Tomorrow (22 October), the African Union (AU) Peace and Security Council (PSC) will convene for a briefing from the Peace Fund Secretariat.

Mohamed Gad, Permanent Representative of the Arab Republic of Egypt to the AU and PSC Chairperson for October 2024, and Bankole Adeoye, AU Commissioner for Political Affairs, Peace and Security, are expected to make statements. Dagmawit Moges, Director, Peace Fund Secretariat is expected to brief the Council on the state of operationalisation of the Peace Fund and activities undertaken since the February 2024 AU summit.

As part of the effort to address the perineal adequate, predictable and sustainable funding, the AU Assembly, during its 27^th Ordinary Session held in July 2016 in Kigali, Rwanda, through Assembly Decision [Assembly/AU/Dec.605 (XXVII)] resolved to revitalise the Peace Fund through contributions from member states. This decision led to the establishment of a $400 million endowment for the AU Peace Fund initially planned to be mobilised by 2020. The revitalised Fund is organised to provide support for three windows (intervention areas): preventive diplomacy and mediation activities; institutional capacity building; and peace support operations. Additionally, a Crisis Reserve Facility (CRF) is established to fund rapid responses to emergency crises.

The initial Assembly Decision 605 was that the Peace Fund would be financed through equal contributions from each AU region. The Assembly in its decision [Assembly/AU/Dec.734 (XXXII)] switched the basis for contribution to be used as the scale of assessment for the regular budget. While four regions of Africa supported the use of the scale of assessment, the North African region favoured the regional formula under Assembly Decision 605. The Executive Council in its October 2020 extraordinary session adopted by consensus, with reservation by the Northern region, the use of the scale of assessment for the regular budget for contribution to the Peace Fund (EX.CL Dec./1100(XXXVII)).

Over three years after the initial timeline of endowing the Fund with $400 million, the Peace Fund has a balance of $398 million as of June 2024. This amount is made up of member states contributions ($341 million), the balance from the Legacy Fund ($ 25 million) and the interest that is generated from the investment by the 2 Fund managers. Following various consultations with the countries of the Northern region who initially objected to the use of assessed contribution as a basis for contributing to the Peace Fund, it is reported that all countries of the region except two have paid 100 per cent. The remaining two countries, Egypt and Tunisia are on a three to five-year payment plan. Despite the substantial progress made and the extension of the timeline for endowing the Fund with the $400 million from 2020 to 2023, there remain outstanding contributions from some other member states assessed contributions towards the Peace Fund.

The other aspect that tomorrow’s session is expected to shed light on is the state of operationalisation of the various structures of the Peace Fund. The main structures of the Peace Fund are the Board of Trustees, the Executive Management Committee, the Independent Evaluation Group (IEG), the Fund Manager and a Peace Fund Secretariat. The Board of Trustees, made up of five high-level experts from the five regions of the continent and representatives of the UN and the EU, is fully operational. Similarly, the Executive Management Committee, chaired by the AU Commission Chairperson, is operational. Two Peace Fund managers have been appointed, although there are indications that these managers are not securing the level of returns from the investment in the Peace Fund. It is expected that further and better Fund Managers will be identified and appointed to enhance the returns from the investment in the Fund. The Peace Fund Secretariat became operational with the appointment of the Head of the Secretariat and has since recruited a few of its staff members. While the IEG is not operational, the process for instituting the IEG is currently underway. It would be made up of 2 representatives from the five regions of Africa and one representative each from the African Development Bank, the African Import-Export Bank and the World Bank. It is expected that the Head of the Secretariat will provide an update on the process of selection of the members of the IEG.

Tomorrow’s session is also expected to reflect on the state of utilisation of the Peace Fund. Utilisation of the Fund has thus far been limited to the CRF and as of 2024, for pilot projects of the Department of Political Affairs, Peace and Security (PAPS). Accordingly, $6.5 million and $12 million were approved for the CRF for 2023 and 2024 respectively, with $5 million dedicated to the Pilot Projects for 2024. In 2023, the 6.5 million CRF budget for 2023 was allocated for four disbursements under CRF amounting to $6.5 million for the EAC regional force in eastern DRC ($2 million), ATMIS funding shortfall ($3.5 million) and the DDR process under the Pretoria Peace Agreement of Ethiopia ($1 million).

In the context of the disbursement made thus far, one of the major issues that may arise in tomorrow’s session is the institutional arrangements for the proper utilisation of the disbursed funds for the intended purposes. For example, while $2 million was disbursed to the EAC Regional Force to the DRC in 2023, this Force was discontinued following the request from the DRC. The question that arises in this context is how to account for the $2 million, given that the fund could no longer be used for the purpose for which it was disbursed.

On 1 October, the AU Peace Fund’s Executive Management Committee (EMC) conducted a comprehensive review of the utilisation of the funds. The discussions delved into deliberating on prospective channels to leverage partnerships with the private sector and multilateral financial institutions to secure additional funding for the Peace Fund. In addition, the Committee conducted a review of the utilisation of funds disbursed through the PAPS Department. According to the press release,  ‘Of the $7 million approved by the AU Executive Council, 92.8% of the funds were successfully deployed through the CRF.’ As of September 2024, the Peace Fund has disbursed a total of $19 million, reflecting its growing role in addressing conflicts across the continent. The Committee also provided strategic guidance for onboarding the IEG. The EMC proposed keeping the 2025 disbursement ceiling at $15 million.

The $7 million CRF funding for 2024 was disbursed towards supporting South Sudan’s transition process, aiding Sudan’s peace efforts through political dialogue and other activities, the SAMIDRC, enhancing stabilisation efforts in the Lake Chad Basin via the MNJTF and supporting Libya’s national reconciliation, dialogue and potential stabilisation initiatives. The funds will also aid Mozambique’s stabilisation efforts in Cabo Delgado, as well as the ongoing stabilisation efforts in Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger, and the Sahel region. It is clear that this small fund is thinly spread but it is unclear what meaningful impact it would have. This raises the key question of prioritisation in the use of the CRF funds for achieving the maximum impact from the use of the limited resources allocated thereunder.

The other issue expected to receive attention in tomorrow’s session is the question of the source of replenishment of the Peace Fund. It is on account of the lack of identification of the means of replenishment that the use of the Fund thus far is limited to the interest collected from the Fund only. Assembly Decision [EX.CL/Dec.1223(XLIII)] of the 43^rd Ordinary Session of the Executive Council held on 13 and 14 July 2023 in Nairobi, Kenya, in which, among other things, requested the AU Commission, acting through the Peace Fund Secretariat, to explore modalities for seeking voluntary contributions from Member States as well as contributions from the private sector, and encouraged the AU Peace Fund Secretariat ‘to expand all efforts to mobilise additional resources through Member States voluntary contributions by engaging with the private sector, high net worth individuals and the citizens of our continent’. In pursuit of this, various initiatives have been undertaken by the Secretariat including outreach to the private sector and the convening of a high-level pledging event during the Mid-Year Coordination Meeting held in Accra, Ghana this last July.

Tomorrow’s session also serves to have an update on the Executive Council’s directive, during its 45^th Ordinary session, for the AU Commission to develop a feasibility study for consideration by the Ministerial Joint Sitting on the payment of part of the Member States’ assessed contributions in national currencies for the consideration of the Policy Organs by February 2025. In addition, there could be an update on the assignment tasked to the Commission to develop a comprehensive cash flow management plan aimed at channeling funds to assigned programs in a timely and effective manner, thereby enhancing the planning and execution of activities and programmes.

The form for the outcome document for the session remains unknown. However, it is expected that the meeting will highlight the evaluation of the impacts of the 2024 CRF and Peace Fund Pilot Projects, which will also aim to capitalise on the current momentum and address gaps identified including compliance with the financial rules and regulations. The Council may commend the Peace Fund secretariat for the progress made so far in engaging with the multi-sectoral stakeholders to mobilise resources for the Peace Fund. The Council may urge member states who have not yet fulfilled their financial commitments to the Peace Fund to fulfil their commitments.

Tomorrow (22 October), the African Union Peace and Security Council will convene a virtual engagement with the Sub-Committee of the Permanent Representatives Committee (PRC) on General Supervision and Coordination on Budgetary, Financial, and Administrative Matters (GSCBFAM).

The session is expected to commence with an opening statement by the PSC chair of the Month, Mohamed Omar Gad, Permanent Representative to the African Union and Chairperson of the AU PSC for October. Bankole Adeoye, Commissioner of Political Affairs and Peace and Security Department is also expected to make a statement. The last time the PSC held such a meeting was on 16 September 2022, it involved the GSCBFAM and the Board of Trustees of the AU Peace Fund. That meeting featured remarks from the Deputy Chairperson of the AU Commission, the Chairperson of the Board of Trustees of the Peace Fund, and the Chairperson of the AU Committee of 15 Finance Ministers (F15).

The GSCBFAM’s role has evolved over time. Originally known as the Advisory Sub-Committee on Administrative, Budgetary and Financial Matters, it was established as the successor to a similar committee within the Organisation of African Unity (OAU). Recognising the need for a more robust oversight body, the AU Executive Council in 2016 called for the committee’s reform and renaming.[1] This resulted in the establishment of the Sub-Committee on General Supervision and Coordination on Budgetary, Financial and Administrative Matters with its expanded mandate and strengthened authority. The mandate of the GSCBFAM is to have a financial oversight of the African Union (AU), ensuring the organisation’s fiscal health. It examines the proposed budget crafted by the AU Commission, assess administrative matters, and dives deep into the financial transactions of both the Commission and regional offices. This close review allows the GSCBFAM to identify areas for improvement and ensure efficient, transparent and accountable use of resources.

The GSCBFAM plays a crucial role in managing unforeseen circumstances. They consider requests from the Commission for budget adjustments to accommodate urgent decisions or projects and address unexpected expenditures. In addition to evaluating the current financial landscape, the GSCBFAM contributes to shaping the AU’s future financial regulations. They review draft financial rules before submission to the PRC for consideration. Once approved by the Executive Council and, ultimately, the Assembly, these regulations establish a framework for responsible financial management within the AU.

As noted, this is not the first time that the PSC engages the GSCBFAM but the focus and context of that engagement was different. Additionally, the PSC during the past couple of years has activated its role in presenting and defending its budget with the PRC in accordance with paragraph 117 of the Manual on the Working Methods of the PSC. GSCBFAM is only the second PRC sub-committee, next to the Sub-committee on Democracy, Governance and Human Rights, to have engagement with the PSC. This session marks the first occasion for direct engagement between the PSC and the GSCBFAM with a focus on the budget for AU peace and security work beyond and in addition to the Peace Fund.

Considering that the Chairperson of the PSC for October is the Chairperson of the GSCBFAM, this meeting is informed by the appreciation of the crucial role that the Sub Committee on GSCBFAM plays in the financial management of the Union’s operations including funds that are used for the peace and security work of the Union and the need for close coordination between them for aligning the requirements of the PSC for executing its mandate with allocation and responsible use of funds. This session aims to exchange on the processing of budgets for all AU peace and security activities, financial accountability in the use of funds including compliance with the AU financial rules and regulations, and whether and how the budget process provides unforeseen peace and security interventions.

According to the African Union’s budget for 2025, as identified by the Executive Council during the previous mid-year summit, the breakdown of the programmatic budget reveals several allocations for peace and security activities. This includes funding for the Peace and Security Council itself, which constitutes $1,782,979 of the program budget, along with other institutions such as the PCRD and the Africa Center for Counter Terrorism Research, which also has allocated budget lines in the AU program budget. Additionally, Peace Support Operations represent 9% of the total budget, including various operational expenses. Given these expenditures, it is vital for the PSC to engage with the PRC Sub Committee to gain a clear understanding of the funding directed toward peace and security initiatives undertaken by the Union. A better comprehension of the allocated budget for institutions that support and facilitate the African Peace and Security Architecture (APSA) will enable the Council to make informed decisions.

When making these decisions, the PSC can consider existing budget allocations for specific aspects of the APSA and evaluate their financial capacity to effectively carry out assigned tasks. For example, when the Council engages in conflict prevention activities, the budget required for such activities and how they would be sourced are expected to constitute part of the considerations in the PSC’s engagements. This helps to ensure that proposals for PSC decisions are put forward with due consideration of the financial requirements.

The other aspect that tomorrow’s session is expected to address includes the kind of working arrangement that the two sides may establish. Given that the PSC is a policy body, but the sub-committee of the PRC is a subsidiary body, the session affords an opportunity to determine the appropriate format for engagement between the PSC and PRC sub-committees broadly speaking. In this respect, the PSC may establish a sub-committee at the ambassadorial level for engagement with PRC sub-committees, including GSCBFAM.

Additionally, tomorrow’s session may explore the occasions and timelines for the convening of engagement between the PSC, potentially through the sub-committee for engagement with relevant PRC sub-committees that the PSC may establish, and the GSCBFAM.

The expected outcome of the session will be a Communique. The Council may welcome this engagement with the PRC Sub-Committee on GSCBFAM. To this end, the Council may commend the Sub Committee on its endeavours for supporting/facilitating the budget operation of the Union and more specifically, the areas that support the mandate of the PSC. The Council may affirm the need to strengthen collaboration and cooperation between the PSC and the Sub-Committee, particularly when the PSC makes decisions that have budgetary implications. In this regard, the Council may decide to institutionalise the convening between the PRC Sub Committee on GSCBFAM and the PSC to take place on an annual basis. Considering that the GSCBFAM is a sub-committee of a policy body rather than a policy body itself, the PSC may establish a sub-committee at the ambassadorial level for engagement with PRC sub-committees including GSCBFA.

[1] (EX.CL/Dec.916(XXVIII) https://portal.africa-union.org/DVD/Documents/DOC-AU-DEC/EX%20CL%20Dec%20931%20(XXIX)%20_E.pdf

Tomorrow (22 October), the African Union (AU) Peace and Security Council (PSC) will convene for a briefing from the Peace Fund Secretariat.

Mohamed Gad, Permanent Representative of the Arab Republic of Egypt to the AU and PSC Chairperson for October 2024, and Bankole Adeoye, AU Commissioner for Political Affairs, Peace and Security, are expected to make statements. Dagmawit Moges, Director, Peace Fund Secretariat is expected to brief the Council on the state of operationalisation of the Peace Fund and activities undertaken since the February 2024 AU summit.

As part of the effort to address the perineal adequate, predictable and sustainable funding, the AU Assembly, during its 27^th Ordinary Session held in July 2016 in Kigali, Rwanda, through Assembly Decision [Assembly/AU/Dec.605 (XXVII)] resolved to revitalise the Peace Fund through contributions from member states. This decision led to the establishment of a $400 million endowment for the AU Peace Fund initially planned to be mobilised by 2020. The revitalised Fund is organised to provide support for three windows (intervention areas): preventive diplomacy and mediation activities; institutional capacity building; and peace support operations. Additionally, a Crisis Reserve Facility (CRF) is established to fund rapid responses to emergency crises.

The initial Assembly Decision 605 was that the Peace Fund would be financed through equal contributions from each AU region. The Assembly in its decision [Assembly/AU/Dec.734 (XXXII)] switched the basis for contribution to be used as the scale of assessment for the regular budget. While four regions of Africa supported the use of the scale of assessment, the North African region favoured the regional formula under Assembly Decision 605. The Executive Council in its October 2020 extraordinary session adopted by consensus, with reservation by the Northern region, the use of the scale of assessment for the regular budget for contribution to the Peace Fund (EX.CL Dec./1100(XXXVII)).

Over three years after the initial timeline of endowing the Fund with $400 million, the Peace Fund has a balance of $398 million as of June 2024. This amount is made up of member states contributions ($341 million), the balance from the Legacy Fund ($ 25 million) and the interest that is generated from the investment by the 2 Fund managers. Following various consultations with the countries of the Northern region who initially objected to the use of assessed contribution as a basis for contributing to the Peace Fund, it is reported that all countries of the region except two have paid 100 per cent. The remaining two countries, Egypt and Tunisia are on a three to five-year payment plan. Despite the substantial progress made and the extension of the timeline for endowing the Fund with the $400 million from 2020 to 2023, there remain outstanding contributions from some other member states assessed contributions towards the Peace Fund.

The other aspect that tomorrow’s session is expected to shed light on is the state of operationalisation of the various structures of the Peace Fund. The main structures of the Peace Fund are the Board of Trustees, the Executive Management Committee, the Independent Evaluation Group (IEG), the Fund Manager and a Peace Fund Secretariat. The Board of Trustees, made up of five high-level experts from the five regions of the continent and representatives of the UN and the EU, is fully operational. Similarly, the Executive Management Committee, chaired by the AU Commission Chairperson, is operational. Two Peace Fund managers have been appointed, although there are indications that these managers are not securing the level of returns from the investment in the Peace Fund. It is expected that further and better Fund Managers will be identified and appointed to enhance the returns from the investment in the Fund. The Peace Fund Secretariat became operational with the appointment of the Head of the Secretariat and has since recruited a few of its staff members. While the IEG is not operational, the process for instituting the IEG is currently underway. It would be made up of 2 representatives from the five regions of Africa and one representative each from the African Development Bank, the African Import-Export Bank and the World Bank. It is expected that the Head of the Secretariat will provide an update on the process of selection of the members of the IEG.

Tomorrow’s session is also expected to reflect on the state of utilisation of the Peace Fund. Utilisation of the Fund has thus far been limited to the CRF and as of 2024, for pilot projects of the Department of Political Affairs, Peace and Security (PAPS). Accordingly, $6.5 million and $12 million were approved for the CRF for 2023 and 2024 respectively, with $5 million dedicated to the Pilot Projects for 2024. In 2023, the 6.5 million CRF budget for 2023 was allocated for four disbursements under CRF amounting to $6.5 million for the EAC regional force in eastern DRC ($2 million), ATMIS funding shortfall ($3.5 million) and the DDR process under the Pretoria Peace Agreement of Ethiopia ($1 million).

In the context of the disbursement made thus far, one of the major issues that may arise in tomorrow’s session is the institutional arrangements for the proper utilisation of the disbursed funds for the intended purposes. For example, while $2 million was disbursed to the EAC Regional Force to the DRC in 2023, this Force was discontinued following the request from the DRC. The question that arises in this context is how to account for the $2 million, given that the fund could no longer be used for the purpose for which it was disbursed.

On 1 October, the AU Peace Fund’s Executive Management Committee (EMC) conducted a comprehensive review of the utilisation of the funds. The discussions delved into deliberating on prospective channels to leverage partnerships with the private sector and multilateral financial institutions to secure additional funding for the Peace Fund. In addition, the Committee conducted a review of the utilisation of funds disbursed through the PAPS Department. According to the press release,  ‘Of the $7 million approved by the AU Executive Council, 92.8% of the funds were successfully deployed through the CRF.’ As of September 2024, the Peace Fund has disbursed a total of $19 million, reflecting its growing role in addressing conflicts across the continent. The Committee also provided strategic guidance for onboarding the IEG. The EMC proposed keeping the 2025 disbursement ceiling at $15 million.

