policy-briefing-143-e2efae5c751865d4.pdf

This policy briefing, published by the South African Institute of International Affairs in October 2015, compares the Open Government Partnership (OGP) with other international peer-review mechanisms, including the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM), the UN's Universal Periodic Review (UPR), and the OECD's Anti-Bribery Convention Review (OECDA). It argues that the OGP's flexible, civil-society-led approach offers unique benefits for transparency and governance, and suggests that African nations should seek OGP membership and harmonise it with existing review obligations.

• The Open Government Partnership (OGP) differs from most review mechanisms because it allows governments to self-determine their own commitments in collaboration with national civil society, rather than implementing recommendations made by an external body.
• The OGP's focused scope and lack of a formulaic list of indicators allow for faster implementation and reporting compared to the APRM, where reviews can take five or more years after accession and exceed the envisioned 9 to 12 month timeframe.
• High levels of civil society involvement in all OGP stages increase the independence of the mechanism and the likelihood of effective implementation, contrasting with the UPR where civil society has no direct role.
• The OGP maintains independence through its Independent Reporting Mechanism, which employs independent consultants to produce biannual progress reports for each participating country.
• As of July 2015, OGP participation in Africa was limited to eight countries: Ghana, Kenya, Liberia, Malawi, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Tanzania, and Tunisia.
• The OGP's structure allows it to be easily harmonised with other review mechanisms because governments can develop their OGP commitments with express reference to other existing obligations.
• The authors recommend that African countries explore OGP eligibility and that current African members provide support to those seeking to join, particularly as South Africa assumed the chair of the steering committee in October 2015.

APA

South African Institute of International Affairs (n.d.). policy-briefing-143-e2efae5c751865d4.pdf. https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Policy-Briefing-143.pdf

Chicago

South African Institute of International Affairs. policy-briefing-143-e2efae5c751865d4.pdf. n.d. https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Policy-Briefing-143.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=South African Institute of International Affairs |title=policy-briefing-143-e2efae5c751865d4.pdf |url=https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Policy-Briefing-143.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{southafricaninstituteofinternationalaffairsndpolicybriefing143e2efae5c751865d4pdf, author = {{South African Institute of International Affairs}}, title = {{policy-briefing-143-e2efae5c751865d4.pdf}}, institution = {South African Institute of International Affairs}, url = {https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Policy-Briefing-143.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }