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

Report an error

Summary

AI-generated

This summary is written by a language model reading the source document. It is not the publisher's words and is not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment

The research paper examines the gap between the recommendations made by the APRM Panel of Eminent Persons and the actual Action Plans (PA) adopted by pioneer countries. It finds that many critical governance issues were ignored or inadequately addressed, and that countries often confused high-level goals with concrete actions. The author argues for a more structured approach to PA development, including measurable indicators, better integration with national budgets, and a clearer distinction between existing and new initiatives.

Key insights

AI-generated

These insights are written by a language model reading the source document. They are not the publisher's words and are not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment
  • There is a significant discrepancy between the recommendations issued by the APRM Panel and the final Action Plans adopted by the first six evaluated countries. For instance, Rwanda ignored approximately 90% of recommendations, and Benin addressed only 12%.
  • Countries frequently ignored urgent governance warnings that later manifested as crises. South Africa's PA failed to adequately address xenophobia and crime despite Panel warnings, and Kenya's PA lacked a robust framework for managing ethnic diversity, which some analysts link to the 2007 post-election violence.
  • Action Plans often suffer from a conceptual confusion between 'objectives' (the desired end) and 'actions' (the means to achieve that end), leading to plans that lack concrete steps and measurable indicators.
  • The APRM process is constrained by the principle of national sovereignty, as the Panel has no legal jurisdiction to force countries to adopt its recommendations, making the final PA a result of negotiated consensus rather than strict adherence to expert advice.

Cite the original document

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} }

Full text

Collected · Record updated