The Role of Regional Organisations in CVE EU/MENA/Americas Experience Michael Jones 28 August 2017

Issues with National Plans of Action Non-existent or in very early stages Lack of funding and implementation Potential to restrict free speech and expression Issues with sufficiently addressing transnational drivers of violent extremism

Main Roles of Regional Organisations 1. Arenas to exploit comparative advantage and international cooperation 2. Hubs providing technical assistance in capacity building

Source: EU CT MORSE, available at:

EU Counter-Terrorism Strategy

Priorities of EU Prevent Pillar Need for a comprehensive and holistic approach built on multi-actor collaboration Promote security, justice and equal opportunities for all Enhance government communications Support messages countering terrorism Counter online radicalisation/terrorist recruitment Train, build capacity and engage first line practitioners across relevant policy sectors Support efforts to build community resilience Support disengagement initiatives Support further research into trends/challenges of radicalisation/terrorist recruitment Align internal and external CVE and counter radicalisation policies

EU Financial Mechanisms INSIDE EUROPE Erasmus+ Priority tackling education and youth action Virtual exchange programmes with third countries – fostering inter-cultural understanding through `e-Twinning` Internal Security Fund (ISF) EU-wide ‘Empowering Civil Society Programme’ RAN Centre of Excellence Horizon 2020 ‘Secure Societies’ theme includes research into drivers of VE OUTSIDE EUROPE Thematic Examples Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace (IcSP) European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) EU Trust Funds Emergency Trust Fund for Africa Bekou Trust Fund for Central African Republic Regional Trust Fund for Syria Geographic Examples European Development Fund

Facilitating European Cooperation Promoting International Partnerships

Advocacy

FAR RIGHT EXTREMISM INITIATIVE IN EUROPE

Strengthening National Capabilities Providing Stop-Gaps

E.g. Strengthening State-Civil Society Relations National governments tend to prioritise hard, security measures Impacts include preventing civil society organisations (CSOs) from: Conducting CVE programming at local level Influencing national and regional CVE approaches/agendas Having buy-in and ownership of CVE projects Problematic as CSOs and local communities critical for CVE programme design and delivery

Research, Development and Innovation

STRIVE Horn of Africa Multi-million euro programme conducted over 36 months in Kenya and Somaliland Experimental scheme: Research local forms of violent extremism Design context-specific CVE projects in partnership with local actors Implement, monitor and evaluate pilot programmes Share lessons learned to contribute towards CVE knowledge base and develop best practice Successful elements (e.g. mentorship scheme, law enforcement - civil society training) scaled up in STRIVE II

Problems and Limitations of Regional Organisations/CVE Donors Structural issues Limited local input and representation at the regional level Limited flexibility and flexibility Imposition of norms, preferences and conditions on CVE funding Regional interventions/ sponsored CVE activities still dependent on national governments

Conclusions Regional organisations cannot and should not provide a substitute for national level CVE efforts BUT they do supplement and strengthen national CVE efforts Can expedite, consolidate and scale up CVE activities Regional organisations need to reflect shifting demands in a fast changing policy space to maintain relevance