Extra.4 January 29, 2014

Japan Society of Civil Engineers
International Activities Center

IAC News （Extra Issue. 4）<Roundtable Discussion>“What must be done for the Next Stage of Disaster Recovery?”
Outcomes of the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake
commemorative symposium
Participants

Takehiko ONO

Hitoshi IEDA

Motoki KAZAMA

100th President of the Japan Society of
Civil Engineers (JSCE);
Chair of JSCE Follow-up Committee
for the 2011 Great East Japan
Earthquake

Vice-Chair of JSCE (in charge of response to
the Great East Japan Earthquake);Vice-Chair of JSCE Follow-up Committee for
the Great East Japan Earthquake;
Professor, Graduate School of Engineering,
University of Tokyo

Vice-Chair of JSCE Follow-up
Committee for the Great East Japan
Earthquake;
Professor, Graduate School ofEngineering, Tohoku University

Moderator:
Yoh SASAKI, Chair of Editorial Committee, Journal of JSCE
Time and place:
Friday, April 19, 2013 in the JSCE Board Room
(Titles as of April 19, 2-13)
Sasaki:In March 2013, JSCE held a four-day symposium entitled "Two Years After the Great East Japan
Earthquake." Its program was packed with quite a lot of events. I would like to hear your views on
the symposium's goals and results, along with a frank account of your impressions.

Kazama: During the first two days, five sessions on general subjects were held from a comprehensive
perspective. During the last two days, specialized issues were debated in sessions focused on
individual topics such as nuclear energy, transportation, road reconstruction, and cleanup ofradioactive contamination.
As for my own impressions, although it was clear that a wide variety of issues are being addressed,
I felt that more could have been said about how these efforts will ultimately contribute to the overall
picture of recovery.

Ono:Ever since I was installed as president of JSCE, the activities of JSCE have been aimed atachieving practical results in infrastructure improvement, instead of being limited to performing
surveys and making recommendations. The subheading of the March symposium, "a prescription
for full recovery of the disaster affected areas and renewal of Japan," reflected this intention. I
believe that this symposium has been being addressed on the basis of this aim through activities
and communications.
However, this is not being addressed with the same level of intensity in all areas. We should have astronger attitude of personal involvement as stakeholders with regard to the practical outcomes of
our activities.
Furthermore, although our respective activities take place in a wide variety of fields, I expect ourmembers will mutually be aware of the importance of integration in our approaches to planning andfundamental technologies.

Ieda:

In terms of my own impressions of the symposium, I think the part that had the greatest impact onme was the special lecture by Junko Kumagai. It gave me a sense of the importance of focusing
more on the real capabilities of many people such as Ms. Kumagai who are active as practitioners,
instead of only giving our attention to leadership at the top levels. In Session 4, on the topic ofachieving full recovery in the areas affected by the 3/11disaster, it was good to hear about studies
based on various aspects of the actual conditions, as well as sincere views on challenges and areas
where progress is being made.
And in Sessions 7 through 11, participants overcame taboos in speaking out about various issues
such as the earthquake and tsunami resistance of nuclear power plants, radioactive waste disposal,
and the desired outcome for public transportation in the affected areas. That was not yet possible inlast year's symposium, and I feel that this represents a large step forward in terms of future
directions for JSCE.

Need for a longer time span and less rigid deadlines
Sasaki:

During the period since the disaster, there have been some issues of mismatched timing, such ascommunities that were unable to take some outstanding technical proposals into consideration
because of time constraints. Now, two years out, the issues have become clearer and the climate ismore conducive to debate. During the roundtable discussion in March, Dr. Kazama pointed out
issues such as how to prioritize the challenges that need to be addressed. I would like to hear yourviews on how to approach specific issues such as this.

