Unfortunately, it's far from consistent. I can give you a couple of examples, just from 2015.
In 2015, in the UNMISS mandate in South Sudan we saw strengthened language, such that the mission has now been tasked with considering gender as a crosscutting issue. The reason we think that's really important is that gender has to then inform decisions involving rule of law, security sector reform, disarmament, and demobilization. All aspects of a mission, therefore, have to have gender considerations. This was a positive.
In the same year, we've seen the Libyan mission be completely stripped of any gender specifications in its mandate, which is more than just one step back. It's really disappointing, because the Libyan mission had had some really progressive language and had been the only one to specifically mandate the senior gender adviser to look at women's empowerment. That language was completely stripped from it in the latest rollover of that mandate in, I think, March. It was a technical rollover only, so the council really didn't consider the mandate.
Thus, it's really country by country. To go back to some of the comments I had in my opening remarks, it's no longer enough for member states who consider themselves to be advocates of women, peace, and security to be making positive statements, which we welcome, and we heard positive statements in October. Emphasis on advocacy is needed across all of the different country situations, because we're seeing progress in some areas and seeing complete backwards steps in other areas, and this is the same body that is making these different decisions.