Overall comments: Challenges : Lesson learning exercises, best practices and mid-course developments in the context have not led to significant programmatic adjustments to take advantage of new knowledge, e.g. missed opportunity vi-a-vis the DM Act, 2005. Also, given the scope and size of the programme, it could have played a much stronger advocacy role at the higher policy levels. Emphasis on achieving numerical targets has led to compromises in quality, which is reported in terms of limited impact of one-day workshops and very little time spent on community processes under the village disaster management planning activity. Sustainability of village level disaster committees and disaster management plans is uncertain due to the lack of commitment from local institutions to continue support beyond the period of the DRM Project. There is no significant and sustainable impact on long-term vulnerability reduction. The focus of activities seen at the district and sub-district levels has been on preparedness and not on mitigation. The impact of the programme on political will at the local level has been minimal. The progamme remains an externally administered one, and is even seen locally as a United Nations initiative. Desirable impacts of training programmes have been hampered due to poor enforcement of legislation at local level. Cross-cutting issues such as resource management, gender and disability are not addressed adequately. Similarly, commitments of bi-lateral and multi-lateral agencies have not been influenced in a significant way. The establishment of the National Disaster Management Authority under the DM Act presents UNDP's DRM agenda with both a challenge and an opportunity to take substantial strides in introducing not only advocacy and awareness initiatives (which has been the bulk of the existing programme) but also 'cutting edge' risk reduction actions. In summary, it is clear that in relation to the Intermediate Outcome