policy-briefing-141-93043a3a65d5ea39.pdf

This policy briefing by the South African Institute of International Affairs (SAIIA) examines the status of the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) as it attempts to transition from initial 'base' reviews to 'second-generation' periodic reviews. The author argues that while the APRM has successfully diagnosed governance problems across 17 countries, it has lost momentum and must now adapt its processes to improve efficiency, ensure the implementation of National Programmes of Action (NPoAs), and better utilize institutional memory.

• Despite the APRM's design for regular governance assessments, no country has completed a full 'second-generation' review in the 12 years since the mechanism's inception. While 17 of 35 acceding countries have undergone initial reviews, no new reviews were undertaken after those completed in 2013.
• First-generation reviews faced significant operational challenges, including costs ranging from $1 million to $3 million per country and timelines that consistently exceeded the intended six-to-nine-month window. Additionally, the resulting Country Review Reports (CRRs) were often too long, averaging 400 pages, which tended to obscure critical issues.
• The implementation of National Programmes of Action (NPoAs)—the strategies designed to address governance shortcomings—has been questionable. Evidence of failure to address identified issues is seen in the 2007 post-election conflict in Kenya and xenophobic violence in South Africa in 2008 and 2015.
• Political interference has impacted the review process. In South Africa, the government edited the Country Self-Assessment Report (CSAR) to modify contentious content, while in Zambia, changes in government disrupted review preparations.
• To improve second-generation reviews, the author recommends strengthening continental structures, specifically noting that the lack of a permanent chief executive officer at the Secretariat has been a handicap.
• The author suggests that second-generation reviews should leverage institutional memory by maintaining National Governing Councils (NGCs) and engaging Technical Research Institutes that assisted in the first round of reviews.
• Future reviews should be tailored to emphasize specific concerns identified in first-generation reviews and NPoAs, rather than just repeating a general questionnaire, to drive more substantive policy discussions.

APA

South African Institute of International Affairs (n.d.). policy-briefing-141-93043a3a65d5ea39.pdf. https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Policy-Briefing-141.pdf

Chicago

South African Institute of International Affairs. policy-briefing-141-93043a3a65d5ea39.pdf. n.d. https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Policy-Briefing-141.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=South African Institute of International Affairs |title=policy-briefing-141-93043a3a65d5ea39.pdf |url=https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Policy-Briefing-141.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{southafricaninstituteofinternationalaffairsndpolicybriefing14193043a3a65d5ea39pdf, author = {{South African Institute of International Affairs}}, title = {{policy-briefing-141-93043a3a65d5ea39.pdf}}, institution = {South African Institute of International Affairs}, url = {https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Policy-Briefing-141.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }