South Africa’s Implementation of the APRM: Making a Difference or Going Through the Motions?

The document evaluates South Africa's third APRM implementation report (SAIR3), noting improvements in reporting quality and honesty compared to previous reports. However, it argues that the APRM remains largely a foreign policy tool with little domestic impact, as the NPoA is not integrated into national policies like the National Development Plan (NDP) and governance challenges identified in 2007 persist.

• The third APRM NPoA implementation report (SAIR3), launched on 29 January 2014, shows significant improvements in technical quality, honesty, and research compared to the 2009 and 2011 reports. Unlike its predecessors, SAIR3 uses statistics and tables to demonstrate progress and acknowledges persistent challenges such as xenophobia, service delivery, and violence against women and children.
• SAIR3 employed a more consultative process than previous reports by conducting provincial consultations in Limpopo, Mpumalanga, and North West to gather input from various stakeholders, including youth, the business sector, and faith-based organisations.
• Despite the consultative process, the final SAIR3 report fails to clearly incorporate the voices of the public or the views of major civil society organisations working on the APRM in South Africa, lacking specific quotes, attendance details, or provincial case studies.
• There is a critical disconnect between the APRM NPoA and South Africa's domestic policy framework. The NPoA is not integrated into the National Development Plan (NDP) or Vision 2030, suggesting the government uses the APRM primarily as a foreign policy tool rather than a domestic governance improvement mechanism.
• Governance deficiencies identified in the original 2007 Country Review Report (CRR) persist seven years later. The author notes that while the government knows its problems, there have been no visible efforts to systematically implement the practical recommendations made by the APR Panel of Eminent Persons.
• The APRM process in South Africa has suffered from a lack of public visibility and institutional instability. The Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA), which drives the mechanism, has had four different ministers in three years, leading to staff shortages and a loss of institutional memory.

APA

Turianskyi, Y. (2014). South Africa’s Implementation of the APRM: Making a Difference or Going Through the Motions? South African Institute of International Affairs. https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Policy-Briefing-99.pdf

Chicago

Turianskyi, Yarik. South Africa’s Implementation of the APRM: Making a Difference or Going Through the Motions? South African Institute of International Affairs, 2014. https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Policy-Briefing-99.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Turianskyi |first1=Yarik |title=South Africa’s Implementation of the APRM: Making a Difference or Going Through the Motions? |publisher=South African Institute of International Affairs |date=July 2014 |url=https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Policy-Briefing-99.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{turianskyi2014south, author = {Turianskyi, Yarik}, title = {{South Africa’s Implementation of the APRM: Making a Difference or Going Through the Motions?}}, institution = {South African Institute of International Affairs}, year = {2014}, month = jul, url = {https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Policy-Briefing-99.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }