VZCZCXRO2732
RR RUEHBZ RUEHDU RUEHGI RUEHJO RUEHMA RUEHMR RUEHPA RUEHRN
DE RUEHSA #0606/01 0520704
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 210704Z FEB 07
FM AMEMBASSY PRETORIA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 8266
INFO RUEHZO/AFRICAN UNION COLLECTIVE
RUEHBS/AMEMBASSY BRUSSELS 0992
RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON 1116
RUEHOT/AMEMBASSY OTTAWA 0434
RUEHFR/AMEMBASSY PARIS 1003
RUEHTC/AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE 0437
RUEHKO/AMEMBASSY TOKYO 0473
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHINGTON DC
RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC
RUEKDIA/DIA WASHINGTON DC

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 PRETORIA 000606 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PREL ECON EAID AU SF
SUBJECT: AFRICA PEER REVIEW MECHANISM PRIMER 
 
This Cable Sensitive but Unclassified.  Not for Internet 
Distribution. 
 
¶1. (SBU) SUMMARY.  The African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) 
is perhaps the most developed and imaginative component of 
the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD), but has 
been slow to get off the ground.  Only three countries 
(Ghana, Rwanda, and Kenya) have completed their review, 
although as many as six more (South Africa, Nigeria, Benin, 
Algeria, Uganda, and Mozambique) may be discussed at the next 
AU Summit in July.  Drawing on the OECD peer review model, 
APRM is intended to be a voluntary, non-adversarial process 
in which African countries analyze their own progress toward 
good governance, develop a "programme of action" to address 
problem areas, and subject themselves to "peer review," with 
the goal of "reinforcing successful and exemplary practices." 
 Post urges the Department to consider a financial 
contribution to the APRM Secretariat to support its efforts 
to improve governance in Africa and signal our support for an 
important emerging African institution.  END SUMMARY. 
 
--------------- 
APRM Background 
--------------- 
 
¶2. (U) African Heads of State formally adopted the APRM 
Memorandum of Understanding in March 2003 at the NEPAD summit 
in Abuja, Nigeria.  Based loosely on the OECD peer review 
model, the goal of APRM is "to foster the adoption of 
policies, standards and practices that lead to human security 
and political stability, high economic growth, sustainable 
development, and accelerated sub-regional and continental 
integration."  The touchstone for the review is the 
"Declaration on Democracy, Political, Economic and Corporate 
Governance," agreed to by African leaders in July 2002, which 
describes standards in four areas:  democracy and good 
political governance; economic governance and management; 
corporate governance; and socio-economic development. 
 
¶3. (U) The process is guided by a panel of five to seven 
"Eminent Persons," picked for their "high moral stature" and 
"commitment to the ideals of Pan Africanism."  The current 
members of the Panel of Eminent Persons (also called the APR 
Panel) are:  Dr. Dorothy Njeuma (Cameroon), Professor Adebayo 
Adediji (Nigeria), Professor Mohammed Seghir Babes (Algeria), 
Ambassador Bethuel Kiplagat (Kenya), Dr. Graca Machel 
(Mozambique), Madame Marie-Angelique Savane (Senegal), and 
Dr. Chris Stals (South Africa).  The APRM Secretariat, which 
is based near Johannesburg, assists countries with their 
self-assessment and prepares the final Country Review 
Reports.  The Secretariat is headed by Dr. Bernard Kouassi, 
an Ivoirian national, and currently includes 14 professional 
staff. 
 
¶4. (SBU) Three countries have now completed their APRM 
review: Kenya, Rwanda and Ghana.  Six countries are in the 
final stages of their reviews and may have their reports 
debated at the upcoming APRM Forum in Accra in July -- South 
Africa, Benin, Algeria, Mozambique, Uganda, and Nigeria -- 
although the APRM Secretariat believes the Nigeria report 
will likely be delayed due to the upcoming April election. 
 
¶5. (U) Twenty-six countries have voluntarily signed up as 
APRM Participating Countries, accounting for about half of 
the AU members and some 75 percent of the continent's 
population:  Algeria, Angola, Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, 
Republic of Congo, Egypt, Ethiopia, Gabon, Ghana, Kenya, 
Lesotho, Malawi, Mali, Mauritius, Mozambique, Nigeria, 
Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South 
Africa, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia. 
 
------------------ 
Five Stage Process 
------------------ 
 
¶6. (U) As described in the founding documents, African Peer 
Review is a five-step process.  The first country review 
should be carried out within 18 months of joining the 
process, but the Secretariat is well behind that timetable. 
The guidelines also state that the review should take "no 
longer than six months." The three reviews to date have taken 
substantially longer. 
 
 
PRETORIA 00000606  002 OF 004 
 
 
Stage One:  Establish Structures and Self-Assessment 
--------------------------------------------- ------- 
 
-- The first step is the self-assessment.  Governments 
designate a person in charge of the process (called a "Focal 
Point") and a committee to lead the national self-assessment 
(variously called the "National Governing Council" (NGC) or 
"National Commission").  In preparing the self-assessment, 
NGCs should consult with civil society, conduct a survey 
using the standard APRM questionnaire, and interact with 
research institutions, culminating with a "Country Self 
Assessment Report."  Of the three countries that have 
completed the self-assessment, Kenya and Ghana appointed a 
representative from civil society to be the "Focal Point" and 
had large, inclusive National Governing Councils (NGCs), 
whereas Rwanda appointed a government official to lead the 
process and had a much smaller NGC.  (NOTE: The South African 
Government also appeared to try to manage its review process 
(see septel for analysis of the South African process).  END 
NOTE.) 
 
-- The most controversial aspect of APRM has been who 
controls and drafts the country self-assessment:  government 
or civil society.  Ghana and Kenya largely allowed civil 
society groups to lead the process, whereas in Rwanda and 
South Africa, governments exerted much more control.  Civil 
society organizations have also criticized the lack of 
consistent guidelines.  (NOTE: The South African Institute 
for International Affairs (SAIIA) hosted a detailed, two-day 
civil society conference on "APRM Lessons Learned" in 
September 2006.  For a copy of the conference report, contact 
PolOff Tim Trenkle (trenkletp@state.gov).  END NOTE.) 
 
-- After completing the self-assessment, the NGC develops a 
"National Programme of Action" to address problem areas 
identified in the report.  At the same time, the Secretariat 
begins its own research and uses the Country Self-Assessment 
Report and the National Programme of Action after it is 
finished to develop background documents called "Issues 
Papers." 
 
Stage Two:  Field Country Review Mission 
---------------------------------------- 
 
-- The APRM Country Review Mission, made up of African 
experts and led by one of the Eminent Persons, then visits 
the country to assess the conditions on the ground.  The 
mission meets with "all stakeholders," including both 
government and civil society.  In constituting its review 
mission teams, the APRM Secretariat has drawn heavily on 
Africans living in the Diaspora.  For example, the South 
Africa review team included former Liberian President Amos 
Sawyer (now a professor at Indiana University); Dr. Babacar 
Ndiaye, former President of the African Development Bank; and 
Professor Adebayo Ogunlesi, head of the Global Investment 
Unit at Credit-Suisse First Boston. 
 
Stage Three:  Draft Country Review Report 
----------------------------------------- 
 
-- Based on its findings, the APRM review mission drafts the 
Country Review Report.  This report takes into account the 
Self-Assessment report and National Programme of Action, as 
well as the team's own findings.  It identifies the specific 
actions needed to address key challenges in the report. 
 
-- Once the Country Review Report is finalized, it is 
presented to the country being reviewed for comment.  Under 
the APRM rules, the country cannot change the substance of 
the report, but can correct factual errors.  Countries are 
also permitted to provide a written reaction, which is 
amended to the Country Review Report.  Of the three reports 
to be publicly released, Ghana provided 5 pages of comment, 
Rwanda 6 pages, and Kenya 56 pages.  The country is 
encouraged to update and revise their National Programme of 
Action based on the Country Review Report's recommendations. 
 
Stage Four:  Submit Report to HOS/APRM Forum 
-------------------------------------------- 
 
-- The APRM Panel member responsible for that review then 
presents the final report to the APRM Panel of Eminent 
Persons.  Once approved, the Country Review Report is 
 
PRETORIA 00000606  003 OF 004 
 
 
considered by the African Peer Review Forum, made up of the 
African Heads of States ("peers") who have signed on to APRM. 
 The Forum is held in conjunction with African Union Summits. 
 "Peers" discuss the report, making suggestions for improving 
performance and (more likely) commending the country for best 
practices worth emulating. 
 
Stage Five:  Publish and Table Final Report 
--------------------------------------------- - 
 
-- The final step is the publication of the report and its 
formal submission to key regional and sub-regional 
organizations, such as the Pan-African Parliament, the 
African Commission on Human and Peoples, Rights, the Peace 
and Security Council, and the Economic, Social and Cultural 
Council (ECOSOCC) of the AU.  (For copies of the final 
reports for Kenya, Rwanda, and Ghana, see 
www.nepad.org/2005/files/aprm.php.) 
 
------------------------ 
View of APRM Secretariat 
------------------------ 
 
¶7. (SBU) Dr. Bernard Kouassi, Executive Director of the APRM 
Secretariat, told PolOff February 9 that he is "satisfied" by 
 
SIPDIS 
the progress of APRM to date.  He noted that APRM did not 
want to merely copy from the OECD, but rather to create its 
own, African-led process.  Kouassi also stated that the 
country reviews, if properly done, should draw on 
sophisticated survey research. 
 
¶8. (SBU) Kouassi's biggest concern is that countries view 
APRM as a "scorecard."  He believes this approach will 
undermine the initiative by creating competition between 
countries.  Kouassi stressed that the goal of APRM is to 
"enhance national dialogue in the areas of governance and 
economic management" and share best practices.  He recounted 
the story of meeting Botswanan President Mogae, who told him 
that Botswana did not need to join APRM because it already 
had good policies and structures in place.  Kouassi told 
Mogae that Botswana should share its experience with other 
countries.  Mogae agreed to donate USD 100,000 to the APRM 
Secretariat, and Kouassi expects Botswana to join the process 
 
SIPDIS 
soon. 
 
¶9. (SBU) The APRM Secretariat receives 70 percent of its 
funding from African countries.  There are two trust funds 
that manage the Secretariat's resources, one controlled by 
UNDP and the other by the Development Bank of Southern 
Africa.  The major international donors are DFID (USD 2 
million contribution), Germany (Euro 1 million commitment, 
plus in-kind contributions), Canada, and Spain.  The EU would 
like to provide resources, but an EU Development Officer told 
PolOff that they have been frustrated by the Secretariat's 
refusal to provide a funding proposal.  Dr. Kouassi also 
noted that many donors have supported the APRM reviews in 
individual countries through funding National Governing 
Councils or civil society participation in the process. 
 
-------------------------- 
Comment and Recommendation 
-------------------------- 
 
¶10. (SBU) The African Peer Review Mechanism is perhaps the 
most significant and innovative development of the NEPAD 
initiative.  While the process is new and somewhat clumsy, we 
believe APRM has the potential to play a positive role in 
improving governance in Africa through facilitating a healthy 
national dialogue between government, civil society, and 
business on the key challenges facing a country.  The fact 
that APRM is African-created and African-led enhances its 
credibility, allowing for criticisms that might be seen as 
"neo-colonial" if they came from North America, Europe, or 
the IFIs.  The key issue appears to be whether governments 
view APRM as a "check the box" exercise or a genuine process 
of national dialogue, consultation, and planning. 
 
¶11. (SBU) While it is too soon to judge whether the peer 
review process will have any long-term impact on improved 
governance in Africa, we believe APRM is an important 
emerging institution worth following and supporting.  We urge 
the Department and USAID to consider funding the APRM 
Secretariat and/or civil society participation in reviews in 
 
SIPDIS 
 
PRETORIA 00000606  004 OF 004 
 
 
African countries. 
BOST