Background
The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) met today to consider the fifth and sixth periodic reports of Norway (documents CEDAW/C/NOR/5 and CEDAW/C/NOR/6), submitted in compliance with Article 18 of the Convention on All Forms of Discrimination against Women. Norway ratified the Convention and its Optional Protocol in 1981 and 2002, respectively. The sixth periodic report, completed in May 2002, covers the period 1998 to 2001. The fifth periodic report covers the period 1994 to 1997.
In April 2002, the Storting (Norway's Parliament) passed an Act amending the 1978 Gender Equality Act, the
sixth periodic report states. Whereas the Gender Equality Act previously required public authorities to promote gender equality in all sectors of society, the amended Act also applies to the private sector. According to the provisions of the amended Act, employers and employees would not simply avoid discrimination but actively implement concrete steps to promote gender equality. Public and private sector businesses are required to report annually on the gender equality situation within their organizations.
The amended Gender Equality Act also codifies existing practice on the right to equal pay for work of equal value, the report states. The amendment includes features to determine which types of work are of equal value and provides a foundation for the use of work evaluation as a tool for equal pay. By clarifying the concept “equal pay for work of equal value”, legislators seek to level out wage differences between women and men. The Gender Equality Act also contains provisions on increased protection during pregnancy and leave-of-absence for childbirth; affirmative action and education; sexual harassment; shared burden of proof; and, objective liability for damages.
The Government ministry responsible for gender equality issues is the Ministry of Children and Family Affairs, the report continues. The Gender Equality Ombudsman and the Gender Equality Board of Appeals enforce the provisions of the Gender Equality Act. The number of complaints received by the Ombudsman has steadily increased since the mid-1990s. In 2001, the Ombudsman registered a total of 337 cases. In 34 per cent of the cases, the Ombudsman concluded that the Act had been violated. Some 50 per cent of the cases reported were from women. The Centre for Gender Equality, a publicly financed institution, also works to promote and mainstream equal opportunities into all areas of society.
The report says that great changes in the population's attitudes towards gender equality occurred between 1980 and 1990. There is growing concern, however, about the influence of strong sexualized marketing and the influence of the entertainment industry, television and the Internet.
On the issue of violence against women, the report says that the most conspicuous gender difference lies in the percentage of women who suffer violence in the home. Some 42 per cent of the violence suffered by women occurs in the home as compared with 14 per cent for men. Yet, according to the reports, investigations of violence in the private sphere are, to a certain degree, under-reported.
The fifth periodic report outlines measures by the Government to address violence against women. Developing measures for the prevention of violence against women and providing services, shelter and support for survivors of gender-related violence is a high priority for the Government. In 1994, amendments to the Criminal Procedure Act strengthened the position of victims of violence and sexual offences. Victims are entitled to free legal aid. Other measures include the establishment of a project called “violence alarm” to ensure swift police response; Police Academy courses on the investigation of sexual abuse against children; and, a centre for men who have problems with violence and aggression called Alternative to Violence.
Concerning women's political participation in Norway, the
sixth periodic report says that during the 1997 elections, women's participation was higher than that of men. While 70 per cent of women in the 18 to 21 year old age groups voted, only 50 per cent of men in the same age group did. During the 1970s, women became an important group in elected political assemblies, and the use of quotas by political parties was an important factor. The principle rule for political parties is that women and men shall be represented by at least 40 per cent. Female representation in the Storting is higher than in municipal councils.
The Saami Parliament, Sametinget, is the publicly elected body of the national minority Saami people, the report says. Established in 1989, Sametinget has a skewed gender composition with fewer women being elected. The Sameting has made no special arrangements to ensure the representation of both sexes. The fact that the percentage of women in the Sameting is decreasing, while its position and importance in society is increasing, poses a big question.
The other issues addressed in the report include education, the question of pensions, paternity and as maternity entitlements, women's health and the situation of rural women.
Introduction of report
LAILA DAVOY, Minister of Children and Family Affairs, introduced Norway’s report, saying that many steps had been taken to promote equality in her country, both legally and by other measures. Over the past few decades, Norway had exerted a great deal of political effort to become a society that promoted women’s rights and gender equality. Although there had been debates on concrete measures, every successive Government, politician, and more than 90 per cent of the population saw gender equality as an essential value in society.
Norway had had the task of strengthening human rights in its domestic law for several years, she said. The Human Rights Act, adopted in 1999, gave the European Convention on Human Rights, and two United Nations Conventions of 1966 with optional protocols, the force of law in Norway. By the end of the year, her Ministry would put forward a concrete proposal on how to strengthen the implementation of the Women’s Convention to ensure best results. One alternative was to combine the methods of incorporation and transformation, making the Convention more visible.
In Norway, there was a close link between family policy and gender equality policy, she said. The objective of those policies was to give both women and men equal opportunities to combine work with parental responsibilities. Norway had invested a great deal in improving conditions for families with young children. Its parental leave schemes and day care were among the best in the world. Norway’s family policy had in recent years had a strong focus on the role of fathers and the importance of strengthening that role for the good of children, while at the same time promoting equality and the value of family life in general. Gender-based neutral schemes for parental leave were not enough to bring fathers home to take care of young children to the same degree as mothers.
In 1993, a paternity quota was introduced, which meant that if both the mother and father qualified for parental benefits, four weeks were reserved for the father, she said. The paternity quota had proven an effective tool for encouraging fathers to take leave. Though fathers had been entitled to parental leave since 1978, very few had exercised that right. Today, eight out of 10 men took advantage of their right to take the father’s quota of leave. That was important not only as a gender equality issue, but also in light of the increasing number of broken families. The increased participation of fathers in childcare promoted stability in the father-child relationship and also in families that were not living together.
Even though Norwegian mothers topped the list internationally in terms of participation in the labour market, freedom of choice was an important part of Norwegian family policy, she said. A cash benefit scheme had been introduced in 1998, which entitled the family of every child between the ages of one and three to approximately $420 a month, provided that the child did not attend a subsidized day care centre. The purpose of the cash benefit was to give families more time to care for their own children and freedom of choice in deciding what form of childcare they preferred.
She said the cash benefit could also be seen as a recognition of the importance of care for children. It had led to a better financial situation for families who preferred that one parent stay at home while the child was still a toddler. When the reform had been introduced, the demand for day care had not been met. Norway still faced a shortage of places for that age group and was giving high priority to meeting the demand by establishing more day care places at prices that families could afford. In 2003, budget allocations for that purpose had increased by some 30 per cent, and statutory amendments had been proposed to ensure that the demand was met.
In general, very few women took part in decision-making in the economic field, especially in larger corporations and firms, she continued. In Norway, boardrooms were dominated by men. In 2002, women comprised only 6.6 per cent of the board members of public stock companies. Women’s participation was essential for growth and development in society.
The Government had decided to take steps to improve the gender balance on company boards, passing a resolution last year to increase the number of women in the executive bodies of enterprises, she said. The resolution included a demand that both sexes should be represented by at least 40 per cent on the executive boards of all public joint stock companies and in State-owned companies. The Government hoped to achieve the minimum percentage for State-owned companies by the end of the year. Also, the Government had taken the initiative for a cooperation agreement with the private sector. If the desired representation of 40 per cent of each gender was reached through such an agreement by the end of 2005, the law would not enter into force.
While the proposal had met with resistance at first, there was growing recognition that greater diversity in boardrooms was an asset for companies, she said. There had been a small increase in the number of women being elected to executive boards in private companies. Private companies had three more years to fulfil the Government’s aim of 40 per cent representation of each gender. Norway had attracted international attention as the first country in the world to propose legislation concerning the representation of both genders on executive boards.
On the gender pay gap, she said equal pay was a top priority of her Government. For women to become financially independent and gain an equal footing in the labour market, equal pay was vital. As in most other countries, a high level of education or work force participation was not automatically accompanied by equal pay. While the pay gap had steadily decreased, there was still a way to go. Norway had, however, very small differences in wages compared with most countries.
