Since ten years passed after the IDNDR declaration, closing ceremony of IDNDR was held in International Conference Centre of Geneva, Switzerland,  from 5 to 9 July, 1999.

More than 700 participants from over 0 countries met at the Programme Forum which was convened by the IDNDR Secretariat in collaboration with the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) and the United Nations Education and Science Organisation (UNESCO). High level government representatives, policy makers at the national and local level, representatives of international agencies and of non-governmental organisations, members of the scientific community, representatives of the media and of the private sector gathered at the Programme Forum to review IDNDR's achievements and identify the challenges for the 21st century.

The Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr Kofi Annan, while inaugurating the Programme Forum conceded that, "as the IDNDR draws to a close we have achieved much, but we continue to confront major challenges."

 "It is a tragic irony that 1998, the penultimate year of the Disaster Reduction Decade, was also a year in which natural disasters increased so dramatically," he said.

Mr. Kofi Annan emphasised in his speech that in the case of disasters, "We must, above all, shift from a culture of reaction to a culture of prevention."  Elaborating his own statement, he compared the 'prevention' and 'reaction' by saying that "Prevention is not only more humane than cure; it is also much cheaper".

Later discussions were focussed on the scientific, socio-economic, development, environmental and educational aspects of disaster reduction in areas such as disasters and their impact on economy and trade; information technology and early warning systems process; vulnerability of eco-systems; empowerment of local communities; lessons from the last El-Nino. A Sub-Forum convened by WMO and UNESCO covered mostly the scientific aspects of geophysical hazards, as well as hazards of meteorological and hydrological origin. In addition to the topical sessions reflecting the multi-disciplinary and multi-sectoral approach of disaster reduction, 'success stories' were presented every day and a Public Forum was held every evening to express views and share experiences on public issues related to prevention of natural disasters.

During the four days of extensive input from the discussants of various continents, a major difference was observed in the perception of disaster between developed and underdeveloped countries. From the developed counties' side, more emphasis was laid on the technological aspect of disasters while developing countries advocated economic vulnerability and prevailing poverty as their major concerns in disaster prevention.

It was found that strategic emphasis by the high-tech countries was hazard-driven, while the countries that are still in their transitional period of progress take disasters in the context of power and poverty. Hazard paradigm offers technological solutions while vulnerability paradigm relates disasters with development. Some of the participants from Asia while commenting on the IDNDR proceedings complained the 'arrogance of technology' exhibited by the delegates from industrialised countries.
"Most of the presentations were irrelevant in the IDNDR Programme Forum," one participant commented on the condition of anonymity on the last day of the forum.
Madhavi Ariyabandu from Duryog Nivaran representing South Asia, Mr. F Ramirez Lared representing Latin America, Ms. L. Fidalgo from Periperi representing Africa and Mihir Bhatt from Disaster Mitigation Institute, India, made a resolute point during their presentations. They were of the iew that for a meaningful disaster mitigation in these regions, vulnerable communities must be empowered; economically, politically and socially.

Fairly, the underlying theme of Southern perspective on disaster mitigation was that mere sophistication of technology and structural enactment without communities' cultural acquaintance could not address the problem of disaster in these countries on sustainable level. The issue of disaster mitigation in poverty ridden countries equally becomes an issue of empowerment, poverty reduction and elimination of vulnerability. Such acute problems faced by the horde of disaster stricken people push the planners sitting in global institutions to think more deeply and specifically before declaring any global agenda for issue like natural disaster.

Though the IDNDR Programme Forum tried hard to bring divergent standpoints on disaster issue from all over the world together, yet what was critically missing was the real representation of victims, affectees and survivors of natural disasters.  It would have been more legitimate if IDNDR secretariat would have invited some of the real victims of disasters to learn much more about the issue in question from their own selves, lived experience and situated notions of disaster and vulnerability. 

Despite much emphasis upon community participation, little is done practically when it comes to the stage of decision making! The same dominant but morbid managerial tendency was practiced at IDNDR Programme Forum by excluding the disaster-hit constituency itself.

The International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction (IDNDR) Programme Forum was concluded at the International Conference Center of Geneva with the adoption of the Geneva Mandate on Disaster Reduction as well as with a strategy for A Safer World for the 21st Century: Risk and Disaster Reduction. 

It emphasised that, " We must build on progress achieved during the IDNDR, so that risk management and disaster reduction become essential elements of government policies."

It further stated that, "scientific, social and economic research as well as technological and planning applications will be required at all levels and from a wide range of disciplines in order to support risk management and effective reduction of our vulnerabilities.......In this connection, there is need for increased information exchange, improved early warning capacities, technology transfer and technical co-operation among all countries, and paying particular attention to the most vulnerable and affected." 

It also noted the importance of continued interaction and co-operation among all disciplines and institutions concerned with disaster reduction in order to take account of local specificity and needs.

The Geneva Mandate concludes with a recommendation that the international co-operative framework for disaster reduction should be maintained and strengthened. 

The Programme Forum adopted the strategy for action, A Safer World in the 21st Century: Risk and Disaster Reduction. It will serve as a frame of reference at all levels of activity.  The objectives of the strategy are to stimulate research, develop a more proactive interface between management of natural resources and risk reduction practices and build a global risk community dedicated to making risk and disaster prevention a public value. Other goals include linking risk prevention and issues of economic competition to enhance opportunities for greater economic partnerships, completing comprehensive risk assessments and integrating them with development plans, and seeking innovative mechanisms. These objectives are complemented by a number of suggested actions that can lead to successful implementation.

The Economic and Social Council of the United Nations will soon discuss in Geneva the issue of the continuation of disaster reduction activities in the twenty-first century.

The relevance of Geneva Mandate on Disaster Reduction to South Asia, however, needs our reassessment. Geneva Mandate, no doubt, theoretically addresses the questions of risk-analysis and disaster management to be instituted into the mainstream development. But it misses out some hard realities.

Most of the countries of South Asia are beholden of international monetary institutions to set and continue their development projects. Thus, they are left with little options to think in more integrated manner as advised by the Mandate. 

Conditions of rapid growth and quick repayments with high mark-up by lender institutions place the national governments in a precarious position, which ultimately tends to draw them away from such 'luxuries' of long term and people-oriented development thinking. Consequently, they fall prey to anarchic, donor-directed and at-random development practices which have little to offer for the reduction of vulnerability. At the most, they can seek for solutions such as emergency responses and limited to cosmetic arrangements in dealing disasters.

On the other hand, recent capital-intensive models and tools of development are already minimising economic opportunities for the already marginalised communities of South Asia.

In the countries of Asia in general and in South Asia in particular, disaster is intricately interwoven with the process of ongoing development.  For them, disaster is not only a natural issue but also a political one.

If we look into political economy of development persuaded by the national governments of non-industrialised or semi-industrialised countries, we can rightly question the social relevance and human impact of dominant notions of mainstream development. Recent studies suggest that popularly practised growth-model strategies of development have increased vulnerability among the already marginalised. So the question is still there; how IDNDR would address the issue of vulnerability within prevalent system of  'underdevelopment' in the most disaster prone countries of Asia in the next millennium?

'Culture of reaction', as emphatically said by Kofi Annan, should be shifted to the 'culture of prevention', is, off course, a statement of grandeur.  Such statements have already been made in the previous times and could only be turned into clichés. One needs an additional optimism to believe in new decelerations.

After ten years of proclamation of the IDNDR 1990-2000 how much of this claim could be achieved can be reflected by the latest study conducted by a group Munich Re Reinsurance. According to the findings of this study, in 1998, more than 50,000 people lost their lives in natural disasters and economic losses amounted to US $ 93 billion. Compared to the last ten years, the number of natural disasters in the 1990s have multiplied by three; whilst economic losses, after adjustment for inflation, have increased nine times. Some countries lost up to 5% of their Gross National Product (GNP) to natural disasters, thereby hampering their capacity for development and investment.

Since already a large outstanding amount of previous decade of disaster reduction is there to be met, the forthcoming decade multiplies the targets and responsibilities. In the light of Geneva Mandate, South Asian countries need to rethink their development strategies at one hand and global financial masters are also required to learn from the poor peoples' predicament, at the other. Where there is a valid need to incorporate risk-analysis and disaster management in mainstream development agenda, need is also there to avoid such auto-centric and inappropriate models of development.

For vulnerability reduction in South Asia, the established hierarchy of economic entitlements is required to be replaced with distributive justice and dominant notions of development needs to be questioned at policy and public level. The agenda of disaster mitigation is, however, not isolated from the agenda of participatory development, which is still something more than an abstraction rather than a reality for the larger amount of South Asians. The most telling question for the public and private sectors in South Asia is to address and redress the structures of manifold 'vulnerability' to avoid the numerable human and material losses caused by the natural and person-induced disasters in the region.

The author participated in the IDNDR Conference as a journalist delegate from Asia. He is the co-ordinator of JRC Islamabad Chapter.