For many years, prevention remained taboo within the United Nations. The agenda was hindered by member states’ fears that it might be used disingenuously to interfere in their affairs, concerns that engaging in conflict prevention could be perceived as stigmatizing, and general confusion about what prevention entails.

National prevention strategies (NPS) emerged in part as a response to these concerns. Highlighted in the secretary-general’s New Agenda for Peace and later reinforced by member states’ commitments in the Pact for the Future, NPS emphasize national ownership and universality and offer a practical framework for implementing prevention efforts. NPS have now become a centerpiece of policy discussions on prevention at the UN. In a complex political context, they offer a hopeful approach—rebuilding trust in the prevention agenda by emphasizing national ownership and enabling more effective, context-specific systems to address the underlying causes of violence. Taken together, NPS represent a global effort to advance peace in a tailored way, one country at a time.

The recently adopted twin Security Council and General Assembly resolutions on the Peacebuilding Architecture Review (PBAR) go a step further by outlining how the UN can more coherently support NPS, including through the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC) and the Peacebuilding Fund (PBF). However, domestic efforts to prevent violence represent only one piece of a broader puzzle. Violent phenomena, the underlying causes of violence, and the sources of resilience do not respect borders. In an interconnected world, it is essential to better connect national and regional efforts to prevent violence. The PBAR resolutions only briefly reference regional and subregional engagement, noting the importance of the PBC engaging with regional and subregional organizations to support nationally identified peacebuilding priorities.

NPS provide opportunities to integrate a regional dimension by situating national risks within regional dynamics and facilitating cooperation with neighboring states. The PBC could support the further integration of this regional dimension into NPS by creating a platform for states to exchange good practices and to enable coherent support to address regional dynamics that affect national prevention efforts. The PBF could also fund regional initiatives to incentivize countries to tackle common challenges. Together, these regional efforts have the potential to connect and complement national prevention initiatives as part of a broader prevention puzzle.

National Prevention Strategies and Regional Dimensions[1]

While NPS are domestic tools at their core, many situate national violence dynamics within their wider regional environment in at least two ways.

First, NPS contextualize and “normalize” the challenges countries face by recognizing that similar issues exist across their region. The United Kingdom’s Serious Violence Strategy, for instance, notes that its homicide rate of 1.0 per 100,000 is relatively low compared with the European regional average of 6.2. Norway’s Action Plan against Radicalisation and Violent Extremism observes that it is not the only country affected by violent extremism, as Islamist extremist networks operate across many European countries. Similarly, Guatemala’s National Policy on Violence and Crime Prevention, Citizen Security, and Peaceful Coexistence reports that the most common weapons used in homicides—firearms and knives—mirror regional patterns. Together, these examples illustrate how countries use their NPS to emphasize that their experience is not abnormal and to destigmatize the challenges they face.

Second, NPS often emphasize how deeply countries are affected by regional dynamics. For example, the Lebanese National Action Plan for Preventing Violent Extremism highlights the impact of regional instability on its national context. In particular, geography can heighten vulnerability. São Tomé and Príncipe’s Conflict Prevention Strategy points to its exposure, given its location in the Gulf of Guinea, to illicit activities such as drug and human trafficking, piracy, and illegal fishing—factors that contribute to the proliferation of criminal networks. Other strategies similarly identify risks that transcend borders, including the illegal trafficking of migrants (Costa Rica), illicit arms smuggling (Moldova), illegal online content (the United Kingdom), and the spread of conspiracy theories and disinformation (New Zealand). In some cases, a risk factor cannot be addressed at all within the territory of the affected country. For instance, Moldova’s National Security Strategy highlights how the war in Ukraine has increased insecurity in the Black Sea region and disrupted maritime economic activities that directly affect Moldova’s economy.

NPS as a Tool for Regional Peace

Many national authorities also view their NPS as a contribution to regional peace. For instance, New Zealand’s strategy reaffirms its commitment to counterterrorism and preventing violent extremism regionally, while Costa Rica’s strategy underscores its commitment to reducing not only domestic but also regional crime rates.

In some cases, an NPS offers an opportunity to build on existing frameworks, including by supporting the implementation of a country’s commitments to regional agreements on violence prevention. For example, in 2002, the African Union heads of state committed to establishing national institutions or mechanisms for the prevention, management, and resolution of conflicts, envisioning these national mechanisms as focal points for subregional and continental early warning. Malawi’s National Peace Policy reflects this commitment by mandating the Malawi Peace Commission to “interact with other regional and international bodies involved in conflict management.” Similarly, Guatemala’s strategy refers to the Framework Agreement on Democratic Security in Central America, and the Solomon Islands’ National Peacebuilding Policy refers to the Pacific Plan, which identifies peacebuilding priority areas for the region.

NPS may also build on regional frameworks to address specific risk factors for violence and ensure attention to dynamics affecting particular groups. The Solomon Islands’ strategy, for example, links national peacebuilding to regional efforts under women, peace, and security frameworks and references the Melanesian Spearhead Group, which promotes economic development through trade relations while enhancing political stability across the region. Guatemala’s strategy emphasizes the importance of implementing regional agreements on arms transfers, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo’s (DRC) strategy refers to the African Union’s 2019 Transitional Justice Policy.

Finally, NPS often facilitate regional information exchange. For example, Costa Rica’s strategy established a system for sharing information with Ecuador, Panama, and Peru to tackle transnational crime. Similarly, the Danish Approach to Countering and Preventing Extremism and Radicalization set up a system to share information on foreign fighters, including through Europol and other European Union (EU) databases. Countries also collaborate to address regional risk factors for violence, as the United Kingdom does with its European partners to tackle illegal online content. Others, such as Kenya, are working to strengthen regional resilience to violence through cultural and artistic initiatives that promote pluralism and counter extremism.

