Report on the UNCRD International Workshop Programme

Report on the UNCRD International Workshop Programme “Disaster Risk Reduction and Resilience Building of Urban Communities” 10-14 of December 2012, Aichi, Mie, and Miyagi, Japan

Dr Graham Tipple, facilitator Graham Tipple and Associates, North Shields, UK

January 2013

Contents Introduction...... 3

Background...... 3

Objectives ...... 4

Matters dealt with and lessons learned ...... 5

Uncontrolled rapid urban expansion leading to disasters ...... 5

Construction as a mitigation measure...... 5

Building Regulations and physical resilience...... 6

Community involvement in DRR ...... 6

Policies...... 7

Resettlement...... 8

Finance and Insurance...... 9

Disaster preparedness and mitigation: (structural and non-structural measures) ...... 10

Appendix 1: Report of the Proceedings of the workshop...... 13

Opening Session...... 13

Experience from Japan...... 13

Introduction to urban and housing issues in disasters...... 14

National experiences I...... 16

International issues...... 17

National experiences II ...... 18

Field Visits...... 25

Appendix 2: Workshop Programme ...... 28

International Workshop on Disaster Risk Reduction and Resilience Building in Urban Communities, Aichi, Mie, and Miyagi, Japan, 10-14 December, 2012 Graham Tipple, facilitator Introduction

Background

The increasing occurrence of disasters such as typhoons, floods, landslides, mudslides, droughts, earthquake and tsunamis over recent years reminds us again and again how natural and human-induced-hazards and disasters can pose a major challenge to sustainable development through the profound social, economic and environmental consequences they can have for countries, regions, cities and communities around the world. Disasters hit industrialized and developing countries indiscriminately. While they can cause greater absolute economic losses in developed countries, disasters can have far worse consequences in developing countries, the latter having fewer resources and human and institutional capacities to resist, absorb, accommodate to and recover from the effects of such events. In addition, major urban population concentrations and growth are occurring in the most hazard- prone regions, especially close to sea level and in South and South-East Asia.

Since the establishment of its Disaster Management Planning Programme in 1985, disaster management planning has been one of the United Nations Centre for Regional Development - UNCRD’s main thematic areas of work to support efforts towards achieving sustainable regional development through research, capacity building activities and partnerships with national and local governments, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), academia and communities in developing countries for disaster risk reduction, enhancing communities’ resilience and reducing their vulnerability to natural and human-induced hazards and disasters.

The International Workshop on Disaster Risk Reduction and Resilience Building in Urban Communities organized by the UNCRD Disaster Management Planning Unit brought together ten national experts from Africa, Asia and Latin America in Nagoya and Sendai, Japan from the 10 to 15 December 2012. During this five-day workshop, and with the support of two international experts who served as facilitator and resource person respectively, they came to learn and share their knowledge and experience through lectures, presentations, group discussions and field visits.

The field visits were unusually comprehensive and memorable, at least in the facilitator’s experience. Japan has such severe and frequent disaster events that its infrastructure is very highly developed, especially in comparison with some of the countries represented by the national experts. Being taken to areas where centuries of effort have been devoted to flood control, and then to the site of the catastrophic Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami, provided memorable lessons in human ingenuity and resilience in the face of natural forces.

Objectives

The overall objective of the workshop was to facilitate the establishment of an international network of professionals, experts and representatives from governments, NGOs and CBOs of developing countries, working at national and sub-national (city/village/community) levels in disaster risk and vulnerability reduction and enhancing the resilience of poor communities of developing countries. Beyond providing an arena for discussing best practices and identifying practical solutions to particular critical DRR issues, the workshop aimed at initiating long term cooperation between the participants where, with the support of UNCRD, joint efforts would focus on developing and integrating into national and sub-national policies the most appropriate pro-poor gender-sensitive strategies and plans for disaster risk and vulnerability reduction and resilience building among poor communities living in peri-urban and urban areas of their respective countries.

The specific objectives of the workshop were: • To share and discuss a variety of experiences of and approaches, identify best practices, and build a common understanding of disaster issues and management in human settlements of developing countries; • To provide training on disaster risk and vulnerability reduction and resilience building of communities against the impacts of natural and human-induced hazards and disasters as a means to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development; • To provide training on disaster-proof building and retrofitting and building techniques and systems; • To present and discuss the new UNCRD Disaster Management Planning Programme; • To share and learn from disaster management expertise and practice in Japan — including the on-going experience of the reconstruction efforts after the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami— at national, city, community and research institutions levels, • To widen UNCRD’s global network for disaster risk reduction by developing new partnerships with governments, NGOs, CBOs, practitioners and academic and research institutions dealing with disaster issues (including the International Research Institute of Disaster Science (IRIDeS), Tohoku University);

It represented a contribution towards increasing attention on disaster management planning in the focus of the United Nations Centre for Regional Development (UNCRD) on Sustainable Environmental, Economic and Social Development. The workshop was an opportunity to share experiences and priorities from a range of countries and UNCRD’s arrangements were very effective. Most impressive of all, however, were the site visits to major disaster areas in Japan at which delegates could compare notes of how their countries could handle such issues.

The details of the workshop are reported in appendices below but a brief analysis of the matters dealt with and lessons learned follows.

Matters dealt with and lessons learned1

Disasters addressed by the participants included sudden events, such as volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, tsunamis, floods, landslides, fires, hurricanes and cyclones/tornados, and also slow-onset disasters, caused by uncontrolled rapid urban expansion, desertification, major shifts in economic activity,2 and the rise in sea-level owing to global warming. Where disasters hit urban populations, the potential death-toll can be very high. The delegate from Bangladesh stated that a major earthquake hitting Dhaka could cause 300,000 deaths.

Uncontrolled rapid urban expansion leading to disasters Participants from Papua New Guinea and Kenya spoke of uncontrolled and rapid urbanisation as the cause of disasters through the prevalence of very poor living conditions and their growth over many years. Rapid urbanization is taking place at a time when not only are central government resources overstretched but also decentralisation is passing responsibilities for urban management to cities without handing down the resources to fulfil them. In addition, there are inadequate policies in place to promote sustainable urban expansion on suitable land and at a rate commensurate with need. In Papua New Guinea, a country where there are earthquakes, storms, volcanoes, and major exposure to climate change issues, the real concern seems to be the impact of uncontrolled urbanization. The level of vulnerability generated is the greatest currently facing the country and it is inextricably linked to the high level of poverty. At the same time, however, urbanization presents opportunities for economic and personal improvement that must be seized, especially in a country where many people had no contact with the outside world until the late 20th century. In Kenya, the huge growth of urban populations and influx of people into cities is beyond the current coping capacity of government and local governments. The inevitable result is growth in slum areas but, in Kenya and especially Nairobi, these have a particular profile not present in all of Africa. They tend to be built by investors (often politicians) as single room, poorly- built renter housing at very high densities and occupancy rates. Even in fine weather and good times, these are uncomfortable places to live. In severe weather, e.g., heavy rain, or in the event of fire, epidemic or civil unrest, they are potentially lethal environments. The redevelopment of slums such as Kibera and Mathare Valley as multi-storey walk-up flats is underway and infrastructure is being provided through urban upgrading but it is a huge and expensive task to cover all who are in need. It is obvious from these two cases, and from issues raised from Philippines, Fiji and Colombia, that vulnerability to disaster is exacerbated by the physical consequences of urban poverty and poor public awareness and/or conviction of the need to avoid real risks. The latter is graphically expressed by the reluctance of poor people to move even though they know that their homes are at real risk of mud, garbage and volcanic debris slides, all of which have occurred.

Construction as a mitigation measure

Construction of housing and infrastructure has a great potential to generate employment, and income which can improve local and household economies. Construction also provides the physical context within which everyday life can be maintained or restored following a

1 This section gratefully draws from John Norton’s report on the workshop without further citation. 2 For example, the decline of sugar cane farming in Fiji which has led to increased urban migration. 5

disaster. A well-functioning construction industry is, therefore, a major resource for ensuring that many low-income households have some economic resilience and access to structures and infrastructure that has a chance of surviving most expected levels of disaster. Of course, catastrophic events, such as the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami show that, while most buildings survived the earthquake, even earthquake-resistant masonry buildings could be washed away in huge numbers by the 20 metre tsunami.

The presentations by the facilitator and the resource person, John Norton, both demonstrated how construction and the skills, employment and income involved in building and improving appropriate housing could contribute greatly to the DRR effort. Projects in Vietnam and Myanmar showed how good building can improve resilience to weather hazards, while the Malian project demonstrated how learning woodless construction can both improve sustainability by reducing tree felling and provide lifetime skills to improve prospects for earning without overgrazing the land. As construction attracts low-skilled people who often grew up in poverty, it is extremely fortuitous that its income multipliers and backward and forward linkages are higher than almost any other branch of an economy.

The main supplier of housing is the army of millions of small-scale contractors who employ a few labourers and hire tradesmen as needed. As most are in the uncontrolled, informal sector there is an issue of standards of employment and the possibility of exploitation of workers. This undoubtedly needs to be improved but simply enforcing full formal sector rules will destroy many of them and exacerbate the housing supply situation. Better to improve gradually in the priority areas, e.g., safety and standard of building, while tackling less essential improvements, e.g., paid holidays, later.

Building Regulations and physical resilience

The standard reaction to building collapses following earthquakes or other disasters is to toughen the materials and technological specifications to make buildings stronger and more resilient. Experience reported from Vietnam has demonstrated that simple improvement in buildings can make vital differences to their survival in the face of typhoons. In other contexts, however, an opposite effect can be seen. The Ghanaian presentation mentioned in passing the recent collapse of a shopping centre in Accra with significant loss of life. This and many other urban disasters have a large human element in their cause. Though the building regulations in place are probably adequate,3 they are not followed in practice. In many formal cases and all through the informal sector, bureaucratic approval processes impose such high transaction costs that they are by-passed through corrupt practices. Buildings are frequently sited on land known to be hazard-prone, infrastructure is inappropriately installed or managed. All these can generate disasters.

Community involvement in DRR One of the major themes of the workshop was the growth and efficacy of NGO-guided, community-led efforts in DRR. It has long been recognised that social capital, i.e., the networks and community solidarity built up among people in low-income neighbourhoods, provides them with benefits in everyday life and extends to immediate post-disaster care. Those whose homes survive take in those whose homes are destroyed and know that such help would be reciprocated if required. Attention to building up these links can reduce vulnerability. In addition, the growing community savings activity, through which people in

3 Ghana’s building regulations responded to an earthquake in the 1930s by insisting on a ring beam at lintel level, for example. 6

low-income neighbourhoods join savings clubs and meet regularly, builds up both social capital and financial assets which both reduce vulnerability. It is obvious that such benefits reduce vulnerability in all its forms, not just to disasters.

Experience in the Philippines, through the internationally well-developed Slum/Shack Dwellers International (SDI) affiliates there, demonstrates how important community action can be in successful mitigation and response. Communities who are empowered by savings groups and the self-enumeration, community mapping and lobbying exercises, that are the marks of SDI affiliates,4 can establish themselves as powerful stakeholders in the DRR process, particularly when each city’s members think and act city-wide because that will persuade the mayor to take them seriouslytr. Then, local authorities can derive much practical benefit when they can bring themselves to collaborate with such well-organised citizens’ groups in planning and implementation of neighbourhood improvement and resettlement following a disaster or at any other time. Nepal and Bangladesh have both benefited from awareness-raising community-level programmes.

The presentations from Argentina and Philippines showed how important trust between NGOs and Local Authorities can be in implementing DRR and other initiatives. The Argentine case, where there was mistrust, followed the process through all its twists and turns to a pilot project but not to a final project. The process was detailed, involving such complications as negotiating among multiple partners and reaching agreements on priorities among many sectoral proposals. Despite a measure of eventual failure, it showed how community dynamics improved even though the proposed project did not progress beyond the pilot stages.

The 2007 catastrophic floods in Mozambique changed the approach to DRR there from being reactive to a pro-active approach. This needs to involve communities in flood management in which works down to the level of neighbourhoods and families. Involving organised communities in DRR seems to be a win-win situation. Not only is information sharing a two- way process but also the co-operation of citizens in DRR measures is of immense importance for their success. It is a shame, therefore, when entrenched positions act against such cooperation. This was partly the cause of difficulties in the Argentine case study. Such occurrences cannot be allowed to be the norm; the benefit of community involvement is now so well-established that it must be central to DRR worldwide.

Community-based organisations can be very important; in Ghana, for example, the numerous churches are a resource for DRR involvement, especially ‘getting the word out’ and care for neighbours after a disaster. Schools are the basis for DRR capacity-building in Nepal and elsewhere; the Schools Earthquake Initiative has been a pillar of UNCRD’s approach for many years. Experience in Japan and elsewhere suggests that community participation might not, however, be as representative of the people as its wording infers. In Japan, community cohesion is no longer taken for granted and only about 30 per cent of the people take part in community DRR measures.

Policies A review of the Hyogo Framework for Action reports for the countries represented at the workshop showed that they have been concerned enough to set in place Disaster Resilience and Recovery (DRR) measures but they seem to be most central to policy in countries where disasters are common and major in their effects. So, Japan, Bangladesh, Philippines and

4 Which have a membership in the Philippines of 85,000. 7

Nepal have sophisticated policy contexts and regulatory frameworks in which DRR plays a major role. In others, such as Colombia, Argentina, Ghana, Fiji and Kenya, DRR frameworks may be in place but are not central to (‘mainstreamed in’) sectoral policies to the same extent. All follow the major tenets of the Framework: public participation, management of risks and knowledge, and promoting preparedness, especially through education. The words are there but actions tend not to follow. This is partly explicable by a lack of resources to devote to an issue which may be acute when a disaster happens but is not central to survival for large numbers of people at relatively brief intervals. For some small nations, e.g., Fiji, it is important to fit within a regional strategy for DRR. Policies and laws on DRR and Disaster Risk Management (DRM) date back to the middle of the 20th century and have been refined continually in many countries. A leader in this is Japan whose Disaster Relief Act of 1947 led the way to a comprehensive tranche of laws based around the 1961 Disaster Countermeasures Basic Act. In the face of regular disasters in its overcrowded and low-lying country, Bangladesh has a Disaster Management Act (2012), continually revised Standing Orders on Disasters, and a National Plan in Disaster Management. Its DRM Framework is very well developed and mainstreamed into departmental activities. Nepal, 20th in the world for disasters, has the oldest national disaster law in South Asia with its National Disaster Act of 1982. It has a Disaster Risk Strategy and extensive community involvement in DRM.

Resettlement The sensitive issue of resettlement arose in several contributions to the workshop. Within urban thinking, the resettlement of citizens from one site to another is contentious. It often happens so that more economically-viable uses can have preference over low-income households occupying valuable land, which usually involves some impoverishing of the poor in favour of the rich. Furthermore, when people living in poverty occupy land which is liable to flooding, landslip or volcanic activity, they often do so because the alternatives are less attractive for reasons of cost, location, etc. Removing them without their consent is regarded as unacceptable. In the face of disaster, however, many countries have become involved in moving people with or without their consent. In Colombia, people need to be moved from areas which regularly suffer volcanic activity (lahar and pyroclastic flows) but it has been recognised that this must be in line with economic, social and cultural needs. The workshop also heard how Mozambique is using a partnership between government and households, similar to self-help projects in the 1970s, as a means of rebuilding housing out of the way of floods. Households are involved in planning and implementation; it would not work at all otherwise. In the Philippines, the well-organised communities have had many inputs into resettlement plans; a process which has had good outcomes in terms of their having ownership in the process. In Kenya, the workshop was told how care is being taken to resettle residents of very poor housing in better structures back in the old area; reflecting concern about maintaining the social capital existing among the residents. They are moved to temporary accommodation, which is, incidentally, more like their new accommodation than their old, while their structures are replaced by walk-up flats.

The site visit to the Kiso Three River Basin of Chubu region, particularly in Nagashima town which is all below sea level, showed the willingness of people to live in areas which are intrinsically liable to major flooding. Over centuries, they had developed a built form and culture which expected the need for refuge and, maybe, evacuation, and must have felt it was worthwhile staying in such vulnerable areas for the benefits that accrued. During the 20th

century, major improvements were made to keep the three rivers separate as far as possible and constantly improve protection measures, such as levées. Even the great destruction following from Typhoon Isewan, in 1959, has not driven the people from their vulnerable site. For them, resettlement appears not to be an option, but the cost of maintaining their livelihood is very great indeed.

A seemingly opposite view has been taken by the Japanese authorities to the dangers of living in coastal towns and villages destroyed by the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami of March, 2011. Whereas survivors of Typhoon Isewan are still occupying the same land as before, and it is still metres below sea level, survivors of the tsunami are to be prevented from resettling land inundated then; instead only using it for storage and processing.

The expense of resettlement is often a pivotal issue which mitigates against its success in poorer countries. This seems to be an issue with the Mozambique case where government budgets are very limited. Government provides the sort of help that was common in self-help projects in the 1960s and 1970s: water and sanitation to plots, subsidised building materials and skilled help in exchange for family labour and some local materials contributions. There is also, however, training and enabling in trades and building materials supply, particularly brick-making. Even in Japan, with all its economic resources, the decision to resettle the survivors of the tsunami, seems to have involved such great expense that it appears to be stalled. Temporary resettlement has taken place, the sites of the former villages and towns have largely been cleared, but there is little sign of the promised resettlement towns emerging from the nearby forested slopes. Two factors appear to have slowed the resettlement:

• Land acquisition was very slow owing to the restricted availability of appropriate higher land, which was worsened by land speculators quick to acquire the little land available, triggering greatly increased prices for land and shortages of land suitable for relocating residential areas. • Higher land is sloping, which is increases development costs, notwithstanding the environmental issues arising from levelling of land available.

Through the narratives shared with the workshop by local guides and the conversations held after their presentations, one could feel some disappointment or loss of trust towards the authorities and a wish for communities to be more involved in the disaster management process.

The cost of effective DRR measures is a problem for many countries represented. This issue was, perhaps, compounded by the several contributions from Japan and the field visits to DRR projects in Japan. Many participants from much poorer countries held up their hands in despair when the amounts of funds involved in the Japanese DRR operations were mentioned.

Finance and Insurance

Financial support is very important in DRR. In Vietnam, Development Workshop has been successful in promoting dedicated credit for safer house construction, working through the Vietnam Bank of Social Policy. Such initiatives need to be encouraged and it is to be hoped that each one will be easier as evidence for their effectiveness is built up. The scale of the need is, however, beyond current mechanisms of financing to help the huge and vulnerable population of Bangladesh, for example.

Local action is often key in DRR. In many of the case studies presented in the workshop, however, local authorities with the responsibility for DRR have not been allocated the funds from central government to fulfil their duties. While decentralization is a favourable trend in democratization, the all-too-common under-financing of decentralized functions denies the very basis of the exercise; the passing of power down to the local authorities. Lessons learned from disasters in USA, Japan and Mexico, feature the importance of insurers in financing housing recovery and so the reduction of vulnerability to disastrous loss in developed nations' cities (Comerio, 1997: 177). In spite of this, however, the storytellers in Miname Sanriku in East Japan told the participants that few, if any, of the tsunami victims were insured against tsunami damage, though more had insurance against fire. The fishermen’s insurances were only willing to cover 25 per cent of the total loss, leaving them without adequate funds to restart business and build a new home. In the future, a broader application of insurance against the real risk of disasters should be developed. In developing countries, where very few households indeed have any insurance even when they can afford it, losses are likely to have profound effects on the economy. In such places, transfers of funds to house owners which could be spent on public infrastructure recovery are hard to justify. Pre-disaster mitigation measures to increase insurance cover could significantly reduce money diverted from infrastructure recovery to housing (Freeman, 2004).

Disaster preparedness and mitigation: (structural and nonstructural measures5) Preparedness: “The knowledge and capacities developed by governments, professional response and recovery organizations, communities and individuals to effectively anticipate, respond to, and recover from, the impacts of likely, imminent or current hazard events or conditions.” www.unisdr.org/files/7817_UNISDRTerminologyEnglish.pdf, p. 21 Preparedness and the taking of preventative action has proved extremely effective in Japan and elsewhere in reducing the loss of life in disasters. For example, 5000 people died in disasters in Japan in a typhoon in 1950 but only 100 people died in the whole decade prior to 1970. Japanese experience shows that preventative action also reduces the cost of DRR activities. Prediction can focus preventative action,6 renovating and strengthening buildings, bridges, elevated roads reduce the damage and disruption caused. The scales on which assistance must take place, however, span the whole spectrum from public help, through mutual help to self-help. A major issue arising in the field visits, and to a lesser extent in the workshop itself, is the level of preparedness required. The Japanese cases embody an acceptance of damage and disruption caused by events which will happen once or twice in a lifetime and which can be treated by mitigation events. So, self-preservation and evacuation drills have become mainstream in Japanese schools and workplaces. Levées, sea walls7 and other defences, such as raised motorways parallel with the coast, with minimum ways through the embankments to slow down tsunamis of the predicable height of less than five metres, are all part of life there. The authorities assemble helicopters, emergency water tankers, bridges and jetties, for example, against their use in a disaster. There is sophisticated research, including multivariate

5 For definitions of structural and non-structural measures see www.unisdr.org/files/7817_UNISDRTerminologyEnglish.pdf, p. 9 6 Though the inundation from the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami were much more extensive than the areas predicted to be at risk. 7 Unfortunately, the protective sea walls also prevented people from seeing what was coming in 2011 but by that time it was probably too late to react. 10

GPS-based modelling, which allows prediction to feed into mitigation. The strength of the Japanese economy8 allows this without too much trouble and mitigating effects are considerable against the once in 50 years event. The unprecedented scale of the 2011 earthquake and the tsunami put in question the basis of projections and planning for disaster prevention. It made most of the workshop delegates question the idea of the 'return period', and more importantly, will there be another huge earthquake event in the next few years? Will typhoons get more aggressive and damaging? Flooding elsewhere is worsening and becoming more frequent. Both the estimated return periods and scale of exceptional events have been shown to be flawed in the face of recent events worldwide. The Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami has changed thinking quite radically in Japan. Its scale and intensity was beyond anything faced before. In the immediate aftermath, it was realized that they were not geared to accept international help. Furthermore, it was realized that the ‘hard’ prevention measures had failed and equipment meant to help in the aftermath could not reach many destroyed settlements for many weeks. At this time, ‘soft’ measures came to the fore as neighbours and community leaders came to the fore. In completely devastated Minimi Sanriku Town, the owner of the up-market Hotel Kanyo set up emergency accommodation, feeding and schooling in the hotel for months until more formalised measures could be set up. But, what should the authorities do about a once in 350-500 year event? Can this be defined as “likely”? How much investment is required or justified? With limited budgets, can it be the basis for any DRR planning? Can DRR activities physically reduce the risks in such catastrophes, or is it better to depend on resilience, on the idea that the event will happen at some time and have coping mechanisms, of which evacuation is one? Experience suggests that both are needed: preventive actions to reduce the impact of the hazard event (build resistance into housing and infrastructure, build in a safe location), and evacuation and refuge measures to allow people to pick up and carry on afterwards (while accepting certain levels of loss). Furthermore, given (only!) 1,500 years of records, is it reasonable to call something that has happened three times a once in 500 year event as they may have been an exceptionally quiet 1,500 years? With global warming, how useful are the ‘once in X years’ periodicities anyway as we are told weather-related disasters will increase in frequency and strength? Again, the delegates from developing countries looked on in horror at the carnage that can still occur, even with such preparations in place, and wondered rather ruefully how their countries could possibly afford even a small part of DRR measures required.

Evacuation exercises are part of non-structural preparedness measures which have been put in place in many of the countries featured in the workshop. School drills, communities having occasional evacuation days, and other organised preparation events and responses seem to be a regular part of DRR in many hazard-prone countries. The Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami, however, tested the evacuation exercises to breaking point when many of the refuges were engulfed by the tsunami and the occupants all died.

8 The economy of Japan is declining and so is the population. The IMF has warned the country about its huge government debt, exceeding 200% of GDP. Persistent deflation, reliance on exports to drive growth, and an ageing and shrinking population are other major long-term challenges for the country’s economy (CIA Report on Japan: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ja.html).

The variety of experiences, disaster contexts and approaches to DRR among the delegates was a very helpful feature of the workshop. Having the privilege to share time with storytellers in such tsunami-destroyed towns as Minami Sanriku on the East Coast was an unforgettable experience for one and all and one in which all will remember UNCRD with gratitude. References

Comerio, M. C. (1997). "Housing after disasters", Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management 5 (3): 166-78. Freeman, P. K. (2004). "Allocation of post-disaster reconstruction financing to housing", Building Research and Information 32 (5): 427-37.

Appendix 1: Report of the Proceedings of the workshop

Opening Session

There were two introductory talks to set the scene of the workshop. The first was a welcome from Ms. Chikako Takase, the Director of UNCRD, read by Dr Jean D’Aragon. In it, she warmly welcomed the addition of urban issues to the Disasters Management Programme of UNCRD and summarised the programme for the workshop. The second was an orientation by Dr Graham Tipple who introduced the logistics of the workshop and reviewed the Hyogo Framework of Analysis Reports from the countries represented at the Workshop. Several major threads could be found;

• that countries in which disasters were common and very influential, Disaster Resilience and Recovery (DRR) Programmes are more well developed than in countries in which disasters are relatively rare; • that many countries have suitable legislation and policy intentions but only a few have backed these up with concrete activities and investment;

• that most countries have decentralised DRR duties to local authorities without passing on resources for them to fulfil the duties.

Experience from Japan

Two sets of Japanese experience were shared with the workshop participants; the flood prevention work in and around Nagoya and the Great East Japan Earthquake/tsunami incident in 2011. The latter is dealt with in a later section.

Disaster management in Japan

Speaker: Mr Takayuki Kubo, Director of the River Planning Division, River Department, Chubu Regional Bureau

This paper, “Response to mega-disasters”, presented an overview of Japan’s history of disasters and the response to them. Japan’s DRR system has been developed out of responding to lessons from past disasters. Japan is in a very disaster-prone part of the earth. The coincidence of three techtonic plates, heavy rainfall and steep rivers generates potential for earthquakes, tsunamis, typhoons, floods and landslips. Although it accounts for only.25% of the earth’s land area, Japan suffers 20.5% of its earthquakes and has 7% of its active volcanoes. Through measures such as the Flood Control Act of 1949, and funding on a massive scale, measures for prediction, information, practice drills and technological innovations, the death toll of disasters has steadily fallen. The Flood legislation has been revised several times in response to disasters and now includes flood prediction and water brigades who act very efficiently during flood events to limit the ingress of water into occupied land.

Despite the great ameliorative efforts in the face of the usual level of disasters, extreme events occur for which no level of forward planning seems adequate. Among these are the

Great Hanshin/Awaji Earthquake of 1995 when 6,400 people died; the Typhoon Isewan floods in 1959, which killed 4,500 people and flooded or destroyed 350,000 dwellings; and the Great East Japan Earthquake of 11 March, 2011, the fifth largest in the world since 1900, which shifted Honshu Island 2.4 metres east, generated a wave up to 40 metres high, and caused damage costing US$235 billion. About 20,000 people were reported killed or missing.

Great efforts are now made for prediction, evacuation and prevention. The budget is huge; 1.2 trillion Yen (US£14.3 billion) in 2010.9 Along with the above, the TEC-FORCE provides logistics and equipment in readiness for mega-disasters. Such items as drainage pumping vehicles, lighting vehicles, temporary bridges, and helicopters are available and based in the regions.

Speaker: Mr Yukio Takayanagi, Disaster Prevention and Crisis Management Division, Office of Aichi Prefecture Government.

This presentation, “Natural Disasters and their Prevention in Aichi Prefecture”, described the nature of disasters to which Aichi is prone and how they are dealt with. Its position make Aichi particularly prone to typhoons and storm surges, both of which increase the chance of serious flooding. Three disasters were particularly mentioned: Typhoon Isewan (1959), Tokai torrential rain (2000) and Tonankai Earthquake (1944).

Aichi Prefecture now practice a wide range of preparedness strategies set out in multi-year Action Plans. The 2012 budget is 66 billion Yen (US$686 million). The plans have actions towards three goals: increasing regional disaster response capabilities; Increasing community resilience; and establishing preparedness measures. Within these, measures include hard investments, such as coastal and river defences, reinforcement of buildings and infrastructure, and soft measures, such as community drills, prediction and raising awareness.

On day three of the workshop, delegates were taken to Nagashima Municipality and the Kiso Three Rivers Basin to witness the improvement and preparedness works going on there. The three rivers drain a large area in central Japan and join together across land which is below sea level as they flow into Ise Bay. Like most Japanese rivers, they are very steep and bring water very quickly from the mountains to the sea. They have been subject to polder and other improvements since 1600 when the waju system (levees, refuge buildings and emergency boats) was instigated. Current flood control systems focus on improving river flow, controlling ground water extraction, reinforcing levees, reconstructing sluice pipes and improving emergency wharves. At the same time, river information is available to help decision making in times of threat.

Introduction to urban and housing issues in disasters

This session was presented by Graham Tipple (facilitator for the workshop) and Jean D’Aragon (Coordinator of the Disaster Management Planning Unit, UNCRD).

Speaker: Graham Tipple

This presentation, “Housing, urban vulnerability and sustainability in rapidly-developing countries” presented the case for improving vulnerabilities through the way housing is supplied. Within the contexts in the new millennium (particularly poverty and sustainability),

9 About half the annual GDP for Kenya. 14

two billion new urban residents will require housing and other urban services by the mid- 2020s with most of the growth occurring in South and East Asia. The radically new approaches required are a good environment for improving economic performance through housing supply. Income multipliers from housing supply are particularly high as low-paid people spend their money locally. Economic linkages backwards (in construction processes) and forwards (use of housing for economic activities – renting out/ HBEs) can be very good for development. In this context, the construction industry should be treated with as much care as other industries, particularly the small-scale firms dealing the household sector.

The presentation recommended promoting cheaper land management systems allowing establishment of ownership without excessive cost; promoting local building materials industries for routine use in housing and infrastructure supply; co-operating with the local construction and building materials industries to plan ahead for a post-disaster construction and materials supply strategy; embracing the benefits home-based enterprises have to offer; promoting maintenance through mass media campaigns, story-lines in television soap operas, etc.; and including the most vulnerable groups in policy-making.

Speaker: Jean D’Aragon

The presentation on the United Nations Centre for Regional Development (UNCRD) described how, founded in 1971, UNCRD focuses on Sustainable Environmental, Economic and Social Development. Its role is to enhance capacity (and support efforts towards sustainable development) of governments and community groups in developing countries, with a focus on economic and social development, environmental management, and disaster management planning. The workshop promotes the last.

UNCRD’s interventions in developing countries are clustered under three main thematic interrelated and complementary areas of work – (a) Integrated Regional Development Planning; (b) Sustainable Urban Management; and (c) Knowledge Management. Under (b), UNCRD includes disaster management planning.

UNCRD works with schools, in housing and building codes, to increase institutional capacity of officials and communities. The presentation showed many informal housing areas and discussed the importance of improving the structural safety of houses to prevent damage and safeguard people’s lives, property and livelihood from earthquakes.

Current and planned activities include

• conducting or commissioning desk review studies of past and present experiences in disaster management planning and sustainable regional development in different regions around the world; • developing a global report on disaster management planning and sustainable regional development (covering the last 20-25 years);

• developing a guidebook on building sustainable and resilient cities; • encouraging gender mainstreaming in disaster management planning within the DMP Programme,

and with partners;

• contributing to the conceptualization of Sustainable Development Goals on disaster risk reduction; • developing and supporting implementation of pro-poor, realistic building codes for disaster-proof buildings;

• developing guidelines to protect heritage buildings and sites against disasters (and climate change);

• developing strategies and guidelines to reduce disaster vulnerability and building resilience of urban poor communities in urban slums and informal settlements; and

• reinforcing and integrating (participatory) Monitoring and Evaluation in Disaster Management Planning Programme.

National experiences I

National experiences were offered from Colombia, Fiji, and Papua New Guinea,

Speaker: Mr Dario Gomez Cabrera, Director of Disaster Risk Management Pasto City Hall, Pasto, Colombia.

The presentation: “National disaster risk management framework in Colombia” focused on community mobilisation and awareness within disaster events. The area around Pasto is liable to suffer from volcanic activity. It is recognised that volcanic emergency management is extremely complex because of cultural, religious, social, political, economic, and scientific factors. It started from a belief that we cannot regularly expose a population to the effects of a phenomenon that endangers their existence and, therefore, must have fundamental solutions, such as resettlement in safe areas. In the meantime, community collaboration is assisted through periodic evacuation exercises in which many community-members take part.

A possible resettlement should be arranged with the community and should consider cultural variables, and social, environmental, economic and political factors. However, this will not be possible without community involvement and their understanding of their reality.

Speaker: Mr. Vula Tawake Shaw, Principal Administrative Officer (Housing) Ministry of Local Government, Urban Development, Housing and Environment, Fiji.

The presentation, “Climate change and households’ vulnerability to disaster risks and hazards in Small Island Developing states (SIDS): Experiences from Fiji”, derive from the occurrence of flooding and cyclones which have had budgetary implications amounting to 2-4% of GDP annually. Following the flooding in January, 2012, the government has upgraded the Taiperia road project in Natabua, Lautoka. The new road and accompanying drainage systems will solve flooding issues in the area. There has also been city-wide participatory slum-upgrading projects in five cities, following approval by the Asian Coalition of Housing Rights and co- funded and implemented by NGOs and government.

Fiji is part of the Pacific Catastrophe Risk Assessment and Financing Initiative (PCRAFI) and the Sendai Dialogue. The way forward is seen as government giving support for technical assistance to continue to collaborate regionally with support for the Sendai Dialogue and its outcomes in partnership with relevant stakeholders.

Speaker: Mr Max Kep. Director and Chairman (National) Office of Urbanization, Papua New Guinea.

The presentation, ‘“Disaster Tok”-Rapid Urbanisation Vulnerabilities’ treats urbanisation in Papua New Guinea (PNG) as a disaster in itself. It focuses on world weather and urbanisation trends and urbanisation trends; recommended and accepted actions to counter rapid urbanisation; and gaining support for concerted action against rapid urbanisation, climate change and natural or human-made disasters. The premise of the presentation is that rapid urbanisation, within a context of poverty and without sustainable development characteristics, is a disaster for PNG’s people.

The shortage of serviced land drives the new urban dwellers into marginal areas, with problems of unemployment and poor infrastructure. There is an urgent need for evidence based policy towards establishing service centre development & customary land development. There is an urgent need for urban growth to be managed within the parameters of the existing higher order strategies and policies, such as the Medium Term Development Plan (MTDP) and National Strategic Development Plan (NSDP). It is argued that unmanaged urbanisation creates chaos and anarchy, and failed service delivery while the way forward may be well managed service centres providing a range of services close to population catchment areas.

PNG is especially at risk from climate change-related disasters such as those associated with extreme weather. Taking action to minimise risk requires sustainable urbanisation and a specific Risk Management Plan developed in collaboration with stakeholders. Within this, there should be Practical Action.

International issues

Speaker: Graham Tipple

The presentation, “Housing technology, regulatory frameworks and vulnerability” covered two topics pertinent to the workshop; the relationship between adopted technology and vulnerability and the experience gained in Iraq on the issues faced in post-conflict housing. The issue of regulation often crops up in disasters but countries can have regulations in place without their affecting key buildings because of corruption or inadequate institutional capacity to enforce them. Modernity can drive out appropriate technologies and increase vulnerability as cement-based technologies displace traditional construction.

Like other assets, adequate housing can be an effective protection from the impoverishing effect of disasters. For protection, simple processes such as annual checks on joints; throwing fishing nets over thatched roofs when high winds are expected; adding timber beams in masonry walls at intervals; or lofts, high storage shelves and water tight grain storage containers to preserve vital goods during flooding. These may not be in the building regulations. Routine maintenance can also greatly improve the chances of dwellings remaining intact in disasters.

When recovery operations are considered, housing can be a help or an obstruction; distorting the local systems of supply. It is important to cause the least harm to local supply and construction systems. However, when official help is given to restoring housing, it is likely to helps the rich; it may be better to concentrate on public goods, such as infrastructure.

Issues arising from conflicts (from work in Iraq) showed the importance of restoring infrastructure; dealing with rubble; addressing the issue of internally displaced persons; and healing the legacies of policies used to favour/ punish regions or cities by previous regime. Civil society may have very little voice at these times to help setting priorities.

Speaker: John Norton, President, Development Workshop France (DWF)

This presentation, “Woodless Construction & fuel efficient kilns in West Africa”, drew experience from work in the slow-onset disaster in Sahelian West Africa. Over the past 30 years, there has been an increase in floods and droughts. DWF’s work links post-flood rehabilitation with development by encouraging non-agricultural sources of income generation through improved skills and risk reduction and development solutions based on local human and material resources.

Rapidly increasing population have led more tree cutting for building and cooking. The forests have gone and the desert is growing. Wood is a scarce commodity but houses are built with timber roofs covered with mud which are impossible to reproduce today at low cost. Meanwhile many people cannot afford non local materials such as cement and iron roof sheeting.

Woodless Construction is the name given to construction of vault or dome roofed buildings using ordinary earth bricks in ways traditional in Iran and Egypt. Training takes place on small training structures, over only three weeks. Then, every trainee pays for and builds his own house.

Woodless Construction encourages local transport, generating local income and develops the most important local resource: a vastly expanding young population who need skills and the chance to earn a living. Women are involved on internal and external plastering and decoration using local techniques and materials. In addition, DWF works with women potters using kilns which save wood.

National experiences II

National experiences were offered from Bangladesh, Kenya, Mozambique, Ghana and Philippines.

Speaker: Mohammad Abdul Qayyum, National Project Director (Additional Secretary) Comprehensive Disaster Management Programme Disaster and Relief Ministry (CDMP), Bangladesh.

This presentation, “Disaster management with poor communities: the Bangladesh experiences”, examines the policy and practice in one of the most disaster-affected countries in the world. Many of the people affected the ultra-poor; these include landless labourers, people who live on char land (land created by changes in river courses), households that have no economically active member of the household or be affected by disability or bereavement. They have little options but to live in risky areas in simple and poor quality homes, reliant on natural resources and with only narrow range of economic activities, and limited or no assets to absorb shocks.

Bangladesh has a full range of measures for DRR, responding to international trends, and culminating in the Disaster Management Act, of 2012. It is deriving a suitable regulatory

framework, strengthening the policies and Guidelines of 14 key sectoral ministries/departments, setting up a national platform with a network of development partners, integrating DRR into education at all levels, e.g., 42 Universities offer disaster management programmes, and Incorporating DRR into Development Plans and Programmes.

The Community-led Disaster Management programme seeks to strengthen national capacity to reduce risks and improve response and recovery management at all levels. It works at enormous scale with Phase I having 600,000 beneficiaries and Phase II planned to have 2 million.

Lessons for Scaling‐up local approach to national level development planning are as follows:

• More strengthened local committees required; • Increase budgetary allocation for DRR & Climate Change Adaptation (CCA) at local level;

• Each phase of the disaster cycle should be given equal importance and appropriate community interventions should be identified;

• It is essential to the implementation of the Bottom‐up Approach to build upon good

practices derived by local stakeholders;

• Partnerships are fundamental for the success of the programme; • Innovative, creative approaches, derived from partnerships and synergies between stakeholders, are central for programme implementation;

• Encourage exchange of experience, learning and integration between DRR, CCA and livelihood practitioner.

Speaker: Ms. Leah N. Muraguri, Senior Deputy Director Ministry of Housing, Kenya

The presentation, “Kenya’s case in Urban Slums and Informal Settlements”, focused on the disasters which have occurred in Kenya’s slum neighbourhoods and how they can be mitigated by upgrading and redevelopment. Kenya faces huge housing deficits; estimated need of 150,000 dwellings per year against production of 30 – 40,000, while formal housing produced is only affordable to high income households.

Informal settlements accommodate between 30 and 60% of urban populations, mainly in high densities, overcrowding, and poor physical conditions and access to services. Common disasters in slums and informal settlements include fire outbreaks, floods, epidemics

(HIV/AIDS, cholera, malaria, waterborne diarrhea, typhoid and measles), poisonings from illicit brewing, mud/landslides, collapse of buildings, and ethnic clashes.

The Government of Kenya has committed itself to take a lead role in disaster prevention, management and risk reduction, including a commitment to upgrade and improve all urban slums in a systematic manner. In collaboration with partners, it has initiated two key programmes, Kenya Slum Upgrading Programme (KENSUP) and Kenya Informal Settlement Improvement Programme (KISIP).

KENSUP is a national programme addressing the housing problems of living in slums and informal settlements. It aims to improve the lives and livelihoods of people living and working in informal settlements nationwide. It works with communities in planning, shelter improvement and development, provision of infrastructure, improving tenure and residential security, employment and income generation activity, safety and security, addressing HIVAIDS through education and awareness counseling, conflict prevention and management in informal settlements.

KENSUP has made progress in;

• Provision of social and physical infrastructure. • Development of housing. • Capacity building in communities to adopt to new ways of life that reduce vulnerability to hazards.

KISIP, initiated through the World Bank, Sida and AFD, is a five year programme targeting 15 municipalities. KISIP has four main components;

• Institutional strengthening, largely in relevant ministries; • Enhancing tenure security, through surveying and issuance of titles or letters of allotment;

• Investing in informal settlements infrastructure and service delivery; and • Planning for orderly urban growth.

Speaker: Mr. Leovigildo Da Cruz Marcos, Deputy Director Co-ordination Office of Resettlement, National Institute for Disasters Management of Mozambique.

The presentation, “INGC’s experience on Reducing Vulnerability through Resettlement”, focused on the community-based flood management system inMozambique which has three components: prevention, mitigation and resettlement.

The prevention focuses on improving the roads and bridges, improving drainage and water flow, building elevated and stronger houses, afforestation the riverside to avoid erosion, water reservoirs, etc. Mitigation focuses on historical data and the negative effects of disasters, training the community, and improving communication and information. As part of these, community maps are drawn to identify the risky and safe areas, to indicate the evacuation routes, to identify buildings or spaces that they can use as refuges, to increase awareness of river levels and report them.

Resettlement is a major part of reducing vulnerability. It involves a partnership between government and households similar to self-help projects in the 1970s. People are provided with subsidized materials and skilled labour in exchange for recipients’ providing locally- available materials and food for the artisans.

Speaker: Mr. Yahaya Hameed Yakubu, Director (Housing), Ministry of Water Resources, Works and Housing, Ghana.

The presentation, “Overview of the National Disaster Management Plan for Ghana” highlighted the response of the Government og Ghana to disasters. Natural disasters which occur in Ghana include Pest and Insect Infestations, Epidemics, Fires, floods and the occasional earthquake. Human made disasters include ethnic conflicts, pollution of water bodies, industrial accidents and the failure of structures. In recent weeks, a Mall collapsed in Accra killing many people. Insufficient structural strength allowed by poor inspection is likely to be the cause.

Ghana established a National Disaster Management Organisation (NADMO) in 1996 to manage disasters and similar emergencies. Recently, Ghana has adopted a National Disaster Management Plan (NDMP) which identifies appropriate measures required to manage disasters at different phases; The pre-disaster phase needs mitigation and preparedness; the disaster or emergency phase requires response and relief; while the post disaster phase is the time for rehabilitation, resettlement & reconstruction.

In the Pre-Disaster Phase, the NDMP calls for measures to prevent human-made disasters and minimise the effects of natural ones. These measures include the identification of hazards or emergency situations that may degenerate into disasters; identification of havens where people can be safe; an effective communication system linking all stakeholders; education and training for awareness creation and skills for disaster prevention; establishing a general state of preparedness which involves planning, acquisition of relevant data and basic reference materials, and designing, and equipping of emergency operations, etc.; identification and, where possible, acquisition and storage of resources needed for relief programmes; preparation of a data base on collaborating institution or agencies; formation of Disaster Volunteer Groups; training and mobilisation of equipment for simulation exercises, storage of supplies and emergency care; and research.

The Post-Disaster involves rehabilitation, reconstruction and resettlement. Activities here include restoration of utility services; reconstruction of infrastructure facilities; construction of permanent structures for accommodation; and promotion of self-reliance and income generating activities.

Speaker: John Norton, President, Development Workshop France (DWF)

The presentation, Reducing vulnerability to extreme weather events: Development Workshop’s actions in Viet Nam dealt with the long-term inputs from DWF where flooding and typhoon effects are common and 70% of recently built houses are weak and exposed to damage. Families tell of rebuilding their damaged house four or five times in as many years.

Although Vietnam has excellent preparedness and response capacities, micro DRR actions are largely ignored. Reconstruction programmes often relate poorly to how people live and

build. With support from the Ford Foundation, in 2008, DWF set up an innovative package of loans, with the Vietnamese Bank for Social Policy, for poor families specifically to contribute to the costs of strengthening their houses to resist flooding and cyclone damage.

DWF’s project focuses on six actions:

1. Getting the prevention message across – participatory communication;

2. Strengthening local authority capacity for DRR and networking;

3. Developing practical skills and a debate about safe building;

4. Demonstrating accessible preventive strengthening of houses and public buildings with families;

5. Promoting DRR in schools;

6. Providing access to credit targeted for house strengthening.

In the current phase of the project, focus is on mainstreaming and bridging the gap between official policy and practice in local communities. Lessons are drawn from the informal to the formal construction sector which can improve DRR.

Now the government’s Natural Disaster Risk Management Project NDRMP uses a Community Based Disaster Risk Management component to provide resources to individual households to strengthen or retrofit their houses against floods and storms. In 2011, DW published the ‘Vietnam Atlas of House Vulnerability & Strengthening’ which highlights the diversity of hazards and risks, and identifies locally appropriate solutions. All these spread the word for proactively construction, upgrading and protection of dwellings by their occupants, using many different solutions across the country, within the capacity of the people affected.

DWF also has a project for safer schools in Myanmar and safe housing projects in the Ayerawaddy Delta. After the devastating impact of Cyclone Nargis, the DW team shared its Vietnam approach to risk reduction in the Myanmar context where there are many similar problems to Viet Nam, but even greater poverty and poor local government support.

The project showed how the basic principles of safer construction to resist flood and storm can be used to both retrofit existing buidlings and make new building safe. It worked with local carpenters and builders; involved children to learn about risk reduction and to communicate safe building principles ; and used open days to bring in as many families as possible to the strengthened school.

Ten Key Principles of strong wind resistance building construction have been put on a poster and spread through plays, public campaigns led by children, school children performing on school open days about safer houses, etc. Families now testify to knowing that ten key principles are useful and effective

Speaker: Ms. Maria Sonia Vicenta Fadrigo, Regional Coordinator of Homeless Peoples Federation of the Philippines (HPFP), Board Member of Slum/Shack Dwellers International (SDI)

This presentation, “Community-based disasters risk reduction and resilience building: Views from the slum dwellers’ perspectives (Philippines)”, focuses on the community-led response to disasters, through the Homeless Peoples Federation of the Philippines (HPFP), particularly focusing on Cyclone Frank/Fengshen of June, 2008, which left 1,400 dead and US$250 million worth of damage. The process used involves organising the community to collect data on the effects and those affected and to develop priorities for action, especially using the savings-based actions developed by all SDI affiliates. The federation uses the opportunity to encourage victims to take the opportunity offered by the city government of relocation and advise them not to return to their former houses. It uses its voice in planning the resettlements to favour the poor households and assists them to make good use of the building materials loans available in the resettlement sites. The federation holds workshops for improving design and ensuring facilities to satisfy community priorities are available. Thus is assists households in a transition from temporary housing to a state of permanence.

• Lessons Learned

• The local government should intensify its land banking initiatives to make land available for future resettlement needs of informal settlers. In doing so, the government and other city stakeholders have to meet on the middle ground in preparing a longer term planned process that allows for sufficient social preparation.

• The long-standing and collaborative relationship between the local government, national government agencies and the wider urban poor network (ICUPN) must be maximized through joint city wide survey and mapping of high risk communities, upgrading and housing implementation as a way of moving from disaster response and reconstruction to holistic and sustainable development.

Lessons learned from this process are:

• Treat disaster victims as more than mere recipients of welfare; they must be considered as key players in rebuilding their own lives. • Continuously build the capacities of urban poor communities by strengthening the savings programmes and the organizational structures at the community level

• Conduct continuous advocacy, information and education campaign among the relocated families to prevent them from returning to their previous settlements and also to be actively involved in the maintenance of their dwelling units in the relocation site.

• Carry out and apply research on possible alternative low-cost and disaster resilient designs and building technology that can be applied for socialized housing projects that target disaster-prone and affected communities.

• Grant tenure security so that people can invest in their futures. Once they have developed a strong sense of ownership over their land and housing, it is more likely

that they will devote their resources, take responsibility and become accountable to what they have aimed for.

Presenter: Mr. Dharma Raj Pathak, Programme Director, Forum for Awareness and Youth Activity, Nepal (FAYA-Nepal).

This presentation, “Natural Disaster In far West Region of Nepal: context, policies, practice and lessons,” introduced the national DRR context and focused on the Far West Region.

Faced with many types of disasters, Nepal has policies and plans in place dating from the Natural Disaster Relief Act, 1982, through a National Disaster Risk Management Strategy, 2009, to a currently draft Early Warning Strategy, 2010. There are five National Disaster Risk Management priority actions, acted on across the ministerial sectors:

1. Ensure that disaster risk reduction is a national and local priority with a strong institutional basis for implementation 2. Identify, assess and monitor disaster risks and strengthen early warning 3. Better knowledge management for building a culture of Safety, and Resilience 4. Reducing the underlying risk factors 5. Enhance preparedness for effective response

In the Far West Region, where floods take a mounting death toll, FAYA’s experience on DRR is founded on engaging with the community and its “Safer School – Safer Community”. It uses a variety of means including participatory vulnerability assessments, simulations suitable for many types of disaster, first aid training and support, and local curricula design and implementation support. Lessons drawn from its experience include the importance of awareness, basic knowledge & education, effective community participation; coordination & cooperation among concerned stakeholders, and a strong institutional framework.

Speaker: Ms. Jorgelina Hardoy, Project Coordinator, Instituto Internacional de Medio Ambiente y Desarrollo, IIED, Latin America, Buenos Aires, Argentina.

This presentation, “Participatory environmental management: limits to participation. The experience of the Focus Cities Initiative (FCRI) in Moreno, Argentina, and beyond”, deals with the nexus between government and community groups in Moreno, Buenos Aires, Argentina. In Moreno, 45,000 households live on welfare programmes and only 40% are connected to water supplies. The presentation followed the process of negotiation and cooperation/ conflict between CBOs and an anxious local government in developing a community waste management project in four zones in the wake of a PPP project on community-managed water systems in 2006. The project involved collaboration between community representatives and the local authority at levels and in ways which triggered suspicion and unwillingness to share information or vision on both sides. Despite this, progress was made towards agreeing project priorities and developing a procedural manual. The municipality attempted to impose their priorities and staff but consultants were appointed instead with a supervisory committee in each zone including community representatives. Pilot projects were implemented in 2009 including recovering degraded river banks and optimising potable water networks for 700 households. Although the finite production ended at the pilot projects, the space for collaboration between the communities and the local authority has been opened up and should ease the course of future projects.

Field Visits

Stuff (in red) below came form Nana-san’s draft mission report

III. Brief summary of work accomplished (incl. persons met, venue, dates, participants and event):

The mission consists of two parts: the first half consists of flood-control-related site visits here in Chubu region on 12 Dec 2012 and latter half is the field tour of Tohoku region from 13 to 14 Dec, which focused on earthquakes/tsunami risk reduction and reconstruction efforts after the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami Disaster.

