This report is an evaluation of the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) process in Burkina Faso, published by the Open Society Institute. It examines whether and to what extent the self-assessment complied with the effectiveness and credibility criteria defined by the APRM documents. It looks at the extent to which the process was open, participatory, transparent and independent.
The report highlights the difficulties facing the process. These include the haste with which it was done, the delay caused by an electoral cycle, questions of the independence of the data-gathering technical institutions, low civil society representation and grassroots involvement. It also points out the strengths as the opportunity APRM provided and still provides to assess the effectiveness of the national program on good governance in Burkina Faso.
The report recommends a number of actions to improve the APRM process in Burkina Faso, these include:
Adopt a communications plan in conformity with APRM guidelines through publishing the review report, making it is accessible to all citizens, enhancing the participatory and inclusive nature of the process, and by increasing their independence in relation to the government.
Organise a national workshop on ownership to enable the different social strata to gain familiarity with its contents and thereby motivate them to play a parallel role in monitoring and evaluating its implementation.
Circulate information within national bodies in charge of the process to make sure uniform information is shared by all but avoid institutional responses to the diagnosis and, instead, act on the concerns expressed by the citizens.
Strengthen the capacities of the members to enable them master the concepts and the process to enable them fulfill their role in linking as the national APRM body and the citizens and to enable them carry out monitoring and evaluation in the operationalization phase.
Increase the scope and depth of local community media involvement in the process communications strategy in light of their proximity and accessibility to grassroots populations.
Boost the harmonization of data-gathering methods and self-assessment techniques for consistency.