PEER PRESSURE AND PEER LEARNING IN MULTI-STAKEHOLDER INITIATIVES

The report evaluates the APRM, OGP, and EITI, finding that while the OGP and EITI successfully employ peer learning and pressure to enforce standards and protect civil society, the APRM lags behind due to a lack of critical engagement and a failure to implement sanctions for non-compliance.

• The African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) is the least successful of the three initiatives in promoting peer learning and pressure. Its peer review process is often unbalanced, with leaders primarily praising each other rather than providing constructive criticism, and meetings are frequently too short to allow for deep discussion of comprehensive reports.
• The APRM's 'Best Practices' are inadequate for actual replication or learning because they are typically presented as brief summaries without explaining how they contribute to goals, and they are not systematically disseminated among members or Regional Economic Communities (RECs).
• The Open Government Partnership (OGP) effectively utilizes peer learning through structured activities such as bilateral exchanges, thematic working groups, and a dedicated Peer Learning and Support Subcommittee. It also employs a 'Response Policy' to apply peer pressure, such as declaring Azerbaijan's membership 'inactive' in 2016 due to the restriction of civil society space.
• The Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) promotes transparency in the oil, gas, and mining sectors through a global Standard and peer exchanges. It uses a 'Rapid Response Committee' to investigate harassment of civil society and employs a tiered system of sanctions, including suspension and delisting, for non-compliant members.
• The EITI faces challenges with 'open-washing,' where countries create a façade of compliance and consultation while excluding critical civil society organizations in practice. Additionally, financial constraints in the global south often hinder the implementation of recommendations arising from EITI reports.
• There is a significant disparity in how the three MSIs enforce commitments: the APRM has no history of implementing its vague 'measures' for non-compliance, the OGP uses 'naming and shaming' through inactive status, and the EITI uses formal suspension and delisting.

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} }