The equal-pay provision of the Gender Equality Act had been revised to cover work of equal value across professions and occupations under the same employer, she said. Legislation was not the only tool to eliminate the pay gap. While legislation was aimed primarily at securing individual rights, the Government wanted to focus on wage formation in general, including how the wage gap was entrenched in institutional arrangements, social norms, market systems and pay policies. Public awareness, research, network development and international cooperation were also crucial.
Norway had managed a European project funded by the European Commission’s Community Framework Programme on gender equality, together with partners from five other European countries, she said. Case studies in three occupations -- teaching, engineering and the food and fish processing industry -– had been carried out in six countries. The study showed that job segregation was one major explanation for differences in the gender wage gap. There were two main sources for the gender pay gap, including the segregation of women and men in different occupations, firms and positions, and wage differences that consistently favoured male-dominated jobs. Skills seen as female tended to be less highly rewarded than skills typically seen as male.
Two projects were being carried out to translate the knowledge Norway had gained into concrete results, she said. In 2002, a hearing financed by the Nordic countries had been held for experts and social partners on new methods and tools for fighting the pay gap. Also in 2002, the Government had initiated a project to develop a gender-neutral job-evaluation system that was easy to use.
On the issue of violence against women, she said that in spite of 25 years of a gender-equality policy, violence and sexual abuse was still a problem. Combating violence was one of the Government’s highest priorities, including special efforts to combat violence against women. The problems tended to be private and unseen. The Government was not sure of the progress that had been made in preventing abuse and violence. While it had provided some statistics, underreporting was still common. In September, the Commission on Violence against Women would submit a report, giving an overview of measures and results in the field of violence, including legal measures, social services, women’s shelters and health care. The provisions of the penal code regulating sexual crimes had been last amended in 2000. Further amendments were under discussion.
She was shocked to learn that a 1999 health survey among Norwegian women aged 20 to 49 indicated that five per cent of them had been raped by someone other than their partner, while 10 per cent reported having being raped by their partner. Every year, some 2,700 women took refuge in shelters. Many new inhabitants of Norway did not have the resources to get out of a violent relationship.
On the issue of trafficking in women and children, she said it was another fairly new problem. Norway was a country of destination for trafficked persons. Norway’s main focus had been on trafficking in women and children related to sexual exploitation. National reports on prostitution indicated a significant increase in the nubmer of non-Norwegian nationals involved in particular during the 1990s and a dramatic increase in the last few years. The majority came from or via the Russian Federation, the Baltic countries, other Eastern and Central European countries as well as from Thailand and Latin America. The Government attached great importance to preventing trafficking in human beings, criminalizing all aspects of trafficking. Norway was currently working on a plan of action to prevent and combat trafficking in women and children.
Two other issues -- forced marriages and genital mutilation -- had been on the political agenda, she added. Norway had tried to fight those practices through various actions. The Government relied heavily on dialogue with non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and communities that represented the cultures in which those practices had their roots.
Chairman’s Comments
The Chairman noted that Norway was seen as a haven for gender equality and that the country’s equality policy had provided positive examples for other countries. However, much remained to be addressed, such as inequality in economic decision-making, gender inequality in wages and violence against women. There was especially a need for sensitive and proactive policies to address violence against women in immigrant communities.
Questions and Comments
REGINA TAVARES DA SILVA, expert from Portugal, asked who was directing gender mainstreaming in Government policy as well as elaborating and implementing action plans. Also, which bodies -– public or private -- were responsible for defective economic quotas in the economic sphere? She also questioned why rape in the country was rising, which contradicted the awareness of that crime as a gross human rights violation. With respect to an increase of foreign women in prostitution, she asked whether traffickers and criminal networks were being prosecuted and whether there had been convictions.
GORAN MELANDER, expert from Sweden, asked about gender neutrality in Norway’s immigration policy and whether guidelines were being implemented. He also asked what measures the country had taken to support the return of trafficked women to their countries of origin as well as those it had taken to support the integration of immigrant women in Norway. In addition, he questioned how long an immigrant woman married to a Norwegian man must live in the country to obtain her own residence permit.
SJAMSIAH ACHMAD, expert from Indonesia, asked whether Norway’s gender equality barometer addressed progress in achieving equal opportunity and what the results had been in terms of gender equality. She also asked for specific details on an optional gender training course in the country, including the number of students enrolled and whether teachers took the course.
NAELA GABR, expert from Egypt, noted that investigations about violence against migrant women had not led to prosecutions and asked why that was the case. She also asked why immigrant women had not been more successfully integrated into the country.
CORNELIS FLINTERMAN, expert from the Netherlands, asked why Norway had taken so long to implement the CEDAW Convention into Norwegian law. What was the difference between that Convention and other human rights treaties that had been incorporated into the country’s legal system? Also, why was there no reference in Norway’s current report to the Convention’s optional protocol? He also asked whether the Norwegian Government believed the CEDAW Convention placed obligations on parties in foreign and development policy.
YOLANDA FERRER GOMEZ, expert from Cuba, asked how many Norwegian municipalities had measures directed at gender equality. How many of those municipalities were actually enforcing those laws in an effort to realize the objectives of the Convention? She also asked whether gender equality law was structured to address migrant women and those of ethnic minorities. Also, was work being done to disseminate the content of gender laws nationwide as well as to rid the country of gender stereotypes?
Country Response
Responding to experts’ questions on Norway’s national machinery, ARNI HOLE, Director-General of her country’s Ministry of Children and Family Affairs, said there was a permanent committee of junior ministers which raised issues to top Government levels. Her Ministry was responsible for coordinating gender issues at the Ministerial level and eight ministries worked with gender budgeting, including the Ministry of Finance. The Gender Ombud, an independent office, was free to criticize the Government and the Parliament. The Centre of Gender Equality, a State-supported organism, also worked to promote gender equality in all spheres of society, both public and private.
Regarding women’s participation in executive boards, she said Norwegian culture and the way in which boards were appointed affected women’s representation in boardrooms. The low level of female representation of women in executive positions also had to do with how women promoted themselves to be “electable”. While the number of female professors in universities and colleges had increased, that still remained a challenge. Regarding the 7 March decision to increase the number of women in the executive bodies of enterprises, they were working with a bill proposing that each gender comprise at least 40 per cent of the membership of public boards. There had been much discussion on how to find a way to pursue that goal without being “too tough”. One of tools available was a women’s data base with qualified names. Any one could use that data base.
She said the issue of violence and rape was a delicate issue. Many offended women did not want to press charges, especially when it came to close family members. They had set up police training, health centres and shelters for battered women. It was a difficult issue, and the Government was striving to obtain accurate data. The action plan against female genital mutilation was doing much to raise awareness. The Norwegian public had been increasingly open to discussing the issue, including immigrant groups.
Regarding the penal code, PETER WILLE, Deputy Director-General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said there was no special provision on trafficking in the penal code. They were in the process of revising the penal code to take in provisions on trafficking. There was case law on trafficking, however. Women were entitled to seek asylum and protection in Norway. Projects in the countries of origin were being initiated to help women upon their return.
Ms. HOLE said that Norway had engaged a young female lawyer to address the Convention and its position vis-á-vis Norway’s national legislation.
Mr. WILLE said Norway was a traditional jurist country. It had also introduced a “semi-monist” system. References to international law in domestic legislation had been made in several acts, including the Aliens Act. In 1999, the Parliament had adopted the Human Rights Law, which incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights and the two United Nations Covenants of 1966, with optional protocols, into Norwegian law. Those Conventions took precedence over other statutory law in cases of conflict. The strengthening of other conventions, including CEDAW, was currently underway. One alternative was to include those conventions into the 1999 Human Rights Law. On the ratification of the optional protocol to the CEDAW Convention, the optional protocols had been incorporated into the Human Rights Law. He hoped that would set a precedent.
Regarding the integration of immigrant women, Ms. HOLE said that issue had been addressed in Norway. A system of free pre-school for immigrant children, coupled with language training for mothers, paid partly by the Government, was working well. Specially-trained nurses at health and family centres attended by immigrant parents discussed health issues with the immigrant population. The Government was looking at the period between pre-school and school. The Government had been supporting immigrant NGOs for many years. In last year’s budgetary debate, the Parliament had raised the issue of whether the Government was doing enough to help immigrant women.
On the Alien’s Act, Mr. WILLE said that 1998 guidelines recognized gender-based persecution as a reason for asylum. Statistics in 2002 showed that
55 applicants received asylum on the basis of gender based persecution, while
23 applicants had been rejected. When a woman claimed to be a victim of a gender based persecution, both the interviewer and her translator had to be women. She was also entitled to a female lawyer. There were provisions in the Alien Act for family reunification.
Ms. HOLE noted that the sixth report provided statistics on employment rates for immigrant women. The “Barometer”, an annual publication, measured the results at all levels and in all spheres. Regarding mandatory school curricula on CEDAW, each college and university decided upon their own curriculum. Every State-owned college and university was subject, however, to the Gender Equality Act. The amended Act required annual reporting.
Responding to questions on immigrant women, she said the freedom to worship was included in Norway’s Constitution. Women from immigrant groups were often reluctant to press charges and prosecute in cases of violence. There were several centres to assist women who had been raped. The second action plan against violence would include training and competency building to deal with violence against minority women.
Mr. WILLE said that Norway undertook special measures for immigrant women upon their arrival in the country. The Government had adopted a plan of action on human rights in 1999, which included more than 300 measures. On international measures, the gender mainstreaming was a part and parcel of its development policy.
Ms. HOLE said it was difficult to ascertain the numbers of people taking courses on gender equality within teachers colleges, but noted that they were subject to the Gender Equality Act. Several people had asked for gender education in secondary schools, especially young boys, so teachers would perhaps have to take additional courses. She added that something must be done about gender mainstreaming in training colleges for pre-school teachers, since only 8 per cent of the teachers were men.
Regarding the question about municipalities and gender equality, she said those regions were measured by the gender barometer and subject to the Gender Equality Act. They had formed committees and some had gender advisers, and must report on their actions.
Responding to the question on racism, Mr. WILLE said the Government had adopted a plan of action to combat racism last year, following the Durban racism conference. The plan focused on working life, public services, schools and education, police and prosecutors, the internet and strengthening legal protection. A special committee had proposed eliminating discrimination in all areas, incorporating the Convention against racial discrimination into Norwegian law. The next step was to come up with concrete proposals before the end of 2003.
Regarding the question on incorporating the CEDAW Convention into Norwegian law, Ms. HOLE said it had been used as a tool in illustrating gender equality. The Government’s legal office had used it to argue that Norway could use positive discrimination to promote women in universities, and it had also been used in marketing children’s toys as well as in a police case regarding prostitution.
Questions and Comments
HEISOO SHIN, expert from the Republic of Korea, asked whether Norway was providing mobile violence alarms to victims, as well as whether the alternative to violence centres were being used. Also, was the Government planning any attempt to change violent attitudes in men, or considering separate legislation addressing domestic violence? Was marital rape punishable in Norwegian law? She also asked what the Norwegian Government had done to tackle gender stereotyping and whether it had carried out any research about time spent by men and women in sharing household and child-rearing responsibilities.
FERIDE ACAR, expert from Turkey, asked what was being done about cultural socialization limits to gender equality in Government policy.
AIDA GONZALEZ MARTINEZ, expert from Mexico, asked why questions were lacking with respect to gender equality about health and asylum for migrants, and noted a lack of attention on trafficking in children. She also expressed dismay that there was still an attempt to hide violence against women as “private business” in such an advanced society as Norway. It seemed no steps were being taken to provide education or awareness about the significance of violence within the family. She asked whether any problems existed in Norway regarding violence against children and the elderly.
KRISZTINA MORVAI, expert from Hungary, said that on the incorporation of CEDAW into domestic legislation, one approach was to say that there was normative harmony. CEDAW should be applied by the judiciary. The Convention was not law as such. In the case of Canada, for example, legal decisions had referred directly to CEDAW. Normative harmony was not enough to achieve that. Why, in the haven of gender equality, was the word “women” not in the name of the Ministry responsible for gender issues? CEDAW was based on the idea that women had rights as individuals, not because they were members of families or mothers.
