Tomorrow (24 May) the African Union (AU) Peace and Security council (PSC) will convene its 852 session on the inaugural consultative meeting of the PSC and the peace and security decision-making organs of Regional Economic Communities/Regional Mechanisms (RECs/RMs).

The session convened in line with Article 16 of the PSC Protocol and the conclusions of the various retreats of the PSC convened over many years on its working methods. As the first consultative meeting being convened 15 years after the coming into effect of the PSC, this session is also a reflection of the institutional reform of the AU, which puts emphasis on enhancing close working relationship and coordination with the policy organs of the RECs/RMs.

The AU Commission is expected to present by way of a report a background document on the Inaugural Meeting of the AU PSC and the Policy Organs of the RECs/RMs for Conflict Prevention, Management and Resolution on Promotion of Peace, Security and Stability in Africa. Accordingly, the focus is not on the interface between the AU Commission and the secretariats of the RECs/RMs but on the PSC and the policy decision-making organs of the RECs/RMs.

The chairpersons of nine RECs/RMs peace and security policy decision-making organs are expected to participate. These are Chad as Chair of CEN-SAD, Ethiopia as Chair of IGAD, Gabon as Chair of ECCAS and the Peace and Security Council of ECCAS, Madagascar as Chair of COMESA, Namibia as Chair of SADC and SADC Political and Defense Organ, Nigeria as Chair of ECOWAS and the Mediation and Security Community of ECOWAS, Rwanda as Chair of EAC and Tunisia as Chair of UMA. Additionally, invitation has also been extended for all Executive Secretaries of the RECs/RMs to participate in this inaugural consultative meeting.

In terms of defining the outline for coordination between the two levels, there is no lack of adequate legal rules. Article 7(1) (e) of the Protocol enjoins the PSC ‘promote close harmonization, co-ordination and co-operation between Regional Mechanisms and the Union in the promotion and maintenance of peace, security and stability in Africa’. Most importantly, Article 16 of the Protocol articulates the place of RECs/RMs in the Africa Peace and Security Architecture (APSA) and outlines at some length the details of how the PSC together with the Chairperson of the AU Commission shall go about developing policy coordination and close working relationship with RECs/RMs. With nine sub-articles, Article 16 is the longest and most detail of the PSC Protocol articles that define relationships between the PSC and other actors.

While acknowledging the primary role of the PSC, Article 16 affirms that RECs/RMs ‘are part of the overall Security Architecture of the Union’. Its sub-article 1 emphasizes the need for aligning the role of RECs/RMs with the objectives and principles of the AU. It further underscores the need for enduring ‘effective partnership between them and the PSC in the maintenance of peace and security’. Eschewing a one size fits all approach, it envisions that such effective partnership is to be pursued on the basis of ‘the comparative advantage of each and the prevailing circumstances’. Other than requiring alignment of normative objectives and principles, this approach does not consider a rigid and hierarchical relationship between the two levels. Instead it opts for a flexible approach leveraging the comparative advantage of both the PSC and RECs/RMs. Thus, sub-article 2 of Article 16 envisions a consultative decision- making process.

In terms of how the close working relationship and the coordination of policy is to be operationalized, sub-article 6 of Article 16 provides that RECs/RMs ‘shall be invited to participate in the discussion of any question brought before the Peace and Security Council whenever that question is being addressed by a regional mechanism is of special interest to that organization.’ In undertaking conflict prevention, peacemaking and peace building functions, the PSC and RECs/RMs are required under sub-article 3 of Article 16 to fully and continuously inform each other of their activities.

As highlighted in the background document for the meeting, these detailed provisions have been complemented with further provisions elaborated in the conclusions of the various retreats of the PSC on its working methods. Most notable in this regard are the May 2015 Swakopmund and the September 2015 Abuja retreats of the PSC.

There have been two major gaps that have led to the lack of effective coordination between the PSC and RECs/RMs. The first of this was the non-implementation of both the provisions of Article 16 of the PSC Protocol and the relevant conclusions of the PSC Retreats on its Working Methods. This was despite the fact that for at least the past few years the indicative annual program of work of the PSC envisaged the convening of the annual consultative meeting envisaged in Article 16 of the Protocol. The other was the lack of initiative for developing the kind of arrangements and mechanisms established for the PSC – UN Security Council relationship for the operationalization of the provisions Article 16 on policy coordination and close working relationship.

