In recognition of the disastrous impact of natural hazards on vulnerable 
communities, the United Nations General Assembly proclaimed, in 1989, the 
International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction (IDNDR 1990-2000). Its 
objectives were to reduce the loss of life and property damage, social and 
economic disruption caused by natural disasters through concerted 
international action and appropriate use of science and technology. Since ten 
years passed after the IDNDR declaration, closing ceremony of IDNDR was held 
at the International Conference Centre in Geneva from 5 to 9 July 1999. More 
than 700 participants from over 0 countries met at the Programme Forum 
which was convened by the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction Secretariat (IDNDR 1990-2000) in collaboration with the World 
Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Education and Science Organization (UNESCO). High level government representatives, policy 
makers at the national and local level, representatives of International Agencies and of Non Governmental Organizations, members of the scientific community, representatives of the media and of the private sector gathered at the Programme Forum to review IDNDR achievements and identify the challenges for the 21st century. 

The Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr. Kofi Annan, while inaugurating the Programme Forum admitted 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 emphasized 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 processes; vulnerability of eco-systems; empowerment of local communities; lessons from the last El Nino and La Nina. 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 multidisciplinary 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 discussions 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, more emphasis was laid on the technological aspect of disasters 
while in the rest of the developing countries the economic vulnerability and 
prevailing poverty emerged as one of the major concerns in disaster prevention. It was found that strategic emphasis by the high-tech countries was hazard-driven while from the countries that are still in their transitional trivial look at 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 South Asia 
while commenting on the IDNDR proceedings complained the `arrogance of 
technology' exhibited by the delegates from industrialized 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 from LA RED representing Latin America and Ms. L. Fidalgo from 
Periperi representing Southern Africa and Mihir Bhatt from Disaster 
Mitigation Institute,India made a resolute point during their presentations 
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 vulnerability elimination. Such acute problems faced by the horde of 
disaster stricken people push the planners sitting in globalized 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 been invited some of the real victims of disasters to learn much 
more about the issue in question from their own voices, lived experience and 
situated notions of disaster and vulnerability. Much emphasis is laid upon 
the component of community participation in decision making in the recent 
disaster management discourse but 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 emphasized 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 cooperation among all countries,
paying particular attention to the most vulnerable and affected.' It also
notes the importance of 'continued interaction and cooperation among all
disciplines and institutions concerned to accomplish commonly
agreed objectives and priorities and of developing and strengthening regional approaches dedicated  to disaster reduction in order to take account of
local specificity and needs. 

The Geneva Mandate concludes with a recommendation that the international 
cooperative framework for disaster reduction should be maintained and 
strengthened. 'This framework should ensure partnership and synergy among 
all elements of risk management and disaster reduction, and promote a shift 
from a mentality of reaction to a culture of prevention. The Programme Forum 
adopted the strategy for action 'A Safer World in the 21st Century:Risk and 
Disaster reduction', will serve as a frame of reference at the international, regional, national and local 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 economic competitiveness
issues to enhance opportunities for greater economic partnerships, completing
comprehensive risk assessments and integrating them within development plans,
and seeking innovative mechanisms dedicated to sustained risk and
disaster prevention activities. 

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 to be re-assembled. Geneva Mandate, no doubt, theoretically 
addresses the question of risk-analysis and disaster management to be 
instituted in to the mainstream development.

Since most of the countries of South Asia are beholden of international monetary
institutions to set and continue their development projects, hence these
debtor nation states are left with little options in routine to think in
more integrated manner as advised by Geneva 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 long term and people-oriented development thinking. Consequently these anarchic, donor-directed and at- random
development practices have little to offer for the reduction of vulnerability. At the most, the solutions what they can seek for, are emergency responses, limited to 
cosmetic arrangements in dealing with disasters.

On the other hand recent capital- intensive models and tools of development are minimizing economic opportunities for the already marganilsed
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 is a political one. If 
we look into political economy of development persuaded by the national 
governments of non-industrialized or semi-industrialized countries, we can 
rightly question the social relevance and human impact o