NPS may also include mechanisms to share good practices. The strategies of the Solomon Islands, Lebanon, and New Zealand commit these countries to sharing best practices to inform regional and national policy and programming, including through forums and regional initiatives. Similarly, Norway’s strategy notes that political leaders from Denmark, Sweden, Finland, and Norway established a Nordic network to enhance the sharing of research and the exchange of experience on practical prevention efforts. NPS also provide an opportunity to build capacity for violence prevention within regions. Albania’s National Strategy on Countering Violent Extremism aims to strengthen capacity for countering violent extremism and regional cooperation in the Western Balkans.

What Role for the UN Peacebuilding Architecture?

The PBC and the PBF can both play a valuable role in supporting NPS while contributing to regional peacebuilding.

The PBC’s regional engagements have expanded over the past two decades. Since 2005, it has engaged at the regional level in Central Asia, the Great Lakes region, the Gulf of Guinea, the Lake Chad Basin, the Pacific Islands, the Sahel, and West Africa. These engagements have taken different forms, including PBC meetings, site visits, joint meetings with ECOSOC, and written advice to the Security Council. The PBC has also sought to strengthen its partnership with regional and subregional organizations, including by issuing standing invitations to the African Union, the Caribbean Community, and the EU. Building on this experience, the PBC can support the regional dimensions of NPS in four ways.

First, it can provide a forum for countries to share good practices and lessons learned on integrating regional dimensions into NPS. This can help countries learn from one another on how to address cross-border risk factors and seek joint solutions to risk factors for violence that are beyond their individual reach.

Second, the PBC can provide a forum for member states to engage on exogenous risk factors such as climate-related security risks and regional violent phenomena such as maritime insecurity. Similarly, it can serve as a platform to raise awareness of the need to address external shocks such as the COVID-19 pandemic in a conflict-sensitive way. For example, the members of the Pacific Islands Forum used their meetings in 2020 and 2022 to jointly discuss the impacts of climate change on peace and security, calling for strengthening the PBC’s capacity and outreach on this issue.

Third, the PBC can support the implementation of coordinated UN support to address shared risk factors and threat multipliers of violence in a region. For example, the PBC has leveraged its convening role to hold meetings on the Sahel to advance implementation of the UN Integrated Strategy for the Sahel. This led to an ECOSOC resolution in 2020 that mobilized greater UN resources for the region. Similarly, the PBC held a meeting in June 2021 to discuss implementation of the Yaoundé Code of Conduct, focusing on piracy and other drivers of maritime insecurity in the Gulf of Guinea. This international attention may have helped lay the groundwork for the Security Council’s first resolution on the Gulf of Guinea in a decade, directing greater UN support to the region.

Fourth, the PBC can play a convening role to improve cooperation between the UN peacebuilding architecture and regional organizations. The PBAR resolution encourages the PBC to explore more “systematic engagement” with regional and subregional organizations and calls for strengthening the relationship between the PBC and the African Union. The PBC and the African Union Peace and Security Council (AUPSC) have “reaffirmed the need for increased support to the peacebuilding and national prevention plans of countries and regional organizations and for further strengthening of the strategic partnership between the two bodies to achieve durable peace.” As identified during the informal PBAR consultations, the PBC and AUPSC could work toward an integrated framework for peacebuilding. This would require more regular engagement beyond annual meetings and expanded participation by other relevant actors, such as the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and African Development Bank, to enable more coherent support for national and regional prevention strategies.

The PBF can also be a useful tool for supporting efforts to counter regional drivers of conflict and violence while investing in regional prevention strategies. Since its inception in 2006, the PBF has increasingly focused on funding regional and cross-border initiatives. It first established a priority funding window for cross-border projects in its 2017–2019 strategic plan, which has been maintained in the subsequent strategies for 2020–2024 and 2025–2026. In 2024, 14% of the PBF’s approved funding—$16,250,000—was approved for supporting such approaches.

The PBF is a demand-driven fund, and while it has supported cross-border and regional peacebuilding initiatives, it has encountered challenges. The UN system remains largely state-centric, meaning country teams may focus on parallel programming in each country without sustained cross-border engagement. Regional initiatives may also present political sensitivities for host-state authorities, particularly in regions with heightened geopolitical tensions.

Nonetheless, there are cases where the PBF has supported efforts to coordinate and implement regional prevention initiatives. For example, it is currently supporting an initiative in several countries in the Western Balkans to engage young people in countering hate speech, including through regional youth councils. Building on existing regional cooperation frameworks—namely the Western Balkans Regional Cooperation Council Strategy and Work Programme—this project seeks to respond to shared risk factors for violence driving hate speech, while contributing to national prevention efforts and regional peace. While the project is ongoing, it’s an innovative approach and will offer lessons on how the PBF can support the implementation of regional initiatives moving forward.

While the PBAR resolution did not extensively focus on the regional level, it encouraged the PBC and PBF to support national prevention strategies. NPS provide entry points for addressing challenges that transcend borders and can be valuable tools for building and sustaining peace within countries and across regions.

[1] This article defines NPS as strategies that focus on preventing armed violence across the whole society rather than only targeting specific groups (e.g., those who have experienced gender-based violence). Such strategies include crime prevention strategies; prevention of violent extremism/terrorism national action plans; social cohesion strategies; peacebuilding strategies; and infrastructures for peace. Some strategies are primarily focused on prevention, whereas others incorporate prevention as one of their components.