The African Peer Review Mechanism

The report analyzes the early experiences of countries implementing the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM), highlighting critical gaps in national governance, technical research, and the formulation of actionable reform plans. It argues that while the self-assessment phase often generates sound analysis, the resulting Programmes of Action (POAs) are frequently superficial and lack the detail necessary for effective implementation and monitoring. The authors provide a set of best practices for research, public consultation, and the creation of more rigorous, costed, and prioritized POAs to ensure the mechanism leads to substantive governance improvements.

• The independence of national APRM governing bodies is frequently compromised when they are chaired by government ministers, which can undermine the integrity of the entire process.
• Pioneer countries have reported a significant lack of practical technical support and guidance from the APRM Secretariat and Panel of Eminent Persons, leaving nations to operate in an 'information vacuum'.
• The APRM Self-Assessment Questionnaire is criticized for its repetitive thematic structure, which creates artificial barriers between economic, political, corporate, and social spheres and leads to superficial research.
• The current Questionnaire fails to address several critical governance issues, including media freedoms, criminal justice systems, the role of traditional rulers, and sub-national government evaluation.
• Effective self-assessment requires a balanced mix of technical desk research and popular consultation methods, as broad public participation alone cannot answer the technical requirements of the Questionnaire.
• The National Programme of Action (POA) is identified as the weakest link in the APRM system, with many action items being superficial, vague, and lacking the detail needed for verification or implementation.
• There is a systemic failure in many pioneer countries to translate the analytical findings of the self-assessment reports into concrete, actionable recommendations within the POA.
• A high percentage of recommendations made by the Panel of Eminent Persons are ignored by participating governments in their final POAs, indicating a lack of political will.
• The timeframes for the APRM process are often unrealistic, leading to rushed POAs that lack the necessary consensus and detailed planning to be effective.
• To improve the monitoring and evaluation of the POA, it is recommended that the auditor-general be given the responsibility to track implementation and link it to budget line items.

APA

Herbert, R., & Gruzd, S. (2008). The African Peer Review Mechanism. South African Institute of International Affairs. https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/aprm_pioneers_part2_20090219.pdf

Chicago

Herbert, Ross, and Steven Gruzd. The African Peer Review Mechanism. South African Institute of International Affairs, 2008. https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/aprm_pioneers_part2_20090219.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Herbert |first1=Ross |last2=Gruzd |first2=Steven |title=The African Peer Review Mechanism |publisher=South African Institute of International Affairs |date=February 2008 |url=https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/aprm_pioneers_part2_20090219.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{herbert2008african, author = {Herbert, Ross and Gruzd, Steven}, title = {{The African Peer Review Mechanism}}, institution = {South African Institute of International Affairs}, year = {2008}, month = feb, url = {https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/aprm_pioneers_part2_20090219.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }