UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1325 is a much-discussed and well-known component of the modern Women, Peace, & Security (WPS) agenda. It urged actors at the national, regional, and international levels to meaningfully increase women’s participation and incorporate gender perspectives in security efforts. It also calls on all parties to a conflict to take special measures to protect women and girls from gender-based violence, particularly rape and other forms of sexual abuse, in situations of armed conflict. Additionally, the resolution provides a number of important operational mandates, with implications for UN Member States and organizations connected with the United Nations system. Simply put, UNSCR 1325 lays out goals and ideals for member nations to aspire and work toward when considering the role of women within their country.

Since the UNSCR 1325 was established, many countries have worked to develop nation-level plans to work toward these goals. These plans are called National Action Plans (NAPs) and have been highly studied in the WPS field. The purpose of a NAP is to translate the WPS agenda into concrete commitments and actionable goals that specific countries can use as a roadmap. Our research tool has examples of NAPs from around the world.

UNSCR 1325 was adopted on October 31, 2000. Since then, different countries have taken different approaches to goal setting and the unique problems of their country under this mandate. One such approach is the creation of Regional Action Plans (RAPs), which are strategic outlines to achieve the goals of UNSCR 1325 in a specific geographic area, typically of several neighboring countries. RAPs are useful because nations within a religion often share similar histories, ethnic makeups, and challenges, and therefore have things in common around which to develop plans. The differences between RAPs and NAPs as well as the potential benefit of an RAP is discussed further below.

RAPs are generally organized through transnational governing bodies, such as the European Union (EU) or the African Union (AU) so that they can utilize existing governance structures for oversight.

Broadly, RAPs are intended to promote collaboration in goal development and completion as well as standardize benchmarks among neighboring countries. You can read many example RAPs in our research tool.

The number of RAPs in the world is slowly increasing. However, very little research has been done on them, particularly in comparison to the body of research that has been done on NAPs. This piece is intended as an introduction to RAPs. It will briefly summarize the history of RAPs, distinctions between a RAP and a NAP, RAP limitations, and the role RAPs have in driving the completion of the WPS Agenda and more specifically the goals of UNSCR 1325.

Brief History of Regional Action Plans

Following the adoption of 1325 in 2000, multiple regions developed some form of regional WPS initiative. Within Europe, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) adopted a series of commitments concerning women’s participation and protection, including its 2004 Action Plan for the Promotion of Gender Equality, while the EU adopted a Comprehensive Approach to the EU Implementation of UNSCR 1325 in 2008. Similarly in Africa, the AU worked to integrate WPS into its existing architecture and authored the Solemn Declaration on Gender Equality in Africa in 2004.

It was obvious that regional groups were interested in WPS and taking steps to achieve it. The first document to formally call itself a Regional Action Plan was created by the Pacific Island Forum (PIF), and it lasted from 2012 to 2015: Pacific Regional Action Plan. The document included several stated purposes, perhaps best summarized by the following:

It is envisaged that through a regional approach Pacific Island Countries and Territories will be able to more easily learn from each other, draw upon civil society knowledge, and receive global support.

After the PIF RAP, the 2010s saw an expansion of regional and subregional WPS plans in many regions of the globe. Now in the 2020s, these items are a normal part of the WPS landscape –⁠ something that is increasingly important as the world’s security concerns are increasingly transnational. While the success of RAPs broadly has mixed results, they continue to grow in number, as evidenced by the list of them available in our research tool.

For a more complete timeline of work done in response to UNSCR 1325, refer to UN Women’s Timeline: 20 Years of Women, Peace and Security.

What makes a Regional Action Plan different from a National Action Plan? Why have one?

While multiple elements differentiate RAPs from NAPs, the most obvious is that RAPs transcend national borders and governments. Regional planning presents both benefits and drawbacks, as it can encourage coordination and support, but it also requires nations to agree on shared goals.

Perhaps the most important distinction between NAPs and RAPs, and therefore the most important reason to have a RAP, are the benefits of regional coordination.

NAPs look at different sectors within a country and design plans to improve those sectors at the national level. They should be directly targeted to issues within that specific country and sector. They should also be accompanied by measurable statistics which are directly related to the goal. NAPs should be localized and not “one size fits all.” For example, Australia’s second NAP includes a goal to “demonstrate leadership and accountability for the Women, Peace and Security agenda,” which they will measure the success of through several indicators, including “number of meetings held by Australian posts with women mediators and participants to peace processes, as well as women’s rights organisations, on peace processes” and “number of times that Women, Peace and Security is referenced in public statements by the Australian Government.” These are good goals that look at something that specifically needs improvement within Australia and attach country-specific measurements to track it.

By comparison, RAPs are designed to address the regional dimension of WPS challenges and to strengthen existing commitments rather than simply create another set of national commitments. For example, in the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD)’s second RAP on WPS, it states:

The RAP will employ a two-pronged approach to tackle regional dimensions of WPS and provide support for Member States in implementing their respective WPS plans. The framework focuses on cross-border/trans-boundary issues related to WPS rather than focusing on what is already addressed by the individual NAPs.

A variety of RAPs feature similar language, talking about issues that transcend national borders like water and climate security, emergency preparedness, and humanitarian action. This transcendence of national borders is a key difference between national and regional action plans.

In addition, RAPs can standardize a region’s approach to an issue. Each NAP comes up with its own solution to issues as well as benchmarks for measurement (e.g., promote women’s participation and leadership in conflict prevention, management, and resolution). RAPs can take these individual approaches and benchmarks and create a centralized standard that allows for comparison and learning from the successes of others among member countries. For example, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)’s RAP outlines a goal to:

Provide the regional normative framework to set strategic priorities and action to enhance synergies between regional and country-level efforts to advance the WPS agenda in the ASEAN region.

This doesn’t mean that every country within a region needs to do everything the same way. In fact, ASEAN has specifically set out guidance for its member countries on localization and how to adapt this plan to their specific circumstances. The RAP lays out a baseline framework which can then be built upon and adapted as needed to the realities each country is facing.

Regional action plans can also grow interest in the WPS agenda in countries that do not currently have a NAP and create regional accountability. There has been a consistent trend where regions with a RAP see the creation of NAPs by their member countries. For example, A Global Study on the Implementation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 notes that:

In a number of regions, stronger take-up of the WPS agenda by key regional organizations has contributed to an increase in related NAPs by Member States…In West Africa, where Member States committed to the development of NAPs in the [Economic Community of West African States] regional action plan, 12 out of 15 countries developed these plans within three years of its adoption.

Having a RAP provides a benchmark for member countries to build from and base their efforts on, which can pave the way for localized planning at the national and subregional levels.

RAPs create a regional norm wherein a group of states collectively agrees that women’s participation in peace and security is a priority, which can trickle down into individual nations. Barbara Trojanowska’s analysis of the regionalization of Women, Peace and Security, when talking about the Pacific Island Forum’s RAP, said that its purpose was:

Not only to guide collective peace and security efforts within the PIF, but also to support its members to adhere to the WPS agenda and adopt NAPs. Specifically, the RAP aimed to serve as ‘a regional policy and programmatic framework that [complements] and supports national efforts and provides guidance to those countries that cannot afford to develop such a plan at the national level’.

This includes a quote from the PIF RAP itself, which notes that the existence of a RAP will “help to save scarce resources.”

Regional Action Plan Limitations

While RAPs can contribute a lot to the WPS space, they also have limitations. First and perhaps most prominently, like many “common denominator” regional efforts, RAPs are often less specific or concrete than well-developed NAPs. Reaching agreement on a framework, priorities, and benchmarks that all regional actors can accept requires compromise, potentially resulting in standards that are less ambitious than those adopted by individual states. This can reflect differences in political will, available funding, and institutional capacity, or simply differing priorities within the WPS agenda. For example, IGAD’s RAP was designed in recognition of the region’s “limited technical and financial resources” and therefore focused on strengthening existing commitments rather than creating new ones.

Another noted challenge is that regional organizations have power structures of their own, and member nations within them may not have an equal voice. This can create hesitation among countries who feel like their sovereignty is at risk or potentially could be compromised by more powerful regional actors within the bloc. Coomaraswamy’s Global Study found that:

Consultations in the Middle East, the Caucuses and South Asia with women in the area revealed a reluctance and wariness with regard to regional organizations, especially when it was felt that one or a few major powers would dominate. In contrast, in Africa and Europe where many of the States wielded equal power, there was a great deal of trust and reliance on regional initiatives.

This is a long-standing issue with multinational power structures that is not specific to WPS but it should still be taken into account when considering the strengths and weaknesses of various WPS agenda implementations.

Another limitation is a lack of accountability. At the national level, there are organizations responsible for different parts of society (securing and implementing policies, monitoring their success, etc.); however, at the regional level, these structures may not exist or may not be set up well to complete these tasks. A common critique of regional action plans is that their implementation can be murky or haphazard, as no one is sure who is responsible for the work. Some research on the topic suggests that “the development of RAPs was neither sufficient nor necessary to sustain the commitment to the WPS agenda in the long term.” Who is responsible for pushing individual countries when progress stalls or stops? Whose budget will pay for shortfalls in funding within a specific country? This lack of accountability can hinder how much a RAP is able to accomplish. That’s not to say that these issues are absent from NAPs, but they can be much more prominent with the greater number of moving parts at the regional level.

What is the role of Regional Action Plans in Women, Peace, & Security?

As the globe faces a growing body of transnational challenges, RAPs have become an increasingly important piece of the WPS landscape. Research points to climate change, resource scarcity, and even cybersecurity as items to consider as part of the transnational WPS agenda.

Regional planning can create an environment where the WPS agenda is highlighted at both the national and international levels, increase attention and adherence to UNSCR 1325, and ultimately improve policy across regions related to WPS. It has great potential to implement goals and improve the lives of women globally, yet its limitations can’t be forgotten. These limitations are part of why the best approach is not “Only NAPs” or “Only RAPs,” but a two-pronged effort at both the national and regional levels to implement and push forward the WPS agenda.

There are also further opportunities in the RAP space to be explored. Coomaraswamy’s Global Study noted multiple areas where they believed greater learning could occur: “mechanisms for the dissemination of women, peace and security-related statistics and other information collected at global, regional and national levels; and stronger engagement of beneficiaries in the design, implementation and evaluation of projects and programmes.” They went on to say even more specifically that one area where little information sharing occurred that would specifically have an impact would be the behind-the-scenes of how various nations finance WPS initiatives at the regional level.

RAPs are not the be-all and end-all for implementing the WPS agenda, but they can provide an important puzzle piece in building an agenda to fruition globally.