Conflict and Atrocity Prevention: An Evidence Platform
The Evidence Platform presents evidence on what works in reducing and violent conflict and atrocities. It summarises findings as to how intervention strategies affect specific measurable outcomes such as reduced violence and improved social cohesion.
This guidebook presents map-based analysis clearly
The EGM structures gaps in a clear visual display
108
completed rigorous primary ‘what works’ studies are on the Map
35
countries where studies have been conducted.
20
systematic reviews, and 8 primary studies underway are also on the Map.
Many(!)
gaps with no research yet, or only one or two studies.
What is this EGM about?
The Evidence and Gap Map (EGM) presents evidence of the effectiveness of strategies for reducing an preventing violent conflict and atrocities. It provides a systematic framework connecting intervention strategies with specific measurable outcomes like reduced violence and improved social cohesion. The EGM contains 573 studies of CAP interventions, primarily in low- and middle-income countries, categorizing them into direct strategies (e.g., conflict mediation, law and accountability) and indirect strategies (e.g., governance reform, civil society support). Most studies focused on conflict prevention (78%), while a small portion (5%) addressed atrocity prevention. The EGM identifies gaps in evidence, particularly for emergent conflict settings, to inform future research and policy development.
What our evidence covers
What Our Evidence Covers
- Focuses on conflict and atrocity prevention (CAP) in low- and middle-income countries.
- Includes direct strategies like mediation and legal accountability.
- Covers indirect strategies like governance reform and civil society support.
- Relies on statistical and qualitative methods to evaluate interventions.
- Mostly addresses preventing escalation in ongoing conflicts.
- Includes 573 studies, with 78% focused on conflict prevention.
What Our Evidence Doesn’t Cover
- Few studies focus solely on atrocity prevention (5%).
- Limited research on interventions in emerging or pre-crisis conflicts.
- Long-term and systemic prevention strategies are underrepresented.
- Integrated approaches combining conflict and atrocity prevention are not well-covered.
What are conflict and atrocity?
Initially, an Evidence and Gap Map (EGM) was developed to catalogue research on interventions, but it lacked insights into effectiveness. To address this, the team analyzed 573 studies, assessing interventions across diplomacy, governance, civil society, and economic foundations. This refined map not only identifies what works, providing a valuable resource for policymakers and practitioners working toward sustainable peace.