The impact of natural disasters is on the rise. Death, injury and economic ruin caused by disasters are avoidable. Countries should make natural disaster reduction part of their development plans; otherwise, progress in social and economic development will continue to be eroded by recurring disasters.

This is the essence of the Yokohama Message, Strategy and Plan of Action. It is the collective effort of 155 countries and territories which attended the World Conference on Natural Disaster Reduction, convened in Yokohama, Japan from 23-27 May 1994. National, regional and international groups discussed measures to reduce the toll of disasters in our world today, and how to generate the will for sustainable, long-term approaches to disaster reduction.

The conference served as a mid-decade review of what the scientific and technical community, national governments, regional bodies and the international organizations have done to prevent, mitigate or prepare for disasters. Both the mid-term assessment and direction for the future are summed up in the Yokohama Message, Strategy and Plan of Action.

(by Olavi Elo, Secretary General, World Conference on Natural Disaster Reduction)

The Yokohama message

* Those affected most are the poor and the socially disadvantaged in developing countries as they are the least equipped to cope with the situation.

** Disaster Prevention, mitigation and preparedness are better than disaster response.

*** Disaster response alone yields temporary relief at a very high cost.

**** Prevention contributes to lasting improvement in safety.

----
I browsed for some facts and theories for my work and self enrichment when I found the three messages the above. My eyes were caught in the first message that those affected most are the poor and the socially disadvantages people. The poor, yes it was the poor that made me think more, look further ahead and imagine some faces on the bank of the river.
'Are those kind of people really working for the poor? or for their career? or for their name? or for money? or for meeting the requirement of the funding? or all are mixed? and what is the essense of being not poor? or the essesnse being poor? do you know how to deal with poor, omitting all environmental aspects? neglecting all regulation? coping with all the disasters?'
'i have lived here for tens of years and who are you coming here diverting our line kind of life?'
huh again!, not that far, not that far. and come again: 'is it fool to be a fool?, is it stupid to be stupid?'

but I mean it for one thing: are we people working for the poor? or for a big house? or luxurious apartment with kids studying in international school? hmmm....


just playing. it should not be, not be. (and the signature theory of my friend does work!)
23 january 2006, 03:52 pm.
+ i am poor no more +