Portal

- I found a bit unrealistic to establish a core team without being sure of implementing the project and it is even less likely to sign a MoU. Recovery scenarios are flooded with assessments, missions, and agencies’ promises raising high expectations that often do not materialise into facts; most partners are very reluctant to commit themselves in participating in assessments exercises and/or signing MoUs before being sure there is a concrete option of working together. I would therefore suggest you mention only the presentation of LER approach to potential stakeholders and put the MOU signing as very first activity of the project implementation.

- The assessment should be conducted by an ILO expert accompanied by a government or LG counterpart, not by a team it’s not realist.

- Some assessments forms are too detailed and time consuming for drafting prodoc (and getting the funds). In depth socio-economic and territorial analysis should be part of guide 1 as programme core activity to deeply understand the characteristics of the selected territory.

- It is not mentioned potential donor interest as prerequisite in LER before starting an assessment. In Juba, Sudan, it should be very relevant to start a LER process, but no donor showed particular interest, it is therefore better avoiding creating expectation by conducting an assessment for a project that won’t be funded in short time. I think in the text you should found a good balance betw. donor-driven and locally driven project. Once some potential donors’ interest materialises, the prodoc should be written by ILO expert and shared with main stakeholders’ group for revision, comments, endorsement