PEER PRESSURE AND PEER LEARNING IN MULTI-STAKEHOLDER INITIATIVES

This report analyzes the effectiveness of peer learning and peer pressure within three Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives (MSIs): the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM), the Open Government Partnership (OGP), and the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI). It evaluates how these initiatives use mutual dialogue, best practices, and sanctions to improve governance, transparency, and accountability among member states.

• The African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) is identified as the least successful of the three MSIs in promoting peer learning and pressure. While it has structures for peer review, the Forum of Heads of State and Government Participating in the APRM (APR Forum) is characterized by poor high-level attendance and a tendency for leaders to praise each other rather than provide constructive criticism. Furthermore, the APRM failed to use peer pressure to prevent crises in Kenya, South Africa, and Mozambique despite early warnings.
• Peer learning in the APRM is hindered by the poor quality and dissemination of 'Best Practices.' These are often presented as brief summaries in Country Review Reports (CRRs) without explaining how they contribute to goals, making them difficult for other members to replicate. Additionally, there are no official forums for members within the same Regional Economic Communities (RECs) to discuss these practices.
• The Open Government Partnership (OGP) effectively integrates peer learning through structured activities such as the Peer Learning and Support Subcommittee, bilateral exchanges, and thematic working groups. It uses a competitive element, such as awarding 'stars' for transformative commitments and hosting annual Open Government Awards, to encourage innovation and compliance.
• The OGP utilizes a 'Response Policy' adopted in 2014 to exercise peer pressure and protect civil society space. This policy allows the OGP to declare a member's status as 'inactive,' which serves as a 'naming and shaming' sanction. This was applied to Azerbaijan on May 4, 2016, due to the restrictive treatment of civil society organizations.
• The Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) promotes transparency in the oil, gas, and mining sectors through a global Standard and the use of Multi-Stakeholder Groups (MSGs). It emphasizes peer learning over formal training, encouraging member states to lead discussions on best practices. For example, a pilot project on beneficial ownership involving countries like the DRC, Liberia, Niger, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, and Zambia led 27 countries to eventually adopt the practice.
• The EITI employs the most rigorous enforcement mechanisms of the three MSIs, including temporary suspension and delisting. Suspension may occur due to political instability, missing deadlines, or inadequate progress, while delisting revokes membership entirely. As of February 23, 2018, countries suspended included the Central African Republic, Honduras, Iraq, Kyrgyz Republic, Solomon Islands, and Tajikistan.
• All three MSIs face challenges regarding the genuine involvement of civil society. The EITI specifically struggles with 'open-washing,' where governments create a façade of consultation while excluding critical organizations or failing to incorporate their input. In Azerbaijan, the EITI suspended the country in March 2017 due to a lack of satisfactory civil society engagement, leading the government to withdraw the following day.

APA

Turianskyi, Y., & Chisiza, M. (2018). PEER PRESSURE AND PEER LEARNING IN MULTI-STAKEHOLDER INITIATIVES. South African Institute of International Affairs. https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/2018-MSI-Peer-Review_Peer-pressure-and-peer-learning-in-multi-stakeholder-initiatives.pdf

Chicago

Turianskyi, Yarik, and Matebe Chisiza. PEER PRESSURE AND PEER LEARNING IN MULTI-STAKEHOLDER INITIATIVES. South African Institute of International Affairs, 2018. https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/2018-MSI-Peer-Review_Peer-pressure-and-peer-learning-in-multi-stakeholder-initiatives.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Turianskyi |first1=Yarik |last2=Chisiza |first2=Matebe |title=PEER PRESSURE AND PEER LEARNING IN MULTI-STAKEHOLDER INITIATIVES |publisher=South African Institute of International Affairs |date=April 2018 |url=https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/2018-MSI-Peer-Review_Peer-pressure-and-peer-learning-in-multi-stakeholder-initiatives.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{turianskyi2018peer, author = {Turianskyi, Yarik and Chisiza, Matebe}, title = {{PEER PRESSURE AND PEER LEARNING IN MULTI-STAKEHOLDER INITIATIVES}}, institution = {South African Institute of International Affairs}, year = {2018}, month = apr, url = {https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/2018-MSI-Peer-Review_Peer-pressure-and-peer-learning-in-multi-stakeholder-initiatives.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }