A/HRC/43/46 are politicized from the outset and incompatible with principled, needs-based humanitarian action”. 81 Indeed, the direct and indirect impacts of such policies on humanitarian and development interventions can be felt structurally, when programmes are developed with specific “at-risk” target groups and communities in mind, rather than on a needs-based approach, and operationally, when organizations modify their programmes to include a focus on preventing and countering violent extremism, profoundly distorting the relationship with recipients and the outcomes of programmes. Moreover, the increased emphasis on humanitarian organizations as the subcontractors of government security agendas is evidenced by contracts and requirements that such organizations engage in sustained security vetting in the distribution of aid, in ways contrary to the core humanitarian mission. D. Lack of transparency and accountability 37. The Special Rapporteur is struck by the lack of openness of Governments and the lack of civil society trust in measures to prevent and counter violent extremism, from the policies and programmes to their funding, impact, scientific underpinning and benchmarks – and even the underlying research. When funding comes from external donors, civil society recipients are often not keen to disclose the origins of the funds, given that it could have an impact on their independence or the genuineness of their action or stigmatize or alienate targeted populations. Programming on preventing and countering violent extremism is often branded or repackaged programming that is unconnected to security imperatives, raising particularly thorny issues for United Nations entities engaged in supporting or funding programming which is deliberately dishonest to its recipients. 82 The lack of transparency can in turn give the impression that preventing and countering violent extremism is yet another tool in a Government’s security arsenal and that behind social services lie intelligence and police agencies. 38. Despite the web of measures adopted, from the global to local levels, there appears to be a complete lack of oversight and very few mechanisms to address the lacunae and promote a rule of law and human rights-based approach to preventing and countering violent extremism. As the Special Rapporteur has noted, 83 global and regional advancement of preventing and countering violent extremism falls under a “soft law” rubric, with little meaningful oversight and virtually no human rights assessment or benchmarking in creation or implementation. Domestically, many of the measures to prevent and counter violent extremism are also “soft law”, meaning that they are not subjected to parliamentary or public scrutiny, nor is there a specific budget allocated, making human rights-based budget analysis challenging. Globally, there are little to no accountability mechanisms, recourse or effective and accessible remedies where allegations of human rights violations have occurred as a result of the application of measures and policies aimed at preventing and countering violent extremism. V. Specific impacts A. Gender and preventing and countering violent extremism 39. In his Plan of Action to Prevent Violent Extremism, the Secretary-General affirmed the importance of gender equality in addressing terrorism, not least because it was no coincidence that societies for which gender equality indicators were higher were less vulnerable to violent extremism. 84 A holistic and intersectional approach to addressing the relationship between gender and violent extremism would include a focus on respect for women’s human rights, and the absence thereof, structural inequality, the gendered drivers 81 82 83 84 14 Norwegian Refugee Council, “Countering violent extremism”. Referring to programming, targeted at women, aimed at the prevention and countering of violent extremism as “for the empowerment of women” is mendacious and ethically suspect. A/74/335. A/70/674, para. 53.