(1) Chubu Region

Site Visits to Waju no Sato and Kiso River Downstream Office, Mie Pref. (12 Dec 2012:)

UNCRD took participants to the Kiso Three Rivers Basin (Kiso, Nagara, and Kibi Rivers) to observe the improvement and preparedness works going on there for flood control. The three rivers run through a large area in Chubu region and join together across a land, which is party below sea level, as they flow into Ise Bay. The area below the sea, in particular, has been affected by floods quite often since early times as these three rivers, like others in Japan, are steep and bring water quickly from the mountains to the sea in case of typhoons, storm surges, and torrential rains. With such background, the area has a long history of flood controlling, which dates back to 1600 when the polder system called “waju” was adopted. The waju is a traditional polder system consisting of levees, refuge buildings, and emergency boats. That's why the area was selected as a case study here in Chubu for the workshop to study the history of flood control and the current challenges and efforts made toward water disaster risk mitigation.

Firstly, participants visited the Waju no Sato, where Mr. Yasushi Moroto, Director of Waju no Sato explained the waju system and the long history of local people's fight against flood. After that, the group went to the Kiso River Downstream Office, which is one of the field offices of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (MLIT) along the Kiso River, to observe the modern flood control systems. Mr. Akio Miura, Deputy Director of Kiso River Downstream Office, made a presentation on the current situation and disaster management along Kiso River, which focused more on structural measures of improving river flow, controlling underground water extraction, reinforcing levee, reconstructing sluice pipes, and improving emergency wharves. As for non-structural measures, he touched the water level information as well as evacuation simulation through the website to help local residents to make right decisions on evacuation in case of emergency.

After making the site visits in Mie Prefecture, participants flew from Nagoya to Sendai City, Miyagi Pref. The latter half of the mission was carried out in Miyagi Prefecture, which is one of three prefectures severely damaged by the Great East Japan Earthquake on 11 March 2012.

It was the largest earthquake ever recorded in Japan and subsequent tsunami washed away many towns and communities, resulting in massive loss of lives and properties in the coastal area. However, much effort towards recovery and reconstruction has been made and some progress has been observed. The purpose of the field trip in Miyagi Prefecture was to provide participants with an opportunity to learn the experience and lessons of the earthquake and tsunami first hand from those who had been affected there including local governments, universities, and residents/communities.

Days three to five of the workshop were occupied with interesting and informative field visits. The first set were to study the Waju (polder) system of land reclamation and defence practiced in the Kiso Three River Basin of Chubu region, particularly in the town which is all below sea level. Through lectures, museum exhibits, and field visits, we were shown how the traditional system had developed and refined over time to allow life to flourish on the delta. However, when disaster strikes, as in Typhoon Isewan in 1959, great destruction follows. A total of 190,000 dwellings were washed away then. Constant attention to engineering works, to reduce run-off from the mountains, control the flow of the three rivers, increase the size of levees and hold back high tides, reduce the likely impact of flooding incidents.

Having flown from Nagoya to Sendai, the workshop participants were treated to a two day field visit to the sites of destruction from the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami Disaster of 11th March, 2011. This began with lectures at the International Research Institute of Disaster Science (IRIDeS), Tohoku University Aoba Campus in Sendai.

Tohoku University established the International Research Institute of Disaster Science (IRIDeS) in April 2012. Collaborating with organizations in broad areas of specializations from many countries, the IRIDeS conducts world-leading research on disaster science and disaster mitigation. The IRIDeS contributes to the on-going recovery/reconstruction efforts in the affected areas, conducting action-oriented research, and pursuing effective disaster management to build sustainable and resilient societies.

IRIDeS Deputy Director, Dr. Fumihiko Imamura, provided general information on the Institute and on the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami Disaster.

Three presentations from staff at IRIDeS touched on the key dilemmas facing planners in DRR; at what level is investment in mitigation justified and does better building reduce the effects of tsunami forces to damage and demolish buildings (and, therefore, kill their occupants). Currently, planning for disasters in Japan as divided between two different types of earthquake events, L1 based on the ‘normal’ movement in the subduction zone off the east coast of Japan which occur within a 50 year return period. A presentation by Dr Katauya Hirano discussed the “Dilemma between protection and sustainability in reconstruction planning”. Most interesting, perhaps, is the Multi-Layer approach to protection in which L1 events are mitigated against by several physical features, such as sluices, sea walls, levees and elevated roadways, and evacuation drills and refuges. During the field visits, we saw the five metre sea walls, the high-tide barriers and the refuges which serve to protect against tsunamis arising from these events. For the L2 events, for which the time-period is once in 500 years, some feel that evacuation is the only defence, The Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami was one such event and its occurrence has signalled a decision completely to evacuate affected sites and turn them over to non-residential activities. Questions arise as to whether once in 500 year events are more frequent than thought. After all, historical records

only go back 1,500 years or the equivalent of three events. Furthermore, how economically viable is it to plan for such events?

Dr Imamura revealed the broad range of disciplines involved in IRIDeS and demonstrated the action of the subduction zone in generating earthquakes and tsunamis. The tools used to demonstrate how disasters happen, and with what frequencies, are also used to predict them. In addition, detailed tracking of inundation cover in the 2011 event shows how inadequate were the predictions made for L1 events for that catastrophe. In a presentation entitled “Dilemma between protection and sustainability in reconstruction planning”, Dr Anawat Suppasri demonstrated the use of very sophisticated software to carry out predictions of tsunami events and their strength, their likely effects on lives; and econometric analysis to compare different defences, building standards, etc., and monitor the effects of the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami and the tsunami of 2011 on them. For example, how influential is fulfilling building regulations to survival of buildings; are taller buildings more likely to survive than smaller ones, stronger ones than weaker ones, etc?

The field visits were to areas particularly badly affected by the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami; Minami Sanriku Town, Kitakami in Ishinomaki City, Okawa Elementary School, the Ishinomaki fish market area, and the Disaster debris management site in Ishinomaki. Survivors, taking the role of story-tellers told us of events and the inadequacy of the mitigation measures. The water had been unexpectedly high, even over-topping bridges and drowning refuge sites. The sea walls gave a false sense of security, delaying evacuations. Supposedly strong buildings simply broke up and floated away. People’s lives, possessions, money, businesses, boats and everything was reduced to rubble and garbage. There was a sense of desolation, of insurance miss-sold, of delays in assistance, of the hopelessness of restarting businesses. There were rays of hope; widowed mothers who started a retail shop to provide their friends with goods and provide some other widowed mothers jobs. Many fishermen are back in business, fish- and seaweed-farming are now productive again. The up- market Kanyo hotel, on a cliff close to destroyed Minami Sanriku, acted as a relief centre for over a year, accommodating many survivors and starting a school which still operates.

Government response has majored on clearing the ruined towns and villages, coping with the rubble clearance and disposal, resettling survivors in temporary housing and issuing emergency help. Rebuilding is taking much longer. Relocation sites inland are hardly started. Survivors have run out of money and have little work; and all this despite the enormous financial input which a government and economy as strong as Japan can bear.

We were left with many questions, including:

• How far is Japanese experience relevant to less wealthy countries? • Are period-based risks relevant, especially in the light of global warming? • How far is it reasonable to abandon a town site against a once in 500 year event? • Are defences against small disasters a hindrance to survival when a larger one strikes?

Delegates to the workshop were all touched and challenged by the contents of the presentations and the field visits; UNCRD is to be congratulated on the organisation and tenor of the EGM. It was an unforgettable experience and should lead to better understanding of DRR.

Appendix 2: Workshop Programme “Disaster Risk Reduction and Resilience Building of Urban Communities” 10-14 of December 2012 Aichi, Mie, and Miyagi, Japan

09:00-09:30 【Opening Session】 09:00-09:10 Welcome Address Ms. Chikako Takase, Director, UNCRD 09:10-09:30 Introduction and orientation of the workshop Mr. Graham Tipple, (Review of the agenda, objectives and Consultant in housing and urban expectations, intro of the themes of the day policy in rapidly developing countries; Visiting Fellow, School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape, Newcastle University 【Presentations】 Moderator: Mr. Graham Tipple 09:30-10:30 【Presentation】 Mr. Takayuki Kubo, Director, (* in Japanese with English interpretation) River Planning Division, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport River Department, Chubu Regional (MLIT), Japan Bureau (i) Disaster management in Japan; (ii) Response to mega disasters. 10:30-10:45 Coffee break 10:45- 11:45 【Presentation】 Mr. Yukio Takayanagi, (*in Japanese with interpretation)】 Disaster, Prevention and Crisis Management Division, Aichi Prefecture Disaster Prevention, Office of Disaster Management in Aichi Prefecture Aichi Prefectural Government (i) Past disasters in Aichi Prefecture (ii) Current challenges for disaster prevention in Aichi Prefecture; (iii) Disaster prevention projects and activities in Aichi Prefecture 11:45-12:30 【Discussion】 Moderator: (*with Japanese – English interpretation) Mr. Graham Tipple 12:30-14:00 Lunch 【Presentations】 Moderator: Mr. John Norton 14:00-14:30 • Housing, urban vulnerability and Mr. Graham Tipple sustainability in rapidly-developing countries 14:30-15:00 • Intro to UNCRD DMP Programme Mr. Jean D’Aragon, Coordinator

