TWG-Land

Managing for Development Results, Monitoring and Mutual Accountability

  • A1: Yes, it partly has a result framework. It has relationship to NSDP in terms of results produced within timeframe.

  • A2: Yes

  • A3: Yes, we have the joint supervision missions (JSM) for LASSP

  • A4: We have PBA for LASSP and the bilateral consultations between DPs and RGC.

  • A5: A key priority would include RGC resources to strengthen its result framework.

  • A6: We will consider updating the JMIs with relevant DPs/NGOs using TWG-L forum. A new JMI should be developed in line with result framework and SMART.

  • A7: No. We don’t see monitoring target that links to programming resources.

 

Usage of PBAs to promote development effectiveness and strengthen country system

  • B1: Amongst the 3 Sub-Sector Programs, only LASSP has been implementing PBAs. The 4th element of PBA (Comprehensive resource framework) has not yet been sufficient. 

  • B4: Yes, particularly in relation to result framework and monitoring, and budget integration

  • B5: we need TA supports from CDC/CRDB

Partnership and Dialogue Mechanisms

  • C1: TWG-L would rate its performance as follows:

-   a) Fair

-   b) Need more improvement

-   c) Good (with CSOs)

-   d) Need more improvement

  • C2: Yes.

  • C3: We need to further strengthen and build mutual trust and accountability, open discussion on related issues and need to have an agreement on having 2-3 TWG full meetings a year.

  • C4: Yes, we need CDC/CRDB to serve as a coordination forum to provide guideline and direction on JMIs endorsement preparation and further dialogues structure.

Remark: Not all questions could be discussed in depth because subsector program directors were not present. In addition, DPs in land sector might have  had additional comments.