Kazama: Initially, the local government organizations were all saying the same things in their recovery plans,mentioning a restoration period to be followed by a reconstruction period and then a development
period, which were to be accomplished within time spans of two, five, and ten years, respectively.
However, the fact is that there will be differences from community to community depending on how
restoration and reconstruction are implemented and how long it takes for such measures to takeeffect. Considering the limiting factors, including shortages of materials and manpower, I believethat we need to think of these time periods with a little more flexibility and take a longer time horizon

into consideration, while making clear distinctions among the different levels of priority.
Ono:

In the period immediately following the disaster, I think many government officials had a tendency toguess about the circumstances and needs of local residents. With the passing of time, we are now
in a stage where the overall picture is being reviewed from a comprehensive standpoint and levelsof priority are being differentiated. The government has strengthened the organization of theReconstruction Agency, and that agency's efforts are being coordinated with those of the Ministry of
the Environment, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, and the Ministry ofAgriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. I expect that this will have good results.

Ieda:

Until now, the emphasis among national, prefectural, and municipal governments as well as local
residents has been to look at what may be achievable "right here and right now." As we enter thethird year following the disaster, we need to begin addressing questions of what actually should bedone in terms of a longer time horizon and a wider geographical scope, instead of only looking at
what may be achievable. For this to happen, in addition to a sense of mission and passion, it will benecessary to need to engage in coolheaded debate with an attitude of rational objectivity.

Commonly accepted values can hinder progress
Sasaki:As we attempt to move ahead with a rational and objective approach, the basis for such debate isformed by a framework of laws and standards that were put in place at a time when no one had
anticipated a disaster of this nature. The struggles, contradictions, and uncertainties of the affectedareas come into play when we try to resolve the current problems within the existing framework. The
fact is that some changes may be needed in the structure of this framework.

Kazama: There have been cases of applying the existing framework with flexibility. For example, just recently
in the expropriation of land along the coast of Iwate Prefecture, it has been reported that greater
flexibility was introduced in land acquisition by eminent domain. This has made it possible toexpropriate land in cases where the landowner is unknown and it would be impossible to obtain thelandowner's consent.
Ono:

It has been pointed out that organization barriers can be an obstacle to the resolution when multiple
government

agenciesareinvolved. I hope this is greatly
highlighted and will be improvedin a near future.
Ieda:

During the past two years, many
limitations have arisen as a resultofthecharacteristics

ofinstitutions and organizations, andI think

that the values

In a coastal area of southern Sendai, work is underway on the reconstruction of sea

and embankments. (Photo taken in March 2013; provided by the Kanto Regional
Development Bureau.)principles underlying them have played a significant role. For example, some difficulties haveresulted from the fundamental notion that decentralization of authority is always the best approach.
Even when residents call on their local governments to make a decision, the local government may
be unable to do so on its own and would prefer to have standards developed by the national
government. However, the national government hesitates to dictate standards because of this valuethat is placed on decentralization of authority. I have seen many cases where this has led to an
extremely time-consuming process of delays and reworking. Decentralization of authority isimportant, but I think we can accept the idea that in a crisis situation, it may be necessary to switchfrom the decentralized mode of ordinary times to an emergency mode with greater centralization of
authority.
Concern about diminished capabilities for comprehensive management
Ieda:

On the other hand, it is fine for a local area to express its own unique values in relation to decisions
like the construction methods and heights of tide embankments, or the approach to locating urban
areas, for example. I believe in letting each locality act in a manner that reflects its own
characteristics and values, with diversity instead of uniformity.

Kazama: That's fine if the decision goes in a direction that is more economical, but it is hard to get approval
when one area insists on getting higher-grade improvements than other areas. There are budgetary
limits as to how high an embankment can be raised. Also, because the funds for reconstruction
come out of tax revenues, I think citizens should have some voice in urban planning decisions even
if they will not be directly affected; however, it seems that interference from outsiders is not always
welcome.
Ieda:

My view is that no matter what the situation, the best answers are reached when the opposing
parties can argue it out together. For that to work, the local communities need to have strong
enough willpower to engage in debate, and the national government needs to check on whether themeasures are really necessary and make any necessary cuts. That is also its duty to taxpayers.

Ono:

A variety

of

new

ways

to

build

infrastructure

are

now

being

tried

out,

includingpublic-private-partnerships and new construction management methods. I expect that these ways
will be successful and contribute to the future infrastructure development. There are downsides
when organizations in charge of infrastructure development become excessively specialized.
However, the approaches taken this time are expected to contribute to the total comprehensive
management skills. I think the present biggest problem is the decline of comprehensive
management capabilities.
Recovery work provides civil engineers with opportunities for growth
Sasaki:

It may be said that civil engineering for public works incorporates all of the various areas ofengineering. In the symposium, in relation to the problems of radioactive waste disposal, highexpectations were indicated for comprehensive management capabilities among civil engineers
who know about issues in the field, understand the work methods, and are capable of analysis
based on a multidisciplinary approach. How, specifically, should leadership be provided? Is there arole to be played by JSCE?
Ieda:

In civil engineering, along with the breadth of the scope it covers in terms of fields, time, and space,
the most important point is the level of comprehensiveness and integration that must be achieved.
How should the civil engineer unify all of this? One could take the old-fashioned view that the civilengineer should be a strong "leader among leaders," but the idea of simply giving orders is notsuited to the times. Instead, we civil engineers need to play a coordinating role, while other experts
specializing in various fields do their part and contribute their answers for us to combine. The key to
our work as civil engineers is that we are the glue that holds it all together. That is the significance ofour role in comprehensive management, as the chairman was saying. Now that we are faced withneeds for reconstruction in the affected areas, we have the opportunity to improve our own abilities
and develop a true capacity for comprehensive management. I feel that this can be an occasion forgrowth among civil engineers.

Ono:

In addition, there are many other challenges to be faced in a disaster-prone country like Japan.
Capacity building can also be achieved through efforts to prepare for anticipated earthquakes
including Nankai and Tonankai earthquakes and a "direct-hit" earthquake under Tokyo.

Expectations for the recycling function of civil engineering
Sasaki:Two years after the earthquake, we can take the opportunity to reflect and consider the many tasks
that lie ahead. How do you believe our efforts should be directed in the future? Also, what message
would you like to send to the members of JSCE?

Kazama: It is said that the infrastructure of Japan has entered a maintenance era. For recovery in a society
where the population is shrinking, it is important to consider issues of maintenance, starting at thetime of construction. In addition, in the sense of breaking down existing structures to build new ones,
I think that civil engineering has an important function in recycling the wastes of the disaster, similar
to the role played by the venous portion of the body's circulatory system. Rubble and toxic
substances can be reused as resources in cement and other materials. The generation of waste isan unavoidable part of our activities. Although the Ministry of the Environment has establishedrequirements concerning the level of environmental conservation, that can only become a reality
through the work of civil engineering. For example, the processing of contaminated water isdependent on the technology of the final disposal site; and only the field of civil engineering canactively address the issues related to intermediate storage facilities. Young engineers andresearchers are becoming involved in these fields, and there is a renewed awareness of theimportance of this kind of work.

Ieda:

A variety of ad hoc committees have been
established to work in limited scopes.
These have been active in the area ofregional

infrastructurereconstruction,

especially in cooperation with the City
Planning Institute of Japan (CPIJ), andsuch efforts will continue in relation to therequests of CPIJ, the nuclear accident inFukushima Prefecture, and the recovery ofareas affected by the disaster. Similarly,
work has only just begun in relation to civil Scene in the Shikaori district of Kesennuma, Miyagi Prefectureengineering technologies for radioactive(May 2013, photo credit: Kuroyama, editorial committee member)waste, and this will also be ongoing. In other areas, ad hoc committees have already achieved acertain level of results, and their work will be transferred to standing committees.
Ono:

It is best for works on elemental and fundamental technologies to be transferred to standing
committees as far as possible.
In addition, I hope that regional branch members will reconsider how the latest recommendations
should be applied in their regions. I expect the platform for liaison among branch organizations play
an important role. There have been failures such as the case of Sasago Tunnel on Central Nippon
Expressway. Our branch members have considered how to maintain the infrastructures that they
have constructed from various viewpoints over the past two years. I expect our members take a
stakeholder perspective and take actions vigorously towards solving these issues.
Edited by: Fumio Komazaki
Photos: Masao Nagata(This is an English translations from the Japanese version published in JSCE Journal, Vol.98, No.9, September 2013)