Great East Japan Earthquake: Five Stages of Planning

TOKYO (17 March 2011) – Great disasters are like people – they are the same in many ways, but they are also very different. Thus in some ways, responses to great disasters need to be the same because the stages of response are predictable. But in other ways, every response needs to be different. While the details of the current situation in Japan may differ from those in previous disasters, it is important that high-level Japanese policy makers understand the different approaches that will be required at the each stage of the response to the disaster.

Official responses to the Tohoku-Kanto Great Disaster are needed on two levels: the government should both ensure that there are rapid responses to immediate local emergency needs, and at the same time rapidly prepare an overall strategy for a broader response.

It is not the job for the emergency teams working around the clock in the Tohoku area to consider broad issues of policy. Their job is clear and urgent—to handle the immediate logistics of looking after people, moving food and vital supplies, and beginning the huge job of clearing the debris and waste from the devastated areas.

Rather, it is the job of top officials and ministers to quickly prepare a broad plan for response and to show that they are ready for the tasks of leadership in the months and years ahead. A rapid response of this kind will provide key guidance to everybody involved in the response to the disaster in both the public and the private sector. And just as important, clear leadership from government which is underpinned by a roadmap for recovery will greatly help strengthen confidence across the Japanese economy in the difficult months to come.

The international experience is that responses to megadisasters need to be delivered in stages. Good policy making is prepared within the context of these stages. The stages are important for policy making both because the needs of the affected people vary according to the stages, and because the appropriate public policy responses are different in each stage.

It is helpful to think of five main stages (Figure 1 [ PDF 119.3KB | 1 page ]). The stages overlap but for policy-making purposes, it is useful to think of them separately.

First, there is the impact of the disaster and the immediate aftermath. This is the stage of response at present. The immediate short-term challenges of response are understandably very difficult. There is always a high level of trauma and great uncertainty amongst survivors of the disaster; basic transport links are often badly damaged so it is difficult to supply even basic relief; shortages of food and supplies are common; and unexpected emergencies (such as the current problems with the nuclear power plants) occur.

One key challenge during this stage is to respond to the multiple needs of survivors. Official agencies in most countries usually do not do this well. Official agencies are often too slow, too bureaucratic, and are unresponsive to the special personal needs of survivors.

Many survivors suffer the enormous sudden 'triple loss' of loved ones, assets (houses, cars, shops, offices), and jobs. Many suffer immediate destitution with nowhere to live and no income. Adequate emergency welfare programs to supply relief should be provided without any delay. Speed is important. Bureaucratic rules for the supply of welfare programs should be minimized. It is likely that the supply of cash grants rather than aid in-kind will be the fastest and most effective way of providing assistance.

The second stage, when longer-term and more organised relief can be arranged, begins perhaps 2–4 weeks after a disaster. This relief stage may last for up to a year. During this period, survivors can be housed in temporary accommodation, programs for reliable long-term income support can be put in place, and better help for children, the disabled and the elderly can be arranged.

The acute emotional strains that survivors must deal with need to be addressed as well. In the action-oriented world of emergency relief after a megadisaster, there is often an emphasis on such visible priorities such as the restoration of infrastructure and clearance of waste. The provision of counselling for human needs such as trauma is often neglected.

But the neglect of assistance for trauma is a mistake. The emotional strains that survivors must bear can greatly hinder social recovery. And it is best if the unity of local communities can be preserved so that friends and neighbours can provide mutual support, if children can return to their classes as soon as possible, and if the special needs of the elderly can be considered.

In the third rehabilitation stage, which is likely to begin perhaps 6 months after the disaster, longer-term programs for recovery can be put into place. If rehabilitation programs are well-designed, patterns of official spending are likely to move away from the provision of emergency assistance towards support for the restoration of housing and livelihoods (Figure 2 [ PDF 55KB | 1 page ]).

Access to permanent homes, preferably as close as possible to familiar places and integrated into well-known parts of the local society, is a vital step in the long-term process of rehabilitation for communities. The provision of effective livelihood programs to support employment opportunities for income-earners and increased financial independence for families should accompany increased official spending on housing.

Subsidised credit programs or outright grants are likely to be needed to help small-scale business firms, fisherfolk and farmers in their livelihood efforts to rebuild local industries. In some cases, specialized training programs can be designed to help local communities adjust to the changed economic conditions.

In the fourth stage, large-scale reconstruction of infrastructure—land transport links, ports, schools, hospitals, and housing estates—can be expected to get underway. It often takes several years for projects to be designed and for significant construction activities to start when large infrastructure programs are finally begun. There are likely to be local construction booms in the targeted areas which may both stimulate regional economies and lead to local inflation if prices in construction industries rise markedly.

The main risk in this stage is that large but inappropriate projects will be built. Sometimes funds are better used to support smaller projects to strengthen local communities. It is best if the planning for all large projects is subject to close scrutiny. Detailed cost–benefit studies of projects should be prepared and made available for public discussion. The involvement of regional community groups in the planning process will help ensure that local needs receive proper attention.

Finally, perhaps 5 years into the future, the large assistance effort to the Tohoku-Kanto region can be expected to wind down. New challenges of responding to a "return to normal" situation are then likely to emerge. Of course, emergency teams who are working to respond to the current crisis naturally have no time to think about these long-term issues. But top government policy-makers should have long-term plans in mind even as they react to events today on an hourly basis.

Long-term issues arise surprisingly quickly, even in the midst of a crisis. Already there is debate about the wisdom of relying on nuclear energy to support the electricity industry across Japan. Thus the reactions of leaders today to urgent short-term needs should be framed against the stages of disaster response that will come in the period ahead.

And, of course, the response in Japan needs to reflect Japan's special challenges. International lessons for recovery are useful but because every country is different, and because every disaster is different, lessons from global experience will need to be adjusted by policy-makers to reflect local priorities as they evolve over the coming months in Japan.

But one of the key lessons from international experience is that governments need to provide clear leadership following a great disaster. Both national and international confidence will be strengthened if the ministers and top officials in Japan show that their emergency responses today reflect a broader roadmap for long-term recovery across the Tohoku-Kanto region of Honshu.

-----------

(*) Peter McCawley is a Visiting Fellow in Economics at the Australian National University in Canberra, a former Dean of the Asian Development Bank Institute in Tokyo, and a former Executive Director at the Asian Development Bank.