Lessons Learned (a) Integrated project design of early recovery, rehabilitation and development initiative must address to the multifaceted development needs of the IDP. Parochial interventions are not sufficient interventions for early recovery, rehabilitation and development of the displaced families. (b) Conflict sensitivity is primordial in rebuilding and reconstruction of IDP communities. Identifying the most vulnerable groups, assessing their priorities, and strengthening the capacity of IDP communities to plan and manage local development projects are fundamental design prerequisites for early recovery and rehabilitation of socio-economic infrastructure and development activities. (c) Participatory approach of project design, subproject implementation, monitoring and evaluation for recovery and development yield quick tangible results. Empowering the IDPs can be more efficient, gaining organizational legitimacy, gathering local support, and preventing youth from engaging in destructive activities. (d) Devising flexible project management approaches at the community level should consider the wide variety of timelines, capacity levels, levels of access to resources, geographic distances, logistical requirements, and conflict dynamics. (e) In a climate of great flux and insecurity, it is important to have continuity of project personnel. This allows key actors to obtain deeper history and context, which supports the learning and application of better practices throughout the project life. The criteria and mechanics of selecting the Local Service Provider (LSPs) are vital in ensuring the quality of projects and services delivery. (f) Sustainability of demand-driven projects is greater when local government administrations are involved in planning, appraisal, execution, monitoring and evaluation. Integrated implementation through local government bodies could prevent the pitfalls of parallel institutions that have affected many social funds. At the same time, local governments are susceptible to local political influence and often face capacity constraints. (g) Implementation approaches that create community ownership are easily accepted which in turn help ensure community contributions and maintenance support in the long term. Communities are usually involved in interventions such as community-based drinking water, community building, school classrooms and toilets, BnB, community economic enterprises, and restoring cultural or religious sites. Empowering the IDP communities promotes ownership and sustainability of assets and gains of the recovery and rehabilitation of social and economic infrastructure interventions. Beneficiaries? participation in the design, process of subproject implementation and control of resources contributed significantly in making them accountable to their decisions. (h) Sustainability is inherent on community participation, local government bodies, national government agencies, NGOs, and other groups; responsiveness to community demands; adequate social capital (or capacity to promote peacebuilding through development at the community level); linkages and collaboration with other livelihood financing, and technical assistance projects; and, workable operations and management plans that are fully owned by the communities with support from local governments. (i) Early recovery, reconstruction and long-term development are essentially governance concerns. Where governance is weak or absent, conflict affected, conflict-vulnerable and post-conflict areas become more vulnerable to recurrence of conflicts or potential conflicts. Restoring governance is crucial in post-conflict and conflict affected areas. There are varying perspectives of what this entails. (j) Managing recovery and rehabilitation of IDP communities for long-term development is vital in sustaining the enthusiasm of duty bearers and peace advocates. Achievement of Project outcomes generated high degrees of expectations from the communities, leaders and government officials, which may be frustrated in the absence of immediate follow through. Realistic follow through plans based on the lessons learned may include redefining the strategic recovery and development activities, and limiting its scope to governance, while basic social services and economic development may continue to be spearheaded by national government with support from donors with community-based development models that can work best in conflict-affected and post-conflict areas.