How did UNSCR 1325 come about?
The Women Peace and Security Agenda was born thanks to a fruitful synergy - “a "tripartite relationship" - among different stakeholders, including United Nations entities, governments, and CSOs as well.
It was thanks to the visionary and timely activism of civil society (networking and campaigning) that inspiring women’s peace initiatives at grassroots could gain the scene in the Security Council, at the highest decision-making level in peace and security.
Indeed, in the landmark resolution n.1325 adopted on 31st of October 2000, reference was finally made to supporting “local women’s peace initiatives” as well as ”indigenous processes of conflict resolution” when negotiating and implementing peace agreements. Moreover, the role civil society plays at international level became evident, so consultations with “local and international women’s groups” are also envisaged in the text, when Security Council missions take into account gender considerations and the rights of women.
Nevertheless the Security Council has been resistant to the term “civil society” for quite a while.
In the second resolution WPS (1820/2008) dedicated to sexual violence, also “women-led organizations” are to participate in consultations (as appropriate) to develop effective mechanisms for providing protection from violence, including in particular sexual violence (in refugee camps, as well as in DDR, SSR) .
One year later in a following resolution, supporting “women’s organizations and networks” was considered essential in the consolidation of peace to promote the equal and full participation of women. Besides members states and donors, also civil society was included, for the first time with “non-governmental organizations” mentioned as such. The NGOs “advisory capacity” was also recognized, with a reference to the “various civil society actors”.
Over time this kind of references became standard, while language features were shaped by the general move towards women’s rights and protection: in 2013 civil society included not only women’s organizations but also survivors of sexual violence, and “local civil society networks supporting them”.
More recently - according to a new resolution and consistently with the development of the Youth Peace and Security agenda - civil society entities to be promoted and supported are not just “local, grassroots, women-led organizations” and “survivor-led organizations”, but also “girls- and youth-led organizations”.
All along its 20year development, CSOs have been supporting monitoring and implementation, playing multiples roles (from advisor to watchdog, and implementing partners), gaining a prominent role in the resolutions’ provisions.
From 2015, when the first NAP was adopted, Civil Society became relevant also at national level
What is the NAP?
The National Action Plans on Women Peace and Security have been conceived as implementation tools for States.
Today more than 80 NAPs are in place around the globe. They help detail the actions, determine responsibilities, allocate resources within a defined time frame, and implement their commitments to the Women Peace and Security agenda with a context specific, tailored approach.
They are usually more outwards oriented in countries acting as third parties, interested in contributing to international peace and security.
In conflict-affected countries instead, NAPs provisions related to the national context and legislation are particularly relevant, with - for instance - provisions related to refugees also referring to IDPs. There, international missions too often play a role.
2020 marks 15 years since the adoption of the first National Action Plan on WPS (by Denmark), but still there is a long way ahead to full implementation of the WPS international Agenda. The project opens up to new ideas and approaches, involving the youth and including both young women and men to listen to their concerns and wishes. NAPs also provide a unique opportunity for different national stakeholders (Ministries, Armed Forces, scholars, international agencies, experts, practitioners) to compare their priorities and perspectives. Intergenerational dialogue can bring added value to all the components and contribute to future developments for the good functioning of the whole system.