Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas for the Great East Japan Earthquake
International Development Center of Japan
March 2013

Abstract

This study organizes and analyzes different forms of assistance provided from overseas for
the Great East Japan Earthquake over a one-year term between March 11, 2011 and March
31, 2012. The study surveys both financial and in-kind (material and human resource) forms
of assistance received from all countries and regions, international institutions, privateentities (NGOs, businesses, private foundations, religious organizations, etc.), andindividuals. Still, as it would be impossible to cover all relevant information, the study
focuses on major forms of assistance and gives an overall view of overseas support,
securing a certain degree of accuracy.1 It should be noted that the figures below have been
calculated, while eliminating overlap whenever possible, based on published information oforganizations such as Japanese government agencies, foreign embassies, the United
Nations, the Japanese Red Cross Society, and various NGOs. Possible margins of error
include: downward revision due to a small range of overlap, and large-size upward revisions
due to information that the study failed to cover and information that was excluded due tothe potential for overlap.
The study indicates that the governments, individuals and groups that made financial and/orin-kind contributions belonged to a total of 174 countries and regions. 43 internationalorganizations also offered assistance. Out of the 174 states and regions, 119 wererecipients of Japan’s ODA, and 35 were among the so-called “Least Developed Countries(LDC)” in Asia and Africa.
Financial Assistance: A total of approximately 164 billion yen in financial assistance wasprovided by the 174 countries and regions.2 According to the United Nations Office for the1Since various forms of moral support, including high-level messages, messages from the general public,
prayer meetings, and visits to disaster-stricken areas are already summarized on the websites of theMinistry of Foreign Affairs of Japan and Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), this study
excludes such assistance.
2This value may require upward revision to around 60 billion yen. Specifically, even in cases where thestudy has obtained information from donors (for example, “Corporation XX donated YY dollars”), if the1Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), Somalia received the largest amount ofhumanitarian funding of 868,139,570 US dollars during 2011 (equivalent to 71.3 billion yen
at the exchange rate used for this study). The UN announced at the time of disaster thatJapan would receive more humanitarian relief from the international community in 2011 thanany other country, and it would be safe to say it is accurate based on the figures above. The
analysis of donor attributes indicates that governments and international institutions
provided 143 cases of financial assistance, whereas non-governmental donors, including
Red Cross societies, NGOs, businesses, private foundations, individuals and groups,
accounted for 1,250 cases.3 Regional figures show that the Middle East and North Africa,
and North America provided the largest amount at around 30% of the total assistance each.
The figures for the Middle East and North African countries are explained by a large amountof assistance provided by governments of oil-producing countries. The Kuwaiti and Qatar
governments in particular provided a large amount of assistance, though the total number ofcases of relief from this region was relatively low (eighth out of ten regions, includinginternational organizations/ assistance made by entities represented by multiple regions).
North America ranked third in terms of the number of cases, with larger per-case amount incomparison with other regions. Europe had the largest number of cases of assistance, while
East Asia ranked second (the region ranked third in terms of amount). Most of financial
contributions were made by developed countries (i.e. non-ODA recipient countries).
However, in terms of the number of cases of assistance, ODA-recipient countries accounted
for about 30% of all cases. Financial assistance concentrated in the first three months after
the disaster; however, it was provided continuously throughout the year.
Human Resource Cooperation:

Japan received human resource cooperation from 99

countries and regions and many international organizations in a total of 160 instances.
Among these countries, 61 countries (60% of the total) were Japanese ODA recipients. In
terms of the type of group or organization providing the assistance, 77 were governments
and international organizations, while 83 belonged to non-governmental donors. In terms ofthe type of assistance, 19 cases were dispatch of search/rescue teams, 11 were dispatch of
medical teams, 63 were various services for the victims, which included volunteer work, 28
were relief coordination (including surveys and studies), 25 were related to international
recipients could not be confirmed, such information is excluded from the survey. This is to avoid
overlapping figures, since the study may have already checked and calculated the recipient information(for example, “YY dollars was received from business/group in country ZZ”). It also excludes cases whereassistance is not confirmed as accepted even if it was pledged. The number of countries and regions
does not include the information on assistances which does not identify the country to which they belong.
3
The number of cases given is a rough estimate, since some recipient organizations count all forms ofassistance provided by overseas parties as one case, and others count assistance provided from generalpublic including businesses and groups together. The same applies to in-kind contributions.

2exchanges through visits to the affected areas or invitations to the affected people to travel
overseas, and 14 were related to the nuclear accident. Among the 30 cases of dispatch of
search/rescue and medical teams, 26 were implemented by government or internationalorganizations.
Material Contribution: Japan received donations of goods and services from 73 countries
and regions in a total of 305 instances. In terms of the type of group or organization
providing the assistance, 154 were governments and international organizations, while 151
were other groups. In terms of the type of assistance, 104 cases were food aid, 158 werevarious relief supplies, 14 were fuel, 39 were provision of services (e.g. communication andtransportation), and 34 were nuclear accident-related supplies. Material contribution was
more likely to be provided within 11 to 20 days of the disaster, and 50% of the total wasprovided within 30 days of the disaster. 88% was provided within 50 days of the disaster.4
The preceding analysis reveals five key points.
1.

Assistance was provided and received across national boundaries—not only throughgovernments and international agencies, but also through private businesses, NGOs,groups, and other organizations. This means that relief efforts involved global civilsociety as a whole. This trend has been common in recent years when massive
disasters occur in developing countries, and it shows that the Great East Japan
Earthquake was no exception.

2.

Out of 174 countries and regions, 119 were Japanese ODA recipients. In fact, a large
amount of assistance was provided from extremely poor countries and countries withunstable political and economic conditions. In recent years, developing countries
have joined developed nations in offering assistance for massive disasters. This
global trend—a spirit of mutual aid—was shown even when a developed country like
Japan was the victim. A number of countries expressed their gratitude for Japan’s
past assistance, including ODA.

3.

A significant portion of in-kind contributions (material and human resource) provided
by overseas businesses fully utilized those organizations’ field of expertise,distinctive characteristics, and name recognition. Countries also provided assistancethat effectively utilized their unique features.

4.

Accepting in-kind contributions from overseas is more difficult than accepting those
provided domestically, since they require interpretation and other coordination in
addition to matching needs. Because of this, not all assistance offered by overseas

4Time periods indicate when assistance reached Japan and not necessarily the affected area(s).

3parties was accepted.
5.

Unlike compiling data for disaster relief given to developing countries (usually led by
the United Nations and other prominent international organizations), there was no
mechanism in place for Japan, a developed country, to compile data on assistanceprovided from overseas countries. Consequently, data were scattered across manyorganizations and compilation methods varied. This presented an obstacle tocompiling and analyzing data in a consistent and unified manner, and brought to lightan important area for future improvement.

The lessons from this study can only be fully learned if further studies are carried out on how
assistance was and is being used, the actual state of affected areas that received
assistance, and how assistance was accepted.

4