Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

March 2014

International Development Center of Japan

March 2014

International Development Center of Japan
Hitachi Solutions Tower B, 22nd Floor
4-12-6 Higashi-Shinagawa, Shinagawa-ku, Tokyo, JAPANTEL: +81-(0)3-6718-5931 FAX: +81-(0)3-6718-1651
URL: http:www.idcj.or.jp

Printed with Fuji Xerox 700 Digital Color Press

Preface

This study was undertaken by concerned volunteers from related organizations. We believe that
consolidating the overall view of the assistance from overseas and then presenting the results tothe world is the responsibility of Japan as a member of the international community.
On behalf of all Japanese citizens, we would like to thank all the countries, institutions, andindividuals for their generous support. We also apologize to those whose data we could not findand present in our database, despite the fact that it was our intention to comprehend all themonetary as well as in-kind support from overseas as accurately as possible.
This study was entirely financed by the International Development Center of Japan (IDCJ) as apart of its in-house research program. The study was fully supported by Dr. Kazuo TAKAHASHI,
former professor at International Christian University, chairperson of the study committee andinitiator of this study. Support also came from committee members, concerned people from theJapanese Red Cross Society, Japan NGO Center for International Cooperation (JANIC), Japan
Platform (JPF), and the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA). Furthermore, the Ministryof Finance, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Reconstruction Agency, Iwate prefectural
government, Miyagi prefectural government, and Fukushima prefectural government participatedas observers of the study committee. Many institutions and organizations provided us withinformation, cooperated in our questionnaire survey and helped us organize a field visit to Tohoku.
We would like to express our heartfelt respect and gratitude to all who helped us conduct thisstudy.
As it will soon be the third anniversary of the disaster, temporary housing and shops in the affectedareas have begun to be removed. However, there are still about 278,000 people, who have been
displaced and temporarily relocated nationwide (as of 14 Nov, 2013, Reconstruction Agency) andthey are still struggling to live filled with angst for the future.
This is especially true in Fukushima prefecture, where in addition to the damages caused by theearthquake and tsunami, the aftereffects of a nuclear disaster stemming from the accident at the
Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station remain. Many people are still displaced and living awayfrom their home towns and villages. When we visited the affected areas, many people appealed to
us to not forget about the disaster and to visit the affected areas and to see what is happening
there today. We sincerely hope that this report will help to deliver their voices in and outside
Japan.

Masaoki TAKEUCHI
President of International Development Center of Japan(Main writers of the report)
Mimi SHEIKH, Senior Researcher of IDCJ
Mana TAKASUGI, Researcher of IDCJMAP

Iwate Prefecture
Miyako City
◎Morioka
Yamada Town
Otsuchi Town
Tono City

Kamaishi City
Ofunato City
Rikuzentakata City

Yamagata
Prefecture

Kesennuma City
Miyagi Prefecture

Minamisanriku Town
Ogatsu Town
Onagawa Town

Sendai ◎Shiogama City
Natori City

Ishinomaki City
Higashimatsushima City

Watari Town
Yamamoto Town
◎Fukushima
Soma City
Minamisoma City
FutabaTown●
Fukushima
Prefecture

Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station●

Shirakawa City
Iwaki City

Abstract

This study organizes and analyzes different forms of assistance provided from overseas for theGreat East Japan Earthquake over a one-year period between March 11, 2011 and March 31,
2012. The study surveys both financial and in-kind (material and human resources) forms ofassistance received from all countries and regions, international organizations, private entities(non-governmentalorganizations(NGOs),

businesses,

privatefoundations,religious

organizations, etc.), and individuals. However, 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 to secure a certain degree of accuracy.1 It should be noted that the figures below havebeen 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 thatthe study failed to cover, and information that was excluded due to the potential for overlap.
The study indicates that the governments, individuals and groups that made financial and/or
in-kind contributions belonged to a total of 174 countries and regions. 43 internationalorganizations also offered assistance. Out of the 174 states and regions, 119 were recipients ofJapan’s Official Development Assistance (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 the
Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), Somalia received the largest amount of
humanitarian funding of 868,139,570 US dollars during 2011 (equivalent to 71.3 billion yen at theexchange rate used for this study). The UN announced at the time of disaster that Japan would
receive more humanitarian relief from the international community in 2011 than any other country,
and it would be safe to say this is accurate based on the figures above. The analysis of donor
attributes indicates that governments and international organizations provided 143 cases of1

Since 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 the Ministry ofForeign Affairs of Japan and Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), this study excludes suchassistance.
2
This value may require an upward revision to around 60 billion yen. Specifically, even in cases where the study
has obtained information from donors (for example, “Corporation XX donated YY dollars”), if the recipients could
not be confirmed, such information was excluded from the survey. This is to avoid overlapping figures, since thestudy 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 where assistance was not confirmed as accepted
even if it was pledged. The number of countries and regions does not include the information on assistancewhich does not identify the country to which they belong.

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 each provided the largest
amount at around 30% of the total assistance. The figures for the Middle East and North Africancountries are explained by a large amount of 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 of relief cases from this region was relatively low (eighth out of ten regions,
including international 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 assistance cases, while East
Asia ranked second (the region ranked third in terms of amount). Most of the financial
contributions were made by developed countries (i.e. non-ODA recipient countries). However, interms of the number of assistance cases, ODA-recipient countries accounted for about 30% of allcases. Financial assistance concentrated in the first three months after the disaster. However, it
was provided continuously throughout the year.
Financial assistance was utilized in two ways. It was directly distributed to the victims, andallocated for recovery activities. Recovery activities by the Japanese Red Cross Society (JRCS)
and other organizations such as NGOs included various activities: purchase/ distribution of foodand relief supplies, coordination of volunteer activities, education/child support, livelihood andeconomic reconstruction such as support for fisheries/employment/ small and medium-sizedenterprises, support for community activities, programs for psychosocial care, health care/publichealth programs, support for the vulnerable including people with disabilities, the elderly andwomen, information support such as broadcasting, support for victims of the nuclear accident, aid
coordination, and much more.
Human Resources Cooperation:

Japan received human resources cooperation from 99

countries and regions and many international organizations for a total of 160 cases. Among thesecountries, 61 countries (60% of the total) were Japanese ODA recipients. In terms of the type ofgroup or organization providing the assistance, 77 were governments and internationalorganizations, while 83 belonged to non-governmental donors. In terms of the type of assistance,
19 cases were dispatch of search/rescue teams, 11 were dispatch of medical teams, 63 werevarious services for the victims, which included volunteer work, 28 were relief coordination(including surveys and studies), 25 were related to international exchanges through visits to theaffected areas or invitations to victims to travel overseas, and 14 were related to the nuclear
accident. Among the 30 dispatch cases of search/rescue and medical teams, 26 were
3

The number of cases given is a rough estimate, since some recipient organizations count all forms of assistanceprovided by overseas parties as one case, and others count assistance provided from general public including
businesses and groups together. The same applies to in-kind contributions.

implemented by government or international organizations.
Material Contributions: Japan received donations of goods and services from 73 countries andregions for a total of 305 cases. In terms of the type of group or organization providing theassistance, 154 were governments and international organizations, while 151 were other groups.
In terms of the type of assistance, 104 cases were food aid, 158 were various relief supplies, 14
were fuel, 39 were provision of services (e.g. communications and transportation), and 34 were
nuclear accident-related supplies. Material contributions were more likely to be provided within 11
to 20 days after the disaster, and 50% of the total was provided within 30 days after the disaster.
88% was provided within 50 days of the disaster.4
The preceding analysis reveals six key points.
1.

Assistance through private businesses, NGOs/non-profit organizations (NPOs), groups,
and other organizations was significant in addition to assistance through governments andinternational organizations.
Assistance was provided and received across national boundaries, participated by theentire civil society—not only between governments, but also among governments, NGOs,
private businesses, and individuals. This trend has been common in recent years when
massive disasters occur in developing countries5, and it shows that the Great East Japan
Earthquake was no exception.

2.

A large amount of assistance was provided from extremely poor countries and countries
with unstable political and economic conditions.
Out of 174 countries and regions, 119 were Japanese ODA recipients6, and 35 were among
the so-called “Least Developed Countries (LDC)” in Asia and Africa7. In recent years,
developing countries have joined developed nations in offering assistance in the aftermathof massive disasters. This global trend—a spirit of mutual aid—was shown even when adeveloped country like Japan was the victim. A number of countries expressed their
gratitude for Japan’s past assistance, including ODA.

4

Time periods indicate when assistance reached Japan and not necessarily the affected areas.
For example, in the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami, in total 6.2 billion dollars were provided fromthe international community (this amount includes assistance other than financial assistance such as material
contributions, and based on contribution and commitment, excluding pledge). Of this, 62% (by amount) was fromsources other than governments and international agencies. In the 2010 Haiti earthquake, out of the total
amount, 3.5 billion dollars (same as above) was provided, 36% (same as above) was from other thangovernments. In both cases, more than half the countries that provided assistance were developing countries(ODA recipients of Japan). http://fts.unocha.org/pageloader.aspx?page=home.
6
Classification of ODA recipients and non-recipients is based on “Japan’s ODA White Paper 2011”. Although
South Sudan was not mentioned as ODA recipient in “Japan’s ODA White Paper 2011” as it became
independent in July 2011, the study classified it as a recipient country according to the actual condition.
7
Out of 48 countries defined as the LDC by the United Nations. http://www.unohrlls.org/en/ldc/25/
5

3.

Content of the assistance was diverse.
A significant portion of in-kind contributions (material and human resources) provided byoverseas businesses fully utilized those organizations’ field of expertise and distinctive
characteristics. As many artists collected donations through charity concerts and bazaars,
many people offered assistance utilizing their expertise, unique features and namerecognition.

4.

Assistance from overseas consoled and encouraged the affected people, showing that theinternational community was with them.
Financial assistance from overseas were utilized for various activities implemented by
Japanese NGOs/NPOs and private businesses, meeting with the affected people’s needs.
Many words of gratitude towards such assistance from overseas were heard in this study
from the stakeholders of affected local governments, affected people, NGOs/NPOs, andother organizations, revealing that the assistance consoled and encouraged the people in
the affected areas through various activities.

5.

Financial assistance from overseas complemented the support from the government,
meeting the needs of the victims attentively and promptly.
Most of the donations from overseas were provided to support organizations like NGOs
which conducted attentive and essential activities to help victims rebuild their lives,complementing the activities by the government. It was also revealed that financial
assistance from overseas financed activities of many organizations, especially in the initialstage, both in terms of the timing and the amount. Without donations from overseas, even
JRCS would not have been able to implement such large scale and diverse support
activities as it conducts today.

6.

A large portion of the financial assistance from overseas was utilized for education/childsupport activities.
Many of the organizations that received a large amount of financial assistance fromoverseas in this study had been implementing programs for education/child support. Manyof the overseas organizations that provided assistance and Japanese organizations thatreceived the assistance were established for the purpose of child support. Thus, theirregular activities and expertise may have impacted the content of the support activities after
the disaster.

The following four points were lessons learned as a recipient of international assistance.

1.

Clarification of the liaison organization in receiving assistance from overseas organizations
and individuals
Acceptance of official assistance from governments and international organizations was
implemented somewhat smoothly due to a certain principle that was in place. However, thegovernment of Japan did not have any systems or procedures in place to receive
assistance from overseas organizations and individuals8. Therefore, such assistance was
accepted through a variety of private organizational networks without official rules andsystems. As revealed in this study, the segment of assistance from organizations andindividuals other than governments and international organizations was larger thangovernments and international organizations in the Great East Japan Earthquake. Cases
where official rules could be applied for receiving assistance were in the minority, and thisfact sometimes became a burden for the affected areas. Thus, it became practical to set up
a liaison organization or office to receive assistance from overseas organizations andindividuals. One concrete idea is, for example, to strengthen the collaboration between
Japan Platform (JPF) and the government for receiving overseas assistance. This will
reduce the burden on local governments in affected areas, as well as enable the effective
and efficient acceptance of the assistance.

2.

Formulation of a disaster management strategy on the premise of receiving assistance fromoverseas
Not only the central government and local governments, but also NGOs/NPOs had difficulty
receiving assistance from overseas due to shortage of manpower, especially during theinitial stage after the disaster. A common feature among the good practices seen when
receiving assistance from overseas was the successful establishment of networks withother organizations in a short period of time after the disaster. The disaster management
strategy should not be based on the activities and manpower of an organization duringordinary times, but to prepare for an effective scale up of manpower as a contingency
measure, taking into account the work related to receiving assistance from overseas. For
that purpose, it is suggested that a cooperation agreement be exchanged with otherorganizations during ordinary times in order to agree on the tasks and fees for the work thatcan be requested in the aftermath of a disaster.

3.

Superiority of financial assistance
It was reconfirmed in the study that financial assistance was superior to material
contributions, especially in its practical usage, as it can be used on demand for items thatare needed at the appropriate time without any constraint of expiration dates, tastes, and8

Yutaka Katayama. (2013, January). Higashi Nihon Daishinsaji No Kokusai Kinkyu Shien Ukeire to Gaimusho,
Journal of International Cooperation Studies, vol. 20, No. 2/3.

specifications and without the need to consider the time and cost for transportation. In
developed countries like Japan, this aspect seems even greater. Human resources
cooperation and material contributions have great significance in showing a sense ofsolidarity to the affected country and its people, and the superiority of the financial
assistance is not always the case, but donors need to keep in mind the superiority of thefinancial assistance when considering future domestic and international disaster relief
assistance, when a choice is available.
4.

Difference in people’s needs between developed and developing countries
Disaster management capacity of governments of developing countries and developed
countries like Japan differs greatly. Therefore, the needs in support activities in theaftermath of disasters in developing and developed countries are different. In some cases,
items regarded as luxury goods in assistance for developing countries can be necessities oflife in developed countries. Donors need to decide the content of the assistance in due
consideration of the economy, culture and customs of the recipient country. This must not
be forgotten when Japan provides assistance in other countries as well.

Table of Contents
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS1.

OUTLINE OF THE STUDY ................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Background of the Study ......................................................................................................1
1.2 Operation Structure ..............................................................................................................2
1.3 Methodology ........................................................................................................................32.

DAMAGE SITUATION AND DOMESTIC RESPONSE ..................................................... 9
2.1 The Earthquake....................................................................................................................9
2.2 Disaster Damage................................................................................................................ 10
2.3 Overview of the Nuclear Accident ....................................................................................... 15
2.4 Overview of Domestic Assistance for Victims...................................................................... 16
2.5 Characteristics of the Great East Japan Earthquake ........................................................... 21

3.

ASSISTANCE FROM OVERSEAS ................................................................................. 23
3.1 Financial Assistance ........................................................................................................... 25
3.2 Human Resources Cooperation .......................................................................................... 39
3.3 Material Contribution .......................................................................................................... 48
3.4 Assistance from Overseas against Nuclear Accidents ......................................................... 59

4.

UTILIZATION OF FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FROM OVERSEAS ................................ 62
4.1 Outline of Recipient Organizations and Types of Usage ...................................................... 62
4.2 Outline of the Assistance through JRCS ............................................................................. 68
4.3 Outline of the Assistance through Other Organizations by Field .......................................... 78

5．

CONCLUSION AND ANALYSIS.................................................................................... 106
5.1 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 106
5.2 Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 109

Appendix 1 List of Participants
Appendix 2 Main Sources of Information
Appendix 3 List of Organizations Responded to the Questionnaire Survey

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONSAARAssociation for Aid and Relief

ACCJ

American Chamber of Commerce in JapanADB

Asian Development Bank

AfDB

African Development Bank

ANZ

Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited

ASEAN

Association of South East Asian Nations

BSEC

Organization of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation

CARE

CARE International JapanCBIRF

Chemical Biological Incident Response Force

CCCJ

Central Community Chest of Japan

CCP

Children of Palestine

CTBTO

Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty
Organization

DMAT

Disaster Medical Assistance TeamEU

European Union

FAO

Food and Agriculture Organization

GDP

Gross Domestic Product

GECF

Gas Exporting Countries Forum

IAEA

International Atomic Energy Agency

ICPO

International Criminal Police Organization

ICRC

International Committee of the Red Cross

IDB

Inter-American Development BankIDCJInternational Development Center of Japan

IEAInternational Energy Agency

IFRC

International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies

ILO

International Labour Organization

IMF

International Monetary Fund

INBC

International Narcotics Control Board

IOMInternational Organization for Migration

ISTC

International Science and Technology Center

ITSO

International Telecommunications Satellite Organization

ITTO

International Tropical Timber Organization

ITU

International Telecommunication Union

JANIC

Japan NGO Center for International Cooperation

JA-ZENCHU

Central Union of Agricultural Co-operatives

JICA

Japan International Cooperation Agency

JPF

Japan Platform

JRCS

Japanese Red Cross Society

KnK

NPO Kokkyo naki Kodomotachi

LDC

Least Developed Countries

LDS

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

MDA

Miyagi Dental Association

MOF

Ministry of Finance of Japan

MOFA

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of JapanMSF

Médecins Sans Frontières Japan

NATO

North Atlantic Treaty Organization

NGOs

Non-Governmental Organizations

NICCO

Nippon International Cooperation for Community Development

NPOs

Non-Profit Organizations

NPS

Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station

OCHA

United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs

ODA

Official Development AssistanceOECD

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

PBV

Peace Boat and Peace Boat Disaster Relief Volunteer Centre

PoA

Plan of Action

PWJ

Peace Winds Japan

SCJ

Save the Children Japan

Team C7International Coordination TeamTEC-FORCE

Technical Emergency Control ForceTEPCOTokyo Electric Power Company, Inc.

UN

United Nations

UNDAC

United Nations Disaster Assessment and Coordination

UNDP

United Nations Development Programme

UNEP

United Nations Environment Programme

UNESCO

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

UNFPA

United Nations Population Fund

UN-HABITAT

United Nations Human Settlements Programme

UNHCR

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

UNICEF

United Nations Children’s Fund

UNV

United Nations Volunteers

UPU

Universal Postal Union

WCO

World Bank, World Customs Organization

WFP

World Food Programme

WHO

World Health Organization

WTO

World Trade Organization

WVJ

World Vision Japan

Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

1. OUTLINE OF THE STUDY

1.1 Background of the Study
The Tohoku-Pacific Ocean Earthquake on March 11, 2011 and the subsequent nuclear accident(the Great East Japan Earthquake) was a major catastrophe in Japan. In addition to domestic
assistance, the volume of tangible and intangible assistance from overseas in response to thedisaster was enormous, and the United Nations (UN) announced at the time of the disaster thatJapan would receive more humanitarian relief from the international community in 2011 than any
other country. According to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan (MOFA), 163 countries/regions
and 43 international organizations offered assistance1 as of October 2011, which was more thandouble the number of countries/regions that offered assistance for the Great Hanshin Awaji
Earthquake of 1995. Many were developing countries, which the government of Japan had
supported through its Official Development Assistance (ODA).
Not only the affected areas, but the entire nation of Japan was encouraged and filled with gratitude
on hearing the news about the magnitude of the assistance. The government of Japan has
continued to express its gratitude towards the assistance and to inform the international
community about the reconstruction progress through summit conferences, meetings of Foreign
Ministers, international conferences, op-ed contributions by the Prime Minister for major overseas
newspapers, a reception in commemoration of the Great East Japan Earthquake hosted by theForeign Minister, the UN Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20) in June 2012, andevents at the London Olympic Games in July-August 2012. Japanese organizations that received
assistance have also published reports on their activities both in Japanese as well as in English.
However, there has been no comprehensive information about the diverse human resources,materials, financial, and moral support from overseas, which differs from cases in developing
countries where the UN or other international donors take the lead in summarizing the information
on disaster relief activities. It is believed that consolidating the overall view of assistance fromoverseas and then feeding the results back to the world is the responsibility of Japan as a memberof the international community. Against this backdrop, “Comprehensive Review of Assistance from
Overseas for the Great East Japan Earthquake” was undertaken by concerned volunteers fromrelevant organizations.
(1) Objectives
1) Compile, organize and widely disseminate the comprehensive information on assistanceprovided from overseas and the distribution/acceptance results of this assistance basedon existing sources to show the gratitude of the Japanese people to the international
1

This is the number of countries/regions and international organizations that offered assistance to MOFA. The
number is different from that of the countries/regions and international organizations whose assistance wasactually confirmed in this study.

1Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

community.
2) Obtain the outcomes and lessons learned on emergency assistance by examining how
assistance was utilized on the ground in order to contribute to Japan’s future international
cooperation, especially cooperation for developing countries vulnerable to mega-disasters.
(2) Study Period
July 2012 – March 2014

1.2 Operation Structure
To keep the objectivity and neutrality of the study, a Committee was established with members
from various related organizations. The members are listed in Table 1.1 below. International
Development Center of Japan (IDCJ) served as the secretariat, and conducted the research andanalytical work for the study under the Committee. The Committee was held regularly to share theprogress and to direct the study as shown in Table 1.2. Moreover, as the study progressed,
officials from the Ministry of Finance, MOFA, Reconstruction Agency, and Iwate, Miyagi, andFukushima Prefectures also participated in the Committee as observers. IDCJ2 covered the entire
cost of this study as part of its in-house research program.
Table 1.1 Committee Members
Affiliation
Title
Chairperson
Former Professor at
International Christian University
Japanese Red Cross Society (JRCS)
President
Japan NGO Center for International
Chairperson
Cooperation (JANIC)Japan Platform (JPF)
Co-Chairperson
Japan International Cooperation Agency
Former Vice President(JICA)

Name
Kazuo TAKAHASHI
Tadateru KONOE
Masaaki OHASHI
Toshio ARIMA
Hiroto ARAKAWA

2

IDCJ was founded in 1971 as Japan's first think tank specializing in the field of development and cooperation. It
has been pursuing vanguard activities to improve the “quality” of international cooperation and to enhance overallsocio-economic development. Activities that IDCJ has conducted in response to the Great East Japan Earthquake
are as follows.
1) As part of its “Promoting Social Responsibility Activities Program”, IDCJ dispatched its staff to the field officeand headquarters of AAR Japan, an international cooperation NGO, which conducted relief activities inaffected areas at their request.
2) Served as the secretariat of a project named “Higashi-nihon ni Yuki to Kibo wo (Courage and Hope for East
Japan)” which aims to raise support to reconstruct East Japan through the purchase of goods. The project
sells “reconstruction support stickers” to companies and donates the profits to employment promotion
activities in affected areas.
3) Entrusted by the international NGO, World Vision Japan, IDCJ designed World Vision Japan’s reconstruction
support program in the field of child development support.
4) Entrusted by the Rotary Foundation Alumni Association of the Rotary International District 2530, IDCJ
implemented a needs assessment survey in Fukushima Prefecture.

2

Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

Table 1.2 Committee Outline
Assembly

Date

Venue

No.5

6 July 2012
16:00-17:30
3 September
2012,14:00-15:30
6 November
2012,15:30-17:00
21 February 2013
15:00-16:00
13 June 2013
15:30-16:30

No.6

22 January 2014
14:00-15:30

No.1
No.2
No.3
No.4

IDCJ Meeting room
IDCJ Meeting Room
JRCS Meeting room
JRCS Meeting room
International Development
Solutions Incorporated
Meeting room
International Development
Solutions Incorporated
Meeting room

Number ofParticipants
13
18
23
25
13

11

Main Agenda
Established committee, examinedresearch methods and schedule
Reported the progress and discussed
about future direction and work plans
Examined study results (outline)
Discussed and exchanged viewpoints
about the first half of the report
Shared responses to the first half of thereport, discussed about overview andschedule of the second phase study
Shared comments about the second
half of the report, and discussed report
distribution procedure

Note: The list of Committee participants is in Attachment 1.

1.3 Methodology(1) Study Step
This study was conducted in two phases; the 1st phase examined the types and volume of theassistance from overseas, and the 2nd phase examined how the financial assistance was utilizedon the ground. The concrete steps that were taken are as follows.
(2) Target Period
The target period was about one year from the occurrence of the disaster, namely, from March 11,2011 to March 31, 2012.

July 2012
Jul.-Sep. 2012
Sep.-Oct. 2012
Oct. 2012-Feb. 2013
Mar. 2013
May-Jun. 2013
Jul.-Sep. 2013
Oct. 2013
Nov.-Dec. 2013
Dec. 2013-Feb. 2014
Mar. 2014

Establishment of the Committee, setting the target, methodology, and study
planCompilation of existing information, additional information gathering
Questionnaire survey to NGOs, additional information gathering
Analysis of overseas assistance, drafting of the first half of the reportCompletion/publication of the report (the first half: Japanese Report &English Summary), press conference
Planning the methodology and schedule of the latter half of the study
Preparation of the field visit, Interviews with NGOs, information gathering
Field visit to Tohoku region, analysis of the use of financial assistance fromoverseas
Drafting the latter half of the report
Drafting the comprehensive report (Japanese & English)
Publication of the comprehensive report (Japanese & English)(3) Study Target
All assistance from overseas in terms of human resources, material, and financial support fromcountries/regions, international organizations, private entities (NGOs, businesses, private
foundations, religious organizations, etc.), and individuals were the subject of this study. However,3Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

as it would be impossible to cover all relevant information, the study focuses on major forms ofassistance and gives an overall view of overseas support, in order to achieve a certain degree of
accuracy. Since various forms of moral support, including high-level messages, messages fromthe general public, prayer meetings, and visits to disaster-stricken areas had already beensummarized on the websites of MOFA and Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), andthis study excluded such assistance3.
(4) Desk Review
Information was obtained mainly from publicly available sources such as related studies andhomepages and reports of Japanese government ministries/agencies such as MOFA, embassies
of each country, the UN, and Japanese Red Cross Society (JRCS), and other organizations. The
study collected available information on both providers and recipients, which included overseasorganizations as providers and organizers of human resources/material/financial assistance; andorganizations in Japan served as focal points of assistance such as JRCS and recipients such as
NGOs and local governments as shown in Figure 1.1. Then, the collected information was
examined to avoid any overlapping information. The main sources of information are shown in
Attachment 2.

3

See MOFA, Information related to the Great East Japan Earthquake
http://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/saigai/index.html, JICA, Information related to the disaster
http://www.jica.go.jp/information/disaster_info.html, and Japan Foundation,
http://www.jfkc.jp/ja/news/%E6%9D%B1%E6%97%A5%E6%9C%AC%E5%A4%A7%E9%9C%87%E7%81%B
D%E3%81%AB%E5%AF%BE%E3%81%99%E3%82%8B%E5%9B%BD%E9%9A%9B%E4%BA%A4%E6%B
5%81%E5%9F%BA%E9%87%91%E3%81%AE%E5%8F%96%E3%82%8A%E7%B5%84%E3%81%BF.pdf

4Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

Foundations/
Various
Organizations
Japanese
Branch Offices,
etc.

Individuals/
Companies

International NGOs/
Foundations/
Various
Organizations/
Fundraising Websites,
etc.

NGO
Coordination
Bodies:
JPF/JANICRed Cross and
Red CrescentSocieties
Diplomatic
Missions ofJapan

Foreign
Governments/
Embassies inJapan/
International
Organizations

Overseas

Japanese
NGOs

Japanese
Red CrossSociety

Prefectures/
Municipalities/Victims

Japanese
Government

Inside Japan

Figure 1.1 Main Flow of Assistance from Overseas
In addition to public information, organizations participated in the Committee provided additional
information. Iwate, Miyagi, and Fukushima Prefectures, Central Community Chest of Japan(CCCJ), Keidanren (Japan Business Federation), Nippon Foundation, Japan Center forInternational Exchange, JA-ZENCHU (Central Union of Agricultural Co-operatives), Junior
Chamber International Japan, UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA),
Rotary International Japan Office, American Chamber of Commerce in Japan (ACCJ), Embassy ofIndia in Tokyo, Global Compact Japan Network, International Medical Corps Tokyo Office,
CRASH Japan, Salvation Army Japan, and Japan Committee for UNICEF also cooperated inproviding and confirming the information (in random order).
A questionnaire survey targeting the member organizations of Japan NGO Center for International
Cooperation (JANIC) and Japan Platform (JPF) was also conducted because most donations to
NGOs were not distinguished between assistance from overseas and assistance from within
Japan; thus, it was difficult to obtain the information on assistance from overseas from the existing
information. The response rate was 20% (50 responses out of 246). It is assumed that many of theorganizations that did not answer the questionnaire had not received any assistance fromoverseas. The list of respondents to the questionnaire is shown in Attachment 3.

5

Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake(5) Field Visit To Iwate, Miyagi, and Fukushima Prefectures
In the latter half of the study, a field visit to Iwate, Miyagi and Fukushima Prefectures was
conducted from October 7 to 10, 2013. The study team made courtesy calls to departments incharge of international cooperation at prefectural offices and exchanged views with them, visitedseveral project sites implemented with financial assistance from overseas, and interviewed
stakeholders. In selecting the projects visited in the field visit, the amount of assistance provided,balance among sectors, and geographical balance were considered. Organizations which
cooperated in the first half of the study and recommendations from the Committee members werealso taken into consideration. The field visit schedule is shown in Table 1.3.
Table 1.3 Field Visit Schedule
Schedule

Prefecture【AM】
Travel (Tokyo-Morioka)■Courtesy callat NPO, Culture and International Relations Division, Department of
Policy and Regional Affairs, Iwate Prefectural Office【PM】■Field visit and interview
at Otsuchi Town Child Center (Assistance by Campaign for the
Oct.
1
Mon
Children of Palestine (CCP))
7th■Field visit and interview
at Sakari Station, South Rias Line, Sanriku Railway (Ofunato City)(assistance by Government of Kuwait)■Field visit and interview
at Ofunato Yume Shopping Street (Ofunato City) (assistance by theSalvation Army Japan and Peace Winds Japan (PWJ))
Travel (Ofunato-Kesennuma)

IWATE

【AM】
■Field visit, and interview
at Omose Elementary School (Kesennuma City) (assistance by World
Vision Japan (WVJ))■Field visit and Interview
at Kesennuma Fishermen’s Cooperative, Super-Freezers and Ice
Plant, (assistance by WVJ)
Oct.
2
Tue 【PM】
8th■Field visit and interview
at Higashishinjo Orange (Kesennuma City) (assistance by Association
for Aid and Relief Japan (AAR Japan))■Field visit and interview
at Ogatsu Dental Clinic (Ogatsu Town, Ishinomaki City) (assistance by
AAR Japan)
Travel (Ogatsu-Sendai)

MIYAGI(Coastal
Region)6

Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake【AM】■Courtesy callat the Policy Planning and Multicultural Coexistence Promotion
Section of the International Affairs Division, Miyagi Prefectural Office■Courtesy call and interview at JICA Tohoku
MIYAGI【PM】(Sendai■Fieldvisit
andinterview
Oct.
City) /
3
Wed at Miyagi Prefecture Dental Association (Sendai City)
9th
FUKUSHIMA
Mobile dental care services for the elderly and physically challenged (Fukushima
persons (assistance by JRCS)

City)

Travel (Sendai-Fukushima)■Courtesy callat International Affairs Division of Social Affairs and Environmental
Department, Fukushima Prefectural Office,【AM】
Documentation【PM】■Field visit and interview
at Kitakannsen Daini Temporary Housing (Fukushima City) meetingrooms (assistance by JRCS)
Oct.
4
Thu ■Field visit and interview
FUKUSHIMA
10th
at NPO “Citizens Radioactivity Measuring Station (CRMS) Fukushima”(Fukushima City)■Interview on Shalom Children’s Health Recovery Program■Field visit to JANIC Joint Review on CSOs’ Assistance andFukushima NGO Collaboration Space
Travel (Fukushima-Tokyo)(6) Points Taken into Consideration in the Information Analysis
Classification of the forms of assistance (human resources, material, or financial) was
made based on the forms at the time of arrival in Japan. For example, when the study teamobtained the information of “materials worth of XX dollars”, it was recorded as material
contribution, not financial assistance. If a Japanese organization received a donation fromoverseas and used it for their relief activities, it was recorded as financial assistance.

Basically, the study recorded organizations that finally provided assistance to Japan as
donors. For example, when Red Cross societies and NGOs overseas collected donations
and sent them to Japan, individuals and private businesses, who donated the money, were
not identified as donors. However, to understand the whole picture and to avoid an overlap
in information, details of large-scale private business donors and background information
on how donations were raised were also collected as much as possible. When a foreign
government provided assistance through organizations like national Red Cross societies,
the government itself was also recorded as a donor.

7

Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

Assistance gathered by foreigners and foreign agencies (embassies in Japan, foreign
affiliated companies, chamber of commerce, etc.) in Japan, as well as Japanese,
Japanese-owned companies, and Nikkei organizations abroad were included in theanalysis as much as possible, though some of the assistance were most likely fromJapanese people, as long as it was confirmed that at least some of it originated fromoverseas or from foreigners.

(7) Limitations and Caution
Due to the limited budget and duration of the study, it was not possible to conduct questionnaire
surveys, inquiries, and interviews of each related organization. Therefore, detailed information
was gathered only from major selected organizations. Of this information, some did not make a
distinction between domestic and overseas assistance, and some did not disclose a breakdown ofcountries/organizations which provided assistance. Or such information was simply not available.
This made understanding the whole picture and analytical work difficult.
As each organization has its respective fiscal year, it was sometimes not possible to obtain theinformation on assistance as of March 2012. In such cases, information on assistance received
after March 2012 was partially included.
Finally, a reminder that the purpose of this study was not to compare the volume of assistancereceived from each donor, but to comprehend the entire picture of the assistance that Japan
received from overseas, and to clarify trends, if applicable, through analysis for future reference.
(8) Outline of the Report
Chapter 2 of this report describes the outlines of the damage caused by the Great East Japan
Earthquake and domestic assistance provided to the victims. Chapter 3 provides an overview of
the assistance from overseas that Japan received, some analyses, and some issues that wereidentified when receiving the assistance. Chapter 4 examines how financial assistance fromoverseas has been utilized in affected areas, and Chapter 5 summarizes the report and provides
the lessons learned.

8Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

2. DAMAGE SITUATION AND DOMESTIC RESPONSE

2.1 The Earthquake4
1) Time and Date of Occurrence: At 14:46 on Friday, March 11, 2011
2) Hypocenter: Off Sanriku (38 ﾟ 06.2’N.L., 142 ﾟ 51.6’ S.L., 24km depth)
3) Magnitude: 9.0
4) Seismic intensity: Max.7. There were 17 prefectures measuring more than “5 Lower.”
Scale 7

Northern Miyagi Prefecture

Scale 6Southern/Central Miyagi Prefecture, Nakadori/Hamadori in Fukushima Prefecture,

Upper

Northern/Southern Ibaraki Prefecture, Northern/Southern Tochigi Prefecture

Scale 6Lower

Southern coastal Iwate Prefecture, Northern/Southern inland Iwate Prefecture, Aizu inFukushima Prefecture, Southern Gunma Prefecture, Southern Saitama Prefecture,
Northwestern Chiba Prefecture5) Tsunami: A tsunami warning was announced at 14:49, March 11. Recorded height (maximum)of the tsunami at major tsunami observation points were as follows.
Table 2.1 Tsunami Observation (Maximum)
Tide Station
Time
HeightShoya, Erimo
15:44
3.5m
Miyako
15:26
Above 8.5m
Ofunato
15:18
Above 8.0m
Kamaishi
15:21
Above 4.2m
Ayukawa, Ishinomaki
15:26
Above 8.6m
Soma
15:51
Above 9.3m
Oarai
16:52
4.0m
6) Aftershocks: By August 2, 2012, there had been two aftershocks with a seismic intensity of “6Upper,” two “6 Lower” aftershocks, 11 “5 Upper” aftershocks, 37 “5 Lower” aftershocks, and 197
aftershocks on a scale of 4. There were also earthquakes on a scale of higher than “5 Upper”
outside the aftershock area, specifically in the northern part of Nagano Prefecture/Chuetsu regionin Niigata Prefecture, the eastern part of Shizuoka Prefecture, the northern interior region of Akita
4

This section is based on the homepage of Japan Meteorological Agency, Headquarters for Emergency Disaster
Response. (2012, August 28). Heisei 23 nen (2011) Tohoku-chiho Taiheiyo-Oki Jishin (Higashinihon Daishinsai) Ni
Tsuite (On The Great East Japan Earthquake 2011)., and an internal material provided by JRCS.

9

Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

Prefecture, the southern region of Ibaraki Prefecture, and the central region of Nagano Prefecture.

2.2 Disaster Damage(1) Human Cost
At first, it was said that the number of casualties of the disaster was over 25,000, but as of August
2, 2012, 18,715 casualties were reported due to the disaster. There are still many missing and thesearch for them has continued.

Prefecture
Hokkaido
Aomori
Iwate
Miyagi
Akita
Yamagata
Fukushima
Tokyo
IbarakiTochigi
Gunma
Saitama
Chiba
Kanagawa
Niigata
Yamanashi
NaganoShizuoka
Mie
Kochi
Total

Table 2.2 Situation of Casualties5
DeathsPeople Missing
1
3
1
4,671
1,206
9,525
1,426
2
1,606
211
7
24
1
4
1
20
2
4
15,8682,847

Injured
3
109
201
4,136
12
29
182
117
709
134
38
42
252
134
3
2
1
3
1
1
6,109

Source: Headquarters for Emergency Disaster Response. (2012, August 28). Heisei 23 nen (2011)
Tohoku-chiho Taiheiyo-Oki Jishin (Higashinihon Daishinsai) Ni Tsuite (On The Great East Japan
Earthquake 2011).

