Comprendre la Recherche du MAEP : Planification, processus et politiques

This guide, published by the South African Institute of International Affairs (SAIIA) in June 2008, provides practical instructions for Technical Research Institutions (TRIs) conducting research for the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM). It details the planning, methodology, and political navigation required to produce National Self-Assessment Reports (NSARs) and Action Plans (APs), drawing on experiences from pioneer countries such as Ghana, Kenya, Rwanda, and South Africa.

• The African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) is a voluntary process where African governments and citizens analyze systemic governance issues and identify reforms. As of May 2008, 28 countries had agreed to be evaluated.
• Technical Research Institutions (TRIs) have become a standard part of the self-assessment process, typically performing three roles: conducting desk evaluations of governance based on international standards, integrating public input, and developing the text for National Self-Assessment Reports (NSARs) and Action Plans (APs).
• The self-assessment process is often hindered by unrealistic timelines; the recommended period of six to nine months has not been met by any country, which can negatively impact the quality of the NSAR.
• The selection of TRIs can lack transparency and objectivity. In Ghana, TRIs were not selected via open tender, while in Rwanda and Tanzania, observers questioned the fairness of selections due to perceived ideological affinities between the chosen institutes and the governments.
• The APRM National Self-Assessment Questionnaire is described as long and complex, making it difficult to use in its original form. TRIs are advised to reformulate and adapt it into simplified versions for experts and the general public, and to translate it into local languages to increase accessibility.
• Research for the APRM is highly politicized, with governments and interest groups attempting to influence the content of reports. TRIs must manage political sensitivities, maintain professional integrity, and be aware of how timing—such as conducting research during election periods—can bias results.
• The guide recommends a specific strategy for developing Action Plans (APs) to avoid them being rushed or underdeveloped. This includes establishing a dedicated working group early on, evaluating existing policies, integrating consultation suggestions, and identifying specific implementation agencies and performance indicators.
• To ensure the credibility of desk research, TRIs are urged to rigorously test sources. In Rwanda, the government criticized TRIs for using international sources like Human Rights Watch and Reporters sans Frontières, which the government viewed as biased.

APA

Katito, G. (2008). Comprendre la Recherche du MAEP : Planification, processus et politiques. South African Institute of International Affairs. https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/Occasional-Paper-4-FR.pdf

Chicago

Katito, George. Comprendre la Recherche du MAEP : Planification, processus et politiques. South African Institute of International Affairs, 2008. https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/Occasional-Paper-4-FR.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Katito |first1=George |title=Comprendre la Recherche du MAEP : Planification, processus et politiques |publisher=South African Institute of International Affairs |date=June 2008 |url=https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/Occasional-Paper-4-FR.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{katito2008comprendre, author = {Katito, George}, title = {{Comprendre la Recherche du MAEP : Planification, processus et politiques}}, institution = {South African Institute of International Affairs}, year = {2008}, month = jun, url = {https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/Occasional-Paper-4-FR.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }