Where the large agendas are strong, and where trust falls through the gaps
Healthy Prosperity for Africa · first draft for discussion · October 2026
The question
The UN’s Agenda 2030, with its 17 goals, and the African Union’s Agenda 2063, with its seven aspirations, are the two great reference frameworks for Africa’s development. Where do they leave gaps that a complementary agenda could fill?
This is a stress test, not an independent evaluation: both agendas are put under load from one specific angle, the Relational Systems Framework. A framework that defines repair as a necessary function will inevitably find gaps where others see none. That is why the results are checked against findings that do not come from the RSF (see below), and why this reading is open to external review. → What the RSF is
Functions
| RSF function | Agenda 2030 | Agenda 2063 | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Regulation | Goal 16: reduce violence (16.1), rule of law (16.3) | Aspiration 4: a peaceful and secure Africa; “Silencing the Guns” | violence and institutions are measured, not the calming of shaken people, communities and security forces |
| Coordination | Goal 17: partnerships, finance, data | Aspirations 2 and 7: integration, free trade area, ten-year plans | well covered |
| Connection | indirectly: inclusive decision-making (16.7) | Aspiration 5: cultural identity, common heritage, values | trust between groups and between state and youth is hardly made measurable |
| Adaptation | Goal 13: climate; resilience (11.5) | Aspiration 1: climate-resilient economies | well covered, but resource revenues rarely bound to the next generation |
| Repair | no goal on reconciliation, collective trauma or repair; only the return of stolen assets (16.4) | transitional justice policy (2019) and reparations stand beside the agenda, without goals or indicators | main gap |
Conditions
| RSF condition | Agenda 2030 | Agenda 2063 | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Predictability | effective, accountable institutions (16.6) | Aspiration 3: good governance, rule of law | rules exist on paper; corruption and impunity make them unpredictable |
| Reciprocity | less inequality (Goal 10), decent work (8.5, 8.8), less corruption (16.5) | Aspiration 6: people-driven development | reciprocity between state and citizens, and between employer and worker, is hardly tested |
| Recognition | principle “leave no one behind” | Aspiration 5; reparations | suffering and history are not treated as development factors; young people appear as a target group, not as shapers |
| Social embeddedness | national indicators, little local anchoring | Aspirations 5 and 6 | religion, tradition and community hardly appear as carriers; few lay structures |
Findings that do not come from the RSF
- Agenda 2030 contains no goal and no indicator on reconciliation, collective trauma or repair. Mental well-being is a target (3.4), but measured only through suicide mortality.
- The AU has placed transitional justice (policy of 2019) and reparations in separate policies outside the goals and indicators of Agenda 2063.
- An AU guideline on mental health and psychosocial support in conflict and post-conflict settings was first drafted in 2023, reviewed in 2024 and has since been validated, but not yet formally adopted. In November 2025 the Peace and Security Council also called for guidance on community-based psychosocial support for children in conflict.
- The UN and World Bank report Pathways for Peace (2018) names exclusion and perceived injustice as central drivers of violent conflict.
What exists already
Transitional justice and truth commissions, psychosocial programmes following international standards, social-cohesion peacebuilding, and the UN–World Bank prevention agenda already cover parts of these gaps. The initiative does not reinvent them. Its possible contribution lies in the connection of repair, psychosocial support and economic agency, and in measuring whether this connection makes existing processes more effective.
Conclusion
Under this stress test, Agenda 2030 mainly fulfils regulation, coordination and adaptation. Agenda 2063 is closer to a relational view: it speaks of identity, values and people-driven development. But it places healing in separate policies without goals or indicators.
Whether programmes with a stronger repair component achieve better results under comparable conditions is not yet shown. That is exactly what the initiative proposes to test, together with African partners. If the results are positive, the initiative could offer Agenda 2063, which sets interim targets up to 2033, indicators for repair, recognition and trust.
Limits of this stress test
This is a desk reading of goals, targets and policy documents, not of what happens on the ground. Many national programmes go further than the frameworks they report to. A first virtual review was carried out (see Method); an independent review by experts, including African experts, is invited.
Overview · Initiatives · RSF · Method · Français
Sources: UN, Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda (2015); AU, Agenda 2063 and Second Ten-Year Implementation Plan 2024–2033; AU Transitional Justice Policy (2019); AU Post-Conflict Reconstruction and Development Centre, workshop on an AU MHPSS guideline (April 2024); AU Peace and Security Council, 1314th meeting (21 November 2025); UN/World Bank, Pathways for Peace (2018).