THE PROCESS OF PEER REVIEW
The African peer review incorporates both a country self-assessment and
an assessment by other people from African countries. Thus the process reflects
these two aspects of evaluation.
THE PREPARATORY STAGE OF THE PROCESS:
At this stage the country signs the MOU to signal accession to the APRM
and readiness for review. Currently there are 28 African countries that
have signed the MOU . Tanzania is one of them. Also, at this stage the
government of the country preparing for review appoints a Government Ministry
or Department, and designate an officer, for handling APRM matters. This
Ministry or officer is called Focal Point. In Tanzania the Focal Point
is the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation. Here
the country to be assessed also receives a Country Support Mission (CSM)
from the Continental Secretariat of the APRM for purposes of advising
on the requisite ingredients of the process, including the transparency
of the assessment, the participation of all stakeholders and the integrity
of the process in general.
STAGE ONE:
At this stage the National Governing Council (NGC), which directs the
internal process, is established. The Secretariat, which implements the
decisions of the NGC, is also or appointed at this stage, as are the Technical
Assessment Institutions or Teams (TAT). The TATs are responsible for administering
the country’s technical self-assessment, which is developed from
a common questionnaire sent to the country by the Continental APRM secretariat.
The Review
There is a common questionnaire that is sent to countries under review.
This questionnaire is a basis for collecting information on governance
in that country. Typically the TATs will use standard techniques of obtaining
information used by governance researchers worldwide. Those techniques
include
• Using expert researchers to generate answers to the common questionnaire
through their own accumulated knowledge; desk notes; library research;
and the scrutiny of existing documents, policies, plans, programmes and
reports.
• Asking people who are randomly selected from the population a
number of questions on governance. Here the TAT may use the common questionnaire
to generate a specialized or customized questionnaire.
• Asking a group of people who are relatively knowledgeable on governance
similar questions. Here too the TAT may use the common questionnaire to
generate a specialized or customized questionnaire.
• Using common-interest or focus groups to discuss various themes
in the common questionnaire, where the expertise for leading focus group
discussions (FGD) exists.
However, since the APRM process places paramount importance on transparency
and participation, members of the public will be encouraged to obtain
the common questionnaire, answer any questions they are able to and submit
them to the APRM secretariat. Information obtain this way will compliment
the knowledge generated through the standard techniques employed by the
TAT.
Making the APR process known to and owned by the public
Transparency and participation in the APR process requires that the whole
public is aware, prepared and cooperative for securing information on
governance in their country. For those reasons, it will be the duty of
the APRM Secretariat, under the guidance of the NGC, and in consultation
with the Focal Point, to mount extensive and intensive public awareness
programmes before and during the actual assessment. The aim of such awareness-creation
is not merely to secure the knowledge and understanding of the public,
but also to ensure that stakeholders have a common understanding with
the implementers, allowing for creative and constructive inputs that are
country-specific if need be.
Compiling the Country Assessment Report
The TATs will compile reports as normally expected, and the National Secretariat
will be responsible for preparing a comprehensive report. The report will
be subjected to validation processes, including workshops, seminars and
conferences involving such large numbers of stakeholders as are practically
possible. This Country Self-assessment Report (CSAR) will include a Plan
of Action (POA) for the future and it will be submitted to the Continental
APRM secretariat at the end. While the process of assessment and report-writing
is going on in the country, the continental APRM secretariat will be developing
its own Background Document by gathering written or known information
on the country. Both the Country Self-assessment Report and the Background
Document will form a basis for the preparation of a Country Review Visit,
whose main purpose will be to carry out wide-ranging consultations with
stakeholders.
STAGE 2: THE COUNTRY REVIEW VISIT
At Stage Two there will be a Country Review Visit made by a Country Review
Team. The Country Review Team will be made up of experts from other African
countries or institutions, and it will be led by a continental APRM Panel
member. In its consultations with stakeholders it will confirm or clarify
issues raised out of the two documents mentioned above, and it will generate
its own additional information on the country.
