ABORDER LA QUESTION DES PROGRAMMES D’ACTION DU MÉCANISME AFRICAIN D’EVALUATION PAR LES PAIRS

This research paper by Faten Aggad, published by the South African Institute of International Affairs in June 2008, analyzes the Action Plans (PA) of the first six countries to undergo the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) process. The author argues that there is a significant gap between the recommendations issued by the Panel of Eminent Persons and the actual commitments adopted by governments in their Action Plans, often due to a lack of clear guidelines, a confusion between goals and specific actions, and the prioritization of national sovereignty over peer recommendations.

• An analysis of the first six countries to complete the APRM process by January 2008 shows that most governments ignored a significant portion of the Panel of Eminent Persons' recommendations in their final Action Plans. The adoption rates varied widely: South Africa included 60% of recommendations, Kenya 45%, Ghana 35%, Algeria 19%, Benin 12%, and Rwanda only 10%.
• Governments frequently ignored urgent governance and social issues highlighted by the Panel. For example, South Africa's Action Plan failed to adequately address xenophobia and high crime rates despite Panel warnings, and Rwanda's plan omitted responses to concerns regarding the legitimacy and fairness of the Gacaca court system.
• Action Plans often suffer from a conceptual confusion between 'objectives' (the desired end goal) and 'actions' (the means to achieve that goal). Many plans list goals as actions without providing the specific steps, logistical plans, or measurable indicators necessary for implementation.
• The APRM process lacks sufficient guidance on how to develop Action Plans, leading pioneer countries to create their own inconsistent methods. Furthermore, the Panel of Eminent Persons has no legal jurisdiction to force countries to adopt recommendations, meaning governments can freely reject any points they disagree with based on national sovereignty.
• There is a lack of transparency and clarity in how Action Plans integrate with existing national budgets and development strategies. In some cases, such as in Ghana, funding for infrastructure projects in the Action Plan overlapped with existing Medium Term Expenditure Frameworks without clear distinction of what the additional funds were for.
• The author recommends that future Action Plans should include narrative explanatory notes, specific measurable indicators, and a clear hierarchy of priorities based on short, medium, and long-term deliverables to ensure better tracking and accountability.

APA

Aggad, F. (2008). ABORDER LA QUESTION DES PROGRAMMES D’ACTION DU MÉCANISME AFRICAIN D’EVALUATION PAR LES PAIRS. South African Institute of International Affairs. https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/Occasional-Paper-5-FR.pdf

Chicago

Aggad, Faten. ABORDER LA QUESTION DES PROGRAMMES D’ACTION DU MÉCANISME AFRICAIN D’EVALUATION PAR LES PAIRS. South African Institute of International Affairs, 2008. https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/Occasional-Paper-5-FR.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Aggad |first1=Faten |title=ABORDER LA QUESTION DES PROGRAMMES D’ACTION DU MÉCANISME AFRICAIN D’EVALUATION PAR LES PAIRS |publisher=South African Institute of International Affairs |date=June 2008 |url=https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/Occasional-Paper-5-FR.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{aggad2008aborder, author = {Aggad, Faten}, title = {{ABORDER LA QUESTION DES PROGRAMMES D’ACTION DU MÉCANISME AFRICAIN D’EVALUATION PAR LES PAIRS}}, institution = {South African Institute of International Affairs}, year = {2008}, month = jun, url = {https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/Occasional-Paper-5-FR.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }