PSC Interview: ECOWAS reinforces early warning frameworks amid integrated security threats
As multiple factors converge to create a complex human security situation, early warning has never been more important.
Dr Onyinye Onwuka, Acting Director of the Early Warning Directorate at the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), spoke to PSC Report.
With West African security and politics becoming increasingly complex and volatile, how has the ECOWAS Early Warning Directorate adapted its analytical frameworks and methodologies to improve forecasting?
The directorate operates in an environment where security risks are no longer isolated. Political, economic, social and environmental factors interact to create an integrated human security threat, and our early warning framework has evolved with it.
First, we have deepened our multidimensional human security risk analysis. We used to focus primarily on risks affecting individual member states, but since insecurity knows no boundaries, we expanded more than a decade ago from a single-country focus to thematic analysis with regional implications.
The directorate now monitors threats in a more integrated way, covering security, governance, human rights, the environment, crime and criminality, and health and pandemics – which have killed more people than traditional warfare. We also monitor food security, social cohesion and organised crime across member states.
The second adaptation is data triangulation, using the ECOWAS Warning and Response Network of field monitors and national reports. We cannot see everything alone, so we combine these field reports with data from Africa Media Monitor, a digital application that automates data gathering from more than 1 000 global online sources, and with social media monitoring and analysis. Data triangulation is key to the credibility of our analysis.
Third, we have moved from monitoring to a predictive analytical framework, where scenario-based forecasting identifies crises and their potential triggers.
ECOWAS has moved from single-country monitoring to an integrated, predictive early warning system
Fourth, we have pursued greater localisation through the ECOWAS-designed national centres for the coordination of the response mechanism. These centres work with local partners to gather community information on conflict dynamics, recognising that many regional crises emerge from local grievances before they escalate.
Given the transnational nature of these threats, our analytical frameworks increasingly focus on regional spillovers. West Africa is divided into four clusters – the Gulf of Guinea, the Sahel, the Mano River and Senegambia – and we monitor cross-border risk through our risk and vulnerability assessment programmes.
We are also developing an ECOWAS human security index with partners, civil society and our centres of excellence, to ensure it is credible, acceptable and suited to the region. Several workshops have been held, and we are confident of finalising the index by the end of 2026.
How have the national response mechanism centres strengthened early warning and response capacities nationally and regionally, and what improvements are needed?
The establishment of the National Centres for the Coordination of the Response Mechanism (NCCRMs) was one of ECOWAS early warning's high points. On 14 July 2014, at its 45th ordinary session in Accra, ECOWAS heads of state adopted the Policy Framework for the Establishment of National Early Warning and Rapid Response Mechanisms in all member states. This was an important institutional innovation because it sought to bridge the gap between regional and national early warning systems. We added national response because alerts are of little use if the response capacity resides elsewhere.
We currently have eight functional national centres. Three countries have since left ECOWAS, so we have lost those centres and have fewer formal information-sharing channels, particularly from the Sahel. We are expanding partnerships with civil society, think tanks, local monitoring networks and the African Union to access and analyse information from that region, and are establishing national centres in the remaining ECOWAS member states where they are still absent.
Losing three member states has weakened ECOWAS's early warning network, especially across the Sahel
These centres have achieved much: member states now have designated mechanisms to receive, validate and act on early warnings, early warning is more embedded in government decision-making, and information flow has improved. The centres have also strengthened communication among local communities, national authorities and the ECOWAS Commission.
Reporting on local conflicts, electoral tensions and security incidents has also improved significantly, and will continue to as we work with partners and governments. The centres collect and analyse local data and issue national alerts and recommendations. This data – which helps coordinate national responses while supporting regional preventive diplomacy – is also transmitted to the ECOWAS Early Warning Directorate to feed into regional conflict analysis.
Coordination has also been enhanced, as the centres facilitate cooperation among national ministries. Different sectoral ministries sit on the statutory board, and staff seconded to the centres exchange views on interconnected human security issues.
Finally, the centres strongly support conflict prevention and local conflict management. Gaps remain – not all member-state centres are at the same level – and this is a work in progress. Conflict is visible, even at the level of structural and root causes, but peace is harder to measure. These structures will nonetheless help bring peace to the region, and ECOWAS will continue to guide, train and provide technical assistance to ensure national architectures function and their benefits are visible.
Early warning systems do not always translate into timely and effective action – what is being done to resolve this?
The gap between alert and response still exists. We need to place more emphasis on prevention than on reaction, but there is often reluctance to act on warnings that carry a political cost. Governments sometimes perceive a warning as criticism rather than an opportunity for prevention. I always say early warning is not early condemnation – it is knowledge of what is impending, so that we can act to stop it together. But if stakeholders view it as condemnation, they become defensive. We are working to build awareness that we are all partners in a peaceful region.
Early warning must be seen as partnership, not condemnation, to close the gap between alert and action
Resources are also a constraint. National centres report a lack of dedicated funding for operations, and funding has become a broader global challenge as other priorities take precedence. As a result, preventive action competes with more immediate demands – even though prevention is a long-term but essential engagement. Institutional fragmentation also slows response, as responsibilities are spread across multiple agencies, complicating coordination over who receives the resources to respond.
Finally, sovereignty is a concern. Regional recommendations sometimes meet resistance from national authorities, who tend to push back on comments outlining issues in their country during regional meetings. Government officials naturally defend their governments, but we want them to also see that human security is everyone's responsibility.
What has the Inter-regional Knowledge Exchange on Early Warning and Conflict Prevention achieved in its four years?
It has strengthened collaboration among continental and regional early warning mechanisms. We partner with the African Union on Africa Media Monitor and on periodic training to harmonise conflict prevention tools and outcomes. The knowledge exchange has gone further still, building exchanges on methodology, analytical tools, peer learning and, most importantly, lessons learnt.
The learning has been symbiotic. Our experience has sharpened the analytical approaches of other regional economic communities and broadened the lenses through which we view issues ourselves. This has enhanced the integration of regional findings, creating greater opportunities for joint assessment, joint reports and coordinated preventive diplomacy.
