Module: Public Management and Organization Development

Sub-Module1:Public Management Trends and Administrative Reform

Case

Case Study: Mie Prefecture

1. Mie Prefecture: An Overview

Mie Prefecture is located in roughly the middle of the Japanese archipelago, on the Pacific Ocean side. Bordering the three prefectures of Aichi, Wakayama, and Nara, it forms a long, narrow strip of land stretching 80 km from east to west and 170 km from north to south. The prefecture’s northern half lies next to Ise Bay to the east, with a row of mountains some 800 m in elevation to the west; its southern half lies adjacent to the Sea of Kumano on the east, with the Kii Mountains rising to an elevation of some 1,600 m on the west. Mie covers a total area of 5776.7 km2, of which about 65 percent consists of forested mountains and roughly 6 percent residential land. It has fifteen cities, twenty-six towns, and six villages (as of March 2005), with a total population of some 1.86 million.

Turning now to basic data on Mie, the prefecture’s gross domestic product for FY 2002 was ¥7.3699 trillion in real terms, with prefectural income of ¥5.5070 trillion and total in-prefecture expenditures of ¥7.3699 trillion in real terms. As of October 2000 there were 929,866 people over fifteen in the workforce, of whom 26 percent were in manufacturing, 25 percent in services, 20 percent in the wholesale, retail, and restaurant sector, and 5 percent in agriculture, forestry, and fisheries. In its general accounts for FY 2003, Mie Prefecture posted total revenues of ¥732.6 billion and total expenditures of ¥717.6 billion.

2. Mie Prefecture’s Policy Evaluation System

2.1. Evolution of the System In FY 1995, at the suggestion of then-governor Masayasu Kitagawa, Mie Prefecture launched its so-called Sawayaka (refreshing) campaign and examined the possibility of bringing in a system of evaluation. The next year it instituted the so-called Administrative Program Evaluation System. This system was designed primarily to overhaul individual programs — whether core programs or administrative programs — in line with overall plans drawn up by the prefectural government. Because administrative program objectives were stipulated in the form of performance targets, it also served to identify what actions were needed and where improvements were required; that information was then used in evaluating administrative programs and managing their progress.

A period of trial and error followed: programs were at one point subdivided for evaluation

- 1 - purposes into new programs and ongoing programs, for example, and modifications were made in the timing of evaluation. Then, in FY 2001, the Mie Policy Evaluation System was launched on a trial basis. Under this system, it should be noted, evaluation charts do not need to be drawn up for administrative programs and the like that are ill-suited to objective-based evaluation, though in such cases the reason for that decision must be made public.

2.2. The Mie Policy Evaluation System (i) Objective The Mie Policy Evaluation System is intended primarily to enhance the quality of policy and of public administration. The evaluation results serve as a management tool and are taken into consideration in making subsequent decisions; they also play a role in reforming the attitudes of government personnel and improving their policy-making skills. The system also helps ensure government accountability.

(ii) Method of Evaluation While the Administrative Program Evaluation System covered only programs and policy measures, under the Mie Policy Evaluation System the scope of evaluation has expanded to cover policies as well as policy measures. Evaluation as a rule takes place after the fact. When it comes time to compile the budget, evaluation charts are drawn up in three categories — policy measures, core programs, and new administrative programs — and these serve as a basis for discussion of policies during the budget compilation process.

The Mie Policy Evaluation System is a system of self-evaluation that, while broad in scope — it covers all activities of the organization — does not involve in-depth analysis of specific programs and projects using specialized techniques.

The evaluation results are eventually published in the Prefectural Government Annual Report and, with input from the public and the prefectural assembly, taken into account in compiling the next year’s strategic plan, the Prefectural Government Management Policy.

- 2 - Structure of the Mie Policy Evaluation System Evaluation Evaluation criteria Yardsticks used Evaluated by objective Evaluation of To ensure 1. Numerical targets General manager policy measures accountability Objective-based of policy measure of main vis-à-vis the evaluation Outcomes department in public 2. Extent to which (indicators of charge •Communication numerical targets benefits to tool with the achieved prefectural public 3. Cost of residents) implementing measure 4. Overview of constituent core programs Evaluation of core To help decide 1. Evaluation Numerical targets Main manager in programs allocation of based on of program charge resources in the objectives and Basic outcomes budget etc. their overall (indicators of • Management structure results of tool for managers 2. Extent to which resource inputs) numerical targets Management achieved benchmarks 3. Cost of • State of major executing activities program • Collaboration 4. Multifaceted from the public perspective on etc. contribution to • Comparison management with other 5. Overall organizations administrative • perspective Indirect/secondar 6. State of y benefits constituent administrative programs Evaluation of To reform 1. Evaluation Program targets Individual in administrative attitudes and based on Outputs or inputs charge programs improve how the objectives and (multiple organization runs their overall indicators) • Management structure tool for individual 2. staff Appropriateness of public intervention and investing tax money 3. Extent to which program targets achieved 4. Cost of implementing program 5. Comments from local agencies 6. Quality category of public administration Note: Numerical targets for measures and core programs are based on those in the implementation plan. - 3 - 2.3. The Mie Administrative Management Regime In March 2004 the Mie prefectural government released Prefectural Government Management under the Mie Administrative Management Regime: Results of a Study on Total Management Systems. At the heart of this administrative management regime lay the PDS cycle of Plan (formulating strategy), Do (implementing that strategy), and See (evaluating the results). The Mie Policy Evaluation System has been integrated into this cycle at the evaluation stage: it is used to determine whether government services offered to prefectural residents are producing tangible results and achieving their objectives.

Bibliography • Mie prefectural government Web site (accessed August 2005) • Mie Prefecture, Prefectural Government Management under the Mie Administrative Management Regime (Synopsis). March 2004.

- 4 - Module: Public Management and Organization Development

Sub-Module 2: Decision Making and Policy Formulation

Case

Case Study: The Move-Us System (Musashino City, Tokyo Prefecture)

1. Musashino: An Overview The city of Musashino is located in roughly the middle of Tokyo Prefecture, some 12 km from the heart of Tokyo and adjacent to the city of Mitaka. Extending 6.4 km from east to west and 3.1 km from north to south, it covers a total area of 10.73 km2. There are three train stations within the city bounds, one of which, Kichijoji Station, forms the heart of a thriving commercial district. Today (as of January 2005) Musashino has a population of 132,000. Most of the city consists of residential land.

2. Overview of the Move-Us System

2.1. Birth of the Move-Us System The Move-Us system’s origins go back to the late 1980s, when a senior citizen living in Musashino wrote a letter to the mayor of the day, Masatada Tsuchiya, complaining of how difficult she found it to go shopping because she lived so far from the station and had no means of transport. In 1991 the municipal government set up a committee of experts, the Civic Transportation System Study Panel, to examine how to create a transit network that would be easily accessible to everyone, including seniors. To analyze seniors’ transportation needs, the panel conducted group interviews in which respondents were asked to identify current shortcomings with the system and describe what improvements they would like to see in it; it also observed seniors’ patterns of behavior. These investigations brought several facts to light: seniors did indeed want to get out and about; the average senior was happy to walk up to 100 m, so a reasonable distance between stops would be 200 m; seniors had trouble boarding the bus because the first step was so high — 40 cm — so an auxiliary step should be installed; people were willing to pay up to a ¥100 fare.

The city then identified areas with no public transit, i.e., areas located at least 300 m from the nearest bus stop, and areas with poor public transit, i.e., areas served by fewer than one hundred bus runs a day, and in November 1995 launched the Move-Us community bus service1 in an endeavor to eliminate such gaps in service.

2.2. The Move-Us System in Operation

1 Community bus service is defined as “a community-based bus system that services residential areas where public transit is poor or non-existent, and that is carefully tailored to the diverse needs of local residents, including the need of senior citizens and the disabled for safe, accessible transit” (Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport Web site).

- 1 - The most salient features of the Move-Us system lie in its simple fare structure — both children and adults are charged a single flat fare of ¥100 — and the care that has been lavished on ensuring convenience and safety. For example, the bus stops are color-coded for ease of identification; the floor of each bus has a non-slip finish to prevent passengers from losing their footing during rain; the stepwell is equipped with a 15 cm high electric-powered steplift; and 1.5-person seats have been installed for adult with child. There is also a message board to serve the needs of the community, and umbrellas are available to borrow.

The city government acquired the fourteen buses and installed the bus stops used in the Move-Bus system, while the system itself is operated by a private bus company. The city has agreed to cover any shortfall in revenues vis-à-vis operating expenses that the private bus company may sustain, but currently all the routes except one are in the black. The drivers are all retired bus company employees — an arrangement designed to reduce operating costs while providing reemployment opportunities for seniors.

The Kichijoji East Circuit route, which has been in operation since 1995, may be described here as a case in point. The area serviced by this route is the part of Musashino with the most aged population; moreover, its roads are too narrow for large buses to navigate. Two buses ply the route between here and Kichijoji Station in a clockwise circuit, covering the total 4.2 km distance in approximately twenty-five minutes and serving eighteen bus stops along the way. There are forty-five runs a day at fifteen minute intervals, from 8:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m. Because there is a primary school on the route, and in certain places the streets have no separate sidewalk, for safety’s sake the bus takes a detour during times when children are on their way to school. In FY 1995 the route carried an average of 830.0 passengers a day, which figure had climbed to 1134.7 as of FY 2004.

3. The Spread of Community Bus Service

3.1. Nationwide Spread of Community Bus Service The community bus service pioneered by Musashino soon spread to all parts of Japan. It has now been adopted by many municipalities, including the cities of Suzuka in Mie Prefecture, Kishiwada in Osaka Prefecture, and Toyota in Aichi Prefecture. As of March 2005 nine of metropolitan Tokyo’s twenty-three wards had brought in community bus service and another five were studying the possibility of doing so.

The motives for bringing in community bus service are manifold. In certain cases, for

- 2 - example, it has been adopted as a backup measure following elimination of regular bus routes due to dwindling ridership.

3.2. Benefits of Adopting Community Bus Service Adoption of community bus service has, at least in the case of the Move-Us system, been found to offer the following benefits: • It has enabled restructuring of the municipal transit system. • It has eliminated barriers for individuals with restricted mobility. • It has increased traffic safety, because community buses run at a leisurely pace, slowing down other vehicles on the road. • It has improved the traffic environment, whereas before illegal parking of cars and bicycles was rampant. • It has stimulated local commerce by increasing opportunities for residents to go out and shop in the community.

Bibliography • Musashino city government Web site (accessed August 2005) • Musashino City, Fourth Long-term Plan (2005-2014) • Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport Web site (accessed August 2005) • Meguro Ward, Community Bus Survey Report (Web edition) (March 2005) • “Networking the Move-Us System.” Machi-Mura, No. 72.

- 3 - Module: Public Management and Organization Development

Sub-Module 3: Local Government Planning and Public Participation

Case

Case Study: The Mitaka Citizens Plan 21 Council (Mitaka City, Tokyo Prefecture)

1. Mitaka: An Overview The city of Mitaka is located on the Musashino plateau in roughly the middle of Tokyo Prefecture, some 18 km from the heart of Tokyo and adjacent to the city of Musashino. Mitaka began to grow after the Great Kanto Earthquake of 1923, when people started migrating there from the center of Tokyo. After the War, beginning in the 1960s, the city saw extensive construction of municipal housing and privately owned apartment blocks. Today (as of August 2005) it has a population of 174,000 and prides itself on its many university campuses and verdant parks.

2. The Mitaka Citizens Plan 21 Council

2.1. Birth of the Mitaka Citizens Plan 21 Council When Mitaka’s basic vision1 and master plan came up for revision in FY 2000, it was more vital than ever to obtain the consent of local residents. The old days of constant economic growth and ever-expanding revenues were over, and with only limited resources and funding available, the municipal government faced tough decisions about which programs to pursue and which to abandon. But the city’s usual planning process only allowed for public input once the draft plan was ready, and most input came from the representatives of existing groups and organizations; hence ordinary citizens exhibited only limited interest in the process, which could thus hardly be described as the sum of the views of a broad cross section of the public.

When it came time to compile the new basic vision and master plan, therefore, the need arose to enlist ordinary citizens to participate in the process and work with the city authorities right from the drafting stage.

2.2. Organization of the Mitaka Citizens Plan 21 Council Set up in October 1999, the Mitaka Citizens Plan 21 Council was vested with the task of assisting in the compilation of the city of Mitaka’s basic vision and third master plan by making recommendations from the standpoint of the ordinary citizen. All members volunteered from the public at large (there were a total of 375 registered members), and

1 “In the performance of their functions, municipalities shall conduct themselves in accordance with a basic vision for the comprehensive, systematic implementation of public administration within their area, which vision they shall adopt through a decision of the assembly.” (Article 2.4 of the Local Autonomy Law)

- 1 - the council was run on a volunteer basis.

Besides the plenary sessions attended by all the members, the council also included a Steering Committee, consisting of the council executive, which directed and regulated the body’s overall activities; a Communication Implementation Committee in charge of public relations; the 21 Childcare Club to provide childcare services to members requiring them; a Drafting Committee in charge of drawing up the text of the general recommendations; a secretariat to prepare and run council sessions; and a total of ten subcommittees devoted to detailed discussion of specific areas of policy — for example, development of urban infrastructure (roads, development, transport), security of life and livelihood (healthcare and social welfare), peace and human rights (the constitution, peace, international exchange programs, human rights issues, gender equality), and municipal management (fiscal policy, policy evaluation).

2.3. Partnership Agreement The council concluded a so-called Partnership Agreement with the city government defining the relationship between the two and clarifying their respective roles. In this agreement the council and the city government committed themselves to abiding by three basic principles of collaboration: “to engage in discussions and exchange views as equals”; “to respect each other’s independence”; and “to maintain close contact with each other about the state of progress, and to cooperate with each another.” The roles and responsibilities of each party were set out as follows:

(i) Roles and responsibilities of the council “The Citizens 21 Council shall compile the Citizens Plan as an independent body.” “In compiling the Citizens Plan, the Citizens 21 Council shall gather the views and wants of a broad range of citizens.” “The Citizens 21 Council shall make the information in its possession publicly available.” “The Citizens 21 Council shall account clearly for the money it spends.” Etc.

(ii) Roles and responsibilities of the city government “The city government shall supply information to the Citizens 21 Council.” “The city government shall provide support with such things as the dispatch of experts and the implementation of studies.” “In its finalized plan, the city government shall, to the greatest extent possible, take account of the Citizens Plan drawn up by the Citizens 21 Council.” “The city government shall, within the confines of the budget, bear all necessary costs

- 2 - for the running of the council.” Etc.

The agreement also stated that once the Citizens Plan had been drawn up, the council and the city government would collaborate on implementation.

3. Mitaka’s Third Master Plan

In October 2001 the Mitaka Citizens Plan 21 Council presented its recommendations to the mayor in the form of the Mitaka Citizens Plan 21. The document opened with the citizens’ vision of the kind of Mitaka they wanted to build; there followed several new perspectives on the future course of community development, which were defined by four keywords: “Earth,” “Collaboration,” “Recycling,” and “Coexistence.”

On the basis of these recommendations, the city government compiled draft versions of the basic vision and the master plan; these it then revised after seeking further input from an even broader swathe of the public through, among other things, a citizens’ questionnaire. The basic vision underwent further modification in the municipal assembly and was finally adopted in September 2001. In October 2001 the city government drew up Mitaka’s third master plan in line with the basic vision.

The third master plan identifies several top-priority projects for the next decade: building a barrier-free community where all can enjoy an active, fulfilling life; childrearing support to assist families in bringing up happy, healthy children; collaborative community building on the basis of mutual trust and responsibility; and harnessing IT as a means of creating a more vibrant living and working environment.

Bibliography • Mitaka city government Web site (accessed August 2005) • Mitaka Citizens 21 Council Web site (accessed August 2005)

- 3 - Module: Public Management and Organization Development

Sub-Module 4: Organization Development and Training Programs

Case

Case Study: The Government Partner System (Shiki City, Saitama Prefecture)

1. Shiki: An Overview The city of Shiki is located in Saitama Prefecture immediately north of Tokyo; lying within 25 km of the heart of Tokyo, it takes around twenty minutes to reach by train. The Shingashi and Yanase Rivers flow through the middle of the city and the Ara River transects it on the east. Historically, Shiki evolved as a commercial center dependent for its prosperity on the trade carried along the Shingashi River. It covers an area of 9.06 km2 and as of June 2005 had a population of some 68,000.

In the late 1960s the city began to experience a rapid expansion in population and has since then grown as a residential community; nonetheless, it still retains many areas of natural and rural landscape.

2. The Shiki City Local Autonomy Plan Since former mayor Kunio Hosaka assumed office, Shiki has been known for fostering public participation in community development and the conduct of public administration. For example, it worked with ordinary citizens recruited from the public at large in drawing up an Integrated Growth Plan laying down community development guidelines; and it has organized a Citizens Committee, consisting of over two hundred local residents, to seek solutions to problems in all areas of public administration. Shiki thus takes a distinctive approach to the job of running local government.

In the face of dropping birth rates and an aging population, Shiki expects to experience a decline in tax revenues even as it increases spending on healthcare for seniors, nursing-care insurance, and welfare for the disabled. Further expenditures will, it is predicted, be needed on flood-control measures — the community is vulnerable to flooding — and repair and maintenance of aging public facilities.

To prepare itself for this grim financial future, the Shiki city government believes that it needs to make the transition from a twentieth century system of local administration predicated on the assumption of steady growth to a twenty-first century system of local administration predicated on the assumption of declining revenues. Specifically, it wants to return to the idea of a “village community” in which the modern municipality originates. That means enlisting the whole of the citizenry in the task of achieving dynamic, people-friendly, low-cost government by entrusting municipal functions to ordinary citizens (“government partners”) and NPOs, on the principle that citizens should

- 1 - run their own city; in return for their service, the citizens, as government partners, receive back some of the municipal taxes they pay. To that end, the Shiki City Local Autonomy Plan was formulated in 2003.

This plan, which covers the twenty years from 2002 to 2021, identifies the following three ultimate goals: • to create a compact local government consisting of a publicly elected mayor and assembly, plus a maximum of thirty to fifty public servants (technocrats), whose task will be to assist the mayor and maintain the impartiality of public administration; • to achieve a high degree of transparency in all aspects of municipal government by maximizing access to information and public participation in policy; • to disclose information from time to time, in a form that is easy to understand, on the costs associated with public participation and on the city’s financial condition; and to relieve the financial burden on citizens while expanding the scope of government services.

3. The Government Partner System

3.1. Overview of the System Under the government partner system enshrined in the Local Autonomy Plan, the city outsources functions to ordinary citizens and NPOs in accordance with the ideal of civic collaboration. In their own spare time and of their own free will, those citizens take advantage of their wide range of knowledge and experience to help build a better community. They are more than mere functionaries; they are treated as co-administrators who have equal standing with the municipal authorities.

Only civic public interest groups that have applied to register with the city are eligible to become government partners. In the case of individuals wishing to make their services available, the city government assists them in organizing themselves.

The city selects partners to perform specific functions on the basis of project proposals. After outsourcing a job to a partner, it pays a commission upon verifying that the job has been properly performed.

The system was first implemented in FY 2003. Functions currently performed by government partners include running the general information counter at City Hall; running facilities such as community centers, the local history museum, and sports facilities; and manning the reception desk for pre-election-day voting when there is an

- 2 - election for the municipal assembly, for mayor, or for the upper house of the national legislature.

3.2. Partnership Agreement Government partners sign a partnership agreement with the city government clarifying their respective roles and defining the details of the collaborative relationship between them. This agreement sets out three basic principles of collaboration: “to engage in discussions and exchange views as equals”; “to respect each other’s independence”; and “to maintain close contact with each other about the state of progress, and to cooperate with each another.”

3.3. Obligations of Government Partners Because the functions that they perform are of an official nature and directly affect the day-to-day life of the citizenry, government partners are bound by certain obligations. They are prohibited, for example, from committing acts that may undermine the trust of the citizenry in the public service; from leaking any confidential information that they may have learned in the course of performing their duties; and from using information that they may have learned in the course of their duties, whether it pertains to an individual or a corporate body, for any other purpose than the performance of those duties.

3.4. Evaluation of Government Partners In the interests of fostering effective civic collaboration and guaranteeing the quality of government services, government partners to which functions are outsourced and the city government both conduct a self-evaluation on how well the outsourced functions have been performed. In addition, a hearing is implemented by an outside agency.

Bibliography • Shiki city government Web site (accessed August 2005) • Shiki City Local Autonomy Plan (February 2003) • Shiki City, The Government Partner System

- 3 - Module: Public Management and Organization Development

Sub-Module 5: Leadership and Crisis Management

Case

Case Study: Hiroshi Nakada (Mayor of Yokohama)

Case Study: Issuing an Evacuation Advisory and Establishing a Caution Zone: Kanichi Kanegae, Former Mayor of Shimabara

Case Study: Hiroshi Nakada (Mayor of Yokohama)

1. Yokohama: An Overview Situated in Kanagawa Prefecture next to Tokyo, the city of Yokohama is home to one of Japan’s major international commercial ports.

The port of Yokohama first opened to foreign trade in 1859, and in 1872 it was linked by Japan’s first railroad to the Shinbashi district of Tokyo. It was incorporated as a city in 1889, when its population was around 110,000. The population has expanded steadily ever since, crossing the three-million mark in 1985, and Yokohama is today Japan’s third largest city, with 3.56 million inhabitants as of 2004.

Turning now to basic data on Yokohama, the city’s gross domestic product is ¥12.5218 trillion (2002), with a per capita income of ¥3,105,000 (2002) and total imports and exports of ¥8.9582 trillion (2003). It produces ¥11.67 billion worth of agricultural products (2002), harvests 1,164 tons of fish (2002), ships ¥4.1031 trillion worth of manufactured goods (2003), and chalks up annual retail sales of ¥3.6181 (2002).

2. Brief Biography of Mayor Hiroshi Nakada Hiroshi Nakada was born in 1964 and graduated from Aoyama Gakuin University in March 1988. He enrolled in the Matsushita Institute of Government and Management in April 1988 and was elected to the lower house of the Diet (parliament) in July 1993, winning reelection in 1996 and again in 2000. He has served as mayor of Yokohama since April 2002.

Nakada has written extensively on politics and government. He is coauthor of The New Japan: Ideas from Thatcher (1998) and The Case for Directly Electing the Prime Minister Today (2001). He is also the author of Where There’s a Will There’s a Way: Working Up from a Deviation Value of 38 (2003), a treatise on education based on his own experience.

3. Urban Management in Yokohama

3.1. Basic Policy on Urban Management The city of Yokohama has formulated an urban management strategy entitled the “Yokohama Revival Plan,” which coordinates plans in the three areas of policy, finance, and public management in pursuit of the basic goal of “turning Yokohama into a city where private initiative enjoys free rein.” As one step to implementing that plan, in

- 1 - February 2005 Mayor Nakada unveiled the Basic Policy on Urban Management for FY 2005 under his own name.

The Basic Policy identifies three fundamental pillars or principles of municipal administration: “raising the level of public satisfaction with service on the front lines”; “clarifying the order of priority of policies and programs”; and “identifying what to reform and how.” A closer look at the document reveals a strong commitment to civic participation in government: it talks, for example, of ensuring accountability and transparency in government by maximizing disclosure of information to the public, and of promoting participation by the ordinary citizen across a broad range of fields.

3.2. Yokohama’s Program of Public Hearings The Yokohama city government implements a wide range of programs designed to gather input from its citizens. These include forums where people can exchange views directly with Mayor Nakada himself.

(i) Yokohama city forum Here citizens present their views and wishes directly to the mayor on designated topics relating to municipal administration.

(ii) Curry lunch meetings Here, over a plate of curry and rice, citizens engage in discussions with the mayor on the subject of community development and improving how City Hall is run. When asked why curry and rice, Mayor Nakada replied, “I wanted a casual lunch atmosphere, and there aren’t many people who don’t like curry and rice.” As for the significance of these meetings, he remarks, “In so far as possible, it’s important for City Hall staff to listen to what ordinary citizens have to say, and it’s essential for me to do the same. My daily schedule is crammed, and I could well end up never having the chance to interface directly with citizens and staff unless I make a conscious effort to do so. So we arranged these casual meetings over lunch.”

(iii) Hi! It’s the mayor. The mayor visits a location where a civic group conducts its activities; he takes part in those activities and is told more about them.

(iv) Petitions to the mayor Written opinions and requests from various organizations addressed to the mayor are forwarded to the competent department, and the city’s reply is sent out in writing.

- 2 - (v) Suggestions from ordinary citizens Ordinary citizens are welcome to submit their views and suggestions on civic administration. Submitted views are forwarded to the competent department and taken into account in the conduct of municipal affairs. Particularly common questions are published in such a way as to protect personal information.

(vi) Ward meetings These meetings are organized and run at the initiative of the residents of individual city wards as a forum for discussion among citizens. Delegates are either selected at the recommendation of neighborhood associations and other groups or chosen from the public at large. Any requests or recommendations that emerge from the meeting are, via the local ward office, taken into account in the conduct of municipal affairs.

3.3. Disclosure of Information by Mayor Nakada Mayor Nakada posts a record of his daily activities on the city’s Web site. In accordance with disclosure guidelines, he also makes public any expenses claimed under his expense account, stipulating clearly what they were for.

Bibliography • Yokohama city government Web site (accessed August 2005)

- 3 - Case Study: Issuing an Evacuation Advisory and Establishing a Caution Zone: Kanichi Kanegae, Former Mayor of Shimabara1

1. The Eruption of Mount Unzen-Fugen

1.1. Main Stages in the Eruption of Mount Unzen-Fugen In November 1990 Mount Unzen-Fugen started billowing smoke for the first time since 1792, 198 years before. This was followed by frequent pyroclastic flows and mudflows around the base of the mountain. The eruption, which took some five and a half years to cease, passed through the following stages:

1990 Nov. 17 Mount Unzen-Fugen starts billowing smoke. 1991 Feb. 12 A new crater forms (it is christened the Byobuiwa or “wall of rock” crate). May 20 A lava dome forms on the Jigokuato crater. May 20 The first mudflow occurs, in the Mizunashi River basin. May 24 The first pyroclastic flow2 occurs. (There are to be 9,432 such flows before the eruption ceases, with the mountain spewing a total of 240 million m3 of lava.) May 27 The Disaster Relief Law is invoked in the city of Shimabara and the town of Fukae. Jun. 3 Massive pyroclastic flows kill 43 people and incinerate or level 179 homes. The Nagasaki prefectural government requests deployment of the Self-Defense Forces to assist with disaster relief efforts. Jun. 7 A caution zone is designated. Sep. 15 The largest pyroclastic flows occur, incinerating or leveling 218 homes. 1992 Aug. 8 Typhoon No. 10 triggers extensive mudflows. (An area of 30 ha is inundated; National Highway 251 and the Shimabara Railway are buried; 355 homes are partially or completely destroyed.)

