Our stories. Find out more about our work towards the Sustainable Development Goals.

NAIROBI, 10 September 2026. Protecting critical infrastructure increasingly means protecting more than a physical facility. It means safeguarding the services, digital systems, people and networks that allow societies and economies to function.That was a central message from the Fifth Nairobi Caucus on Protecting Critical Infrastructure Systems and Public Spaces from Terrorism, held in Nairobi from 7 to 8 September 2026.Convened by Kenya’s National Counter Terrorism Centre (NCTC) and the United Nations Office of Counter-Terrorism (UNOCT) through its Nairobi Programme Office, the meeting brought together 200 participants from 24 Member States, alongside representatives of 11 regional organisations, United Nations entities, international partners and other stakeholders.Over two days, policymakers, practitioners and experts examined how terrorist threats to infrastructure and public spaces were changing, and what governments, operators and partners needed to do differently to anticipate threats, reduce vulnerabilities and keep essential services functioning when incidents occurred.For Kenya, the discussion came as continued investment in transport, energy, digital systems and other infrastructure was expanding both the country’s economic opportunities and the systems requiring protection.Prime Cabinet Secretary and Cabinet Secretary for Foreign and Diaspora Affairs Musalia Mudavadi said the focus of the meeting was particularly relevant to Kenya’s infrastructure development.“Our dams, railways, digital assets, energy infrastructure, health systems and stadia are critical infrastructure that should be protected from terrorists’ attacks,” Mudavadi said. From protecting sites to protecting systemsA recurring theme across the Caucus was the need to move beyond security built mainly around individual sites.Modern infrastructure is increasingly interconnected. Physical facilities depend on communications networks, digital systems, personnel, supply chains and other services. Disruption to one part of that network can therefore affect many others, with consequences for public services, livelihoods, economic activity and public safety.Participants examined how protection could be strengthened through risk and vulnerability assessments, security by design, preparedness, inter-agency coordination, business continuity, emergency response, crisis communication and post-incident recovery.The emphasis was not only on responding more effectively when an attack occurred. It was also on identifying vulnerabilities earlier, preparing institutions and infrastructure operators beforehand and ensuring that essential services could continue or recover quickly after disruption.Mudavadi called for a stronger shift from reactive security towards what he described as proactive and resilient protective security.He proposed five connected areas for action: anticipation, readiness, mitigation, response and recovery. These ranged from improving national and regional capacity to identify terrorist risks to strengthening preparedness, reducing known vulnerabilities, coordinating responses and putting systems in place to restore stability following an incident.“Investments in protective security must never be seen as mere operational costs, but as strategic investments in national stability, security and sustainable development,” Mudavadi said.The approach linked infrastructure security directly to development. Electricity networks, transport systems, health facilities, ports, water systems and digital services are not only physical assets. They enable public services, commerce and everyday life. Their resilience therefore has direct consequences for development and the ability of institutions to continue serving communities. The digital dimensionThe discussions also reflected how digitisation was changing the meaning of critical infrastructure.As essential services became increasingly dependent on digital platforms, data networks and automated systems, participants considered threats that might disrupt infrastructure without directly attacking a physical facility.Mudavadi noted that a cyberattack could interfere with electricity grids, water systems, transport networks, financial services and other essential infrastructure.“We therefore need to protect not only the physical asset, but also the data, networks, software and human systems upon which that asset depends,” he said.This placed cybersecurity and physical security within the same resilience discussion. It also strengthened the case for incorporating risk and security considerations at the design and planning stages of infrastructure projects rather than treating protection as something added later.The regional implications were equally significant.Kenya’s ports, airports, transport corridors, communications infrastructure and other systems support economic activity beyond its borders. Mudavadi pointed to the Port of Mombasa as one example of infrastructure whose security mattered not only to Kenya, but also to countries that depend on it for trade and access to global markets.Protecting interconnected infrastructure therefore required stronger cooperation across borders, alongside coordination within countries.Protecting public spaces while keeping them openThe Caucus also examined a different security challenge: protecting public spaces that, by their nature, needed to remain accessible.Transport hubs, markets, places of worship, sporting facilities, entertainment venues and other publicly accessible spaces bring large numbers of people together. Unlike highly controlled facilities, their social and economic purpose depends partly on remaining open.This required approaches that balanced accessibility with risk awareness, preparedness and the capacity to respond quickly when threats emerged.It also reinforced the importance of involving a broader range of actors. Local authorities, security agencies, infrastructure operators, businesses and communities all hold different pieces of the information, capacity and responsibility required to keep public spaces safe. Security as a shared responsibilityThe need for stronger cooperation between government and the private sector featured prominently throughout the two-day meeting.Many critical services are owned, managed or delivered by private operators. Participants therefore discussed practical arrangements for information-sharing, early warning, risk management, business continuity and coordinated responses before an emergency occurred.For Steven Sequeira, Deputy Director of UNOCT, this wider understanding of protection was central to the discussions.“Protecting critical infrastructure and public spaces means protecting the systems, services and places that societies depend on every day. It requires risk-informed preparedness, strong public-private partnerships and the capacity to prevent, mitigate, respond to and recover from terrorist attacks.”The Caucus also placed particular emphasis on practical experience and peer learning. National case studies, plenary discussions, expert contributions and breakout sessions allowed participants to compare approaches, examine common vulnerabilities and consider how international practices could be adapted to different national and regional contexts.Kibiego Kigen, Director General of NCTC Kenya, said stronger regional cooperation needed to be grounded in solutions that reflected African realities.“Our success rests on solidarity and a shared resolve to innovate contextualised, African-led solutions that eradicate the threats of terrorism from our region and across our continent,” Kigen said. Building regional cooperationThe Fifth Nairobi Caucus built on four previous editions held since the initiative was established in 2022.The annual consultative framework brings together Member States, regional organisations and international partners to examine terrorism and violent extremism challenges affecting East Africa, exchange experience and identify areas where cooperation can be strengthened.The 2026 meeting placed critical infrastructure and public spaces within that wider regional conversation, but also sharpened an underlying development question: how can countries protect increasingly interconnected systems while ensuring that the services built around them continue to reach people?The discussions pointed towards a broader understanding of resilience. Protecting infrastructure was not only about preventing physical damage. It also meant anticipating risks, strengthening institutions and partnerships, protecting digital and human systems and ensuring that essential services could withstand disruption and recover when crises occurred.For economies and communities increasingly dependent on interconnected infrastructure, that capacity to continue functioning had become part of the security challenge itself.