Disaster Management Planning Unit, UNCRD 15:00-15:30 • Discussion 15:30-15:45 Coffee break 【Presentations from participants】 Moderator: Mr. Graham Tipple 15:45-16:05 • National disaster risk management framework Mr. Dario Andres Gomez Cabrera, in Colombia Director of Disaster Risk Management Pasto City Hall, Pasto, Colombia 16:05-16:25 • Climate change and households’ vulnerability Mr. Vula Tawake Shaw, Principal to disaster risks and hazards in Small Island Administrative Officer (Housing) Developing states (SIDS): Experiences from Ministry of Local Government, Fiji Urban Development, Housing and Environment, Fiji 16:25-16:45 • “Disaster Tok”-Rapid urbanization and Mr. Max Kep, vulnerability of the poor urban households on SIDS: From problems to solutions in Papua Director and Chairman (National) New Guinea Office of Urbanization, Papua New Guinea 16:45-17:30 • Discussion (including J. Norton’s comments)

2nd Day: December 11th (Tue) Conference Room 1 (5F), NIC, Nagoya City, Aichi Prefecture 【Presentations】 Moderator: Mr. Graham Tipple 09:00-09:30 • Housing technology, regulatory frameworks Mr. Graham Tipple and vulnerability 09:30-10:00 • Woodless Construction & fuel efficient John Norton, President kilns in West Africa Development Workshop France (DWF)

【Presentations from participants】 10:00-10:20 • Disaster management with poor Mr. Mohammad Abdul Qayyum, communities: the Bangladesh experiences[ National Project Director (Additional Secretary) Comprehensive Disaster Management Programme Disaster and Relief Ministry (CDMP), Bangladesh Ms. Leah N. Muraguri, 10:20-10:40 • Kenya’s case in Urban Slums and Informal Settlements Senior Deputy Director Ministry of Housing, Kenya 10:40-11:00 Coffee break Mr. Leovigildo Da Cruz Marcos, 11:00-11:20 • INGC’s experience on Reducing Vulnerability through Resettlement Deputy Director Co-ordination

Office of Resettlement, National Institute for Disasters Management of Mozambique Mr. Yahaya Hameed Yakubu, 11:20-11:40 • Overview of the National Disaster Management Plan for Ghana Director (Housing) Ministry of Water Resources, Works and Housing

11:40-12:15 Discussions (including J. Norton’s comments) 12:15-13:30 Lunch 【Presentation】 Moderator: Mr. Graham Tipple • Reducing vulnerability to extreme weather Mr. John Norton events: Development Workshop’s actions in Viet Nam 【Presentations from participants】 13:30-13:50 • Community-based disasters risk reduction and Ms. Maria Sonia Vicenta Fadrigo, resilience building: Views from the slum dwellers’ perspectives (Philippines) Regional Coordinator of Homeless Peoples Federation of the Philippines (HPFP), Board Member of Slum/Shack Dwellers International (SDI) 13:50-14:10 • Natural Disaster In far West Region of Mr. Dharma Raj Pathak, Program Nepal: context, policies, practice and Director, lessons Forum for Awareness and Youth Activity, Nepal (FAYA-Nepal) 14:10-14:30 • Participatory environmental management: Ms. Jorgelina Hardoy, limits to participation. The experience of the Focus Cities Initiative (FCRI) in Moreno, Project Coordinator, Argentina, and beyond Instituto Internacional de Medio Ambiente y Desarrollo, IIED - América Latina 14:30-16:15 Discussion 16:15-16:30 Closing of two-day presentations session

3rd Day: December 12th (Wed): Mie Prefecture 08:30-9:30 Move by bus from Nagoya to Waju no sato 09:40-11:00 【Lecture and Field Visit】 Waju no Sato10 Tel: 0594-42-0001 1. Lecture: Waju and Flood Control Work by Mr. Yasushi Moroto, Director of Waju no Sato 2. Observation at Waju no Sato Waju is the traditional polder system in Nobi Plain around Kiso River. 11:00-11:30 Move by bus from Waju no Sato to Kiso River Downstream Office,

10 The institution introduces the history, culture and industry of Nagashima Town and Waju. Please refer http://www.waju.jp/index.html 30

MLIT 11:30-13:00 【Lecture】Kiso River Downstream Office, MLIT Tel: 0594-24-5715 Lecture: Current Situation and Disaster Management along Kiso River by Mr. Akio Miura, Deputy Director, Kiso River Downstream Office, Chubu Regional Bureau, MLIT 13:00-13:30 Move by bus from Kiso River Downstream Office to Restaurant 13:30-14:30 Lunch: Pizzeria Ken11 (Pasta Lunch, 1280 yen) 14:40-16:30 Move by bus from Kuwana City to Nagoya International Airport 16:30-18:00 Dinner at Chubu International Airport 18:40-19:50 Flight from Nagoya to Sendai (ANA 367) 20:00-21:00 Move by bus from Sendai Airport to Hotel JAL City Sendai Hotel Hotel JAL City Sendai12 Tel: 022-711-2580 1-2-12 Kakyoin, Aoba-ku, Sendai City, Miyagi, 980-0013

4th Day: December 13th (Thu): Sendai City & Minami Sanriku Town, Miyagi 08:00-08:45 Move by bus from Hotel JAL City Sendai to Tohoku University 09:00-11:30 【Lectures and Discussion】International Research Institute of Disaster Science (IRIDeS), Tohoku University 1. Introduction of IRIDeS, Dr. Fumihiko Imamura 2. Dilemma between Protection and Sustainability in Reconstruction Planning, Dr. Katsuya Hirano 3. Research on Tsunami Risk Assessment, Dr. Anawat Suppasri 4. “Michinoku-Shin-Roku-Den” Digital Archive Project of the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake Disaste, Dr. Youichi Ono in place of Dr. Shosuke Sato 5. Discussion 11:30-12:30 Lunch at Tohoku University Cafeteria 12:30-14:45 Move by bus from Sendai to Minami Sanriku Town Video Presentation on the Great East Japan Earthquake 15:00-18:00 【Town Tour, Briefing, and Discussion】Minami Sanriku Town 1. Town tour guided by Mr. Kazuma Goto, a storyteller (Togura Junior High School and Disaster Prevention Center of Minimi Sanriku Town Office) 2. Briefing by Ms. Noriko Abe, the owner of Hotel Kanyo

11 Please refer http://tabelog.com/mie/A2402/A240203/24010811/ 12 9,500 yen per day including break fast Please refer http://www.jalhotels.com/domestic/tohoku/sendai/index.html 31

3. Talk and discussion with Mr. Hiraku Watanabe and Mr. Katsuyoshi Kuriya from "Lambs" (from Togura District, Minami Sanriku Town) 19:00-21:00 Dinner: Hotel Kanyo Hotel Kanyo13 Tel: 0226-46-2442 99-17, Kurosaki, Minami Sanriku Town, Motoyoshi-gun, Miyagi, 986- 0766

5th Day: December 14th (Fri): Onagawa Town & Ishinomaki City, Miyagi 08:00-09:00 Move by bus from Hotel Kanyo to Kitakami, Ishinomaki City 09:00-11:00 【Field Visits and Talking to Community People】Kitakami, Ishinomaki City 1. Talking to Mr. Seigo Sato, the leader of the local fishing association, and Ms. Risa Hikata, community support staff of PARCIC 2. Observing at Nikkori Sun Park temporary housing and We Are One Market 11:00-12:00 Lunch at Kitakami Branch, Ishinomaki City Hall 12:00-12:30 Lecture: Higher ground relocation programme by Mr. Hirotaka Nishino, Ishinomaki City Official in charge of higher ground relocation (sent from Niigata City Government) 12:45-13:00 Visit to Okawa Elementary School 13:00-13:30 Move by bus from Okawa Elementary School to Onagawa Town 13:30-14:00 【Field Visit】Onagawa Town Container temporary housing designed by Mr. Shigeru Ban (Architect) (Briefed by Mr. Teiji Kobayashi, Head of Urban Planning Section, Reconstruction Promotion Division, Onagawa Town Government) 14:00-15:00 Move by bus from Onagawa Town to Ishinomaki City 15:00-16:30 【Field Visits】Ishinomaki City 1. Ishinomaki fish market and its facilities (Briefed by Mr. Kunio Suno, President of Ishinomaki Fish Market Co., LTD 2. Disaster debris management site (Briefed by Mr. Takehiro Saito, Disaster Debris Management Division of Ishinomaki City Government) 16:30-18:30 Move by bus from Ishinomaki City to Sendai City

13 15,750 yen including dinner and breakfast. Please refer http://www.mkanyo.jp/shisetu/ 32