The $7 million CRF funding for 2024 was disbursed towards supporting South Sudan’s transition process, aiding Sudan’s peace efforts through political dialogue and other activities, the SAMIDRC, enhancing stabilisation efforts in the Lake Chad Basin via the MNJTF and supporting Libya’s national reconciliation, dialogue and potential stabilisation initiatives. The funds will also aid Mozambique’s stabilisation efforts in Cabo Delgado, as well as the ongoing stabilisation efforts in Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger, and the Sahel region. It is clear that this small fund is thinly spread but it is unclear what meaningful impact it would have. This raises the key question of prioritisation in the use of the CRF funds for achieving the maximum impact from the use of the limited resources allocated thereunder.

The other issue expected to receive attention in tomorrow’s session is the question of the source of replenishment of the Peace Fund. It is on account of the lack of identification of the means of replenishment that the use of the Fund thus far is limited to the interest collected from the Fund only. Assembly Decision [EX.CL/Dec.1223(XLIII)] of the 43^rd Ordinary Session of the Executive Council held on 13 and 14 July 2023 in Nairobi, Kenya, in which, among other things, requested the AU Commission, acting through the Peace Fund Secretariat, to explore modalities for seeking voluntary contributions from Member States as well as contributions from the private sector, and encouraged the AU Peace Fund Secretariat ‘to expand all efforts to mobilise additional resources through Member States voluntary contributions by engaging with the private sector, high net worth individuals and the citizens of our continent’. In pursuit of this, various initiatives have been undertaken by the Secretariat including outreach to the private sector and the convening of a high-level pledging event during the Mid-Year Coordination Meeting held in Accra, Ghana this last July.

Tomorrow’s session also serves to have an update on the Executive Council’s directive, during its 45^th Ordinary session, for the AU Commission to develop a feasibility study for consideration by the Ministerial Joint Sitting on the payment of part of the Member States’ assessed contributions in national currencies for the consideration of the Policy Organs by February 2025. In addition, there could be an update on the assignment tasked to the Commission to develop a comprehensive cash flow management plan aimed at channeling funds to assigned programs in a timely and effective manner, thereby enhancing the planning and execution of activities and programmes.

The form for the outcome document for the session remains unknown. However, it is expected that the meeting will highlight the evaluation of the impacts of the 2024 CRF and Peace Fund Pilot Projects, which will also aim to capitalise on the current momentum and address gaps identified including compliance with the financial rules and regulations. The Council may commend the Peace Fund secretariat for the progress made so far in engaging with the multi-sectoral stakeholders to mobilise resources for the Peace Fund. The Council may urge member states who have not yet fulfilled their financial commitments to the Peace Fund to fulfil their commitments.

Tomorrow (22 October), the African Union Peace and Security Council will convene a virtual engagement with the Sub-Committee of the Permanent Representatives Committee (PRC) on General Supervision and Coordination on Budgetary, Financial, and Administrative Matters (GSCBFAM).

The session is expected to commence with an opening statement by the PSC chair of the Month, Mohamed Omar Gad, Permanent Representative to the African Union and Chairperson of the AU PSC for October. Bankole Adeoye, Commissioner of Political Affairs and Peace and Security Department is also expected to make a statement. The last time the PSC held such a meeting was on 16 September 2022, it involved the GSCBFAM and the Board of Trustees of the AU Peace Fund. That meeting featured remarks from the Deputy Chairperson of the AU Commission, the Chairperson of the Board of Trustees of the Peace Fund, and the Chairperson of the AU Committee of 15 Finance Ministers (F15).

The GSCBFAM’s role has evolved over time. Originally known as the Advisory Sub-Committee on Administrative, Budgetary and Financial Matters, it was established as the successor to a similar committee within the Organisation of African Unity (OAU). Recognising the need for a more robust oversight body, the AU Executive Council in 2016 called for the committee’s reform and renaming.[1] This resulted in the establishment of the Sub-Committee on General Supervision and Coordination on Budgetary, Financial and Administrative Matters with its expanded mandate and strengthened authority. The mandate of the GSCBFAM is to have a financial oversight of the African Union (AU), ensuring the organisation’s fiscal health. It examines the proposed budget crafted by the AU Commission, assess administrative matters, and dives deep into the financial transactions of both the Commission and regional offices. This close review allows the GSCBFAM to identify areas for improvement and ensure efficient, transparent and accountable use of resources.

The GSCBFAM plays a crucial role in managing unforeseen circumstances. They consider requests from the Commission for budget adjustments to accommodate urgent decisions or projects and address unexpected expenditures. In addition to evaluating the current financial landscape, the GSCBFAM contributes to shaping the AU’s future financial regulations. They review draft financial rules before submission to the PRC for consideration. Once approved by the Executive Council and, ultimately, the Assembly, these regulations establish a framework for responsible financial management within the AU.

As noted, this is not the first time that the PSC engages the GSCBFAM but the focus and context of that engagement was different. Additionally, the PSC during the past couple of years has activated its role in presenting and defending its budget with the PRC in accordance with paragraph 117 of the Manual on the Working Methods of the PSC. GSCBFAM is only the second PRC sub-committee, next to the Sub-committee on Democracy, Governance and Human Rights, to have engagement with the PSC. This session marks the first occasion for direct engagement between the PSC and the GSCBFAM with a focus on the budget for AU peace and security work beyond and in addition to the Peace Fund.

Considering that the Chairperson of the PSC for October is the Chairperson of the GSCBFAM, this meeting is informed by the appreciation of the crucial role that the Sub Committee on GSCBFAM plays in the financial management of the Union’s operations including funds that are used for the peace and security work of the Union and the need for close coordination between them for aligning the requirements of the PSC for executing its mandate with allocation and responsible use of funds. This session aims to exchange on the processing of budgets for all AU peace and security activities, financial accountability in the use of funds including compliance with the AU financial rules and regulations, and whether and how the budget process provides unforeseen peace and security interventions.

According to the African Union’s budget for 2025, as identified by the Executive Council during the previous mid-year summit, the breakdown of the programmatic budget reveals several allocations for peace and security activities. This includes funding for the Peace and Security Council itself, which constitutes $1,782,979 of the program budget, along with other institutions such as the PCRD and the Africa Center for Counter Terrorism Research, which also has allocated budget lines in the AU program budget. Additionally, Peace Support Operations represent 9% of the total budget, including various operational expenses. Given these expenditures, it is vital for the PSC to engage with the PRC Sub Committee to gain a clear understanding of the funding directed toward peace and security initiatives undertaken by the Union. A better comprehension of the allocated budget for institutions that support and facilitate the African Peace and Security Architecture (APSA) will enable the Council to make informed decisions.

When making these decisions, the PSC can consider existing budget allocations for specific aspects of the APSA and evaluate their financial capacity to effectively carry out assigned tasks. For example, when the Council engages in conflict prevention activities, the budget required for such activities and how they would be sourced are expected to constitute part of the considerations in the PSC’s engagements. This helps to ensure that proposals for PSC decisions are put forward with due consideration of the financial requirements.

The other aspect that tomorrow’s session is expected to address includes the kind of working arrangement that the two sides may establish. Given that the PSC is a policy body, but the sub-committee of the PRC is a subsidiary body, the session affords an opportunity to determine the appropriate format for engagement between the PSC and PRC sub-committees broadly speaking. In this respect, the PSC may establish a sub-committee at the ambassadorial level for engagement with PRC sub-committees, including GSCBFAM.

Additionally, tomorrow’s session may explore the occasions and timelines for the convening of engagement between the PSC, potentially through the sub-committee for engagement with relevant PRC sub-committees that the PSC may establish, and the GSCBFAM.

The expected outcome of the session will be a Communique. The Council may welcome this engagement with the PRC Sub-Committee on GSCBFAM. To this end, the Council may commend the Sub Committee on its endeavours for supporting/facilitating the budget operation of the Union and more specifically, the areas that support the mandate of the PSC. The Council may affirm the need to strengthen collaboration and cooperation between the PSC and the Sub-Committee, particularly when the PSC makes decisions that have budgetary implications. In this regard, the Council may decide to institutionalise the convening between the PRC Sub Committee on GSCBFAM and the PSC to take place on an annual basis. Considering that the GSCBFAM is a sub-committee of a policy body rather than a policy body itself, the PSC may establish a sub-committee at the ambassadorial level for engagement with PRC sub-committees including GSCBFA.

[1] (EX.CL/Dec.916(XXVIII) https://portal.africa-union.org/DVD/Documents/DOC-AU-DEC/EX%20CL%20Dec%20931%20(XXIX)%20_E.pdf

Tomorrow (24 July), the African Union (AU) Peace and Security Council (PSC) will convene a retreat to discuss the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 2719 (2023) on the financing of AU-led Peace Support Operations (PSOs).

Following an opening remark by Miguel César Domingos Bembe, Permanent Representative of Angola to the AU and Chairperson of the PSC for the month of July 2024, Bankole Adeoye, AU Commissioner for Political Affairs, Peace and Security (PAPS), is expected to make a presentation based on a report prepared by the AU Commission.

The PSC last considered the UNSC Resolution 2719 on 14 June 2024, during its 1215^th session. This session addressed challenges that may hinder the effective implementation of the resolution and highlighted ambiguities within it. Although the meeting concluded without adopting any outcome document, it was decided that the PSC convenes a retreat on the subject at the end of July 2024. This retreat is being convened against this backdrop.

Besides planning for a retreat, at the 1215^th session, the PSC also requested the AU Commission to prepare a document that includes the matrix for Resolution 2719, which outlines the sharing of responsibilities, a position paper on its implementation, guidelines for its operationalisation and recommendations. Therefore, tomorrow’s retreat is anticipated to be grounded on the document that will be presented by the AU Commission.

Using the document as a basis the discussions of the retreat are expected to explore and propose recommendations on the ambiguous areas of the resolution concerning the decision-making process, the notion of ‘case-by-case,’ ‘AU-led and under direct and effective AU command and control,’ the ‘75:25’ formula, and the extent of application of the UN Financial Rules and Regulations to AU PSOs as well as mission support.

Furthermore, the AUC report and briefing are expected to explore the conception of a ‘case-by-case’, as it can have different outcomes as to the response to the request of UN-assessed contributions by the AU. Some member states of the PSC are of the view that the fact that the assessed contribution is grunted on a case-by-case basis does not secure adequate, predictable, and sustainable financing of AU-led PSOs. This is because one of the outcomes for a case-by-case consideration of AU-led PSOs could be the rejection of the request by the UNSC. In these cases, the PSC will be required to answer questions like, what will be the contingency plan in scenarios where UN-assessed contributions fall short. It is therefore expected that the PSC will develop a position on the issue as to what should be adopted in examining different conflict cases.

As a follow-up to previous discussions, the PSC is also expected to continue deliberations on the identification of the test case for implementation of Resolution 2719. It is worth recalling in this respect that the 1217^th session of the PSC that decided on the deployment of a post-ATMIS mission to Somalia in paragraph 17 stipulated the PSC’s request ‘that a dedicated funding mechanism, through UN-assessed contributions in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 2719 (2023)…be established to guarantee the financial stability of the mission.’ Part of the issue in this context is how this decision of the PSC can be pursued in the implementation of the various aspects for authorisation for access to UN-assessed contributions under Resolution 2719.

With respect to mission support, Resolution 2719 provides that ‘the Security Council will decide on the most appropriate mission model, prioritising the establishment of a United Nations Support Office, which enables the use of the fiduciary processes and reporting of the United Nations system or as may be necessary through any other mission model.’ The experience from AMISOM/ATMIS shows that there is a need for aligning the strategic logistic frameworks of the AU and the UN. Particularly where AU-led operations require enforcement action, there is not only a robust logistical support framework that meets the demands of such kinetic operations and the tempo of such operations which may necessitate decentralisation and prepositioning of supplies. Part of the consideration in tomorrow’s PSC retreat is how to ensure the development of such a strategic logistics support framework and the kind of steps required to avoid some of the shortfalls that undermined the effectiveness of AMISOM including airlift capacity and availability of force enablers.

The expected outcome is a conclusions document of the retreat that will later be submitted to future PSC sessions on the matter. The PSC is expected to commend the AU Commission for developing the matrix of the UNSC Resolution 2719, the position paper and further. The PSC may also state that it looks forward to the conclusion of the development of the position paper. The Council may further call on member states and the AU Commission to utilise the upcoming 18^th PSC-UNSC Annual Joint Consultative Meeting in October, to engage with stakeholders, including the A3, to forge a common understanding of the resolution.

Tomorrow (14 June), the African Union (AU) Peace and Security Council (PSC) will convene its 1215^th session to discuss the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 2719 (2023) on the financing of AU-led Peace Support Operations (PSOs).

The session is expected to commence with opening remarks by Rebecca Otengo, Permanent Representative of Uganda and Chairperson of the PSC for June, followed by statement from Bankole Adeoye, Commissioner for Political Affairs, Peace and Security (PAPS). The representatives of the United Nations (UN) and the European Union (EU) may also deliver statements.

While the PSC discussed the resolution in the preparation of its report submitted to the AU Assembly in February 2024, this is the first time that the PSC is convening a dedicated session on this resolution. Apart from providing the PSC with the opportunity to get updates on measures being put in place towards the operationalization of the resolution, this session can help build shared understanding of what it takes and how and when Resolution 2719 can be activated.

Tomorrow’s session serves as a follow up to the decision of the 44^th ordinary session of the Executive Council of the AU held in February 2024 that called upon the Commission to submit a ‘proposal to the UNSC after adoption by the Peace and Security Council, by August 2024’ to trigger the operationalization of this funding mechanism for AU-led PSOs. As such, also of significance for tomorrow’s session is the issues of how to trigger consideration of the application of the resolution and how to proceed with using the resolution in a concrete test case.

In terms of updates, it would be of interest for the PSC members to know the steps taken at the level of the AU Commission, the UN and between the AU Commission and the UN Secretariat. In his briefing, it is expected that Adeoye would inform the PSC the establishment of a taskforce dedicated to the resolution. On the basis of this, the taskforce held internal consultations for unpacking what resolution 2719 mean and the issues that require attention for the implementation of the resolution.

