The African Peer Review Mechanism Lessons from the Pioneers

The document examines the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) as a political process, highlighting the tensions between governments and civil society in pioneer countries. It identifies systemic failures in the APRM's operational guidelines, specifically regarding timeframes, research methods, and the development of Programmes of Action (POAs). The authors propose the 'COPPER' principles (Candid, Open, Planned, Participatory, Exemplary, Rigorous) to ensure a credible review and provide a detailed strategy for civil society to influence the process through evidence-based written submissions and media engagement. The report concludes that the APRM's success depends on presidential leadership, transparent governing councils, and a shift in focus from merely identifying problems to crafting detailed, accountable solutions in the POA.

• The APRM is an inherently political process that can increase tensions if poorly managed, as it produces high-profile reports that may embarrass politicians and challenge the methods political parties use to raise funds and win elections.
• Civil society in pioneer countries expressed three primary concerns: the selection and composition of the National Governing Council (fearing government domination), the methodology and editing of research reports, and a lack of transparency and information regarding the timing of the process.
• Governments often view the APRM with apprehension, fearing that criticism will be used by political opposition or media to score points, leading some administrations to attempt to control or limit the content of Country Self-Assessment Reports.
• The authors propose the 'COPPER' principles—Candid, Open, Planned, Participatory, Exemplary, and Rigorous—as the essential traits for an effective APRM process to ensure it results in genuine consensus and durable solutions.
• The APRM process is significantly more time-consuming and costly than originally planned; while guidelines suggested six to nine months, pioneer countries took between nine and 28 months to complete the self-assessment and review phases.
• The Programme of Action (POA) is identified as the weakest component of the APRM because it is often developed in haste at the end of the process, resulting in superficial action items that lack the detail necessary for effective monitoring.
• Civil society can maximize its influence by moving beyond public meetings to provide evidence-based written submissions, targeting not only the National Governing Council but also the continental APRM Secretariat and the Country Review Team.
• 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, consultation, and budgeting.

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} }