What lessons can be learnt from Ghana’s experience of the Africa Peer Review Mechanism (APRM)? This report from the Open Society Initiative for West Africa (OSIWA) evaluates Ghana’s country self-assessment process, with a focus on participation and inclusiveness. Although the APRM self-assessment process in Ghana is considered to be a model for others, participation could be improved through enhanced civil society involvement.
The APRM is the first framework for African countries to assess their collective efforts towards common goals. It presents new opportunities to foster collective strategies at regional and continental levels in the pursuit of broad development goals. To succeed, it needs to mobilise a critical mass of the population into a sustained effort at all levels – conceptually, practically, strategically and operationally.
The Ghana APRM self-assessment was led by the National APRM Governing Council (NAPRM-GC), a group of seven distinguished individuals given independent authority to run the process. It is considered to have been robust, flexibile, absent of political manipulation and largely participative, and resulted in a detailed programme of action. Nevertheless, the process had a number of weaknesses:
- Four non-governmental research organisations were appointed as technical research institutes (TRIs). Although they were regarded as competent and independent, the selection process was closed and their contracts prevented them from sharing the results of their research.
- Public sensitisation efforts ran concurrently with research for the self-assessment report. This was problematic in cases where interviewees for the research process had not yet heard of the APRM.
- Many civil society groups felt that there was not enough meaningful consultation. Participants at consultative meetings were not supplied with documentation prior to meetings, whilst there was no feedback mechanism on how their inputs were used.
- The Ghana country self-assessment report, submitted to the government and the APRM Panel, has not been published. The same applies to the minutes and reports of relevant meetings.
- The ambiguities in APRM documentation regarding the definition and degree of involvement of civil society leave important issues up to each country to decide. The NAPRM-GC appears to have preferred a more narrow definition of involvement.
A number of recommendations are offered to actors in Ghana and at the continental level to improve the APRM self-assessment process:
- The government should underpin the APRM institutions with an act of parliament, deepen their independence and provide for greater continuity by appointing members for staggered, fixed terms of office.
- The Ghana NAPRM–GC should make public the Ghana Country Self-Assessment Report and supporting documentation. It should also commission a stakeholder survey to establish opinions on the country self-assessment exercise and suggestions for monitoring the National Programme of Action (NPOA).
- Civil society groups monitoring the process should mutually share their findings and explore ways to collectively engage with the APRM.
- The APRM Panel should amend APRM documentation to ensure uniformity of procedure and more prescriptive standards for participating governments. This would include the development of a framework for governments to publish country self-assessment reports.
- At continental level, there should be a review process, focussing on: encouraging partnership with civil society; effective sharing of information and best practices; and making the questionnaire more user-friendly and structured to assess movement towards the APRM’s objectives.