On the part of the UN as well, a taskforce was established at the level of the UN Secretariat. This taskforce has been engaging both in unpacking the resolution and in identifying the processes required towards the operationalization of the resolution. As for the UNSC, while no dedicated session was held on the resolution as such, the Ad Hoc Working Group on Conflict Prevention and Resolution in Africa convened a meeting on 30 April to discuss the implementation of Resolution 2719.

Apart from the initiatives at the level of the AU and the UN respectively, the 23^rd consultative meeting of the AU-UN Joint Task Force on 16 April 2024 adopted a decision for developing a joint plan on the implementation of resolution 2719. They agreed on steps towards that end, notably the holding of consultative meeting between the AU and UN taskforces.

As a follow up to the decision of the AU-UN Joint Task Force, the AU and UN held a consultative meeting between their respective taskforces. The meeting agreed on modalities for the development and finalization of a joint Roadmap for the implementation of resolution 2719. They also identified the four clusters or thematic work streams around which the joint roadmap is to be elaborated.  These are: joint planning, decision-making and reporting; mission support; financing and budgeting; human rights compliance and protection of civilians. According to information publicly shared by the AU, ‘the meeting articulated a skeleton Roadmap around: Planning, Decision-making, and Monitoring and reporting; Mission support, Financing and budgeting; Human Rights Compliance and Protection of Civilians.’

During the 23^rd consultative meeting of the AU-UN Joint Task Force on 16 April 2024, the two sides also agreed to hold a follow up meeting between 17-20 June, if required. The plan is to finalize the Joint Roadmap on the implementation of the resolution for its adoption by the AU Chairperson and UN Secretary-General during the next AU-UN Annual Conference slated for October.

Apart from following up the progress made towards delivering on the request made by the Executive Council, tomorrow’s meeting also helps for the PSC members to reflect on the content of the resolution and seek to achieve shared understanding. As the concept note of the UN Ad Hoc Working Group on the Prevention and Resolution of Conflicts in Africa for its meeting on the implementation of resolution 2719 rightly put it, ‘ensuring common understanding of the resolution as well as development of detailed modalities for its implementation is critical to help guide utilisation of the resolution.’

The resolution covers wide range of issues, including decision-making and authorization, financial arrangements and procedures, compliance frameworks, and reporting and monitoring. It also envisages closer AU-UN engagement and alignment of their processes and capacities in the authorization, deployment and management of the PSOs. However, there are some key elements around which there is a need for achieving shared understanding on the part of the AU and the UN for a smooth implementation of the resolution. One of such areas is regarding joint planning, decision-making and reporting. Paragraph 2 of the resolution provides that UNSC agrees to consider requests from the PSC for AU-led PSOs authorized by UNSC to have access to UN assessed contributions on a case-by-case basis. Key questions in this respect include how the requests are developed and presented to the UNSC and most notably whether and what kind of consultations are required for submitting such a request to the UNSC.

The other area is financing and mission support, particularly the 25:75 burden-sharing formula. Paragraph 6 of the resolution determines that AU-led PSOs authorized by UNSC will have access to UN assessed contributions ‘not exceeding 75 percent of their annual budgets’, with the remaining 25 percent to be ‘jointly mobilized from the international community as extra-budgetary resources.’ UNSC commits to ‘consider all viable options in the event of significant shortfalls in resource mobilization.’ This raises a question of whether ‘all viable options’ actually includes the use of assessed contributions beyond the 75 percent cap.

It is anticipated that tomorrow’s session will also discuss the possibility of testing the use of Resolution 2719 in the specific case of implementing a post-ATMIS security arrangement in Somalia. Apart from the provision in the proposal of Somalia of the use of this resolution for financing the post-ATMIS security arrangement in Somalia, during its 1205^th session on ATMIS, the PSC hinted accessing UN assessed contribution within the framework of resolution 2719 as one of the possible financial modalities for post-ATMIS mission.

Yet, there are divisions particularly in the UN on whether a post-ATMIS security arrangement can and should be made a test case. Some members of the UNSC are keen to push forward the agenda of invoking resolution 2719 for the first time on the envisaged post-ATMIS mission, even by tabling a resolution that would pave the way for the application of resolution 2719. This is despite that some other UNSC members, notably US, not being supportive of the idea.

The expected outcome is a communiqué. PSC is expected to commend the steps taken thus far towards the operationalization of the resolution, including the establishment of the Task Force at the level of the AU Commission and the convening of a technical-level meeting with the UN counterpart in May 2024. The PSC may also state that it looks forward to the conclusion of the development of the joint roadmap by the AU and the UN. The PSC may call for follow up on the Executive Council’s decision for the AU Commission to develop a ‘proposal to the UNSC after adoption by the Peace and Security Council, by August 2024’ to trigger the operationalization of this funding mechanism for AU-led PSOs. It may also in this respect call for such proposal to be developed and submitted on the specific case of the post-ATMIS security arrangement for Somalia.