The Swiss Government has launched its fourth National Action Plan for a period of five years (2018-2022). It builds on Switzerland’s first NAP (for the period 2007-2009), its second NAP (for the period 2010-2012) and its third NAP (for the period 2013-2016). The fourth NAP includes a focus for greater participation by women in the prevention of violent extremism, since the passing of UNSCR 2242 (2015) as well as the incorporation of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 5. The development of the fourth NAP was led by the Interdepartmental Working Group (IDWG 1325) in consultation with Swiss representations abroad, Swiss civil society and partner organisations. Swiss civil society is involved, for the first time, in the implementation of the NAP. The NAP is based on recommendations from civil society’s ‘1325 Reloaded’ report. This NAP includes an additional focus on engaging men in on women, peace and security work. In regards to disarmament, the revised NAP includes, a call for greater consideration of gender aspects in arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation. The analysis below includes brief updates at the top of each relevant section.
Switzerland has no recent history of conflict, but plays an important role in international humanitarian and development operations, although it only joined the UN in 2002.
Civil society, for the first time will be included in the monitoring and evaluation as well as the implementation process of the fourth NAP. In addition, there was a direct link included on gender and disarmament. Overall, Swiss civil society was more involved in the the development, monitoring and evaluation and implementation stages of the NAP.
From a recent academic analysis: The second Swiss NAP is not much more specific than the first version. It also shares a unique characteristic with the first NAP in only covering a three-year span, compared to four or five years, which most other NAPs tend to cover. The 2010 Swiss NAP also shares the same three priority areas as the first Swiss NAP. A major difference is that civil society was consulted during the development of this version yet civil society is still not included in monitoring and evaluation. (Miller, Pournik, & Swaine, 2014)