60. Once completed, the draft country review report is submitted to the Government concerned for its comments. The report, with the Government commentary annexed, and the final NPoA are ultimately presented and approved by the APR Forum. Six months after this meeting, they are made public. The national programme of action, in practice mostly prepared by the Government, includes a detailed logical framework (log-frame) presentation of costed activities and targets to achieve. The APRM Secretariat tries to ensure that this is not just a “wish list” but a serious attempt to cost and prioritise national objectives. The self-assessment report is only made public after the completion of the entire process and at the discretion of the country concerned, and only a few of those reports are publicly available today. Government of Kenya, for example, indicated that the total cost of the self-assessment was about USD 1 million. An important review of the APRM process at the sixth Africa Governance Forum (AGF-VI) held in 2006 noted that “the highly consultative nature of the APRM process has been quite expensive for the relatively weaker economies”.15 To that must be added the costs of the APRM Secretariat and of technical partners to prepare the country review reports, initially estimated at USD 15 million for the first three years. Countries that have signed up for review are required to contribute a minimum of USD 100,000; some have contributed more, while many others are in default. 64. The implementation of the programmes of action resulting from the APRM reviews was not addressed in detail in the APRM founding documents. One result is that the relationship of NPoAs to other national development plans is not clear; nor is the extent to which NPoAs actually require new money or consist essentially of plans that are already under way. Calls for the APRM plans to be coordinated with other strategies have resulted in initiatives such as a meeting organised in March 2007 by UNDP, the African Development Bank and ECA to discuss support for the implementation of the plans of action of Ghana, Kenya and Rwanda.16 61. As of May 2016, the country review reports and NPoAs of 17 countries have been published: Ghana (January 2006); Kenya and Rwanda (July 2006); Algeria, Benin and South Africa (January 2008); Uganda (June 2008); Burkina Faso and Nigeria (October 2008); Lesotho, Mali and Mozambique (June 2009); Mauritius (July 2010), Ethiopia (January 2011), Sierra Leone (January 2012), and Tanzania and Zambia (January 2013).14 Moreover, while Djibouti’s review is in the final stages, country review processes are currently well underway in Chad and Senegal. 65. Countries that have completed the process are required to prepare progress reports on the implementation of their NPoAs for the APR Forum meetings, and Algeria, Burkina Faso, Ghana, Kenya, Lesotho, Mali, Nigeria, South Africa, Uganda and others have done so. However, these reports are for the most part prepared by the Governments concerned, without civil society participation prominent earlier in the process, and have often been submitted late. There is currently no real capacity in the APRM Secretariat for independent monitoring of their content. 62. The time taken to complete all these steps has varied greatly. To cite just a few examples, for South Africa eight months elapsed between the country support mission and the country review mission; for Ghana and Rwanda the period was 10 months and for Kenya 14 months; Mauritius was among the first four countries to start the APRM process in 2004 but only completed its review in mid-2010. 63. The APRM national reviews are normally funded by the Governments concerned, with assistance from a trust fund managed by UNDP to which bilateral and other donors can make voluntary contributions. The costs of implementation have varied: the 15 14 AfriMAP has published critical reviews of the APRM process in Algeria, Benin, Burkina Faso, Ghana, Kenya, Mauritius, Nigeria, Rwanda and South Africa, compiled in a 2010 report of the Open Society Institute for Southern Africa, The African Peer Review Mechanism: A Compilation of Studies of the Process in Nine African Countries; additional reports on Ethiopia, Mali, Mozambique and Uganda were published in 2011 (www.afrimap.org/ReportTheme/APRM). 16 –11– Implementing the African Peer Review Mechanism: Challenges and Opportunities, Report of the Sixth Africa Governance Forum (AGF-VI), Kigali, 9-11 May 2006, p. 37 See the report of the Secretary-General on United Nations system support for the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (E/AC.51/2007/4); see also Implementing the African Peer Review Mechanism: Challenges and Opportunities, p. 38.