From Africa Renewal, Vol.16 #4 (February 2003), page 10
One of the most anticipated -- and controversial -- elements in the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD) has been the creation of a "peer review" process to improve standards of human rights, economic management, conflict resolution and democratic decision-making on the continent. As African leaders debate the specific structure and scope of this African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM), some donor countries are maintaining pressure to influence its ultimate shape.
The concept of a peer review was originally suggested when NEPAD was first drawn up in 2001. But it was not until June 2002 that its broad outlines were established, and the following month that it was endorsed at the launch of the continent-wide African Union (AU). By early November, the first dozen African countries had pledged to participate. The NEPAD Implementation Committee, comprised of 20 African heads of state, is hoping to finalize work on the APRM at the end of February 2003.
The goal of the mechanism is to get African leaders to subject their governments to ongoing examination by other Africans in such priority areas as peace and security, democracy and political governance, and economic and corporate management. The UN Economic Commission for Africa (ECA) has been given primary responsibility for working out objective indicators that can be used to actually measure governments' adherence to such standards.
As supporters of NEPAD point out, the mechanism is quite innovative. The European Union has not attempted to establish a political peer review process, nor has the industrialized countries' Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Within Africa, there are many uncertainties about the mechanism, among rights activists who think it is too limited and among leaders who prefer to avoid closer scrutiny. There is also widespread concern that donor countries will use participation -- or a failure to participate -- as a criterion in deciding aid allocations.
Canadian Trade Minister Pierre Pettigrew heightened such concerns on 19 November, when he suggested during a visit to Johannesburg that countries that do not join the peer review may receive less aid from the Group of Eight (G-8) industrialized countries. According to Mr. Pettigrew, the $6 bn in additional annual aid that G-8 leaders have pledged to African countries over the next few years "is conditional on all NEPAD elements, of which good governance is a part, and peer review is part of that."
As agreed by the NEPAD Implementation Committee, the APRM will be a voluntary "self-monitoring" mechanism open to all AU member states. Its goal is to promote adoption of policies, standards and practices favouring political stability, economic growth, sustainable development and regional integration. A panel of eminent Africans "of high moral stature and demonstrated commitment to the ideals of pan-Africanism" will be nominated by participating countries and appointed by their heads of state. It will be supported by a secretariat, which in turn may draw on the services of African experts and institutions.
When a country asks to join the APRM, the secretariat will prepare an initial documentary review and send a team to that country to consult with government officials, political parties, parliamentarians, the media and civil society representatives. The government will have an opportunity to respond to the team's report, which is then submitted to African heads of state and key regional institutions, such as the political organs of the AU and the African Commission on Human and People's Rights. Every two-four years another periodic review will take place, or earlier if there are signs of an impending political or economic crisis.
If a government shows a "demonstrable will" to correct shortcomings, says the APRM document, then other African governments will be urged to help it do so, and appeals will be made to donors for specific assistance. But if the will is not there, then participating African governments should "engage it in constructive dialogue." If dialogue fails, then other heads of state in the APRM may "put the government on notice of their collective intention to proceed with appropriate measures."
Ghana and Uganda were the first countries to ask to join the APRM, during a 19-20 October meeting of African ministers of finance, planning and economic development organized by the ECA in Johannesburg. A few weeks later, during a meeting of the NEPAD Implementation Committee in Abuja, Nigeria, another 10 countries formally asked to join, among them Nigeria and South Africa. Representatives of several other countries signalled their willingness, but indicated their governments still had not completed their formal decision-making processes.
At the Johannesburg ministers' meeting, South African Finance Minister Trevor Manuel welcomed the early volunteers. He also noted that other African countries "are sceptical about peer review."
Ms. Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, a former head of the UN Development Programme's Regional Bureau for Africa and a candidate for president in the 1998 Liberian elections, observed that some countries had raised concerns that the APRM could threaten sovereignty by allowing outsiders to pass judgment on national prerogatives. "I fail to see the logic of this concern," she said, "for all we are doing is a review of the progress and the results of those principles to which we have already committed."
Others, she said, "express concern that this mechanism will be used by the [non-African development] partners to punish those who fail to participate by the withdrawal of assistance. In my view, the harsh reality is that they can do so anyway under so many other disguises." In conjunction with the APRM, she added, the ECA should also elaborate indicators to review donor practices, "to judge the performance of our partners in NEPAD in terms of the level and timeliness of aid."
Some African human rights activists also have been critical of the APRM, but for different reasons. One weakness, said Mr. Peter Takirambudde, executive director of the African Division of Human Rights Watch, is that it is voluntary and that the political consequences for countries not joining are unclear. He also was concerned that the APRM document says that "different levels of development" will be taken into account in conducting the reviews. The APRM "should not endorse varying standards of good governance, respect for human rights and democracy under any circumstances." However, if the mechanism is implemented effectively, Mr. Takirambudde concluded, it would be "an unprecedented achievement for African integration, democracy and human rights."