STAGE 3
The Country Review Team will draft its report at this stage on the basis
of the documents and the review visit, taking care to spell out the required
Plan of Action (POA) once again. The draft report will be discussed with
the government of the country under review for checking accuracy and noting
the reaction of the latter. At this stage the country under review will
be asked to write official responses to the draft report of the Country
Review Team. The government’s responses will not modify the report,
but they will be appended to the report. However, the government may still
modify its POA at this stage, and, of course, the country review team
may still modify its report if it accepts new information.
STAGE FOUR
This stage starts with the Final Report of the Review Team, often referred
to as the Country Review Report (CRR), being submitted to the continental
APRM Secretariat, and to the APRM Panel of Eminent Persons for discussion.
It includes the sending of the report to the Forum of Heads of States
and Governments (HSG) that are in the APRM. The Forum provides an opportunity
for HSG to peer-review each other in the ensuing discussion and action.
Where governance deficits have been found and the reviewed country is
willing to find remedies, the participating APRM countries are obliged
to provide any possible assistance, and to urge international partners
to come to the assistance of the country if needed.
Where cooperation is not forthcoming from the government whose country
is found to have governance deficits, the APRM Forum is obliged to engage
it in dialogue first, giving it encouragement and securing assistance
for it before giving it a notice of intention to take sterner measures
for non-cooperation. The last-mentioned action can be taken only as a
last resort, since the APRM process is designed to measure progress and
encourage further action towards best practices, rather than as a score-card
of success and failure, or an easy justification for punishment.
STAGE FIVE
This stage begins at least six months after consideration of the Report
by the APRM Forum. It involves the formal and public tabling of the Report
to important continental and sub-regional organizations of relevance to
the reviewed country. .
CONCLUSIONS
The importance of the external review
As seen above, the review carried out within the APRM involves self-assessment
and an evaluation by others. What should be noted is that the external
review is important because, among other things, review by others adds
the objectivity of the uncommitted, thereby enhancing the integrity of
the process.
The centrality of transparency and participation
By its nature and by the procedures laid down, self-assessment provides
for extensive participation and a great deal of transparency. This is
needed not merely because it is a fashionable accompaniment of projects,
but because it provides ownership of the process to representative steakholders
and the wider public. With regard to assessment, participation of the
broad public complements information obtained professionally by researchers,
and may reveal public reactions to policies and a picture of people’s
needs not brought out clearly by professional research.
Stakeholder ownership of POA
It has been mentioned that the Review contains a Plan of Action (POA),
which is a programme, complete with a budget, of how the country will
make further governance progress and plug governance deficits item by
item. Obviously the initial drafting of POA can only be done by a group
of experts based on deficits in governance encountered. However, firming
up the POA is the concern and responsibility of all steakholders, who
should contribute to its shaping in the various workshops and seminars
planned for the validation of the assessment, starting with the drafts
of the Country Self-assessment Reports and ending with the final Country
Review Report - all of which contain a version of the POA.
The implementation of the POA should be by existing institutions, and
the POA should be mainstreamed into existing country plans and programmes,
for example MKUKUTA and others in Tanzania. APRM envisages an important
role for steakholders, including civil society, in monitoring and evaluating
the implementation of POA
The centrality of the government in implementation
The conceptualization of the review is that it is the whole country or
society that is being reviewed with respect to governance norms and practices,
but in practice the actions of the Government remain the predominant focus
of the assessment. For that reason, the primary responsibility for implementing
the POA lies with the government. Similarly, since the Country Review
Report (CRR) is the final appraisal of the country’s governance,
responses to that report must lie with the government. It is in this sense
that the government must be thoroughly knowledgeable about the findings
of the assessments at each stage, and must be well prepared not only to
air its views on the findings, but also to draw up well thought-out responses
to the CRR.
The role of partner institutions and development partners
APRM has attracted partners who are like-minded on certain objectives.
Some of these may advocate and seek to support it with such zeal that
APRM may appear like their own agenda, but it is a mechanism of the African
Union that was formulated through its NEPAD initiative. It is the only
continent-wide monitoring of governance that is comprehensive in its approach.
The review process, including the country self-assessment and the external
review, may benefit from part-funding and capacitation by partner institutions,
such as the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) the United Nations
Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA) and the African Development Bank
(AfDB). However, it is the responsibility of the country under review
to bear the full costs of the review itself. Where the contribution of
development partners is expected is in supporting the Programme of Action
(POA).
