A/HRC/4/WG.2/TF/2 page 9 mentioned its exemplary role as a South-South partnership premised on realizing the Millennium Development Goals, and its importance in promoting other such partnerships through concerted efforts to enhance the coherence of global economic systems and their effectiveness in supporting development, hence complying with the definition provided by MDG 8. 36. Among the issues which could be strengthened from the perspective of the criteria were: failure of the process to fully integrate a human rights-based approach in the sense of having human rights as a systematic perspective throughout all four APRM focus areas, and the need to elaborate possible measures to be taken in the event that a country under review does not comply with the outcomes of the review. In conclusion, she stated that, as a relatively new initiative, APRM is one of the most widely supported and most promising initiatives in Africa, and would greatly benefit from support by the international community. 37. In the ensuing discussion, issues that were highlighted were: the decisive role of political will of Governments in the process; the potential of establishing closer links between the APRM process on the one hand, and the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) process and other poverty-reduction initiatives on the other; the actual extent of broad-based participation given practical constraints during implementation; the value-added of a rights approach; and the need to enhance support capacity and resources to address the increasing work volume. Finally, in response to the question whether APRM qualified as a global development partnership in terms of MDG 8, the clarification given was the relationship between NEPAD as the vision for a development agenda for Africa and APRM as the implementation and monitoring mechanism to ensure Africa-wide coherence in macro-level development policies. In this regard, APRM encompassed all levels of development - national, regional and international, aiming to prepare the national level for more effective regional and international cooperation and dialogue. B. The ECA/OECD-DAC Mutual Review of Development Effectiveness 38. The representative of OECD spoke on the current state of play with respect to the Mutual Review of Development Effectiveness. Since its inception in 2003, important headway had been made by both OECD and African partners in getting to a common point of understanding on the priority focus areas of development action, namely on governance and infrastructure. In his view, a strategic shift of focus from a purely technocratic approach towards a more participatory one to include civil society was positive, and that there was great potential to find congruence with the right to development. He concluded with a reference to a forthcoming OECD action-oriented policy paper on human rights and development, which will be of significant importance to the work on the Mutual Review, and possibly to the work on the right to development criteria. 39. In his comments on this partnership, Nicolaas Schrijver, member of the task force, mentioned that OECD countries demonstrate a gradual willingness to have their development policies scrutinized at an international level. He highlighted the fact that other policy areas than development aid performance are encompassed, such as: African agricultural performance and trade; political and economic governance; capacity development; aid flows and quality; and