ADRC Study Visit to the affected areas by Kumamoto Earthquakes
19‐20 December 2016, Kumamoto, JapanOn 19 and 20 December 2016, ADRC together with Cabinet office, Japan organized a study visit
to the affected areas by the Kumamoto Earthquakes and visited Mashiki town, Aso bridge area
and Kumamoto castle, thanks particularly to Kumamoto prefecture, Kumamoto City, Mashiki
town and Kyushu Regional Development Bureau, MLIT.

Background
In April, Kumamoto prefecture with apopulation of more than 1.7 million, locatedin southern Japan was hit by earthquakes
measuring a magnitude seven, the highest
level, on the seismic intensity scale of theJapan Meteorological Agency (JMA). Morethan 100 people lost their lives inKumamoto prefecture, and around 8,000
houses were totally destroyed in Kumamoto
prefecture and Oita prefecture.
ADRC organizes study visits after somemajor natural disasters affecting member
countries, including those for the Gujarat
earthquake in 2001 and the Indian Ocean Earthquake and Tsunami in 2004. The study visit to Kumamoto
was organized to facilitate exchange of views among member countries by: learning from the damages
and the status of recovery from the earthquakes; sharing of experiences; and discussing the best mix ofpolicies and measures towards build back better (BBB). Among the participants, 23 ADRC member
countries were represented together with other delegations from the academia, the private sector, andthe relevant local governments.

Day 1: Opening and Session1
Opening remarks: ADRC Chairman, Prof. Masanori Hamada,in his opening remarks mentioned three distinct challenges
encountered in the context of Kumamoto earthquakes:
 Reliability of Earthquake Prediction: In the case Kumamoto,the first strong shock felt on 14 April was learned to be aforeshock which was followed by the main shock of 16
April.
 Disaster Management in the midst of continuous
aftershocks: The earthquakes in Kumamoto pose hugechallenges in response and recovery efforts due tocontinuous aftershocks.
 Recovery of Cultural Heritage: The Kumamoto Castle, which was severely impacted, has become thesymbol of recovery efforts.

Ms. S. Saya, Director, Cabinet Office, Government of Japan, Chair of ADRC Steering Committee, sharedsome of the key messages drawn from the report published by the Cabinet Office to improve disaster risk
reduction (DRR) policies, strategies, and actions by learning from the case of the Kumamoto Earthquakes:
 Need for “Push‐type support” to relief and emergency
efforts: Usually, the national government waits for the“request for aid” from the affected local governments.
However, lessons from Kumamoto found that most local
governments were impaired to make the request.
Hence, without waiting for request, the national
government pursued a “push mode” approach byimmediately sending relief to impacted municipalities.
 Need for “collaborative efforts” to support impacted
local governments: The report also tackled issues how
impacted local governments can accept support. In viewof this, collaborative options like facilitating the role of Japan Volunteer Organization or similar
platform, the role of NGOs, and the role of private sector to collaborate in local response and recovery
efforts can be explored.
 Need for “preparedness to recover”: Developing the recovery plan after the disaster might be too late.
In this regard, it is important to plan ahead how to build back better in case of disaster, mitigate
existing weak infrastructures, invest in resilient housing, and communicate the importance to prepare
to build back better.

Keynote Speech: Japan facing mega disasters : Steps towards overcoming the challenges
One of the main messages from the keynote speech, deliveredby Prof. Makoto Iokibe, Chair, Reconstruction Design Council in
Response to the Great East Japan Earthquake is to apply
relevant lessons from past experiences to further improve DRR
policies and programs. Scientific and evidence‐based analyses ofhistorical information provide bases for actions to address thelimitations of existing DRM systems. The lessons from the Great
Hanshin‐Awaji Earthquake of 1995, the Great East Japan
Earthquake of 2011, and the Kumamoto Earthquakes of 2016, allindicate the inevitability of stronger shocks in the next 20‐30
years. Based on historical information and experiences, thefollowing actions may be promoted to limit the impacts of strong earthquake and/or tsunami in the future.
First, enhance social awareness and the capacity to overcome potential impacts. Preparation can limit the
impact of future disasters. So communities need to assess their state of preparation and move from “lessprepared” to “better prepared” in order to handle the impacts of strong shocks in the future. Prior to theGreat East Japan Earthquake, regular tsunami drills were conducted in the schools of Kamaishi City, which
saved the lives of students and teachers from tsunami. A different scenario happened in Okawa town thatcost about 500 lives due to long discussions whether to evacuate or not.
Second, promote quick warning systems. The use of modern technologies can facilitate quick warning ofeminent disaster. In Japan, quick warning is immediately sent to mobile phones in case of typhoons,
earthquakes, and tsunamis. A more advanced warning system is instituted for the bullet trains to stop incase of earthquakes.

Third, apply relevant lessons in managing response and recovery efforts. Learning from past experiences
improves how to organize response and recovery efforts. The following experiences illustrate theimportance of applying lessons learned.



In rescue operations, “mutual‐help” is important within 24
hours. This was demonstrated in the Kobe earthquake,where most of the victims were rescued by family andneighbors from collapsed houses and buildings.
In relief operations, the “push approach” can be adopted,
as suggested by the Cabinet Office.
In reconstruction efforts, “creative recovery” or “build
back better” needs to be promoted.
Photo: Mongolia raising the question of insurance system and school and hospital damages.

Session 1: Status of the affected areas: Briefings chaired by: Ms. S. Saya, Cabinet OfficeEfforts by the Kumamoto prefecture: Mr. K. Honda, Director
General on Crisis Management, Office of the Governor,
Kumamoto Prefecture briefly provided an overview of the
Earthquakes and measures taken by the prefecture including
those for recovery and reconstruction. The case of Kumamoto ischaracterized by: two earthquakes of level seven within 28 hours;
continued aftershocks; affected 83 % of the population; and the
maximum share of evacuees was 10.3 % of the total population.
The prefecture observed that collaboration with relevant parties
and provision of temporary housing units by reflecting theevacuees’ opinion was successful. Further efforts will however benecessary regarding key DRR facilities including DRR centers, trunk roads and lifelines that had been
affected. In addition, awareness raising targeting residents should have been strengthened, as lack ofwhich led to poor preparedness against natural disasters among residents.

Infrastructure recovery: Mr. S. Nomura, Deputy Head, Sand
control group, Kumamoto Branch Office, Kyushu Regional
Development Bureau of MLIT reported the recovery status of
the slopes that significantly collapsed at the Aso Bridge area. On
16th April, due to the main shock, large volume of sand eroded
extending 700 m length and 200 m width. The Aso Bridge
collapsed, impacting the Japan Railway line and the Nationalroad no.57. Since Aso Bridge directly supports people’s daily
lives and widely used by tourists, its immediate recovery isimperative. In order to avoid secondary disaster from theslopes, unmanned method (applied at the occasion of theMount Unzen volcano eruption) was adopted for removing sands left on the slopes. Participants visited
this area in the afternoon of Day1.

Extensive support to Kumamoto by Union of Kansai Governments and Hyogo Prefecture:
Mr. H. Okubo, Superintendent of Emergency Management, Hyogo Prefecture and Director General,
Region‐wide Disaster Preparedness Office, Union of Kansai presented the support they extended to
Kumamoto. The Union of Kansai Governments dispatched three persons 90 minutes after the firstearthquake, and after the main shock (the second earthquake), its on‐site headquarters was opened in
the Kumamoto Prefecture office. The headquarters started coordinating with Kyushu regional governors
association regarding the recipients. By 19th July, they dispatched in total 6,948 officials except policemen,
firemen, and medical staff to the affected areas and provided relief supplies as well as support staff.
Hyogo prefecture organized support teams including emergency and rescue team comprised of public school
faculty and staff known as “EARTH”, assistance for evacuation centres, medical support, and waste treatment andsanitation. In addition, human resources were sent for housing damage assessment, helpdesk services for
citizens, and so on. He then raised the necessity of sharing of know‐how, standardization of the activities,
and collaboration with private sector based on the lessons fromtheir assistance for Kumamoto.
Many questions were raised including those from Iran on theprocedure of support provided by national government, from
Bangladesh on temporary house provision, from Vietnam on
recovery and build back better, from Armenia on Insurance, from
Philippines on the support for household damage, from Cambodia
on support provided by the private sector, and from Malaysia on
housing reconstruction.

Study visit to the affected areas 1‐1: Mashiki Town
In afternoon of Day1, participants first visited Mashiki Town,
a suburban residential area of Kumamoto City and home to34,600 population as of February 2017. It was impacted by
the two earthquakes of level seven on 14th and 16th April.
Reports indicated 27 deaths, 2,768 totally destroyed houses,and 3,033 partially destroyed houses. The number of
evacuees reached 16,050, and accommodated into 10
evacuation centers. As of 14 June, 1,562 evacuees moved totemporary housing in 18 areas. Each temporary housing site
has community centers so as to avoid isolation of theresidents.
On 6 July, the “Basic Principles of Mashiki Town Recovery”
was adopted. And from 7th July, the town started dismantling
and removing the houses assessed as “half‐damaged” ormore “severely damaged” by the disaster certificate.
In Mashiki town, the participants had seen affected housing
area, where removal of debris is underway and may takeanother two or three years to complete. The team thenvisited a community center of the largest temporary housing
complex, “Techno area” and discussed the challenges insupporting the affected people with the town officials.

Study visit to the affected areas 1‐2: Aso‐bridge, briefing by Kumamoto branch office,
MLIT
The second destination of the Day 1 was the Aso Bridge area. Landslide occurred in this area, and theunstable earth and sand remain dangerous since a heavy rainfall can accelerate further collapse.
Participants had an on‐site briefing about the ongoing operations such as the removal of unstable sand byusing unmanned machine. They also visited a small temporary office where technicians remotely operate
the machines. Kumamoto branch office also presented the plan for recovery including building of a new
bridge.

Day 2:
Session 2 : Lessons learnt from member countries to support Kumamoto
Sub‐session 2‐1: Damage to cultural heritages
and participatory process for recovery throughencouraging tourism
The morning of Day 2 was divided into four sub‐sessions, inwhich participants exchanged their experiences.
The first sub‐session focusing on Kumamoto Castle wasmoderated by Secretary Mr. Lokdarshan Regmi, Ministry ofHome Affairs, Nepal.
Mr. K. Mishima, General Manager of Tourism and Exchange
Department, City of Kumamoto summarized the Damage toKumamoto castle and challenges for its recovery.
The castle, visited annually by 1.7million visitors is one of themost important tourist destinations in Kumamoto, composed ofvarious important cultural heritages. He summarized by using
photos the damages by the Earthquakes and challenges towards
recovery. The Earthquakes affected the stone walls, turrets,
gates and tiles including those designated as the important
cultural heritages. The keys for recovery of the castle include: 1)
Promoting recovery works by focusing on safety as well as protection of cultural heritage and tourism, 2)

Reinforcing the stone walls and other walls by using both traditional methods and cutting edge
technologies, and 3) Developing routing well considering safety of tourists, designating evacuationpassages, and installing facilities for DRR. He says “It may take more than 20 years for perfect recovery,
and city will strive to accelerate the delivery of measures so as to use the Castle as a resource for tourism.”
Mr. Yang Dorji,Chief Programme Officer, Ministry of Home & Cultural Affairs, Bhutan then made apresentation on the damages on cultural heritage by natural disasters in particular GLOF in Bhutan,
followed by Ms. Sang Khov, Deputy Secretary General, National Committee for Disaster Management,
Cambodia who talked about the damages on cultural heritage, in particular, Angkor Wat due to climatechange and vandalism. She highlighted policies to prevent the damages by controlling the number oftourists, training security guards, and awareness raising targeting tourists to limit the damages.

Sub‐session 2‐2: Enhancing the Effectiveness of Emergency Response
Commissioner Mr. Wee Teck Eric Yap, Singapore Civil Defense Force moderated the sub‐session by firststressing that Asian region is most prone to disasters, and therefore, it is critical to be prepared in order to
respond effectively.
The first input was from Mr. Rodolfo Demosthenes
Centeno Santillan, Assistant Secretary, Office of Civil
Defense, Philippines. He presented the emergency relief
measures against Typhoon Haiyan which impacted three
regions in which existing plan or preparedness measures
did not work due to the scale of the disaster, and inparticular, “storm surge”. The country reviewed therelevant laws and enhanced the response plan as well as
theIncident
Command System (ICS). In addition, the Local Government
Units (LGUs) were encouraged to develop their respective
recovery plans, including “adopt a neighbor municipality”,
wherein a high‐income local government can support a low‐income disaster‐impacted local government.
The second input was provided from Ms. Nilar Htun,
Ministry of Social Welfare, Relief and Resettlement,
Myanmar. She reported about DRR system in the country including the Focal Ministry in charge of
emergency operations, and the Disaster Management Law.

Thirdly, Dr. Raditya Jati, BNPB, Indonesia on theearthquake that hit Aceh on 17 December 2016. Hestressed that the availability of risk map contributed to
the rapid response when the earthquake happened andraised the challenges of assessing the damages on
infrastructure, rescue works, and referred to Sentinel Asia
support in providing satellite images that were provided
through LAPAN‐ BNPB coordination. He also stressed theimportance of coordination with other relevant line
ministries to have a comprehensive analysis towards BBB
of Pidie‐Aceh. With this comprehensive collaboration, the cycle of disaster management had been put
into one stimulus timeframe that works more efficiently and faster. The damaged infrastructure had been
comprehensively identified, which facilitated preparation of the temporary schools and hospitals aspriorities. AHA center had also contributed to the coordination on emergency response and relief.

Sub‐session 2‐3: Evacuation and Rehabilitation: Facing societal changes andincreasing diversity
Sub‐session 2‐3 moderated by Mr. Badral Tuvshin, Chief,
National Emergency Management Agency of Mongolia
started with a presentation by Ms. T. Katsuya, Deputy
Secretary‐General, Kumamoto International Foundation on“Support for non‐Japanese residents and tourists throughout
evacuation and recovery phases”. After the earthquakes,
200 non‐Japanese people came to the international centre in
Kumamoto City seeking for information on transportmeasures to leave Kumamoto. Information disseminatedafter the disaster was largely in Japanese, the Centre socollected and provided information to non‐Japanese people
in English and other languages. Throughout the study
undertaken after the Earthquakes, they have learned thatdaily contact with non Japanese people is a key to effective
emergency operation. In response to the question by Ms.
Saya, Ms. Katsuya stressed the importance of staying
connected witheach other on
daily basis.
Mr. Md. Zakir Hossain Akanda, Ministry of Disaster
Management and Relief, Bangladesh compared his
impression of Mashiki town with the experiences of his
country. In Bangladesh, NGO will react more quickly than thegovernment and no temporary housing is provided. He also
proposed to share the technology for unmanned operation.
Finally, he stated that “an earthquake will not destroy a country rather, it strengthens the communities.”

Dr. Yujiro Ogawa, Representative of Bosai International and former ED of ADRC followed up the study
visit of Day 1 to Mashiki town. He drew attention to emergency housing damage assessment for all thehouses after a disaster, which has three categories, namely: dangerous, caution, and checked. He pointed
out several problems for smooth issuance of disaster certificate as well as requesting payment ofearthquake insurance. Finally, Associate Professor Akira Takagi, University of Kumamoto, who, together
with his students, opened a volunteer‐based Café called “Ohisama” in the Techno temporary housing area
in Mashiki Town, presented their activities. The café was opened to encourage social activities amongevacuees and support children by providing specific space for children. The activities have been supported
by students’ voluntary activities based on donation and subvention. However, the café changed its policy
and started charging a user fee in order to continue the activities that require funding.

Sub‐session 2‐4: Recovery, Reconstruction, and Build Back Better
Mr. S. Srinath Miyanawala, Permanent Secretary
to the Ministry, Sri Lanka moderated the sub‐session and started by stressing the importance ofintegrating DRR in recovery. He also mentioned Sri
Lanka’s recent disaster and the plan to transfer thegovernment insurance scheme for disasters (where
almost all citizens are covered) to the private sector.
The first input was provided by Mr. Suporn
Ratananakin, Disaster Management Specialist of
Department of Disaster Prevention and Mitigation,
Ministry of Interior, Thailand who reported how
the floods of 2011 damaged the heritage of Ayutthaya. Surrounded by the three rivers, Ayutthaya was left
flooded for three months and impacted by erosion and salt water. More than 100 historical monuments
were affected, which raised significant concern among experts.
The second speaker, Mr. Vigen Harutyunyan, Head of
Department, Data Acquisition Processing and Analysis, Centerof Seismic Hazard Assessment, Western Survey for Seismic
Protection, Ministry of Emergency Situation, Armenia briefly
explained about the damages caused by the Spitak earthquake
in 1988. He highlighted the absence of construction standards
and poor architectural methods as leading factors contributing
to damages. During the discussions, Indonesia inquired about
the indirect damages to the communities located in Ayutthaya
and how they can build back better. Mr. Ratananakin replied that the plan is to relocate the communities
outside Ayutthaya. In addition to the plan, raising awareness about the value of Ayutthaya and provision of
job opportunities will be carried out. At the end, Ms. Saya of the Cabinet Office who asked the member
countries about the gaps between expectation and reality based on their experiences in recovery
operations. Sri Lanka reported about lack of land and budget, and absence of insurance system while
Korea commented that residents would protest against the government if recovery is delayed. Cabinet
Office shared the reconstruction experience from the Great East Japan Earthquake, where discussion withlocal residents was given importance to make the efforts more inclusive. In particular, the Reconstruction

Agency provided relevant information to residents by publishing monthly progress report. In regard to
support for non‐Japanese residents, Korea inquired about funding assistance. Ms. Katsuya, Kumamoto
International Foundation, explained that the international association was authorized by Ministry of Home
Affairs. Each prefecture in Japan has an international association with an agreement to take the role ofsupporting non‐Japanese in case of disasters. Based on this agreement, the affected local governments inKumamoto were supported by other local governments, and the cost for multi‐lingual support managers
necessary for this assistance was financed by the Ministry. She also mentioned that under the Japanesesystem, the cost for managing evacuation centres is from national government, while other costs are bornby the local governments.

Study visit to the affected areas 2: Kumamoto Castle
Afternoon of Day 2 wasdedicatedtovisiting
Kumamoto Castle site that wasclosed after the disaster, thanks
particularly to the city of
Kumamoto. In this castle, thewooden turrets of Udo, theHigashijuhakken, and the Fukai
gate
are
among
those
designatedas“national
important cultural properties”.
The Kumamoto castle site,
including the ramparts, isdesignated as “National Special
Historic Site”. The Earthquakes
affected 13 “national important cultural monuments” leading to significant damages including collapse ofbuilding and walls. In order to accelerate recovery works, which may take more than 20 years, a long term
plan will be adopted. The visit provided precious opportunities for the participants to enter the site of
the affected cultural properties, where they saw, for example, the Iidamaru‐gokai turret located on acollapsed stone wall, supported only by one pillar that survived from the earthquakes, and sustained by aheavy operational vehicle.

Contact: Asian Disaster Reduction Center (ADRC), Mr. Arakida, Ms. Chinoi
Tel: +81‐78‐262‐5540, Fax: +81‐78‐262‐5546, E‐mail: rep@adrc.asia