Addressing the African Peer Review Mechanism’s Programmes of Action

This research paper by Faten Aggad of the South African Institute of International Affairs (SAIIA) evaluates the Programmes of Action (PoAs) of the first six countries to undergo the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) process. The author argues that PoAs often fail to address the recommendations of the Panel of Eminent Persons, confuse high-level objectives with concrete action items, and lack transparent costing and integration with existing national development plans.

• Analysis of the first six countries reviewed by January 2008 shows a significant failure to incorporate the recommendations of the APRM Panel of Eminent Persons into their final Programmes of Action (PoAs). The rate of compliance varied widely, with Rwanda ignoring approximately 90% of recommendations and South Africa including only 60% of 182 recommendations.
• Countries have frequently ignored urgent governance and social issues highlighted by the Panel. Examples include South Africa's failure to adequately address xenophobia and high crime rates, Rwanda's omission of concerns regarding the legitimacy of the Gacaca court system, and Kenya's lack of a solid plan to manage ethnic diversity.
• There is a systemic confusion in PoAs between 'objectives' (the desired end goal) and 'action items' (the means to achieve that goal). Many PoAs list final outcomes as actions without detailing the specific steps, personnel, or logistical requirements needed to achieve them.
• The PoAs often lack a holistic approach to problem-solving, relying on insufficient measures for complex issues. For example, both Kenya and South Africa listed 'public awareness campaigns' as the primary action for combating corruption, which the author describes as inadequate for a challenge requiring transparency, financial control, and investigative approaches.
• While PoAs are intended to integrate existing national plans and budgets, there is often a lack of transparency and overlap in costing. In Ghana, for instance, the author found overlapping costs for farm road improvements between the PoA and the Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF).
• The lack of compliance with Panel recommendations is partly attributed to the APRM's respect for national sovereignty and the lack of enforcement power. The Panel has no jurisdiction to force adoption, and the process often results in a 'negotiated settlement' or consensus rather than a strict corrective review.
• The author recommends several improvements for future PoAs, including the use of expert working groups to evaluate alternative solutions, the creation of clear implementation schedules, the use of measurable indicators to distinguish APRM successes from general national development, and the prioritization of short-term deliverables to maintain momentum.

APA

Aggad, F. (2008). Addressing the African Peer Review Mechanism’s Programmes of Action. South African Institute of International Affairs. https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/Occasional-Paper-5.pdf

Chicago

Aggad, Faten. Addressing the African Peer Review Mechanism’s Programmes of Action. South African Institute of International Affairs, 2008. https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/Occasional-Paper-5.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Aggad |first1=Faten |title=Addressing the African Peer Review Mechanism’s Programmes of Action |publisher=South African Institute of International Affairs |date=June 2008 |url=https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/Occasional-Paper-5.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{aggad2008addressing, author = {Aggad, Faten}, title = {{Addressing the African Peer Review Mechanism’s Programmes of Action}}, institution = {South African Institute of International Affairs}, year = {2008}, month = jun, url = {https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/Occasional-Paper-5.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }