３．専門家会議レポート（１）池田恵子（静岡大学）「Mainstreaming gender in disaster reconstruction」
Mainstreaming gender in disaster reconstruction
Keiko Ikeda (Shizuoka University)

Why mainstreaming gender?
Men and women have different experiences and concerns – gender concerns – during disasters. All
dimensions of disaster vulnerability – such as susceptibility to hazards, the potential to suffer damage, and thecapacity for recovery – are affected by gendered patterns of access and control over resources, as well as bygender roles, responsibilities, and norms (Adger 2006; Wisner et al. 2004; Enarson and Morrow eds 1998).
People’s experiences and concerns during disasters also depend on factors like class, ethnicity, age, family
composition, and individual experience. Gender is a cross-cutting factor, and disaster vulnerability changes asother social categories lie on top. Men and women, and boys and girls are differently affected in terms ofhealth, livelihood, security, and life itself, as is being repeatedly reported and revealed to us from the field(Enerson and Chakrabarti eds. 2009). Neumayer and Plumper (2007) analyzed the effect of disaster strengthand its interaction with the socio-economic status of women on the gender gap in life expectancy in a sampleof 141 countries over the period 1981–2002. They found that 1) disasters and their subsequent impact, onaverage, kill more women than men; 2) the stronger the disaster, the stronger this effect on the gender gap oflife expectancy; 3) the higher women’s socioeconomic status, the weaker is this effect on the gender gap oflife expectancy.
Every aspect of disaster recovery and reconstruction are related with gender issues. What type ofemployment creation schemes is introduced in which economic sectors; how the temporary and permanent
housings are designed and located; how the local welfare institutions are rebuilt; all affect women and men
differently. It is crucial to understand and address how disaster impacted differently to men and women, The
reconstruction, otherwise, will reproduce and fix the gender gap of vulnerability and inequity, which in turnbring same suffering in the next disaster.
Recovery from 3.11 Earthquake and Tsunami
As a member of a research team for Risetogether (an organization for promoting mainstreaming genderand diversity issues in recovery from the Great East Japan Earthquake) , I with three other colleagues (Dr.
Azumi Tsuge, Dr. Mieko Yoshihama, and Ms Tomoko Unomae) had interview with 29 reconstruction planners
and operators who worked mostly in Miyagi and Iwate prefectures (June 2011- Jan 2012). In Fukushima
prefecture, interview is still going on. The research aims to understand how people assisting reconstruction
tried to understand various needs of women/vulnerable groups, and to address them in reconstruction
programs. Staff members of rescue and reconstruction related institutions and organizations, women’sorganizations working for women and local government bodies and so on, and individuals in the local

94

community were interviewed.
Gender-sensitive and vulnerability-reduction-focused disaster recovery policies are already in place inJapan. The Government newly enacted Basic Reconstruction Law last June. In the guideline for recovery
issued by the headquarter for reconstruction from the Great East Japan Earthquake, it is emphasized that
responding to women’s/men’s and vulnerable people’s needs especially in 1) rebuilding resilient community,
2) recovery of life, and 3) farming sector, and to ensure participation of women as well as men in allreconstruction process. Disaster Management Basic Plan (amended in Dec. 2011) clearly mentions that
opinion of women’s and various group of people should be incorporated when managing temporary housing
community. While, practicing these basic principles seemed difficult as I understood from interviews, asfollows.
1) How gender and specific needs were identified in reconstruction process
Gathering and sharing gender-specific and socio-economically disaggregated data were not practiced
much in programs of reconstruction – from planning to monitoring and evaluation. Instead, usually, only thehousehold head and community leaders, mostly male, were consulted to provide ideas on the needs of every
affected member in the household or community on their behalf. Women, in front of men and unfamiliar
person, often did not want to speak out their needs. Some local women’s groups held women-only-meetings,
or used enveloped questionnaire to protect privacy. Only then, they could somehow know what were thewomen’s needs. It was further difficult to reach families with the aged/ the disabled or single-mothers withsmall babies who were too sick/week to stay long at emergency shelters, as they are invisible, scattered intheir own house, or moved to house for rent, though they are among most vulnerable. The social workers who
were assigned to temporary housing communities were given gender sensitivity training and were expected togather gender disaggregated data on recovery needs.
2) gender specific needs addressed in reconstruction programs
Women’s workload for family care greatly increased, which made it difficult for women to have wide
choice of jobs. Unemployment among women increased more than among men, as certain newly created jobs
after the Disaster and Tsunami were mostly meant for men, such as clearing debris and construction works.
The government held vocational training courses and entrepreneurship seminars for women.
Consulting facilities including telephone hotlines were established to respond to anticipated increase ofviolence against women and children, especially domestic violence. Psychological counselors were given
special training in affected prefectures. On the other hand, very few programs targeting single-father families
and mental health care for men are planned and practiced, though many interviewees pointed out that they arevery necessity.
Many of the reconstruction programs are still designed based on ‘household model’, not ‘individualmodel.’ In some cases, allocation of temporary houses and distribution of ‘recovery donation money’ to thehousehold head excluded women accessing resources for recovery.

953) Increasing the representation of women and vulnerable groups in post-disaster decision-making
Women/Vulnerable people are not sufficiently participating in decision-making of recovery planning,
and women’s leadership was not very commonly accepted. Number of women in formal reconstruction related
committees of local bodies and central Government are very small. Interviews with some women leaders incommunity reconstruction related institutions revealed women’s leaderships were challenged and womenleaders face hardship accessing information necessary for recovery. Women’s initiatives were displayed when
preparing meals for other affected people. Local women’s organizations are actively engaged in reconstruction.
Although their activities may not be very important for mainstream reconstruction programs, they arecontributing to raise and promote affected women’s leadership. Most of the women’s groups are small andfinancially week, and should be supported in terms of acquiring skills and capacity for financial andorganizational sustainability.
4) Assisting those who assist reconstruction
Many of the reconstruction planner and operators were themselves affected by the Earthquake andTsunami. Improving work environment of female reconstruction planners and operators, e.g. daycare service
for their dependent family, would contribute to better reconstruction programs. Reconstruction planner andoperators should be informed with how to identify gender needs of reconstruction.
Need to learn from international practice
The Japanese experiences mentioned above in tentative research findings contrasts strikingly with
progress achieved in some Asian countries. For example, Bangladesh has mainstreamed gender and social
inclusion in disaster risk reduction process and long-term development goals in both policy and community
levels. Since 2005 when Comprehensive Disaster Management Program was launched, about one third ofmembers of Union (lowest unit of local autonomy) Disaster Management Committee members are women(50% are women in case of NGO assisted disaster management committees). Thus participation of women indecision-making and agenda-setting was made secure. Community-based disaster risk reduction planning
process was standardized, in which discussion sessions only among the poor, the disabled and women
separately. Gender disaggregated vulnerability and capacity analysis was also a part of the process. Number ofwomen in rescue and recovery organizations also increased. Cyclone Prepared Programs that convey cyclone
warning messages to community people and assist their evacuation in coastal areas, initially consisted of only
male volunteers, but now one third of them were women (Ikeda 2011).
Bangladesh and other Asian countries have institutionalized this series of improvement after late 1990s,
adopting frameworks prepared at two World Conferences for Disaster Reduction both hosted by Japan. It is
our turn now to learn how to identify various needs of men/women and address them in reconstruction
operations, and how to promote equal participation of men and women into reconstruction, from international
practices.

96Refferences
Adger, W. 2006. Vulnerability. Global Environmental Change 16: 268–81.
Enarson, Elaine, and Betty H. Morrow, eds. 1998. The Gendered terrain of disaster: Through women’s eyes.
Praeger.
Enarson, E. & P. G. Dhar Chakrabarti eds., 2009, Women, Gender and Disaster: Global Issues and Initiatives，Sage.
Ikeda, Keiko, 2011, Narrowing the Gender Gap of Vulnerability through Community-Based Disaster Risk
Management: A Case Study of Cakaria Upazila, Banlgadesh, Journal of Environmental Sociology 17:
17：111-125．
（「災害脆弱性のジェンダー格差とその克服―バングラデシュ・チョコリア郡の事
例に見る地域防災の可能性―」『環境社会学研究』，17：111-125．）
International Recovery Platform [no date], Guidance Note on Ricovery –Gender Available from IRP website
http://www.recoveryplatform.org
Neumayer, Eric, and Thomas Plu¨mper，2007， “The Gendered Nature of Natural Disasters: The Impact ofCatastrophic Events on the Gender Gap in Life Expectancy, 1981–2002,” Annals of the American
Association of Geographers, 97 (3) : 551–66.
Westport, CT: Praeger.Wisner, Ben, Piers Blaikie, Terry Cannon, and Ian Davis. 2004. At risk: Naturalhazards, people’s vulnerability and disasters. London: Routledge.

97