The African Peer Review Mechanism Ten Years On: How Can It Be Strengthened?

The African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM), launched in 2003, aims to improve governance in Africa through voluntary peer reviews. While it has successfully opened political space for civil society and provided frank assessments of 17 member states, it suffers from a lack of enforcement, insufficient political will at the continental level, and poor implementation of National Programmes of Action (NPoAs). The document argues that the APRM is often perceived as a technical exercise for elites and recommends that the APR Forum exercise more peer pressure, governments secure realistic budgets for NPoAs, and civil society be given a formal role in monitoring progress.

• The APRM has struggled with a lack of enforcement and political will at the continental level, meaning early warnings in Country Review Reports (CRRs) are often ignored. For example, warnings regarding xenophobia in South Africa and potential ethnic violence in Kenya were not acted upon by their respective governments, leading to outbreaks of violence in 2008 and 2007.
• A primary achievement of the APRM is the creation of formal avenues for dialogue between state officials and stakeholders, including business and civil society, particularly in countries where such interactions were previously limited.
• Most of the 17 states that have undergone review struggle to implement their National Programmes of Action (NPoAs). Common obstacles include a lack of realistic budgets, the APRM being viewed as a foreign policy exercise rather than a domestic tool, competition with other governance initiatives, or changes in government.
• The mechanism suffers from poor visibility and a lack of public branding, leading it to be perceived as a technical process for elites rather than a tool for citizens. Ghana is noted as an exception for branding reforms as APRM-related.
• There is a critical gap in the transition from the review phase to the implementation phase; while the review is society-wide, the implementation of the NPoA is controlled by the government, often leading to the disbanding of National Governing Councils (NGCs) and the exclusion of civil society.

APA

Turianskyi, Y. (2013). The African Peer Review Mechanism Ten Years On: How Can It Be Strengthened? South African Institute of International Affairs. https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Policy-Note-2.pdf

Chicago

Turianskyi, Yarik. The African Peer Review Mechanism Ten Years On: How Can It Be Strengthened? South African Institute of International Affairs, 2013. https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Policy-Note-2.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Turianskyi |first1=Yarik |title=The African Peer Review Mechanism Ten Years On: How Can It Be Strengthened? |publisher=South African Institute of International Affairs |date=December 2013 |url=https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Policy-Note-2.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{turianskyi2013african, author = {Turianskyi, Yarik}, title = {{The African Peer Review Mechanism Ten Years On: How Can It Be Strengthened?}}, institution = {South African Institute of International Affairs}, year = {2013}, month = dec, url = {https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Policy-Note-2.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }