Key Takeaways
- UNICEF and WHO report that FGM medicalization can involve health-care providers, but still has no health benefits and requires elimination
- The UN General Assembly adopted a resolution on FGM (75/146) in 2020
- The UN Human Rights Council passed a resolution on ending FGM (A/HRC/RES/38/6) in 2018
- 4 in 10 girls aged 0–14 are at risk of FGM in affected countries according to UNICEF’s estimates
- The global burden is estimated at 2.1 million disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) from FGM-related sequelae (2015 estimate)
- In a systematic review, FGM is associated with a higher risk of obstetric complications (relative risk estimates vary by outcome)
- In a meta-analysis, women with FGM had higher odds of postpartum hemorrhage (pooled effect reported in study)
- In countries with available Demographic and Health Surveys, the percentage of girls and women aged 15–49 who have undergone FGM ranges from 3% to 100%
- DHS data allow estimation of the share of girls aged 0–14 who are at risk of undergoing FGM
- In 2022, UNICEF reported funding needs for ending FGM of $xxx million (UNICEF appeals; exact figure varies by year and is not consistently available free-access in a single source)
- In Burkina Faso, 59.3% of women aged 15–49 report having undergone FGM (DHS estimate, 2010)
- In Chad, 56.9% of women aged 15–49 report having undergone FGM (DHS estimate, 2014–2015)
- 38.7% of women aged 15–49 in Ethiopia report having undergone FGM (DHS estimate, 2016)
- 1.2 million additional health-care-seeking events per year are estimated to be associated with FGM in affected regions (modeling study, 2017)
- A study in Ethiopia found that women with FGM had 2.6 times higher odds of obstructed labor compared with women without FGM (odds ratio reported in study)
Nearly 40% of girls in affected countries face FGM risk, with lifelong health harms and no benefits.
Related reading
Policy And Compliance
Policy And Compliance Interpretation
Global Prevalence
Global Prevalence Interpretation
Health Burden
Health Burden Interpretation
Regional Variation
Regional Variation Interpretation
Program Funding
Program Funding Interpretation
Risk & Drivers
Risk & Drivers Interpretation
More related reading
Health Impact
Health Impact Interpretation
Interventions & Outcomes
Interventions & Outcomes Interpretation
Prevalence Estimates
Prevalence Estimates Interpretation
Health Outcomes
Health Outcomes Interpretation
Legislation And Enforcement
Legislation And Enforcement Interpretation
Research Findings
Research Findings Interpretation
How We Rate Confidence
Every statistic is queried across four AI models (ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Perplexity). The confidence rating reflects how many models return a consistent figure for that data point. Label assignment per row uses a deterministic weighted mix targeting approximately 70% Verified, 15% Directional, and 15% Single source.
Only one AI model returns this statistic from its training data. The figure comes from a single primary source and has not been corroborated by independent systems. Use with caution; cross-reference before citing.
AI consensus: 1 of 4 models agree
Multiple AI models cite this figure or figures in the same direction, but with minor variance. The trend and magnitude are reliable; the precise decimal may differ by source. Suitable for directional analysis.
AI consensus: 2–3 of 4 models broadly agree
All AI models independently return the same statistic, unprompted. This level of cross-model agreement indicates the figure is robustly established in published literature and suitable for citation.
AI consensus: 4 of 4 models fully agree
Cite This Report
This report is designed to be cited. We maintain stable URLs and versioned verification dates. Copy the format appropriate for your publication below.
David Sutherland. (2026, February 13). Female Genital Mutilation Statistics. Gitnux. https://gitnux.org/female-genital-mutilation-statistics
David Sutherland. "Female Genital Mutilation Statistics." Gitnux, 13 Feb 2026, https://gitnux.org/female-genital-mutilation-statistics.
David Sutherland. 2026. "Female Genital Mutilation Statistics." Gitnux. https://gitnux.org/female-genital-mutilation-statistics.
References
- 1who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/female-genital-mutilation
- 2un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/75/146
- 3documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/g18/262/91/pdf/g1826291.pdf
- 4rm.coe.int/168008482e
- 5ilo.org/dyn/natlex/natlex4.detail?p_lang=en&p_isn=122861
- 6ilo.org/dyn/natlex/natlex4.detail?p_lang=en&p_isn=122538
- 7ilo.org/dyn/natlex/natlex4.detail?p_lang=en&p_isn=116688
- 8ilo.org/dyn/natlex/natlex4.detail?p_lang=en&p_isn=123067
- 9coe.int/en/web/istanbul-convention/-/iceland
- 10legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/30/contents
- 11unicef.org/rosa/press-releases/33-million-girls-are-risk-undergoin-female-genital-mutilation-every-year
- 22unicef.org/appeals
- 31unicef.org/mena/media/15016/file/UNICEF%20MENA%20FGM%20Annual%20Report%202022.pdf
- 12thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667(17)30180-6/fulltext
- 17thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(18)30389-0/fulltext
- 13pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21219207/
- 14pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25250503/
- 15bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-017-4170-6
- 16journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0111510
- 18apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/43142
- 19ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5887869/
- 20data.unicef.org/resources/a-snapshot-of-female-genital-mutilation-in-mena-2021/
- 21data.unicef.org/resources/female-genital-mutilation-figures-from-dhs/
- 23dhsprogram.com/pubs/pdf/FR249/FR249.pdf
- 24dhsprogram.com/pubs/pdf/FR307/FR307.pdf
- 25dhsprogram.com/pubs/pdf/FR328/FR328.pdf
- 34dhsprogram.com/pubs/pdf/FR343/FR343.pdf
- 35dhsprogram.com/pubs/pdf/FR359/FR359.pdf
- 36dhsprogram.com/pubs/pdf/FR364/FR364.pdf
- 37dhsprogram.com/pubs/pdf/FR360/FR360.pdf
- 39dhsprogram.com/pubs/pdf/FR331/FR331.pdf
- 26journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0300060517745903
- 27tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/16549716.2017.1362870
- 28sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673619305840
- 29science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aav9115
- 30academic.oup.com/ije/article/49/1/190/6361582
- 32reliefweb.int/report/somalia/knowledge-attitudes-and-practices-health-care-providers-fgm-somalia
- 42reliefweb.int/report/ethiopia/assessment-female-genital-mutilation-community-based-program
- 33cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-biosocial-science/article/community-interventions-to-prevent-female-genital-mutilation-a-systematic-review-and-meta-analysis/0E6D5C5C2F9B9A1C3B3F8A5C5A9A8D6A
- 38mics.unicef.org/surveys
- 40evaw-global-database.unwomen.org/en/countries
- 41doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0002166
- 43doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czr068
- 44doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2021.100872







