Presenting the AGENDA FOR TRANSFORMATION (AfT) Engaging the CSOs on AfT Monitoring from HRBA Approach Ministry of Planning Republic of Liberia

1.Background 2.Experience from PRS implementation 3.Major Constraints to PRS implementation 4.Key PRS lessons learnt 5.Best Practices in PRS implementation

 Liberia’s first post war development agenda, the Lift Liberia PRS ended in 2011 with a focus on relief, recovery, and reconstruction.  Despite many challenges, Liberia has experienced robust growth and improvement in social, economic, and institutional indicators.  Several key lessons learned from PRS implementation

 The PRS1 was developed through a consultative and participatory process. PRS objectives and activities organized into four pillars:  Peace and Security  Economic Revitalization  Governance & Rule of Law  Infrastructure & Basic Services  Cross cutting issues, particularly capacity building and gender equality was also a quasi-pillar  Each pillar had a matrix of planned actions and responsible agencies, with the focus mostly on OUTPUTS (deliverables)  15 County Development Agendas were also developed for each county to guide the local activity of the service delivery ministries

 PRS implementation was coordinated by the LRDC Steering Committee chaired by the President. The LRDC Secretariat managed the day to day affairs working with the sectors and pillars  The cost of implementing the PRS was estimated at US$1.6 billion:  GoL commitments US$500 million from the national budget  Donor commitments US$600 million  Year 1 implementation was slow relative to potential ( only 20% of deliverables completed)  Rapid Results Approach (using 90-Day Plans) introduced at PRS Cabinet Retreat to reorganize agencies and accelerate implementation rate  Civil society and private sector participation in PRS implementation was not clearly defined  Effective monitoring of PRS posed a challenge due to weak coordination between field level M&E and the national unit

 Ownership: A lack of whole government approach to the PRS (legislature, judiciary, executive)  Capacity: Inadequate human and institutional capacity to implement effectively  Alignment: National budget allocations were not always aligned to the PRS  Coordination: poor coordination between GoL, Civil society and the Private Sector

 National budget allocations and the budget process were not aligned to the national development plan (PRS)  Coordination mechanism around donor assistance in terms of alignment and harmonization was very weak;  PRS implementation must take deliberate actions to address issues of inequality, marginalization and inclusion;  Focus was more about interventions and deliverables than development results (outcome);  Monitoring and Evaluation was weak, without clear baselines, targets and outcome-focused indicators  Participation of some key stakeholders (CSO & Private sector) must be enhanced

 National development planning must be sensitive to the nexus between economic growth and social inclusion  Implementation of the national agenda must be based on a clear results chain with a focus on achieving outcomes and impact  A strong mechanism to coordinate government, CSO and private sector must be established  A strong Monitoring & Evaluation framework with clear baselines, targets and outcome-focused indicators to measure development results  National budget that is strongly aligned to the national agenda