Some Donor Perspectives The CDM Framework has been a useful platform for programming design It provides a regionally endorsed space within which donors can orient their programming i.e. a roadmap CDM needs to be regularly updated so that we can have in more real time up to date information on what has been achieved and what is in the pipeline

A revised CDM framework with activities/entry points properly prioritized and sequenced to achieve short, medium and long term outcomes and impacts can provide the basis of a programmatic approach (encompassing regional, sub-regional and national issues) Programming harmonization around a revised CDM platform is important to avoid duplication or to reduce the execution of a number of CDM activities that do not yield outcome or impact level results

Programming harmonization around a revised CDM is important in the context of diminishing development assistance/aid sector budgets. Potential Risks That the current threshold of programming design opportunity around CDM is lost. That existing and planned new programming interventions although framed within a CDM context do not achieve key outcomes or impacts required. Programming does not build lasting sustainable capacity

Focus is grounded more in project rather than programmatic approach Challenge of managing and coordinating institutional processes re: varying time-lines, budgets, geographic areas of focus, & other specialized accountability/management requirements.

Other Key Considerations Significant Political Championship Strong representative regional signalling of the need for streamlining and coordination Periodic National score-carding – preparedness, response, mitigation, recovery, reconstruction systems. Focused national level mainstreaming of CDM and DRR approaches Linkages between CDM and mainstreaming DRR, MDGs, to be better articulated in Strategy and plan of action Strengthened and new partnerships Ownership, accountability, responsibility Lobbying Comprehensive roll-out of best practices Information – “enabling and quantitatively monitoring behavioural change”

Security – non – natural hazards Governance models for reconstruction