Understanding APRM Research: Planning, Process and Politics

The document serves as a practical guide for Technical Research Institutes (TRIs) tasked with conducting the self-assessment phase of the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM). It details the roles of TRIs, the challenges of using the 88-page APRM questionnaire, and the necessity of balancing technical objectivity with the political sensitivities of participating African governments. The handbook offers specific methodologies for gathering expert and public opinion, vetting desk research sources, and managing the logistical and political pressures of the process. It concludes by suggesting that TRIs expand their role beyond the initial report to monitor the implementation of Programmes of Action (PoA).

• Technical Research Institutes (TRIs) have become a standard feature of the APRM self-assessment process, typically performing three roles: conducting desk-based assessments using international benchmarks, incorporating public input, and drafting the Country Self-Assessment Reports (CSARs) and Programmes of Action (PoAs).
• The official 88-page APRM Self-Assessment Questionnaire is described as lengthy, complex, and not user-friendly, often requiring TRIs to reformulate and customize it for local contexts and different target groups (such as experts versus the general public) to ensure meaningful participation.
• The APRM process is highly politicized, and TRIs must navigate tensions between producing a factually accurate, candid report and the demands of political establishments to report what is 'politically correct'.
• Time management is a critical challenge, as the recommended six- to nine-month deadline for self-assessment has proven unrealistic for all participating countries, often compromising the quality of the final CSAR.
• To improve the quality of the Programme of Action (PoA), the document recommends establishing working groups early in the process to identify policy gaps, test feasibility, and define measurable performance indicators rather than assembling the PoA hastily at the end.
• The selection process for TRIs has faced transparency concerns in some countries; for instance, in Ghana, TRIs did not have to tender, and in Rwanda and Tanzania, some chosen institutes appeared to have ideological affinities with the incumbent governments.

APA

Katito, G. (2008). Understanding APRM Research: Planning, Process and Politics. South African Institute of International Affairs. https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/Occasional-Paper-4.pdf

Chicago

Katito, George. Understanding APRM Research: Planning, Process and Politics. South African Institute of International Affairs, 2008. https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/Occasional-Paper-4.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Katito |first1=George |title=Understanding APRM Research: Planning, Process and Politics |publisher=South African Institute of International Affairs |date=June 2008 |url=https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/Occasional-Paper-4.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{katito2008understanding, author = {Katito, George}, title = {{Understanding APRM Research: Planning, Process and Politics}}, institution = {South African Institute of International Affairs}, year = {2008}, month = jun, url = {https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/Occasional-Paper-4.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }