Addressing the African Peer Review Mechanism’s Programmes of Action

The research paper examines the gap between the recommendations made by the APRM Panel of Eminent Persons and the actual Programmes of Action (PoAs) adopted by the first six reviewed African countries. It finds that most recommendations were ignored or inadequately addressed, often due to procedural failures, a lack of distinction between objectives and action items, and a tendency for governments to prioritize sovereignty over reform. The author provides a set of practical guidelines to improve future PoAs, emphasizing the need for measurable indicators, transparent costing, and better integration with existing national development plans.

• Analysis of the first six countries to complete the APRM process by January 2008 shows that most peer recommendations were ignored in the final Programmes of Action (PoAs). Specifically, Rwanda ignored about 90% of recommendations, Benin addressed only 12%, and Algeria addressed 19%. South Africa had the highest compliance rate, with 60% of 182 recommendations included.
• Governments frequently ignored critical warnings and pressing issues in their PoAs. For example, South Africa's PoA failed to adequately address xenophobia and high crime rates despite Panel warnings, and Kenya did not propose a solid PoA item to manage ethnic diversity, which some analysts link to the political confrontations following the December 2007 elections.
• There is a systemic confusion in PoAs between objectives (the desired end) and action items (the means to achieve the end). Many PoAs list goals as actions without detailing the specific steps, personnel, or logistical requirements needed for implementation, such as South Africa's goal of bringing justice services to rural areas without planning for more judges or lawyers.
• The lack of compliance with Panel recommendations is partly due to procedural issues and the principle of national sovereignty. Some countries received recommendations after drafting their PoAs, while others argued that recommendations were too general or lacked costing. Ultimately, the Panel has no jurisdiction to force adoption, and PoAs are often the result of negotiated settlements.
• PoAs often lack transparent and activity-based costing, leading to overlaps with other national plans. For instance, in Ghana, a PoA allocation for farm roads overlapped with an existing Road Fund under the Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF). Estimated budgets for the first six PoAs varied widely, from US$ 20.7 million for Algeria to US$ 5.3 billion for Kenya.
• To improve future PoAs, the author recommends a more structured approach including the use of expert working groups, public-validation exercises, and the creation of clear implementation schedules. There is a specific need for measurable indicators to distinguish APRM-driven successes from those resulting from general national development processes.

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} }