Engendering Compensation:
Making Refugee Women Count!
Prepared for the Expert and Advisory Services
Fund International Development Research Centre
by Nahla Abdo
March 2000 - Ottawa
ANNEX I: Gender Reconstruction
of Compensation Modalities
| Claimants Engendered |
Strengths and Weaknesses |
| Claims made by individual
1948 property owners (and their heirs) |
strengths: By including
both men and women in the definition of claimants,
this category addresses gender inequality within
individual 1948 property owners; can be gender
inclusive within the class of property owners;
guarantees women claimants access to compensation.
weaknesses: reproduces social inequality between
Palestinian women; fosters social divisions existent
in pre 1948 Palestine. |
| Claims made by extended family
(hamula) or villages |
strengths: No major/significant
gender quality impact.weaknesses:. Male biased;
fails to address gender inequality; as discussed
in the paper, this category discriminates against
the young and the female members of the Hamula.
|
| Claims made by all refugees,
irregardless of property ownership, including
original and subsequent generations |
strengths: Including
within the definition of ‘individuals’
both males and females, this category addresses
gender inequality; addresses social inequality
existent in pre-1948; and is most preferred by
refugee women and their descendants. weaknesses:
No significant weakness on gender basis. |
| Collective claim made by Palestinian
state on behalf of all refugees |
no significant relevance to
gender issues. |
| Collective claims made by
host governments for the previous costs of hosting
refugees |
no significant relevance to
gender issues. |
| Formula |
Strengths / Weaknesses |
| claims-based system, in which compensation is
based on the value of lost property (or a portion
thereof) |
strengths: Similar to the claims-based
system model; has the potential of including women
claimants and thus addresses gender inequality
within individual 1948 property owners; can be
gender inclusive within the class of property
owners; guarantees women claimants access to compensation.
weaknesses: Similar to weaknesses mentioned in
the claims-based system mode; reproduces social
inequality between Palestinian women; fosters
social divisions existent in pre 1948 Palestine.
|
| modified claims-based system, in which claimants
are slotted into various "categories"
(based on estimated claim size), and receive standardized
payments |
strengths: See category "FORMULA,
A" above.
weaknesses: See category "FORMULA,
B" above. |
| per capita payment system, in which all refugees
receive equal payments |
strengths: By far the best; addresses
social and gender inequalities of pre-1948 property
ownership system; most preferred by women.
weaknesses: No significant weakness
on the gender side. |
| modified per capita payment system, in which
some classes of claimants (i.e. returnees vs non-returnees,
or first-generation vs subsequent generation refugees)
receive different levels of compensation |
strengths: Still more advantageous
than the claims-based system; addresses social
and gender inequalities of pre-1948 property ownership.
weaknesses: Insignificant weakness
in so far as gender is concerned. |
| Mechanism |
Strengths / Weaknesses |
| cash payments to individuals |
strengths: Preferred mechanism for
compensating landed and other forms of movable
and immovable property; provides female refugees
with great flexibility; preferred mechanism for
female-headed refugee families, single mother
families and families dependent on female members
for survival. weaknesses: Is not adequate for
compensating social, moral or psychological losses
and sufferings. |
| services/vouchers/entitlements for individuals
and families |
strengths: This is more adequate for
compensating non-material losses; can be used
for women's empowerment and further development;
can be better integrated into developmental projects;
particularly relevant to female refugees previously
denied access to social and educational development.
weaknesses: Highly inadequate if used
in lieu of cash compensation; possibility of
little control of women over quality and effectiveness
of services provided to individuals and families |
| investment in community development |
strengths: Useful if used to raise
gender consciousness and promote gender equality;
with women participants as decision-makers, this
mechanism can be useful to promote women's economic,
social and educational development. weaknesses:
Possibility of little control of women over development
decision-making. |
| equity (refugee ownership of investment or development
corporation or similar collective entity) |
strengths: None.
weaknesses: Combines the weaknesses
of the services and community investment models
mentioned above. |
| Process |
Strengths / Weaknesses |
| payment of lump sum to Palestinian state, to
be subsequently distributed |
strengths: No strengths worth mentioning
on a gender-basis. weaknesses: In
addition to potential problems of transparency
and accountability, no guarantee that women
would benefit. In fact, as discussed in the
paper, this model would be highly disadvantageous
to women refugees. |
| binational commission (Palestine, Israel) |
strengths: Similar to payment to the
Palestinian state, no strengths worth mentioning
on gender basis. weaknesses: Similar
to weaknesses of the Palestinian state model,
this model provides no guarantee that women
would benefit; would be highly disadvantageous
to women refugees. |
| trilateral commission (Palestine, Israel, other) |
strengths: Combines the characteristics
of the Palestinian state and the bi-national models.
weaknesses: Combines the weaknesses
of both the Palestinian state and the bi-national
commission. |
| international commission (others, acceptable
to Palestine |
strengths: As discussed in p. 14 of
the paper, a third party commission which would
be gender oriented and gender-based can guarantee
gender equality; a gender-oriented third party
commission has great potential for minimizing
gender inequalities in past and present experiences
of refugee women; high degree of transparency
and accountability. weaknesses: A
strong linkage between this party and the Palestinian
or Israeli state might defuse gender issues
and marginalize women's status. |
| UN commission |
strengths: Combines the strengths in
the international commission model; as a UN commission,
it can be more independent than the international
model above; a gender-based and oriented commission
has morepotential for handling refugee compensation
in a just manner at both social and gender levels.
weaknesses: Might face obstacles from
the Palestinian and/or Israeli state which in
turn could affect UN gender policies. |
| UNRWA or UNRWA successor agency |
strengths: Can be more reliable than
the state, bi-national or the national models
if UNRWA or its successor agency revise their
gender policies and practice and adopt a gender-equitable
or equal strategies. weaknesses: Less
reliable and gender effective than a UN Commission. |
| determination of amounts, modalities and mechanisms
left to future Palestinian-Israeli negotiations |
strengths: Positive gender impact only
if the whole negotiation process is revised to
address existing gender gap. weaknesses:
If left as is in terms of structure and composition,
current or future negotiations would be gender-biased
and quite discriminatory against women. |
|