1 Kanichi Kanegae was born in Shimabara, Nagasaki Prefecture, in 1931. After heading the board of the Shimabara Junior Chamber of Commerce and chairing the Nagasaki Prefectural Board of Education, he served as mayor of Shimabara between 1980 and 1992. He is currently director of the Mt. Unzen Disaster Memorial Hall. 2 A pyroclastic flow is an avalanche of incandescent volcanic blocks, volcanic ash, pumice, and other such material down the mountainside, accompanied by hot volcanic gas. These flows can reach speeds of over 100 kph. (Shimabara city government Web site)

- 4 - 1993 Jul. 4 Mudflows inundate the Nakao River basin. (Shimabara is cut off from the outside world as National Highway 251 becomes impassable.) 1995 Jan.-Feb. For the first time since the eruption began, no volcanic earthquakes are recorded. The lava dome halts its growth. Jul.-Sep. Work is completed on elevating the Shimabara Railway and building a soil-saving dam. Dec. 12 The Ground Self-Defense Force disaster relief team withdraws from Shimabara after a deployment lasting 1,658 days. 1996 Mar. 27 The Forestry Agency begins large-scale reforestation of Mount Fugen. Jun. 3 The eruption is declared over. Nagasaki Prefecture, Shimabara, and Fukae disband their respective disaster response task forces.

1.2. Scope of the Disaster The eruption of Mount Fugen caused massive loss of life and property.

(i) The human toll • 44 people killed (including 44 missing), 11 injured.

(ii) Property damage • 2,593 homes lost (in Shimabara) • Total cost of damage (in Shimabara and Fukae combined, as of Mar. 31, 1996): ¥229,941,974,000

(iii) Evacuees (Shimabara) • A maximum of 7,206 people from 2,047 households were evacuated. • The evacuation lasted 1,863 days (May 26, 1991-Jun. 30, 1996). • At the height of the disaster, 3,904 people from 996 households were lodged in temporary housing.

2. Evacuation Advisories and Caution Zones

(i) Evacuation advisory Governing legislation: Disaster Countermeasures Basic Law, Article 60.1 In the event that a disaster occurs or is feared to be about to occur, the mayor of a municipality may, if he considers it particularly necessary in order to protect human life

- 5 - or limb from the disaster, or otherwise to prevent any increase in the scope of the disaster, advise anyone residing or staying in the affected area, or any other person, to leave the area for the purpose of evacuation; if he considers that urgency is required, he may moreover instruct those persons to leave the area for the purpose of evacuation.

(ii) Caution zone Governing legislation: Disaster Countermeasures Basic Law, Article 63.1 In the event that a disaster occurs or is impending, the mayor of a municipality may, if he considers it particularly necessary in order to prevent danger to human life or limb, establish a caution zone, restrict or prohibit the entry into that zone of all persons other than those engaged in emergency disaster response, or order those persons to vacate that zone.

On June 7, 1991, the city of Shimabara established the first caution zone ever to have been designated in a densely housed area of Japan (it covered an area of 5.98 km2, including over 500 households as well as farmland). The zone expanded as the scale of volcanic activity increased.

In case of failure to obey an “order to vacate” after a caution zone has been established under Article 63 of the Disaster Countermeasures Basic Law, a penalty (such as a fine) is imposed. No such penalties exist in the case of an “instruction to leave.”

Bibliography • Web site of Shimabara City, Nagasaki Prefecture (accessed August 2005) • Mt. Unzen Disaster Memorial Hall Web site (accessed August 2005) • Transcript (with accompany handouts) of the talk “Encountering the Mount Unzen-Fugen Disaster,” delivered by former mayor Kanichi Kanegae on Mar. 11, 2004 at the lecture meeting “Tapping the Lessons of the Past to Prevent Disaster Tomorrow” (sponsored by the Kanto Regional Development Bureau of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport)

- 6 -