A/HRC/7/37 page 10 cleansing or crimes against humanity may require attention to humanitarian, political or human rights, or developmental and environmental factors, according to each situation. All these factors are currently addressed by Member States and non-governmental organizations, as well as by specialized United Nations agencies and departments with expertise in the programming areas, such as the rule of law, human rights, political affairs, good governance, humanitarian assistance and development. Human rights treaty bodies and special rapporteurs also play an important role in addressing aspects of these thematic areas and in specific countries. Collectively, these various mandates can be said to cover every substantive aspect of prevention of large-scale violence that a given situation might require; and yet, in practice, allegations of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity continue to be made. 24. There has been a gap in the preventive response on the ground. United Nations entities with the expertise and capacity to act preventively are often not provided with the authorization from Member States or the resources to support in-country prevention adequately and in a timely manner. In some instances, the State authorities concerned may not have realized the gravity of the emerging problems. In other instances, actors within the United Nations system may not have recognized their particular role in the prevention of large-scale violence and consequently do not engage with State authorities or amend their existing programmes and strategies in a way that would help in prevention. 25. The wide range of factors that contribute to the prevention of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing or crimes against humanity require the whole of the United Nations system to have a common understanding of the risks and to engage collaboratively in prevention. In critical situations, it is essential that not only do the authorities in the State concerned share this understanding, but also that Member States collectively engage in common efforts of prevention. The Special Adviser notes that the clearest element in situations where United Nations prevention has been somewhat successful is where there is consensus among Member States and with the United Nations on the problems and the concerted action needed in response. A strategic contribution of the Special Adviser could be to foster consensus-building where there is a risk of large-scale violence. 5. Country focus 26. Since the report of the Secretary-General in March 2006, the Special Adviser has continued to monitor situations worldwide, relying on information from other parts of the United Nations system as well as from governmental and non-governmental sources. In recognition of the sensitive nature of the mandate, the Special Adviser only makes public references to concerns in specific States where such references would be particularly useful in addressing concerns. 27. Action by both the former and current Special Advisers has included country visits by the Special Adviser or his staff, meetings with government representatives or other interlocutors, and, when a more public role of the Special Adviser is warranted, statements to the press. The Special Adviser has written notes, containing recommendations for action, to the Secretary-General on numerous situations. 28. More specifically, in the immediate wake of the violence that followed the elections in Kenya in December 2007, the Special Adviser closely monitored developments, assessing the