(2) Infrastructure and Property Damages
As shown in Table 2.3, nearly 400,000 buildings were completely or partially destroyed. It is
assumed that the large amount of road damage in Chiba Prefecture was due to the massive scaleof liquefaction that occurred there. In addition, about 24,000 hectares of farmland were flooded
due to the tsunami.

5This includes the casualties from earthquakes centering off the coast of Miyagi Prefecture (April 7, 2011),
Hamadori in Fukushima Prefecture (April 11, 2011), Nakadori in Fukushima Prefecture (April 12, 2011), thenortheast region of Chiba Prefecture (May 2, 2011), off the coast of Fukushima Prefecture (July 25 and 31,
August 12 and 19, and October 10, 2011), the north region of Ibaraki Prefecture (September 10, November 20,
2011 and February 19, 2012), and off the coast of Ibaraki Prefecture (March 1, 2012).

10

Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

Table 2.3 Infrastructure and Property Damages by Prefecture
Property damages
Prefecture
Hokkaido
Aomori
Iwate
Miyagi
Akita
Yamagata
Fukushima

Tokyo
IbarakiTochigi
Gunma
Saitama
Chiba

Total

Half

collapsecollapse

306
19,19985,2114701
5,013
151,01537
20,796
15
2,694
260
24
798

Kanagawa

Swept Total burn Partial burn Inundation above Inundation below
out

down

80
70,370198
24,296
2,108
7
194

down

77
1

1

floor level

329

545

15
135

1,761
15,475323
12,863

3

1,054

339

31

1,795

777

1
15

10,01039

floor level

1
157

727

Niigata
Yamanashi

5

Shizuoka

Gifu
Mie

Non-dwellinghouses7
835
8,671
223,961
3

469
1,362
4,776
34,531
3

159,515
4,847
185,958
71,163
17,246
1,800

1,116
1,101
18,662295

51,604
445
17
4
13

660
13
9

33

Break ofFire
Damaged Damaged Damaged
Landslides
dikes
breakout roads
bridges railways

5
34
135
1

2
12

2
30
390
9
21
187
295
307
257
36
160

16
6

2343
162

11
31
31

4
12

26

6
51

45

29
9
6

3
55
41
2

40
9

1

55
3

29

208

1

9
1

Tokushima

Kochi
Total

Partially
damaged129,340

264,035

0

279

2
2
2
20,5779
9
815,597726,089

63,048

284

4,200

116

45

Source: Headquarters for Emergency Disaster Response. (2012, August 28). Heisei 23 nen (2011) Tohoku-chiho
Taiheiyo-Oki Jishin (Higashinihon Daishinsai) Ni Tsuite (On The Great East Japan Earthquake 2011).

(3) Number of Shelters and Evacuees
Figure 2.1 shows the transition in the number of evacuees in the first three months after thedisaster. At its peak, more than 450,000 people were evacuated nationwide, of which 410,000
were in the three most affected prefectures in the Tohoku region alone. Shelters were establishedin more than 2,000 places at its peak. Most shelters were established in the three prefectures in
Tohoku immediately after the disaster, but those established outside these three prefectures
gradually increased. To date, most shelters have already been closed; however, more than
340,000 people still live in public/temporary housing or relatives’/friends’ homes (as of August 2,2012) 6.

6

As shown in Figure 2.1, the number of evacuees as of June 2011 was about 100,000, and it decreased to about
80,000 by August 2011. However, it was recorded as 340,000 in the documents released after June 2012. The
reason behind this number is not clear, but it might be because information on evacuees became clearer by June2012 and the move to temporary housing settlements had progressed.

11Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

Note: Three prefectures refer to Iwate, Miyagi and Fukushima.
Source: Cabinet Office, Government of Japan

Figure 2.1 Transition in the Number of Evacuees(4) Lifeline Damages
4.86 million houses or nearly the entire Tohoku region was without power due to outages. Lifeline
utilities stopped for a long period of time over a wide region.

Type
Electricity

Gas

Water
service

Table 2.4 Damage of Lifeline Utilities
Detailed breakdown Number of households
Recovery
without supply
Tohoku Electric
Approx. 4.86 million
Except for areas where houses werePowerhouseholds
swept away by the tsunami, all had been
restored by June 18, 2011
Tokyo Electric Power Approx. 4.05 million
Restoredhouseholds
Hokkaido Electric
Approx. 3 thousand
RestoredPowerhouseholds
Chubu Electric Power Approx. 400
Restoredhouseholds
General gas
420,000 households
Except for areas where houses were
swept away by the tsunami, all had been
restored by May 3, 2011.
Community gas
15,000 households
Restored
Iwate Prefecture
Approx. 80,000
Remaining 21,161 households (locatedhouseholds
in areas where houses were swept awayby the tsunami) without water (As of
March 23, 2012)
Miyagi Prefecture
Approx. 210,000
Remaining 21,317 households (locatedhouseholds
in areas where houses were swept awayby the tsunami) without water (As of
March 23, 2012)
Fukushima
Approx. 190,000
Remaining 2,728 households (located in
Prefecture
households
areas where houses were swept awayby the tsunami) without water (As of
March 23, 2012)
Ibaraki Prefecture
Approx. 470,000
Restored12Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

Tochigi Prefecture
Telephone Fixed-line phone(Analog and ISDN)
Mobile base stations

households
Approx. 40,000
Restoredhouseholds
Approx. 11,000 lines Except for certain areas, all had been
(Max. approx. 1 million restored by the end of April 2011lines)
Approx. 170 stations Except for certain areas, all had been
(Max. approx.14,800 restored by the end of April 2011
stations)

Sources: Based on Headquarters for Emergency Disaster Response. (2012, August 28). Heisei 23 nen (2011)
Tohoku-chiho Taiheiyo-Oki Jishin (Higashinihon Daishinsai) Ni Tsuite (On The Great East Japan Earthquake2011); websites of Tohoku Electric Power; Agency for Natural Resources and Energy; and Ministry of Internal
Affairs and Communications.

(5) Transportation Damages
1) Roads
As shown in Table 2.3, roads were damaged at 4,200 places, and bridges were damaged at 116
places. Suspension of traffic heavily affected rescue and restoration activities.
Table 2.5

Expressway
National Highway under the direct controlof the government
National Highway under the jurisdiction of
the Prefecture
Prefectural roads

Sections / Routes Closed
Closed roads as of October 2012
Damage(excluding the designated restricted
Overview
area due to the nuclear accident)
15 routes
0 routes
69 sections

0 sections

102 sections

1 sections

536 sections

40 sections

Source: Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism. (2011, April 18). Tohoku-chiho Taiheiyo Jishin No
Higaijyokyo To Doro No Yakuwari Ni Tsuite (On the damage situation of the Great East Japan Earthquake and roleof roads); and Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism. (2012, October 1). Higashinihon Daishinsai(vol.114) (The Great East Japan Earthquake (vol.114)).

2) Railroads
Including the damage caused by the earthquake that occurred on April 7, 2011 with a hypocenter
off the coast of Miyagi Prefecture, six Shinkansen bullet train lines, 165 conventional railroad lines
run by 39 companies went out of service completely or partially. As of October 2012, eight
conventional railroad lines by two companies were still completely or partially out of service7.
3)

Airports

With Sendai Airport, their runways hit by the tsunami, heading the list, a total of three airports that
included Hanamaki Airport and Ibaraki Airport were damaged. In addition, three airports at
Hanamaki, Yamagata, and Fukushima took charge of the 24-hour recovery support, and they,
including Sendai Airport, restarted regular operations during April-June, respectively8.
7

Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism. (2012, October 1). Higashinihon Daishinsai (vol.114)(The Great East Japan Earthquake (vol.114)).
8
Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism. (2012, October 1). Higashinihon Daishinsai (vol.114)

13

Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

4)

Harbors

51 harbors in Hokkaido, Aomori, Iwate, Miyagi, Fukushima, Ibaraki, Chiba, Kanagawa, Tokyo,
Niigata, and Shizuoka prefectures were damaged.
(6) Estimated Amount of Damage
According to the Cabinet Office, the estimated amount of damage in stock was 16.9 trillion yen(approx. 205.7 billion US dollars). The details are shown in Table 2.6.
Table 2.6 Estimated Amount of Damage
Category
Buildings(housing, residential lands, stores, offices, factories, machines, etc.)
Lifeline utilities(water supply, gas, electricity, communication and broadcast facilities)
Social infrastructure (rivers, roads, harbors, sewers, airports, etc.)
Agriculture, forestry and fisheries(agricultural land, facilities for agricultural use, forests and fields,
facilities related to fisheries, etc.)
Others(educational facilities, health and welfare facilities, waste disposal
facilities, and other public facilities)
Total

Amount of Damage
Approx. 10.4 trillion yen
Approx. 1.3 trillion yen
Approx. 2.2 trillion yen
Approx. 1.9 trillion yen

Approx. 1.1 trillion yen

Approx. 16.9 trillion yen

Note: The Cabinet Office (a group in charge of disaster prevention) summarized the data based on the given
information on the total amount of damaged stocks (buildings, lifeline facilities, social infrastructure facilities, etc.)from all prefectural and related government departments. The data may need to be modified accordingly as detailsof the incidents become clearer. In addition, the numbers are rounded off; therefore the total numbers may be
inconsistent.
Source: Headquarters for Emergency Disaster Response. (2012, August 28). Heisei 23 nen (2011) Tohoku-chiho
Taiheiyo-Oki Jishin (Higashinihon Daishinsai) Ni Tsuite (On The Great East Japan Earthquake 2011).

(7) Reconstruction Budget
The Government of Japan announced the “Basic Concept for Reconstruction” on July 29, 2011,and estimated the necessary reconstruction budget for the first five years, which was referred toas the “concentrated reconstruction period” in the concept, as approximately 19 trillion yen (approx.
231 billion US dollars). If this amount is simply divided by the population of Japan, 127.54 million
people9, the per capita share of the expenses would be about 150,000 yen (approx. US $1,826).

(The Great East Japan Earthquake (vol.114)).
9
Statistics Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, November, 2012.

14

Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

2.3 Overview of the Nuclear Accident10(1) Outline of the Accident
An unprecedented scale accident occurred at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station(hereinafter, Fukushima Daiichi NPS) of the Tokyo Electric Power Company, Incorporated(hereinafter, TEPCO) as a result of the earthquake and the tsunami on March 11. Fukushima
Daiichi NPS was unable to receive electricity from offsite power transmission lines mainly becauseof the damage to the breakers and the collapse of the power transmission line tower due to theearthquake. In all units, the seawater pump facilities for cooling auxiliary systems were submerged
and stopped functioning due to the tsunami. All emergency diesel power generators and the
distribution boards except for Unit 6, were inundated and stopped functioning. Losing the cooling
functions for the reactor core at 19:03 on the same day, the Japanese government declared anuclear emergency and established the Nuclear Emergency Response Headquarters headed by
the Prime Minister.
As water could not be injected into the nuclear reactor pressure vessels for a certain period of time,
reactor meltdown occurred at Unit 1, 2, and 3 because nuclear fuel was exposed due to thelowered water level. Over the next few days, it is presumed that hydrogen explosions occurred at
Unit 1, 3, and 4, and the reactor container was damaged at Unit 2. Recovery of power supply,
water injection to reactors and spent nuclear fuel pools, prevention of leakage of injected water
became the urgent need. As a detailed investigation on the ground cannot be conducted, thewhole picture of the accident has not yet been revealed.
The estimated amount of the radioactive materials discharged under this accident was about
900pBq (petabecquerel) in iodine conversion, which is about one sixth of that of the Chernobyl
accident. The annual integrated absorption dose of radiation rays is estimated to exceed 5mSV
(millisievert) in 1,800km 2 of land in Fukushima Prefecture.
(2) Evacuation of Residents
As a consequence of the accident, 12 cities, towns, and villages in Fukushima Prefecture became
the areas to which the government ordered evacuation; and in total, about 146,520 people
evacuated. On March 11, the evacuation order zone within a 3km radius and the in-houseevacuation zone within a 3-10km radius of Fukushima Daiichi NPS were established. On March 12,
the evacuation order zone was reset within a 20km radius; and on March 15, the in-house
10

This section is based on Nuclear Emergency Response Headquarters, Government of Japan. (2011, June).
Report of Japanese Government to the IAEA Ministerial Conference on Nuclear Safety- The Accident at TEPCO's
Fukushima Nuclear Power Stations.; The National Diet of Japan. (2012, June). The Official Report of Fukushima
Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission.; Investigation Committee on the Accident at the
Fukushima Nuclear Power Stations of TEPCO. (2012, July). Final Report by the Investigation Committee on the
Accident at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Stations of TEPCO; and the homepage of the Ministry of Economy,
Trade, and Industry.

15

Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

evacuation zone was enlarged to within a 20-30km radius of Fukushima Daiichi NPS. On March
25, the request for voluntary evacuation was announced for residents in the above mentioned
areas. Later on April 21, areas within a 20km radius was set as the restricted area by the Basic Act
on Disaster Control Measures, and on April 22, some parts of the in-house evacuation zone wereset as the deliberate evacuation area. Though evacuation orders in some areas have been lifted,
many residents are still left in evacuation.
Table 2.7 Evacuation Zones and Number of Evacuees Resulting from the Nuclear
Accident
Restricted Area
Deliberate Evacuation Emergency Evacuation
Total
Area
Preparation Area inCase of Emergency
Area
Within 20km radius from Areas outside the 20km Areas within 20-30km
radius excluding
Fukushima Daiichi
radius where
deliberate evacuation
Nuclear Power Station
accumulation dose isareas, among the areas
likely to reach 20mSv
still under the instruction
within a year
to stay in-house
Residents must always Eviction in order to
Details
Only staff engaged in
evacuate the area during be prepared for
emergency response
evacuation in case of an
measures allowed inside approximately one
emergency or anmonth
the area. Others mustin-house evacuation
leave this area
Current
On July 2012, parts of
On April and August
Designation cancelledsituation 2012, restricted areas
the areas were changed on September 2011were partly cancelled and to “Areas to which
evacuation
changed to “areas toorders are ready to bewhich evacuation
lifted,” “areas in which
orders are ready to beresidents are notlifted,” “areas in which
permitted to live,” andresidents are not“areas where it ispermitted to live,” andexpected that residents“areas where it iswill face difficulties in
expected that residents
returning for a long time”
will face difficulties in
returning for a long time”
Evacuees Approx. 78,000
Approx. 10,010
Approx. 58,510
Approx.
146,520
Source: Based on Nuclear Emergency Response Headquarters, Government of Japan. (2011, June). Report ofJapanese Government to the IAEA Ministerial Conference on Nuclear Safety- The Accident at TEPCO's
Fukushima Nuclear Power Stations.; The National Diet of Japan. (2012, June). The Official Report of Fukushima
Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission.; and the homepage of the Ministry of Economy, Trade,and Industry.

2.4 Overview of Domestic Assistance for Victims
Prior to examining the assistance from overseas in Chapter 3, this section reviews the overview ofdomestic assistance for victims. The following is based on reports by the Cabinet Office of theJapanese government, whose contents are mainly about assistance by the government. But inreality, local governments, JRCS, private business, NGOs/NPOs, other organizations and16Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

individuals also provided assistance. Regarding assistance from sources other than the national
government, only an overview of donations and volunteer activities are covered in this study11.
(1) Rescue Activities
A cumulative total of more than 10,890,000 people were dispatched from the National Police
Agency, the Fire and Disaster Management Agency, the Maritime Safety Agency, and Ministry of
Defense, and 27,157 people were rescued.

Institution
National Police
AgencyFire and Disaster
Management
AgencyJapan Coast
Guard
Ministry of Land,
Infrastructure,
Transport andTourism
Self-Defense
ForcesTable 2.8 Dispatched Rescue Team
Content of Dispatch
Interprefectural Emergency Rescue Unit, etc.: Total approx.102,300 people(as of August 27, 2012)
Helicopters used：Running total 566
Number of teams and people dispatched: Total 8,854 teams/ 30,684 people
Running total: 31,166 teams / 109,919 people(Maximum dispatched at once 1,870 teams / 6,835 people)(Dispatched Period : March 11- June 6, 2011 (88 days))(Running total): 17,377 patrol boats, etc., 5,460 airplanes, 2,492 people as
special rescue teams, etc. (as of August 27, 2012)
Technical Emergency Control Force (TEC-FORCE): running total 18,115
people dispatched
Equipment to deal with natural calamities (lighting vehicles, drainage pumpvehicles, satellite communication vehicles, countermeasures office vehicles,etc.): Running total 31,948 vehicles dispatched (as of August 6, 2012)
Dispatch for large-scale earthquake disasters (as of December 26, 2011):
running total approximately 10,580,000 people(Maximum number of people dispatched approximately 107,000 per day)(Dispatch Period : March 11 - August 31, 2011 (174 days))*Dispatch for nuclear disaster: Running total approximately 80,000(Dispatched Period : March 11 - December 26, 2011 (291 days))

Source: Headquarters for Emergency Disaster Response. (2012, August 28). Heisei 23 nen (2011) Tohoku-chiho
Taiheiyo-Oki Jishin (Higashinihon Daishinsai) Ni Tsuite (On The Great East Japan Earthquake 2011).

(2) Medical Assistance
As shown in Table 2.9, a cumulative total of 35,062 medical personnel were dispatched.

11

For more information on the domestic assistance, refer to the following materials. Headquarters for Emergency
Disaster Response. (2012, August 28). Heisei 23 nen (2011) Tohoku-chiho Taiheiyo-Oki Jishin (Higashinihon
Daishinsai) Ni Tsuite (On The Great East Japan Earthquake 2011).; and homepages of JRCS
(http://www.jrc.or.jp/index.html), JANIC (http://www.janic.org/earthquake/), Japan Civil Network(http://www.jpn-civil.net/), and Tasukeai Japan (http://tasukeaijapan.jp/).

17

Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

Table 2.9
Teams
DMAT (Disaster Medical
Assistance Team)
Medical teams other than
DMAT

Pharmacists
NursesDental staff
Physical therapists

License holders inhealthcare
Psychological care teams
Nursing care staff

Dispatched Medical Assistance Teams
Summary of AssistanceApprox. 340 teams, 1,500 staffs from all over Japan
Duration of activity: March 11-22 (12 days)
Total: 12,385 staffs (2,720 teams)(From the Japan Medical Association, All Japan Hospital Association,
Association of Japan Healthcare Corporations, National Hospital
Organization, National Center for Global Health and Medicine, JRCS,
Social Welfare Organization Sanseikai Imperial Gift Foundation, Japan
Labour Health and Welfare Organization (Rosai Hospitals), University ofOccupational and Environmental Health, Japan (University Hospitals of
Occupational and Environmental Health, Japan), All Japan Federation ofSocial Insurance Associations (Social Insurance Hospitals), andEmployees’ Pension Welfare Corporation (Kosei Nenkin) Hospitals) (asof March 22, 2012)
Total: 1,915 staff members (from Japan Pharmaceutical Association and
the Japan Society of Hospital Pharmacists)(as of August 5, 2011)
Total: 1,394 staff members (from the Japanese Nursing Association,
Japanese Psychiatric Nurses Association, and National Hospital
Organization) (As of August 2, 2011)
Total: 307 staff members (from organizations related to the Japan Dental
Association) (as of August 5, 2011)
Total: 223 staff members (Japanese Physical Therapy Association,
Japanese Association of Occupational Therapists, and Japanese
Association of Speech-Language-Hearing-Therapists） (as of October 7,
2011)
Total: 11,267 staff members (230 teams) (as of March 23, 2012）
Total: 3,498 staff members (57 teams) (as of March 23, 2012)
Situation of Dispatch: 2,573 staff members (As of January 25, 2012)(Iwate 446 staff member, Miyagi 1,404 staff members, Fukushima 723
staff members)

Source: Headquarters for Emergency Disaster Response. (2012, August 28). Heisei 23 nen (2011) Tohoku-chiho
Taiheiyo-Oki Jishin (Higashinihon Daishinsai) Ni Tsuite (On The Great East Japan Earthquake 2011).

(3) Relief Supplies
Maritime Safety Agency, Ministry of Defense, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications,
Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, andFishery, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport, and Tourism, Ministry of the Environment, andMinistry of Finance provided and transported relief supplies.

18

Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

Category
Food supply anddrinking water

Household goods

Fuels

Table 2.10 Major Relief Supplies Distributed
Supply List
Bread (piece)
Instant noodle (pack)
Rice ball, rice cake, packed rice (serving)
Rice (serving)
Others (canned food, etc.) (serving)
Total food supply
Drinking water (Bottle)
Toilet paper (roll)
Blanket (piece)
Diaper (piece)
Nonprescription medicine (box)
Mask (piece)
Fuel (liter)

Result9,391,373
2,557,730
3,501,074
3,357,313
7,401,744
26,209,234
7,937,171
379,695
409,672
395,521240,314
4,380,442
16,031,000

Note: This is the final result of emergency supplies provided by national teams in charge of assisting the lives ofdisaster victims from March 11 to April 20, 2011. From April 21, 2011, the responsibilities to supply and deliver
goods were transferred to prefectural governments. The above summarized data is the goods supplied anddelivered only by the national teams while prefectural governments also have been supplying and delivering
goods.
Source: Headquarters for Emergency Disaster Response. (2012, August 28). Heisei 23 nen (2011) Tohoku-chiho
Taiheiyo-Oki Jishin (Higashinihon Daishinsai) Ni Tsuite (On The Great East Japan Earthquake 2011).

(4) Temporary Housing
According to the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport, and Tourism, more than 50,000
temporary housing units were constructed, and except for Fukushima Prefecture, construction
was completed as of October 1, 2012.

Prefectures
Iwate
Miyagi
Fukushima
IbarakiTochigi
Chiba
NaganoTable 2.11 Construction Status of Temporary Housing
Number of Houses
Number of Houses
Number of Houses
Required
Under Construction
Completed
13,984
13,984
13,98422,09522,09522,095
17,954
16,80016,775
10
10
10
20
20
20
230
230
230
55
55
55

Source: Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism. (2012, October 1). Oukyu Kasetsu Jutaku
Chakkou Kansei Jokyo (Situation of Construction and Completion Status of the Temporary Housing.

In addition, according to the Cabinet Office, 65,055 national public officers’ housing and public
housing were available, and out of this figure, 19,359 housing units had been provided to thevictims (as of August 6, 2012, Reconstruction Agency). Also, out of 38,767 Employment Promotion
Housing available, 7,473 housing units had been allocated to the victims (as of March 22, 2012,
Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare).

19Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake(5) Donations and Volunteer Works
1) Donations
As shown in the Table below, the total amount of domestic donations received by JRCS, CCCJ,
Cabinet Office, cooperatives, JPF, and Nippon Foundation was about 397 billion yen (partly
includes donations from overseas) as of January 201312. In addition to this, NGOs, foundations,and religious organizations collected a large amount of donations, and some of them collected
hundred millions to billions. Thus, the cumulative total is assumed to be more than 400 billion yen.
Table 2.12 Data on Donations
AcceptanceAgencyNumber of
Cases
2,893,882

Amount (Yen)323,669,593,161

JRCS
CCCJ
CabinetOffice

Type

9,200

40,639,161,652
3,335,588,670-

17,173,000,000

Cashdonations(for Cash
Grant
Programme)

Cashdonations(general andfor Cash
Grant
Programme)

Cooperative
Associations

43,295

6,943,113,902

JPF
The Nippon
Foundation-

5,230,399,347

TOTAL

-

396,990,856,732

Cashdonations(general)

Remarks
Includes donations from overseas
but does not include donations from
RC/RC partner national societies.
(as of Jan. 25, 2013)(as of Jan. 23, 2013)
Partly includes foreign aids provided
through MOFA (as of Aug. 31, 2012)
Total for cooperative associations
including Japanese Consumers’
Co-operative Union and cooperative
unions of agriculture, fisheries,
forestry, labor etc. and credit unions.
According to the Japan National
Planning Committee forInternational Year of Cooperatives
2012. (as of May/June, 2011)
Includes donations from overseas(as of Nov. 31, 2012. The number ofcases is as of Mar. 2012).
Donations from both in and out ofJapan. (as of Sep. 18, 2012)

Source: Based on homepages of the above organizations.

The collection period for the above mentioned donations differs from the target period of this study(on assistance from overseas), specifically, one year from the disaster (until the end of March2012). However, in calculating the amount collected in only one year from the disaster, the amountwas 352.1 billion yen for the JRCS and CCCJ, 6,835,992,863 yen for the JPF, and 4,966,101,059
yen for the Nippon Foundation, except for the amount collected by the Cabinet Office which was
not available. Thus, the difference from the total amount is about 3%, namely, 12.3 billion yen.
Therefore, it can be said that most donations were given within one year from the disaster.

12

Collection period by each organization varied. Some collected until June 2011, and some were still receiving asof January 2013. For reference, the donations collected by JRCS for the Great Hanshin Awaji Earthquake of 1995
was about 101 billion yen, 2,645,040 cases.

20Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

Donations to be directly distributed to the affected people (“cash grant programme”) have beensequentially forwarded to the “Grant Disbursement Committee” of each prefecture, and theCommittee has distributed it to each city, town, and village, and to each affected person. By thetime of this study, 98% of the total amount had already been distributed13. Another type of
donation usage is to allocate it for rehabilitation and reconstruction projects. This is done by eachorganization.

2）Volunteer works
Twenty-four, 12, and 28 volunteer centers were established in Iwate, Miyagi, and Fukushima
Prefectures, respectively. The number of people, who did volunteer work through these centers,
amounted to 947,000 people (about 339,100 people in Iwate, 460,900 people in Miyagi, and147,000 people in Fukushima) as of March 23, 2012 (Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare).

2.5 Characteristics of the Great East Japan Earthquake14
There are seven characteristics of the disaster.
1) Damage was immense and massive.
Due to the gigantic tsunami and the earthquake that affected a massive area, damage wasalso immense and widespread. The most affected was the three prefectures of Iwate,
Miyagi, and Fukushima, but the Kanto region (which includes the Tokyo metropolitan area)
was also affected badly by the earthquake, tsunami, liquefaction, and suspension oftransportation, which caused difficulties for commuters returning home.
2) It was a “complex disaster” of earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear accident.
Unprecedented scale earthquake, tsunami and nuclear accident occurred simultaneously,
which made the rescue and countermeasure activities even more difficult. In particular, thenuclear accident required different countermeasures than those for natural disasters as it
takes a longer time to settle the situation and the evacuation also lasts longer. The
information on the damage caused by the accident and evacuation order kept changing, andthat made the rescue/support activities harder.
3) Most of the human cost was caused by the tsunami. The damage caused by the earthquake
itself was small.
Most victims drowned. The extent of the damage was mainly distinguished by geographic
contour. The rehabilitation needs and reconstruction stages of the tsunami-affected andnon-affected areas were widely different. On the other hand, the damage by earthquake
was conspicuous in areas other than human cost such as suspension of factory operations.
13

Based on homepages of JRCS, CCCJ, and the Cabinet Office.
Based on The World Bank .The Great East Japan Earthquake: Learning from Megadisasters, Knowledge Notes(Executive Summary).; JPF. Solidarity and Sympathy across the Borders.; JRCS. Japan: Earthquake andTsunami: 12 Month Report.; and another internal report provided by JRCS.

14

21

Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake4) The disaster hit the depopulated region in an aging society.
The affected area of Tohoku region had undergone an aging of population and depopulation.
For this reason, the isolation of each affected area has been one of the issues inreconstruction. In many of the affected cities, towns and villages, the proportion of elderly
people aged 65 or over of the total population exceeded 30%.
5) Administrative disaster relief functions were lost.
Local government offices and public health centers that were to lead the disaster relief
activities were hit severely and lost their capacity to function. Thus, the ability to grasp theextent of damage and coordinate relief activities did not go as planned in the manual.
6) Directly or indirectly, not only the East Japan, but also the entire country was greatly affectedsocioeconomically.
During the initial stage following the disaster, interruption of communication services,
disorder of the commodity distribution system due to damaged production lines and logistics,
and planned power outage and power saving due to the power shortage affected greatly thesocioeconomic situation in Japan. Over the longer term, contamination of farm and marine
products and drinking water, and damage caused by harmful rumors after the nuclear
accident have had a huge negative socioeconomic impact. Long-term examination isneeded on the adverse effects on human health and the effect of prolonged evacuation due
to the nuclear accident.
7) The disaster occurred in a developed country.
From the perspective of overseas assistance, aid-providing/receiving systems were different
from the usual pattern in which a developing country receives the assistance, because thedisaster happened in a developed country, which usually provides and does not receive theassistance. For example, once a disaster occurred in a country which receives development
assistance regularly, international donors especially the UN take the lead in joint needs
assessment and relief coordination, while in Japan, the central government plays this roleeven during emergencies, and provides primary relief support.

22

Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

3. ASSISTANCE FROM OVERSEAS

Although Japan has the third largest Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in the world and it is one of
the major donor countries, it received enormous overseas assistance of both financial and in-kind(material and human resources) forms in the aftermath of the Great East Japan Earthquake. This
study reveals that Japan received financial and/or in-kind contributions from governments,
individuals and groups from a total of 174 countries and regions15. Table 3.1 shows the list of
countries and regions that provided financial and/or in-kind assistance.
Table 3.1 List of Countries and Regions that Provided Financial/Material/Human
resources Assistance in the Aftermath of the Great East Japan Earthquake16(in Japanese alphabetical order)
East Asia

South Asia
Central Asia,
Caucasus
Sub-SaharanAfricaMiddle East,
North Africa
Central andSouthAmerica

Oceania
EuropeIndonesia, Republic of Korea, Cambodia, Democratic People's Republic of Korea,
Singapore, Thailand, Taiwan, China, Timor Leste, Philippines, Brunei, Vietnam, Hong
Kong, Macau, Malaysia, Myanmar, Mongolia, Laos
India, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, MaldivesAzerbaijan, Armenia, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kirgizstan, Georgia, Tajikistan

18

Angola, Uganda, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Ghana, Gabon, Cameroon, Guinea ,Kenya,
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Zambia, Sierra Leone, Djibouti, Zimbabwe,
Sudan, Seychelles, Senegal, Tanzania, Togo, Nigeria, Namibia, Niger, Burkina Faso,
Benin, Botswana, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, South Africa, Mauritius, Mauritania,
Mozambique, Rwanda
Afghanistan, United Arab Emirates, Algeria, Israel, Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Oman, Qatar,
Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey, Bahrain, Palestinian Authority,
Morocco, Jordan, Lebanon
Argentina, Antigua and Barbuda, Uruguay, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guiana, Cuba,
Guatemala, Grenada, Costa Rica, Colombia, Jamaica, St. Christopher and Nevis, St.
Lucia, Chile, Dominican Republic, Trinidad and Tobago, Nicaragua, Panama,
Bahama, Paraguay, Barbados, Brazil, Venezuela, Belize, Peru, Bolivia, Honduras,
MexicoAustralia, Kiribati, Samoa, Solomon islands, Tuvalu, Tonga, New Zealand, Vanuatu,
Papua New Guinea, Palau, Fiji, Marshall Islands, Micronesia
Iceland, Ireland, Albania, Andorra, United Kingdom, Italy, Ukraine, Estonia, Austria,
Netherlands, Cyprus, Greece, Croatia, Kosovo, St. Marino, Switzerland, Sweden,
Spain, Slovakia, Slovenia, Serbia, Czech Republic、Denmark, Germany, Norway,
Vatican, Hungary, Finland, France, Bulgaria, Belarus, Belgium, Poland,
Bosnia-Herzegovina, Portugal, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Malta,

33

7
7

19

29

13
46

15

This number excludes the cases where concrete amount of financial assistance was not confirmed or
assistance was not confirmed as accepted even though the MOFA of Japan recorded these countries as countries
that pledged or provided assistance.
16
Based on MOFA. (2012). Japan’s ODA White Paper 2011 and MOFA’s classification of countries/regions on its
website. Assistance from overseas territories and overseas provinces was considered as from the countries they
belonged to. Assistance from private businesses, groups, and NGOs where their countries were not identified wascategorized as assistance from multiple countries or assistance from the country where the organization has its
headquarters.

23

Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

North
America

Monaco, Moldova, Montenegro,
Luxemburg, Russia
United States, Canada

Latvia,Lithuania,

Liechtenstein,

Romania,2

Total: 174 Countries/Regions

The table above excludes cases where 1) assistance was not accepted or not confirmed as
accepted even if it was pledged; 2) the information did not identify the country to which theassistance originated from (such as assistance from multiple countries not specifying the
breakdown of the countries and assistance from individuals); 3) assistance was provided outsideof the target period (from April 2012 onwards); and 4) assistance was not confirmed as accepted
even if there were expressions of sympathy. It also excludes countries and regions if assistance
was not confirmed as accepted even though assistance was given by organizations whose
membership include these countries/regions, such as districts of the Rotary Club17.
There is great diversity among the countries and regions that provided assistance. In terms of
GDP (2011, current US$, World Bank), they vary from 35 million dollars from Tuvalu to 15 trillion
dollars from the United States. In terms of GDP per capita (2011, current US$, World Bank), theyvary from 230 dollars from DR Congo to 115,000 from Luxembourg. In terms of population (2011,
World Bank), they vary from less than 10,000 from Tuvalu to 1.3 billion from China.
Other than the above, assistance was offered from 43 international organizations listed below,
according to the MOFA of Japan18.

17

There were 12 countries and regions (Cape Verde, Guinea-Bissau, Cook Islands, Cote d'Ivoire, Comoro,
Surinam, Swaziland, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Commonwealth of Dominica, Haiti, Liberia, and South
Sudan) where assistance was confirmed as accepted only from the Rotary Club districts which these countries
were members.
18
Out of these 43 organizations, this study confirmed 18 organizations actually provided assistance. This is partly
because; 1) some cases of assistance from the staff of international organizations were recorded as assistancefrom “individuals” or “groups” in the information sources and the study could not identify the names of internationalorganizations; and 2) not all assistance offered from international organizations may have been accepted as they
provide assistance based on a request from the government of Japan. In addition to the 18 agencies mentioned
above, this study confirmed cash donations from the staff of seven other international organizations.

24Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

Table 3.2 List of International Organizations that Offered Assistance
Asian Development Bank (ADB), African Development Bank (AfDB), Association of South East Asian
Nations (ASEAN), Organization of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC), Caribbean
Community, Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization(CTBTO), Energy Charter Secretariat, European Union (EU), Food and Agriculture Organization(FAO), Global Environment Facility, Gas Exporting Countries Forum (GECF), International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA), International Criminal Police Organization (ICPO), International Committee of
the Red Cross (ICRC), Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), International Energy Agency (IEA),International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC), International Labour
Organization (ILO), International Narcotics Control Board (INBC), International Organization for
Migration (IOM), International Science and Technology Center (ISTC), International
Telecommunications Satellite Organization (ITSO), International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO),
International Telecommunication Union (ITU), Mercosur, North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO),UN Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development (OECD), The United Nations Disaster Assessment and Coordination (UNDAC),
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP),
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), United Nations Educational, Scientific andCultural Organization (UNESCO), United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), United Nations Human
Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT), United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), United Nations
Volunteers (UNV), Universal Postal Union (UPU), World Bank, World Customs Organization (WCO),World Food Programme (WFP), World Health Organization (WHO), World Trade Organization
（WTO）

43

Source: MOFA website.

Assistance was provided not only from the public sector such as governments and internationalorganizations, but also from NGOs, private businesses, religious groups, and individuals. This
chapter examines donor attributes and contents, timing, and volume of assistance from overseas.
In addition, the challenges that were faced when receiving such assistance and the measures thatwere taken are reviewed. These challenges are based on major comments provided in theanswers to the questionnaire survey and during the field visit.

3.1 Financial Assistance(1) Donor Attributes of Financial Assistance
There were two ways in which financial assistance from overseas were utilized: 1) cash grant
directly distributed to the affected people through JRCS, ICCCJ, etc.; and 2) donation, funds andgrants used for rehabilitation and reconstruction activities by such organizations as JRCS and
NGOs. The total financial assistance was approximately 164 billion yen19. This figure may need tobe revised upward to around 60 billion yen. Specifically, even in cases where the study obtained
information from donors (for example, “corporation XX donated YY dollars”), if the recipients could
not be confirmed, such information was excluded from the survey. This is to avoid overlapping
figures, since the study may have already checked and calculated the recipient information (for19

As mentioned in Chapter 1, this study does not calculate the monetary values of in-kind contributions, nor
include such values in calculating the value of financial assistance.

25

Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

example, “YY dollars was received from business/group in country ZZ”)20. The amount, 164 billion
yen, is equivalent to approximately 40% of the donations collected domestically explained in
Chapter 2 of this report. It further shows that Japan was the largest recipient of emergency
assistance from the international community in 2011 (calendar year), although an exact
comparison is difficult because of the difference in target periods21.
There were 174 countries and regions that provided financial assistance, which meant that all of
the countries/regions mentioned earlier as having provided assistance in financial and/or in-kindforms provided financial assistance. Figure 3.1 shows the number of cases and Table 3.3 shows
the amount of financial assistance by donor attributes22.

20

While a certain amount of the excluded figures is considered as actually overlapping since the majority offinancial assistance tend to be made through organizations such as JRCS and Red Cross in each country fromwhich the study already obtained information. Nevertheless, there were many other cases where assistance was
directly provided to individual NGOs and local governments; thus, it is likely that a certain amount of the excluded
figures did not actually overlap, and this may require an upward revision of the total figure of the financial
assistance received.
21
According to OCHA. See below (3) Timing of Financial Assistance for further details.
22“Governments and international organizations” include governments, Diet, Congress, Parliament, ministries andgovernment offices, national armed forces, embassies, local governments, Presidents, Kings, and internationalorganizations. Where there were cases that groups of interested staff of these agencies provided assistance,some were recorded as from “governments and international organizations” and others were recorded as“individuals” based on the records of remittance, etc. “Non-governmental donors” include all except agencies
mentioned above as “governments and international organizations”, namely, Red Cross and Red Crescentsocieties of each country, NGOs, foundations, private companies, all sorts of other groups, and individuals. It also
includes assistance provided jointly by agencies classified in multiple categories. Cases where governments
provided financial assistance through Red Cross and Red Crescent societies may be recorded as“non-governmental”. Assistance from private companies and individuals was mostly made through Red Cross and
Red Crescent societies and other organizations and it is not possible to trace the original donors; thus, this study
used only two categories; “governments and international organizations” and “non-governmental donors”.
The number of cases given is a rough estimate, since it is based on the number recorded by each organization thatprovided information to this study. Some recipient organizations counted each of the multiple remittances from thesame one agency. Some recipient organizations counted all forms of assistance provided by overseas parties as
one case, and others counted assistance provided from general public including businesses and groups together.
The same applies to in-kind contributions.

26

Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

Table 3.3 Amount by Donor Attributes(Yen)23
Donor
Governments andInternational
Organizations
Non-governmental
Donors
Total
Source: Study Team

Amount (Yen)
55,933,377,466

107,965,703,415
163,899,080,881

Source: Study Team

Figure 3.1 Number of Cases by Donor
Attributes

As mentioned above, in terms of the number of assistance cases, donors were mostly
non-governmental. Funds were given and collected by wide-ranging individuals and groups.
Except for governments and international organizations, individuals, private businesses, NGOs
and foundations were main donors, and donations were collected by the Red Cross and Red
Crescent Society in each country, NGOs, private businesses, foundations, and various otherorganizations.
NGOs included organizations specialized in disaster relief such as Mercy Corps and AmeriCaresfrom the United States, and other organizations that have branches/sister organizations in Japansuch as World Vision, Save the Children, UNICEF national Committees, and Salvation Army.
Religious organizations and voluntary social service organizations such as Rotary Club and LionsClub collected great amount of donation, utilizing their worldwide network. Similarly, fundraisingorganizations such as counterparts of CCCJ in Korea and Taiwan and United Way collected
donations. There were also charity fundraising websites like Global Giving which introduce relief
activities by NGOs and collect donations for them.
There was financial assistance based on worldwide Japanese network. Donations were collectedby organizations such as hospitals and schools that had been supported by Japan, alumni of
training programs supported by Japan and other people, who had once received Japanese
assistance, local governments including sister cities, friendship associations, Japanese/Nikkei
associations in each country, overseas associations of people from the same prefecture,associations of Japanese students studying abroad, alumni associations, and others. There was
23

The amount that was only pledged but the fund was already secured and the amount that was not actuallyremitted, but the donation was already collected by overseas NGOs earmarked for the Great East Japan
Earthquake were partly included. The value excludes the pledged amount if the study could not confirm theactual acceptance or secured fund. This study used the amount in yen when the original information only
provided the amount in yen. When the amount was provided in currencies in individual countries or in both yen
and individual currencies, the study converted the amount into yen at the International Monetary Fund (IMF) rateon March 30, 2012. As there is no IMF rate for the Taiwan dollar, the study used the rate of Taiwan dollar to US
dollar by the Bank of Japan in March 2012.

27

Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

also financial assistance through business partnerships and sister organizations. For example,
there was assistance from consumer cooperatives from each country, International Co-operative
Alliance, Norwegian Seafood Council, agriculture cooperative societies in Paraguay and thePhilippines, and forestry and livestock cooperatives abroad. Business groups also provided
assistance. For example, chambers of commerce and industry in many countries, Japanesechambers of commerce and industry overseas, and foreign chambers of commerce and industry
in Japan collected donations.
Many private companies not only made contributions on their own, but also contributed through amatching program in which the corporation contributed the amount matching the donations raisedby its employees, effectively doubling the amount of the total donation. The United Nations Global
Compact Office encouraged its participating organizations (it has more than 10,000 participants
and out of them, about 7,000 are business participants) to support the affected people through theJapan Platform. As donations were provided from individual private businesses/organizations,Japan Platform did not comprehend how many Global Compact participants responded to theappeal by the Global Compact Office; however, many donations were given by many private
businesses/organizations in many countries.
Although this study did not analyze the details about the original providers of the donations, it
should be noted that many individuals working at private businesses, international organizations,embassies, etc. donated to the JRCS, Red Cross/Red Crescent Societies in many countries, andJapanese overseas diplomatic establishments. Interested citizens and groups or prominent figures
also made enormous contributions. These included fund-raising activities on the street, at stores,
offices, and schools, public servants in Mongolia and staff at the Embassy of Bangladesh in Japan
donating one-day income, charity bazaars, concerts, and exhibitions, four biathletes donating theirwhole winning prizes at the world championship, all ballplayers of four Taiwanese professional
baseball teams donated their one-day income, and others. It can be said that many people in theworld tried to find their own way to contribute to relief efforts. Internet and social media accelerated
these efforts by communicating appeals, which generated a global response.
Although this is also outside of the target of this study, supporting the affected areas by buying
local goods from the area has been done globally as well as domestically24. For example, in June
2011, a president of a private business in Oman, who is the head of a tribe, ordered 2.6 billion yen
of water purifiers from Ochiai-Koki in Minamisoma City in Fukushima Prefecture. This helped thecompany continue its operation by creating jobs despite the harsh business conditions brought
about by the nuclear accident.

24

Japan Platform. (2012). Solidarity and Sympathy across the Borders.

28Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake(2) Financial Assistance According to Regional Figures
Figure 3.2 and 3.3 show the amount and number of cases of financial assistance by region.
Regional figures show that the Middle East and North Africa, and North America provided thelargest amount at around 30% of the total assistance. The figures for the Middle East and North
African countries are explained by a large amount of assistance provided by governments ofoil-producing countries. The Kuwaiti and Qatar governments in particular provided a large amountof assistance, 40 billion yen and 100 million dollars (approx. 8.2 billion yen) respectively, though
the total number of assistance cases from this region was relatively low (eighth out of ten regions,
including international organizations and assistance made by entities represented by multiple
regions). North America ranked third in terms of the number of cases, with larger per-case amountin comparison with other regions. Europe had the largest number of assistance cases, while East
Asia ranked third in terms of amount, and ranked second in terms of the number of cases (seeBOX 1 “Relief Efforts Spread by Entertainment Celebrities in Neighboring Countries”).

Source: Study Team

Figure 3.2 Amount of Financial Assistance by Region

29Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

Source: Study Team

Figure 3.3 Number of Financial Assistance Cases by Region30Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake25

BOX 1 Relief Efforts Spread by Entertainment Celebrities in Neighboring Countries

The value of financial assistance both from the public and private sectors in Korea, China, Taiwan,
Singapore, and Hong Kong amounted to approximately 23.3 billion yen. This includes the support
from entertainment celebrities of these countries, who are also popular in Japan, and the support
given through their personal appeals.
From Korea, with actor Bae Yong Joon, who donated 1 billion won (approx. 70 million yen) at thehead of the list, actors Song Seung Heon, Ryu Siwon, and Choi Jiwoo donated 200 million won(approx. 15 million yen), respectively. The production company of BIGBANG, a popular singer
group, donated 500 million won (approx. 37 million yen) and KARA, another popular group, alsoannounced their intent to donate the entire sales of its new piece at the time.
In Taiwan, more than 100 celebrities joined a charity TV program on March 18. Vivian Hsu donated 1
million Taiwan dollars (approx. 2.8 million yen) on March 16. A famous MC, Mickey Huang,coordinated a charity auction on March 24, with the participation of Kevin Tsai, Jiang Youbo,
Stefanie Sun, and many others for a total of 53 participants, and announced their intent to donate atleast 530,000 RMB (approx. 6.5 million yen) to Japan.
In Hong Kong, the movie star, Jackie Chan organized a charity concert named “ Love Beyond
Borders” on April 1, and more than 170 entertainment celebrities performed in front of an audienceof 10,000 people. The entire profit of about 3 million US dollars (approx. 240 million yen) was
pledged as a donation.
The singer from Hong Kong, Eason Chan, gave an encouraging message to his Japanese fans at aconcert in China. A Taiwanese actress, Hsu Chi, also gave a consolation message on her micro blog
(twitter in China) and tried power saving by herself.

The study also examined financial assistance by ODA and non-ODA recipient countries. Figure
3.4 and 3.5 show the number of cases and amount respectively, by ODA recipients andnon-recipients26.

25

Extracted from WoWKorea http://www.wowkorea.jp/news/enter/2011/0317/10081421.html; Record China
http://www.recordchina.co.jp/group.php?groupid=50229; and others.
26
Classification of ODA recipients and non-recipients is based on Japan’s ODA White Paper 2011. Although
South Sudan was not mentioned as an ODA recipient in Japan’s ODA White Paper 2011 as it became
independent in July 2011, the study classified it as a recipient country according to the actual situation.

31

Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

Source: Study Team

Figure 3.4 Number of Cases of Financial
Assistance by ODA
recipients/Non-recipients

Source: Study Team

Figure 3.5 Amount of Financial
Assistance by ODA
recipients/Non-recipients

Most of the financial contributions were made by developed countries (i.e. non-ODA recipient
countries). However, in terms of the number of assistance cases, ODA-recipient countries
accounted for about 30% of all cases. Although financial assistance from ODA recipient countries
is smaller than developed countries, a large number of ODA recipient countries provided
assistance, resulting in the large number of 174 donor countries/regions.
The amount per case varied from 1,000 yen to 40 billion yen, and the median was about 4.1
million yen. In terms of total amount per country27 (including both public and private sectors), 17
countries/regions ( 7 in East Asia, 4 in Europe, 3 in Middle East & North Africa, 2 in North America,and 1 in Oceania) provided more than 1 billion yen. Among these, the United States and Kuwait
provided more than 40 billion yen, and Taiwan provided more than 10 billion yen.
(3) Timing of the Financial Assistance
Figure 3.6 and 3.7 show a record of financial assistance according to the timing of the support28. It
should be noted that the exact timing of one-third of the assistance, both in terms of the number ofcases and the amount, was not clear; thus, those with partial information on timing were indicatedas “Up to xx Month, ” and those without any information on timing (324 cases, about 45 billion yen)were excluded from the analysis.
Analysis results revealed that financial assistance was concentrated in the first three months after
the disaster, demonstrating the prompt response of the world. In contrast, assistance was also
provided continuously throughout the year. In January 2012, reconstruction funds of
27

This excludes the assistance by multiple countries.
The study used the information of the receipt date whenever available. In case that receipt date was notavailable, the date of announcement of the assistance was used. If both of the above were unavailable, the date ofpress release was used. When the exact date was unavailable such as “March 2011”, the assistance wascategorized as received at the end of the stated month.

28

32

Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

approximately 40 billion yen was established in the three most affected prefectures from the saleof the crude oil donated by the government of Kuwait from October 2011. The government of
Qatar, which pledged a hundred million dollars soon after the disaster, established the “Qatar
Friendship Fund” and started supporting the restoration of the marine products industry from 2012.
These funds are utilized in reconstruction activities from a long-term perspective.
According to the UN OCHA, Somalia received the largest amount of humanitarian relief29 of
868,139,570 US dollars during 2011 (equivalent to 71.3 billion yen at the exchange rate used forthis study) 30. As the target period of this study differs from that of OCHA, and information on thetiming of the assistance was only partially available, it was not possible to calculate the total
amount of financial assistance given to the Great East Japan Earthquake in 2011. The UN
announced at the time of disaster that Japan would receive more humanitarian relief from theinternational community in 2011 than any other country, and it would be safe to say this was
accurate based on the figures and trend analyzed above.

29

This does not include regular development assistance. For reference, according to the statistics by OECD DAC,
Afghanistan received the largest amount of ODA of 5,751 million dollars (net disbursement) in 2011. The quoted
amount, humanitarian relief of 868 million US$ that Somalia received was equivalent to the 18th largest ODA
amount in the OECD statistics.
30
The second was Sudan at 741,497,675 dollars. The Great East Japan Earthquake was the third at 722,997,114
dollars in OCHA statistics. Financial Tracking Service (FTS). Global Summary for 2011.
http://fts.unocha.org/pageloader.aspx?page=emerg-globalOverview&Year=201133

Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

Source: Study Team

Figure 3.6 Number of Financial Assistance Cases According to Timing

34

Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

Source: Study Team

Figure 3.7 Amount of Financial Assistance According to Timing(4) Financial Assistance Channels
About 40% of the total number of cases and three-fourths of the total assistance amount were
provided through JRCS. This includes part of the assistance provided to Japanese overseas
diplomatic establishments. Financial assistance through JRCS includes 1) cash grant which was
directly distributed to the people affected; 2) cash donation from the Red Cross and Red Crescentpartner national societies and other organizations that are utilized for JRCS relief and recovery
programmes, and 3) the above mentioned Kuwaiti funds used for prefectural recovery projects.
Other channels include organizations that provide grants to NGOs such as JPF, JANIC, andNippon Foundation, Japanese branches/sister organizations of international NGOs, NGOs that35

Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

usually operate in developing countries, private businesses, cooperative societies and businessgroups, religious organizations, voluntary social service organizations such as Rotary Club andLions Club, and sister cities. In some cases, assistance was directly provided to the affected local
governments.

Source: Study Team

Figure 3.8 Financial Assistance Channels(by number of cases)

Source: Study Team

Figure 3.9 Financial Assistance Channels(by amount)BOX 2 Assistance by Foreign Affiliated Companies and Foreigners in Japan
This study focused on assistance provided from overseas. However, assistance was also provided
from many foreign-affiliated companies in Japan and foreigners studying and living in Japan.
Although it was not possible to grasp the entire picture of this support, the following are someexamples.
Assistance from Foreign Affiliated Companies
Assistance from foreign-affiliated companies in Japan is recorded in a report by the American
31
Chamber of Commerce in Japan (ACCJ) . According to this report, out of the 75 companies that
responded to the questionnaire survey, 98% provided financial assistance and 91% made materialand service contributions. It was reported that 27 companies out of these 75 provided more than 10
million dollars of financial/material support.
For example, the world's largest aerospace company and leading manufacturer of commercial
jetliners and defense, space and security systems, Boeing, collected about 1 million dollars ofdonation from its employees in the world in only a few days after the disaster for relief andreconstruction support. This donation was given to JRCS. Boeing employees have also provided
packages of school supplies, toy airplanes, and food to evacuee shelters several times.
In April and May, 2011, staff members from the Capital Services Group, a group specializing in asset
management, worked as volunteers in Kesennuma City, Ishinomaki City, and Tagajo City. They
helped distribute relief materials to shelters and houses of victims and clean up rubble. Some also
worked as volunteers at a NPO, Second Harvest Japan, to provide material support. The company
also provided financial assistance of more than 2.7 million yen to several NGOs and organizations
31

Extracted from ACCJ. (2012). 2012 CSR Year Book.

36

Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

working for relief support in the affected areas such as Peace Winds Japan, ASHINAGA, and ACCJ
Disaster Relief Fund.
On March 12, 2011, the CEO of IKEA Japan, a company that designs and sells ready-to-assemble
furniture, appliances, and home accessories, told the disaster relief project manager, “Don’t hesitate
to send any of our items. It is okay even if the entire inventory of all our Distribution Centers goes tothe disaster region. The most important thing is ensuring the security and safety of the evacuees’
and their environment. I believe in you.” In response to this, the company provided immediate relief
supplies of 6,000 quilts and blankets, 4,500 towels, 60,000 bags of chips, 23,000 bottles of mineralwater, and 9,400 soft toys. In addition, about 30 employees volunteered to help deliver kits oflife-starter items (desks, lights, kitchen utensils, towels, toys, etc.) to those in need to help them start
their life at temporary housing facilities.
Cooperation by Foreigners Living in Japan
According to the Ministry of Justice, the number of registered foreign nationals at the end of 2011
was approximately 2.08 million. Japan received a variety of support from them. For example,
students studying in Sendai City from China, Korea, Nepal and Morocco started relief activities forforeign victims immediately after the disaster. They were based in the Sendai Disaster Multilingual
Support Center, and answered telephone consultations from foreign victims not only in the city but
also outside the prefecture. They also answered calls from Japanese victims, embassies and media,
in collaboration with Japanese staff32. The also translated the information from Sendai Headquarters
for Disaster Control in multi-languages to disseminate the information overseas.
According to the staff at the Iwate prefectural office, remittance charges from South America wasexpensive, so some directly visited affected areas to deliver the donation collected from relatives
and friends. Although such individual assistance was not recorded systematically, it is assumed that
there were many cases of foreigners living in Japan who provided donations through Japanese or
their home country NGOs, physically delivered the donations, did volunteer work in the affectedareas, and provided relief supplies.
Refugees from Myanmar, who live in Japan, also provided assistance. According to an associationof Myanmarese in Japan, Myanmarese, who did volunteer work in the affected areas, totaled 500
persons. They cleaned out disaster-stricken houses and offered Myanmarese cuisine33. They do nothave long-term visas and lead an insecure life. Nevertheless, they did volunteer work for Japanese
victims, expressing the following feelings, “I do this with a feeling of gratitude for accepting us in
Japan”, “it is natural to do something for people in a difficult situation,” and “I was impressed bydonations from Japan when Myanmar was hit by Cyclone Nargis in 2008. I want to do something in
return.” 34 This episode of Myanmarese refugees doing volunteer work in the affected areas of theGreat East Japan Earthquake became a documentary movie called “The Neighbourly
TOMODACHI.”

32

Extracted from Council of Local Authorities for International Relations
http://www.clair.or.jp/tabunka/shinsai/infoforeign/info_06.html
33
Extracted from the website of Nikkei Inc.
http://www.nikkei.com/article/DGXNASFK1700W_X10C12A8000000/?df=2
34
Extracted from the website of Japan Association for Refugees.
http://www.refugee.or.jp/jar/news/2011/09/29-1428.shtml

37

Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake(5) Challenges Faced when Receiving Financial Assistance and Measures Taken
When receiving financial assistance, organizations receiving the assistance have faced thefollowing challenges.
Additional Administrative Work due to the Difference in Languages
According to an interview with a local government office, during the early stage following thedisaster, a bureau was in charge of receiving donations both from inside and outside Japan.
However, it took longer to deal with donation cases from overseas than domestic cases, as
communications informing overseas parties about the bank account information for wire transfers
and notifications about the needed receipt had to be done in foreign languages. Therefore, theresponsibility to receive donations from overseas had to be transferred to another bureau. Other
organizations such as NGOs also commented that the difference in language was a challenge. For
example, when receiving assistance from overseas, documentation such as contracts andmemorandums of understanding, monthly or bi-monthly monitoring reports, and financial reports
were required in many cases. In general, these documents needed to be written in English.
However, this was difficult for some of the organizations, who received assistance from overseas,as they did not have institutional capacity to deal with administrative tasks in English or found it
difficult to hire a staff fluent in foreign languages. This was especially true for local NPOs whose
activities are mainly domestic. For them, the language bottleneck was so large that someorganizations gave up receiving assistance from overseas.
Mismatches between Donors and Recipients
In many cases, recipient organizations were requested by the foreign donors to specify the use of
the fund and sign an agreement so that donors can be accountable to their contributors. However,in principle, Japanese local governments cannot receive funds specifying the usage, except theChildren Fund utilized for education of orphans. Therefore, local governments introduced their
extra-governmental organizations to these donors. This kind of information about the recipient side
was not fully known overseas.
Decline in the Amount of Support as a Result of Foreign Exchange Fluctuations
Funding organizations overseas sometimes remitted their funds over multiple periods. As a result,if the funding agreement for a relief project was based on a foreign currency, the project budget
was affected by foreign exchange fluctuations. There was a case where the actual amount ofproject fund received was much less than the nominal amount stated in the project document to
the extent that the project plan had to be reformulated35.

35

On the other hand, naturally, there was another case where the actual amount that could be used increased
because of foreign exchange gain.

38Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

Understanding Socio-Cultural Backgrounds
There were comments from NGOs that it was difficult to persuade foreign donors on culturaldifferences when purchasing certain relief supplies utilizing their financial contributions. For
example, when an organization proposed to purchase and distribute “Randoseru,” hard-sided
leather schoolbags used by virtually every elementary school child in Japan utilizing foreign funds,
it was not approved since Randoseru is more expensive than the normal backpack and it was
regarded as a luxury item and therefore inappropriate according to the assistance standards ofdeveloping countries. It took time for these NGOs to explain the culture and practice of Japan, as
there were also differences in price levels between Japan and developing countries anddifferences in the accounting system between Japan and donor countries.

3.2

Human Resources Cooperation(1) Donor Attributes of Human Resources Cooperation
Number of human resources cooperation cases that Japan received in one year since the disasteroccurred was 16036. Of this figure, 77 cases were provided by governments and internationalorganizations. The rest, 83 cases, were from other sources. Thus, the number of cases from othersources exceeded those from governments and international organizations (See Table 3.4). The
number of countries/regions that provided human resources cooperation was 9937. Of this figure,
61 countries, specifically 60%, were ODA recipients of Japan. 14 cases were from internationalorganizations and political/economic unions such as the UN, IAEA, EU and ASEAN.
Table 3.4 Donor Attributes of Human Resources Cooperation (Number of Cases)
Donor

Number of Cases

Governments and International Organizations

77

Non-governmental Donors

83

Total

160

Source: Study Team(2) Channels of Human Resources Cooperation
Human resources for search/rescue and medical teams were mainly dispatched through MOFA.
When MOFA received an offer for support from overseas, they contacted the International
Coordination Team (Team C7) established in the Cabinet Office. Team C7 made the decisions
whether or not to accept support and then coordinated it with related Ministries when necessary38.
In contrast, support for affected people, interaction of people between the affected people and36

This number includes assistance for the nuclear accident.
This excludes the countries/regions that were not identified though they seemed provide assistance as amember of a group of multiple countries.
38
Yutaka Katayama. (2013, January). Higashi Nihon Daishinsaji No Kokusai Kinkyu Shien Ukeire to Gaimusho,
Journal of International Cooperation Studies, vol. 20, No. 2/3.
37

39

Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

supporters and relief coordination were undertaken through various channels including JRCS,
NGOs and private companies.

(3) Details of Human Resources Cooperation
Though activities carried out by human resources cooperation covered a wide range, most of themwere classified into 1) search/rescue and medical treatment39, 2) support activities for affected
people40, 3) relief coordination41, 4) interaction of people42, and 5) support for the nuclear accident.
The number of cases for each category is shown in Table 3.5. They are search/rescue 19 cases
including 7 cases of rescue dogs, medical treatment 11 cases, support activities for affected
people 63 cases, relief coordination including various surveys 28 cases, interaction of people 25
cases, and support for the nuclear accident 14 cases.

Table 3.5 Number of Human Resources Cooperation Cases by Categories
Donor

Governments and International Organizations
Non-governmental Donors
Total

Search/Rescue
17
2
19

MedicalTreatment

SupportActivities forRelief
Interaction of
Affected
Coordination
PeoplePeople
9
21
8
12
2
42
20
13
11
63
28
25

Support for
NuclearAccident
12
2
14

Total
79
81
160

Source: Study TeamOut of the 30 cases of search/rescue and medical teams, 26 were dispatched by governments orinternational organizations. The rest were; IHH Humanitarian Relief Foundation (an NGO based in
Turkey), KIMSE YOK MU (a Turkish international disaster relief NGO), International Medical
Corps (an NGO in the US), and an individual (an American medical doctor).
Table 3.6 shows the number of people dispatched as search/rescue and medical teams. 25,348
people43 (29 rescue dogs) were dispatched for search/rescue. 87 were dispatched as medical
teams. 36 people in the press and survey missions were also dispatched as rescue/medical
treatment related staff, accompanying the search/rescue and medical teams.

39

Medical Treatment includes medical doctors, nurses, medical clerical workers, pharmacists, etc.
All sorts of activities for affected people except search/rescue and medical treatment. Examples are volunteer
works, distribution of food, and mental care.
41
Coordination among donor organizations and coordination works for smooth implementation including needassessment, public relations, support for application writing, etc.
42
Invitation to visit abroad, invitation to exercises by a football player visiting Japan, etc.
43
This number includes 24,500 people from the U.S. Forces.
40

40

Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

Table 3.6 Number of People Dispatched for Rescue and Medical Treatment44
Search/Rescue(person)25,348Medial Persons(person)45

Rescue/Medical Treatment
Related Staff (person)
87

36

Source: Study Team

18 countries/regions, the US, China, Taiwan, Mongolia, India, Indonesia, France, Singapore,
Korea, Russia, South Africa, Mexico, UK, Turkey, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, andSwitzerland, dispatched search/rescue teams46. Neighboring countries like Korea, Singapore,
Taiwan, China and Russia sent the teams soon after the disaster (See BOX 3 “Prompt Dispatch of
Rescue Teams by Neighboring Countries”). The largest number of people (more than 20
thousand) was dispatched through Operation Tomodachi by the US Forces (See BOX 4“Operation Tomodachi: A Large Scale Assistance by the U.S. Forces”).

BOX 3 Prompt Dispatch of Rescue Teams by Neighboring Countries
The first thing to do following a disaster is search and rescue of the victims. Korea sent a rescue
team composed of staff members from the Fire Defense and Disaster Prevention Agency on March
12, and on March 14, an additional team of 102 people was sent. A large-scale rescue team with a47

total of 107 personnel operated in the disaster-stricken areas .
The Chinese rescue team decided to operate in Japan as early as March 11, and on the next day,all members were already assembled. Some of them had just returned from a rescue operation in
New Zealand, and some were sent from the rescue team for the earthquake that occurred just the48
day before (on March 10, 2011) in Yingjiang County, Yunnan Province in China .
On March 12, a rescue team from Singapore also arrived at Narita, and started its operation in
Fukushima Prefecture.
From Russia, 160 personnel from the Ministry of Emergency Situations were sent. The Russian
rescue team was outstanding in physical strength and was very devoted to the operation. For
example, when ammonia solution was discharged, they did not hesitate to take a risk in repairing
the tank49.

44

This number is the actual number of people dispatched (net), not running total.
This includes medical doctors, nurses, and medical clerical workers.
46
This includes rescue dogs.
47
Extracted from MOFA’s Homepage, Sekai ga Nihon ni Sashinobeta Shien no Te: Higashi Nihon Daishinsai
deno Kakkoku/Chiiki Shien Chi-mu no Katsuyaku (“Assistance towards Japan from the World: Activities by
Rescue Teams from Abroad under the Great East Japan Earthquake”) vol. 73,
http://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/press/pr/wakaru/topics/vol73/index.html
48
Extracted from People’s Daily Online (Japanese edition), May 12, 2011.
49
Extracted from homepage of the Embassy of Japan in Russia,
http://www.ru.emb-japan.go.jp/japan/JEarthquake/JHelp_from_Russia.html

45

41

Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

BOX 4 Operation Tomodachi : Large-scale Assistance from the U.S. Forces50
In a telephone consultation on the day of the earthquake with the then-Prime Minister Kan, U.S.
President Barack Obama articulated the intent of the United States to assist Japan in any way
possible. The operation named “Tomodachi Sakusen,” which means “Operation Friend” inJapanese, deployed approximately 24,500 personnel, 24 ships, and 189 aircraft at its peak.
In this operation, the following four activities were mainly conducted. Activities were implemented
in close cooperation with the Japan Self-Defense Forces. Many of the survivors expressed their
gratitude at the sight of devoted relief works by the U.S. Forces, and emotional exchanges took
place, befitting the name of the operation.
Activity 1: Search and Rescue Operation
Examples of activities: The aircraft carrier Ronald
Reagan, together with its accompanying fleet, carriedout search and rescue operations, and rescued 10
survivors.
Activity 2: Transporting and
Supplies and Human Resources

Providing

ReliefExamples of activities: They transported andprovided 246 tons of emergency food, 8,131 tons ofwater, and 120 tons of fuel.

The aircraft carrier Ronald Reagan
Source：Homepage of MOFA

Activity 3: Assistance at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant
Examples of activities: The U.S. Forces transported and supplied fire trucks (for spraying water),pumping units, and boron. They also supplied fresh water using U.S. Navy barges. Approximately
150 people from the Chemical Biological Incident Response Force (CBIRF) of the U.S. Marine
Corps arrived in Japan.
Activity 4: Reconstruction of Infrastructure
Examples of activities: Operated mostly in Miyagi Prefecture. Helped with repairs at Sendai
Airport, removal of debris from Kesennuma City and the JR Senseki Line.

Besides the U.S. Forces, Australian Forces provided C17 aircraft, which was used to transport its
rescue teams, so that it can be used to provide relief supplies and help activities by the Japan
Self-Defense Forces.

It is said that there were offers to dispatch medical teams from more than 30 countries;
however, ,the government of Japan received medical teams from only four countries, namely,
Israel, Thailand, Jordan, and Philippines (see BOX 5 “Support from Israeli Medical Team Realized
50

Written based on MOFA Assistance by U.S. Forces in the Aftermath of the Great East Japan Earthquake(Operation Tomodachi) as of August 29, 2011.

42

Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

by a Strong Backup from Mayor of Kurihara City”).
As for the reason why the number of received assistance is smaller than the amount of offeredassistance, firstly, the decision was made after considering all the factors including the needs ofthe affected local governments and also the level and types of medical services that could be
provided by each offering country. In fact, there were not many persons with injuries at theaffected area requiring support from medical doctors, but rather emotional/psychological support
was needed for people living at evacuation shelters and medical treatment for elderly persons,
were suffering from chronic illness51.
Secondly, compared to other overseas support, medical doctors from overseas often require
careful preparation and support structure at the affected area because those medical doctors will
be directly interacting with disaster victims52.
Thirdly the Japanese government strongly requested and made it clear to all countries that wereplanning to dispatch medical teams and search/rescue team to be “self-sustained,” which included
translators for their operations, food, and accommodation at the disaster-stricken area. This
government policy may have limited the number of assistance to Japan. While Indonesia,
Netherland, Canada, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Turkey and the US dispatched medical teams throughNGOs or directly to the disaster stricken areas without contacting the Japanese government53.
In particular, for the medical teams and search/rescue teams that were dispatched from overseas,
communication with the people at the affected area was often cited as a challenge; however, nomajor problems were identified in the Great East Japan Earthquake 54 . Although the above
mentioned Japanese government’s policy of “self-sustained” assistance could be considered as
one of the factors for the success, another further important aspect is that the Japanese central
government took the initiative and assured that liaison persons such as doctors and nurses, who
had experience in working as JICA experts overseas, and persons from Ministry of Foreign Affairs
who could speak foreign languages, accompanied overseas medical teams in order to reduce theworkload of the affected prefectural governments.

51

Unlike the Great Hanshin Awaji Earthquake, necessities for emergency medical treatment for earthquake
victims of the Great East Japan Earthquake were limited in spite of the fact it was the cause of a number ofdeaths by tsunami. A certain amount of the medical needs were secured by Japanese medical doctors andvolunteers gathered from all over Japan.
52
To all countries that were planning to come to Japan to undertake relief operations, the government of Japan
distributed a check list of carrying equipment and items, and requested them to be "self-sufficient".
53
The study might not be able to grasp the information of medical assistance by individuals.
54
Yutaka Katayama. (2013, January). Higashi Nihon Daishinsaji No Kokusai Kinkyu Shien Ukeire to Gaimusho.
Journal of International Cooperation Studies, vol. 20, No. 2/3.

43

Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

BOX 5 Support of the Israeli Medical Team Achieved with the Strong Support of the
Mayor of Kurihara City 55
The Japanese government received medical teams from four countries. Out of these four
countries, assistance from Israel was the most immediate and the largest in scale. The
government of Israel offered to dispatch an advance team including medical staff through its
Ambassador to Japan on March 20, and on March 28, the medical team arrived and started
operations in Minamisanriku Town in Miyagi Prefecture. At first, it was scheduled to be around 30
56
personnel, but 55 actually joined the operation .
The reason behind the relatively smooth acceptance of the Israeli medical team in contrast to
medical teams from other countries was due to the strong support of the Mayor of Kurihara City,
who once lived in Israel. On receiving the medical team, the Mayor himself examined the site anddiscussed the possibility of medical assistance with the Ambassador of Israel to Japan.
Furthermore, he arranged the site for medical treatment activities, electric power, and base camp
for the assistance team, and did all the preparation needed to receive the medical team in justeight days after the offer.
In the operations of the Israeli medical team in Minamisanriku Town, staff members from MOFA,
volunteer interpreters, Japanese medical doctors, nurses, and coordinators joined the team tobring together many other Japanese medical teams that operated there. The Israeli medical team
had some uncertainties about the types and dosage of medicines in Japan as they differed fromother countries. Thus, support from Japanese pharmacists with rich international experience wasvery useful for them.
The devoted medical assistance by Israeli team continued until April 11, 2011. On withdrawal,
they left all the medical facilities and equipment brought to Minamisanriku Town. This was highly
appreciated by the people in Minamisanriku Town as everything had been lost in the tsunami,
and helped contribute to accelerating the opening of a temporary clinic in the town.

152 disaster coordination specialists were also dispatched through 28 cases 57 to Japanese
government agencies, NGOs, and private companies to undertake disaster evaluation, accounting
support, needs assessment, emergency disaster relief, financial management support,
arrangement for activity report, public relations, working out countermeasures, logistics support,
consulting, and others. As international organizations, WFP, UNDAC, OCHA, and IAEA
dispatched disaster coordination specialists to coordinate the overall disaster relief activities andto communicate the information on the ground globally (see BOX 6 “Support to Link the Disaster
stricken Areas and the World by International Organizations”). NGOs and private entities
55

MOFA. (2011, May). Diplomacy. vol.07, pp6-9.
According to “Tadafumi NISHIZAWA and Katsuhiko SUGIMOTO. (2012, February).Inochi wo Mamoru: Higashi
Nihon Daishinsai, Minami Sanriku Cho ni okeru Iryo no Kiroku (Saving lives: A Record of Medical Treatment in
Minami Sanriku Town under the Great East Japan Earthquake). Herusu Shuppan, Co. Inc. p144, thebreakdown of 55 personnel are; 14 medical doctors, 7 nurses, 1 pharmacist, 2 clinical technologists, a medical
radiographer, coordinators, and interpreters.
57
Out of 28 cases, 3 cases were not clear about the number of personnel dispatched.
56

44

Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

dispatched coordinators to decide their operation details, quantity of supplies to send, target areas,
and to help their activities on the ground efficient.
BOX 6 Support to Link Disaster Stricken Areas and Overseas by International
Organizations58
International organizations such as the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian
Affairs59 (OCHA), the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP), and the Office of the United
Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) supported prompt and appropriate provisionof support from overseas. For example, since WFP was the expert in emergency aid, it supported
domestic transportation of relief supplies and established mobile warehouses and prefabricatedbuildings for stocks of food. OCHA started information exchange with the Japanese government
immediately after the disaster, and dispatched the United Nations Disaster Assessment andCoordination (UNDAC) team. UNDAC team advised the government on transmitting information to
the international community and acceptance of overseas assistance. The report by UNDAC wassummarized as a situation report in English and announced to the international community by
OCHA, the Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific. These reports became an essential
information source when countries and organizations plan to provide support following thedisaster, as information in English from Japan was limited.

The number of people engaged in support activities for victims was not calculated in the study as it
was not clear in many cases. Various people such as the staff of embassies in Tokyo, employeesof private companies, youth dispatched from ASEAN Secretariat (see BOX 7 “The ASEAN Youth
Caravan of Goodwill”), people in the restaurant business, and sport organizations were organizedand did volunteer work like cleaning rubble and providing multinational food.
800 persons from 54 countries/regions and 1,200 persons from 83 countries/regions volunteered
at Peace Boat and CRASH Japan, one of the NGOs, respectively. Specialists in psychosocial carefrom NGOs were dispatched; and private companies and joint reconstruction activities byuniversity students from overseas and Japan were conducted.

BOX 7 The ASEAN Youth Caravan of Goodwill
The Special ASEAN-Japan Ministerial Meeting was held on April 9, 2011 in response to thedisaster. At the meeting H.E. Dr. Surin Pitsuwan, Secretary-General proposed to dispatch theASEAN Youth Caravan of Goodwill to Japan. This was realized and organized by the ASEAN
Secretariat, which called for heart-to-heart assistance and not only financial and material
assistance60.
58

Extracted from MOFA’s homepage. http://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/press/pr/wakaru/topics/vol75/index.html
UNOCHA is a UN body with mandates to respond to complex emergencies and natural disasters and tocoordinate humanitarian response.
60
Extracted from MOFA Press Release “Arrival of the ASEAN Youth Caravan of Goodwill”, June 3, 2011.
http://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/press/release/23/6/0603_10.html

5945

Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

The caravan was composed of 45 persons, who were the victims of the 2004 Indian Ocean
earthquake and tsunami, people involved in the ASEAN Secretariat, artists and journalists. 25
students from ASEAN countries studying in Japan also joined. In total, 70 people visited
Ishinomaki City, Miyagi Prefecture for 5 days from June 3, 2011. They helped cleaning shelters,
offered South East Asian cuisine, and performed songs and dances as a pledge of friendship, andencouraged the victims of the disaster.

The number of people engaged in supporting the interaction between people was not calculated in
the study as it was not clear in many cases. Some overseas professional sport teams organized
sport classes for children in disaster stricken areas, and governments and NGOs invited affectedchildren and families overseas or supported studies abroad. Governmental agencies, regionalorganizations, sports, show business, music industry, sister cities (see BOX 8 “Cooperation by
International Sister Cities”), universities, students, restaurant business, industry, religiousorganizations and many other organizations and people supported relief activities in their own way,reflecting their relations with Japan.

BOX 8 Cooperation by International Sister Cities
Many Japanese local governments have concluded agreements with sister/friendship cities withoverseas local governments for the purpose of promoting interaction between the people in the twocities. In response to the disaster, Japanese local governments, especially those in the disaster
stricken areas, received various assistance from their sister/friendship cities. In the capital city of
Belarus, Minsk, which has a twin-city agreement with Sendai City in Miyagi Prefecture, many
citizens gathered at the Sendai Public Garden, the symbol of friendship, immediately after thedisaster. They mourned the casualties and offered flowers, candles, and origami. There were even61
messages written in Japanese .
In Compiègne in France, the sister city of Shirakawa City in Fukushima Prefecture, people collected
donations and sent it to Shirakawa City with consolation messages and origami folded bykindergarteners. In Bragg, California in the US, the sister city of Otsuchi Town in Iwate Prefecture,
the Fort Bragg Otsuchi Cultural Exchange Association, a volunteer organization, established the“Otsuchi Recovery Fund” six days after the disaster. They put donation boxes at stores, restaurants,
and markets. They also organized a charity event, bringing pictures taken in Otsuchi and things
related to Otsuchi, and sold Ganbare Otsuchi T-shirts. Likewise, sister cities with non-stricken areas
such as Chamonix in France (Fujiyoshida City in Yamanashi), Issy Les Moulineaux in France(Ichikawa City in Chiba), Nantes in France (Niigata City in Niigata), Grindelwald in Switzerland(Matsumoto City in Nagano) also offered assistance to Japan62.

61
62

Based on homepage of Sendai City http://www.city.sendai.jp/koryu/1198687_2446.htm
Based on homepage of MOFA. Higashi Nihon Daisinsai ni taisuru Kokusai Syakai karano Shien to Hagemashi(Assistance and Encouragement from International Society concerning the Great East Japan Earthquake),
vol75. http://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/press/pr/wakaru/topics/vol75/index.html; and home pages of Embassies ofeach country in Tokyo.

46

Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

Although there is no official partnership agreement
between Tunisia and Ishinomaki City of Miyagi
Prefecture, there have been exchanges between thetwo cities since 1992 when a Tunisian student studying
at Tohoku University experienced a homestay in
Ishinomaki through the exchange program of the Miyagi
International Association. There is a road named“Tunisia Street” in Ishinomaki in commemoration of avisit by the Ambassador of Tunisia. Friendship between
Staff of Embassy of Tunisia offering
Ishinomaki and Tunisia was reconfirmed in the
Tunisian cuisine to victims
aftermath of the disaster. On April 15th, the staff ofSource: International Japanese Art and
Embassy of Tunisia offered Tunisian cuisine in front ofCulture Association’s blog
Ishinomaki station. They put up a poster saying,“Japan-Tunisia, Let’s Cooperate for the Future!”, and their slogan was “A friend in need is a friend
indeed.” Many Ishinomaki citizens were encouraged by the Tunisian cuisine and kind words63.

(4) Challenges Faced when Receiving Human Resources Cooperation and Measures Taken
When receiving human resources cooperation, organizations receiving the assistance have faced
the following challenges.
Additional Tasks that Occurred at Disaster Stricken Municipalities
As described earlier, human resources cooperation through the Japanese government wasundertaken through a “self-sustained” process, to reduce the workload of the disaster stricken
municipalities. However, there were cases where the Japanese government received a rescue
team and a VIP, such as an ambassador of the supporting countries, the MOFA requested thedisaster-stricken prefectural government to set up an operation center for them and the prefectural
government further coordinated communication between Japan and the supporting country, andsometimes even arranged a translator.
In another case, Individuals and institutions that sent human resources cooperation from overseas
and did not contact the Japanese central government came to Japan without accommodations ortransportation to the coastal disaster area, and asked the affected prefectural or city/town
government for support. Although the municipal government helps overseas visitors in
non-disaster times, these requests were burdensome especially during the early period after thedisaster when the situation was in chaos and there were many urgent tasks to be done.
Limitations due to Regulations
There were cases where foreign staff faced immigration issues when an international organization
63

Based on homepages of Ishinomaki City, Embassy of Tunisia, etc.
http://www.city.ishinomaki.lg.jp/monou/kokusaikouryu/sinzenkouryu.jsp

47

Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

dispatched foreign staff members to Japan for an extended period of time to directly support theirrelief activities without any proper residence visas. There were comments from organizations,which planned to provide relief support for a long period of time. They often faced regulation
barriers as they tried to obtain what was needed for their activities such as contracts for a rental
office, Internet, and mobile phones, in addition to the visa problem.

3.3

Material Contribution(1) Donor Attributes of Material Contribution
There were 305 cases64 of material contribution that Japan received from overseas in one year
after the disaster as shown in Table 3.7. The breakdown is 154 cases from governments andinternational organizations, and 151 non-governmental cases; thus, the number of cases from thetwo donor categories is almost the same. Those donors were NGOs, associations of people fromthe same prefecture, friendship associations, Japan Chamber of Commerce and Industry in eachcountry, religious organizations, Japanese/Nikkei associations in each country, multinational
corporations, as well as governments and international organizations (see BOX 9 “Earthquake
Recovery Aid from Overseas Nikkei Communities”).
The number of donor countries/regions was 73, and assistance was also given from theorganizations that do not belong to any country or region, such as WFP, UNHCR, and ITU. Out of
the 73 countries, 37 countries were Japanese ODA recipients. Some of these countries expressed
their gratitude towards Japanese past assistance and expressed a sense of giving back andsolidarity with Japan (see BOX 10 “Upsurge of Solidarity between Developing Countries andJapan”).
Table 3.7 Donor Attributes of Material Contribution (Number of Cases)
Donor

Number of Cases

Governments and International Organizations

154

Non-governmental Donors

151

Total

305

Source: Study Team

64

Contents of material contribution are classified into 5 categories; 1) food and drink, 2) relief supplies, 3) fuel, 4)services, and 5) measures against nuclear accident. When a donor provided materials in more than 1 category
at one time, it was counted as one case.

48

Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

BOX 9

Earthquake Recovery Aid from Overseas Nikkei Communities65

Nowadays, there are more than 2.9 million Japanese immigrants and their descendants, called
Nikkei, living in the world mainly in North America and Central and South America. They are active invarious fields such as politics, economy, education and culture, and contribute to strengthening therelationship between Japan and the country they moved to, either temporarily or to immigrate, andthey act as a bridge between the two countries, as well as contribute to the development of thecountry they live. In response to the disaster on March 11, many Nikkei communities throughout theworld collected and provided donations through the National Red Cross Society and Red CrescentSociety, which amounted to more than 1.6 billion yen.
In Brazil, which has the largest Nikkei community in South America with 1.5 million Nikkei, five major
Brazilian Nikkei associations (the Bunkyo-Sociedade Brasileira de Cultura Japonesa, Federação
das Associações de Províncias do Japão no Brasil, Brazilian Chamber of Commerce in Japan, andAliança Cultural Brasil-Japão, and the Beneficencia Nipo-Brasileira de São Paulo) established theJapan Earthquake Victim Aid Donation Campaign immediately after the earthquake on March 11,
2011.
In Argentina, the Centro Nikkei Argentino, a group of Nikkei youth organized “1000 Paper Cranes
Charity Campaign” to encourage and cheer Japanese people, praying for their early recovery.
Participants folded paper cranes and put message on them. Then, took pictures of the paper cranes
to send out their sympathy. They also sold metal badges designed after the letters of “Fuerza Japon(Bear up Japan)”, and sent the profits as donation to Japan through Red Cross and Japanese
Embassy in Argentina.
In Paraguay, the Nikkei community cooperating with Nikkei Agricultural Cooperative Association
organized a project to send one hundred tons of soybeans. The Federation of Japanese
Associations in Paraguay collected donations of 10 million yen from all over Paraguay for the cost of
shipping and producing tofu, bean curd, from donated soybeans, with the cooperation of Gialinks
Co., Ltd., a Japanese company with years of experience in importing soybeans grown by the Nikkei
farmers. The soybeans were used to produce tofu, which were distributed to victims of the disaster.
The tofu made in this project had a package with a message, “Our hearts are with you. People of
Paraguay are rooting for Japan”. The project will be continued up to one million packets of tofu to be
produced. This “Paraguay Tofu Disaster Relief Activity” spread beyond the Nikkei community, andattracted the attention of the government of Paraguay, with the President and Ministers taking thelead in charity events.

65

Based on JICA. Japanese Overseas Migration Museum. JICA Annual Report 2012, p135.
http://www.jomm.jp/newsletter/tayori23_01.html, and Homepage of GIALINKS Co., Ltd.
http://www.gialinks.jp/tofu100mancho.html.

49

Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

BOX 10 Upsurge of Solidarity between Developing Countries and Japan
In responding to the disaster on March 11, many countries expressed their gratitude for Japan’s past
emergency relief and longtime development assistance and a sense of solidarity with Japan.
For example, the Republic of Maldives provided more than 600,000 canned tuna for Japan. In
providing the relief, Ambassador of the Republic of Maldives to Japan, H.E. Mr. Ahmed Khaleel
noted the whole-hearted gratitude of the Maldivian people for various kinds of assistance that
Maldives had received from Japan over 40 years, including in particular, the construction of a factoryof canned tuna in 1970s, as well as Japan's assistance to build the sea wall in the 1980s, which
protected Male island, the capital of Maldives, from the 2004 tsunami, and the significant amount ofreconstruction assistance after the tsunami66.
Sri Lankans in Japan served curry as emergency food in several disaster stricken areas, and H.E.
Admiral (Rtd.) Wasanta Karannagoda, Ambassador-designate of Sri Lanka to Japan also joined theactivity in Tamura City in Fukushima Prefecture. He stated, “Japanese are our friends. When the2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami happened, the Japanese people responded
immediately. People in Sri Lanka deeply appreciated it, and still remember the feeling at that time.
This is why we came here today, and we wanted to express our sense of solidarity with Japan” 67.
The editorial column of the Vientiane Times of Laos stated, “The fact that Japan has long supported
Laos is well known to Lao citizens. Many families in Laos live under the poverty line, even though,these low income families provided donations, having in mind their sympathy and friendship”. With
68
these episodes, solidarity between Japan and the world has been reaffirmed .
The director of Centre National Hospitalier Universitaire of Benin visited the Embassy of Japan in
Benin, and delivered donations collected from the staff at his hospital. Director said, “Japan has
been a donor of our country for a long time. Japan has provided generous economic and technicalcooperation, which contributed to the development of Benin. It is very natural that all people in Beninare eager to do something for Japan in its difficult time. Staff at the hospital discussed and decided
to collect donations. Please utilize it for the victims of the earthquake and tsunami”69.
Episodes introduced in this BOX are just a small part of the support from all over the world. Morethan 50 million yen of donations were delivered to JICA, an independent governmental agency thatcoordinates official development assistance (ODA) for the government of Japan, through its
overseas offices in a total of 73 countries (19 countries from Asia, 20 countries from Africa, 18
countries from North, Central and South America, 8 countries from Oceania, and 8 countries from
Middle East and Europe), about 4,000 people (citizens, government officials, alumni of training
programs in Japan through ODA, JICA’s Japan Overseas Cooperation Volunteers, Senior

66

Extracted from MOFA Press Release. (2011, June 15). Courtesy Call on Parliamentary Vice-Minister for
Foreign Affairs Makiko Kikuta by Ambassador of the Republic of Maldives to Japan Ahmed Khaleel,
http://www.mofa.go.jp/announce/announce/2011/6/0615_03.html
67
Extracted from P.1 of a pamphlet by MOFA. Todoita E-ru…Nihon to Tomoni (Yells from the World). Sekai aga
Ouendan.
68
Extracted from P.4 of a pamphlet by MOFA. Todoita E-ru…Nihon to Tomoni (Yells from the World). Sekai aga
Ouendan.
69
Extracted from homepage of MOFA : http://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/saigai/episode/episode26.html

50Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

Volunteers, JICA Experts, and JICA staff) 70 . There were also more than 3,000 condolence
messages, origami, and pictures from more than 100 countries71.

(2) Channels of Material Contribution
Relief supplies from overseas were delivered to the affected areas through Japaneseorganizations. Most material contributions from governments and international organizations were
through MOFA of Japan. In the case of assistance from international NGOs/organizations,contributions

were

made

throughtheirJapanesebranches.

Contributions

fromNGOs/organizations which do not have branches in Japan were delivered through network NGOs
such as JPF, JANIC, and Nippon Foundation.
Material contributions from overseas private companies were delivered through their Japanesebranches, liaison offices in Japan, and Japanese NGOs. For example, S-OIL Corporation in Korea
provided fuel, kerosene, and diesel fuel through a Japanese oil company. UPM Kyummene from
Finland provided materials for temporary housing through a Japanese construction company.

(3) Details of Material Contribution
Material contribution can be classified into categories of food and drink72, relief supplies, fuel, andservices (communication and transport). As shown in Table 3.8, there were 104 cases of food anddrink, 158 cases of relief supplies, 14 cases of fuel, and 39 cases of service. There were 34 casesof material contribution for measures against nuclear accidents.
Table 3.8 Number of Material Contribution Cases for Each Category73
Donor

Food and
Drink

ReliefSupplies

Material
Servicecontribution for(telecommunicati
measureson, transportation,
against nuclear
etc.)
accident

Fuel

Total

Governments and International Organizations

83

75

13

9

19

199

Non-governmental Donors

21

83

1

30

15

150

Total

104

158

14

39

34

349

Source: Study Team

About 80% of food and drink contributions were provided by governments and internationalorganizations. As food such as meat, vegetables, fruits, and dairy products is need to be delivered
securely to the destination in a certain period of time, and some need to be put in quarantine, food70

Results of a questionnaire survey to JICA.
Extracted from JICA homepage http://www.jica.go.jp/information/disaster_msg/index.html
72
Water was provided for drinking and other purposes such as cooking and cooling water for the nuclear plant, but
all were categorized as drinking water because its usage was not clear from the available information.
73
When a donor provided material contributions in more than one category at one time, it was counted in eachcategory.

71

51

Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquakeand drink contributions were mostly through government channels with secured routes fortransportation.
Materials provided from overseas were wide-ranging from clothes, shoes, beddings,
medical/sanitary goods, goods for nursing and kids, to daily commodities. Some were T-shirts andblankets with messages from sport teams and artists. Though the quantity was limited, there werealso survival kits, mobile warehouses, and mobile generators from international organizations,computers, solar-paneled battery chargers for mobile phones, licenses for security software, andfiberscopes from private companies.
Fuels such as kerosene, gasoline, diesel fuel, LNG, crude oil, and LPG were provided by 12
countries, namely UAE, Indonesia, Oman, Qatar, Korea, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, China, Brunei, theUS, Malaysia, and Russia. This includes commercial measures to permit additional LNG importquota for Japan.
Japan also received a variety of support in services. ITU lent out 153 satellite mobile
communication terminals. Some private entities exempted the communication fees from abroad toJapan for a certain period of time. Transportation of relief supplies and rescue teams were offeredfrom the US, Australia, Korea, and Thailand by using military planes. DHL Express offered acommercial aircraft to transport relief supplies from EU, and FedEx provided its expertise inlogistics. Automobile manufacturing companies offered services for car sharing and vehicles forrelief/reconstruction activities. WFP provided assistance for domestic transportation of relief
supplies collected from all over the world. The government of the Marshall Islands provided
permits to fish in its exclusive economic zone free of charge. Other services provided in responseto the disaster include exemption of remittance fees for donations, donation of mileages fromairline companies, refund of merchant fees on credit card payment for charity purposes, andothers. Table 3.9 is the list of contributed materials by category74.

74

This table does not include material contribution for nuclear accident as it is explained in detail in section 3.4.

52

Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

Table 3.9 List of Contributed Materials by Category
Foods and drinks
CookiesCorn flakes

Canned tuna

Popcorns

Korean seaweed

Biscuits

Canned beef

Chocolates

Ready-made rice

Corned beef

Canned sweets

Ready-made rice with
mixed vegetables

Sirloin steakCanned rice

【Cereal grains 】

Ready-made fried rice

Hardtack【Meat】

Pasta

Beef

【Snacks】

Canned food

【Foods】

Rice

Yokan (sweet jellied red beanpaste)

Choco pies
High energy biscuits

Canned vegetable soup

Ready-made beef curry

Soda crackers

Instant ramen

Kidney beans

Apple chips covered withchocolate

Dry fruits

Beef jerky

Pinto beans

Ghana pies

Dried soupclam miso soup

Water

Tea

Tofu

【Dairy products 】【Drinks】

CoffeeCanned peaches

Powdered milk

【Condiments / others】

Clam chowder【Vegetables and Fruits】【Soups】

Ham / Sausage

Brown sugar

Seasonings

Tomato sauce

YogurtShelf-stable milk
Nutrition-supplement drink

53Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

Relief supplies
Toys

Socks

Oxygen masks

Colored pencils

Winter clothing

Medical products

Men and Women's
underwear

Alcohol for disinfection

Pants

Disposable gloves

Boots
Sneakers
Uniforms with messages
from sport players

Pillows

Makeshift beds
QuiltsTowelsStuffed animals
Soccer balls

Diapers
Randoseru ( backpack forelementary school children)with stationery

Children's clothing

Masks

Day care center, containerhouse for classroom use

Wet tissues

Athletic goods

Toothpastes

BicyclesShampoo

Plastic wraps

Medical equipment

Cups

Sanitary sets

Bags

【Household goods】【Beddings】

Blankets, blankets withwritten messages

Soaps【Infants and children supplies】

Toilet rolls【 Medical supplies,/ Sanitary supplies / Sanitary facilities 】【Clothing and shoes】

Polo shirts / T-shirts

Sleeping bags

Sanitary napkins

Pens

Tents

Disposable rubber gloves

Mattresses

Disposable heating pads

Lighting equipment

Sleeping pads

Portable toilets

Flashlights

Mouth wash

Storage containers

Portable cooking stoves

Dust-cloths with support
messages54

Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

Relief supplies

Services【 Communicat
ion】

Materials for temporary
housings

Portable lamps

Solar power equipment

CD players

Electric whiteboard

Domestic transportation of relief supplies
from countries outside Japan

Computers

Electric tools for
professionals

Transportation fee for containerhouse

Oil stoves

Solar paneled battery
chargers for mobile
phonesTrucks for relief and restoration , offroad vehicles

Industrial endoscopes【Transportation 】

Canteens【 Others 】

Power generators

Lending out of satellite mobile
communication terminals
Exemption from communication fee
to call Japan for a limited time

Vehicles (for car sharing)【Others】

body bags

Washing machines

Survival kits

Scanners

Plastic containers

Licenses for security
softwareExpertise on transportation anddistribution

Portable power generators

RadiosTransportation by military aircraft todeliver relief supplies and rescue
parties

Mobile warehouses

Electric motorcycles
Use of helicopters

Exemption from remittance fee forthe purpose of donation

Fuels

Prefabricated houses

Kerosene

Airline mileages

Solar lamps

Gas canisters

Exemption from transportation costfor EC

Foldable water containers

Gasoline

Refund on merchant discount (onlyfor credit card user) for charity
purpose

Diesel oil【 Others】【Fuels】

Shelter boxes（large tent,water filter, stove, blanket,
rug, tools, dishes, coloredpencils, coloring book）

Card fee donation

Plastic waterproof cloths

LNG (additional supply to
Japan) (on a commercial basis)

Donation of Card Points

Teakwood logs

Crude oil

Exemption from remittance charge

Plywood

LP gasFree provision of permits to enter Exclusive
Economic Zone (EEZ)

Suitcases

Artists' performance fee ofparticipating charity programs(4) Timing of Material Contributions
Figure 3.10 shows the number of material contributions every 10 days after the disaster.
According to this, the largest number of material contributions were undertaken from 11 days to55Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

within 20 days, and 50% were made within 30 days, and 88 % were made within 50 days after thedisaster. It should be noted that the information on timing was based on the date of arrival in
Japan, not the date of arrival at the final destination in the affected areas. There were cases where
supplies were delivered to the disaster stricken areas promptly due to well-coordinated activities
by senders and receivers (see BOX 11 “Assistance from Private Company: Donation of Disaster
Restoration Support Vehicle by Daimler AG”). However, there were cases where it took more than
one month for delivery after the offer of the material contribution. In such cases, supplies neededin the emergency phase arrived in disaster stricken areas three months after the disaster. Further
study is needed to examine how promptly materials were delivered to the affected areas, and how
these materials met the changing needs on the ground.
0

5

10

15

20

25

2011
3/12〜3/21

30

40

45

50

29

3/22〜3/3145

4/1〜4/10

23

4/11〜4/20

21

4/21〜4/30

29

5/1〜5/10

2

5/11〜5/20

11

5/21〜5/30

4

5/31〜6/9

8

6/10〜6/19

2

6/20〜6/30

2

July

6

August4

September

1

October3

November

1

December

1

2012
January

1

February
March

35

3
0

Source: Study Team

Figure 3.10 Number of Material Contribution Cases According to Timing75
75

The study analyzed 196 cases with clear timing information. Cases excluded from the analysis were those
without any information on timing, those provided at the very initial stage after the disaster, those provided on
occasions, and those provided throughout the year. When a donor provided different kinds of materials several
times, it was counted as one case and timing was recorded for the first support. When the information on the56Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

BOX 11 Assistance from a Private Company:
Donation of Disaster Restoration Support Vehicles by Daimler AG76
Daimler AG, with its headquarters in Germany, announced the financial assistance of two million Euro(approx. 113.6 million Yen) on March 18, only one week after the disaster. It also announced to lendout disaster restoration support vehicles for free on April 12. On April 15 and 16, 20 vehicles including
eight off-road trucks Zetros arrived in Japan by Antonov, the Russian world biggest airlift cargo
aircraft. This prompt and large-scale assistance was made possible by the quick decision andimplementation of the Daimler AG headquarters. In receiving this support, the government of Japan
also cooperated fully. For example, although it usually takes one year to grant an import permit forvehicles which do not fit the domestic emission regulations and other related regulations. The Ministryof Economy, Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport, and Tourism
negotiated, and all vehicles offered by Daimler AG were permitted to operate in Japan for two years
as disaster restoration support.
20 vehicles from Germany and 30 other vehicles lent out by Mercedes-Benz Japan, Daimler AG’s
corporate body in Japan and Mitsubishi Fuso Truck and Bus Corporation, were lent out to the local
governments in disaster stricken areas and NGOs working there. These vehicles worked well in theface of bad roads. They were fully utilized in events and patrolling even on roads with much debris.
Due to their novelty and the first time in Japan, vehicles from Daimler AG gave courage and hope tothe victims.

(5) Challenges Faced when Receiving Material Contributions and Measures Taken
When receiving material contributions, organizations receiving the assistance have faced thefollowing challenges.
Organization Structure to Receive Material Contribution in Disaster Stricken Prefectural
Governments
Although most of the material contributions from overseas were delivered to the affected areas
through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, the regional disaster prevention plans or manualsof local governments did not describe the administrative structure and procedure for the receipt ofmaterial contributions from overseas. Therefore each local government took measures according
to the situation at the disaster areas. For example in Iwate Prefecture, the Living Safety of Citizen
Division was in charge of receiving material contributions within Japan, but a division to deal withmaterial contributions from overseas was not clarified, thus, materials were received by divisions
according to the nature or classification of the material.

76

date of the arrival was unavailable, it was recorded as the end of the stated month.
Based on Nippon Foundation, ROAD Project: Higashi Nihon Daishinsai 1 Nenkan no Katsudou Kiroku (ROAD
Project: The Great East Japan Earthquake, 1 year on), P.80-81.

57

Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

In Miyagi, the Secretariat for Headquarters for Extreme Disaster Management received material
contributions from overseas in the early days after the disaster; however the office in charge waschanged to the International Affairs Division later because the workload of the Secretariat became
more than they could deal with. Furthermore, they assigned one person exclusively for this task
and established a new administrative structure for receiving material contributions from overseas
in cooperation with the Secretariat for Headquarters for Extreme Disaster Management.
Additional Tasks that Occurred at the Disaster Stricken Municipalities
There were cases in which some overseas donors asked local governments to arrange
transportation from an airport to the disaster stricken areas in order to deliver material
contributions. In this case, the affected prefectural government needed to arrange it. In anothercase, the material was delivered directly to affected local governments without contacting theprefectural government. The local government was often confused about how to handle thematerial and sometimes was unable to receive it efficiently. In the case of food and drink
contributions, a person at a local government checked the ingredients of each contribution. The
translation of labels on food and drink written in a foreign language took a while and sometimes
impacted their office work.
Mismatch with Affected People’s Needs
There are two types of information on material contributions that were provided to Japan fromoverseas donors. One was the material contribution where the decision to deliver to Japan had
already been made, and the other were contributions where the decision to deliver had not been
made and only announced. Matching material contributions from overseas and the needs of thedisaster-stricken area was undertaken by MOFA; however, for the announced material
contribution, it took a while and many cases were late in the actual time of delivery. Thus, there
were cases where the affected local governments had to turn down offers due to the change in theneeds of the people who had been affected.
Even after receiving the material, there were cases where the material was wasted because of
seasonal change. For example winter clothes and protection against cold were needed for aseveral months after the disaster; however they were delivered to the affected local governmentseven during the summer time. For other issues, there were cases where the volume of material
was too large for country level assistance, on the other hand, there were cases where the volume
of material was too small in some cases of individual assistance and the government could notdeliver the material due to the inability to equally distribute them among the affected people. There
were cases where the local government held food stock because some did not suit the foodculture and taste of Japanese people. In this kind of situation, those foods were delivered toforeigners, who had been living in the affected areas, by such international associations and were58Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

appreciated.

3.4

Assistance from Overseas against Nuclear Accidents

The Accident at TEPCO's Fukushima Nuclear Power Stations (hereinafter, the nuclear accident)
has turned out to be a major challenge for Japan. Thus, the government of Japan received support
from many countries around the world in terms of material contributions and dispatch of experts
from its initial stage to settle the situation77. Although it is difficult to determine the total amount, apart of the financial assistance was made especially for the measures against nuclear accidents(see BOX 12 “Countermeasures against Nuclear Accident Implemented by JRCS with theDonation from Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.”) Assistance from many countries has
played an essential role in stabilizing the situation at the nuclear facility.
(1) Assistance by Experts
Since the occurrence of this nuclear accident, experts from the US, France, Russia, Korea, China
and the UK were dispatched to exchange views with the Japanese government and TEPCO andto give advice for stabilizing nuclear reactors and spent fuel pools and preventing the diffusion ofradioactive materials and radioactive contaminated water. From the private entity, AREVA, a
French company, proposed some solution to treat radioactive contamination and dispatched 200
experts to build a system for treating accumulated contaminated water.
International organizations such as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the Nuclear
Energy Agency of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD/NEA),
the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and the World Health Organization (WHO) also
provided much assistance and advice based on their expertise. For example, from March 18th
onward, the IAEA sent to Japan teams of experts in radiation measurement including a marine
expert, a food monitoring team jointly with the FAO, and boiling water reactor (BWR) experts.

77

Nuclear Emergency Response Headquarters, Government of Japan. (2011, June). Report of Japanese
Government to the IAEA Ministerial Conference on Nuclear Safety- The Accident at TEPCO's Fukushima
Nuclear Power Stations.

59Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

BOX 12 Countermeasures against the Nuclear Accident Implemented by JRCS with theDonation from Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
JRCS provided Fukushima Red Cross Hospital with a whole body counter and equipment for thyroid
tests to measure the internal dose provided by Fukushima Medical University with other equipment
for measuring radiation exposure, and provided several cities in Fukushima and Miyagi withradiation detectors using donations from overseas. It also held mobile theaters in some cities inFukushima where there were many residents displaced due to the accident, and constructed a
temporary center for early childhood education in Iwaki City.

(2) Assistance through Material Contributions
Japan diligently accepted supplies and equipment based on proposals offered by other countries,
as special supplies and equipment were required to help stabilize and settle the situation andevacuate residents. Pumps and fire engines used by TEPCO for cooling the nuclear reactors andother facilities and barges for transferring fresh water were provided mostly by the US to stabilize
nuclear reactors and as fuel pools. Japan also received remote control robots and supplies andequipment needed to process massive amounts of water containing radioactive materials.
Japan received dosimeters, protection suits, and protection masks for individual workers andindividual residents to protect them from radiation. Equipment to analyze the radiation impact onsoil, water, and agricultural products was also provided.
Nearly 30 countries and international organizations offered assistance78. After considering theirnecessity in the emergency response effort, Japan received supplies and equipment from 16
countries/regions namely Ukraine, Australia, Canada, the Czech Republic, Germany, Finland,
France, the US, Malaysia, Russia, the UK, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and China. In terms of the numberof assistance cases, there were 19 cases from governments and international organizations and15 cases from others. In terms of assistance volume, those from governments and internationalorganizations were bigger; however, private companies provided assistance that utilized theirexpertise, such as establishing a system to treat contaminated water and providing tablets ofpotassium Iodide. Table 3.10 shows the list of overseas materials and measures provided against
the nuclear accident.

78

Nuclear Emergency Response Headquarters, Government of Japan. (2011, June). Report of Japanese
Government to the IAEA Ministerial Conference on Nuclear Safety- The Accident at TEPCO's Fukushima
Nuclear Power Stations.

60

Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

Table 3.10 List of Provided Materials as Measures against Nuclear Accident79
Country

Donor Attributes

Provided materials

UkraineGovernment / Internaitonal
Organization

Radiation survey meters (1,000), Personal dosimeters(1,000), Protective masks andreplacement filters for protective masks (1,000sets)

Australia

Government / Internaitonal
Organization

Special pumps (in order to cool down Fukushima Nuclear Power Stations)

CanadaGovernment / Internaitonal
Organization

Radiation survey meters (78), Personal radiation dosimeters (75), dosimeters (glass batch)(5,000), Readers for dosimeter (5)Czech Republic

OthersGermany

Individual

FinlandGovernment / Internaitonal
Organization

Radiation survey meters (52) (through the EU)

Government / Internaitonal
Organization

Radiation measuring instruments (Radiation survey meters (103), Personal radiation
dosimeters (310), dosimeters (glass batch) (1,161)) and other nuclear related goods

Government / Internaitonal
Organization

Protective body armors (1,000)

Government / Internaitonal
Organization

Protective body armors and masks (approx. 20,000 sets), Radiation survey meters (239),
Personal radiation dosimeters (35), Power generators (5), Compressors (5), Pumps (10),Radiation measurement vehicle (1), Radiation measurement trailer (1)Private Buisiness

Establishment of the water decontamination system in Fukushima Nuclear Power Stations

Private Buisiness

Protective masks (3,000), Protective body armors (11,000), Gloves (40,000), Boric acids (10tons), Self-contained breathing apparatuses (200), several Environmental monitoring trucks

FrancePrivate Buisiness

US

RussiaDosimeters (2)Protective masks, Radioactivity measurement equipment

NGOs

MICROCHEM4000 (Radiation protective suits; 30)

NGOs

Advanced special equipment (130 tons) such as Remote controll robots

Government / Internaitonal
Organization

Large stainless steel tanks (5), Improved trailer equipped with shield tank

Government / Internaitonal
Organization

Personal radiation dosimeters (2,000)

Government / Internaitonal
Organization

Custom-made robot, Radiation sensor kits, Radiation-proof camera, Gamma camera

Government / Internaitonal
Organization

Protective body armors (10,000)

Government / Internaitonal
Organization

Dosimeters (seal and card types) (31,000)

Government / Internaitonal
Organization

Pumps (5), Protective body armors against nuclear, biological and chemical weapons (99),
Boric acids (approximately 9 tons), Large water spray pump unit (1), Barges (2), Fresh water
carried by two barges, Germanium semiconductor detectors (3), Fire trucks (2 from US
Forces in Japan, in order to discharge water into the damaged reactor)

Government / Internaitonal
Organization

Establishment of a chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear control center with limited
decontamination equipment in the Yokota Air Base

Government / Internaitonal
Organization

Protective body armors against nuclear, biological and chemical weapons to TEPCO
employees (150)

Private BuisinessRadiological decontamination products and services equivalent to $250,000

Private Buisiness

Potassium iodide tablets (50,000)

Private Buisiness

Potassium iodide tablets (approximately 50,000)

Private Buisiness

Radiation detectors

Government / Internaitonal
Organization

Personal radiation dosimeters (400), Masks (5,000)

Government / Internaitonal
Organization

Personal radiation dosimeters (195), Radiation survey meters (135), Protective masks，
replacement filters for protective masks，Protective hoods

Government / Internaitonal
Organization

Radiation survey meters (249), Protective masks (3,672), etc.

Government / Internaitonal
Organization

Radiation survey meters (20)UK

Republic of
Korea

Dosimeters (10)Source: Study Team79

Materials listed here include items that were seen as assistance for the nuclear accident due to the content anddonors, in addition to the assistance that clearly stated for the nuclear accident.

61Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

4.

UTILIZATION OF FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FROMOVERSEAS

4.1

Outline of Recipient Organizations and Types of UsageIn response to the Great East Japan Earthquake, an innumerable amount of financial assistance
was provided from overseas. This chapter describes how the financial assistance was utilized andthrough which groups and organizations. Many of the organizations, which received financial
assistance, publish reports on support activities (including financial reports), and carry out audits.
This chapter includes the information from such existing reports and the results of thequestionnaire survey and field visit conducted in this study, and introduces an overview and a few
cases on the use of the financial assistance.
(1) Recipient Organizations
As mentioned in Chapter 3, JRCS received the largest portion of the financial assistance, which
was about 40% of the total number of cases and three-fourths of the total amount. In addition to
JRCS, direct support from overseas and receipt by Japanese NGOs were outstanding in amount,which was more than 10 billion yen, respectively. Direct support from overseas was mainly about
100 million dollars (about 8.2 billion yen) of support funds from the government of Qatar80. Among
NGOs, NGOs working in the field of international cooperation that have experience and expertisein emergency aid abroad received the largest amount. Subsequently, private businesses,
foundations, religious groups81, and voluntary social service organizations such as Lions Club andRotary received several billion yen, respectively. As most of them donated the collected funds to
the Red Cross and NGOs, the segment from private businesses is small here, but there were a
few cases of company headquarters in Japan or foreign companies in Japan directly implemented
support activities in collaboration with the affected local governments, utilizing the funds collectedfrom group companies from all over the world. Remittance from overseas to local governments
totaled more than 1 billion yen, as confirmed in this study.

80

Foreign NGOs without a Japanese branch implemented support activities in three ways: 1) directly conductedsupport activities by establishing temporary offices in Japan, 2) established temporary offices in Japan andprovided funds to existing Japanese organizations, and 3) provided donations/funds to existing Japaneseorganizations. It is assumed that most foreign NGOs chose either 2) or 3), and not many directly operated inJapan (based on the material provided by JANIC).
81
Organizations such as religious corporations, affiliates of religious groups, and organizations which include
religious activities in their introduction or mission were classified as religious groups. Other organizations wereclassified as NGOs even in cases when their activities were based on a religious mission.

62

Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

Foundations
1%
Private companies
2%

Religious
organizations
1%

Voluntary social
service organizations
1%
Local governments

1%
Multipleorganizations
1%
Others1%
JRCS (relief andrecoveryprogrammes)
35%

Unknown
4%
NGOs
7%

Direct assistance8%
JRCS (cash grant)
14%

JRCS (Kuwaiti fund)24%

Source: Study Team

Figure 4.1 Channels of Financial Assistance by Organization Type(2) Types of Usage
There are basically two types of financial assistance usage: 1) cash grants directly distributed tothe affected people, and 2) utilization for support activities in the affected areas. Assistancethrough JRCS which accounts for three-fourths of the total amount includes both of the above. The
breakdown is: 1) cash grants directly distributed to the affected people (about 20%), 2) cash
donations from partner national societies and other organizations utilized for relief and recovery
programs (about 50%), and 3) reconstruction support fund from the government of Kuwait (about30%). Organizations other than JRCS used most of the financial assistance for support activities in
the affected areas, though some also distributed donations or scholarships to the affected people.
Table 4.1 Two Types of Usage of Financial AssistanceDirect Cash Distribution to the Affected Population

Cash Grant through JRCS, CCCJ, Cabinet Office

Relief and Reconstruction Activities
and local governments (distributed to the victims

cash donations from its partner national

together with domestic cash grants)
Monetary condolences, emergency relief grants,

JRCS relief and recovery programs utilizing
societies and other organizations.



Prefectural recovery projects utilizing the funds

scholarships, etc. distributed by NGOs andestablished in the three prefectures by theorganizations such as the Nippon Foundation

government of Kuwait.

and ASHINAGA that partly utilized overseas



fund.

Relief and recovery projects and programs
utilizing donations, funds and grants entrusted
to various organizations.



Donations sent to local governments (utilized
for prefectural public works, etc.)

Source: Study Team

63

Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

In the case of local governments, financial assistance provided as cash grants to the victims were
distributed with the cash grants provided to JRCS, etc. Financial assistance without any specified
usage was incorporated into the prefectural budget, and used for social capital reconstruction
such as public works. Financial assistance provided to the “Children’s Fund” at each prefecture
has been utilized for the education of orphans from the disaster.
Out of the entire financial assistance, assistance provided for the cash grant program of JRCS andothers is directly distributed to the victims. None of this was utilized for any other usage. Regarding
the funds utilized for support activities in the affected areas, some of the large-scale organizations(such as the Japan Committee for UNICEF, ASHINAGA, and Rotary) have used 100% of the
donations for distribution and support activities for the victims, and used their own budgets foradministrative expenses. In other organizations, usually about 3-25% of the funds is used foradministrative expenses (such as operational expenses of field offices, logistics, accounting,fund-raising, reports to donors, public relations, and evaluation). Although it is difficult to obtainconsent from donors to use part of the financial assistance for administrative expenses, it is anecessary cost in order to utilize a large amount of the financial assistance appropriately.
In examining the usage of financial assistance, the following two points should be noted. First,
there are two types of organizations that received the fund: 1) organizations that directly
implement activities in the affected areas, and 2) organizations that serve as intermediaryorganizations to provide grants to other NGOs/NPOs and volunteer groups that implement
activities in the affected areas. In this chapter, former cases are mainly introduced, and the latterare introduced in BOX 13. The latter cases included many activities that met the needs of thevictims promptly and attentively, as this form enabled small organizations with little experience anddifficulty in communicating directly with foreign donors, to obtain grants for their activities andallowed them to respond promptly to the people’s needs with quick apply/approval procedures.
There were also a few cases where a new foundation was established that did not use the existingorganization as an intermediary to provide grants (BOX 14: Example of Grant Type Assistance:
Qatar Friendship Fund).
The second point to be noted is that there are two patterns to administering foreign funds: 1)
organizations that do not distinguish “which programs used how much from assistance fromoverseas”, as they manage the funds from overseas and donations/grants collected inside Japan
together, and all of their programs utilize some part of the funds from overseas, and 2)
organizations that distinguish “which programs used funds from overseas.” They distinguish thefunds from overseas from funds collected in Japan, and utilize funds from a certain foreign donor
to a certain program. It was impossible to distinguish which programs used only overseas funds inthis study, as some organizations apply both of the above two patterns. Therefore, cases of64Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

support activities introduced in this chapter include a few programs that use both domestic andoverseas funds.
Table 4.2 below shows locations where organizations introduced in this chapter mainly operate.
Table 4.2 Major Areas of Operation of Organizations Introduced in this Chapter
Organizations (Japanese
Organizations (Japanese
Prefecture Municipalities
alphabetical order)alphabetical order)
Iwate
Miyako city
CARE, Médecins Sans Miyagi
Kesennuma
IVY, NICCO, PWJ, WVJ
Frontières Japan (MSF),
city
NPO
Kokkyonaki
Kodomotach (KnK), WVJ
Yamada town CARE, KnKMinamisanriku ANZ, Salvation Army Japan,
town
MSF, PWJ, WVJ
Otsuchi town CARE, KnK, CCP
Ishinomaki
IVY, Caritas Japan, JEN,
city
Peace Boat and Peace Boat
DisasterReliefVolunteerCentre (PBV)
Kamaishi city Caritas Japan, CARE,
Onagawa
Salvation Army Japan
KnK
town
Ofunato city
Salvation Army Japan,
Shiogama city Caritas Japan
KnK, PWJ
Rikuzentakata KnK, NICCO, PWJ
Sendai city
Caritas Japan, Rio Tinto
city
Fukushima Whole area
ADRA Japan, Shalom
Natori city
NICCO
Soma city
Colliers International
Yamamoto
ADRA Japan
town
Fukushima
CRMS Fukushimacity
Throughout
the three ASHINAGA, Oxfam Japan, Qatar Friendship Fund, CRASH Japan, JANIC, Rotaryprovinces
International/Rotary Foundation, The Coca-Cola Company, JPF, The Save theChildren Japan (SCJ), CCCJ, AAR, Japan Foundation, JRCS, Japan Committee for
UNICEF, BHN Association, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), LionsClub
Note: Organizations introduced in this chapter include those that received more than 200 million yen from overseas
according to this study, other organizations that have characteristic activities, and those visited during the field visitof this study. Therefore, this table does not represent the entire picture of assistance to the affected area. Locations
are obtained from published reports and official websites of these organizations. Organizations that operated
widely and those which the study could not identify their main operating areas are categorized under “throughout
the three provinces.” Organizations under each municipality are presented in the Japanese alphabetical order of
their official name excluding the corporate status heading.
Source: Reports and official website of each organization.
Prefecture Municipalities

BOX 13 Examples of Assistance through Intermediary Grants

82

Emergency Grants to Nonprofit Organizations and Volunteer Groups by the Nippon Foundation
From April to the end of June 2011, the Nippon Foundation provided grants to 695 projects by
651 groups. Each grant was capped at one million yen and the total amount granted wasapproximately 662 million yen. Funded projects were child assistance (16%), providing
psychological and physical care (11%), relief supplies (11%), livelihood assistance (8%),
assistance for persons with disabilities (8%), clearing debris and dirt left by the tsunami (7%),
medical assistance (5%), assisting the elderly people and people in need of nursing care (5%),

82First established as the Japan Shipbuilding Industry Foundation, it is now a foundation which funds domestic
projects related to public interest, welfare, and maritime fields. It also supports International exchange andassistance to developing countries. It has spent 5.8 billion yen for the Great East Japan Earthquake through both
donations from inside and outside Japan and their own revenue sources under the “ROAD Project” (The initials in
the project name stands for “Resilience will Overcome Any Disaster”). Approximately three-fourths of this grant
program drew on its own revenue and a quarter was from donations.

65

Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

and information assistance (5%). It placed importance on responding to emergencies, andpromptly assessed and approved the applications. Approximately 43% of the grant recipientswere NPOs and approximately 40% were private organizations (volunteer groups). Among thoseorganizations, around 28% were established after the earthquake.
Central Community Chest of Japan’s “Disaster Relief Volunteer & NPO Support Fund” (Volsup)83
As of July 2013, CCCJ has received donations totaling approximately 4.2 billion yen from home
and abroad, and has granted a total of approximately 2.8 billion yen to volunteers andNGOs/NPOs as operating funds between May 2011 and April 2013. There are grants for
short-term activities that amount to tens of thousands of yen (a maximum 500,000 yen) and for
mid- to long-term activities, which amount to a maximum of 3 million yen to 10 million yen. Over2,000 projects have been funded. The content of those projects included emergency relief
provided immediately after the earthquake, such as removing debris and running soup kitchens(500 million yen in total), livelihood support such as visiting temporary housing residents andsupporting children’s learning (900 million yen in total), reconstruction assistance that led torebuilding local communities (1.1 billion yen in total), and local residents’ mutual support activities(130 million yen in total). CCCJ accept applications for this fund once every 2 months (once in 3
months after March 2012) so that it can respond to the changing needs of the stricken areas. The
fund is also open to newly established organizations and completed activities.

Japan NGO Center for International Cooperation (JANIC) “NGO Relief Fund for Japan
Earthquake and Tsunami”84
For two years until March 31, 2013, JANIC received donations around 100 million yen from insideand outside Japan, and distributed funds monthly from April 2011 to approximately 30 member
NGOs that had conducted projects to assist the affected areas. The money was provided as
operating funds without any usage specification, so the NGOs could allocate it to theiradministrative cost. Such expenses are crucial to their project operations but otherwise it isdifficult to raise funds in general, since such use of funds may not gain the understanding ofdonors. In this regard, this fund has greatly contributed to the operation of those NGOs. The list ofmember NGOs and their project reports are available on the JANIC website. Many of the member
NGOs are also later mentioned section 4.3.

Japan Platform (JPF)85
JPF has received donations of about 6.8 billion yen (as of the end of March 2012) from home andabroad. It has been providing two types of grants for assistance to the affected areas. List ofrecipient organizations, projects, project durations, and granted amount are available on the JPF
website.

83

CCCJ acts as a national coordinating body for 47 prefectural Community Chests. It receives and coordinates
donations which are used by more than two prefectures. The donations from overseas received by CCCJ was
allocated for the cash grant program, volunteer coordination, and “Disaster Relief Volunteer & NPO Support Fund.”
84
JANIC is a member organization of this study. It is an organization to network NGOs engaged in international
cooperation (93 full member organizations, 62 supporting member groups, 39 supporting member corporations: asof the end of October 2013).
85
JPF is a member organization of this study. It consists of a consortium of NGOs, the business community, andthe MOFA of Japan and has the capacity to promptly and effectively respond to a humanitarian emergency throughstandby funds and goods. It provides grants and coordinates NGOs in times of humanitarian crises happening inand outside Japan. After the Great East Japan Earthquake, JPF received a large amount of donations from privatecompanies around the world.

66

Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake“Co-existence Fund,” or “Stand By Together Fund”: It was set up in April 2011 to support
NGO/NPOs that are non-JPF member NGOs with a budget of 1 billion yen. As of the end of
March 2013, applications were accepted for 12 rounds, and JPF has subsidized 860 million
yen in total to 188 projects. It has been targeting projects that aim to support “self-reliance” ofthe local area, co-existence’ across aged boundaries, and “recovery of the spirit” rooted in
the local tradition and culture. It also helps strengthen the capacity of local NPOs involved inreconstruction by monitoring projects and offering advice on formulating action plans andproject operation and management.

Grants to 40 JPF member NGOs which normally conduct humanitarian emergency
assistances to overseas: During FY 2011 and 2012, JPF granted a total of 5.67 billion yen to
65 projects. A total of 6.8 billion yen was received in one year from the disaster, half of which
was used in the Initial Response Phase (in the initial three months). Subsequently, 5.4 billion
yen was directed to the Emergency Response Phase (June 12 to December 2011).
Together, these expenses in the first nine months account for 80% of the total fund received.
In terms of the amount of money spent, distribution of everyday non-food items took up thelargest portion during both phases86. Many of the NGOs referred to in section 4.3 of this
Chapter are JPF member NGOs and they have been conducting around half of the JPF
granted projects87.
Initial Response Phase Outcome-based Input

Outcome
Outcome1： Support forevacuees

Outcome2：Support fortransition to temporary
housings
Outcome3：Logisticalsupport and coordination
Total

Activities
Distribution of food and everyday goods,
sanitation and medical care, support for
information and communication, support
for restarting schools, and services to themost vulnerable
Distribution of daily goods to temporary
housings, clearing debris and cleaning
housesSupport for NGOs/NPOs, coordination andcooperation with relevant organizations

Input (Yen)
537,723,952

15%

2,934,231,485

83%

64,604,829

2%

3,536,560,265

100%

Emergency Response Phase Outcome-based Input
Outcome
Outcome1：Safety net
supportOutcome2：Community
supportOutcome3：Occupation
SupportOutcome4：Coordination

Activities
Recovery of living environment, sanitation,
medical care and welfare services, andrecovery of school education environment
Provision of places and opportunities for
local people to gather such as community
assembly halls, children’s’ facilities,
processing facilities, and shops for local
products
Support for restarting local industries,
income generation for the most vulnerable
Support for NGOs/NPOs, coordination and

Input (Yen)
1,184,302,716

63%

245,134,255

13%

163,434,250

9%279,464,911

15%

86

Japan Platform. Hyoka Houkokusho: Higashinihon Daishinsai Hisaisha Shien Program [Shodo Taiou Ki](Evaluation Report: Assistance for the Victims of the Great East Japan Earthquake [Initial Response Phase]); andJapan Platform. Hyoka Houkokusho: Higashinihon Daishinsai Hisaisha Shien Program [Kinkyu Taiou Ki](Evaluation Report: Assistance for the Victims of the Great East Japan Earthquake [Emergency Response
Phase]).
87
However, these grants are classified as domestic assistance in each organization and are not included in “thetotal amount of assistance from abroad” received by these organizations.

67

Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

and Support
Total

cooperation
1,872,336,132

100%

Fields of assistance in the Recovery Phase (from January 2012) are as follows. 1) Local
industries and occupation (support for employment and reconstruction of fisheries industry),2) Regional development (support to rebuild or form local communities), 3) Shelters andtemporary housing (physical and psychological care, provide relief supplies), 4) Fukushima(provide playgrounds, create national networks for evacuees, and provide physical andpsychological care to evacuees), 5) Children (provide playgrounds, libraries, and nursing
salons), 6) Elderly people and the most vulnerable (provide psychological care, promote
communication, and repair houses), and 7) Collaboration and coordination (promote
coordination among local authorities, social welfare councils, and NGO/NPOs).JPF has
been conducting projects in accordance with the five-year plan since the earthquake.

BOX 14 An Example of Intermediary Grants through a Newly Established Fund:
88
Qatar Friendship FundThe Qatar government established the "Qatar Friendship Fund" to donate 100 million dollars(approximately 8.2 billion yen) in the aftermath of the Great East Japan Earthquake. From January
2012 to December 2014, the Qatar government has provided funds in three areas namely Education
for Children, Health, and Fisheries to help recovery in the affected areas.
In January 2012, the first project was to invite 1,400 affected children to a ski class in Yuubari,
Hokkaido Prefecture. This was followed by Qatar government funding of 24.3 million USD incooperation with the Nippon Foundation to build a multifunctional fish processing facility in Onagawa
Town. It was the first large-scale project of the Qatar Friendship Fund. The facility was named“Maskar”, a traditional Qatari fishing method and began operations in October 2012. It is expected tocreate jobs for 670 people (13% of the working population of the town) and has had a positive
economic impact of 13 billion yen. The government of Qatar hopes Onagawa Town to become Japan's
number one town in mackerel pike catch.
Consequently, 5 projects (1.6 billion yen) were chosen from 113 proposals at the first public invitation(May to June 2012), and 4 projects were chosen from 71 proposals at the second public invitation(October to December 2012). Selected projects included the development of children’s science campfacilities for elementary and junior high schools (at Sendai city and Iwaki city), sport facilities, cultural
center, childcare centers, club house for preventive care for senior citizens (Minamisoma city),
high-efficiency freezer facility (Kamaishi city), facilities inside the athletic park (Shirakawa city),
facilities for physically challenged persons, and health care centers for people living in temporary
housing. These projects will be completed between 2013 and 2014.

4.2

Outline of the Assistance through JRCS

The breakdown of financial assistance from overseas through JRCS is: 1) cash grants directly
88

Qatar Friendship Fund homepage http://www.qatarfriendshipfund.org/en/projects/projects

68Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

distributed to the victims (about 23.5 billion yen (19.4%) remitted to JRCS’s cash grant programaccount), 2) cash donations from the Red Cross/ Red Crescent partner national societies andother organizations utilized for relief and recovery programs (about 57.4 billion yen, (47.5%), and
3) reconstruction support funds that was established in three prefectures in Tohoku throughassistance from the government of Kuwait (40 billion yen, (33.1%)). Cash donations from RC/RC
partner national societies and other organizations was mainly remitted from the Red Cross and
Red Crescent of each country, and included embassies, government aid agencies, organizations
and individuals. Cash grants are the funds directly remitted to JRCS’s cash grant program accountfrom governments, organizations and individuals, and funds remitted to JRCS through Japanese
governmental agencies such as embassies in each country. The following is the overview of howeach type of fund was utilized.
(1) Cash Grants Distributed to the Victims
The full amount of cash grants from overseas were, together with cash grants collected
domestically, were distributed to the victims according to the following standards and procedures.
In addition, cash grants received by CCCJ, Cabinet Office, and local governments were distributed
according to the same standards and procedures. The total amount of cash grants both fromoverseas and Japan was 352.1 billion yen as of March 30, 2012, of which about 7% was fromoverseas.

69Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

Standards for Cash Grant Distribution
 The first committee meeting on April 8, 2011 decided that “350,000 yen percasualty/missing”, “350,000 yen per completely destroyed (burned down) housing”,“180,000 yen per half-destroyed (burned down) housing”, and “350,000 yen perhousehold in evacuation order areas due to the nuclear accident” for the first distribution.
 The second committee meeting on June 6, 2011 decided the indicators for damages as“1 for casualty/missing, completely destroyed (burned down) housing, and household in
evacuation due to the nuclear accident”, and “0.5 for half-destroyed (burned down)
housing,” and decided to remit the proportionately divided amount promptly based onreports from the affected prefectures on the total number of damages (second
distribution).

In some municipalities, it took time to issue a certificate of affliction and cash grant distribution as
an administrative function was devastated. Municipalities also had difficulty contacting people who
had evacuated far away due to the nuclear accident. Under such conditions, the problem of thetime it took to distribute to the victims after the prefectural governments had sent the cash grants
to municipalities was pointed out at the National Diet or by the media during the first several
months. According to the Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare89, as of August 5, 2011, 80% of
the first distribution was completed in Iwate Prefecture, about 70% (Sendai City 40%, others 90%)in Miyagi Prefecture, and about 90% in Fukushima Prefecture. It almost fully completed in Miyagi
and Fukushima prefectures as of September 9, and in Iwate Prefecture as of November 25,
201190. Cash grants have been remitted even after the first distribution, and from the second
distribution, distribution procedures have improved, and municipalities continued providing cash
grants to victims91. According to the latest data (as of February 28, 2013), distribution to victims
has been completed 98.3% in Iwate, 98.7% in Miyagi, 90.8% in Fukushima, and 97.8-100% inother 12 prefectures92.

(2) JRCS Relief and Recovery Programs 93
JRCS has formulated and implemented a three-year Plan of Action (PoA) for its Relief andRecovery Programs. Financial reports (in Japanese and English) are published on its website, anddetails of activities are also published as “Operations Update” periodically in English, and as89

http://www.mhlw.go.jp/shinsai_jouhou/dl/gienkin_0805_01.pdf
However, in Fukushima Prefecture, the percentage declined to 90% again, as the comprehensive damage
situation remained unclear. For example, application for a certificate of affliction had been continuously submitted.
91
In Fukushima, from the second distribution, 1) municipalities needed to set the standard for distribution due tothe new arrangement to delegate the decision to them, and 2) in some of the municipalities, distribution became
per person, not per household as it was in the first distribution, based on the TEPCO’s delayed payments ofcompensation. Due to these circumstances, it took more time to distribute compared to other prefectures, anddistribution in Date City and Koori Town was delayed.
92
http://www.mhlw.go.jp/shinsai_jouhou/dl/gienkin_130228_01.pdf
93
The amount and usage of the funds here include some 2 billion yen of cash donation which was remitted after
March 2012, the target period of this study. However, most of the cash donation (about 96%) was received within
the target period.
90

70Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake“News” in Japanese on the website. The outline of the Plan of Action is as follows.
Table 4.3 JRCS Relief and Recovery Program Plan of Action
Program

Project Details(unit: JPY 1,000)
Budget525 partitions for evacuation centers, 66 large pots for soup kitchens, 1
1. Distribution of
Emergency Relief
Supplies

vehicle for emergency relief, 37 tents for setting up local HQ and soup
kitchen stands, 597 uniforms for the volunteers, 1 storage for relief

467,625

goods, and 30 large rice cooker
2. Emergency
medical services
and Psycho-Social
Support
Programme (PSP)

Emergency medical relief teams, psycho-social support by

3. Regional
Healthcare
Support
4. Assistance fornuclear power
plant disastervictims

Pneumonia vaccination for 430,000 elderly persons and air purifiers for

Emergency Response Units, and medical assistance for nuclear
disaster evacuees who temporary access into the restricted
areas.
temporary clinics

2,987

3,620,000

Whole Body Counters, 73 thyroid gland monitors, 100 food radiation
measuring equipment, and establishment of Nuclear Disaster

2,335,066

Information Center at JRCS National Headquarters
Construction of a temporary night-time emergency medical center(Ishinomaki), construction of a temporary hospital for secondary
medical care (Ishinomaki), construction of a temporary hospitals as asecondary medical care (Minamisanriku), strengthening the

5. Rehabilitation ofhealthinfrastructure

disaster/emergency medical capacity of Ishinomaki RC Hospital andreconstruction of RC nursing school and emergency health training

9,987,156

center (Ishinomaki), construction of a hospital (Motoyoshi),
Rehabilitation of Community Medical Center (Onagawa), andconstruction and rehabilitation of Shizugawa permanent public hospital(Minamisanriku)
Installation of 6 electric household appliance sets (washing machine,
refrigerator, TV, rice cooker, microwave oven, and electric water
heater) to over 133,000 households, installation of electric household
appliance to 29 evacuation centers, distribution of 370,000 winter and6. Improving theliving conditions ofaffected people inevacuation centers
and temporary
housingsummer amenities, psychosocial support, free community bus
operations support, construction of public housing (Otsuchi),construction of community center (Kawauchi and Otsuchi), Nordic style29,521,390

walking as physical exercise class, Health and Social Class, home visit,
construction of Psychosocial support center for children and youth in
Iwate Medical University Hospital, mobile dental care services for
elderly and physically challenged persons, over 57,000 medical items,
event activities, and financial support for rebuilding shipping boats to afishery union in Iwaki
959 medical/nursing beds, 338 warfare vehicles, deployment of

7. Social welfare
supportcaretakers, distribution of over 2,200 items for temporary group homes
for the elderly, rebuilding of social welfare center (Kesennuma, Miyagi),

1,982,372

construction of public housing for the elderly (Soma, Fukushima),
construction of public housing for the elderly (Shinchi, Fukushima), and71

Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

various supports for social welfare centers
Provision of over 8,900 items (dishes, cooking tools, food delivery
truck ) for school kitchen centers, construction of Nursery schools andafter-class centers, health and safety support, 18 school bus operations
support, provision of school items (81 types of gymnasia goods, 121
8. Children's
education support

PCs, 3,655 training outfits, 5,621 flashlights, 1,799 items for school
clinics, electric blackboards, and etc. ), Organisation of indoor

2,970,833

playground (Smile Parks), summer camps, prefabricated school
gymnasiums, movie shows, establishment of “Children’s World(Kodomo-en) of Naraha town” (Iwaki city),distribution of playgroundequipment , art workshops, and others.
9. Community
Based Disaster
Preparedness
10. Capacity
building of JRCSin the area of
disaster
11. Other Projects

Provision of disaster preparedness materials (generators, cord reels,
floodlights, lanterns, mobile toilet sets, partitions), vehicles, and 109

1,500,355

disaster preparedness storage units and others.
Distribution of large-size tent, cars and trucks, satellite phones,
cooling/heating system, portable ultrasound diagnostic devices, and

2,000,000

others to JRCS Chapters.
Distribution of Automated External Defibrillator (AED) ,emergency kits,
temporary showers, and tents to volunteer centers,

12. Project under formulation
13. Project
management andHR, consultancy, audit, evaluation, etc.
support

15,916
3,660,894
1,808,997

Total
59,873,591
Source: Japanese Red Cross Society. (2013, September 12). Japan： Earthquake and Tsunami. Operations
Update No. 12, and websites of JRCS.

About 45% of the total PoA budget or about 27 billion yen was used for the set of six household
electrical appliances (washing machine, refrigerator, TV, rice cooker, micro wave, and electric pot)
for more than 133 thousand households who were in prefabricated or rented temporary housing94.
Next is the reconstruction/rehabilitation of health facilities including hospitals, utilizing about 17%of the PoA budget. In addition to these, support for the elderly/physically challenged persons,support for victims of the nuclear accident, and support for children are about 5%, respectively. Asof the end of June, 2013, about 70% of the PoA budget was already used for the above mentioned
programs and 24% was already allocated/under implementation. The remaining 6% or 3.66 billion
yen of the budget will be utilized for programs under formation or programs to meet the futureneeds. The funds whose usage have already been decided and not yet disbursed are forprograms that take a long time such as large scale construction projects for hospitals, and softcomponent programs that have been conducted continuously such as programs for providing playzones and summer camps for children and psychological care (see BOX 15 and 16).
JRCS commissioned third party evaluations of its recovery and rehabilitation activities for the94

Rented temporary housing are regular properties municipalities rent to be used as temporary housing. They arecalled “deemed-temporary housing.”

72

Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

Great East Japan Earthquake, and the report on FY2011 project are available both in Japaneseand English on the Internet95. According to the report, JRCS mainly combined hard components
like construction and material support and soft components effectively, and its extensive andcomprehensive support utilizing the vast financial resources provided from overseas was highly
appreciated. At the same time, the report pointed out some issues. The variety of support activities
was limited in some part of the region or field, monitoring after material/grant provision, andsecuring/training human resource for soft component programs. The report also pointed out thatfurther dissemination and publicity was necessary show that financial assistance from overseas
was utilized for their activities. FY2012 projects were also evaluated and an evaluation report will
be published in FY201396.

BOX 15 Japanese Red Cross Society's Support for Temporary Housing
Residents of Futaba Town, where units 5 and 6 of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant arelocated, evacuated and relocated to Kitakansen Daini Temporary Housing in Fukushima. About 80% of
the 90 residents living in 50 houses are senior citizens, farmers who remained active by working thefield every day. However, as people started to live in evacuation shelters, their strength started to
decline due to lack of daily exercise. Approximately 10 people passed away from diseases such as
high blood pressure and diabetes every month at the shelter. Even after moving into temporary
housing, solitary death still remains a concern, thus maintaining the emotional health of the elderly is
considered as one of the important issues to prevent this.
At the community space in the temporary housing there are desks, chairs, refrigerators, pots, vacuum
cleaners, and other equipment provided by JRCS. This space is opened every day for the residents,
and there are usually about 10 people who spend time drinking tea and chatting. It is also used forevents such as health promotion class and patchwork class. When the study team visited thecommunity space, exercises for the elderly were being led by a person from the health and welfare
office of Fukushima. In order to get the residents out of their homes, the president of the residents'
association makes use of relief supplies and money received from collecting used papers andnewspapers, and cardboards to hold a dinner party for residents a few times a month.
Furthermore, in order for the residents to exercise safely, JRCS developed a ground-golf course andprovided clubs, balls, and other equipment in the premises of the temporary housing settlement.
Playing ground golf a few times, is equivalent to walking 10 thousand steps in a day. Ground golf
became popular among the residents, and about 230 people per month come to the ground to play,including people living in temporary housing in Namie Town. The residents are thinking of participatingin the Japan Ground Golf Association's Competition in 2014.
Regarding other support from JRCS, the president of the residents' association said, "Home electronic
appliances are expensive, but everyone needs them, but it was hard for everyone to buy it all at once.
In addition, the compensation from TEPCO to Futaba town was delayed in comparison to other towns,
95

The Japan Research Institute, Limited. (2012, November 30). Summary Report: Third Party Evaluation of theGreat East Japan Earthquake Recovery Task Force (FY2011 Project).
96
Japanese Red Cross Society. (2013, July 26). Japan：Earthquake and Tsunami. 24 Months Report.

73

Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquakeso support from JRCS was very helpful." "At the shelter, blankets provided by the prefecture were forsummer-use, so I was worried about how to survive the winter season at the end of 2011 when I
moved into temporary housing. But then, JRCS provided winter-use blankets for each resident. That
was a great help." "Because no compensation was paid at first, we had to use our limited savings
without knowing what the future held. We had been barely making a living and depended on relief
supplies. Thus, cash-donations from JRCS were extremely helpful. Since all the goods we needed
could not be provided by relief supplies, we have to buy what we need on our own. We were really
thankful for the cash-donations. "It is well known to everybody that cash contributions from overseas have been used for the JRCS’relief activities. The president of the residents' association commented, "We cannot tell you how
thankful we are for the support provided during the difficult times. In return for this, we even thought
about collecting donations from the residents and sending it to JRCS to help those countries that are inneed of support. Although the idea did not come to fruition, I believe every resident is willing to donate
his or her money in view of how much we have received from economically poor countries. People
from overseas take action quickly. Japan should also assist other countries that are in need of our help
without hesitation."

Exercise at the community space. A
sticker with "From overseas,through Japan Red Cross" isplaced on each supply

Ground golf supplies

Mr. Horii, the president ofresidents' association

74Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

BOX 16 Mobile Dental Care Service for the Elderly
Many dental clinics near the coast were greatly damaged from the Tohoku earthquake. It is difficult forpeople, especially the elderly living in temporary housing and nursing homes, and physicallychallenged people who have difficulty visiting a clinic to receive dental care. How to prevent aspiration
pneumonitis, which many elderly people died from during the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake in 1995
was an important issue to tackle. Soon after the earthquake struck Miyagi prefecture, mobile clinics
came from outside the prefecture to provide dental care services. This prevented immediate cases ofaspiration pneumonitis, however, a long-term measure to prevent the disease was still needed.
In April 2013, JRCS using financial donations from overseas
provided 11 portable dental service sets to the Miyagi Dental
Association (MDA) that consisted of 60 dental care equipment(valued at about 56.32 million yen). These included items suchas mobile x-ray equipment, sterilizer equipment, electricalgenerator, wheel chair with a head rest, portable mini light,
protective clothing for x-rays, and vehicle.
MDA distributed the dental service sets to their branches at
Dental care equipment
Shiogama city, Iwanuma city, Ishinomaki city, and Kesennuma
to undertake the “Long-term Mobile Dental Care Service Project for the Elderly and Physically
Challenged” as one of the earthquake disaster reconstruction projects for Miyagi Prefecture. The
project provided dental checkup services once a month at the temporary housing and nursing homes.
The transportation and human resource costs for the project were incurred by MDA.
In the first three months from April to June after starting the project, a total of 242 persons from 8
municipalities received dental care namely dental checkups, lessons on how to properly brush teeth,and denture adjustment. Medical treatment is not included in the service; however, if a visit-based
consultation is need, DMA introduces other programs that allow for medical treatment if necessary.
One MDA executive said, “This service was especially helpful for the elderly and physically challenged
who are seeking dental checkups but cannot visit the clinic due to difficulty moving. All I want to say isthank you for the support. I was not aware of such a support structure, and I believe others did notknow about it too. I am very thankful to JRCS for thinking about our association.”(3) Reconstruction Support Funds Established in Three Prefectures in Tohoku throughAssistance from the State of Kuwait
Funds from the sale of crude oil provided from the government of Kuwait were divided andallocated to three prefectures in Tohoku to establish reconstruction support funds. Out of about 40
billion yen in total, approximately 6 billion yen (about 15%) has been disbursed as of March 201397.
Its usage is decided by an independent panel in each prefecture (composed of prefectural andmunicipal governments, media, bank, enterprises, etc.). Each prefecture reports the status of fund97

Japanese Red Cross Society. (2013, September 12). Japan：Earthquake and Tsunami. Operations Update No.
12.

75

Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

usage to JRCS semiannually (see BOX 17).
Table 4.3

State of Utilization of the Reconstruction Support Funds from the State of
KuwaitPrefecture

Allocated fields
・Recovery of the regions along the Sanriku Railway and the recovery of train cars and stations
・Rehabilitation of the homes of disaster survivors (subsidy to municipal governments)

Iwate

・Restoration of private schools
・Recovery of traditional local performing arts
・Support for fish farming of salmon and trout in order to stabilize and expand fisheries
・Financial support for the restoration of small to medium-size businesses
・Maintenance of prefabricated housing
・Rehabilitation of homes through support of mortgage interest

Miyagi

・Revitalization of fish farming・Restoration of utilities for small to medium-size business・Resumption of local commerce
・Revitalization of tourist destination facilities
・Preservation of designated cultural property
・Restoration of local cultural heritage
・Restoration of historical architecture
・Supplement the purchase of vehicles such as buses and taxies
・Rehabilitation of homes through support of mortgage interest
・Maintenance of prefabricated housing
・Support for farmers whose business is suspended due to evacuation
・Restoration and recovery of utilities for small to medium-size businesses
・Support for Fukushima industries
・Funding support for small and medium-size businesses

Fukushima

・Subsidy for the elderly to receive pneumococcal vaccination(The following fields were added in the fiscal year 2013)
・Human resources development, vitalization of villages, and implementation of the “Satoyama
Ikiiki Senryaku Jigyo (Lively village forest strategy project)” which pilot new business models
・Enhancement of the living environment for emergency dormitories of satellite high schools andtraining environment for sports classes
・Support for satellite classes of prefectural high schools (Improve academic abilities, carry out
career and vocational education, support mutual coordination, secure accommodations, operatebuses for practical training, and purchase equipment)
・Projects aiming to stabilize the lives of evacuees living outside Fukushima and to facilitate theirreturnSources：Japanese Red Cross Society. (2013, September 12). Japan：Earthquake and Tsunami. Operations
Update No. 12; Japanese Red Cross Society Website, Miyagi Prefecture Website “Heisei 24 Nendo Tousho Yosan
An no Shuyou Kadai (Major Issues of the Fiscal 2012 Original Budjet Plan)”, Fukushima Prefecture Website“Kuwait Karano Kyuenkin (Relief Fund from Kuwait).”76

Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

BOX 17

Support for Recovery of the Sanriku Railway from the Sale of the Crude Oil
Donated by the State of Kuwait

Sanriku Railway of Iwate prefecture is a small railway company that runs the North Rias Line and theSouth Rias Line along the Sanriku coast. Many station buildings and sections were washed away by
the tsunami. Of the 4 train cars that the South Rias Line held, 3 were in the garage and became
unusable due to inundation, except for one train car that was running through a tunnel at the timeand miraculously avoided the disaster. Some sections that had less damage in the North Rias Line
restarted its service in March. Many residents, more than double of its capacity, got on board to go
shopping for daily commodities. In the sections where service had been suspended, those who used
the railway before the disaster had to endure inconvenient days by using buses and asking theirfamilies to pick up/ drop them by cars.
While Sanriku Railway was putting effort to reopening all of its
lines within 3 years, Iwate prefecture that was considering a
way of using the funds from the State of Kuwait, decided torestore 5 station buildings and purchase 8 train cars (3 traincars so far) for Sanriku Railway as a remembrance of the
support. Through this support, partial operation of the South
Rias Line was achieved in April 2013. In spite of the heavy rain,
Train cars purchased
many residents packed to the opening ceremony that was
attended by the Iwate Governor and Kuwaiti Ambassador, and welcomed the first trains in tears,

waving the flag of Sanriku Railway and the national flag of Kuwait. The 50-seated new train cars aredesigned to be accessible for the elderly and fun for tourists. The train operates 7 round trips a day,compared to 10 before the disaster. Around 5,000-6,000 passengers, mainly high school students,
the elderly who cannot drive and tourists, use the railway every month. At the time when Prime
Minister Shinzo Abe visited Kuwait in August 2013, thank you messages from local residents havebeen delivered to the country’s Crown Prince.
As the essential means of transport of the local aging society, and for industrial promotion andregional activation through tourism, restoring the railway plays a very important role. The Sanriku
Railway, in order to compensate for reduced fare revenue due to the relocation of residents, declineof transport capacity and suspended services, the Railway started to sell various local products andgoods such as pieces of disaster-struck rail. It also puts effort in organizing disaster study/tours,
accepting observation tours from all over the country, and planning special event trains such as“ozashiki ressha,” a decorated train to serve special lunches. Aiming to reopen the whole line by
April 2014, the remaining section is under construction. President Mochizuki of Sanriku Railway
said, “We will achieve the reopening of the entire line by keeping the support and assistance fromeverybody in mind, and by never forgetting it, continue to do our best to live up to the support”.

National emblem of Kuwait marked on the car body (left), Words of appreciation to the support (right).

77

Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

4.3

Outline of the Assistance through Other Organizations by Field

Relief and reconstruction activities conducted by utilizing financial assistance from overseas
included activities in various fields, direct cash distribution, purchase/ distribution of food and relief
supplies/support for evacuees, coordination of volunteer activities such as operation of volunteer
centers, education/child support, livelihood and economic reconstruction such as support for
fisheries/employment/ small and medium-sized enterprises, support for community activities,
programs for psychosocial care, health care/public health programs, support for the vulnerable
including people with disabilities, the elderly and women, information support such asbroadcasting, support for victims of the nuclear accident, aid coordination, and many others. The
following sections introduce the activities in each field, and provide some examples of the activities
by organizations that received much financial assistance from overseas 98 or had uniqueactivities99. The classification of the fields here is only an expedient, as each organization has its
own classification of activities.
(1) Direct Cash Distribution
Other than cash grants distributed by JRCS and other public entities described in the preceding
section, there were several organizations that had directly distributed funds in the form ofconsolatory money or scholarships. Examples are shown below. There were two characteristics:
immediate payouts, which were appreciated because those were more promptly distributed than
the above-mentioned cash grants, and scholarships, which supported affected children for alonger term.


