 and they are valuable sources for peers to learn from. Collating them need not, however, be limited to the reviews. Contracted research work might examine the experience of other countries to seek paths for Africa. The presentation of its work needs to be improved. The CRRs, for example, have been described as ‗user unfriendly‘. Better narrative structures (what does a given point imply?) would be optimal, but even relatively small additions like an index would make a big difference. In terms of cooperation, the APRM was meant to be a collaborative effort for mutual support among the countries involved. While there are reports of informal agreements for mutual assistance, these need to become public commitments and public knowledge. Not only would this bolster the utility of the APRM, it would also serve as a concrete expression of intra-African cooperation.  Finally, monitoring of the process – keeping abreast of efforts to meet NPoA commitments, and aligning policies with the standards – must receive priority. The APRM‘s success hinges on it being an ongoing process that attracts continuous input and comment.  The APR Forum needs to interrogate CRRs and Implementation Reports properly. While heads of state cannot be expected to do so, examination of reports could be done by aides or government researchers beforehand. Alternatively, the Committee of Focal Points might provide a platform for extended, in-depth engagement on APRM-related policy issues. The object should be to spur real, substantive interrogation and debate at meetings of the APR Forum.  Cooperation on solutions – especially where problems are common to various countries, or where they cross borders – must be aggressively pursued. Once again, the convening power of the APRM is a powerful asset, as is the information it has assembled over time  Following on from the above, the APRM has done very well in collating information. What is less obvious is the extent to which this is translating into real policy change, and to what extent countries are being held to account for reluctance to do so (and indeed, assisted in achieving change). The critical role of the Forum needs to be examined and possibly strengthened. No other part of the system can prompt the governance change that the APRM was intended to bring. In terms of policy, the APRM was intended to spur the adoption of alternative approaches to deal with identified governance shortcomings. Examination of policy initiatives to remedy these was meant to be achieved through National Programmes of Action (NPoAs), NPoA Implementation Reports and through the APR Forum.  The NPoAs themselves could be improved. They need to reflect more detail about what is to be done and what benefits the proposed interventions would bring. They must be carefully and realistically costed, and information on their progress must be freely available.  The Implementation Reports tend to lack the sort of information that would make them usable. Some tend to be very broad and impressionistic, while others refer to reforms in specific programmes which are difficult for members of the Forum to follow. None seem to offer particularly robust frameworks for monitoring and evaluation. The Implementation Reports often fail to refer to specific commitments in the NPOAs. Many are not available publicly. Addressing these shortcomings and making them true tools to track progress would enhance their value enormously. They would also benefit from a stronger narrative structure that helps the reader to understand what the particular importance or intention of initiatives is. They need to be submitted regularly and timeously, made available online and physically archived within the APRM Secretariat.  The proposed Knowledge Hub – both as a physical repository and as an online resource – should be realised. The enormous volume of information that the APRM has collated needs to be made available to the continent‘s policy communities and the public at large. This will most probably imply a significant outlay, but as an investment in well-evidenced policy, it will be well worth it.  The question of reliable data has been a theme throughout this report. The need for countries to develop capable statistical authorities has been noted. The APRM could also fruitfully draw on the various governance indexes – such as that produced by the Mo Ibrahim Foundation – to help make the individual reports consistent with one another.  Work on best practices should be enhanced. The CRRs contain a large number of them, Next Steps The next steps in taking forward this study and its recommendations include the following: (i) to develop indicators along the lines of APRM tools, and then pilot them in selected countries. The target should be to follow up this study with a report on how the pilot countries are performing in each of the 13 bottlenecks; and (ii) to integrate the lessons learnt under each of the bottlenecks into the ongoing renewal of the APRM tools 66