Giving Compass' Take:

• Because of diverse reasons for and methods of female genital mutilation and cutting (FGM/C) around the world, there is no one approach that can end it everywhere. 

• How can disparate efforts to end FGM/C learn from one another and adapt to their unique circumstances? How can philanthropists support culturally appropriate efforts to end FGM/C?

• Learn why the United States needs better data on female genital mutilation.

When it comes to eradicating female genital mutilation and cutting there isn’t any one approach that’s guaranteed to be successful, research from the Population Council, an international research nonprofit organization, shows.

While FGM/C rates have dropped globally over the last few decades, many countries haven’t seen a change in prevalence. And there are still major knowledge gaps on how, where, and why FGM/C is practiced, as well as the effectiveness of different approaches.

“The most important thing to take forward with this work is we cannot globally apply interventions,” Jacinta Muteshi-Strachan, the project director of a six-year FMG/C project run by the Population Council, explained to Devex following a recent March event.

Some of the latest progress in better understanding and eradicating FGM/C — which varies in form and tradition but generally involves partially cutting or entirely removing the external female genitalia — was on display during the Population Council event.

Female genital mutilation and cutting is prevalent in more than 30 countries in Africa and the Middle East as well as some Asian countries, like Indonesia, and across certain ethnic groups in Latin America, cutting across religious, cultural, and economic boundaries.

Read the full article on individualized approaches to ending FGM/C by Amy Lieberman at Devex International Development