The Nippon Foundation: Since the beginning of April 2011, it has provided condolence andconsolatory money of 50,000 yen per deceased and/or missing person to the families utilizing
donations from home and abroad. As of the end of March 2012, it had finished providing 870
million yen in total to the bereaved families of 17,329 persons out of the 18,940 persons(91.5%) confirmed dead or missing by the National Police Agency.

Ashinaga100: Since the beginning of April 2011, utilizing donations from within Japan and fromoverseas, Ashinaga has provided one-time emergency relief grants to 2,075 children fromnewborns to graduate students, whose parents/guardians were either dead or sufferedserious disabilities due to the earthquake and tsunami. The grant was initially a uniform sumof 2 million yen, but was increased to 2.82 million yen in April 2013. Ashinaga has also
provided one-time housing subsidies, ranging from 300,000 to 500,000 yen, to each of the98

About 20 organizations which received more than 200 million yen.
As it is difficult to present activities of all of the vast number of organizations that implemented assistance, thischapter presents only examples of some organizations. The overall picture of assistance by the civil society is
described in detail in JANIC. (2012) Higashinihon daishinsai to kokusai kyouryoku NGO: Kokunai deno aratana
kanosei to kadai, soshite teigen (The Great East Japan Earthquake and International and NGO for International
Cooperation: New possibility and issues in Japan and lessons learnt).
100
Ashinaga is a NGO which normally supports children who have lost their parents to disease or natural disasterby providing scholarships in the form of interest-free loans. It also provides psychological care to these children.
99

78

Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

168 orphaned students in the affected areas. The total sum provided is more than 5.9 billion
yen.
World Vision Japan (WVJ)101: In collaboration with the National Federation of UNESCO
Associations in Japan102, WVJ has provided a 20,000 yen monthly scholarship to 1,118
elementary and junior high school students in Minamisanriku Town and Kesennuma City from
April 2011 to March 2014.



A British-Australian major metals and mining corporation, Rio Tinto: By jointly investing 200
million yen each with the Japanese corporation Komatsu, it has established a 400 million yen“Rio Tinto-Komatsu Scholarship” at Tohoku University. It will provide assistance over a 10
year period to the University’s undergraduate and graduate students, including future
students103.



A global commercial real estate services corporation, Colliers International, headquartered in
Seattle, USA: It has raised more than 22,000 dollars in donations from its employees in over
60 countries, and it has donated the sum to the Soma City Earthquake Disaster Orphan
Scholarship Fund. This fund will be set aside to provide monthly support to approximately 50
children in the city orphaned in the disaster, who will attend university in the future104.
Voices from Recipients of Direct Cash Distribution105“I could not take out a single item. My wife and our house were both swept away by the tsunami. I
would like to use the fund for my wife’s funeral. Thank you very much.
“It made me realize that many people are thinking about us and that gradually encouraged me.

(2) Purchase/Distribution of Food and Relief Supplies and Support for Evacuees
While many relief supplies were delivered from abroad at the time of the Great East Japan
Earthquake as described in Chapter 3, there were also a lot of support in the form of donations
that were then allocated to supply food and goods for victims. This includes emergency relief
provided during the approximately three months after the earthquake and support for the transition
to temporary housing after that. There was a wide range of support to meet the varying needs of101

WVJ is one of the support offices in the World Vision Partnership, an international NGO dedicated to
implementing programs in community development, emergency humanitarian relief, and advocacy (appeal to the
public or government) based on Christian values. WVJ has received donations in total of approximately 4.6 billion
yen for the support of victims of the Great East Japan Earthquake. Among 80% of those were from World Vision
around the world.
102
National Federation of UNESCO Associations in Japan works in the field of education, and preservation ofnature and culture. It is an independent NGO which coordinates and cooperates with UNESCO, a United Nationsorganization, and Japanese National Commission for UNESCO, a governmental organization under the Ministry of
Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology.
103
Extracted from Rio Tinto Japan and Komatsu websites.
104
The American Chamber of Commerce in Japan. (2012). 2012 ACCJ Corporate Social Responsibility Year
Book.
105
The Nippon Foundation. ROAD PROJECT Higashi Nihon Daishinsai Ichinen no Katsudou Kiroku (The Great
East Japan Earthquake Project record of the year).

79Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

the stricken areas. These supplies were procured locally as much as possible.
Many organizations provided emergency relief to sheltered evacuees and victims who
remained in their houses. Diverse relief supplies include fuel, water, food such as rice,seasoning, vegetables, fruits, retort pouch food, canned food, and long life milk, daily goods
such as blankets, underwear, clothes, towels, bedding, surgical masks, insecticides,
detergents, toilet paper, and sanitary goods, medical and pharmaceutical supplies, nursery
items such as baby food, feeding bottles, and diapers, and goods for children such as picture
books, crayons, and toys. Furthermore, large appliances were distributed to shelters such as
generators, washing machines, refrigerators, high pressure washers, portable toilets, solar
panels, LED lamps, computers, printers, photocopiers, microwave ovens, electric fans,vacuum cleaners, rice cookers, futon driers, and TVs. In the case of Peace Winds Japan(PWJ)106, it has provided approximately 160 tons of relief supplies to Rikuzentakata City andOfunato City in Iwate Prefecture, and Kesennuma City and Minamisanriku Town in Miyagi
Prefecture one month after the outbreak of the disaster.



Many organizations ran soup kitchens at the shelters. For example, Nippon International
Cooperation for Community Development (NICCO) 107 has employed local chefs in
Kesennuma City who lost their jobs in the disaster, and ran soup kitchens at lunch and dinner
every day between April and October 2011. It provided a total of 88,961 warm meals during
the period. CARE International Japan (CARE)108 provided a total of 45,000 morning andevening meals to a total of 870 people at two shelters in Yamada Town from April to the endof June 2011, and donated cooking devices after the project was completed. ADRA Japan109
ran soup kitchens to provide a total of 12,500 meals three times a day every day toapproximately 100 public servants and support personnel of the town’s Headquarters for
Disaster Control, who served 24-hour continuous duty in Yamamoto Town, Watari District,
Miyagi Prefecture, and thus could not receive public food rations even though they
themselves were victims of the disaster. In Yamamoto town, approximately 45% of the area
was damaged by the earthquake and tsunami, and approximately 45% of the population

106

PWJ is a NGO which provides emergency relief and development cooperation for self-sustainability in andoutside Japan. Its relief operation was provided in Iwate and Miyagi Prefectures.
107
Headquartered in Kyoto, NICCO is an NGO which provides emergency relief and self-reliance support aroundthe world. It has implemented projects in Kesennuma City and Natori City in Miyagi Prefecture, and Rikuzentakata
City in Iwate Prefecture.
108
CARE International Japan is a member organization of an internation NGO CARE Internaitonal. The
assistance to Tohoku was the first time for CARE to assist a developed country. It has received donations of morethan 300 million yen from home and abroad, including CARE International members around the world. It has
specifically targeted coastal areas of Iwate Prefecture (Miyako City, Yamada Town, Otsuchi Town, and KamaishiCity) to operate, and conducted evaluation of Tohoku Earthquake Response Activities from May to September
2012. Many of its project report videos are available on their website.
109
ADRA Japan is the Japanese branch of an international NGO which conducts emergency and development
assistance. Many of its donations for the Great East Japan Earthquake are from ADRA networks in member
countries. It conducts projects in Yamamoto Town, Watari District, Miyagi Prefecture and in Fukushima Prefecture.

80

Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

suffered from the disaster. JEN110 ran soup kitchens to provide a total of 38,666 meals to
Sendai City and Ishinomaki City, and Association for Aid and Relief (AAR)111 ran soup
kitchens to provide a total of 25,000 meals at 73 places in the stricken three prefectures.


In coordination among themselves and with the local authority, many organizations have
distributed daily necessary items, other than the set of six electrical appliances distributed by
the JRCS to residents living in temporary housing. The content of the items differs dependingon the municipality and organization, but approximately 70 to 100 goods that are
indispensable in daily life were distributed as a set, including furniture such as tables andcupboards, bedding, cooking utensils, dishes, cleaning utensils, bathroom items, stationery,bicycles, first-aid kit, and emergency equipment. For example, PWJ has distributed goods to44,281 people in nine municipalities in Iwate Prefecture, while CARE covered 3,340
households of temporary housings and those remained in their houses in four municipalities
in Iwate Prefecture. WVJ covered approximately 14,000 households residing in prefabricatedand rented temporary housing in Miyagi and Iwate Prefectures. ADRA Japan covered 4,320
households in three municipalities in Miyagi Prefecture, 26,683 households in ninemunicipalities in Fukushima Prefecture, and 6,138 evacuee households living outside
Fukushima Prefecture. AAR has distributed goods to all 22,599 households residing in
prefabricated and rented temporary housing in 13 municipalities in Fukushima Prefecture.
Part of these was done through the JPF grant.
 Inequality among residents living in temporary housing in the stricken areas was a major
problem. While countermeasures against the harsh cold weather in prefabricated temporary
housing built by the government were taken by the government through municipalities under
the Disaster Relief Act, such countermeasures were not taken in the rented temporary
housing (deemed-temporary housing) due to construction reasons. Accordingly, several
support organizations have coordinated to provide heating appliances to all households livingin the deemed-temporary housing using private properties. For example, Caritas Japan112
has distributed the appliances to 14,901 households in three prefectures, while AAR covered
approximately 9,000 households in 18 municipalities in Miyagi Prefecture by allocating
donations from home and abroad and subsidies from an American NGO AmeriCares andInternational Rescue Committee. JEN covered 6,180 households in Ishinomaki City and
Sendai City, and The Salvation Army113 was in charge of distribution to approximately 6,000

110

JEN is a NGO which provides emergency relief in and outside Japan. It has conducted relief activities in Miyagi
and Fukushima Prefectures. From March 2011 to April 30 2012, 206,264 people have benefited from the activities.
111
AAR is an NGO which focuses on emergency relief, support for persons with disabilities, and actions against
landmines and unexploded ordinances overseas. According to the present study, AAR has received several
hundred millions of yen from overseas.
112
Caritas Japan is one of the Catholic Bishops’ Conferences of Japan, and is a member of the international NGO
Caritas International. It has conducted projects by integrating donations from home and abroad. 70% of those
donations comprised of assistance from overseas, including the 165-nation Caritas Internationals.
113
The Salvation Army is a Christian (Protestant) organization which has presence in 124 countries and regions.

81Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

households in 11 municipalities in Miyagi Prefecture utilizing the support of the Salvation
Army in Hong Kong.
In addition to the above, there was wide ranging support to meet the local needs in the stricken
areas such as operating buses to connect shelters, temporary housing, supermarkets, andhospitals, dispatching specialists to repair, disinfect, and confirm the safety of buildings, andprovide gift vouchers that can be used in local supermarkets and shopping malls. Moreover, after
the shift into the recovery and reconstruction phase, many organizations visited the temporary
housing to deliver lunch boxes and seasonal meals. For example, CCCJ distributed rice cakes andToshikoshi-soba (buckwheat noodles eaten on New Year’s Eve) to the victims living in temporary
housing at the end of 2011 by allocating donations from Community Chest of Korea and United
Way of Taiwan.
Voices of People who Received Food and Relief Supplies114“Because everything was gone, anything was appreciated. For example, since we were hardly able
to get fresh food, canned fruits were very appreciated. We delivered supplies to every house fromdoor-to-door and the elderly said, ‘thank you, thank you’” (voice of victims involved in goods
distribution in Otsuchi: from the field visit)“Thanks to everybody who supported us, we are doing well. We were really happy when our dietary
life changed from rice balls to meals in a home atmosphere”“I felt acutely that the stability of food leads to the stability of the mind […] I strongly felt that the warm
meals are full of sincerity”“We live supported by the feeling that ‘someone cares about us.’”“The oil heater has arrived. It will help us face the cold. Unlike the people in temporary housing,those of us staying in other places do not receive much assistance. We thank you so much for your‘warm’ support.”“We are glad because there were things that we wanted to buy for our children but could not afford in
the relief supplies. We feel very grateful. Thank you very much.”(3) Coordination of Volunteer Activities
Chapter 3 of this report introduced the many volunteers from overseas who worked in the affectedareas. Volunteer workers from inside and outside the country operated soup kitchens, distributed
relief supplies, cleared rubble and mud, cleaned affected houses, supported the fishing industry,
and many other good deeds. At the same time, they played an important role in the psychologicalcare and grasping the needs of the victims by being there and listening to them, and checking up
on the elderly households. Financial assistance from overseas was utilized to coordinate thesevolunteers to help them work efficiently and effectively. The following is some examples.

Its head office is in London.
Extracted from Care International Japan official website; ADRA Japan. Annual Report; and Caritus Japan. The
Great East Japan Earthquake & Tsunami Activity Report.

114

82

Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan EarthquakePeace Boat and Peace Boat Disaster Relief Volunteer Centre (PBV) 115: They dispatched andcoordinated volunteers to work in Ishinomaki City, Miyagi Prefecture through recruiting,conducting orientations (in six prefectures, 99 times in one year), and providing bus
transportation for volunteer workers (157 times in one year). The total number of dispatchedvolunteer workers was 11,427 in one year, and the total number of volunteer working days
was 67,991. Volunteer workers operated soup kitchens, distributed relief supplies, cleared
rubble and mud, and supported the fishing industry.

Central Community Chest of Japan (CCCJ): It provided grants (in total 880 million yen) toabout 150 Disaster Volunteer Centers established in the affected areas. Grants were utilized
for temporary buildings for the centers, bus transportation for volunteer workers, equipment
for volunteer work (dust respirators, helmets, tools, etc.), office supplies, sanitary goods,
insurance fees for volunteer workers. It also dispatched volunteer coordinators to Disaster
Relief Volunteer Centers.

Among religious groups, Caritas Japan established the Sendai Diocese Support Center(SDSC) and four volunteer bases in Kamaishi in Iwate Prefecture and Yonekawa, Ishinomaki,
and Shiogama in Miyagi Prefecture, and conducted relief activities. Volunteer activities
included clearing rubble and mud, cleaning, listening to the survivors at temporary housings,
mending fishing implements, supported the summer festival, provided hot water at shelters,
operated mobile cafés at temporary housing, provided transportation, photo cleaning, andother activities. CRASH Japan 116 established five volunteer bases in Tono City and
Ichinoseki City in Iwate Prefecture, Sendai City in Miyagi Prefecture, Nasu City in Tochigi
Prefecture, and Hitachi City in Ibaraki Prefecture so that they can cover the entire Tohoku
region. They provided food, accommodation, training and necessary tools for volunteer
workers. The Salvation Army Japan, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS)117, and many other religious groups conducted volunteer activities, utilizing financial

assistance from overseas.

115

An NGO that coordinates “Peace Boat voyages” which also implements emergency relief activities. Peace Boat
Disaster Relief Volunteer Centre was established following the Great East Japan Earthquake.
116
A non-profit Christian disaster relief organization based in Tokyo. It implemented relief activities in cooperation
with Japan Evangelical Association and others, and received donation of several hundred million yen fromoverseas.
117
LDS has implemented relief and volunteer activities called Mormon Helping Hands in response to pastdisasters. Upon the Great East Japan Earthquake, it received 13 million dollars (about 1 billion yen) of donations
from LDS Charities, an US Mormon Church humanitarian aid organization, and utilized this for their relief
activities.

83Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

Activities by Volunteers (courtesy of Peace Boat)

Voice from a survivor who accepted volunteer workers118“Honestly, I thought I could never again do any work at sea, and I had no will either. Houses, fishingboats, and equipment were all swept away, and I think most fishermen thought of giving up fishing.
Then came the volunteers, and in no time the beach was clean again. A lot of people helped us do
the “heavy, exhausting, and dirty” cultivating work, and that really changed my mind. Now is the timefor young fishers to revitalize the beach, and we organized called “”Bonding with the Sea
Association.”” I want many people to know how great Sudachi-hama is.”(4) Education/Child Support
Among the organizations researched in this study, about three-fourths of the 20 organizations thatreceived a large amount of financial assistance from overseas conducted activities in this field.
Many organizations provided equipment, furniture, teaching materials, musical instruments,
school supplies, playground equipment, and etc., provided funds for repairing damaged schoolbuildings and facilities, repaired/ developed playgrounds, equipped evacuation routes, supported
art activities and tutoring at shelters and such for nursery schools, kindergartens,
elementary/junior high schools, Boy Scouts, and children’s centers (see BOX 18). The following
are some examples.


Save the Children Japan (SCJ)119: It supported 65,000 children in more than 30 municipalities
in Iwate and Miyagi prefectures within one year after the disaster. Beneficiaries in 2012 were75,460 children and 21,933 adults. In the emergency phase, it established child-friendly
spaces at 19 shelters, provided toys, school supplies, and sanitary/first aid kits, andestablished “child-friendly toilets”. In the “child protection” sector SCJ provided play zones at
temporary housing settlements, rehabilitated parks, supported Gakudos (after-school day
care centers), kindergartens and nurseries, and planned/conducted activities that would raisecommunity awareness about children. As “educational” sector activities, it has provided
school lunch and supplemental items (vegetable juice, milk, etc.), micro-bus services to allow

118

Peace Boat Disaster Relief Volunteer Centre. Annual Report 2011.
A member of an international NGO that implements development/emergency aid mainly for children. More than
one billion yen was provided from members in the world. Combined with donations collected domestically, support
activities of about 77 million dollars is planned in 5 years. Out of the total budget, 36 million dollars were disbursedin the first two years. Progress review and mid-term evaluation were conducted.
11984

Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

students to attend their schools and take part in school club activities, emergency supplies,
school supplies, and classroom items, supported sports/cultural activities, provided
educational support (online tutoring, study rooms), and conducted disaster risk reduction
trainings. It has also provided children with opportunities to participate in the development ofreconstruction plans in their municipalities, and advocate children’s voices to decision makers.
It has also provided grants to more than 300 NPOs in the Tohoku region and supported theircapacity development and activities to raise awareness on children’s rights.
Japan Committee for UNICEF120: It supported reconstruction/large scale repair of 14 nurseryschools/kindergartens, provided stationery kits for 26,376 children in three prefectures,provided classroom items for 638 schools and 73 nursery schools/kindergartens, provided
school lunch supplemental items for nursery schools, provided school lunch tableware for all
15,000 elementary/junior high school students in Ishinomaki City, and provided dishwashers
and sterilizing keepers to three school lunch preparation centers. It also conducted training on
prevention of violence to children and town-building workshops, and supported a child-friendly
reconstruction plan.



NPO Kokkyo naki Kodomotachi (KnK) (Children without Borders) 121 : It provided schoolsupplies, school bags, school uniforms, sports uniforms, classroom items, sporting
goods/uniforms to children in Iwate, Fukushima and Ibaraki prefectures. It also supported
repair of four housings for teachers in Yamada Town, rehabilitation of school yards in Yamada
Town, and joint wastewater treatment tank at a junior high school in Rikuzentakata City,
provided two buses for mobile child center that go round temporary housings andelementary/junior high schools in Rikuzentakata City, provided/operated school buses in
Ofunato City, provided rescue boats to yacht clubs of Miyako High School and Miyako
Commercial High School, provided foodstuff for school lunches at nursery schools in
Minamisoma City, and supported students from the affected areas to visit France as
friendship-reporters.

World Vision Japan (WVJ): It operated Child-Friend Spaces in seven shelters and schools in
Minamisanriku Town, and provided school supplies and classroom items to about 90
elementary/junior high/high schools in Iwate and Miyagi prefectures. It also provided side
dishes for school lunch to all 1,100 elementary/junior high school students and teachers in
Minamisannriku Town, as well as supporting the reopening of school lunch facilities. It
supported junior leaders in Minamisanriku Town to develop a town reconstruction plan, andsubmitted a proposal to the mayor. It provided solar panels and disaster prevention

120

About four billion yen of donations from inside and outside the country was provided by the end of 2011. Out of
this, 1.2 billion, about one fourth of the total, was from Committees for UNICEF from 15 foreign countries.
121
A Japanese NGO which was established in 1997, and implements child support projects in Asian countries. Its
main supporters are private businesses/groups from Western countries, mainly France. It specifies financial
assistance from which organization supports which activity for all their activities.

85

Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

warehouses to 22 elementary/junior high schools and 30 shelters in Kesennuma City and
Miyako City as “Child Focused Disaster Risk Reduction” (see BOX 19). It also provided tidal
level/tsunami observation systems at 5 points in Kesennuma City, 2,500 emergency radios,
30,000 tsunami inundated area maps, and 100 evacuation signposts.
 The Coca-Cola Company: It established “Coca-Cola Japan Reconstruction Fund” at the
Coca-Cola Education and Environment Foundation. The Fund was used for 1) providing solar
panels, storage batteries, and environment education to 50 public elementary/junior highschools in Iwate/Miyagi/Fukushima prefectures, spending in total 1.5 billion yen, 2) the Young
Americans Tohoku Project where children in Tohoku and an US organization that organizesmusic concerts and music education create singing and dancing shows, 3) providing buses forthree high schools in Iwate Prefecture to be used for transportation to fishery/agriculture
practices, and busses equipped with a lift for wheelchairs for two special support education
schools, and 4) providing overseas homestay and English training programs for junior/seniorhigh school students in Iwate/Miyagi/Fukushima prefectures122.
 Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (ANZ): Utilizing 53 million yen out of thetotal of one million Australian dollars provided for the Great East Japan Earthquake
emergency/reconstruction support, it constructed "Minami Sanriku-Australia Friendship
Learning Centre” (Koala House), a civic learning center equipped with a library, study rooms,
and seminar rooms in Minami Sanriku Town where Australian and New Zealander rescue
teams operated. The completion ceremony was held in January 2013, and it opened on
February 1, becoming the first permanent public building within the town that was constructed
after the disaster 123.

122
123

http://j.cocacola.co.jp/corporate/ccjrf/
http://www.anz.co.jp/about-us/corporate-responsibility/86Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

BOX 18 A Place to Play for the Children
More than half of the town of Otsuchi, Iwate Prefecture, was inundated by the tsunami. Of the 1,256
people immediately impacted, (7.8% of the town population) there were 750 casualties and 505
persons remain missing. The situation was further devastated when one third of the administrative
124
officers working at the town hall were found dead. The Campaign for Children in Palestine (CCP)
started its activity soon after the disaster, conducting community-based support from March 26, 2011
at Otsuchi Town. One of their activities was support for children. In the evacuation centers, there
were no place for children to play. Seeing this, CCP created a “Space for Children” inside theevacuation center and offered playground activities in order to create a space where children could
spend time. Later, schools reopened and people moved from the evacuation center to temporary
housing. “Space for Children” was renamed “Children’s After-school Space” and activities havecontinued in the community space of the temporary housing settlement.
According to a survey conducted by the municipal government, the demand of parents for a place forchildren to play remains high. A permanent facility where children can play was considerednecessary; thus, the “Otsuchi Children’s Center” was constructed. Otsuchi Town provided the land forbuilding the center while CCP supported the construction and the management. For this support,
CCP used cash donations collected within Japan andfunding from the Japan Platform (JPF) and SPF (a NPO
based in France). The room of the Otsuchi Children’sCenter is surrounded by wooden materials and is a brightspace with exhibitions of colorful children’s drawings andmessages of encouragement from all over the nation.
Pictures of children from Palestine are posted as well.
About 40 children come to the Center after school every
The chairman of SPF, Julian Lauprêtre
day. Exciting events were organized each season. A
visited the Otsuchi Children’s Center for thepark is located next to the center and the children can play
Opening Ceremony(Provided by CCP)
there freely. According one of the caretakers, she wasworried about the children who were emotionally unstable
and those who did not talk at all when the center was first
opened. However, she has since observed that thosechildren smile and talk more today compared to before.
The Center provides a safe place for working parents toleave their children. The present population of Otsuchi is13,404, which is a decrease of 2,509 people, compared to
15,994 people before the disaster. The percentage of the
The bright room of Otsuchi Children’s
aging population was already large in Otsuchi Town before
Centerthe disaster, but because numerous jobs were lost due tothe disaster, the younger population is moving out to other regions has accelerated. In order for124

An NGO established by Japanese citizens in 1986. CCP wishes for the peace i Palestine and the Middle Eastand supports education, health, and welfare. It also conducts activities for the protection of human rights, so thatchildren living there can grow up with hope. CCP received financial assistance from SPF though the introduction ofa person CCP worked with in the Middle East.

87

Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

Otsuchi Town to restore and further develop, the younger population must remain here and support
the economy of the town. “Above all, I am very, very thankful for the support we have received.
Thanks to you all, the children can actively play here every day. Many thanks to all.” (Caretaker).

BOX 19 Children’s Hopes for Reconstruction Illustrated in a Disaster Prevention Warehouse
Kisennuma City Omose Primary School is located 13 meters above sea level. It is designated as oneof the evacuation centers in the Omose area. The damage from the tsunami caused by the Great
East Japan Earthquake was relatively small, but the first floor of the school building was partly
inundated. After the disaster, students and their parents of Omose Primary school as well as
community members evacuated to Omose Junior High School for further safety as it is at a higher
elevation than the elementary school. Omose Primary School was used as a mortuary. Since there
was not enough living water at the evacuation shelter at Omose Junior High School, everyone helped
bring water from Omose Primary School pool to the junior high school. Omose Primary School
received a solar panel system, a well, and a disaster prevention warehouse from World Vision Japan(WVJ).
According to a study undertaken by WVJ, residents suffered the most from a lack of electricity, water,and gas. Based on this study, WVJ held discussions with the Board of Education at Kisennnuma City,
Miyako City, and Minamisanriku Town. As a result, inMiyako City stocks of supplies (warehouse withdisaster preparedness, foodstuff, blankets, portable
type toilets, etc) were provided to 30 evacuation
centers; and solar panel systems in cooperation with
Solar Frontier K.K were installed at six
elementary/junior high schools. In Kesennuma City,
solar panel systems, wells, and disaster prevention
warehouses were installed at 16 elementary/juniorhigh schools. Omose Primary School was one ofthese schools.
Teachers at Omose Primary School have been
managing and maintaining the solar panel systemthat was installed to supply electricity to evacuation
centers as an emergency power source in case ofnatural disaster reoccurrence. They prepared theirown manuals and organized training exercises on
Top：Disaster Prevention Warehouse with
illustrations of children’s hopes for
how to use the solar panel system for teachers once
reconstructiona year in case of teacher transfers so that they will be
Bottom：Board displaying the storage ofelectricity placed in the school
prepared against natural disasters in future.
Furthermore, they are considering a training programfor community members in the event a disaster occurs when teachers are not at school.
Materials and equipment necessary during a disaster are kept in the disaster prevention warehouseththat was built next to a well. On the warehouse, children (6 graders as of October 2013) have drawn

88Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

a mural of “Our Village in the Future.” “I hope that I will be able to play in the sea.” “I hope the sea will
become beautiful again.” From the illustrated pictures and messages, the spirit of the children andtheir love for the abundance of nature and their hope for reconstruction can be felt. There are manyfish swimming in the sea and the rivers, mountains with many animals, houses and stores, a village
where we see many smiles of the residents. The process of drawing the mural on the warehouse wasundertaken as part of a “Period of Integrated Study.” However, as the expressions of the childrenchanged through drawing the pictures, the principal, Mr. Katsuichi Osada noted that drawing serves
as a source of emotional expression and therapy as well.
“I cannot express my gratitude enough for the countless support we have received from abroad for the
Tohoku area following the unprecedented disaster. We have even received support from people
whose countries are in difficulty as well. These things can only be done by people with a heart. After
experiencing the disaster, I have started to think that we may be able to solve the numerous problemsof the world such as war, if we cooperate and join together to act as one. Please continue to support
Tohoku. I would like to continue teaching in order to support the dreams of the children and to not end
it.” (School Principal Osada)(5) Livelihood and Economic Reconstruction
Among the support for livelihood and economic reconstruction, support for fishery, the key industry
in the affected areas were the majority. There were also many activities for the support forsmall-sized enterprises such as temporary shopping streets. Some organizations applied “Cashfor Work”, a method often used in the context of emergency assistance to developing countries.


Fisheries in the affected areas included deep-sea fishery for such as pacific saury and bonitos,
cultivations of oysters, seaweeds, salmons, etc., and coastal fishery for abalones and such.
For rehabilitation and reconstruction of fisheries, many organizations supported fisherycooperatives in providing fishing boats, fork lifts, fishing implements such as materials forfishing nets, and tents, and repair of cooperatives’ facilities. Some also support brandpromotion of local specialties. For examples, the Salvation Army provided Izushima in
Onagawa Town with a fishery patrol/patient transfer boat (by utilizing funds from UK, Canada,
and Australia), and provided the fishery cooperative of Onagawa Town with 14 fork lifts (byutilizing funds from the US) and 30 fishing boats (by utilizing funds from the Salvation army
Hong Kong, which were collected through charity concerts introduced in BOX 1), and 550 setsof fishing tools such as life jackets, waterproof coats, high boots, and gloves. The fund fromthe US also provided the Kesennuma branch of the JF (Japan Fisheries Cooperative) Miyagi
with four work trucks, 15 large-size tents, 10 sets of diving device, and a large compressor(see BOX 20).

To support small-sized enterprises, many organizations helped build temporary stores orprovided materials. For example, PWJ provided grants or moving stalls to small-sized89Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

enterprises in Kesennuma City and Minamisanriku Town in Miyagi Prefecture andRikuzentakata and Ofunato Cities in Iwate Prefecture. JEN built a temporary shopping street
with 16 stores in Ayukawa district, Ojika Peninsula in Ishinomaki City, lent 29 vehicles fordebris removal to waste service companies, and conducted a project for female
entrepreneurship support. CARE provided materials to 25 restaurants that lost stores in
Miyako City, Yamada Town and Otsuchi Town in Iwate Prefecture to restart their business, sothat it would lead to food security for the victims. It also supported 15 shops in Otsuchi Town
to open the morning market with light trucks. The Salvation Army supported building three
temporary shopping streets with funds from the US (see BOX 21).
Due to the disaster, approximately 110,000 people (excluding self-employed persons likefishermen and part time workers) became unemployed. IVY125 applied a method called “Cashfor Work” in which those affected were employed in reconstruction projects to help themrebuild their livelihoods and revitalize the economy in the affected areas. It conducted theprogram in Ishinomaki and Kesennuma Cities. Those who lost their jobs due to the disasterwere employed by this project and participated in debris removal, mud removal, dismantling,morning market at temporary housings, cultivation of seaweed, and etc., and were paid on adaily basis. 50% of the funds used for this program was from overseas assistance. It
continuously employed 112 persons (from teenagers up to persons in their sixties, on average
35.7 year-old, male 75%, female 25%) who became unemployed due to the disaster for 350
days from April 12, 2011 to March 31, 2012 when the employment situation in the affectedareas were very serious, and implemented 458 cases of cleaning, 633 morning markets at
about 40 temporary housing settlements, and 1,923 visits to check up on the victims. It also
helped participants to be re-employed or start up new businesses, and 65% (73 persons)
were re-employed, 7% went on education, and 5% started a new business, accomplishing its
target of providing reemployment for half the people.

BOX 20 Large-scale Facility Support for Recovery of the Fishing Industry
World Vision Japan (WVJ) received 80 % of the total donations for the Great East Japan Earthquake(4.6 billion yen) from overseas networks, making them the recipient of the largest overseas support
among the Japan based NGOs. One form of support undertaken by the WVJ was for the fisheryindustry in Kesennuma City. The city is one of the largest ports in Miyagi Prefecture and is well known
for landing mackerel pike and skipjacks.
125

Formerly, International Volunteer Center Yamagata. An NPO headquarters in Yamagata Prefecture conducts
activities for poverty reduction in Asia and supports foreigners in Yamagata and neighboring regions. This reporttakes up this case as its method is unique even though it received less than 100 million yen from overseas,according to this study. Information is based on the report on IVY’s homepage (only in Japanese);
http://ivyivy.org/cat119/cat124/post-9.html, results of questionnaire survey in this study, and JANIC. (2012)
Higashinihon daishinsai to kokusai kyouryoku NGO: Kokunai deno aratana kanosei to kadai, soshite teigen (TheGreat East Japan Earthquake and International and NGO for International Cooperation: New possibility and issues
in Japan and lessons learnt).

90Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

WVJ financially supported reconstruction of the Industrial Freezer Warehouse and reconstruction of
the Ice-Making Warehouse owned by Kesennuma Fishery Cooperative. In general, when fish areunloaded at a port, 70% of them are distributed as raw fish and 30% are distributed as frozen fish. Iceis needed to transport raw fish to the market and a freezer warehouse is needed to freeze and store
fish temporarily.
Even if fishing boats and fishing gear are restored, without these facilities, fisheries won’t return to theports. All of the restoration was undertaken as a part of the disaster recovery projects of Miyagi
Prefecture. Five-sixths of the total costs were covered by the local and national government. WVJ
provided Kesennuma Fishery Cooperative with financial support because they had been struggling to
repay the remaining loan for equipment investment and to cover self-payment segment of the facility
construction costs.
The Industrial Freezer Warehouse was wiped away by the tsunami
leaving only walls and polls, and no equipment remained.
Construction of a large facility was generally not approved at thattime because the city’s reconstruction plan was under preparation.
However the construction was allowed as a part of a restoration
project because of the remaining walls and polls at the construction
site. In February 2012, the freezer warehouse was restored.

Industrial Freezer Warehouse

Although the capacity of the freezer warehouse of the city was notat the same level as before the earthquake, due to delays in the reconstruction of some of the privately
owned freezer warehouses, the freezer warehouse financed by WVJ greatly contributed to therestoration of the fishing industry, which is the key industry of Kesennuma City.
The Ice-Making Warehouse had been washed away by the tsunami, leaving only the foundation of the
facility. On October 2012, the warehouse started operating again
after the reconstruction. The warehouse is operating at about
twice the scale before the earthquake, it can store 3,800 tons andproduce 110 tons of ice every day. Together with privately owned
facilities, the city’s ice making capacity has recovered to levels
before the earthquake. The amount of ice needed is said to beequivalent to the amount of fish hauled, because ice is used inside
the boat, during the fish haul, and when the fish is transported
Ice-Making Warehousefrom the city to other places. Mr. Kumagai, the manager ofKesennuma Fishery Cooperative stresses the importance of ice-making and said, “The ability to
produce and store ice gives a sense of security to the crew on a fishing boat.” Tsunami protection
measures had been implemented for the facilities. For instance, the pre-tsunami facility was a
two-storied building, the new facility was reconstructed to a six-storied building to allow people toevacuate when necessary, and the ice-producing machinery was stored on the 5th floor; and the firstfloor is the least equipped in order to minimize losses in the event of another tsunami attack. The
Kesennuma Fishery Cooperatives are planning to propose those changes to other places as well. For
example, the Fishery Cooperatives had been receiving trainees from Africa and Asian countries toobserve the facility under a JICA training program.
"We are very thankful and we have been encouraged by the support. I felt there was no way to move91Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

forward, but after receiving support, I felt that maybe we can somehow manage through this situation.
If something happens somewhere in the future, it will be our turn to extend the helping hand." (Mr.
Kumagai, Manager of Kesennuma Fishery Cooperative)

BOX 21 Aid for Opening the Temporary Shopping Street
At Ofunato City, three shopping streets were nearly completely destroyed. 31 of the concerned shop
owners gathered to open a “Ofunato Dream Shopping Street” from December 2011. The temporary
shop units were built by the Organization for Small & Medium Enterprises and Regional Innovation,
JAPAN, but there was no financial support for the common areaand many small-sized enterprises could not apply for financial
support for restarting business provided by the prefecture becauseof the strict application criteria. In addition, because the local
community centers had been destroyed, there was no space forbusiness owners and community members to gather and holddiscussions.
Due to these needs, the Salvation Army spent approximately 40
million yen of the financial support provided by the American
Salvation Army to construct a wooden deck, parking space, thearch of the shopping street, signboards for each store, benches,

A store which received support forinterior finishing and showcases

plants, etc. Peace Winds Japan (PWJ) utilized the financial
support of the JTI Foundation of Switzerland in addition to the
cash donations/financial support collected within Japan to build
the interior finishing or purchase some of the meeting room
equipment such as desks and chairs, and office equipment suchas whiteboards. In total, they provided tens of million yen infinancial support.
The shopping street, which is equipped with wooden decks and
The shopping street with a beautiful
benches make it easier for children as well as the elderly towooden deck and plants
gather, and the pink arcade and plants create a cheerfulatmosphere. On opening day, neighbors and friends, who had
been living in other areas and could not contact each other for a long time after the disaster, werereunited on the shopping street. This shopping street not only allowed community residents, who
shopped at shopping centers located faraway to do their shopping at their community, but also various
events such as morning markets were organized, and tourists as well as volunteers visit this shopping
street to take a break or buy souvenirs. As of October 2013, about 100 shoppers have visited thestreet every day. The meeting room is used as a cultural classroom. Over 20 culture classes in foreign
languages, computer skills, flower arrangements, etc. have been held. It has also been used as aplace for the neighborhood association and local business owners to discuss their plans forreconstruction.
Two years have passed since the earthquake and although the situation seems under control for now,92Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

new issues have risen. The number of tourists and community supporters has greatly decreased; thenumber of cultural classes has been decreasing since the classes were moved to reconstructedcommunity centers; and the prosperity, which was seen at the beginning of reconstruction, is starting
to disappear. Furthermore, some storeowners have become ill and feel depressed about reopening
their permanent store after leaving the temporary shopping street. Moreover, the constructedtemporary stores rented out free of charge are now obligated to recuperate all facilities except themain building and return the unit to the Organization for Small & Medium Enterprises and Regional
Innovation. The storeowners started to discuss how to raise the recuperation cost, which is expected ayear later.
Preparations to open the shopping street began in September 2011, about six months after theearthquake. Everyone was passionate about the reopening their business. The quick financial support
to help reopen businesses was truly meaningful. The planning process to open the temporary store
brought happiness and helped to encourage store owners, who were impacted by the disaster. The
representative of the shopping street, Mr. Ito said, “Up to now, there was much happiness in being
able to work, and we had little difficulty. We are very thankful for the support we have received. We are
not thinking about asking for further support for the removal cost. Even though it is a serious problem,
we will discuss this with the local government, and make the effort such as creating funds among store
owners.”(6) Support for Community Activities
Some of the affected people who lost a lot and underwent drastic changes in lifestyle due to theearthquake tend to seclude themselves from the society and become subject to disuse syndrome,or become isolated living in temporary housing. To avoid this situation, many activities toencourage exchanges among residents were conducted to support organizing communities where
people can support each other.


Many organizations conducted events (lunch/dinner parties, stewed potato parties which istradition in Tohoku, concerts, handicrafts lessons, massage, events for children and such),
set-up/manage community café and tea salon, installed vegetable garden, and provided
materials and equipment to encourage exchanges among people living in temporary housing
settlements and in the localities so that they would smoothly form residents’ association.

Others supported repair or reconstruct community centers destroyed by the tsunami. For
example, KnK has supported renovation of community centers in Yamada Town and Ofunato
City and reconstruction of 17 community centers in Kamaishi City. JEN built community
spaces at 25 temporary housing settlements in Ishinomaki City.



Community activities that utilized the volunteer base introduced in (3) above were also
conducted. PBV opened “Peace Boat Center Ishinomaki” where volunteer workers andresidents of the region can interact, and it has been utilized for many events and clubs.

93Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

Caritas Japan utilizes its volunteer bases for children to play and people to gather forneighboring associations, club activities, and mini concerts.
In addition to these, support for management of local reconstruction support centers, issue ofcommunity newspapers, and support for community disaster prevention activities are also
conducted.

(7) Programs for Psychosocial CareAs exemplified below, among the psychological care projects conducted, there were therapies
practiced by experts and activities such as organizing recreations for affected local residents toencourage and help them interact with each other, in addition to the above-mentioned communal
activities.


Ashinaga： It has provided emotional care to children who lost parents in the disaster.
Approximately 1,000 orphans and guardians have participated in the program by November
2012. Based on the experience of building the Kobe Rainbow House to heal the emotional
trauma of children after the 1995 Great Hanshin Earthquake, Ashinaga has decided to build
Tohoku Rainbow Houses in Sendai City and satellites at two locations in Ishinomaki City andRikuzentakata City. The construction of these facilities are scheduled to be completed byMarch 2014. They will serve as centers to help provide orphans with short and long-term
support, and to train volunteers who will act as facilitators and take care of grieving children
who visit these centers126.



NICCO: It has sent psychotherapists, occupational therapists, and nurses to communities
living in temporary housing settlements in Rikuzentakata City and Kesennuma City to hold
psychosocial workshops. A total of 20,839 people participated. It has also held psychosocial
care programs including play elements such as playing games and making craft-works, andcreative activities such as drawing pictures and performing dramas. Those programs were
designed for affected children and adults in Natori City, Miyagi Prefecture and a total of 3,200
people have participated.

Japan Committee for UNICEF: It has organized play therapies and psychological careseminars (2,200 participants), conducted psychological care projects (9,949 parents andchildren), implemented outdoor activities and field trips, and distributed books.

JEN: Since the emergency response phase, it has continuously conducted activities such as
sending experts to perform therapies, massages, hair salons, soccer classes, concerts,
cooking classes, and handicraft classes.

126

http://www.ashinaga.org/news/entry-759.html

94Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

CARE: It has supported cafes especially targeted for eldely people, mothers/children, andmen residing in homes and 49 temporary housings in Yamada Town (which a total of 3,674
people have used). It has also supported publications of community newspapers in threeareas (Yamada Town, Otsuchi Town, and Taro Town in Miyako City), holding festivals andtraditional performing arts, and facilitating recreational activities.

CRASH JAPAN: It has provided psychological care through music, gospel and hula classes. It
also trained and dispatched pastors for psychological care.

(8) Healthcare and Public Health Programs
There was not much support for healthcare and public health conducted by organizations taken up
mainly in this study, however, organizations such as Lions Clubs International127 and RotaryInternational/ Rotary Foundation128 have provided medical instruments (ophthalmic equipment
and x-ray diagnostic systems), and beds to hospitals. In addition, Médecins Sans Frontières
Japan (MSF) 129 has supported building and repairing temporary clinics, and has provided
equipment to those clinics. Moreover, there were other projects as shown below.
Japan Committee for UNICEF: It has conducted health check-ups and vaccinations for infants
during the emergency response phase, and has subsidized influenza vaccines for children in
29 municipalities in three prefectures (benefiting a total of 140 thousand people in FY 2011). It
has also rebuilt two health centers in Minamisanriku Town that were washed away by thetsunami.



AAR: It has provided mobile clinics (to a total of 817 patients) and nurse visits (to a total of
387 patients) in Ojika Peninnsula in Miyagi Prefecture during the emergency response phase.
It has conducted public sanitation activities for 1000 people in 25 evacuation shelters in
Ishinomaki City and Minamisanriku Town (sun drying beddings, blankets, and mattresses
which were soiled from long use, and providing bedding-drying machines, vacuum cleaners,
dehumidifiers, cleaning utensils, insect repellents, insecticides, new bedding, andrefrigerators). It has also built a temporary dental clinic (see BOX 22).



NICCO: It has conducted “mobile clinics” (traveling medical clinic) and “pest controls” (monitor

127

Lions Clubs International is a service club organization consisting of 46,000 clubs around the world. Most of
their support is considered to have come from members worldwide and the Lions Clubs International Foundation. It
has raised more than 21 million dollars, including donations from within Japan.
128
Rotary International is an international organization who brings together business leaders, professionals, andlocal community leaders. There are 33,000 clubs in over 200 countries and regions. More than 160 projects byclubs and districts were approved by utilizing a total of approximately 7.8 million dollars (as of June 2012) from theRotary Japan 2011 Disaster Recovery Fund, which was established by donations from overseas on July 2011. In
addition, much support came through the Matching Grants programs, which are the trilateral funds raised by
Rotary clubs in overseas, Rotary districts in Japan, and the Rotary Foundation.
129
MSF Japan is the Japan office of an international, independent organization MSF that delivers medical andhumanitarian aid.

95

Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

insect infestation and extermination) during the emergency response phase. When experts
were dispatched to affected areas for an assessment in early May 2011, the need to promptly
establish an extermination system was recognized due to an expected mass outbreak of flies.
NICCO first applied for domestic grants, however, approval was delayed because of a lack ofprecedents. It then consulted with an American NGO Church World Service, and was able toimmediately receive financial support to promptly start the project. Between May andNovember 2011, it conducted insect outbreak monitoring surveys 1,420 times, andextermination for 270 times (47 small-scale exterminations based on fixed point surveys, and223 large scale extermination based on periodical surveys) in 23 municipalities in threeprefectures130.

BOX 22 New Ogatsu Dental Clinic – Supporting the Town’s Health
Ogatsu Town of Ishinomaki City, Miyagi Prefecture, was a fishing town with a population of 4,300.
However, the tsunami caused by the earthquake reduced the population to 1,300 and destroyed
almost 80% of the buildings. Before the disaster, there were two dental clinics in Ogatsu. One ofthem was in the Ishinomaki City Ogatsu Hospital, but the hospital itself was damaged by thetsunami and it has been demolished. The other dental clinic has transferred from Ogatsu andrestarted in Ishinonmaki city. Therefore, Ogatsu became a town without any dentists.
The oral condition of the victims had deteriorated by the 3.11
catastrophe, because of water outage, disturbed hormone
balance due to the stress caused by the long-term evacuationin the shelters, interruption of dental treatment, andimbalanced food, etc. In addition, parents and grandparents
gave snacks to their children more frequently than they used
to, as they felt sorry for their children forced into aninconvenient life in the shelter. Children’s oral environmenthas been exacerbated by this and initial dental care has
increased. As for the elderly, some could not eat well as theirdentures were swept away by the tsunami.
In Ogatsu, a university hospital conducted a mobile dental
clinic until September 2011. However, after this operation,
local residents had to take the bus that runs only once a day
to dental clinics in the center of Ishinomaki City, an hour awayfrom Ogatsu. The situation imposed a heavy burden
especially on the elderly, who cannot drive.

130

http://www.kyoto-nicco.org/project/support/presentation/control.html
questionnaire survey.

Above: Ogatsu Dental Clinic
Below: Director Kawase and staff
of AAR Japan

and

from

the

response

to

the

96

Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

On June 4, 2012, the long-awaited Ishinomaki Ogatsu Dental
Clinic opened. Materials and equipment that were needed forthe dental clinic was financed by the local government, butthere were not enough funds for the construction. In view ofthis situation, AAR Japan (Association for Aid and Relief,Japan) leveraged the support of AmeriCares and succeededin assisting the construction of the dental clinic. Since theWith a patient after the treatment
opening of the clinic, many patients have visited the clinic
every day and some of them visit even from outside of thetown. The total number of registered patients is 410 people and on average, approximately 200
people visit the clinic every month.
Dr. Souichiro Kawase of Ogatsu dental clinic used to work at the Matsumoto Dental University in
Nagano Prefecture. He provided dental care at the shelters as a member of the mobile dental
clinic immediately after the earthquake, then moved to Miyagi Prefecture with his family from
Nagano, and now serves as the director of the clinic. In addition to general dental treatment, Dr.
Kawase specializes in dental treatment for ailing persons, persons with dental phobias anddisabled children and people. Therefore, there are the latest and unfamiliar medical devices in
the clinic.
According to a patient, who just had a tooth extraction on that day, she had a toothache for a longtime but could not go for treatment, because she was worried whether she might suffer from aprescription-related heart rate elevation as in the past. She smiled that she was happy for hertreatment and her healthy pain-free physical condition.
Since there are no shops around the clinic, they decorated the clinic with light bulbs in Christmas
and organized summer festivals with dentist colleagues around the country in order to cheer up
the atmosphere of the town.
“Thank you very much for your substantial support in establishing Ishinomaki Ogatsu Dental Clinic.
Currently, we have been providing stable dental care to local residents and people with disabilities.
Please continue watching over the Ishinomaki Ogatsu Dental Clinic and disaster area warmly.”(Director Kawase)(9) Support for People with Disabilities, Elderly, and Women, and Human Rights Protection
There was assistance focused on persons with disabilities, elderly people, women, and foreigners
who have special needs but tend to have little access to information and support in times of
emergencies. The following projects are given as examples.


AAR has distributed emergency relief supplies focused on elderly people and persons withdisabilities (paper diaper for adults, retort nursing care food, and fuel such as gasoline), has
carried out repairs of 71 facilities for people with disabilities and the elderly, and has provided
44 vehicles to these facilities and municipalities. Moreover, it has assisted activities at welfare
facilities (repairing workplaces and expanding sales channels), and has distributed 258

97Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

portable power generators and 419 foot-operated phlegm aspirators for persons withdisabilities who use artificial respirators to help them continue to live at home without fearing
blackouts (see BOX 23).


Oxfam Japan131: Since the emergency response phase, it has supported women (expectant
and nursing mothers), children (infants), and immigrants to Japan (foreigners) for whom
support has generally been insufficient. It has provided emergency relief supplies (sanitary
goods and underwear), information (distributed radios and created contents for multilingual
broadcasting), telephone counseling, and cash donations for pregnant women. It has also
provided job-hunting support for single mothers, business start-up support for women, andtraining for specialists in domestic violence and sexual abuse.

BOX 23 A Journey for Reconstruction: Afterschool Day-Service Facility for Children with
Disabilities and their Families
Higashi-Shinjyo Orange in Kesennuma City is an afterschool day-service facility for mentally/physicallychallenged children (called Orange Kids) whose grades range from first to the sixth grade. A total of 30
registered users and 15 full-time or part-time staff members are employed at the facility. The original
day-service facility was completely destroyed by the tsunami.
It was a long journey to reconstruct the day-service facility.
At the evacuation shelter, people have to keep their voices
down because the shelter is shared with other people. The
children of Higashi-Shinjyo Orange suffer from adevelopmental disorder such as autism. The characteristics
of autistic children include impaired social interaction,
hyperactive, and repetitive behavior. For example, some
autistic children could not eat food at the evacuation center
because their repetitive behavior led to deviated eating
habits.

Higashi-Shinjyo Orange

The parents’ of these children had to pay special attention to make sure that their children did not
disturb others by screaming or being hyperactive around and inside the evacuation shelter. Some
members stayed inside their cars for three days because they did not want to their children to disturb
others. The first floor of one of their facilities at Mikkamachi, was restored and reopened a café space
and a class for working experience. Consequently, they renovated the warehouse and temporarily
reopened the day-service for children.
Together with the reopening of day services, the representative of the Network Orange and AAR
Japan (Association for Aid and Relief Japan) contacted each other during the summer of 2012. The
Welfare Division for Persons with Disabilities of Miyagi Prefecture gave AAR Japan a list of facilities
having difficulty after the earthquake. Caritas Germany, an organization that provided funding to AAR
131

Oxfam Japan is a member organization of the international NGO Oxfam which conducts emergency relief anddevelopment assistance. The funds from overseas were mostly collected through Oxfam member organizations
around the world.

98

Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

Japan, wanted to support the children with disabilities. Hence AAR Japan started to support thereconstruction of Higashi-Shinjyo Orange facility, which was one of the facilities listed by the Welfare
Division for Persons with Disabilities. The construction period was prolonged due to a rise inconstruction demand, an increase in material costs and difficulty finding construction workers.
However, the facility was finally completed in June 2013.
Since Higashi-Shinjyo Orange was built as a permanent facility, it was built 2.5 kilometers away fromthe coast to prevent damage from another tsunami. The facility is 160 square meters with vibrant andcolorful paint and provides an environment where children can play freely and safely. When thechildren were at the temporary facility, elementary, junior high, and high school students had to spend
time in the same space, and this environment made some of the children feel restless.
Today there is a spacious room just for the elementary school children, where guardians can leave
their child at the facility without any worries. A consultation room was created inside the facility as well.
The room can be used to temporarily in take restless children to calm them down and to haveindividual meetings with the staff and guardians. The consultation room was painted light green, arelaxing color. The temporary facility was also near the disaster-stricken area and did not have parking
spaces, but the new facility is located far from the coast, so guardians, staff members, and children
can go there without worries about a tsunami.
At the launch of the new facility, guardians and staff were worried that the children would not get used
to the environment, but it turns out that the children enjoyed the place. After school, they could relax
and have fun at the new facility. Even though most of theparks are not available for children to play because of theconstruction of temporary housing, there is Shinjyoki Park
near the new facility where children can play. The park isalso sometimes used as a concert and Tohoku Marche
area. Higashi-Shinjyo Orange has been organizing activities
and events using the park to provide opportunities todevelop relationships between the children and thecommunity.
Spacious and homely room(10) Information Support
In the affected areas, radios played an important role for people to obtain necessary information
like information on safety confirmation, support activities, and damage and information from thetown office. Several organizations provided thousands of radios and funds to cover the operating
cost of emergency broadcasting stations, and set up local FM studios. An example of theorganization, which has the expertise in this field is as follows.


BHN Association132: It provided equipment for damaged community broadcasting stations,
supported broadcasting of programs for affected foreigners and children, supported setting up

132

A NGO specialized in ICT. This case is presented in this report as its activities utilizing its expertise in ICT are
unique, even though it received less than 100 million yen from overseas according to this study.

99Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

emergency broadcasting stations (in Rikuzentakata City opened in December 2011 and in
Otsuchi Town opened in March 2012), and conducted activities on fringe zone reduction,antenna relocation support (Minamisanriku Town, Watari Town, and Yamamoto Town), andinstallation of radio receivers and broadcast equipment at shelters and facilities where tourists
and commuters gather. Additionally, it supported 21 broadcasting stations out of 23 stations
established after the disaster. In Higashi Matsushima City in Miyagi Prefecture, it installed theInternet and provided computer classes at community spaces in temporary housing
settlements.

(11) Support for Victims of the Nuclear Accident
In addition to relief and recovery support provided in the affected areas including Fukushima
Prefecture, the following support related to the nuclear accident was also provided in Fukushima.
A notable characteristic is that there are many activities for children as they are susceptible toradioactivity and activities for evacuees dispersed in and out of Fukushima Prefecture aimed at
keeping connected.


Decontamination/Radioactivity Measurement: Lions Club provided 2,000 high pressure
washers for decontamination and radiation detection assembly to hospitals. RotaryInternational/ Rotary Foundation provided radiation dosimeters/integrators. AAR provided
new curtains for decontamination of 15 elementary/junior high schools and air radiation
dosimeters to 20 special support education schools in Minamisoma City, and provided 11
radiation detectors for agro products and foodstuffs to temporary support centers andcommunity centers in Soma City (see BOX 24).

Support to maintain relationships among the evacuees: BHN Association provided support tobuild up an information network for evacuees from Fukushima by installing Internet, TV
phones, a TV conference system, a villagers’ social network, and a remote healthconsultation system to temporary housing settlements, village offices, and schools. Other
organizations conducted house visits and exchange events for evacuees out of Fukushima
Prefecture.

Play zones for children who are restricted to outdoor activities due to high radiation: Several
organizations provided meeting spaces, indoor play equipment to nursery facilities, indoor
sandboxes to kindergartens, and ball playing classes.



Support for evacuated mothers and children: Many mothers with children, especially below
elementary school age who are susceptible to radiation, and pregnant women are voluntarily
evacuated, leaving their family members in Fukushima. Due to the prolonged evacuation
period, many suffer from the economic burden of living in separate locations and friction100Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

among family members. IVY, an NGO from Yamagata Prefecture where 20% of evacuees
from Fukushima live, operates a nursery school for evacuated mothers and children andprovides subsidy for day-care fees with support from an US NGO, International Medical Corps,
JPF, and others. Oxfam Japan provides individual consultation and support for evacuatedmothers in Tokyo, in particular single mothers, on residence, jobs, and education for children.
Provision of safe water and foodstuffs: There are projects to provide nurseries in Fukushima
Prefecture with mineral water and people in Fukushima with vegetables.

Rotational retreat programs for children: Several organizations support rotational retreat
programs where children from Fukushima stay for a certain period of time in places without
radioactive contamination (see BOX 25).
BOX 24 Radioactivity Measuring Station Providing Safety and Security
to the People in Fukushima

In October 2011, the NPO “Citizens’ Radioactivity Measuring Station (CRMS) Fukushima” wasstestablished, and opened a radioactivity measuring station on the 1 floor of a shopping mall called
Pasenaka Misse near Fukushima Station where people can easily drop by while shopping.
When it started, there was no radioactivity measuringservice for citizens by the government. This was the only
place for citizens to measure radiation. There, people canmeasure the internal exposure and radiation of food, water,and soil using the latest devices. Measurement of internal
exposure can be completed in 10 minutes while sitting in achair. In the front, there is also a TV for children to watch
during the measurement. Food such as rice and shreddedor minced vegetables and meat are put into a measuring
Devices for radioactivity measurement
device. The measurement duration can be selected from 30
minutes to 12 hours. Users are not only private enterprises, but also individuals, such as a person who
was growing vegetables in his/her garden and was anxious about contamination before giving it to their
grandchildren.
The number of users has declined to about 20 cases per month as of October 2013, but when it wasestablished more than 50 people used the station every day, and a flood of phone calls was received.
CRMS Fukushima was established with the extensive support of the French NGO “CRIIRAD”, an NGO
which advocates environmental protection against radiation. Besides CRIIRAD, many Japanese andforeign organizations had supported CRMS Fukushima. Devices used at CRMS Fukushima are either
made in Belarus, USA, and Japan. The station is operated by two full-time staff members and 12-13
volunteers. The majority of the volunteers are mothers who wanted to confirm with their own eyes
whether their children are safe living here.

101Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

Many of the users of CRMS Fukushima are also mothers who are anxious about their children. As
activity by CRMS Fukushima started ahead of the government, it put pressure on the government tostart radioactivity measuring services for citizens. Although the number of cases measured at CRMS
Fukushima has declined compared to before, the need among citizens for information on radioactivity
measured by a third-party is still high, since there are quite a few people who think that the informationdelivered by the government after the disaster was not adequate. The activities of CRMS Fukushimameet this need by the people in Fukushima.
In addition to requests from the clients, CRMS Fukushima independently measures the radioactivity ofobjects outside government regulations. For example, they measure the radioactivity of laundry.
Perishable foods and water are periodically monitored under supervising ministries such as the
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries and the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, but
nobody monitors to check and see if laundry hang outside is safe. CRMS Fukushima measured theradioactivity of a towel hanging out on a balcony for 24 hours and disclosed the result. CRMS
Fukushima voluntarily measures about 70 objects per month that have real relevance to the daily livesof the citizens, and publishes the results in a newsletter or blog.

Top：The reception desk at CRMS
Fukushima
Lower：Information distributed by CRMS
Fukushima

BOX 25“Neutrality is what CRMS Fukushima puts the mostimportance on”, said Mr. Tanzen, the director of CRMS
Fukushima. It puts importance on continuously measuring
accurate data and widely sharing the results among thepeople rather than advocating for a particular issue by
using data. If accurate data is available, people in
Fukushima can use it as a basis for the decisions in their
daily lives, and it can also be used for various analyses
later on. Mr. Tanzen emphasizes that the important thing is
not to forget the view point of the people in Fukushima,
who are still struggling to live with the angst for the future.
Though it has been three years since the disaster,
problems caused by the nuclear accident still continue. Mr.
Tanzen feels it necessary to disclose accurate information
not only domestically, but globally. He said that he wanted
the foreign media to report the current issues inFukushima and to listen to the voices of the people here.
He also wants all the people of Japan to know thatproblems still continue in Fukushima.

Children being able to Play Outside without Fear of Radioactivity

Since the accident at the Fukushima No.1 Nuclear Plant many evacuated Fukushima, but the majorityof the people in Fukushima remained in the prefecture due to various reasons; and they are living
anxiously. Although some of the grounds of public kindergartens and schools were decontaminated,
not all streets to schools and parks were. The radiation dose also varies depending on the direction of
the rain/wind and material of the ground surface. Therefore, most children still unable to play outside or102Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

go for long walks. Even three years after the accident, scarcely anything has been done about thedecontamination of forests and groves where children used to play.
According to the experience of Belarus, which was heavily impacted by the Chernobyl disaster, andresults of related studies, it is known that the level of internal exposure of a person who was exposed
to radioactivity through food and breathing can be reduced if the person stays for a certain duration inplaces without radiation. Based on this fact, the NPO Shalom Disaster Relief Center (Shalom) has
been conducting recuperation programs for children. Participants of the program are children living inFukushima or evacuating from Fukushima and their caregivers, 20-30 persons per time. They visit
outside Fukushima prefecture to refresh or for short stays. The program started in the summer of 2011
and it is still continuing. As of October 2013, about 20 programs were organized and a total of 650
children aged 0-17 years old and their caregivers have participated.
Shalom also launched a database called “Hoyon Soudankai” online, in collaboration with many otherorganizations, to introduce refreshment programs conducted nationwide. In the last two years, 500
programs were introduced and in total more than 15,000 children and caregivers participated in
3,000-day programs.
Children, who participate in the program, can enjoy playing outside as much as they want during the
program. The program is highly appreciated by the caregivers, saying that their children have become
remarkably robust. Many of them want to be repeaters, and there is a high demand for the program’scontinuation. However, the number of such programs is limited, and the number of children able toparticipate is also limited partly due to the cost of the program and the information gap. Therefore,
Shalom recently conducted “school camps” in collaboration with public schools in Date City,
Fukushima City, and Soma City where children stay about four days in Yamagata, Miyagi, Iwate
Prefectures, and Aizu-Bange City in Fukushima Prefecture. Caregivers, schools and Boards ofEducation in each city appreciated the camp, andcommented “it was worth doing”, and “let’s continue”,
while stakeholders of host cities also gave the programhigh marks and commented, “children of my city also
learned a lot after receiving friends from Fukushima”.
Mr. Yoshino of Shalom, the proposer of the refreshment
program for children, said, “children who were 0 year old
at the time of the disaster have grown up in-doors today.
They have never seen free-flying butterflies before, andthey are seeing them for the first time during the
program. Some of them cannot even follow theChildren enjoying outdoor activity after along time in the recuperation program(Provided by Shalom)butterflies with their eyes. Such children have become three-year olds. What will they grow up to bewithout experiencing outdoor activities? The negative effect of not being able to play outside isimmeasurable.” He emphasized the importance of more children being able to participate in the
program. For that sake, he recognized the necessity to cooperate with the prefectural and national
government so that many more children can participate equally in the refreshment programs andschool camps that have been implemented by local governments and civil society organizations. At thesame time, he expressed his views that novel activities such as refreshment programs for children
could only be achieved by civil society organizations with nimble and flexible footwork. He said, “whatwe can do is to create good practices” as many as possible ahead of the prefectural/national

103

Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

government, and show them the outcome. I hope this made-in-Fukushima program will spreadnationwide.”
Most of the activities on Shalom’s refreshment programs have been financially supported by the
Church World Service (CWS) in the US. Though these two organizations did not know each otherbefore, JANIC mediated between them. Mr. Yoshino said, “without JANIC, we would not have beenable to receive CWS’s support. We are grateful to JANIC for bridging local organizations like Shalom
with many supporters, not to mention CWS.” In addition to this, thanks to the support from the
Executive Committee of the France Refreshment Tour, 8 children and 1 caregiver spent 3 weeks in
France, participating in a refreshment program there during the summer vacation. In the program, they
met the prefectural governor, the mayor, local residents and children, and told them the influence andlessons learned from the nuclear accident.
According to the experts, it will take more than 30 years to stabilize the problems that occurred due tothe nuclear accident, and it will take 100 years for radiation levels to decrease to pre-incident levels.
Therefore, Mr. Yoshino thinks it is important to implement the activities with a long-term perspective,
and continue to search for supporters. “The situation in Fukushima is changing day by day. We would
like to cope flexibly with this changing situation. Our experience and lessons learned after the nuclear
accident must be useful for the future of the world. We don’t want the world to waste the grief andhardships of the people in Fukushima”, said Mr. Yoshino.

(12) Aid Coordination
In cases of emergency relief activities in developing countries where government functions arevulnerable, the UN usually plays the role of aid coordinator among the governments of the country
concerned, international aid agencies, NGOs and other supporters. In contrast, in the case ofJapan, its disaster prevention plan was made on the assumption that local governments in theaffected areas would play the role of coordinator. However, in the Great East Japan Earthquake,the local governments themselves were affected heavily by the disaster and could not function
adequately as coordinators. There were the potential problems of overlapping support activities,
unreached areas, and not being able to grasp the whole picture of support. Under suchcircumstances, JANIC and JPF contributed to the collaboration among governments, social
welfare councils, NGOs/NPOs, private businesses, and other related organizations. In particular,
they played important roles as contact points for foreign NGOs and coordinators for collaborationand funding among NGOs that normally work in the field of international cooperation and matching
the support from foreign NGOs. Some segments of financial assistance from overseas were
utilized for these activities133.

133

For more detail information on coordination works by these organization, see JANIC. (2012) Higashinihon
daishinsai to kokusai kyouryoku NGO: Kokunai deno aratana kanosei to kadai, soshite teigen (The Great East
Japan Earthquake and International and NGO for International Cooperation: New possibility and issues in Japanand lessons learnt)., JPF. (2012) Solidarity without Borders and JPF. Report: Assistance for the Victims of theGreat East Japan Earthquake.

104Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake



JANIC: It opened liaison offices in Iwate, Miyagi and Fukushima prefectures with the support
from donors inside and outside the country, and conducted information gathering andcoordination works among NGOs and between NGOs and the local people. It supported
information sharing among NGOs, international donors, and private businesses by holding“the Great East Japan Earthquake NGO Information Sharing Meetings” (every week up to
three months after the disaster, and every other week up to nine months after the disaster. In
total, 27 meetings were held and 115 organizations participated), provided matching services
between international donors/private businesses and NGOs, provided logistical support formember NGOs, and provided the above mentioned “NGO Relief Fund for Japan Earthquake
and Tsunami.” It places importance especially on support for Fukushima, and operates the“Fukushima NGO Collaboration Space,” where organizations and individuals who provide
support for the victims in Fukushima can use as shared office space or meeting/event spacein front of the Fukushima railway station with the support of US NGOs, International Medical
Corps, CWS, and Direct Relief International. It also sets up and operates an English portal
website, “Fukushima on the Globe”, disseminates information, holds events and makes
recommendations about Fukushima.
JPF: It opened field offices in Sendai City in Miyagi Prefecture and Tono City in Iwate
Prefecture, and dispatched staff to social welfare council volunteer centers in Kesennuma
City and Onagawa Town in Miyagi Prefecture and Ishinomaki Disaster Recovery AssistanceCouncil. Inc. in Ishinomaki City. It provided grants and monitoring and evaluation services formember NGOs and other organizations, provided matching services for private businesses,
and conducted aid coordination through its field offices. Some of the concrete outcome of its
coordination works are 1) demarcation of areas for soup kitchen operations between the
Self-Defense Forces and NGOs/NPOs, 2) provision of starter packs for people in temporary
housing in the three affected prefectures by NGOs, and 3) provision of heating appliances forvictims living in privately rented housing (deemed-temporary housing) by NGOs.

A workshop implemented by JANIC with support from Give2Asia, an US organization (left), NGO workers
gathering and exchanging information after the workshop (right) at the “Fukushima NGO Collaboration Space”
operated by JANIC (center)

105

Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

5．

5.1

CONCLUSION AND ANALYSIS

Conclusion

Japan experienced an unprecedented earthquake, tsunami, and consequently a nuclear accident
on March 11, 2011. This massive disaster was a great hardship on every Japanese citizen, not tomention the people in the affected areas. Under such circumstances, tangible or intangible
assistance from overseas poured in.
However, there has been no comprehensive information on this diverse assistance from overseas
including those from NGOs, private businesses, and individuals, though part of the assistance atgovernmental level was recorded134. This study was conducted to grasp the overall view ofassistance from overseas as accurately as possible, and to express gratitude to the international
community, which we believe, is the responsibility of Japan.
The study indicates that the governments, individuals and groups that made financial and/or
in-kind contributions belonged to a total of 174 countries and regions, and a total of approximately
164 billion yen in financial assistance was provided within one year after the disaster. This isequivalent to about 40% of the amount donated to the affected areas domestically, as revealed in
Chapter 2 of this report. The study also indicates that financial assistance from overseas was
utilized by JRCS and other Japanese NGOs/NPOs and groups, in ways that supported relief forsurvivors and reconstruction of the affected areas. Such assistance was highly appreciated bythose affected by this disaster. The following are the characteristics that were revealed in thisstudy, both during acceptance and utilization of assistance from overseas.
[At Acceptance]
1.

The amount of assistance through private businesses, NGOs/NPOs, groups, and otherorganizations was significant in addition to the assistance received through governments andinternational organizations.

The number of financial/material/human resources assistance from governments and internationalorganizations was 374, while it was 1,484 by others. In accepting this assistance in Japan, the134

Differing from the cases of disasters in developing countries where the UN OCHA calls for financial assistance,
and takes the lead in summarizing the information on disaster relief activities by governments and others, it did notmade emergency appeal in the Great East Japan Earthquake occurred in a developed country, Japan. Thus, theinformation on disaster relief activities in the Great East Japan Earthquake summarized by OCHA is notcomprehensive, and its numerical value is different from that of this study.

106

Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

roles of NGOs and other private organizations were essential. It meant that assistance wasprovided and received across national boundaries with the participation of civil society in its
entirety and not just between governments, but also among governments, NGOs, private
businesses, and individuals. This trend has been common in recent years when massive disasters
occur in developing countries135, and it shows that the Great East Japan Earthquake was no
exception.
2.

A large amount of assistance was provided from extremely poor countries and countries withunstable political and economic conditions.

Out of 174 countries and regions, 119 were Japanese ODA recipients136, and 35 were among theso-called “Least Developed Countries (LDC)” in Asia and Africa137. In addition, regions affected byconflicts such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestinian Authority, and Sudan, countries in the Middle East
that were under political and social upheaval due to “Arab Spring” such as Egypt and Tunisia,
European countries in economic crisis like Greece, and countries that experienced natural
disasters like earthquakes and heavy floods immediately before 3.11 such as New Zealand andBrazil provided assistance. In recent years, developing countries have joined developed nations inoffering assistance after massive disasters. This global trend—a spirit of mutual aid—was showneven when a developed country like Japan was the victim. A number of countries expressed their
gratitude for Japan’s past assistance, including ODA.
3.

Content of the assistance was diverse.

A significant portion of in-kind contributions (material and human resources) provided by overseas
businesses fully utilized those organizations’ field of expertise and distinctive characteristics.
Examples were provision of vehicles for relief activities or car-sharing in the affected areas,
lending of satellite mobile communication terminals, and donation of mileages by an airline
company. In the area of material contributions, many countries provided their principal products
such as Australian beef from Australia, canned tuna from the Maldives, and Korean seaweed from
Korea. Many artists and athletes utilized their expertise, unique features and name recognition tocollect donations, artists collected donations through charity concerts and bazaars and provided
towels with encouraging messages, and athletes provided donations and organized charity
support events.
135

For example, in the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami, a total 6.2 billion dollars were provided fromthe international community (this amount includes in-kind form of assistance, and based on contributions andcommitment, excluding pledge). Of this, 62% (by amount) was from other governments and international agencies.
In the 2010 Haiti earthquake, out of the total amount of 3.5 billion dollars provided (the same as above), 36%(same as above) was from non-governmental sources. In both cases, more than half the countries that provided
assistance were developing countries (ODA recipients of Japan).
http://fts.unocha.org/pageloader.aspx?page=home.
136
Classification of ODA recipients and non-recipients is based on “Japan’s ODA White Paper 2011.” Although
South Sudan was not mentioned as an ODA recipient in “Japan’s ODA White Paper 2011” since it became
independent in July 2011, the study classified it as a recipient country according to the actual situation.
137
Out of 48 countries defined as the LDC by the United Nations. http://www.unohrlls.org/en/ldc/25/

107

Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake[In Utilization]
4.

Assistance from overseas consoled and encouraged the victims, showing that theinternational community supported and cared.

Financial assistance from overseas was utilized for various activities implemented by Japanese
NGOs/NPOs and private businesses to meet the needs of those affected by the disaster. Activities
included direct cash distribution, purchase/ distribution of food and relief supplies/support forevacuees, coordination of volunteer activities such as operation of volunteer centers,
education/child support, livelihood and economic reconstruction such as support for
fisheries/employment/ small and medium-sized enterprises, support for community activities,
programs for psychosocial care, health care/public health programs, support for the vulnerable
including people with disabilities, the elderly and women, information support such asbroadcasting, support for victims of the nuclear accident, aid coordination, and many others. Manywords of gratitude towards such assistance from overseas, not only financial assistance, but alsomaterial and human resource contributions, were heard in this study from the stakeholders ofaffected local governments, the victims, NGOs/NPOs, and other organizations, revealing that theassistance consoled and encouraged the people in the affected areas through various activities.
5.

Financial assistance from overseas complemented the support from the government, met theneeds of victims attentively and promptly.

Though government took initiatives in reconstruction and repair of large-scale infrastructure suchas schools, harbor/fishery facilities, temporary housings, temporary shopping streets, and roads, it
was difficult for the government to meet the individual needs of each victim. Therefore, much of the
donations from overseas was provided to support organizations like NGOs which conductedattentive and essential activities for victims to help rebuild their lives, complementing the activities
by the government. Examples of such support include provision of school supplies and classroom
items needed for resuming schools, provision of fishing implements, provision of daily
commodities necessary at temporary housing settlements, and provision of materials for setting up
temporary stores.
It was also revealed that financial assistance from overseas financed activities of manyorganizations, especially in the initial stage, both in terms of timing and the amount. As manyorganizations responded in the questionnaire survey that receiving a large amount of financial
assistance from overseas within a short period of time after the disaster enabled them to act
quickly in their relief activities. Specifically, the survey revealed that timely financial assistancefrom overseas enabled support for the fishing industry and public health that required delicate
seasonal timing. Generous financial assistance from overseas also enabled NGOs to cover wide
range of benefits such as provision of heating appliances to every type of temporary housing.

