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

This policy note by the South African Institute of International Affairs evaluates the first decade of the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM), analyzing its structural challenges, achievements in opening political space, and the systemic failures in implementing National Programmes of Action (NPoAs).

• The APRM is a voluntary, African-owned governance framework launched on 9 March 2003 in Abuja, Nigeria. It employs a peer-review system consisting of a Country Self-Assessment Report and an external Country Review Mission, which together form a Country Review Report (CRR) and a National Programme of Action (NPoA) focusing on corporate governance, socio-economic development, economic governance and management, and democracy and political governance.
• As of November 2013, 33 African states had signed up to the APRM, with 17 having completed their first peer-review. While the reviews are intended to occur every five years, and countries like South Africa, Ghana, Nigeria, and Kenya were preparing for second reviews, the mechanism is criticized for a lack of enforcement and political will at the continental level.
• The APRM failed to prevent crises in South Africa and Kenya despite early warnings in their first Country Review Reports regarding xenophobia and ethnic election violence, respectively. Because the mechanism is voluntary, recommendations cannot be enforced, and the APR Forum failed to apply the 'constructive peer dialogue and persuasion' intended to effect change.
• The mechanism's primary success has been the creation of formal avenues for dialogue between governments and stakeholders, particularly civil society and business. However, the role of civil society typically diminishes after the review phase, and the mechanism is often perceived as a technical process for elites rather than a tool for citizens.
• Most of the 17 reviewed states struggle to implement their NPoAs due to unrealistic budgets, a lack of integration with other domestic development initiatives, the perception of the APRM as a foreign policy exercise, or changes in government. Implementation and monitoring are currently dominated by governments, often leading to the disbanding of multi-stakeholder National Governing Councils (NGCs).

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} }