNK No Yes Trinidad and Tobago Yes No, there is a 30% cap Yes 90 days/3 days Yes No Uruguay Yes Yes/Yes No 91 days/10 days Yes Yes NA=not applicable because they have no military forces UNK=unknown-data was not provided during data collection

More generally, it must be noted that data on women’s participation and promotion rates were elusive in many countries. Either the data are not being collected and tracked over time, or the country refuses to publish the data. One country indicated that data on women in the military were considered confidential and not publicly releasable.

Many organizations that track numbers and the composition of armed forces around the world, such as the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, generally do not collect sexdisaggregated data. The only known detailed survey of women in the armed forces and the police dates from 2010 and was carried out by the Argentine think tank RESDAL.^[47]

Women-Friendly Policies and Programs

To increase women’s participation in the security forces, it is also important to have policies and programs that make military and police service possible on a personal level. Women tend to leave the military and police at higher rates than men when they have children or encounter a hostile work environment. Therefore, it is imperative that the military and police implement policies that make it possible for women to have a fulfilling career by ensuring that their organizations are inclusive, free of harassment, and accommodate family needs for women who often remain primary caregivers.

In all countries reviewed, both the military and police provide paid maternity leave for women, although the length of time varies greatly—from 80 days to 18 weeks. Many countries also provide a few days of paid paternity leave. Some countries offer varying levels of childcare and family leave, while others offer none.

A healthy and productive work environment also requires that sexual harassment and abuse is not tolerated, that it is strictly monitored, and that offenders are prosecuted. Most countries, particularly those involved in peacekeeping, provide basic human rights training, with a portion of the training directed specifically toward preventing sexual and gender-based violence in the areas of operations. However, the same level of training and attention is not being given to eradicating sexual harassment and abuse within a country’s own ranks. Data from countries that track and address harassment, including the US, Canada and Australia, show that sexual harassment and abuse of women in the ranks is pervasive in military organizations around the world.^[48] Therefore, it is critical that military and police organizations address this behavior if they want to keep women in their organizations.

Finally, uniforms, equipment, and facilities must be adapted to accommodate women to optimize women’s performance and retention. Only half of the countries in our survey provide women-specific equipment. (Table 7 above). Requiring women to perform in uniforms and equipment designed by and for men degrades women’s performance, causes injuries, and can result in safety hazards. Furthermore, failing to provide bathrooms and safe billets also drives women out of military and police organizations.

In sum, security forces seeking to increase women’s participation must ensure that there are familyfriendly programs available to support women’s long-term participation, address sexual harassment and abuse within the ranks, and provide uniforms, equipment, and billets for women. While countries in the region score well in terms of maternity and paternity leave policies, much work remains to be accomplished in the other areas.

WPS Training and Education

Applying a gender lens to military and police organizations and operations requires training and education. It is not an intuitive process. The countries that participate in UN peacekeeping operations receive human rights and WPS training during pre-deployment training. Indeed, when countries engage with the UN, particularly in the context of contributing troops to UN peacekeeping operations, they are expected to meet certain UN WPS training requirements. However, for many countries, gender and WPS training ends with UN missions.

Some countries have more systematically integrated gender training into their entry, mid- and senior-level training and education programs. That said, this training is more likely to be found in the military than the police. Police training generally focuses on responding to and preventing domestic, sexual, and genderbased violence.

GENADs and GFPs require specialized training. Such training remains limited. A few countries like Argentina provide WPS training for the military. Costa Rica has mainstreamed gender throughout police training programs. Costa Rica is unique in the region for creating a gender training program that addresses masculinity and machismo culture.

Figure 6:

Masculinity Flyer

Eleven countries in the region host peacekeeping training centers. Many of these centers have not integrated gender and the WPS agenda in their curriculum in a systematic manner.^[49] Helping these centers build up their WPS and gender equality curriculum and provide specialized courses for GENADs would be an obvious first step towards more robust training on WPS and gender equality in the region.

Monitoring, Reporting, and Evaluation

Monitoring and evaluation are critical for learning and understanding whether progress is being made in implementing the WPS agenda. Monitoring and evaluation also had the lowest average scores. There are three main reasons for the low scores. First, even when countries have developed NAPs, strategies or implementation plans, they are often written without clearly defined and measurable goals and benchmarks. Second, countries generally do not appoint or support independent oversight bodies. Most governments are wary of such bodies and/or the involvement of civil society in the oversight of policies. Third, there is a dearth of sex-disaggregated data being collected or made available for evaluation.

The best monitoring and evaluation programs are independent, transparent, and involve civil society. Some country teams reported that monitoring and evaluation does occur, but the reports and data produced by entities in these countries can only be accessed by requesting them through government transparency programs, or they may not be available at all.

Costa Rica has the most robust monitoring and evaluating systems in the region. They are provided by Costa Rica’s National Institute for Women, which functions as a ministry. This ministry-level Institute has a national council responsible for decision-making at the national level. Furthermore, the Institute provides advice and has oversight over gender mainstreaming in all of the government ministries, including the Ministry of Public Security.

Some countries have robust independent civil society networks that provide some external monitoring and evaluation functions and keep pressure on governments to advance gender equality and the WPS agenda. For example, Colombia has a robust civil society network with 57 distinct organizations that promote the principles of UNSCR 1325 and the WPS agenda. It also has a Women Peace and Security Observatory, a coalition of civil society organizations that is actively lobbying the government to adopt a WPS NAP.^[50] In some countries, the think tank and academic community are important players. For example, in Brazil, the Igarapé Institute has a considerable amount of expertise with regard to the WPS agenda and women in the military. Similarly, in Argentina, RESDAL has undertaken important work in this regard. The analysis by these institutions are important in collecting best practices and advancing the WPS agenda in the region. More generally, the Gender Division of the UN’s Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC or CEPAL in Spanish) plays an important role in gender mainstreaming in the region and collecting data.

Recommendations and Concluding Remarks

To advance the gender equality and WPS agenda in the security forces in the region, the following actions should be taken at the national and regional levels.

National Actions

All countries in the region have strong normative gender equality frameworks in place. This should provide a solid basis for governments in the region to apply the political will necessary to develop WPS NAPs. The most effective NAPs are whole-of-government efforts that engage all governmental and non-governmental stakeholders and cover the entire range of security challenges, including human security and non-military security challenges. More specifically:

All government agencies, including military and police forces, should develop implementation plans with clear goals and benchmarks for measuring progress;
Governments must back up their commitment to NAPs and implementation plans by pledging the necessary resources—personnel and financial—to ensure effective implementation;
Legislatures must become actively involved in the development of WPS NAPs. They should require the executive to present NAP updates at regular intervals and pass budgets with dedicated funding streams for NAPs and implementation plans;
Monitoring and evaluation mechanisms should be transparent and include members of civil society. Civil society actors are critical to ensuring transparency and providing expertise in the effective implementation of WPS NAPs.

The increase of the number of women in police and military organizations and the integration of gender perspectives in operations require actions at different levels.

Military and police organizations should develop organization-specific WPS implementation plans. This can be accomplished even in the absence of a nation-wide WPS NAP. Countries, such as Argentina and Colombia, have developed and effectively implemented military implementation plans before NAPs were developed.
In terms of gender balance, the military and police should remove all exclusions and caps that limit women’s full participation in the security forces. They should also develop recruitment programs and establish targets to increase the number of women in the ranks. Military and police should regularly collect and publish sex-disaggregated data on women in the ranks.
In terms of integrating gender perspectives in operations and more generally the development of a gender mainstreaming strategy, the military and police should appoint Gender Advisors (GENADs). GENADs help with the development of organizational gender mainstreaming strategies, make sure that police and military exercises and operations have integrated a gender analysis, and advise on the education and training of soldiers and officers with regard to the WPS agenda. To be effective GENADs should be located at the highest command level. In addition to GENADs, military and police organizations should appoint Gender Focal Points (GFPs) at lower levels of the organization.

GFPs are key to ensuring that implementation takes place at all levels.

International and Regional Actions

There is a great deal of expertise in Latin America and the Caribbean that should be capitalized on for the good of the entire region. Unfortunately, the exchange and learning among security forces in the region is ad-hoc, uneven, and non-systematic. Countries in the region, including the United States government (US DoD and US SOUTHCOM), should create a WPS Center of Excellence for military and police security forces that can support the integration of the WPS agenda throughout the region. The Center—a multilateral governmental venture—should seek to actively engage non-governmental stakeholders. The Center would function as a regional hub to support military and police forces in the region. Areas of responsibilities would include:

Research: encourage national and regional collaborative research efforts and focus on topics supporting the integration of the WPS agenda into security forces, such as measures to eliminate barriers for women’s participation in military and police forces, monitoring and evaluation practices, collecting and publishing sex-disaggregated data on gender balances in the forces.
Education and Training: facilitate the development and delivery of WPS and gender curriculum and training for the military and police.
Convening of stakeholders:exchange best practices.
Technical support: for the development of WPS NAPs and implementation plans, particularly implementation plans for the military and police.

More specifically, the US Government (US DoD and US SOUTHCOM) should embed WPS discussions in all engagements, including in all security and military senior leader engagements. They should also incentivize women’s participation in any externally funded training programs they provide to regional partners by requiring that a certain percentage of military and police women participate in the training.

Concluding Remarks

It has been twenty years since UNSCR 1325 was unanimously adopted by the UN Security Council.

In the subsequent years, there has been slow but steady progress in realizing the purpose and intent of 1325. Many nations around the world, and six in Latin America and the Caribbean, have adopted WPS National Action Plans.

The concepts and terms gender balance, gender perspective and gender mainstreaming are better understood and becoming embedded within the operational activities of security institutions. Nations that are further along with gender mainstreaming have begun to realize the value of adopting a gender perspective to achieve better security outcomes. That said, normative thinking and behavior on complex social issues is slow to change, but change does happen. It requires concerted, continuous and systematic efforts by all.

Lastly, the success of gender mainstreaming efforts is closely related to the involvement of civil society. Global studies have shown that the most successful WPS NAPs are those that have the active involvement of civil society organization at every step of the way. This finding is not surprising, since gender mainstreaming is ultimately about debunking regressive gender stereotypes that exist within our societies.

References

1. Gender Equality, WPS and NAPs

Boutron, Camille, “Engendering Peacebuilding: The International Gender Nomenclature of Peace Politics and Women’s Participation in the Columbian Peace Process,” Journal of Peacebuilding and Development, Vol. 13, No. 2 (2018), pp. 115 – 121.

Davies, Sara E. and Jacqui True, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Women, Peace and Security (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019).

De Jonge Oudraat, Chantal and Michael E. Brown, The Gender and Security Agenda: Strategies for the 21st Century (London: Routledge, 2020).

Drumond, Paula and Tamya Rebelo, 1325 and Beyond: Moving Forward the WPS Agenda in Latin America, WIIS Policy Brief (July 2020).

Drumond, Paula and Tamya Rebelo, “Global Pathways or Local Spins? National Action Plans in South America,” International Feminist Journal of Politics, Vol. 22, No. 4 (2020), pp. 462 – 484.

Drumond, Paula and Tamya Rebelo, Implementing the “Women, Peace and Security” Agenda in Brazil: An Assessment of the National Action Plan, Strategic Paper 31 (Rio de Janeiro: Igarapé Institute, August 2019).

Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), Regional Report on the Review of the Beijing Declaration and Platform of Action in Latin American and Caribbean Countries (Santiago: United Nations, 2019).

Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), Gender Equality Observatory for Latin America and the Caribbean, Gender Equality Plans in Latin America and the Caribbean: Road Maps for Development, Studies 1 (Santiago: United Nations January 2019).

Folly, Maiara and Giannini Renata, Achieving Gender Equality: Best Practices for the Implementation of the Women, Peace and Security Agenda, Igarapé Institute Strategic Note (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: Igarapé, March 2017).

Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security and Peace Research Institute Oslo, Women, Peace and Security Index 2019/2020: Tracking Sustainable Peace Through Inclusion, Justice, and Security for Women, (Washington D.C., USA; GIWPS and PRIO, 2019).

Giannini, Renata and Perola Pereira, Building Brazil’s National Action Plan: Lessons Learned and Opportunities, LSE Centre for Women, Peace and Security Working Paper Series, (London, UK; London School of Economics and Political Science, 2020).

Giannini, Renata et al., A agenda sobre mulheres, paz e segurança no contexto latino-americano: desafios e oportunidades, Igarapé Institute Strategic Article (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: Igarapé, March 2018).

Hamilton, Caitlin et al, Twenty Years of Women, Peace and Security National Action Pland: Analysis and Lessons Learned (Sydney: University of Sydney, March 2020).

Humanas Colombia, 20 Años Exigiendo que el Gobierno Colombiano se conecte con la Paz y la Seguridad de las Mujeres, (Bogotá, Colombia: Humanas, July 2020).

Jacevic, Mirsad Niki, “WPS, States and the National Action Plans,” in Sara E. Davies and Jacqui True, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Women, Peace and Security (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019), pp. 273 – 292.

Kurtenbach, Sabine, “The Limits of Peace in Latin America,” Peacebuilding, Vol. 7, No. 3, (2019), pp. 283 – 296.

Marchetti, Ximena Gauche, “Planes de Acción Nacional sobre Mujeres, Paz y Seguridad: Experiencias Comparadas y Proyecciones para el Caso Chileno,” Revista de Derecho, Vol. 30 No. 2 (2017), pp. 203 – 223.

Marín Carvajal, Isabela and Eduardo Álvarez-Vanegas, “Securing Participation and Protection in Peace Agreements: The Case of Colombia”, in Sara E. Davies and Jacqui True, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Women, Peace and Security (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019), pp. 461 – 474.

Meyer Mcaleese, Mary K., “WPS and the Organization of American States,” in Sara E. Davies and Jacqui True, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Women, Peace and Security (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019), pp. 413 – 427.

Swaine, Aisling, “Globalising Women, Peace and Security: Trends in National Action,” in Rethinking National Action Plans on Women, Peace and Security, edited by Sahla Aroussi (Amsterdam: IOS Press, 2017), pp. 7 – 27.

Urrutia Arestizábal, Pamela; Ana Villelas Ariño y María Villegas Ariño, Seguridad Feminista: Aportaciones Conceptuales y Desarrollo Actual, (Barcelona: Institut Catalá Internacional per la Pau, 2020).

Unión Nacional de Mujeres Guatemaltecas, Por una Vida Plena con Libertad, Justicia y Paz: Consulta Latinoamericana para el Estudio Mundial sobre la Implementación de la Resolución 1325, (Ciudad de Guatemala, Guatemala; UNAMG, May 2015).

Velasco Ugalde, Ana Laura, UNSCR1325 and the WPS Agenda: A Feminist Response to Authoritarianism, WIIS Policy Brief (June 2020).

Women In International Security, 1325 and Beyond: Winning Essays, (Washington, DC: WIIS, 2020)

NAPs can be accessed at https://wwww.peacewomen.org and https:// www.wpsnaps.org

2. Women in the Military and Peacekeeping

Abdenur, Adrina Erthal, Enhancing Peacekeeping Training Through Cooperation: Lessons from Latin America, Policy Brief (Rio de Janeiro: Igarape Institute, June 2018).

Baldwin, Gretchen and Sarah Taylor, Uniformed Women in Peace Operations: challenging Assumptions and Transforming Approaches (New York: International Peace Institute, June 2020).

De Jonge Oudraat, Chantal, et al, Gender Mainstreaming: Indicators for the Implementation of UNSCR

1325 and its Related Resolutions – The 1325 Scorecard: Preliminary Findings (Brussels: NATO, 2015). For a description of the NATO project and the country scorecard reports see https://www.wiisglobal. org/programs/unscr-1325-nato/

Donadio, Marcela and Cecilia Mazzota, La Mujer en las instituciones armadas y policiales: Resolución 1325 y Operaciones de Paz en América Latina, (Buenos Aires: RESDAL, 2009).

Donadio, Marcela et al, Women in the Armed Forces and Police Forces: Resolution 1325 and Peace Operations in Latin America (Buenos Aires: RESDAL, 2010).

Egnell, Robert, et al, Gender, Military Effectiveness and Organizational Change: The Swedish Model (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2014).

Esparza, Diego; Santiago Arca Henon & Hope Dewell Gentry, “Peacekeeping and civil–military relations in Uruguay,” Defense & Security Analysis, Vol. 36 No. 3 (2020), pp. 314-334.

Ghittoni, Marta, Lea Lehouck and Callum Watson, Elsie Initiative for Women in Peace Operations:

Baseline Study ( Geneva: DECAF, July 2018).

Giannini, Renata; Maiara Folly and Mariana Lima, Situações Extraordinárias: a inclusão de mulheres na linha de frente das forças armadas, Igarapé Institute Strategic Article (Rio de Janeiro: Igarape Institute, August 2017).

Hardt, Heidi and Stefanie von Hlatky, “NATO’s About-Face: Adaptation to Gender mainstreaming in an Alliance Setting,” Journal of Global Security Studies, Vol. 5, No.1 (2020), pp. 136-159.

Haring, Ellen, “Gender and Military Organizations” in Chantal de Jonge Oudraat and Michael E. Brown, eds., The Gender and Security Agenda: Strategies for the 21^st Century (London: Routledge, 2020), pp. 90 – 112.

Hurley, Matthew, “Watermelons and Weddings: Making Women, Peace and Security ‘Relevant: at NATO Through (Re)Telling Stories of Success,” Global Society, Vol. 32, No. 4 (2018), pp. 436-456.

Jenne, Nicole, “Civilianizing the armed forces? Peacekeeping, a traditional mission for the military,” Defence Studies, Vol. 20 No. 2 (2020), pp. 105 – 122.

Jenne, Nicole and Fiorella Ulloa Bisshopp, “Female Peacekeepers: UNSC Resolution 1325 and the Persistence of Gender Stereotypes in the Chilean Armed Forces,” International Peacekeeping (October 14, 2020).

Karim, Sabrina and Kyle Beardsley, Equal Opportunity Peacekeeping: Women, Peace and Security in PostConflict States (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017).

Perera, Fabiana Sofia; and Lieutenant Colonel Duilia Mora Turner, eds., Twenty Years, Twenty Stories: Women, Peace and Security in the Western Hemisphere (Washington, DC: William J. Perry Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies, 2020).

Masson, Laura, Militares Argentinas: Evaluación de Políticas de Género en el Ámbito de la Defensa, (Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires: Universidad de la Defensa Nacional, 2020)

Newby, Vanessa F and Clotilde Sebag, “Gender Sidestreaming? Analyzing Gender Mainstreaming in National Militaries and International Peacekeeping,” European Journal of International Security (November, 2020), pp. 1-23.

Nordic Centre for Gender in Military Operations (NCGM), A Military Guide to the United Nations Security Council Resolutions on Women, Peace and Security, (Stockholm, Sweden; NCGM, April 2020)

Nordic Centre for Gender in Military Operations, Whose Security? Practical Examples of Gender Perspectives in Military Operations (Stockholm: Nordic Centre for Military Operations, 2015).

Razakamaharavo, Velomahaniha T., Luise Ryan and Leah Sherwood, Improving Gender Training in UN Peacekeeping Operations, WIIS Policy Brief (Washington, DC: WIIS, February 2018).

Wilén, Nina, “Female Peacekeepers’ Added Burden,” International Affairs, Vol. 96 No. 6, (November 2020), pp. 1585 – 1602.

3. Useful listservs and websites

Geneva Centre for Security Sector Governance (DCAF), https://www.dcaf.ch,

Igarape Institute, https://igarape.org.br/temas/consolidacao-da-paz/

London School of Economics Centre for Women, Peace and Security, https://www.lse.ac.uk/women peace-security/research/Rethinking-Policy-Advocacy-Implementation

NATO, Allied Command Transformation – Gender Advisor. The website contains on-line education and training modules and toolkits, https://www.act.nato.int/gender-advisor

Pass Blue Women, press agency, https://www.passblue.com/category/women/

Red de Seguridad y Defensa de America Latina, https://www.resdal.org/

UN Women, https://www.unwomen.org/es

UN Peacekeeping, Department of Peace Operations, https://peacekeeping.un.org/es/department-of peace-operations

WILPF’s Women, Peace and Security, https://www.peacewomen.org/

Women In International Security, https://www.wiisglobal.org/wiis-wps-scorecard-security-forces-in latin-america/

The WomenStats Project at www.womanstats.org

Women’s UN Report Network, listserve (also in Spanish, Portuguese, French), https://wunrn.com/

WPS National Action Plans, https://www.wpsnaps.org/

About the Authors

Dr. Chantal de Jonge Oudraat is President of Women In International Security (WIIS) since February 2013. She has held senior positions at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI)

North America; the US Institute of Peace; Center for Transatlantic Relations, Paul H. Nitze School of

Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University; Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, DC; and the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR) in Geneva. Dr. de Jonge Oudraat has published extensively on a wide array of international security issues. She is co-editor with Dr. Michael E. Brown of The Gender and Security Agenda: Strategies for the 21st Century (London: Routledge, July 2020). De Jonge Oudraat received her PhD in Political Science from the University of Paris II (Panthéon).

Dr. Ellen Haring is a Senior Fellow at Women In International Security where she directs the Combat Integration Initiative. She is the former CEO of the Service Women’s Action Network. Haring’s research and work focuses on women and gender in the military. She is a West Point graduate and a retired US Army colonel. She holds a PhD in Conflict Analysis and Resolution from George Mason University, and she has taught at the US Army Command and General Staff College, the US Army War College and Georgetown University. Haring has published numerous articles and papers on a wide array of military and security-related topics. She guest lectures, has testified before Congress as a subject matter expert, and has been a guest speaker on foreign and domestic news shows.

Dr. Diorella Islas Limiñana is a Fellow at Women In International Security and an independent security consultant on intelligence, transnational criminal organizations and national security policies. She is Adjunct Faculty member in the Countering Transnational Organized Crime (CTOC) program at the George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies in Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany. She has worked as a consultant for the Royal United Service Institute in London, and as a security analyst at the Center for Information and National Security in Mexico City. She holds a PhD in Politics, Languages and International Studies from the University of Bath and a MA and a BA from Tec de

Monterrey, Mexico City Campus. She has taught at the Bader International Study Center of Queens University and delivered guest lectures at different universities and organizations around the world.

Ana Velasco is a Fellow at Women In International Security and a Researcher at Observatorio Nacional Ciudadano, a leading Mexican NGO focused on issues of security and justice. Previously, she worked as an international news reporter in Mexico, and she has held a diplomatic position for the Mexican Secretariat of Economy in Germany. Velasco is the winner of the “1325 and Beyond” international essay competition organized by WIIS and the Heinrich Böll Stiftung. She recently finished a MA in Gender, Violence and Conflict at the University of Sussex with Distinction, and she is about to start her PhD in International Relations at the same institution.

Project Participants*

Aguirre, Johanna (Panama)

Almeida, Katherine (Dominican Republic)

Aquino, Massiel (Dominican Republic)

Arboleda, Naomi (Dominican Republic)

Argueta, Ann Marie (Guatemala)

Arias, Jeannette (Costa Rica)

Baez Racalde, Maria Gloria (Paraguay)

Baires, Emily (Guatemala)

Balcazar, Mauel (Mexico)

Barriga Abarca, Lourdes Aurelia (Peru)

Barrios, Silvana (Argentina)

Beltran Del Portillo, Maria Fernanda (Colombia)

Broce, Rosa (Panama)

Canto, Maria Belen (Argentina)

Capellan, Belgica (Dominican Republic)

Cardenas Hidalgo, Maria Andrea (Ecuador)

Cerdas, Loreley (Costa Rica)

Chaves, Andrea (Argentina)

Colon, Victor (USA)

Cordon, Mireya (Colombia)

Dantas, Stela (Brazil)

Davila Calderon, Martha Jenneth (Colombia)

De Anda Martinez, Erika (USA)

Depaz, Leidy (Peru)

Donadio, Marela (Argentina)

Drumond, Paula (Brazil)

Espaillat, José Rafael (Dominican Republic)

Ferreira Costa, Ivana Mara (Brazil)

Ferreto, Yorleny (Costa Rica)

Fischer, Andrea (Chile)

Flores, Nancy (Guatemala)

Fundora, Cristobal (Panama)

Galan Paniagua, Sonia Maria (Guatemala)

Giannini, Renata (Brazil)

Gil Rosado, Maria Teresa (Dominican Republic)

Gonzalez, Pedro (Chile)

Henandez, Francia (Dominican Republic)

Hernandez, Brianna (USA)

Hormazábal, Javiera (Chile)

Ignacio, Mercedes (Dominican Republic)

Islas, Diorella (México)

Jarpa, Carolina (Chile)

Jeremias da Silva, Jessika Kelly (Brazil) Jiménez Morales, Karen (Costa Rica)

Jorge, Ramon (Dominican Republic) Justynski,

Ashley (USA)

Lancaster-Ellis, Karen (USA)

Layman, Matthew (USA)

Lopez Portillo, Ernesto (Mexico)

Made, Dominga (Dominican Republic) Manes,

Amb. Jean (USA)

Marcial, Cynthia (Argentina)

Marulanda Castano, Diana Marcela (Brazil)

McCann, Elizabeth (USA)

Méndez, Elvira (Panama)

Mendoza Cortes, Paloma (Mexico)

Miranda Vargas, Inaraquel (USA)

Montenegro, Nadia (Panama)

Ortiz, Nereyda (USA)

Otto, Fomina (Chile)

Pacheco, Gloria (Costa Rica)

Pagtakhan, Elisabet (USA)

Paredes Escobar, Byron Gabriel (Ecuador)

Parra, Veronica (Chile)

Pena, Elisama (Dominican Republic)

Perera, Fabiana (USA)

Placencia Almonte, Albania (Dominican Republic)

Porras, Silvia (Costa Rica)

Ramirez Herrera, Carolina (Dominican Republic)

Rebelo, Tamya (Brazil)

Rey Pinto, Eva María (Colombia)

Reynoso Barrera, Jonas (Dominican Republic)

Rivas, Reina Margarita (Colombia)

Rodriguez-Acosta, Cristina (USA)

Rogers, Rhea (Belize)

Rojas, Valeska (Chile)

Rojas Ballestero, Fiorella Andrea (Costa Rica)

Sahid Garnica, German (Colombia)

Salguero, Miguel (Argentina)

Sanabria, Diana (Ecuador)

Sancho, Carolina (Chile)

Sanjines, Karen (Jamaica)

Santolalla, Guillermo (USA)

Santos, Maria Dolores (Ecuador)

Seron, Christian (Chile)

Silva Freire, Maria Eduarda Laryssa (Brazil)

Sprinkle, Abby (USA)

Suarez, Hilda (Argentina)

Summers, Becky (USA)

Talamoni, Ana Florencia (Argentina)

Turner, Duilia (USA)

Typrowicz, Jennifer (USA)

Russ, Sarah (USA)

Velasco-Ugalde, Ana (Mexico)

Villalba, Laura (USA)

Volia, Zoila (Costa Rica) Weiss, Cornelia (USA)

Williams, Dianna (USA)

* Project participants includes those who participated in at least one of our workshops and/or our country research teams.

[1] In this project we are examining military forces and national police forces (police that operate at the national level not at the local or municipal level).

[2] The methodology was developed by Women In International Security (WIIS) in the context of a NATO sponsored project that sought to assess how well NATO member and partner states had integrated the principles of gender equality and the WPS agenda in their military institutions and operations. See Chantal de Jonge Oudraat et al., Gender Mainstreaming: Indicators for the Implementation of UNSCR 1325 and its Related Resolutions- the 1325 Scorecard: Preliminary Findings (Brussels: NATO, 2015).

[3] See Executive Order, Instituting a National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security (Washington, DC: The White House, December 19, 2011). This Plan was subsequently updated in June 2016.

[4] See Women, Peace and Security Act of 2017, Public Law 115-68-October 6, 2017 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2017).

[5] See US Strategy on Women, Peace and Security (Washington, DC: White House, 2019).

[6] See US DOD, Women, Peace, and Security: Strategic Framework and Implementation Plan (Washington, DC: US DoD, June 2020), p.7.

[7] Ibid.

[8] See Chantal de Jonge Oudraat et al., Gender Mainstreaming: Indicators for the Implementation of UNSCR 1325 and its Related Resolutions – The 1325 Scorecard: Preliminary Findings (Brussels: NATO, 2015). For a description of the NATO project and our country scorecard reports, see: https://www.wiisglobal.org/programs/unscr-1325-nato/.

[9] The term “police” in this tool does not include local or municipal police. The police agencies that are included are those police agencies that also send police officers to UN peacekeeping operations.

[10] For more see wiisglobal.org.

[11] This is a statement that has also been recognized and subscribed to by the US Department of Defense. See US DOD, Women, Peace and Security (2020), p.10.

[12] In the Southern Hemisphere the legal framework for human rights even predates the UDHR. The American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, (adopted in May 1948 in Bogota, Columbia) was the first human rights instrument that recognized equal rights for all people. It was followed in 1969 by the American Convention on Human Rights. The 1969 American Convention on Human Rights requires states to adopt domestic legislation to give effect to these rights.

[13] They were particularly important in integrating Human Rights in the UN Charter and the UDHR.

[14] For more see Marcela Donadio et al., Women in The Armed and Police Forces: Resolution 1325 and Peace Operations in Latin America (Buenos Aires: RESDAL, 2010). More generally see also Ellen Haring, “Gender and Military Organizations” in Chantal de Jonge Oudraat and Michael E. Brown, eds., The Gender and Security Agenda: Strategies for the 21^st Century (London: Routledge, 2020), pp. 90 – 112.

[15] In October 2015, the UN Security Council, in Resolution 2242, called for the doubling of the number of female peacekeepers (military and police) within five years. In August 2020, the UN Security Council also adopted Resolution 2538 which recognized “the indispensable role of women in increasing the overall performance and effectiveness of peacekeeping operations.” It also stressed the need to increase the participation of uniformed women in peacekeeping operations.

[16] In 2013, CEDAW adopted General Recommendation 30 on women in conflict prevention, conflict, and post-conflict situations. This strengthened the links between the WPS agenda and CEDAW.

[17] NATO/EAPC Women, Peace and Security Policy and Action Plan, 2018. NATO committed to the three “I”s: Integration: making sure that gender equality is considered as an integral part of NATO policies, programs, and projects guided by effective gender mainstreaming practices; Inclusiveness: promoting an increased representation of women across NATO and in national forces to enhance operational effectiveness and success; and Integrity: enhancing accountability with the intent to increase awareness and implementation of the WPS agenda in accordance with international frameworks.”

[18] See Mary K. Meyer Mcaleese, “WPS and the Organization of American States,” in Sara E. Davies and Jacqui True, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Women, Peace and Security (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019), pp. 413 – 427.

[19] See, for example, Paula Drumond and Tamya Rebelo, “Global Pathways or Local Spins? National Action Plans in South America,” International Feminist Journal of Politics, Vol. 22, No. 4 (2020), pp. 462 – 484; See also Donadio, Women in the Armed and Police Forces (2010). In 2019 Brazilian Navy Lieutenant Commander Marcia Braga received the UN Military Gender Advocate of the Year award for her work in the UN operation in the Central African Republic.

[20] See Drumond and Rebelo, Global Pathways or Local Spins?

[21] See for example, Fabiana Sofia Perera and Lieutenant Colonel Duilia Mora Turner, eds., Twenty Years, Twenty Stories: Women, Peace and Security in the Western Hemisphere (Washington, DC: William J. Perry Center for Hemsipheric Defense Studies, 2020). See also Nordic Centre for Gender in Military Operations, Whose Security? Practical Examples of Gender Perspectives in Military Operations (Stockholm: Nordic Centre for Military Operations, 2015).

[22] See Renata Avelar Giannini et al., A agenda sobre mulheres, paz e segurança no contexto latino-americano: desafios e oportunidades, Hemisphere (Rio de Janeiro, Brasil: Instituto Igarapé, March 2018). 12 See, for example, studies by the McKinsey Institute and the World Economic Forum.

[23] For many practical examples see Nordic Centre for Gender in Military Operations, Whose Security? Practical Examples of Gender Perspectives in Military Operations (Stockholm: Nordic Centre for Military Operations, 2015).

[24] The UN’s 2028 target for women in military contingents is 15% and 25% for military observers and staff officers. The 2028 target for women serving in formed police units is 20% and 30% for individual police officers. In 2020, women constitute 4.8% of military contingents and 10.9 % of formed police units in UN peacekeeping missions. See Peackeeping.un.org.

[25] Cited in Chantal de Jonge Oudraat et al., Gender Mainstreaming: Indicators for the Implementation of UNSCR 1325 and its Related Resolutions – The 1325 Scorecard: Preliminary Findings (Brussels: NATO, 2015), p. 7.

[26] This definition is based on the UN ECOSOC definition of 1997. See also Helene Lackenbauer and Richard Langlais, eds., Review of the Practical Implications of UNSCR 1325 for the Conduct of NATO-led Operations and Missions (Stockholm: Swedish Defense Research Agency (FOA), 2013), p. 55.

[27] See UN Women website unwomen.org “Gender Mainstreaming.”

[28] For example, in the United States and Brazil, the WPS agenda and gender equality efforts were not supported by the Donald J. Trump and Jair Bolsonaro administrations. Yet in both cases, the WPS agenda had gained some champions within the foreign affairs and defense establishments. These establishments had also put in place certain processes to integrate gender perspectives. Together, the champions and the institutional processes were able to safeguard some of the efforts that had been started before the advent of the new administrations. In addition, in the United States the US Congress had adopted the WPS Act in 2017, which had broad bi-partisan support. It was a big factor in safeguarding some of the WPS capacities that had been developed earlier. The Act also allowed the expansion of WPS activities in the military with regard to training and the appointment of GENADs in the Combatant Commands. The US Congress even set aside some money for the latter.

[29] See de Jonge Oudraat et al, Gender Mainstreaming (2015), p. 10-11.

[30] See scorecard template in Annex 2 and the scoring protocol in Annex 3.

[31] See country scorecards and narrative reports at the WIIS website (provide link here).

[32] See ECLAC, Regional Report on the Review of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action in Latin America and Caribbean countries, 25 years on, LC/CRM.14.4 (Santiago: United Nations, 2019).

[33] See IDEA, Gender Quotas Database (Stockholm: IDEA @idea.int).

[34] See ECLAC, Regional Report on the Review of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action in Latin America and Caribbean countries, 25 years on, LC/CRM.14.4 (Santiago: United Nations, 2019), p. 17.

[35] See Ellen Haring, “Gender and Military Organizations” in Chantal de Jonge Oudraat and Michael E. Brown, The Gender and Security Agenda: Strategies for the 21^st Century (London: Routledge, 2020), p. 90.

[36] Nicole Jenne and Fiorella Ulloa Bisshopp, “Female Peacekeepers: UNSC Resolution 1325 and the Persistence of Gender Stereotypes in the Chilean Armed Forces,” International Peacekeeping, (October 14, 2020), p. 21.

[37] For strategies to increase women’s participation in national military organizations, see Haring, “Gender and Military Organizations.”

[38] See Georgetown Institute for Women Peace and Security and the Peace Research Institute Oslo, The WPS Index 2020 (Washington, DC: GIWPS, 2020); Oxfam and Development Finance International, Fighting Inequality in the Time of Covid-19:

The Commitment to Reducing Inequality Index 2020 (Oxford: Oxfam, 2020).

[39] Costa Rica is unique in the region as one of only a few countries with no military. It was assessed based on the security provided by the national police.

[40] See Paula Drumond and Tamya Rebelo, “Global Pathways or Local Spins? National Action Plans in South America,” International Feminist Journal of Politics, Vol. 22, No. 4 (2020), pp. 462 – 484.

[41] For more general analysis of NAPs globally see Caitlin Hamilton, Nyibeny Naam and Laura J. Shepherd, Twenty Years of Women, Peace and Security National Action Plans: Analysis and Lessons Learned (Sydney: Sydney University, March 2020). 32 Drumond and Rebelo, “Global Pathways or Local Spins?” p. 1. See also Paula Drumond and Tamya Rebelo, 1325 and Beyond:

Moving Forward the WPS Agenda in Latin America, WIIS Policy Brief (July 2020); and

Ana Laura Velasco Ugalde, UNSCR1325 and the WPS Agenda: A Feminist Response to Authoritarianism, WIIS Policy Brief (June 2020), p. 1. Velasco notes the Covid-19 crisis and the call for staying at home has exposed the violence at home.

[42] Cited in Drumond and Rebelo, Global Pathways or Local Spins? p. 12. See also Paula Drumond and Tamya Rebelo, 1325 and Beyond: Moving Forward the WPS Agenda in Latin America, WIIS Policy Brief (July 2020).

[43] Ibid.

[44] For more on Brazil’s NAP see Renata Avelar Giannini and Perola Abrue Pereira, Building Brazil’s National Action Plan: Lessons

Learned and Opportunities (London: LSE, March 3, 2020 – blog); Paula Drumond and Tamya Rebelo, Implementing the “Women,

Peace and Security” Agenda in Brazil: An Assessment of the National Action Plan, Strategic Paper 31 (Rio de Janeiro: Igarape Institute, August 2019). See also https://igarape.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/2019-07-31_AE-31_Women-Peace-andSecurity-National-Action-Plan.pdf.

[45] Argentine NAP: p. 10. Government of Argentina, National Action Plan of the Argentine Republic for the Implementation of Resolution Nº1325/2000 of the Security Council of the United Nations. (Argentina, 2015) at: https://www.peacewomen.org/ sites/default/files/Argentina%20NAP%202015%20(English).pdf and see the Spanish version at: http://servicios.infoleg.gob.ar/ infolegInternet/anexos/250000-254999/252151/Dto1895.pdf. 37 Today Argentina leads the region in WPS implementation.

[46] See UN Secretary General, Departmental Focal Points for Women in the Secretariat, ST/SGB?2008/12 (New York: United Nations, August 1, 2008). See also UN Women, Gender Focal Points and Focal Points for Women @ unwomen.org; and United Nations, Department of Peacekeeping Operations, Policy: Gender Responsive United Nations Peacekeeping Operations (New York: United Nations, February 1, 2018).

[47] RESDAL obtained much of its data through freedom of information mechanisms. See Marcela Donadio et al., Women in the

Armed Forces and Police in Latin America: Agender Approach to Peace Operations (Buenos Aires: RESDAL, 2010). See Renata Avilar Giannini, Maiara Folly and Mariana Fonseca Lima, Situacoes extraordinarias a entrada de mulheres na linha de frente das Forcas Armadas brasileiras (Rio de Janieri: Igarapé Institute: 2017). We do not know to what extent the US government is collecting data on the number of women in military forces around the world and how it applies that data to its International Military Training and Education (IMET) programs.

[48] The US DoD tracks the incidence rate of sexual harassment and assault in the ranks and publishes annual reports on their Sexual and Prevention Website. This is a Congressionally mandated annual requirement. https://www.sapr.mil/. See also Government of Canada, 2019 Sexual Misconduct Incident Tracking Report https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national defence/corporate/reports-publications/sexual-misconduct-tracking-report.html . In Australia, the Chief of the Army came out strongly against sexual harassment and abuse. See Australia’s Chief of the Army addresses to soldiers on sexual assault in the ranks. https://vimeo.com/71028162.

[49] Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Guatemala, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay. See Adriana Erthal Abdenur, Enhancing Peacekeeping Training Through Cooperation: Lessons from Latin America, Policy Brief (Rio de Janeiro: Igarape Institute, June 2018).

[50] See Humanas Colombia, 20 Años Exigiendo que el Gobierno Colombiano se conecte con la Paz y la Seguridad de las Mujeres, Pronunciamiento (Bogotá, Colombia: Humanas, July 2020) at https://www.humanas.org.co/alfa/dat_particular/arch_contenidos/ i_e_73153_q_PRONUNCIAMIENTO_R1325.pdf; Also from Humanas Colombia, see Observatorio Mujeres, Paz y Seguridad (a group actively lobbying for a WPS NAP), Cumplimiento del Estado Colombiano con la Resolución 1325 de 2000: Informe de monitoreo del año 2017 y primer semestre de 2018, (Bogotá, Colombia: Humanas, December 2018) at https://www.humanas.org. co/alfa/dat_particular/ar/ar_9042_q_R1325informe.pdf.

By Chantal de Jonge Oudraat and Soraya Kamali-Nafar

For over 30 years, Women In International Security (WIIS) has worked to advance the role of women in national and international security. While much progress has been made, the number of women occupying prominent positions in foreign and defense policy remains limited. As a result, the role of women in decisionmaking in foreign and defense policies is under-developed.

Indeed, while women constitute 40 percent of the Foreign Service officer corps, they hold only one-third of the chief of mission positions.¹ Women make up 33 percent of the Department of Defense civilian staff and 18 percent of the DOD active duty officer corps, and they remain grossly under-represented at the highest ranks—less than 8 percent have the rank of general or flag officer.²

Women also remain under-represented as expert commentators in the media. Women accounted for just 24 percent of foreign affairs and national security experts invited to speak on major political talk shows.³ Manels— that is, event panels with only men—remain common in the United States, including in Washington, DC.⁴

The lack of women in prominent positions in the foreign policy and national and international security establishments In 2000, the UN Security Council adopted resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security, which recognized the importance of the role of women in matters related to international peace and security.⁷ In 2011, the US rolled out a US National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security, and in November 2017, the US Congress adopted the Women, Peace and Security Act, which posited that “the United States should be a global leader in promoting the meaningful participation of women in conflict prevention, management and resolution, and post-conflict relief and recovery efforts.”⁸

Think tanks play an important role in shaping foreign and defense policy agendas. Think tank experts shape these agendas by moving in and out of many critical positions in the US government and by participating in policy debates in the media.

Many think tanks have recognized the importance of diversifying their staff and recruiting and retaining more women.⁹ Many have in recent years added programs highlighting women in the field (see below). Unfortunately, many think tanks continue to suffer from significant gender gaps. First, only 32 percent of the national and international security think tanks are headed by a woman.

is surprising since for over a decade more than 60 percent of those enrolled in graduate programs (masters and doctoral programs) in the social and behavorial sciences (including political science and international relations) have been women.⁵ The 7,000-member International Studies Association (ISA), the professional association for scholars, practitioners, and graduate students in the field of international studies, has 43 percent female membership. Amongst its graduate student members, women are in the majority.⁶

Figure 1: Heads of Washington, DC Think Tanks

Figure 2: Average % of Experts in Washington, DC

Think Tanks by Gender

Figure 3: Average % of Governing Board Members of

Washington, DC Think Tanks by Gender

Second, on average only 27 percent of expert staff are women. Only 3 out of 22 think tanks (14 percent) have achieved gender parity within their expert staff. Third, only 22 percent of think tank governing boards are women. Finally, only one think tank has integrated gender in its programs.

Since 2007, the Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program (TTCSP) of the University of Pennsylvania has published an annual Global Go To Think Tank Index Report. The report measures the roles think tanks play in governments and civil societies around the world. It does so by ranking think tanks in a variety of categories, including top think tanks by region and areas of research.¹⁰

*Table 1:* Washnigton, DC Think Tanks with Women at the Helm
Center for American Progress (CAP)	Ms. Neera Tanden, President and CEO	2011
Center for a New American Security (CNAS)	Ms. Victoria Nuland, CEO	2018
German Marshall Fund (GMF)	Dr. Karen Donfried, President	2014
Heritage Foundation	Ms. Kay Coles James, President	2017
New America	Dr. Anne-Marie Slaugther, President and CEO	2013
US Institute of Peace (USIP)	Ms. Nancy Lindborg, President and CEO	2015
Wilson Center for International Scholars	Ms. Jane Harman, President and CEO	2011

Unfortunately, the Global Go To Think Tank Index Report does not consider how gender balances or gender programming influence these roles. In sum, up until now there has not been a systematic effort to collect data on the gender balances within the major thinks tanks active in national and international security arena.¹¹ Nor has there been a systematic effort to survey the programs of think tanks to see how gender is integrated into them.

The WIIS Gender Scorecard: Washington, DC Think Tanks fills this gap by presenting data with regard to the gender balance of 22 major think tanks that work on foreign policy and national and international security issues and are based in the Washington, DC area. We also present information about the gender and women’s programs within these think tanks.

This scorecard is part of a broader WIIS initiative to promote the integration of gender perspectives into national and international security agendas.¹² Indeed, we believe that gender perspectives are insufficiently integrated into analyses of national and international security challenges.¹³ An important step in the right direction is to achieve gender parity at the level of the expert staffs. In addition, we believe that it is important to achieve gender parity at the level of the governing boards of thinks tanks. Indeed, boards of directors and trustees have judiciary responsibilities for the governance of thinks tanks, they oversee think tank activities, and help set the strategic direction. Without leadership from the top, gender gaps will remain.¹⁴

By publishing this scorecard, we hope to stimulate discussions within the think tanks on how to close the gender gaps on their expert staffs and governing boards. We also hope to stimulate a broader discussion about the importance of gender when examining important international security challenges. We believe that a more diverse staff within think tanks, as well as more diverse governing boards, will stimulate innovative and better approaches to critical national and international security challenges and help to make the world a better place.

Scoring the Tanks

The scorecard reviews think tanks along four main axes:

percentage of women that lead the think tanks;

percentage of women experts in the think tank’s foreign policy and national and international security programs;

percentage of women in the governing bodies of the think tanks.

number of think tanks with significant commitment to gender and/or women’s programming.

Heads of Think Tanks

Of the 22 institutions surveyed, only seven (32 percent) are led by women – the Center for American Progress, the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), the German

Marshall Fund (GMF), the Heritage Foundation, New America, the US Institute of Peace (USIP), and the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars.

Experts

Only three think tanks—the Stimson Center, the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI), and the US Institute of Peace (USIP) —have reached gender parity at the level of their expert staff.

On average, only 27 percent of the expert staff of Washington, DC thinks tanks surveyed are women.

Figure 4: % of Women Experts in Washington, DC Think Tanks

51 50 49

Governing Boards

The gender gap is particularly stark at the level of the governing boards. No think tank has achieved gender parity. The Institute for Policy Studies and the Aspen Institute come closest, with 44 percent and 43 percent women, respectively.

On average, only 22 percent of the Board of Directors or Trustees are composed of women.

Gender or Women’s Programming

Most Washington, DC think tanks do not consider the role of gender in national and international security. For many in the traditional security think tank community—men and women—gender is often equated with “women” or a “woman’s point of view.” A 2016 survey by the New America

Foundation found that the majority of US policymakers and elites had little knowledge and understanding of gender. Most equated gender with women. If at all open to the idea of a gender

Figure 5: % of Women on Governing Boards of Washington, DC Think Tanks _{widespread within the DC foreign}policy and security think tank

*Table 2:* % of Women Experts in Washington, DC Think Tanks
Rank	Think Tank	% of Women
1	Stimson Center	51%
2	Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI)	50%
3	US Institute of Peace (USIP)	49%
4	Institute for Policy Studies (IPS)	44%
5	RAND Corporation	40%
6	Center for a New American Security (CNAS)	37%
7	Wilson Center for International Scholars	34%
8	New America	33%
9	Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS)	30%
10	Atlantic Council Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP) Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)	29%
13	CATO Institute German Marshall Fund (GMF)	27%
15	Brookings Institution	26%
16	Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC)	24%
17	Heritage Foundation	22%
18	American Enterprise Institute (AEI)	21%
19	Aspen Institute	20%
20	Lexington Institute	17%
21	Center for American Progress (CAP)	16%
22	Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA)	13%

the programming center on gender to the front office and began mainstreaming gender throughout its work in 2015, most notably in its field projects and programs. Since 2016, USIP has had a director for gender policy and strategy that oversees and advises all programs on gender. The director sits in the Policy, Learning and Strategy Center, which reports directly to USIP’s president.

None of the other think tanks have integrated gender into their national and international security programming. Most other think tanks have separate programs that have a focus on women, rather than gender. A few think tanks work on the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda, but most of that work is not integrated into their other national or international security programs.¹⁶

Think tanks with notable programs on women and/or the WPS agenda include the following:¹⁷

The Center for a New American Security (CNAS) launched a Women In National Security program in 2014.

The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) launched a Smart Women, Smart Power Program in December 2014 and a Women’s Global Leadership Program in 2015.

The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) has a Women and Foreign Policy Program and a Women and Foreign Policy Program Advisory Council founded in 2002.

New America started work on the WPS agenda in its Better Life Lab and Political Reform Program.

The RAND Corporation has a webpage called Rand Women

To Watch. It also has programs on Gender Equity in the Workplace and Gender Integration in the Military, which addresses issues related to women and transgender military personnel. In its work on Female Populations RAND addresses issues faced by women and girls, including women refugees, migrants, and gender-based and intimate partner violence.

The Woodrow Wilson Center has a Global Women’s Leadership Initiative (GWLI) (since 2012) and a Women In Public Service Project.

Most research on the WPS agenda and the intersections of women, gender, and national and international security issues is carried out outside of the foreign policy and national and international security think tank establishment by nongovernmental organizations and civil society groups. While many of these groups are active in advocacy and operational work, many also conduct research and produce policy papers. Most of these organizations are members of the US Civil Society Working Group on Women, Peace and Security (US CSWG). (see box page 6).

Table 3: % of Women on Governing Boards of Washington, DC Think Tanks

Rank Think Tank % of Women

Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) 44%

Aspen Institute 34%

Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) 31%

Wilson Center for International Scholars

Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) 29%

New America 27%

RAND Corporation

8 German Marshall Fund (GMF) 26%

Stimson Center

Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) 25%

Heritage Foundation 24% 12 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP) 23%

Center for American Progress (CAP) 22%

Brookings Institution 21%

Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI)

16 Atlantic Council 20%

US Institute of Peace (USIP)

18 CATO Institute 11% Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS)

20 Center for a New American Security (CNAS) 10%

21-22 American Enterprise Institute (AEI) 0%

Lexington Institute

Concluding Thoughts

The main security policy establishments, including think tanks, continue to be staffed and managed mostly by men.