FRANCOISE GASPARD, expert from France, said that Norway was a laboratory in that it showed how, in spite of longstanding policies, there was resistance to equality. She asked for more information on the integration of gender mainstreaming into the draft budget. What criteria would be used to analyze a budget based on gender? She was also interested in the integration of policy assessment at the local and regional levels. It was at the grass-roots level that the fight against discrimination was necessary. What was the policy to integrate gender at the local level? Did the municipalities contain offices to deal with gender issues? She was surprised at the low percentage of women in offices at the municipal level.
DUBRAVKA SIMONOVIC, expert from Croatia, commented on the difference in reporting procedures for the two reports. She also questioned the application of the optional protocol in Norwegian law. She asked about the current situation regarding restraining orders.
Country Response
Mr. WILLE, responding to questions on the incorporation of the Convention into domestic law, said there was normative harmony. Incorporation brought more visibility and made it easier to invoke the Convention before national courts. In cases of conflict, international covenants took precedence. Norway had ratified the optional protocol in March.
Responding to questions on violence against women and children, Ms. HOLE said Norway was, more than ever, addressing men’s roles. Norway was working on a White Paper on family politics to Parliament to be presented in June on family life, co-habitance, fathers and mothers. The paper would discuss several legal instruments and affirmative action measures. In Norway, three different male organizations were supported by Government money, such as the ATV, the Alternative to Violence. The number of calls to the ATV and the Reform Centre was growing. On gender bias, a consumer ombudsperson dealt with advertising and media issues. Norway supported research and development in programmes concerning role models. It financed applied research on how much time mothers and fathers spent at home and in work.
On the name of the Ministry, she said that there had been recent discussion on using the title “Gender Equality Minister” for the Minister for Children and Family Affairs. Regarding gender budgeting and gender mainstreaming, the ministries were increasingly using gender-based statistics. They were working hard to develop methods, using experts from several questions to be on the forefront of gender budgeting. Regarding the municipalities, every year the
434 municipalities met, and it would be interesting to see what would happen following the requirement for annual reporting under the revised Gender equality Act.
Marital rape was punishable, Mr. WILLE said.
On the preparation of the two reports, Ms. HOLE said the Government adopted the reports. NGOs could make their own shadow reports. For the sixth report, there had been a hearing for all the parties.
Expert’s Questions
HUGUETTE BOKPE GNACADJA, expert from Benin, asked for clarification on the primacy of international legislation over national legislation. What was slowing down the harmonization process? She was convinced that the difficulty was not technical but cultural in nature. In the absence of integrating the Convention into national law, how did Norway execute the measures that were taken without a legal underpinning? What was stopping implementation of measures to promote the status of women? How could one protect women if the legal position of prostitution remained unclear?
FUMIKO SAIGA, expert from Japan, asked whether the Norwegian Government expected any difficulties with respect to its gender equality initiative in discussions between trade unions and employers. Could shareholders express comments on the gender makeup of executive boards?
VICTORIA POPESCU SANDRU, expert from Romania, asked whether Norway had taken any measures to discourage women, particularly children, from prostitution, and was educational or job counselling available for individuals giving up prostitution? She also questioned whether the country had any sanctions in place against the perpetrators of child abuse, and whether data about those individuals was available to local communities. In addition, she asked about special provisions the country had in place to combat trafficking in children, whether the country had addressed the demand side of such trafficking and what collaboration it had with trafficking countries of origin.
PRAMILA PATTEN, expert from Mauritius, asked about measures the Norwegian Government envisaged to address the specific needs of disabled women who were abused. Was there any duty to report such abuses under the country’s penal code, and did the code provide for harsher penalties in cases of abused disabled women? On the judicial system and gender-related violence, was legal assistance given to victims of violence at the inquiry and pre-trial stages? Was appeal to the gender equality board of appeal free of charge?
