Search Climate Insights Directory

The document examines the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) as a voluntary tool for self-assessment and peer learning in governance. It traces the APRM's genealogy from the Organization of African Unity (OAU) through the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD) to the African Union (AU). While the author notes that the APRM has expanded its membership to over half of African states and fostered greater political space for citizens, the paper highlights significant institutional challenges, including rivalries between the AU and NEPAD, leadership vacancies, and the inability to enforce its non-binding recommendations. The author concludes that the APRM's future success depends on strong African leadership and the ability to demonstrate tangible governance reforms.

The paper examines the failure of structural adjustment programs and subsequent 'good governance' initiatives in Africa. It posits that the tension between formal institutional norms and informal neo-patrimonial practices—where leaders prioritize clients over the general public—has led to state decay. The author argues that for governance to be effective, it must be conceptualized locally, integrating informal realities into development plans rather than merely replicating Western models of transparency and accountability.

The report examines the 'last mile' of tsunami early warning systems (EWS) in the Indian Ocean, arguing that while significant technical and institutional progress has been made, the human dimension of response is often neglected. Through participatory assessments in Thailand, Sri Lanka, and Indonesia, the study identifies critical gaps in community engagement, trust in technology, and the integration of disaster risk reduction (DRR) with local livelihoods. It recommends moving from a prescriptive, expert-driven approach to a people-centred model that prioritizes sub-national context, sustainable local funding, and the reconciliation of EWS with other community priorities.

The document details the participation of the Institute for Development Studies (IDS) as a Lead Technical Agency (LTA) in Kenya's African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) process, specifically focusing on the socio-economic development section. While the authors acknowledge the national importance of the work, they highlight significant operational failures, including confused roles between the APRM Secretariat and LTAs, bureaucratic delays caused by the National Governing Council (NGC), and financial disputes where the Secretariat failed to pay full budgeted amounts. The paper concludes that while think tanks can contribute valuable expertise to such continental initiatives, the process in Kenya was marred by poor coordination, a lack of professional recognition for researchers, and a disregard for contractual obligations.

The document details the operational difficulties faced by the Institute for Development Studies (IDS) during Kenya's implementation of the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM). While the process provided opportunities for interaction with policymakers, it was marred by bureaucratic delays, confusion over roles between the National Governance Council (NGC) and the Secretariat, and financial disputes. The authors highlight the tension between maintaining academic integrity and government desires to highlight positive achievements, concluding that clearer role definitions and adherence to contractual obligations are essential for future collaborations between think tanks and government bodies.

The African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) failed to spark a national conversation in South Africa due to the government's determination to dominate the process and a systemic failure to engage the media. The author argues that the review process was centralised within the office of Public Service and Administration Minister Geraldine Fraser-Moleketi, which marginalised civil society and led to a Country Self-Assessment Report (CSAR) that reflected government views rather than a broad public consensus. While the Sunday Times provided consistent coverage, it faced hostility from the government when reporting on the findings of the Eminent Persons Panel, which contradicted official narratives on issues like crime and child safety. The paper concludes that for the APRM to be an effective vehicle for policy development, it requires greater transparency, a separation of the Focal Point and National Governing Council (NGC) chair roles, and a responsive media strategy from the APRM Secretariat.

The author argues that the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) in South Africa missed a critical opportunity for public engagement because the government, specifically through the office of Minister Geraldine Fraser-Moleketi, centralized and dominated the process. This centralization marginalized civil society and the media, leading to a lack of transparency and public interest. The paper highlights the tension between the Sunday Times, which attempted critical coverage of the process, and the government, which reacted defensively to reports on national failures such as crime and child safety. It concludes that for the APRM to be an effective policy tool, governments must adopt a less defensive posture, ensure genuine transparency, and actively engage the media to translate complex reports into public-interest news.

A collective statement signed by over 62 prominent scientists (and later 15,000 others) alleging that the George W. Bush administration systematically disregarded scientific objectivity. The authors cite specific instances of censorship at the EPA and other agencies, the appointment of unqualified individuals to advisory boards, and the misrepresentation of climate change data. They propose legislative reforms to forbid censorship of scientific studies and ensure public access to government research.

The document outlines how civil society organizations (CSOs) can move beyond the perception of parliaments as rubber-stamp bodies to actively influence policy. It emphasizes the importance of understanding electoral systems—noting that single-member districts often produce more independent legislators—and the necessity of providing non-partisan, evidence-based information to resource-constrained parliamentarians. The author advocates for building long-term relationships with 'champions' within the ruling party, maintaining organizational transparency to ensure credibility, and using media and public pressure to support legislative goals.

The document examines the engagement of Ugandan civil society organisations (CSOs) in the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM), highlighting systemic barriers such as lack of transparency, poor communication, and the limitations of umbrella organisations. It details how Minority Rights Group International and Care International in Uganda overcame these hurdles by forming coalitions to ensure minority rights were included in the Country Self-Assessment Report and the Programme of Action.

The document details the efforts of the Open Democracy Advice Centre (ODAC) to influence South Africa's African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) process between 2004 and 2008. It argues that the South African government attempted to control the process by excluding specialist NGOs, staffing the National Governing Council (NGC) with government officials, and conducting final drafting of the Country Self-Assessment Report (CSAR) and Programme of Action (POA) behind closed doors. Despite these obstacles, ODAC successfully lobbied for the inclusion of access to information and whistleblower protection in the final binding POA, although the authors note that many of their specific detailed recommendations were omitted.

The report details the struggle of the Open Democracy Advice Centre (ODAC) to integrate transparency and anti-corruption safeguards into South Africa's African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) process. Despite facing government attempts to control the process and exclude specialized NGOs, ODAC successfully lobbied for the inclusion of access to information and whistleblower protection in the final Plan of Action (PA). The document highlights systemic issues in the South African process, including the over-representation of government officials in the National Governance Council and the opaque nature of final document revisions.

The document serves as a practical guide for Technical Research Institutes (TRIs) tasked with conducting the self-assessment phase of the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM). It details the roles of TRIs, the challenges of using the 88-page APRM questionnaire, and the necessity of balancing technical objectivity with the political sensitivities of participating African governments. The handbook offers specific methodologies for gathering expert and public opinion, vetting desk research sources, and managing the logistical and political pressures of the process. It concludes by suggesting that TRIs expand their role beyond the initial report to monitor the implementation of Programmes of Action (PoA).

The document outlines the role of Technical Research Institutions (TRIs) in the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM), specifically in producing National Self-Assessment Reports (NSARs). It details the challenges of managing complex research under tight deadlines, the necessity of balancing technical accuracy with political sensitivities, and provides a comprehensive methodology for data collection, source vetting, and questionnaire adaptation. The guide emphasizes the importance of public participation and the strategic development of Action Plans to ensure that the APRM leads to measurable policy reform.

The research paper examines the gap between the recommendations made by the APRM Panel of Eminent Persons and the actual Programmes of Action (PoAs) adopted by the first six reviewed African countries. It finds that most recommendations were ignored or inadequately addressed, often due to procedural failures, a lack of distinction between objectives and action items, and a tendency for governments to prioritize sovereignty over reform. The author provides a set of practical guidelines to improve future PoAs, emphasizing the need for measurable indicators, transparent costing, and better integration with existing national development plans.

The research paper examines the gap between the recommendations made by the APRM Panel of Eminent Persons and the actual Action Plans (PA) adopted by pioneer countries. It finds that many critical governance issues were ignored or inadequately addressed, and that countries often confused high-level goals with concrete actions. The author argues for a more structured approach to PA development, including measurable indicators, better integration with national budgets, and a clearer distinction between existing and new initiatives.

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 author contends that Nigeria's implementation of the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) has been marred by government manipulation, poor planning around election cycles, and the exclusion of independent civil society. The paper suggests that the transition to President Yar’adua's administration provides an opportunity to restore the process's credibility by removing government control over the Country Self-Assessment Report (CSAR) and the Programme of Action (PoA).

The report details a scoping workshop held in Johannesburg in October 2010 to launch the APRM Monitoring Project (AMP). The project seeks to empower civil society organisations (CSOs) in Southern Africa to track the implementation of National Programmes of Action (NPoA) through the APRM Monitoring & Advocacy Template (AMAT). The workshop identified challenges such as limited CSO resources, low public visibility of the APRM, and the need for collaborative rather than antagonistic relationships with governments. Lessons from Uganda's NGO Forum highlighted the value of aligning APRM monitoring with existing governance networks. The workshop concluded with a consensus on the need for an independent, inclusive, and grassroots-oriented review process.

The report examines the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM), an African self-monitoring tool for governance, democracy, and human rights adopted under the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (Nepad). Based on a five-year research project by the South African Institute of International Affairs (SAIIA), the text analyzes the rules, national governance, and research processes of the APRM. It specifically focuses on the experiences of five pioneer countries—Ghana, Kenya, Rwanda, Mauritius, and South Africa—to identify the political dynamics and the role of civil society in making the process credible. The document argues that the APRM represents a 'governance revolution' in Africa, shifting from post-independence rule by decree toward accountability and transparency.