PARTICIPATION PROJECT: Primary, Secondary, Tertiary prevention in Belgium

P/CVE policies in Belgium address all 3 kinds of prevention: primary, secondary and tertiary. The peculiar institutional architecture of Belgium and the division of competencies among the State, regions, communities and municipalities, do play a role also in shaping policies.

National level prevention policies are mainly built around tertiary - and to a lesser extent secondary – prevention. This depends on both historical and governance reasons. As has already been addressed in the introductory paragraph, the prevention policies currently in force have their roots in a strictly security and contrasting threat, specifically that represented by Islamist-inspired terrorism.

The whole policy at federal level is coordinated by the Coordination Unit for Threat Analysis (CUTA), the successor from 2006 of the Mixed Anti-Terrorism Group (AtG).

CUTA primarily draws up specific or strategic evaluations of terrorist and extremist threats in and to Belgium, while also playing a coordinating role under the Plan R as far as National and Local Task Forces are concerned. The unit is under the joint authority of the Ministers of the Interior and Justice.

Over the years, and especially with the rampant phenomenon of foreign fighters since 2012, federal plans and policies have started to broaden their scope, eventually including features of secondary and even primary prevention. It must be stressed, though, that federal policies merely set the guidelines for action plans and interventions implemented at lower levels and they mostly limit themselves to setting up a framework for coordination.

One of the stated objectives of Plan R, for example, is to “accurately depict the issue and determine the right balance between a preventive approach, a disrupting approach and a repressive approach”. This is delegated to other bodies without setting predetermined priorities. Furthermore, there is no clear indication about the fields where preventive work about radicalization should be carried out / incorporated.

The Programme on the prevention of violent radicalization published in 2013 goes a little further. It focuses on violent radicalization as well as polarization, and names a societal approach to prevention that calls for action in several fields, including the integration of multiple identities while retaining a set of common values, the reduction of frustration in society, from where radicalization and polarization may originate, and the promotion of a respect-based society. It also has a specific focus on youth and early prevention, as it calls for initiatives that reduce and avoid stigmatization and discrimination (phenomena identified as potential enabling factors of radicalization), and it stresses the need to increase resilience of vulnerable / at risk groups. Thus, it sets the stage for initiatives of primary prevention.
Regional and linguistic community plans are generally more focused on primary prevention, as communities are depositories of the related competencies. The Flemish Action Plan, for example, addresses both radicalization and polarization and is structured on 5 policy lines, including mobilizing civil society and supporting the local approach.

As for the latter, it lists initiatives in the field of social integration and active citizenship. Furthermore, this plan is designed as an integral part of the Integration plan and of the Equal Chances plan. The internal federal public service IBZ repository of local initiatives displays 20 projects addressing primary prevention, 42 secondary prevention, and 14 tertiary prevention.