In the graph above, the average performance of each country in all main categories for the period between 2010 and 2015 is reflected.
What are the key gaps?
Failure to mainstream the mutually reinforcing nature of women’s participation and protection in its work on all issues related to peace and security;
Failure to ratify the Arms Trade Treaty and include women’s rights groups in national commissions on SALW control;
Failure to develop specific commitments to advance gender justice worldwide;
Absence of a 1325 National Action Plan with a clear allocated budget developed in consultations with civil society organisations;
Failure to ratify all international human rights treaties, including the Optional Protocol to CEDAW;
Failure to provide training on gender equality and women’s empowerment as part of the core training curriculum of security system personnel at all levels;
Failure to provide predictable, accessible, and flexible financial support to the issue of women, peace and security;
Lack of efficient methods to increase women's meaningful and active political participation.
Women, Peace and Security (WPS) Scorecard: Methodology
The WPS Scorecard intends to assess and evaluate actions by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Permanent Member States’ (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America) to implement the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) Agenda.
To do so, the WPS Scorecard assesses the actions of the Permanent Five at both the international and national levels over a period from 2010 and onwards.
First, it evaluates international actions of Member States: 1) WPS-related statements and commitments, 2) gender-sensitive rankings and legal obligations, 3) international financial priorities, and 4) gender-sensitive commitments and policies in peacekeeping.
Second, it also evaluates national actions of Member States as they relate to the implementation of the WPS Agenda: 1) prevention, 2) participation, 3) protection, and 4) recovery support.
Each UNSC Permanent Member State is graded with consistent qualitative or quantitative evaluation methods specific to the nature of each type of category. States may earn a maximum of 100 points for its full compliance with the relevant standards. Deviation from the standard defines a state’s final grade. (Example: a state has to sign and ratify all international human rights documents related to gender to receive 100 points. If a state has failed to sign and/or ratify a number of the existing treaties, the deviation from the standard determines the State's final grade). Criteria for each indicator were developed based on principles embedded in internationally relevant and widely accepted conventions, protocols, and reports. A grade for each indicator, as well as a total grade, is provided for each year based on the average number of points received.
The analysis conducted for this project is used to inform recommendations to the states based on their progress in specific areas of focus, with the goal of emphasising key areas in which the states should increase their efforts to close gender-sensitive gaps and influence impactful progress through the Women, Peace and Security Agenda.
***The current methodology was developed by Marina Kumskova and Katie Krueger.
PeaceWomen.org is a project of the Women's International League of Peace and Freedom, United Nations Office.
Fair Use Notice: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner.
PeaceWomen.org distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107.