What works and what does not in armed violence reduction and prevention? To begin to address this question, this report draws on a large-scale mapping of AVRP activities around the world, focusing on programming trends in the varied contexts of Brazil, Burundi, Colombia, Liberia, South Africa and Timor-Leste. The most promising AVRP activities are based on inter-sectoral partnerships and operate simultaneously at local and national levels. Development agencies need to adopt integrated approaches to AVRP, and link the AVRP agenda to the promotion of peacebuilding and statebuilding.
Most armed violence prevention and reduction activities reviewed began after 2005. In addition to AVRP work related to internationally-mediated peace processes and security promotion efforts, national governments and NGOs have invested significantly in more developmental approaches to AVRP over the past decade. Such activities involve urban planning, population health, tertiary and secondary education and youth programming.
ARVP interventions can be direct, indirect or components of wider development schemes. Direct interventions aim to influence the instruments, actors and institutional environments that enable armed violence. Indirect interventions counter the proximate and structural risk factors that shape armed violence onset and intensity. Broader development schemes may not have armed violence reduction and prevention as their primary aim, but can contribute to reductions in insecurity over time. At the forefront of AVRP are those interventions combining both ‘direct’ and ‘indirect’ approaches – targeting both the risks and symptoms – many of which are pursued at the municipal level.
However, the global AVRP agenda and mainstream literature are biased in favour of actions endorsed and supported by international agencies and national governments. There is little identification, analysis and evaluation of cross-border, sub-national, metropolitan, community-based and grass-roots activities. Further findings are that:
- The ‘armed violence’ label is not always recognised or uniformly applied by practitioners in low- and medium-income settings. AVRP activities address over 20 different types of armed violence, not just those associated with conflict and crime. A significant proportion of AVRP interventions seeks to prevent violence against women.
- Multilateral and bilateral support for AVRP programmes appears to be most common in low-income, post-conflict contexts, while national, public authority-led and NGO efforts are more common in medium-income, crime-affected settings.
- A vast array of interventions has emphasised conflict prevention, peacebuilding and wider security and safety priorities since the early 1990s: there is much experience to draw on.
A wealth of small-scale and innovative programmes reflects the dynamism and social entrepreneurship that exists in this field. However, future successes will require in-depth evaluations, investments to scale-up activities and the development of long-term programming interventions. All six case studies demonstrate the fundamental importance of evidence-generation and of innovative partnerships – particularly between public authorities, local civil society actors and the private sector – with international agencies playing a facilitating and supportive role.
Moving forward, then, development agencies need to adopt integrated approaches to AVRP: the most effective ‘direct’ and ‘indirect’ interventions are multi-sector, operate at multiple levels, and rely on extensive partnerships among many actors. Such activities should promote both security and wider development outcomes, with the two being mutually reinforcing. Donors and development agencies also need to:
- Undertake ‘audits’ or ‘inventories’ of their AVRP initiatives, document good or promising practice with reliable evaluations, and adapt their terminology to local contexts.
- Ensure that stakeholders analyse their common problems and support comprehensive responses. This requires establishing clear and achievable goals, methodologies for quantifying results, and appropriate indicators to design, implement and monitor interventions and their outcomes.
- Invest in strengthening the capacities of local partners and partnerships across sectors to monitor and measure performance.
- Increase their focus on recurring development challenges (such as poverty and income inequality in high risk areas, youth unemployment and literacy, youth recreation and cultural activities, family planning and early childhood development).
- Focus more explicitly on AVRP in existing peacebuilding and statebuilding strategies. Evidence has shown that promoting the capacity of public and civil society to document, prevent and reduce armed violence strengthens state authority and legitimacy. The combination of ‘direct’ and ‘indirect’ AVRP interventions at various levels – addressing the instruments and perpetrators of armed violence and also the broader environment – could generate important outcomes.
