Mikio Ishiwatari, Ph.D Japan International Cooperation Agency8 September 2011

The Great East Japan EarthquakeHow Should We Re-establish Disaster Management System?

I. Damage

II. Earthquake & Tsunami

III. How Japanese Technology Worked?

IV. Consideration for Re-establishinng Disaster Management System

Contents

I. Damage

Damage excluding Nuclear Power Plant Disaster

Sector

TOTAL

Amount

16.9 tril. JPY 200 bil. USDBuiliding 10 tril. JPY 120 bil. USD

Lifeline 1.3 tri. JPY 16 bil. USD

Infrastrcture 2.2 tri. JPY 26 bil USD

Agri, fishery 1.9 tri. JPY 24 bil USD

others 1.1 tri. JPY 14 bil USD

Rehabilitation Progress as of 25 August

Evacuee: 38,000 people

Temporaly Shelter Prefabricated and rented house

45,000 people + 89,000 houses

reconstruction plan

evacuation tower

fishery facilities

tsunami dyke

village

Reconstruction Committee Proposed

Project Study on the Effective Countermeasuresagainst Earthquake and Tsunami Disasters

23/04/21

II. Earthquake and Tsunami

Tsunami Deat+Missing

Iwate Miyagi Fukushima

Max. Hight

M

Great East Japa

n

2011 20,0002.7%6576

242312

0.7%11708

1674318

0.1%

18481466358

40.2 m

9.0

Meiji Sanriku

1896 22,00023.9%1815876114

11.5%3452

30019-

38.2 8.2-8.5

Syowa Sanriku

1933 3,0002.0%2667

130846

0.9%307

35964

- 28.7 8.1

Chile 1960 142-

62

-

54

-

4

(9.5)

Death Ratio by TsunamiDeath+Missing/ Population

Source: Cabinet office and others

23/04/21

III. How JPN Technology Worked?

1. 100 yrs ago: Land use & Development2. Last Yr: Prediction==2011, 3.11, 2:46 Earthquake==3. Against Earthquake==30-1 hr laterTsunami==4. Dyke5. Hazard map6. Warning7. Evacuation8. Community

Moved to Highlands in 1896, and Safe This Time

首藤 2011

Yoshihama Town

1. Landuse & Development1. Landuse & Development

2. Development

水谷 (2011)

1. Landuse & DevelopmentKesennuma

Cityin 1906

current

010,00020,00030,00040,00050,00060,00070,00080,000

1920

1925

1930

1935

1940

1947

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

100yrs ago

Inundated areas

2. How JPN Gov. predicted?

fukushima

Miyagi 99% in 30 yrs but M 8.0

Fukushima 7% in 30 yrs

Headquarters for Earthquake REsearch Promotoion (2010)

Earthquake Prediction in 2010

MLIT

Tsunami Prediction

40mibaraki Miyagi Iwate

Aomori

fukushima

2. 　 prediction

observed

prediction

3. Counter measures against earthquake worked

Based on lessons learned from Kobe Earthquake in 1994, Retrofitting Work Promoted.

Kobe Earthquake 1995

Urgent Earthquake Detection and Alarm System

MOFA

P wave monitoring station

transformer substation

earthquake

S wave

cut electric supply

UrEDAS Safely Stopped all bullet trains, Shinkansen, before main wave.

3. Against Earthquake

270 Km / h

4. Did Dyke Work?

Fudai Town; 15.5m dike protected town.

If Tsunami is Lower, Dyke Worked, of Course.

Most areas under 10m Elevation level washed away by Tsunami at Sendai and Natori, (Source: PASCO)

East Sendai Highway

High mound road blocked Tsunami4. dyke

Tsunami Higher than Dykes4. dyke

190km / 300kmdamage / total

iwate

miyagi

fukushima

MLIT

Dyke Heighttsunami height

(Source ： Website of Tokyo Electronic Power Companyhttp://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/betu11_e/images/110409e9.pdf)

Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station

1-11

4. dyke

Project Study on the Effective Countermeasuresagainst Earthquake and Tsunami Disasters

actual timing

issued 3 min. after earthquake

But,estimated height: 3mrevised 6, 10m

fukushima

Miyagi

Iwate

Aomori

PM 2:46 2:493:30

5. Warning

JMA

3m 6m

obs.

6. Hazard Map Did Not Worked Enough

http://www.pref.miyagi.jp/sabomizusi/bousai/bou-ht2.html

Source: GSI

Natori City: Did not show Hazard Areas Predicted Smaller Area

Death in White (Safe Predicted) Area

0 200 400 600 800 1000

Total

Toniwan

Ryouishiwan

Kamaishiwan

Unosumai

65% 35%

white area risk area

modification from Sankei Shinbun

Kamaishi City

6. Hazard Map

Have you seen Hazard Map?

No72.5%

Yes

cabinet office

In Natori and Kamaishi Cities

6. Hazard Map

7. Evacuation

(Source: Research Center for Disaster Prevention in the Extended Tokyo Metropolitan Area, Gunma University)

students started evacuation promptly and voluntarily, following their experiences of evacuation drills.

1. Never stick to original plan.2. Do your best: Try to escape higher3. Lead evacuation

Successful by Students in Kamaishi City

7. evacuation

A: Immediate evacuationB: After some works, EvacuationC: Not evacuationD: No need for evacuation

cabinet office

Evacuation Shelter

南三陸

建物屋上 4 階居室

地盤面（被災前）

釜石

7. Evacuation

8. How Community Responded

Volunteer Firefighting

Organization

(Community-based & Part-time)

At the risk of their own life, • Gate Operation• Tsunami Warning • Tsunami Monitoring• Lead Evacuation

Death and Missiong: 201+48

http://ww.fdma.go.jp

Summary

1. Development (Urbanization and Nuclear Plant)at Risk Area

M9+Fukushima 2. Prediction

7. Evacuation Shelter 5. Hazard Map

4. Dyke M8 Miyazaki/ Iwate

6. Early warning 3min.3m

7. Disaster Management Education at School

How to Prepare?

3. Countermeasures against Earthquake

1,4. Resettlement, Secandary Dyke

>3m

1. Technology functioned, and is needed to develop further

2. Issues: Need to put people at the center of system

Because,

- People utilize warning information for evacuation

- People should understand that technology has limitation: dyke height, estimation or prediction is not always correct

In other words:From Engineering-oriented to Human-oriented

From Supply-driven to Demand-driven

From Structure-based to integrating with community-based

IV. Consideration for Re-establishing Disaster Management System

1. 　 flood warning

3. Risk communication

2. Hazard mapping

Community-based Disaster Management Practices

3. To Share Our Experiences In Return for Support & Kindness from the World

4. To Organize International Panel of Experts to Review Countermeasures Never Closed Process

IV. Consideration for Re-establishing Disaster Management System