A fundamental initial step in effective programming supported by GCERF for preventing violent extremism is to understand what is driving it.
During the year since the publication of the 2016 Global Terrorism Index, the ‘preventing violent extremism’ (PVE) agenda has progressed in fits and starts.
Positively, the idea that prevention is an important component in the counter-terrorism toolbox is now widely acknowledged.
This further aligns PVE with the agenda of the UN where the Secretary General has emphasised prevention across the entire UN system, building on the relevance of PVE for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), as most explicitly expressed in SDG 16.
Negatively, political support has waned among certain key donors for PVE. Still, there have been legitimate concerns expressed that governments will use PVE as an excuse to restrict civil society, hamper freedom of expression and suppress human rights. There is also some skepticism among development donors and actors about the relevance of PVE.
Perhaps the best way to maintain the momentum of the PVE agenda is to demonstrate results.
This short essay reviews the results of PVE interventions supported by GCERF and lessons learned. After all, the credibility of PVE also depends on an objective assessment of what works and what does not.
GCERF is a multistakeholder global fund, supporting local initiatives to build resilience against violent extremism in Bangladesh, Kenya, Kosovo, Mali, Myanmar, Nigeria and Tunisia.
A fundamental initial step in effective programming for preventing violent extremism is to understand what is driving it. Certainly, there is a general consensus that the factors are individual, contextual and locally specific.
During the last year, GCERF commissioned more than 8,500 baseline surveys of people in at-risk communities in Bangladesh, Mali and Nigeria.
In all three countries, over 90% of individuals surveyed were aware of the threat of violent extremism and more than 50% already experienced it personally.
The impact of violent extremism on individuals includes:
The drivers of violent extremism identified across these communities can be broadly categorised as:
Most communities surveyed were already responding to these drivers and GCERF has boosted these community-led responses.
1. Firstly, raising awareness of violent extremism;
2. Secondly, promoting community engagement;
3. Thirdly, providing positive alternatives.
In Bangladesh, GCERF grants are engaging over 150,000 students in awareness raising initiatives. For instance, initiatives include youth debate competitions, youth radio listener clubs and even critical thinking workshops.
GCERF grants are supporting training for 27,000 madrassa students in Mali and 180 madrassa professors on the drivers, manifestations and means of preventing violent extremism.
In Nigeria, women’s groups have been established with the support of GCERF grants to develop and disseminate counternarratives to extremist messages.
Community engagement is being fostered in Bangladesh by providing access to extracurricular activities. For example, facilitating sports tournaments for 37,000 adolescent youth and holding courtyard meetings for over 100,000 women.
In Mali, training in active citizenship is being provided to 14,000 women.
Finally, in Nigeria more than 33,000 young people are participating in community theatre and art projects to help build their confidence and communication skills.
The 2017 Global Terrorism Index 2017 contains the original version of this essay. This article is an extract.