Experience from various conflict situations show that the resultant lack of effective and institutionalized policy coordination between the two levels has produced increasing disaffection on both sides. While tomorrow’s consultative meeting is long overdue, it is key for addressing the growing challenges of policy coherence and coordinated action in responding to conflicts. As the PSC’s role in conflict prevention, management and resolution has become institutionalized and the role of RECs/RMs in this area shows expansion, the instances for policy divergence and dissonance has also increased over the years. Such differences and uncoordinated interventions have been observed in a number of conflict situations. In the past this has been the case with respect to the situations in Cote d’Ivoire, Madagascar, Guinea Bissau, Mali and Central African Republic (CAR). In recent years, this has been evident in the situations in Burundi and South Sudan. In some of these cases, there has been normative disconnect between the two levels. This is particularly notable with respect to situations involving electoral disputes and unconstitutional changes of government.

Apart from the impact of such divergent policy approaches and uncoordinated interventions in fragmenting peace and security decision- making on the continent, they have importantly undermined the effort for the resolution of conflicts, thereby allowing the conflicts to rage on perpetuating the suffering of the affected populations.

It is expected that apart from the foregoing, the background document for the meeting will outline other gaps observed in PSC – RECs/RMs peace and security decision-making processes. These notably include lack of clear criteria for determining the application of the principle of subsidiarity, lack of clarity on the format and mechanics of organization of the consultative meetings, lack of clarity on horizontal coordination among RECs and the role of the PSC in facilitating such horizontal coordination, the challenges arising from trans-regional security threats that don’t fall within the jurisdiction of no one REC/RM, and lack of clarity on decision-making role between the PSC and RECs/RMs on the mandating and deployment of the African Standby Forces.

Another area worth looking into in this context is the need for reviewing whether and how the legal instruments or decisions of policy-making organs of RECs/RMs established provisions recognizing the role of the PSC similar to those found in Article 16 of the PSC Protocol. Such provisions will prove critical not only to give legal basis in RECs/RMs instruments but also to institutionalize mutual recognition and close working relationship between the two levels. Such provisions are also key for institutionalized operationalization of one of the conclusions of the September 2015 Abuja PSC Retreat, which stipulates that ‘RECs/RMs shall extend invitations to the AUC Chairperson and the Chairperson of the PSC in their statutory and other decision-making meetings on peace and security.’

In terms of the operationalization of the principles of subsidiary, complementarity and comparative advantage, the annual consultative meeting may take lessons and best practices from AU-UN partnership on peace and security. This entails that instead of rigid application of principles, they should recognize that both levels have a role to play and engage in joint analysis of the situation and joint formulation of policy options which ensure policy coherence and joint collective action that leverages the role and contribution of each. Other best practice include the joint field visits to conflict situations, thus the PSC and the concerned REC/RM can plan and undertake joint field visits as a means of enhancing collective action and policy coherence.

Taking stock of the forgoing and the experience in PSC and RECs/RMs relationship, the annual consultative meeting can identify the best practices thus far and the remaining challenges. In this regard, one measure that the annual consultative meeting can establish is to consolidate into one coherent and authoritative document the various modalities and frameworks for cooperation articulated in diverse documents. On the basis of such single document that consolidates best practices and articulated additional options for coordination, the PSC and the policy organs of RECs/RMs on peace and security can develop and sign a memorandum of understanding or framework agreement.

It is expected that the outcome of the consultative meeting would take the form of Proposals/Recommendations  on Harmonisation and Coordination of Decision Making Processes/Division of Labour between the AU and RECs in the area of peace and security. This is expected to be part of the working documents that will be considered during the inaugural AU-RECs/RMs summit to be held in Niamey, Niger on 4-5 July 2019. The Proposals/Recommendations are to outline agreed interpretation of the principles that govern relationships between the PSC and RECs/RMs peace and security policy organs and the modalities, format and timelines for coherent policy making and operational coordination of interventions.