Summary

AI-generated

This summary is written by a language model reading the source document. It is not the publisher's words and is not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment

The document evaluates the African Union's (AU) conflict prevention strategies, distinguishing between operational prevention (immediate causes) and structural prevention (root causes). It argues that while the AU has established numerous frameworks, such as the African Peace and Security Architecture (APSA) and the Master Roadmap for Silencing the Guns by 2020, implementation remains reactive and underfunded. The brief recommends improving interdepartmental coordination, linking early warning systems to long-term structural responses, and securing predictable funding to move beyond policy-level rhetoric.

Key insights

AI-generated

These insights are written by a language model reading the source document. They are not the publisher's words and are not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment
  • The African Union distinguishes between operational prevention, which addresses immediate causes during conflict escalation, and structural prevention, which targets long-term root causes like governance, justice systems, and economic development to build societal resilience.
  • Despite the existence of the African Peace and Security Architecture (APSA) and various roadmaps, the AU's conflict prevention efforts remain primarily reactive, short-term, and programmatic.
  • There is a significant gap in the implementation of structural prevention tools; specifically, no member state has implemented Country Structural Vulnerability Assessments (CSVAs) due to concerns over AU interference in internal affairs and the voluntary nature of the tools.
  • Internal coordination within the AU Commission is hindered by confusion regarding the roles and responsibilities of different divisions, particularly between the Conflict Prevention and Early Warning Division (CPEWD) and the Crisis Management and Post-Conflict Reconstruction and Development Division (CMPCRD).
  • The AU's ability to move from policy to practice is severely limited by unpredictable funding and a heavy reliance on external donors, with a disproportionate amount of funding allocated to reactive peace support operations rather than prevention.
  • The brief identifies Post-Conflict Reconstruction and Development (PCRD) as a critical entry point for integrating mediation, peacebuilding, and development to address the root causes of conflict.

Cite the original document

APA
de Carvalho, G. (2017). Conflict Prevention: What’s in it for the AU? Institute for Security Studies. https://issafrica.s3.amazonaws.com/site/uploads/policybrief103-2.pdf
Chicago
de Carvalho, Gustavo. Conflict Prevention: What’s in it for the AU? Institute for Security Studies, 2017. https://issafrica.s3.amazonaws.com/site/uploads/policybrief103-2.pdf.
Wikipedia
{{cite report |last1=de Carvalho |first1=Gustavo |title=Conflict Prevention: What’s in it for the AU? |publisher=Institute for Security Studies |date=2017 |url=https://issafrica.s3.amazonaws.com/site/uploads/policybrief103-2.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}
BibTeX
@techreport{decarvalho2017conflict, author = {de Carvalho, Gustavo}, title = {{Conflict Prevention: What’s in it for the AU?}}, institution = {Institute for Security Studies}, year = {2017}, url = {https://issafrica.s3.amazonaws.com/site/uploads/policybrief103-2.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }

Full text

Collected · Record updated