The top 10 think tanks in the United States, as ranked by the Go To Think Tank Index Report—Brookings, CSIS, CEIP, Heritage Foundation, Wilson Center, RAND, CAP, CFR, Cato, Atlantic Council—are often not those who do best in terms of gender balance or gender programming, the Wilson Center being the exception.

While we see an increasing number of women entering the field of national and international security, their influence remains limited. Only 3 out of 22 think tanks have achieved gender parity at the level of their expert staff.

We hope that the publication of this scorecard will stimulate discussions and encourage thinks tanks to conduct a gender analysis of their organizations.¹⁸

Such an analysis should include a more fine-grained examination of the gender balance within their institutions. For example, what positions do men and women occupy within the foreign and national and international security expert positions available at the organization? How are hiring and retention policies affecting the gender imbalances? Are there gender pay gaps? Do men and women get interviewed and quoted equally? If not, why not? These discussions should include not just the human resources department, but also and most important the staff of the policy programs in question.

In addition, think tanks should examine the gender balance at their governing boards and how they can increase efforts to attract more women to the boards. Organizations, like WIIS can help think tanks identify women with the necessary expertise and experience.

A think tank gender analysis would also include an examination of how gender is integrated into the analysis of national and international security issues. Program directors should be encouraged to examine how research on women and gender can become a more integral part of their foreign policy and national security programs, instead of standalone, siloed, programs.

Change within institutions require leadership from the top. They also require that programs and program staff are held accountable. Collecting gendered data on such things as new hires, panels, and media outreach is often a first step.¹⁹

Lastly, think tanks may consider appointing a Gender Advisor (GENAD). Such advisors have been particularly useful in government settings (USAID, State and DoD) and international organizations (United Nations, NATO). When appointing GENADs, it is important to locate them in policy positions or in the think tank’s front office so that they have direct access to the leadership.

Members of the USCSWG

4Girls GLocal Leadership Alliance for Peacebuilding American Red Cross Amnesty International USA Asia Foundation Baha’is of the United States Equality Now Fuller Project for International Reporting Futures Without Violence George Washington University Center for Gender Equality in International Affairs Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace & Security Human Rights Watch Inclusive Security Institute for State Effectiveness (ISE) International Center for Research on Women (ICRW) International Civil Society Action Network (ICAN) International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES) International Republican Institute (IRI) International Research and Exchanges Board (IREX) Mina’s List / Peace is Loud National Democratic Institute Our Secure Future: Women Make the Difference PAI Peace X Peace Promundo – U.S. Protect the People Saferworld Strategy for Humanity The Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy (TIMEP) United Nations Association of the USA U.S. National Committee of UN Women Vital Voices Global Partnership WomanStats Project Women Enabled International Women for Afghan Women Women In International Security (WIIS) Women of Color Advancing Peace and Security (WCAPS) Women’s Action for New Directions (WAND) Women’s Refugee Commission Secretariat: USIP Fiscal Sponsor/Agent: WIIS

Much progress has been made with regard to gender equality. In the last two decades the number of women studying national and international affairs has grown enormously. Students (women and men) are also increasingly interested in analyzing the role of gender and gender inequalities on national and international security. Think tanks no longer have many excuses for the persisting gender gaps and the neglect of gender perspectives. In a world with increasingly complex national and international security challenges, think tanks need to appeal to broad expertise in order to advance peace and security in the 21st century.

Methodology

The WIIS Gender Scorecard: Washington, DC Think Tanks surveys 22 think tanks with a strong presence in the Washington, DC area. They all work on a broad range of international affairs and national and international security issues. Most are mentioned in the 2017 Global Go To Think Tank Index Report and/or get regular mention in the media.²⁰

This scorecard does not include university-based research institutes (e.g., the McCain Institute or the Center for Transatlantic Relations). The scorecard also excludes those think tanks focused on a specific region (e.g., the Middle East) or one functional area (e.g., migration or international economic development).

While gender can be defined and discussed as more than just women and men, this survey takes a binary approach and conducted its evaluation using women and men and based its evaluation on the names and photographs found on organizations’ websites.

Data on each of the think tanks were collected in August 2018 from the think tanks’ own websites. Experts in foreign policy, defense, and national and international security were selected based on the identification of such experts by the think tanks themselves. We did not analyze the positions of the experts. Some think tanks include junior staff; others will identify only more senior staff. Similarly, we did not distinguish between non-resident and resident experts. For each think tank, we followed the think tanks’ own identification of its experts. For the full data set, see the WIIS Gender Scorecard: Washington, DC Think Tanks Data Set – 2018 at wiisglobal.org.

*Table 4:* WIIS Gender Scorecard: Washington, DC Think Tanks in alphabetical order.
American Enterprise Institute (AEI) head: Arthur Brooks (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 21% women total: 29 6 (F) + 23 (M) Governing Board: 0% women total: 27 0 (F) +27 (M) Atlantic Council head: Fred Kempe (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 29% women total: 227 66 (F) + 161 (M) Governing Board: 20% women total: 200 39 (F) +161 (M) Aspen Institute head: Dan Porterfield (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 20% women total: 10 2 (F) + 8 (M) Governing Board: 34% women total: 77 26 (F) + 51 (M) Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) head: Jason Grumet (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 24% women total: 17 4 (F) + 13 (M) Governing Board: 29% women total: 17 5 (F) + 12 (M) Brookings Institution head: John R. Allen (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 26% women total: 109 28 (F) + 81 (M) Governing Board: 21% women total: 89 19 (F) +70 (M) Cato Institute head: Peter Goettler (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 27% women total: 11 3 (F) + 8 (M) Governing Board: 11% women total: 19 2 (F) + 17 (M) Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP) head: William J. Burns (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 29% women total: 31 9 (F) + 22 (M) Governing Board: 23% women total: 31 7 (F) + 24 (M) Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) head: Thomas G. Mahnken Nat./Int. Security Experts: 13% women total: 32 4 (F) + 28 (M) Governing Board: 25% women total: 8 2 (F) + 6 (M) Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) head: John J. Hamre (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 30% women total: 108 32 (F) + 76 (M) Governing Board: 11% women total: 44 5 (F) + 39 (M) Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) head: Richard N. Haass (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 29% women total: 75 22 (F) + 53 (M) Governing Board: 31% women total: 36 11 (F) + 25 (M)	Center for a New American Security (CNAS) head: Victoria Nuland (F) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 37% women total: 78 29 (F) + 49 (M) Governing Board: 10% women total: 21 2 (F) + 19 (M) Center for American Progress (CAP) head: Neera Tanden (F) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 16% women total: 19 3 (F) + 16 (M) Governing Board: 22% women total: 9 2 (F) + 7 (M) German Marshall Fund (GMF) head: Karen Donfried (F) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 27% women total: 44 12 (F) + 32 (M) Governing Board: 26% women total: 19 5 (F) + 14 (M) Heritage Foundation head: Kay Coles James (F) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 22% women total: 32 7 (F) + 25 (M) Governing Board: 24% women total: 25 6 (F)+19 (M) Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) head: John Cavanagh (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 44% women total: 16 7 (F) + 9 (M) Governing Board: 44% women total: 18 8 (F) + 10 (M) Lexington Institute head: Merrick “Mac” Carey (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 17% women total: 6 1 (F) + 5 (M) Governing Board: 0% women total: 7 0 (F) + 7 (M) New America head: Anne-Marie Slaughter (F) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 33% women total: 104 34 (F) + 70 (M) Governing Board: 27% women total: 22 6 (F) + 16 (M) Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI) head: Ernest J. Moniz (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 50% women total: 18 9 (F) + 9 (M) Governing Board: 21% women total: 34 7 (F) + 27 (M) RAND Corporation head: Michael D. Rich (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 40% women total: 613 245 (F) + 368 (M) Governing Board: 27% women total: 26 7 (F) + 19 (M) Stimson Center head: Brian Finlay (M) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 51% women total: 72 37 (F) + 35 (M) Governing Board: 26% women total: 27 7 (F) + 20 (M)	US Institute of Peace (USIP) head: Nancy Lindborg (F) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 49% women total: 72 35 (F) + 37 (M) Governing Board: 20% women total: 15 3 (F) + 12 (M) Wilson Center for International Scholars head: Jane Harman (F) Nat./Int. Security Experts: 34% women total: 187 64 (F)+123 (M) Governing Board: 31% women total: 16 5 (F) + 11 (M) NOTE: The following experts, fellows, scholars, and staff have been included for: AEI: All Foreign and Defense Policy Scholars; Atlantic Council: All fellows and non-resident fellows mentioned under experts; Aspen Institute: All staff and experts from the following programs: Security & Global Affairs, including the Aspen Strategy Group, the Cybersecurity & Technology Program, and the Homeland Security Program; Bipartisan Policy Center: All experts mentioned under the National Security Project; Brookings Institution: All experts mentioned under the Foreign Policy Program; CATO: All experts mentioned under Foreign Policy and National Security; Carnegie Endowment: All experts in the Washington, DC office; CSBA: all national and international security analysts and fellows; CSIS: All experts; CFR: All experts; CNAS: All experts (staff and adjunct fellows); CAP: All experts mentioned under the Foreign Policy and Security Program; GMF: All experts; Heritage Foundation: All experts staff identified as working on national and international security issues; IPS: all experts identified as working on foreign policy and national and international security; Lexington Institute: All experts; New America: All current staff and fellows mentioned in the following programs: Cybersecurity Initiative and International Security. NTI: All experts: Rand Corporation: All experts mentioned under Homeland Security & Public Safety, International Affairs, and National Security & Terrorism programs; Stimson Center: All national & international security experts mentioned under “Staff”, note: we did not include development staff, finance officers, or other administrative staff members; USIP: All experts; Wilson Center: All experts. For a full list of experts go to the WIIS Gender Scorecard: Washington, DC Think Tanks Data Set – 2018 at wiisglobal.org

References

See Andrea Strano, “Foreign Service Women Today: The Palmer Case and Beyond,” The Foreign Service Journal, March 2016. On the lack of women in leadership positions, see also Katherine Kidder, Amy Schafer, Phillip Carter, and Andrew Swick, From College to Cabinet: Women In

National Security, (Washington, DC: CNAS, 2017); Women In Public Service Project, Wilson Center, Roadmap to 50×50, Power and Parity in Women’s Leadership, (Washington, DC: Wilson Center, May 2018); Joan Johnson-Freese, “Half of Heaven: Why More Women are Needed in National Security,” TedxTalks, August 17, 2018; and Adrianna Pita, Tamara Cofman Wittes and Sarah Yerkes, “Presence and Voice: Women In Foreign Policy,” A Brookings Podcast, June 8, 2016.

See DOD, Office of Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity, DoD Diversity and Inclusion 2013 Summary Report (Alexandria, VA: DOD, 2013), pp. B3-B6; and Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services, 2017 Annual Report, (Alexandria, VA: DOD-Dacowits, 2017). See also Kidder et al. From College to Cabinet.

See Foreign Policy Interrupted, “Women’s Voices Marginalized in

2016 News Coverage of Foreign Affairs and National Security,” Media Matters, March 8, 2017. Foreign Policy Interrupted reports similar numbers with respect to the number of women who have seen their Opeds published. See website: www.fpinterrupted.com. See also: Amanda Taub, “The #ManPanel problem: Why are female experts still so widely ignored?,” Vox, March 16, 2016.

Several initiatives to combat manels and gender discrimination were launched in 2015. In Australia, the Panel Pledge was launched—i.e., a commitment not to appear on male only panels. In Geneva, the International Gender Champion network was launched, committing heads of organizations to no longer sit on single-sex panels. See also, Daniel Drezner, “A Few Thoughts on Manels,” Washington Post Blog, June 7, 2018; and Tamara Wittes and Marc Lynch, “The mysterious absence of women from Middle East policy debates,” Washington Post, January 20, 2015.

See Hironao Okahana and Enyu Zhou, Graduate Enrollment and

Degrees: 2006-2016 (Washington, DC: Council of Graduate Schools, 2017). For example, in the Fall of 2016, first-time graduate enrollment in the social and behavorial sciences (including anthropology, economics, political science and international relations) saw 38 percent men and 62 percent women enrolled in doctoral programs and 35.5 percent men and 64.5 percent women enrolled in Masters programs. A separate study should examine what happens with these graduates.

See “Gender Distribution of ISA Membership” at https://www.isanet.org/ISA/About-ISA/Data/Gender. In the international security thematic group of ISA women make up 37 percent; in foreign policy analysis women 34 percent; in peace studies 53 percent. Women outnumber men in 8 of the 29 thematic groups: interdisciplinary studies, environmental studies, feminist theory and gender studies, global development, global health, human rights, international law, and peace studies. Women also outnumber men in three of its four caucuses: Global South Caucus LGBTQ and allies caucus; and the Women Caucus. The Online Media Caucus has 48 percent women members.

See, for example, Kathleen Kuehnast, Chantal de Jonge Oudraat and Helga Hernes, eds., Women and War: Power and Protection in the 21st Century (Washington, DC: USIP, 2011), and Chantal de Jonge Oudraat and Michael E. Brown, “WPS+GPS: Adding Gender to the Peace and Security Equation,” WIIS Policybrief, November 2017

The US NAP on WPS was updated in June 2016. See also Women, Peace and Security Act of 2017, Public Law No:115-68, 10/06/2017.

See for example Vestige Strategies, Advancing Diversity and Inclusion in the Foreign Policy Sector, (Washington, DC: Vestige Strategies, July 2018). See also the activities of The Think Tank Diversity Consortium (TTDC).

James McGann, 2017 Global Go To Think Tank Index Report, (Philadelphia, PA: TTCSP, the Lauder Institute, The University of Pennsylvania, 2018).

Micah Zenko has been one of the few foreign policy experts paying attention to this issue. See for example, Micah Zenko, “Where are the Women in Foreign Policy Today,” Foreign Policy Blog Post (September

26, 2015). In the past, WIIS has surveyed women in the State Department, staff in the US Congress and women in Peacekeeping, but never did a survey of women in think tanks. See wiisglobal.org

This scorecard is also part of a broader initiative of the Leadership Council for Women In National Security (LC-WINS) that seeks greater diversity within think tanks. LC-WINS is an informal group of foreign policy and national security professionals created in 2017. 13. See de Jonge Oudraat and Brown, “WPS+GPS”

Leadership should also encourage men and women to integrate gendered perspectives into their analysis of international security problems.

See Heather Hurlburt, Elizabeth Weingarten and Carolina Marques de Mesquita, A Guide to Talking Women, Peace, and Security Inside the U.S. Security Establishment (Washington, DC: New America Foundation, 2017)

In 2015, the Compton Foundation launched a $5 million special peace and national security initiative with a focus on the Women, Peace and Security agenda and the integration of a gendered perspective in US Foreign Policy. Thanks to these grants The Council on Foreign Relations, CNAS, and New America greatly expanded their programs on women and the WPS agenda.

We do not include those think tanks that view women and gender mostly through a domestic lens (Brookings and CAP) or those that might have an occasional publication related to women and gender and national or international security.

An increasing number of companies in the corporate sector seek EDGE (Economic Dividends for Gender Equality) workplace gender equality certification. WIIS has also a growing portfolio of gender evaluation and analysis and gender trainings.

The collection of data and the setting of benchmarks and objectives has proven to be very effective within the Scandinavian academic and think tank community. In August 2018, a consortium of seven European universities launched a new Charter that seeks to build a stronger commitment to gender equality in higher education and research institutions. The Charter is part of an EU Horizon 2020 initiative entitled the SAGE (Systematic Action for Gender Equality) project. It outlines 12 principles that support structural, cultural and political

change to eradicate sexism, bias, and other forms of discrimination

in research and higher education, and advance an intersectional and inclusive concept of gender. See “New European Charter to Promote Gender Equality in the University Sector,” Press Release, Trinity College

Dublin, August 22, 2018; see also http://sage-growingequality.eu. The Irish Minister of State for Higher Education, Mary Mitchell O’Connor, announced that University funding would in future be linked to how well universities are tackling gender inequality, including gender inequalities among staff. See Catherine Sanz, “University funding will be linked to gender equality,” The Times, August 21, 2018.

20. McGann, 2017 Global Go To Think Tank Index Report. We also consulted https://thebestschools.org/features/most-influential-think-

tanks/

Enhancing Security in Latin America and the Caribbean

Executive Summary

Overall Regional Assessment

Main Findings by Category

Main Recommendations

Preface

Acknowledgements

Introduction

Gender Balance, Gender Perspectives and Gender Mainstreaming

The Latin American And Caribbean WPS Assessment Tool

Methodology

Main Findings

Average

National Importance/Political Will

Policy and Practice

Monitoring, Reporting, and Evaluation

Recommendations and Concluding Remarks

National Actions

International and Regional Actions

Concluding Remarks

References

1. Gender Equality, WPS and NAPs

2. Women in the Military and Peacekeeping

3. Useful listservs and websites

About the Authors

Project Participants*