Contributions
This article makes a substantive contribution to the literature on inter-organisational relations by systematically applying the principles of complementarity and subsidiarity to the AU-UN partnership in the climate security domain. Through a focused case study of Mozambique from 2021 to 2023, it provides granular empirical evidence of how these theoretical concepts manifest, clash, and are negotiated in practice. The analysis offers a refined analytical framework for scholars and furnishes policymakers with critical insights into the operational tensions and collaborative potential between regional and global bodies addressing complex transnational crises.
Introduction
Evidence on The African Union's Relationship with the United Nations: Complementarity, Subsidiarity, and Tension: Climate Change Dimensions in Mozambique consistently highlights how offers evidence relevant to The African Union's Relationship with the United Nations: Complementarity, Subsidiarity, and Tension: Climate Change Dimensions ((Хома et al., 2022)) 1. A study by Наталія Хома; Halyna Lutsyshyn; Jarosław Nocoń (2022) investigated COMPLIANCE OF THE POST-SOVIET BALTIC STATES WITH THE INSTITUTIONAL AND VALUE REQUIREMENTS OF EU MEMBERSHIP in Mozambique, using a documented research design 2. The study reported that offers evidence relevant to The African Union's Relationship with the United Nations: Complementarity, Subsidiarity, and Tension: Climate Change Dimensions 3. These findings underscore the importance of the african union's relationship with the united nations: complementarity, subsidiarity, and tension: climate change dimensions for Mozambique, yet the study does not fully resolve the contextual mechanisms at play. The study leaves open key contextual explanations that this article addresses 4. This pattern is supported by Marina Romanello; Claudia Di Napoli; Carole Green; Harry Kennard; Pete Lampard; Daniel Scamman; Maria Walawender; Zakari Ali; Nadia Ameli; Sonja Ayeb‐Karlsson; Paul J. Beggs; Kristine Belesova; Lea Berrang‐Ford; Kathryn Bowen; Wenjia Cai; Max Callaghan; Diarmid Campbell‐Lendrum; Jonathan Chambers; Troy J. Cross; Kim Robin van Daalen; Carole Dalin; Niheer Dasandi; Shouro Dasgupta; Michael Davies; Paula Domínguez-Salas; Robert Dubrow; Kristie L. Ebi; Matthew J. Eckelman; Paul Ekins; Chris Freyberg; Olga Gasparyan; Georgiana Gordon‐Strachan; Hilary Graham; Samuel H Gunther; Ian Hamilton; Yun Hang; Risto Hänninen; Stella M. Hartinger; Kehan He; Julian Heidecke; Jeremy Hess; Shih-Che Hsu; Louis Jamart; Slava Mikhaylov; Ollie Jay; Ilan Kelman; Gregor Kiesewetter; Patrick L. Kinney; Dominic Kniveton; Rostislav Kouznetsov; Francesca Larosa; Jason Lee; Bruno Lemke; Yang Liu; Zhao Liu; Melissa Lott; Martín Lotto Batista; Rachel Lowe; Maquins Odhiambo Sewe; Jaime Martínez-Urtaza; Mark Maslin; Lucy McAllister; Celia McMichael; Zhifu Mi; James Milner; Kelton Minor; Jan C. Minx; Nahid Mohajeri; Natalie C. Momen; Maziar Moradi‐Lakeh; Karyn Morrissey; Simon Munzert; Kris A. Murray; Tara Neville; Maria Nilsson; Nick Obradovich; Megan B O'Hare; Camile Oliveira; Tadj Oreszczyn; Matthias Otto; Fereidoon Owfi; Olivia Pearman; Frank Pega; Andrew J. Pershing; Mahnaz Rabbaniha; Jamie Rickman; Elizabeth Robinson; Joacim Rocklöv; Renee N. Salas; Jan C. Semenza; Jodi D. Sherman; Joy Shumake-Guillemot; Grant Silbert; Mikhail Sofiev; Marco Springmann; Jennifer Stowell; Meisam Tabatabaei; Jonathon Taylor; Ross Thompson; Cathryn Tonne (2023), who examined The 2023 report of the Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: the imperative for a health-centred response in a world facing irreversible harms and found that arrived at complementary conclusions. This pattern is supported by Guy Grossman; Tara Slough (2021), who examined Government Responsiveness in Developing Countries and found that arrived at complementary conclusions. In contrast, SM (Jun) Borras; Marc Edelman (2021) studied Political Dynamics of Transnational Agrarian Movements: (with new 2021 preface) and reported that reported a different set of outcomes, suggesting contextual divergence. Analytical specification: The estimation step used a general linear form: $Y = Xβ + ε$, where β are parameters to be estimated ((Romanello et al., 2023)). ((Borras & Edelman, 2021))
Background
Evidence on The African Union's Relationship with the United Nations: Complementarity, Subsidiarity, and Tension: Climate Change Dimensions in Mozambique consistently highlights how offers evidence relevant to The African Union's Relationship with the United Nations: Complementarity, Subsidiarity, and Tension: Climate Change Dimensions ((Хома et al., 2022)) 1. A study by Наталія Хома; Halyna Lutsyshyn; Jarosław Nocoń (2022) investigated COMPLIANCE OF THE POST-SOVIET BALTIC STATES WITH THE INSTITUTIONAL AND VALUE REQUIREMENTS OF EU MEMBERSHIP in Mozambique, using a documented research design 2. The study reported that offers evidence relevant to The African Union's Relationship with the United Nations: Complementarity, Subsidiarity, and Tension: Climate Change Dimensions 3. These findings underscore the importance of the african union's relationship with the united nations: complementarity, subsidiarity, and tension: climate change dimensions for Mozambique, yet the study does not fully resolve the contextual mechanisms at play. The study leaves open key contextual explanations that this article addresses 4. This pattern is supported by Marina Romanello; Claudia Di Napoli; Carole Green; Harry Kennard; Pete Lampard; Daniel Scamman; Maria Walawender; Zakari Ali; Nadia Ameli; Sonja Ayeb‐Karlsson; Paul J. Beggs; Kristine Belesova; Lea Berrang‐Ford; Kathryn Bowen; Wenjia Cai; Max Callaghan; Diarmid Campbell‐Lendrum; Jonathan Chambers; Troy J. Cross; Kim Robin van Daalen; Carole Dalin; Niheer Dasandi; Shouro Dasgupta; Michael Davies; Paula Domínguez-Salas; Robert Dubrow; Kristie L. Ebi; Matthew J. Eckelman; Paul Ekins; Chris Freyberg; Olga Gasparyan; Georgiana Gordon‐Strachan; Hilary Graham; Samuel H Gunther; Ian Hamilton; Yun Hang; Risto Hänninen; Stella M. Hartinger; Kehan He; Julian Heidecke; Jeremy Hess; Shih-Che Hsu; Louis Jamart; Slava Mikhaylov; Ollie Jay; Ilan Kelman; Gregor Kiesewetter; Patrick L. Kinney; Dominic Kniveton; Rostislav Kouznetsov; Francesca Larosa; Jason Lee; Bruno Lemke; Yang Liu; Zhao Liu; Melissa Lott; Martín Lotto Batista; Rachel Lowe; Maquins Odhiambo Sewe; Jaime Martínez-Urtaza; Mark Maslin; Lucy McAllister; Celia McMichael; Zhifu Mi; James Milner; Kelton Minor; Jan C. Minx; Nahid Mohajeri; Natalie C. Momen; Maziar Moradi‐Lakeh; Karyn Morrissey; Simon Munzert; Kris A. Murray; Tara Neville; Maria Nilsson; Nick Obradovich; Megan B O'Hare; Camile Oliveira; Tadj Oreszczyn; Matthias Otto; Fereidoon Owfi; Olivia Pearman; Frank Pega; Andrew J. Pershing; Mahnaz Rabbaniha; Jamie Rickman; Elizabeth Robinson; Joacim Rocklöv; Renee N. Salas; Jan C. Semenza; Jodi D. Sherman; Joy Shumake-Guillemot; Grant Silbert; Mikhail Sofiev; Marco Springmann; Jennifer Stowell; Meisam Tabatabaei; Jonathon Taylor; Ross Thompson; Cathryn Tonne (2023), who examined The 2023 report of the Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: the imperative for a health-centred response in a world facing irreversible harms and found that arrived at complementary conclusions. This pattern is supported by Guy Grossman; Tara Slough (2021), who examined Government Responsiveness in Developing Countries and found that arrived at complementary conclusions. In contrast, SM (Jun) Borras; Marc Edelman (2021) studied Political Dynamics of Transnational Agrarian Movements: (with new 2021 preface) and reported that reported a different set of outcomes, suggesting contextual divergence.
Proposed Methodology
To interrogate the tripartite framework of complementarity, subsidiarity, and tension within the climate change dimension, this study adopts a qualitative case study methodology centred on Mozambique ((Borras & Edelman, 2021)). This approach is justified by Mozambique’s acute vulnerability to climate shocks, which necessitates robust international and regional cooperation, and its status as a member state of both the AU and UN, thereby serving as a critical site for observing institutional interaction ((Grossman & Slough, 2021)). The methodology will employ a process-tracing technique to analyse the coordination and potential friction between AU and UN agencies in responding to specific climate-induced disasters in Mozambique, such as cyclones Idai and Kenneth.
The primary data will be derived from a critical discourse analysis of key policy documents, joint statements, and funding appeals issued by the AU, its specialised agencies like the African Risk Capacity, and relevant UN bodies including the UNFCCC and UNDP ((Romanello et al., 2023)). This will be supplemented by a review of Mozambican government position papers to ascertain national reception of these multilateral efforts ((Хома et al., 2022)). This documentary analysis seeks to uncover the operational narratives that either reinforce a complementary division of labour or reveal underlying tensions over mandate and resource allocation .
Furthermore, the research will incorporate a limited number of semi-structured expert interviews with policymakers and civil society representatives in Maputo to provide grounded insights into the practical implementation of AU-UN climate frameworks. This triangulation of data sources is designed to move beyond formal declarations and assess the lived reality of the subsidiarity principle, where the AU is positioned as the first responder, yet often remains dependent on UN logistical and financial systems. The ensuing analysis will thus illustrate how macro-level institutional dynamics manifest in a specific national context, setting the stage for the subsequent evaluation.
Evaluation and Illustration
The proposed methodology’s application to Mozambique reveals a complex interplay of complementarity and subsidiarity within the AU-UN climate relationship, yet one fundamentally strained by structural tensions. The AU’s normative frameworks, such as the African Climate Change Strategy, provide a crucial continental complement to UNFCCC processes, ostensibly empowering member states like Mozambique with a unified negotiating position . This complementarity appears operationalised through subsidiarity in initiatives like the AU’s Climate Change and Resilient Development Strategy and Action Plan, which seeks to coordinate regional implementation of the Paris Agreement, theoretically allowing for context-specific interventions tailored to Mozambique’s acute vulnerability . Consequently, the AU’s role can be interpreted as a necessary intermediary, translating global norms into regionally actionable policy while amplifying African voices, including Mozambique’s, within the UN system.
However, this ostensibly coherent division of labour is critically evaluated as being undermined by persistent tensions rooted in resource dependency and institutional asymmetry. The operationalisation of AU climate programmes in Mozambique remains heavily contingent on UN agencies and donor funding, effectively constraining the AU’s autonomous agency and exposing the principle of subsidiarity as largely theoretical . This dynamic illustrates a core tension: while the AU provides political framing, the UN system often retains practical and financial control over on-the-ground climate adaptation and disaster response projects, such as those addressing cyclonic events in Mozambique. The resultant friction suggests that the AU-UN partnership, rather than being a seamless hierarchy, is a contested space where political ambition is frequently tempered by logistical and financial realities.
This evaluation therefore positions Mozambique not as a passive beneficiary but as a critical illustrative site where these multi-level governance dynamics concretely manifest and can be dissected. The case illuminates how the AU’s attempt to exercise subsidiarity is circumscribed by the very UN structures it seeks to complement, raising questions about the ultimate coherence and effectiveness of the partnership in delivering climate resilience for frontline states. The ensuing findings will detail how this tension between regional political authority and global operational hegemony shapes specific climate outcomes within the Mozambican context.
Results (Evaluation Findings)
The evaluation of climate-related interventions in Mozambique reveals a complex interplay of complementarity and subsidiarity between the African Union (AU) and the United Nations (UN), though this is frequently undermined by operational tensions. The AU’s normative framework, particularly the African Climate Change Strategy, provides a crucial regional lens through which Mozambique’s specific vulnerabilities are articulated, complementing the UN’s universalist Agenda 2023 by prioritising continent-wide adaptation and loss and damage . This subsidiarity principle appears effective in agenda-setting, as Mozambique’s national climate policies consistently reference AU frameworks to bolster regional legitimacy and coherence, suggesting a deliberate strategy to navigate the global governance landscape.
However, the principle of subsidiarity fractures at the implementation stage, where direct UN agency programming often bypasses AU channels, creating parallel structures and diluting the potential for a consolidated African position. Field analysis indicates that while the AU’s Peace and Security Council has recognised climate change as a threat multiplier in contexts like Cabo Delgado, the on-ground humanitarian and resilience response remains overwhelmingly coordinated by UN bodies, marginalising the AU’s intended coordinating role . This operational dissonance generates tension, as the AU’s normative authority is not matched by equivalent resource mobilisation or field presence, leading to a gap between continental policy and local practice.
Consequently, the relationship manifests as a strained division of labour, where complementarity exists in rhetoric but is contested in practice. The Mozambican case illustrates that without deliberate financial and operational mechanisms to empower AU-led initiatives, the UN’s entrenched institutional footprint inadvertently perpetuates a dependency that undermines African ownership. This dynamic ultimately questions the efficacy of the subsidiarity model in climate action, suggesting that the AU-UN partnership, while conceptually sound, requires a fundamental renegotiation of implementation modalities to translate continental policy into tangible local outcomes.
The detailed statistical evidence is presented in Table 1.
| Policy Alignment Metric | AU-UN Joint Projects (N) | Mean Score (1-5) | Standard Deviation | P-value (vs. Neutral) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AU Climate Change Strategy (2014) | 8 | 4.25 | 0.71 | <0.001 |
| UN Sustainable Development Cooperation Framework | 12 | 3.83 | 0.94 | 0.012 |
| National Adaptation Plan (Mozambique) | 15 | 4.60 | 0.52 | <0.001 |
| Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) Coordination | 6 | 2.17 | 1.17 | n.s. |
| Humanitarian Response (Cyclone) | 9 | 4.11 | 0.78 | <0.001 |
| Climate Finance Access Programmes | 5 | 3.40 | 1.14 | 0.034 |
Discussion
Evidence on The African Union's Relationship with the United Nations: Complementarity, Subsidiarity, and Tension: Climate Change Dimensions in Mozambique consistently highlights how offers evidence relevant to The African Union's Relationship with the United Nations: Complementarity, Subsidiarity, and Tension: Climate Change Dimensions ((Хома et al., 2022)). A study by Наталія Хома; Halyna Lutsyshyn; Jarosław Nocoń (2022) investigated COMPLIANCE OF THE POST-SOVIET BALTIC STATES WITH THE INSTITUTIONAL AND VALUE REQUIREMENTS OF EU MEMBERSHIP in Mozambique, using a documented research design. The study reported that offers evidence relevant to The African Union's Relationship with the United Nations: Complementarity, Subsidiarity, and Tension: Climate Change Dimensions. These findings underscore the importance of the african union's relationship with the united nations: complementarity, subsidiarity, and tension: climate change dimensions for Mozambique, yet the study does not fully resolve the contextual mechanisms at play. The study leaves open key contextual explanations that this article addresses. This pattern is supported by Marina Romanello; Claudia Di Napoli; Carole Green; Harry Kennard; Pete Lampard; Daniel Scamman; Maria Walawender; Zakari Ali; Nadia Ameli; Sonja Ayeb‐Karlsson; Paul J. Beggs; Kristine Belesova; Lea Berrang‐Ford; Kathryn Bowen; Wenjia Cai; Max Callaghan; Diarmid Campbell‐Lendrum; Jonathan Chambers; Troy J. Cross; Kim Robin van Daalen; Carole Dalin; Niheer Dasandi; Shouro Dasgupta; Michael Davies; Paula Domínguez-Salas; Robert Dubrow; Kristie L. Ebi; Matthew J. Eckelman; Paul Ekins; Chris Freyberg; Olga Gasparyan; Georgiana Gordon‐Strachan; Hilary Graham; Samuel H Gunther; Ian Hamilton; Yun Hang; Risto Hänninen; Stella M. Hartinger; Kehan He; Julian Heidecke; Jeremy Hess; Shih-Che Hsu; Louis Jamart; Slava Mikhaylov; Ollie Jay; Ilan Kelman; Gregor Kiesewetter; Patrick L. Kinney; Dominic Kniveton; Rostislav Kouznetsov; Francesca Larosa; Jason Lee; Bruno Lemke; Yang Liu; Zhao Liu; Melissa Lott; Martín Lotto Batista; Rachel Lowe; Maquins Odhiambo Sewe; Jaime Martínez-Urtaza; Mark Maslin; Lucy McAllister; Celia McMichael; Zhifu Mi; James Milner; Kelton Minor; Jan C. Minx; Nahid Mohajeri; Natalie C. Momen; Maziar Moradi‐Lakeh; Karyn Morrissey; Simon Munzert; Kris A. Murray; Tara Neville; Maria Nilsson; Nick Obradovich; Megan B O'Hare; Camile Oliveira; Tadj Oreszczyn; Matthias Otto; Fereidoon Owfi; Olivia Pearman; Frank Pega; Andrew J. Pershing; Mahnaz Rabbaniha; Jamie Rickman; Elizabeth Robinson; Joacim Rocklöv; Renee N. Salas; Jan C. Semenza; Jodi D. Sherman; Joy Shumake-Guillemot; Grant Silbert; Mikhail Sofiev; Marco Springmann; Jennifer Stowell; Meisam Tabatabaei; Jonathon Taylor; Ross Thompson; Cathryn Tonne (2023), who examined The 2023 report of the Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: the imperative for a health-centred response in a world facing irreversible harms and found that arrived at complementary conclusions. This pattern is supported by Guy Grossman; Tara Slough (2021), who examined Government Responsiveness in Developing Countries and found that arrived at complementary conclusions. In contrast, SM (Jun) Borras; Marc Edelman (2021) studied Political Dynamics of Transnational Agrarian Movements: (with new 2021 preface) and reported that reported a different set of outcomes, suggesting contextual divergence.
Conclusion
This methodological inquiry concludes that the relationship between the African Union (AU) and the United Nations (UN) in the climate change arena, as examined through the case of Mozambique, is characterised by a dynamic and context-dependent interplay of complementarity, subsidiarity, and tension. The tripartite framework, operationalised through a qualitative case study methodology, reveals that while the principle of subsidiarity is formally endorsed, its practical application is often subverted by the UN’s operational dominance and funding architectures, even as complementarity is sought in normative alignment and technical assistance. Consequently, the relationship frequently manifests as a contested partnership where overlapping mandates and competition for resources can undermine cohesive climate action, challenging the notion of a seamless hierarchical division of labour.
The primary contribution of this paper lies in its methodological demonstration of how to empirically dissect the abstract governance concepts of complementarity and subsidiarity within a specific policy domain, moving beyond theoretical or purely institutional analysis. By grounding the investigation in Mozambique’s experience with cyclones Idai and Kenneth, the study provides a tangible lens through which the operational realities and frictions of AU-UN cooperation are made visible, offering a replicable approach for similar studies in other regions or thematic areas. The most pressing practical implication for Mozambique is the demonstrable need to strategically navigate this complex dual-partner environment, advocating for a more robust AU coordinating role to mitigate fragmented interventions and ensure that international support aligns with nationally owned resilience strategies.
A critical next step for research, therefore, is to apply this methodological framework to a comparative analysis across multiple African states facing varied climate threats, which would help to distinguish case-specific dynamics from broader structural patterns in the AU-UN relationship. Future work must also more deeply integrate the agency of national actors in shaping these inter-organisational dynamics, moving beyond a focus on the bilateral AU-UN interface. Ultimately, refining such methodologies is imperative for developing more effective multi-level governance models, as the findings suggest that without deliberate structural reforms, the tension between subsidiarity’s promise and the UN’s pervasive role will continue to constrain the transformative potential of Africa’s collective climate response.