1. Overall RRIDP Performance Notwithstanding the above noted achievements, the overall RRIDP portfolio of support activities is limited due to the continued resources squeeze. The structural under-funding also causes the ratio of establishment and operating costs to be disproportionate relative to the actual activities being supported; this will be difficult to justify, as the programme has now been operational for more than four years . Moreover, the portfolio of completed and ongoing activities is rather dispersed and shows little cohesion, being comprised of fairly informal, short-term stand-alone activities, and heavily tilted in favour of infrastructure support. Overall, the RRIDP programme has not been able to generate much in terms of effect (as it has come to benefit only marginal numbers of displaced or poor populations) and impact (given the virtual absence of synergies and multiplier effects), while longer-term sustainability remains uncertain. As it stands, effects and longer-lasting impacts of RRIDP support interventions are as yet, and for the most part, anecdotal and difficult to assess in a systematic way . The principal outputs (as these have been left unchanged from the original project document), have only very partially been met, and then only to a limited degree. 2. Inter-UNAg Cooperation The former UNDP/RC/HC and UNHCR representatives are to be commended for their intent to conceive and operate the RRIDP as a joint programme and to have jointly mobilized resources. The mission has not been able to determine to what extent activities under the first phase of the RRIDP programme have in fact been coordinated specifically between these two UNAgs, if at all. The fact is that this inter-UNAg relationship has not been formalized in any way. Certainly since the departure of the first RRIDP programme manager, there has been no mutual involvement between UNHCR and UNDP/RRIDP - as was confirmed by UNHCR, UNDP and RRIDP personnel. More generall