108

Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

Without the donations from overseas, even JRCS would not have been able to implement suchlarge scale and diverse support activities as it conducts today, with the exception of its legislated
disaster relief activities including distribution of relief supplies, medical relief, and cash grantactivities.
6.

A large portion of the financial assistance from overseas was utilized for education/childsupport activities.

Many of the organizations that received a large amount of financial assistance from overseas inthis study have implemented programs for education/child support. Their activities consisted ofequipment, furniture, teaching materials, musical instruments, school supplies, playgroundequipment provision, for nursery schools, kindergartens, elementary/junior high schools, Boy
Scouts, and children’s centers, establishment of child-friendly spaces at temporary housing
settlements, provision of funds for repairing damaged school buildings and facilities, repair ofdamaged school yards and playgrounds, equipment for evacuation routes, support for art activities
and overseas education programs. Many of the overseas organizations that provided assistanceand Japanese organizations that received the assistance were established specifically to provide
support for children; thus, their regular activities and expertise may have impacted the content of
the support activities after the disaster.

5.2

Analysis

The study team believes that before the Great East Japan Earthquake becomes a past event, acomprehensive review on the lessons learned by the government, NGOs/NPOs, other groups andprivate businesses is needed and the results of such a study should be disseminated to theinternational community. This study was conducted for this purpose. Natural disasters can occur
at anytime, anywhere. In addition to disasters, international assistance including ODA has been
implemented regularly across national boundaries. Lessons that Japan has learned as a recipientof international assistance can surely be utilized when Japan provides international assistance inthe future. The following are the lessons learned from the Great East Japan Earthquake revealedin this study.
1.

Clarification of the liaison organization in receiving assistance from overseas organizations
and individuals

A manual on emergency measures and a system for accepting international assistance at the
government level were prepared in the basic disaster prevention plan that was based on theexperience of the Great Hanshin Awaji Earthquake of 1995. Therefore, the acceptance of official
assistance from governments and international organizations was carried out relatively efficiently
due to the existence of certain principles such as “self-sufficient assistance.” However, the109Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

government of Japan did not have any systems or procedures to receive assistance fromoverseas organizations and individuals138.Thus, such assistance was received through various
private organization networks, without official rules and systems. As revealed in this study, theportion of assistance from organizations and individuals other than governments and internationalorganizations was larger than that of governments and international organizations in the Great
East Japan Earthquake. Therefore, cases where official rules applied when receiving assistancewere actually limited, and this sometimes became a burden in the affected areas.
Although MOFA recorded, organized, and published information on assistance provided fromgovernments and international organizations, information on overseas assistance provided byothers was recorded by each receiving organization in many possible ways. Therefore, there is no
unified manual or guidelines on how to record this overseas assistance. In view of the situation,
the study tried to organize the information based on a certain rule to obtain a comprehensive viewof assistance from overseas, but in many cases, the information was incomplete and analysis ran
into difficulties. It is assumed that if there had been a liaison organization to receive
non-governmental assistance from overseas, it would have been easier to collect information.
One concrete idea to address this situation is, for example, to strengthen the collaboration
between Japan Platform (JPF) and the government office when receiving assistance fromoverseas. As mentioned in section 4.1, JPF is the only NGO that was established in collaboration
with NGOs, the business world, and the government, and it has expertise in emergency
humanitarian aid. In the Great East Japan Earthquake, it collected about 6.8 billion yen in
donations from both within and outside the country, and granted its member organizations’ relief
activities. Thus, it was a practical move by the government to position JPF as a liaisonorganization to receive non-governmental assistance from overseas, and set its roles andfunctions in the national system for accepting international assistance so that JPF was able toreceive information from the government and communicate the necessary information to foreignorganizations through its network. In future this will reduce the burden of local governments inaffected areas, as well as enable the effective and efficient acceptance of assistance.
2.

Formulation of a disaster management strategy on the premise of receiving assistance fromoverseas

Not only the central government and local governments, but also NGOs/NPOs had difficulty
receiving assistance from overseas due to a shortage of manpower, especially during the initialstage after the disaster. To cope with this problem, the disaster management strategy should not
be based on the activities and manpower of the organization for ordinary times, but to prepare fora scale up in manpower as a contingency measure, taking into account the work related to138

Yutaka Katayama. (2013, January). Higashi Nihon Daishinsaji No Kokusai Kinkyu Shien Ukeire to Gaimusho,
Journal of International Cooperation Studies, vol. 20, No. 2/3.

110Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

receiving assistance from overseas. The following is a few examples of good practices found in
this study.


Iwate prefectural government has a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on masstransport support with the Iwate Trucking Association, and it enabled the efficientestablishment of a relief supply logistics system. This was later called the “Iwate method,”and became a national model case on logistics during disasters139.



Sendai city received financial assistance from Nancy City, France, through its Japanesesister city, Kanazawa city. Kanazawa city, which was not an affected area, took over theadministrative work of receiving the assistance, allowing Sendai city to reduce its
administrative work.

When international medical teams were dispatched, Japanese doctors and nurses, who
had experience in medical support activities through JICA’s international cooperation,accompanied them. They supported the smooth communication between the victims andinternational medical teams140.

A common factor of these good practices was the quick formation of networks with otherorganization/institutions during the disaster. Due to the language barrier, only a few staff members
at the affected prefectural offices were able to deal with the assistance from overseas. During an
emergency when inquiries and contacts from overseas poured in, they stayed at the officeovernight to cope with the situation. If there had been collaboration with organizations withinternational experience, the situation might have been easier to handle. In building networks, as
shown in the example of Iwate Prefecture, it is suggested that a cooperation agreement beexchanged with other organizations during ordinary times in order to agree on the tasks and fees
for the work that can be requested in the aftermath of a disaster.
Though assistance from overseas is received based on offers by the providers, and not by theJapanese side, it is suggested that a wish list be prepared with specifications to distinguish “whatis needed and what is not”, and a manual be prepared on communicating information, in
anticipation of offers from overseas.
3.

Superiority of the financial assistance

It was reconfirmed in the study that financial assistance is superior to material contributions,especially in its practical usage, as it can be used on demand for items that are needed at theappropriate time without any constraint of expiration dates, tastes, and specifications and without
139

Iwate Prefectural Office. (2012, February). Higashi-Nihon Daishinsai Tsunami ni kakaru Saigai Taiou: Kensyo
Hokokusyo (Verification Report on Disaster Response in the Great East Japan Earthquake). P34.
140
JICA. Topics: Making the best use of assistance from each country (The Great East Japan Earthquake),
Homepage (Japanese) http://www.jica.go.jp/topics/2011/20110426_01.html

111Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

the need to consider time and cost for transportation. In developed countries like Japan, this
aspect seems even greater. As mentioned in 5.1 (4), human resources cooperation and material
contributions have great significance in showing a sense of solidarity to the affected country andits people and to reveal the bond between countries. Thus, the superiority of financial assistance is
not always the case, but donors need to keep in mind the superiority of financial assistance when
considering future domestic and international disaster relief assistance, when a choice isavailable.
4.

Difference in people’s needs between developed and developing countries

The disaster management capacity of governments of developing countries and developed
countries like Japan differs greatly. For example, in the case of developing countries, temporary
housing is mostly constructed through the support of international NGOs, private businesses, andinternational organizations, while in case of Japan, the government started the construction of
temporary housing two months after the disaster. Therefore, the needs in support activities in theaftermath of disasters in developing and developed countries are different. Some of the issues infinancial assistance mentioned earlier showed that items regarded as luxury goods in assistancefor developing countries can be necessities of life in developed countries. Although there is aninternational standard called Sphere Standard that sets the minimal standard for each category inhumanitarian aid, the quality of relief supplies required, for example even the quality of a blanket indeveloped and developing countries is different. Donors need to decide the content of theassistance in due consideration of the economy, culture and customs of the recipient country. This
must not be forgotten when Japan provides assistance in other countries as well.

112Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

Appendix 1

List of Participants

1st Committee Meeting (July 6, 2012)
Affiliation
Chairperson

Japan Red Cross Society(JRCS)
JRCS Public Relations, Planning and Public
Relations Office
JRCS International Department
Japan NGO Center for International Cooperation(JANIC)JANIC Taskforce for Disaster Response
Japan Platform (JPF)
Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA)
East and Central Asia and the Caucasus
Department

JICA Japan Disaster Relief Team Secretariat
Training Division, Secretariat of Japan Disaster
Relief TeamJICA Strategic Planning Division/Office for Global
Issues and Development partnership, Operation
Strategy Department< Secretariat >International Development Center Japan (IDCJ)
IDCJ
IDCJ

2nd Committee Meeting (September 3, 2012)
Affiliation
Chairperson

Japan NGO Center for International Cooperation(JANIC)JANIC Taskforce for Disaster Response
Japan Platform (JPF)
Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA)
East and Central Asia and the Caucasus
Department

JICA Training Division, Secretariat of Japan
Disaster Relief TeamJICA Office for Global Issues and Development
partnership, Operation Strategy Department
Japan Red Cross Society (JRCS)
Public Relations, Planning and Public Relations
Office< Observers >Ministry of Finance (MOF)
Development Institutions Division, International
BureauTitle
Former Professor at
International Christian
University
President
Deputy Director
GeneralDeputy Director
GeneralChairperson
Coordinator
Secretary General
Director General

Name
Kazuo TAKAHASHI
Tadateru KONOE
Atsuhiko HATA
Naoki KOKAWA
Masaaki OHASHI
Asako HAGANoriyuki SHIINA
Kae YANAGISAWA(Former Director-Generalof the Secretariat ofJapan Disaster ReliefTeam)

Director

Yoshihisa KASUYA

Deputy Director

Tsuyoshi KIYOHARA

President
General Manager
Researcher

Masaoki TAKEUCHI
Michio WATANABE
Mana TAKASUGI

Title
Former Professor at
International Christian
University
Secretary General

Name
Kazuo TAKAHASHI

Masashi YAMAGUCHI

Coordinator
Secretary General
Director General

Asako HAGANoriyuki SHIINA
Kae YANAGISAWA(Former Director-Generalof the Secretariat ofJapan Disaster ReliefTeam)

Director

Yoshihisa KASUYA

Deputy Director

Hiromi NAI

Deputy Director
GeneralAtsuhiko HATA

Director

Shigeo SHIMIZU

113

Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

MOF Development Institutions Division,
International Bureau
Reconstruction Agency< Secretariat >International Development Center Japan (IDCJ)
IDCJ
IDCJ
IDCJ
IDCJ
IDCJ

3rd Committee Meeting （November 6, 2012）
Affiliation
Chairperson

Japan NGO Center for International Cooperation(JANIC)JANIC Taskforce for Disaster Response
Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA)
East and Central Asia and the Caucasus
Department

JICA Operation Strategy Department
JICA Training Division, Secretariat of Japan
Disaster Relief TeamJapan Platform (JPF)
JPF
Japan Red Cross Society (JRCS)
Public Relations, Planning and Public Relations
OfficeJRCS Public Relations, Planning and Public
Relations Office< Observers >Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA)
Diplomatic Record and Information Disclosure
Division, Minister’s Secretariat
MOFA Management and Coordination Division,
Minister’s Secretariat
Ministry of Finance (MOF)
Development Institutions Division, International
BureauMOF Development Institutions Division,
International Bureau
Reconstruction Agency
Reconstruction Agency
Miyagi Prefecture Government, Tokyo Office< Secretariat >International Development Center Japan
IDCJ
IDCJ

Section Chief

Yuya GOTO

Counselor

Yoshio ANDO

President
Executive Director
Senior Researcher
Researcher
Administrative Staff
Temporary Staff

Masaoki TAKEUCHI
Yukihiro TERADA
Mimi SHEIKH
Mana TAKASUGIYosuke KAWAGOE
Yuki SHIRAKAWA

Title
Former Professor at
International Christian
University
Secretary General

Name
Kazuo TAKAHASHI

Masashi YAMAGUCHI

Coordinator
Director General

Asako HAGA
Kae YANAGISAWA(Former Director-Generalof the Secretariat ofJapan Disaster Relief
Team)

Senior Advisor to the
Director General
Director

Masahiro TAWA
Yoshihisa KASUYA

Co-Chairperson
Secretary General
Deputy Director
GeneralToshio ARIMA
Noriyuki SHIINA
Atsuhiko HATA

Director

Chisato MATSUNO

Director

Takashi MANABE

Officer

Tsutomu SHIBATA

Director

Shigeo SHIMIZU

Section Chief

Yuya GOTO

Counselor
Official
Staff

Yoshio ANDO
Hideto WATANABE
Hiroshi YOSHIDA

General Manager
Senior Researcher
Researcher

Michio WATANABE
Mimi SHEIKH
Mana TAKASUGI114

Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

IDCJ
IDCJ

4th Committee Meeting （February 21, 2013）
Affiliation
Chairperson

Japan NGO Center for International Cooperation(JANIC)JANIC Taskforce for Disaster Response
Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA)
East and Central Asia and the Caucasus
Department

JICA Operation Strategy Department
Japan Platform (JPF)
JPF
Japan Red Cross Society(JRCS)
Public Relations, Planning and Public Relations
OfficeJRCS Public Relations, Planning and Public
Relations Office< Observers >Administrative Staff
Temporary Staff

Yosuke KAWAGOE
Yuki SHIRAKAWA

Title
Former Professor at
International Christian
University
Secretary General

Name

Coordinator
Director General

Kazuo TAKAHASHI
MasashiYAMAGUCHI
Asako HAGA
Kae YANAGISAWA（Former Director-Generalof the Secretariat ofJapan Disaster Relief
Team）

Senior Advisor to the
Director General
Co-Chairperson
Co-Chairperson
Deputy Director
GeneralMasahiro TAWA

Director

Chisato MATSUNO

Toshio ARIMA
Keiko KIYAMA
Atsuhiko HATA

Director
Ministry of Finance (MOF)
Shigeo SHIMIZU
Development Institutions Division, International
BureauMOF Development Institutions Division,
Section Chief
Yuya GOTO
International Bureau< Secretariat >International Development Center Japan
President
Masaoki TAKEUCHIIDCJ
Senior Researcher
Mimi SHEIKH
IDCJ
Researcher
Mana TAKASUGI
IDCJ
Administrative Staff
Yuki SHIRAKAWA
IDCJAdministrative Staff
Yosuke KAWAGOE* In addition to the above participants, many staff members from JRCS Recovery Task Force andInternational Department participated.

5th Committee Meeting （June 13, 2013）
Affiliation
Chairperson

Japan NGO Center for International Cooperation(JANIC)JANIC Taskforce for Disaster Response
Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA)
JICA Operation Strategy Department
Japan Platform (JPF)
JPF

Title
Former Professor at
International Christian
University
Secretary General
Coordinator
Vice President
Senior Advisor to the
Director General
Co-Chairperson
Secretary General

Name
Kazuo TAKAHASHI
MasashiYAMAGUCHI
Asako HAGA
Hiroto ARAKAWA
Masahiro TAWA
Toshio ARIMA
Noriyuki SHIINA

115

Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

Japan Red Cross Society(JRCS)
Public Relations, Planning and Public Relations
OfficeJRCS Public Relations, Planning and Public
Relations Office< Observers >Deputy Director
GeneralAtsuhiko HATA

Director

Chisato MATSUNO

Ministry of Finance (MOF)
Department of Institutions Division, International
Bureau< Secretariat >International Development Center Japan (IDCJ)
IDCJ
IDCJ

Section Chief

Yuya GOTO

President
Senior Researcher
Researcher

Masaoki TAKEUCHI
Mimi SHEIKH
Mana TAKASUGI

Title
Former Professor at
International Christian
University
CoordinatorName

6th Committee Meeting （January 22, 2014）
Affiliation
Chairperson

Japan NGO Center for International Cooperation(JANIC) Taskforce for Disaster Response
Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA)
Operation Strategy Department
Japan Platform (JPF)
Japan Red Cross Society(JRCS)
Public Relations, Planning and Public Relations
OfficeJRCS Public Relations, Planning and Public
Relations Office< Observers >Ministry of Finance
Department of Institutions Division, International
BureauReconstruction Agency< Secretariat >International Development Center Japan
IDCJ
IDCJ

Senior Advisor to the
Director General
Co-Chairperson
Deputy Director
GeneralKazuo TAKAHASHI
Asako HAGA

Koji YAMADA
Toshio ARIMA
Atsuhiko HATA

Director

Chisato MATSUNO

Official

Kazutaka YASUIOfficial

Kotoha ITAKURA

President
Senior Researcher
Researcher

Masaoki TAKEUCHI
Mimi SHEIKH
Mana TAKASUGI116

Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

Appendix 2 Main Sources of Information< Organizations / Institutions >Homepage of Ministry of Foreign Affairs. List of Relief Supplies and Donations from Overseas（Outline of supplies and donations・As of 2012 Feb. 6）.
http://www.mofa.go.jp/j_info/visit/incidents/pdfs/r_goods.pdf
Homepage of Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Schedule of Operations of Rescue Teams from Foreign
Countries, Regions and International Organizations, As of 2012 Jan. 30.
http://www.mofa.go.jp/j_info/visit/incidents/pdfs/rescue.pdf
Homepage of Ministry of Foreign Affairs. ( 2011, Aug 29) Assistance by U.S. Forces in the
Aftermath of the Great East Japan Earthquake.
http://www.mofa.go.jp/j_info/visit/incidents/pdfs/tomodachi.pdf
Homepage of Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Press Release (Japanese)
http://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/saigai/shien.html
Nuclear Emergency Response Headquarters. Genshiryokuanzen ni kansuru IAEA kakuryokaigui
nikansuru nihonsefu no hokokusho (The Report of Japanese Governmentto IAEA
Ministrial Conference on Nuclear Safety). (Japanese)
http://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/topics/2011/pdf/houkokusyo_full.pdf
Homepage of Japan International Cooperation Agency （JICA） (Japanese)
http://www.jica.go.jp/information/disaster_info.html
Homepage of Japan NGO Center for International Cooperation
http://www.janic.org/en/earthquake/
Homepage of Japan NGO Center for International Cooperation. Higashinihon daishinsai to
kokusai kyouryoku NGO: Kokunai deno aratana kanosei to kadai, soshite teigen (TheGreat East Japan Earthquake and International and NGO for International Cooperation:
New possibility and issues in Japan and lessons learnt). (Japanese)
http://www.janic.org/mt/img/shinsai_ngo_report.pdf
The American Chamber of Commerce in Japan. 2012 ACCJ Corporate Social Responsibility YearBook.
http://www.accj.or.jp/en/about/committees/committee-materials/doc_view/285-2012-accjcorporate-social-responsibility-year-book
Japan Platform. Solidarity and Sympathy across the Borders. (English Summary)
http://tohoku.japanplatform.org/lib/data/kakinenonai_en.pdf
Homepage of Japan Platform http://tohoku.japanplatform.org/
Japan Center for International Exchange. Civil Society Monitor JCIE Special Report.
http://www.jcie.org/311recovery/usgiving.html
Homepage of Cabinet Office (Japanese) http://www.cao.go.jp/shinsai/index.html

117Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

Defense of Japan 2011 Annual White Paper http://www.mod.go.jp/e/publ/w_paper/2011.htm
Homepage of Foundation Center http://maps.foundationcenter.org/japan/rss/
The Chronicle of Philanthropy
http://philanthropy.com/article/Giving-for-Japan-Tops/127090/?otd=Y2xpY2t0aHJ1Ojo6c
293aWRnZXQ6OjpjaGFubmVsOm5ld3MsYXJ0aWNsZTpnaXZpbmctZm9yLWphcGFuL
WRpc2FzdGVyLW5vdy10b3RhbHMtbW9yZS10aGFuLTE2MS1taWxsaW9uOjo6Y2hhb
m5lbDpuZXdzLGFydGljbGU6Z2l2aW5nLWZvci1qYXBhbi10b3BzLTI0NjktbWlsbGlvbi0=
OCHA Financial tracking service. Japan-Earthquake and Tsunami - March 2011
http://fts.unocha.org/reports/daily/ocha_R10_E16043_asof___1212140203.pdf
http://fts.unocha.org/reports/daily/ocha_R24_E16043___1212140203.pdf
Business Civic Leadership Center. Corporate Aid Tracker - Japanese Earthquake and Tsunami
March 2011.
http://bclc.uschamber.com/site-page/corporate-aid-tracker-japanese-earthquake-and-tsu
nami-march-2011< Embassies, Interchange Associations, Chamber of Commerce and Industry, etc. >Homepage of Embassies in Japan
United States http://japan.usembassy.gov/
People’s Republic of China (Japanese) http://www.china-embassy.or.jp/jpn/
Canada http://www.canadainternational.gc.ca/japan-japon/index.aspx?lang=eng
Finland http://www.finland.or.jp/public/default.aspx?contentlan=2&culture=en-US
France (Japanese) http://www.ambafrance-jp.org/spip.php?rubrique7
Australia http://www.australia.or.jp/en/
Norway http://www.norway.or.jp/Embassy/english/
Germany (Japanese) http://www.japan.diplo.de/Vertretung/japan/ja/Startseite.html
Russia (Japanese) http://www.ru.emb-japan.go.jp/japan/
Korea (Japanese)
http://jpn-tokyo.mofat.go.kr/worldlanguage/asia/jpn-tokyo/main/index.jsp
Delegation of the European Union to Japan http://www.euinjapan.jp/en/
Iraq http://www.iraqi-japan.com/archive/news/jp/1111291j.htm
Homepage of Qatar Friendship Fund http://www.qatarfriendshipfund.org/en/
Homepage of Interchange Association (Japanese) http://www.koryu.or.jp/ez3_contents.nsf/Top
Homepage of Brazilian Chamber of Commerce in Japan
118

Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

http://www.accj.or.jp/ja/events/details/18790-nomu-nication-with-the-brazilian-chamber-of-commerce
Homepage of Singapore Red Cross Society http://www.redcross.org.sg/
Homepage of Mindan (Korean Residents Union of Japan) (Japanese)
http://www.mindan.org/index.php
Homepage of Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in Japan (Japanese)
http://www.taiwanembassy.org/JP/ct.asp?xItem=190709&ctNode=3522&mp=202
Taiwan Trade Center. Taiwan karano Seifu Minkanenjyo Ichiran (Overview of governmental andnon-governmental assistance from Taiwan). (Japanese)
http://www.taitra.gr.jp/sp/2011earthquake/list.htm
Homepage of Korean Chamber of Commerce & Industry in Tokyo (Japanese)
http://www.tokansho.org/
Homepage of Japanese-German Center Berlin http://www.jdzb.de/index.php?lang=en
Homepage of Associacao Central Nipo-Brasileira (Japanese) http://www.nipo-brasil.org/
Homepage of InfoMongolia InfoMongolia.com< Major Donors and Recipient Organizations >Homepage of Ashinaga Educational and Emotional Support for Orphans
http://www.ashinaga.org/en/
Homepage of ADRA Japan (Japanese)
http://www.adrajpn.org/Projects/Japan/PJE_EastJapanErthq/PJE_EastJapanErthq.html
ADRA Japan Annual Report (2011 and 2012) (Japanese)
http://www.adrajpn.org/A_Annual_FiscalReport.html
Homepage of Oxfam Japan http://oxfam.jp/en/2011/06/oxfam_japans_response_to_the_e.html
Oxfam Japan. Annual Report (2011) (Japanese) http://www.oxfam.jp/media/nenji2011.pdf
Homepage of Association of Nikkei and Japanese Abroad (Japanese)
http://www.jadesas.or.jp/bokin.html
Caritas Japan. (2013, March)The Great East Japan Earthquake & Tsunami Activity Report.
http://www.caritas.jp/publication/publication_01.html#panf
Homepage of Salvation Army (Japanese)
http://www.salvationarmy.or.jp/index.php?QBlog&mode=category&catname=%E6%9D%
B1%E6%97%A5%E6%9C%AC%E5%A4%A7%E9%9C%87%E7%81%BD
Homepage of CRASH Japan http://crashjapan.com/~crashwp/

119Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

Homepage of CARE International Japan
http://www.careintjp.org/caresworkE/japan_tohoku_earthquake_tsunami_response_prog
ram.html
Homepage of Japan NGO Center for International Cooperation (JANIC). Higashinihon daishinsai
katsudoshien matomete bokin (the Great East Earthquake: Donation for Support
Activities). (Japanese) http://www.janic.org/bokin/matomete/matomete14.php
JANIC. JANIC Task Force for Disaster Response Annual Report 2011.
http://www.janic.org/en/earthquake/JANIC%20Report%20no%20annex.pdf
Kokkyo naki Kodomotachi (KnK). Activity Report on Japan Great East Earthquake from March2011 to March 2012. (Japanese) http://knk-iwate.jp/act/act_top.html
Homepage of KnK http://www.knk.or.jp/
JEN. Activity Report, the Great East Japan Earthquake (March 2011-April 2012).
http://www.jen-npo.org/en/concept/report.php
Homepage of JEN http://www.jen-npo.org/en/project/project_miyagi.php
Japan Platform. (2012, March) Hyoka Houkokusho: Higashinihon daishinsai hisaisha shien
program [Kinkyu Taiou Ki] (Evaluation Report: Assistance for the Victims of the Great
East Japan Earthquake [Emergency Response Phase]). (Japanese)
http://www.japanplatform.org/programs/pdf/monitoring_em01rpt.pdf
Japan Platform. (2011, July) Hyoka houkokusho: Higashinihon daishinsai hisaisha shien program[Shodo Taiou Ki] (Evaluation Report: Assistance for the Victims of the Great East Japan
Earthquake [Initial Response Phase]). (Japanese)
http://www.japanplatform.org/programs/pdf/monitoring_fs01rpt.pdf
Japan Platform. (2011 and 2012). Higashinihon Daishinsai Hisaisha Shien Hokokusho (Report:
Assistance for the Victims of the Great East Japan Earthquake). (Japanese)
http://tohoku.japanplatform.org/report/general.html
JOICEP http://www.joicfp.or.jp/en/program/japan-earthquake-and-tsunami/
Save the Children. Japan One Year On. and Japan Two Year On.
http://www.savechildren.or.jp/jpnem/eng/
Homepage of JA-ZENCHU (Central Union of Agricultural Co-operatives) (Japanese)
http://www.zenchu-ja.or.jp/topics/110315_01.html
Homepage of ZEN NOH Group (Japanese) http://www.zennoh.or.jp/
Homepage of SOKA GAKKAI (Japanese)
http://www2.sokanet.jp/html/others/shinsai_torikumi.html
Homepage of Central Community Chest of Japan https://www.akaihane.or.jp/english/index.html l120Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

Central Community Chest of Japan. Higashinihon Daishinsainiokeru Akaihaneno Saigaijishien(the Great East Japan, Earthquake Disaster Relief of Central Community Chest ofJapan). (Japanese) http://www.akaihane.or.jp/pdf/20120323.pdf
Central Community Chest of Japan. Annual Report (2011-2012). (Japanese)
http://www.akaihane.or.jp/organization/pdf/2011annual_report.pdf
Homepage of Junior Chamber International Japan
http://www.tokyo-jc.or.jp/2011/about/index_en.html
Homepage of Japan Association for Refugees (Japanese)
http://www.refugee.or.jp/jar/news/2011/09/29-1428.shtml
Association for Aid and Relief, Japan. The Great East Japan Earthquake: Activity Report(2011/03-2013/03). http://www.aarjapan.gr.jp/english/activity/japan/
Homepage of United Church of Christ in Japan http://www.uccj-jishin.jpn.org/?page_id=583
Homepage of Nippon International Cooperation for Community Development
http://www.kyoto-nicco.org/english/project/japan/index.html
http://www.kyoto-nicco.org/project/support/presentation/311-2years.html#.UeTfQ76CjIU(Japanese)
Nippon Foundation. ROAD Project: Higashi Nihon Daishinsai Ichinen no Katsudou Kiroku (TheGreat East Japan Earthquake Project record of the year). (Japanese)
http://road.nippon-foundation.or.jp/2012/06/1-8eee.html
Homepage of Nippon Foundation
http://road.nippon-foundation.or.jp/2011/04/post-b0f1.html
http://road.nippon-foundation.or.jp/2011/08/2011711717-35e4.html
Homepage of Japanese Consumer Co-operative http://jccu.coop/eng/
Japanese Red Cross Society. Japan: Earthquake and Tsunami: 12 Months Report.
http://www.jrc.or.jp/vcms_lf/kokusai270412_12MonthReport.pdf
Japanese Red Cross Society. Japan：Earthquake and Tsunami. 24 Months Report. 26 July 2013.
http://www.jrc.or.jp/vcms_lf/Ops_Update_24monthReport_Final.pdf
Japanese Red Cross Society. Japan：Earthquake and Tsunami. Operations Update No. 12, 12
September 2013. http://www.jrc.or.jp/eq-japan2011/operations-update/
Homepage of Japanese Red Cross Society http://www.jrc.or.jp/
Japanese Red Cross Society. (2012, November 30). Summary Report: Third Party Evaluation of
the Great East Japan Earthquake Recovery Task Force (FY2011 Project).
http://www.jrc.or.jp/vcms_lf/daisansha_hyouka.eng.pdf
Telecom for Basic Human Needs. (FY2011 and FY2012) Jigyo Hokokusho (Project Report).
(Japanese) http://www.bhn.or.jp/official/annualreport121Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

Peace Winds Japan. Annual Report (2011). http://peace-winds.org/en/pdf/PWJ_FY2011.pdf
Peace Winds Japan. Annual Report (2012). http://peace-winds.org/en/pdf/PWJ_FY2012.pdf
Peace Winds Japan. Higashinihondaishinsai fukkoshien orei narabini 2012nenno katsudohokoku(The Great East Japan Earthquake: An Expression of Gratitude and Activity Report in2012). (Japanese)
http://www.peace-winds.org/jp/shared/pdf/anual_report2013touhoku.pdf
Peace Boat Disaster Relief Volunteer Center. Annual Report (11 March 2011 - 31 March 2012).
http://www.peaceboat.org/english/content/documents/2011_PBV_web.pdf
Peace Boat Disaster Relief Volunteer Center. Annual Report (1 April 2012 - 31 March 2013).
http://peaceboat.jp/relief/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/PBV-Annual-Report-2012.2013.pd
fJapan Committee for UNICEF. (2013, March). Emergency Relief and Reconstruction: Two-Year
Report. http://www.unicef.or.jp/kinkyu/japan/en/pdf/2year_report_en.pdf
Homepage of Lions Clubs International
http://www.lionsclubs.org/EN/our-work/disaster-relief/japan-quake-relief.php
http://lionsclubs.org/blog/2013/03/11/2-years-after-the-tsunami-minami-sanriku-shizugaw
a-lions-club

Homepage of World Vision Japan
http://www.worldvision.jp/support/donate/hope_japan.html?banner_id=11199
World Vision Japan. Hiagshinihondaishinsai kinkyufukkoshien 24kagetsu katsudo report (theGreat East Japan Earthquake: 24 months-Activity Report on Emergency Relief andReconstruction) (Japanese) http://www.worldvision.jp/support/donate/hope_japan.html
Homepage of Church World Service
http://www.churchworldservice.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=13155
Homepage of Direct Relief International
http://www.directrelief.org/emergency/2011-japan-earthquake-tsunami/
Give2Asia http://give2asia.org/
Homepage of GlobalGiving http://www.globalgiving.org/donate/7521/bhn-association/
International Medical Corps「JAPAN １YEAR REPORT」
http://internationalmedicalcorps.org/document.doc?id=243
International Rescue Committee 2011 Annual report
http://www.rescue.org/sites/default/files/resource-file/IRC_US_AR11.pdf
Homepage of Japan Iraq Medical Network (JIM-NET)
http://www.jim-net.net/news/info/2012/03/post-94.php
Homepage of LDS Charities
122

Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

http://ldscharities.org/articles/church-expands-donations-to-japan?lang=eng
Homepage of Mercy Corps http://www.mercycorps.org/pressreleases/26528
Homepage of Operation USA http://www.usfj.mil/
Homepage of ShelterBox http://www.shelterbox.org/deployment_details.php?id=150
Homepage of Japan Society http://www.japansociety.org.uk/earthquake/rose-fund/< Local Governments >Iwate Prefectural Government. (2013, February) Higashinihon daishisai tsunami nikakaru
saigaitaio: kenshohoukokusho (Disaster Relief Measures of the Great East Japan
Earthquake and Tsunami: Review Report.
Homepage of Kawasaki City http://www.city.kawasaki.jp/en/
Samukawa International Exchange Association (Japanese) http://www.shj.or.jp/siea/
Homepage of Soma City (Japanese) http://www.city.soma.fukushima.jp/
Homepage of Sanaburi Foundation http://www.sanaburifund.org/en/
Miyagi Prefectural Government. (March 2012). Higashinihon daishisai: miyagiken no 6kagetsuno
saigaitaioto sonokensho (the Great East Japan Earthquake: Disaster Relief Measures
and Review for the First 6 months after the disaster. (Japanese)
Miyagi Prefectural Government. (March 2013). Higashinihon daishisai (zokuhen): miyagiken no
6kagetsukara hantoshikanno saigaitaioto sonokensho (The Great East Japan
Earthquake (follow-up): Disaster Relief Measures and Review from Six months to One
year after the disaster. (Japanese)Radio Ishinomaki (Japanese) http://saigai-fm764.seesaa.net/archives/201104-5.html

In addition to the above, information provided by embassies of foreign countries, the Japan
Chamber of Commerce and Industry/ NIhonjinkai of foreign countries, various NGOs, Companies
of homepages, News Agencies, and Newspapers, Press releases on internet and others wereused.
< Others >Shinichi Mazuma. (2012, January/February). Higashinihonniokeru kaigaikarano
kinkyuuenjy,Kokusai Mondai (The Great East Japan Earthquake: Emergency Supports
form Overseas), No.608. (Japanese)
Yutaka Katayama. (2013, January). Higashi Nihon Daishinsaji No Kokusai Kinkyu Shien Ukeire to
Gaimusho (The Great East Japan Earthquake: Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan andEmergency Support from Overseas), Journal of International Cooperation Studies, vol.
20, No. 2/3. (Japanese)123Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

JICA Homepage. Topics: Kakkokukarano shien wo saidaigenni ikasu (higashinihon daishinsai)(Topics: The Great East Japan Earthquake - Maximum Use of Support from OtherCountries). (Japanese) http://www.jica.go.jp/topics/2011/20110426_01.html
Hiroyuki Banzai. (2012, March). Higashinihonniokeru kaigaiukeirenomondai (The Great East
Japan Earthquake: Issues when Receiving Assistances from Overseas), Journal of
Waseda Institute of the Policy of Social Safety, No.4. (Japanese)124Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

Appendix 3

List of Organizations Responded to the Questionnaire Survey

1.

Peace Boat and Peace Boat Disaster Relief Volunteer Center (PBC)

2.

Ashinaga

3.

Ajinomoto Co., Inc.

4.

International Development Center of Japan

5.

Institute for Human Diversity Japan

6.

Wesley Foundation

7.

Sustainable Planning, Inc.

8.

DENTSU Inc.

9.

MIZUNO Corporation

10. Foundation for International Development/Relief (FIDR)
11. The Japan Committee for UNICEF
12. The Organization for Industrial, Spiritual and Cultural Advancement-International (OISCA)
13. CARE International Japan (CARE)
14. Plan Japan
15. Shanti Volunteer Association
16. Japan Overseas Christian Medical Cooperative Service （JOCS）
17. Nippon International Cooperation for Community Development （NICCO）
18. Save the Children Japan (SCJ)
19. Fukuoka International Exchange Foundation, International Regional Section
20. Catholic Bishops’ Conference of Japan, Caritas Japan
21. IVY
22. ADRA Japan
23. ayus
24. WE21 Japan
25. Caring for Young Refugees
26. Oxfam Japan
27. Institute of Environment Rehabilitation and Conservation （ERECON）
28. Good Neighbors Japan
29. Japan NGO Center for International Cooperation （JANIC）
30. Kokkyo naki Kodomotachi (Knk)
31. Services for the Health in Asian & African Regions (SHARE)
32. JIPPO
33. ShaplaNeer=Citizens' Committee in Japan for Overseas Support
34. GLM Institute (GLMi)
35. Japan Platform (JPF)
36. Citizens’ Alliance for Saving the Atmosphere and the Earth (CASA)

125

Comprehensive Review of Assistance from Overseas
for the Great East Japan Earthquake

37. Child Fund Japan (CFJ)
38. Association for Aid and Relief Japan (AAR)
39. Japan International Volunteer Center (JVC)
40. Japan Demining and Reconstruction Assistance Center (JDRAC)
41. Habitat for Humanity Japan
42. Campaign for the Children of Palestine (CCP)
43. Telecom For Basic Human Needs
44. Peace Winds Japan (PWJ)
45. HOPE worldwide Japan
46. Green Earth Network
47. Medecins Du Monde Japon
48. World Vision Japan (WVJ)
49. Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA)
50. Friends of Haiti

126