The African Peer Review Mechanism Lessons from the Pioneers

This report by the South African Institute of International Affairs (SAIIA) analyzes the early experiences of countries participating in the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM). It examines the APRM as a political process, detailing the tensions between governments and civil society, and provides strategic guidance for civil society organizations to influence the review process. The document concludes with a critique of the APRM's operational shortcomings, specifically regarding time pressures, inadequate guidelines, and the superficial nature of Programmes of Action (POAs).

• The APRM is an inherently political process that can create tension between governments and civil society. It can be politically charged because it produces high-profile reports that may "embarrass politicians" and discuss corruption, which is often a "potent political campaign issue."
• Civil society organizations in pioneer countries expressed three primary concerns: the selection and composition of the National Governing Council, the methodology of research and report editing, and a lack of transparency and information regarding the timing of the process.
• Governments often approach the APRM with apprehension, fearing that criticism will be directed at incumbent administrations. In South Africa, the government initially responded to its APRM report by suggesting the process played into the hands of "racist critics" and that some assertions were "ideologically driven."
• The authors propose the 'COPPER' principles to ensure an effective APRM process: Candid, Open, Planned, Participatory, Exemplary, and Rigorous.
• Civil society can effectively influence the APRM by preparing written submissions based on authoritative reports, targeting key decision-makers, and engaging the media to signal that they will not accept a controlled process.
• The APRM process is significantly more time-consuming and costly than originally planned. While guidelines suggested a six to nine month timeframe, pioneer countries took between nine and 18 months just to complete the national self-assessment phase.
• The Programme of Action (POA) is identified as one of the weakest components of the APRM. Many POAs are developed in haste and contain non-specific goals, which "prevents effective monitoring and makes it nearly impossible for civil society to judge whether a promise has been fulfilled or not."
• The continental APRM Secretariat and the Panel of Eminent Persons have provided inadequate and sometimes contradictory guidance, leaving countries to "reinvent the wheel" regarding research and consultation methods.
• To strengthen the APRM, the authors recommend clarifying ambiguous rules, increasing the capacity of the Secretariat, establishing a best practices unit, and revising the Questionnaire to be less repetitive and more comprehensive.

APA

Herbert, R., & Gruzd, S. (2008). The African Peer Review Mechanism Lessons from the Pioneers. South African Institute of International Affairs. https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/aprm_pioneers_part3_20090219.pdf

Chicago

Herbert, Ross, and Steven Gruzd. The African Peer Review Mechanism Lessons from the Pioneers. South African Institute of International Affairs, 2008. https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/aprm_pioneers_part3_20090219.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Herbert |first1=Ross |last2=Gruzd |first2=Steven |title=The African Peer Review Mechanism Lessons from the Pioneers |publisher=South African Institute of International Affairs |date=February 2008 |url=https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/aprm_pioneers_part3_20090219.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{herbert2008african, author = {Herbert, Ross and Gruzd, Steven}, title = {{The African Peer Review Mechanism Lessons from the Pioneers}}, institution = {South African Institute of International Affairs}, year = {2008}, month = feb, url = {https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/aprm_pioneers_part3_20090219.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }