VZCZCXRO9323
RR RUEHBZ RUEHDU RUEHJO RUEHMR RUEHRN
DE RUEHSA #0983/01 1300855
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 090855Z MAY 08
FM AMEMBASSY PRETORIA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 4408
INFO RUCNSAD/SOUTHERN AF DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY COLLECTIVE
RUEHDS/AMEMBASSY ADDIS ABABA 2210
RUEHTN/AMCONSUL CAPE TOWN 5574
RUEHDU/AMCONSUL DURBAN 9794
RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHINGTON DC
RHEFDIA/DIA WASHINGTON DC

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 PRETORIA 000983 
 
SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPT FOR AF/S, DRL/MLGA, AF/RSA 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PGOV PREL KDEM AU SF
SUBJECT: PEER REVIEW MAKING LITTLE PROGRESS 
 
REF: 07 PRETORIA 0606 
 
PRETORIA 00000983  001.2 OF 004 
 
 
¶1. (SBU) SUMMARY.  Ross Herbert met with PolOffs to discuss 
his new book, "The African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM): 
Lessons from the Pioneers," which examines APRM's pitfalls 
and yet to be unleashed potential, nearly six years after its 
formal adoption.  The APRM's intent of fostering good 
governance by encouraging governments to be self-critical, 
giving civil society a voice in policymaking, and inviting 
outside criticism has been groundbreaking.  However, the 
program has been plagued by political interference and by 
lack of capacity, financing, and political will in both 
participating countries and the APRM Secretariat.  Despite 
the flaws, the APRM has the potential to play a positive role 
in improving governance in Africa by 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 only enhances 
its credibility on the continent.  The key issue remains 
whether governments that have signed up but not yet completed 
the exercise view APRM as a public relations tool or as a 
genuine process of national dialogue, consultation, and 
planning.  END SUMMARY. 
 
----------------------------- 
APRM'S UNLEASHED POTENTIAL... 
----------------------------- 
 
¶2. (SBU)  PolOffs met with Ross Herbert, Head of the 
Governance and APRM Programme at the South African Institute 
of Foreign Affairs to discuss his new book, "The African Peer 
Review Mechanism (APRM): Lessons from the Pioneers," which 
examines APRM's pitfalls and yet to be unleashed potential 
nearly six years after its formal adoption.  (NOTE: Thus far, 
29 countries have formally joined the APRM -- more than half 
of the AU's 53 member states -- but only six have completed 
the exercise: Mauritius, Ghana, Kenya, Rwanda, Algeria, and 
South Africa.  The "pioneers" are the first five countries to 
have completed the process: Ghana, Kenya, Rwanda, Mauritius, 
and South Africa.  END NOTE)  Herbert believes the program 
overall is "a positive force" for four reasons.  First, it is 
unprecedented for incumbent governments to throw themselves 
open to outside scrutiny.  Second, it should condition heads 
of state to hesitate before acting if they know they will not 
be able to get away with poor governance.  Third, it allows 
civil society and foreign experts to write definitive 
critiques of national governments' performances and for civil 
society and business leaders (at least in theory) to 
contribute to the policy making process.  Last, it has the 
potential to rebuild trust in politics and inject fresh 
thinking into national problem solving.  Thus far, Herbert 
said country review team reports by outside experts have been 
constructive, and clearly not intended to embarass any 
government. 
 
¶3. (SBU) Herbert feels the APRM will eventually be successful 
if the African Union (AU) can credit even one or two 
improvements in governance in each participating country. 
Ghana, one of APRM's pioneers, is a good example, he said, 
pointing out that Ghana did not become defensive about civil 
society's criticisms, and actually made concrete changes 
based on the APRM report like reducing the size of its 
cabinet. 
 
--------------------------------------------- -- 
BEING HELD BACK BY LACK OF CLARITY AND CAPACITY 
Q-------------------------------------------- --- 
 
¶4. (SBU) In official documents, the APRM process sounds 
deceptively straightforward: establish and organize relevant 
institutions, make a plan for research, write a 
self-assessment report, and define remedial actions for 
governance gaps in a Program of Action.  However, Herbert 
said the process is far more complex and time consuming than 
governments first imagine.  Herbert contrasted the APRM 
process with OECD peer reviews, which focus narrowly on one 
subject.  The APRM, on the other hand, examines almost every 
state activity under four broad themes: democracy and 
political governance, economic governance and management, 
corporate governance, and socio-economic development. 
 
¶5. (SBU) Moreover, Herbert said APRM rules are unclear and 
little attention has been paid to training or advising 
 
PRETORIA 00000983  002.2 OF 004 
 
 
participating countries on the process.  The APRM's 
Self-Assessment Questionnaire, which guides the reviews, has 
25 objectives, 58 questions, and 183 indicators.  Herbert 
said many of these questions require in-depth research that 
has never been done and queries that are not easy to answer. 
For smaller countries, like Lesotho, the burden is even 
greater, he said, because the workload is the same, but civil 
society organizations and governments have even less manpower 
and funding.  In fact, as ground-breaking as the involvement 
of civil society is in policy making, most civil society 
organizations on the continent lack the ability to engage in 
policymaking, according to Herbert.  Even hiring academic or 
think-tank institutions to carry out some of the research has 
been problematic in several countries due to government 
delays.  For example, Herbert's employer, the South African 
Institute of International Affairs (SAIIA), was asked to 
contribute to South Africa's peer review process, but was 
given a one-year contract which was signed more than 11 
months after the starting date and delivered after the 
contract's expiration. 
 
¶6. (SBU) As a result, he says the process, which was 
originally envisioned as taking six to nine months, took the 
pioneers on average 36 months, with most countries "flailing 
for at least a year or two, then hastily undertaking most of 
the work at the tail end of the process."  Herbert complained 
that these self-imposed tight deadlines only drive the 
process toward "superficiality."  In the end, APRM reports 
are relegated to "some mid-level bureaucrat whose only 
interest is in finishing a report," Herbert said.  (NOTE: 
Because the APRM process is entirely voluntary, the APRM 
Secretariat cannot impose deadlines.  However, after a 
certain amount of time has elapsed with no progress, the APRM 
Secretariat can diplomatically pressure countries to move 
along.  END NOTE)  Herbert believes that pressure is growing 
to accelerate the pace.  However, Herbert pointed out the 
paradox that the credibility of the entire process is likely 
to suffer if the pace does not pick up, but getting the job 
done quickly will also prevent the process from being 
rigorous and broadly consultative. 
 
----------------------------- 
COMMITMENT QUESTIONED AS WELL 
----------------------------- 
 
¶7. (SBU) With only six countries completing the process in 
six years, Ross believes APRM suffers from a lack of 
commitment from both participating countries and the AU. 
Some governments, he believes, like Cameroon and Ethiopia, 
have signed up "disingenuously" as a form of public 
posturing, while others "only want the PR value of a 
consultative mechanism."  Many governments also fear that 
civil society will be overly negative.  For some countries, 
like Namibia and Botswana especially, there is no advantage 
to participating.  "They already think they have a good 
reputation for good governance and participating in something 
like this could potentially tarnish it," he argued. 
 
¶8. (SBU) Even AU commitment appears to be lacking at times, 
Herbert said.  APRM issues are always discussed at the end of 
AU summits or postponed, he said.  Some APRM review teams 
have gone out unprepared, as was the case in Algeria, when 
the APRM review team had to come back another time because 
they had not read the country's self-assessment report before 
Qthey had not read the country's self-assessment report before 
deploying, which was incomplete. 
 
¶9. (SBU) The APRM Secretariat also seems to be suffering from 
poor governance, according to Herbert.  The current Panel of 
Eminent Persons is a mixed bag, according to Herbert, but 
will undergo a complete turnover by the end of the year. 
"The problem with all bureaucracies is that eventually a 
culture of self-preservation kicks in," he argued.  The APRM 
Secretariat has become a "gravy train" for some, with some 
members "only on the look-out for their next per-diem," 
Herbert said. 
 
----------------------------------------- 
PROCESS SUBJECT TO POLITICAL INTERFERENCE 
----------------------------------------- 
 
¶10. (SBU) Herbert argued that the APRM process cannot be done 
in a political vacuum because it touches on issues like 
democratic and political systems, corruption, service 
 
PRETORIA 00000983  003.2 OF 004 
 
 
delivery, respect for human rights and systemic gaps that 
contribute to poor governance.  For the defensive-minded, 
like Rwanda and South Africa, the very existence of such 
discussions will lead to efforts to suppress information and 
stifle debate, according to Herbert.  In fact, Herbert said 
that Rwanda was open to suggestion on economic management 
issues, but not on political intimidation.  Also, Kenya's 
self-assessment was strong, but line ministers refused to 
implement any suggestions, taking criticism personally.  This 
resulted in a program of action that was extremely vague, 
citing things like "improve justice system."  Incumbent 
governments also worry about what a negative report might 
have on donor aid, investment flows, and their success in 
future elections. 
 
¶11. (SBU) Herbert was especially critical of South Africa's 
APRM process, saying "South Africa was especially prideful, 
with an attitude like, we don't need this."  The SAG, like 
the Rwandan government, insisted on significant control over 
the process, arguing they needed it if they were to take 
ownership, but then proceeded to drown out the voice of civil 
society, according to Herbert.  He said the SAG invited 15 
NGOs to participate in the process; the NGOs met once and 
then never again.  He also said that some think-tanks, 
including SAIIA, had some productive discussions with 
mid-level officials working on APRM, but that their 
suggestions were edited out of the final report.  "The South 
African government refused to admit any fault they aren't 
already working on," he complained.  Herbert also questioned 
the timing of the SAG's research on government performance, 
saying the administration of the questionnaire immediately 
before municipal elections was a "quasi-campaign activity" 
designed to make voters believe the ANC was canvasing voters 
to find out what they really cared about.  Herbert knows the 
questionnaires were never examined; SAIIA pestered the SAG 
for months to see the questionnaires and finally found sealed 
boxes from two provinces (Free State and Northern Cape) in an 
abandoned office. 
 
--------------- 
APRM LACKS BITE 
--------------- 
 
¶12. (SBU) Ultimately, APRM suffers from what Herbert 
described as "lack of bite," meaning the APRM process fails 
to link findings with results or consequences.  In most 
cases, program of actions simply list ongoing reform efforts, 
such as "anti-corruption unit established on this date," 
without ever explaining how APRM findings would be addressed 
within existing efforts, which have obviously not worked yet. 
 Herbert described many programs of action as "crap, with 
descriptors like fight corruption, but no modalities."  "Of 
course, the consequence of vagueness means that everyone can 
claim success!" Herbert argued. 
 
-------------- 
ROLE OF DONORS 
-------------- 
 
¶13. (SBU) Herbert admits that the APRM process has not been a 
floodgate for donor funding as some expected.  Many 
investors and development partners who were eagerly awaiting 
APRM reports have begun looking elsewhere for government 
assessments.  However, Herbert still believes that the APRM 
process could be a critical entry point for the World Bank, 
IMF, or other donor/lending agencies since the ARPM process 
identifies priorities and the programs of action should 
establish a track record which donors can cite.  However, 
Qestablish a track record which donors can cite.  However, 
Herbert reminded Poloffs that many African countries are 
hesitant to be "bear-hugged" by donors right now, giving the 
example of the AU turning down the EU's offer of USD 2 
million because "it did not want to be accountable." 
 
------- 
COMMENT 
------- 
 
¶14. (SBU) As we noted in reftel, the African Peer Review 
Mechanism remains the most significant and innovative 
development of the NEPAD initiative to date.  While 
admittedly flawed, APRM still has the potential to play a 
positive role in improving governance in Africa through 
facilitating a healthy national dialogue between government, 
 
PRETORIA 00000983  004.2 OF 004 
 
 
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 criticisms to 
be aired that might be dismissed as "neo-colonial" if they 
originated 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.  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. 
BALL