Participation de la société civile au processus du MAEP en Ouganda

The document analyzes the engagement of Ugandan civil society in the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM), highlighting structural barriers such as limited transparency, language barriers, and the inefficiency of umbrella organizations. It details how Minority Rights Group International and Care International Uganda formed coalitions to ensure minority rights were included in the National Country Self-Assessment Report and the subsequent Action Plan, while recommending that future civil society participation be budgeted and planned in advance.

• The National APRM Commission in Uganda was not created through a consultative process, and its members were presented to a commission that had already been composed. While it included representatives from various sectors, the selection process was poorly documented.
• Umbrella organizations like the NGO Forum and Deniva were selected to represent civil society due to their perceived wide reach, but some lacked the actual scope they claimed, and their leaders were often too busy with other commitments to dedicate sufficient energy to the process.
• Public participation was hindered by significant communication gaps, including a lack of publicity for meetings, excessive travel distances for regional participants, and a reliance on English for most public events despite claims that communications were available in five local languages.
• There was a perceived lack of government commitment to the APRM compared to other events, such as the 2007 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM), leading to cynicism among civil society members regarding the government's willingness to implement the resulting plans.
• Minority Rights Group (MRG) and Care International Uganda successfully bypassed the limitations of umbrella organizations by forming their own coalitions and submitting a separate position paper to the APRM Secretariat in Kampala and South Africa to ensure minority governance needs were addressed.
• The validation process for the national self-assessment was criticized for being opaque, as the Secretariat treated preliminary reports as confidential and provided only brief PowerPoint presentations during validation meetings, leaving participants unable to verify if their input was included.
• During the visit of the National Evaluation Mission (MEN) in February 2008, MRG and its partners advocated for three specific priorities to be included in the Action Plan: a policy on ethnic minorities, affirmative action for minority participation in decision-making, and restitution for communities affected by land alienation.

APA

Odoi, J. N. (2008). Participation de la société civile au processus du MAEP en Ouganda. South African Institute of International Affairs. https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/Occasional-Paper-2-FR.pdf

Chicago

Odoi, Juliet Nakato. Participation de la société civile au processus du MAEP en Ouganda. South African Institute of International Affairs, 2008. https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/Occasional-Paper-2-FR.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Odoi |first1=Juliet Nakato |title=Participation de la société civile au processus du MAEP en Ouganda |publisher=South African Institute of International Affairs |date=June 2008 |url=https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/Occasional-Paper-2-FR.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{odoi2008participation, author = {Odoi, Juliet Nakato}, title = {{Participation de la société civile au processus du MAEP en Ouganda}}, institution = {South African Institute of International Affairs}, year = {2008}, month = jun, url = {https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/Occasional-Paper-2-FR.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }