Kobe University
The 2nd Kobe University Brussels European Centre Symposium

Building Safer &Resilient Society
againstMega Disaster
Report fromJapan on 3.11

The 2nd Kobe University Brussels European Centre Symposium
Preface

The 2nd Kobe University Brussels European Centre Symposium, Building Safer & Resilient Society against Mega Disaster , washeld successively on September 19th 2011 at Vrije Universiteit Brussel with their kind assistance and support. This symposium
was held with an intension of disseminating information on the damage and recovery from the 3.11 Great East Japan Earthquake
and Tsunami, hereinafter referred to as GEJET, to European academic communities. GEJET has shaken not only Japan but also
the global society by illustrating what will happen if we were confronted with a very large scale, compound disaster that the nature
can bring. Just a few days earlier, the kick-oﬀ symposium of our Brussels European Centre titled A New Era of Japan-Europe
Academic Cooperation was launched in Brussels from 3rd to 7th of March 2011.

Holding this 2nd symposium, I would like to express my gratitude to all participants to the symposium including His Excellency
Ambassador Kojiro Shiojiri, Mission of Japan to the EU, Ms Manuela Soares, Director of Environment Directorate of the European
Commission, Ms Paola Albrito, Head of Europe Oﬃce of the ISDR of the United Nations and Professor Paul De Knop, Rector of
Vrije Universiteit Brussel, who all expressed their concerns for the people in the disaster stricken areas and delivered a strong
message for the hope of recovery and reconstruction through human strength and cooperation. I would also like to thank all the
speakers who contributed to the better understanding of the disaster and shared with us what happened at the site and what isstill going on in the areas.

I hope the symposium produced not only a better understanding of the facts concerning GEJET and its aftermath but also an
opportunity to reconsider and search for ways to collaborate together in building a safer and resilient society against disasters.

FUKUDA Hideki
President of Kobe University

The 2nd Kobe University Brussels European Centre Symposium
Building Safer & Resilient Society against Mega Disaster- Report from Japan on 3.11 -Symposium
Date:

September 19th, 2011

Venue: Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Campus Etterbeek, Building D

Video Conference
Date:

September 20th, 2011

Venue: Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Campus Etterbeek, Building D
Kobe University, Rokkodai Campus, Building GSICS

contents
Symposium on September 19th

2

Opening:
Opening Address by Dr Hideki Fukuda, President of Kobe University

3

Speech by HE Mr Kojiro Shiojiri, Ambassador of Japan to the European Union

4

Speech by Mrs Manuela Soares, Director of the Environment Directorate,
Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, European Commission

4

Speech by Ms Paola Albrito, Head of Europe Oﬃce, UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction

5

Speech by Prof Paul De Knop, President of Vrije Universiteit Brussel

7Part I: Report on the GEJET

8Part II: Impact of the GEJET

12Part III: Panel Discussion

16

Video Conference on September 20th20

All the presentation documents are available at
http://www.oﬃce.kobe-u.ac.jp/opie/kubec/presentations/20110919̲en.html

Symposium
Building Safer & Resilient Society against Mega Disaster- Report from Japan on 3.11 PROGRAMME

Opening 9:00 - 9:40
Opening Address: Dr Hideki Fukuda, President of Kobe University
Speech: HE Mr Kojiro Shiojiri, Ambassador of Japan to the European Union
Speech: Mrs Manuela Soares, Director of the Environment Directorate, Directorate-General for Research andInnovation, European Commission
Speech: Ms Paola Albrito, Head of Europe Oﬃce, UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction
Speech: Prof Paul De Knop, President of Vrije Universiteit Brussel

Part I: Report on the GEJET 10:00 - 12:00“Summary on the great East Japan earthquake and tsunami”
Prof Shoichi Yoshioka, Research Center for Urban Safety and Security, Kobe University“The Behavior of 3.11 Tsunamis in the Sendai Plain and the Damage to the Disaster Prevention System”
Prof Akira Mano, Disaster Control Research Center, Tohoku University“Present Status of Japanese Nuclear Power Plants and Radiation Disaster”
Prof Keiji Oda, Graduate School of Maritime Sciences, Kobe University“Damage situations of ground, infrastructures and others”
Prof Yasuo Tanaka, Research Center for Urban Safety and Security, Kobe University

Part II: Impact of the GEJET 13:00 - 15:00“Waste management toward restoration”
Prof Masanobu Ishikawa, Graduate School of Economics, Kobe University“A Process of Improvement of Law and Institution in Disaster Management: Lessons from East Japan”
Prof Yuka Kaneko, Graduate School of International Cooperation Studies, Kobe University“Collaboration for generating Hope”
Prof Masayoshi Morioka, Graduate School of Human Development and Environment, Kobe University“Community recovery of Tohoku disaster hit area and recovery supports from outside”
Prof Yoshiteru Murosaki, Kwansei Gakuin University, Prof Emeritus of Kobe University

Part III: Panel Discussion 15:30 - 17:40
Chair:
Prof Hiroshi Takeda, Kobe University
Panelists:
Speakers from part I & II and;Dr Denis Peter, European Commission
Prof Hormoz Modaressi, BRGM
Prof Jochen Zschau, GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences
Prof David Alexander, Global Risk Forum GRF Davos2

university. Today, Prof Mano of Tohoku University is here with
Opening Address by Dr Hideki Fukuda
President of Kobe University

us to share their experiences and the current challenges they
face in the devastated areas. In order to help the recovery andreconstruction from GEJET, Kobe University has published alist of recommendations for strategic reconstruction plans

Dear honorable guests, ladies

partly based on lessons from the Kobe Earthquake.

and gentlemen,

Additionally, Kobe University is going to sign a MoU withAs the President of Kobe

Tohoku University to support reconstruction of the region with

University, it is my greata vision of creating a league of academic alliances in order topleasure and honour to welcome

implement scientiﬁc and cultural knowledge to rebuild andyou to this symposium. Today,even improve our society.

we have many distinguishedguests in attendance, and I

An academic alliance between two regions such as Tohoku

would like to express my sincere

and Kobe in Japan does not allow us to fully apply thegratitude to several particularcomprehensive lessons learned from this disaster and build ahonourable individuals; His

safer and more secure global society. Sharing the knowledge

Excellency Ambassador Kojiro Shiojiri, Mission of Japan to theof lessons learned from this disaster with global partners is

EU, Ms Manuela Soares, Director of Environment Directorate

extremely important to implement such academic endeavors.

of the European Commission, Ms Paola Albrito, Head of

It is our hope that during this Symposium, all participants will

Europe Oﬃce of the ISDR of the United Nations and President

take this opportunity to thoroughly discuss what we can learn

Paul De Knop, Vrije Universiteit Brussel.

from this disaster.

Representatives from such organizations make thisI thank you all again for participating in today s Symposium

symposium a truly international event, and I am very gratefuland hope this is the beginning of increased collaborationfor everyone s participation. This is the second Kobe

between the people of Europe and Japan. Thank you very

University Brussels European Centre Symposium, and it

much.

follows the ﬁrst meeting that took place here in Brussels last
March.

Today, we are here to discuss a devastating disaster, theGreat East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami, GEJET for short,that struck Japan on March 11th, just a few days after ourﬁrst symposium. As many of you may remember, in the very
early morning of January 17th 1995, Kobe City, which is thehometown of our university, was shaken violently by a verystrong earthquake. This earthquake, known as the Kobe
Earthquake resulted in the loss of over 6,400 lives andeconomic costs of more than 10 trillion yen (900 millioneuro). We thought, at that time, that it was the greatest
natural disaster that Japan had ever faced. However, in theafternoon of March 11th, an even greater catastrophe hit thecountry.

Residents of Kobe were speechless as we watched the newsof this tragedy on television, remembering the sorrow and pain
we experienced during the Kobe Earthquake. The connection
felt through this emergency was so strong that one NGO
group of volunteers in Kobe dispatched a reconnaissanceteam, which included two Kobe University students, to Miyagi
prefecture that very evening. Since that day, numerous similar
excursions from Kobe have followed.

The disaster also caused severe damage to universities in theregion. One of which was Tohoku University, a leading national3

Speech by HE Mr Kojiro Shiojiri
Ambassador of Japan to the European Union

Speech by Mrs Manuela Soares
Director of the Environment Directorate,
Directorate-General for Research and Innovation,
European Commission

Good morning. Distinguished

Good morning. Mr Ambassador, Mr

guest, ladies and gentlemen. Last

President, ladies and gentlemen,

September, the Kobe University

I m very pleased to have been

Brussels European Centre wasinvited to the second symposium

opened. It was the ﬁrst time anyof the Kobe University Brussels

Japanese national university

European Centre and on behalf ofestablished an oﬃce in Brussels,

the European Commission, I would

the capital of Europe. It is anlike to welcome you today inimportant landmark in Japan-EU

Brussels.

Academic Cooperation. I would like

The whole world was shocked by

to oﬀer my congratulations to the centre on its ﬁrst

the tragic event of March 2011, but amazed at the bravery ofanniversary.

the Japanese people. In this context and on behalf of theEuropean Union, I would like to extend my deepest sympathies

Since the disaster in Japan last March, our people have been

to the people and government of Japan. But the time has now

struggling very hard to overcome the aftermath. I would like tocome to move forward and develop solutions for disastersincerely express gratitude to our European friends for yourpreparedness and prevention. And this will require a collective

strong support.

eﬀort from key players, such as scientists, authorities andpolicy makers and this is also where international cooperation

Several days after the disaster hit, a CNN journalist, making aplays an important role.

live broadcast from the aﬀected area in Tohoku, described theIn this respect, Kobe is certainly a global preference. In

scene in front of him. He depicted it as a war between theJanuary, 2005, ten years after the devastating Kobe

worst of Mother Nature versus the best of human nature. That

earthquake, the United Nation General Assembly convened a

war is still continuing. We live to continue to ﬁght and we will

world conference on disaster risk reduction in Kobe. The

never give up.

conference took stock of progress made of disaster risk
reduction and set up a plan for the next 10 years. The

In a recent policy speech, new Japanese Prime Minister Noda

outcome of the UN conference, the Hyogo Declaration andquoted the words of Fukushima high school students,

Hyogo Framework for Action 2005 to 2015, shows adelivered from the bottom of their hearts. To be born incommitment from the international community to address

Fukushima, grow up in Fukushima and work in Fukushima, todisaster risk reduction and to engage in a resulted oriented

get married in Fukushima, have children in Fukushima andplan of action. This plan has two priorities; ﬁrst, to identify

bring up those children in Fukushima, to see our grandchildren

assess and monitor disaster risks and enhance early warningin Fukushima, to see our great grandchildren in Fukushima andsystems; and second, to use knowledge, innovation andto end our days in Fukushima. That is our dream. Our task is

education to build a culture of safety and resilience at all

to make those students realize their dream.

levels.
The partnership between Europe and Japan is a good example

I would like to read a piece of haiku, short Japanese poem,of how research can be improved through international or

which I made myself. EU President Herman Van Rompuy whobilateral cooperation. The last European Union-Japan Summit

was also present for the ﬁrst European Centre symposium is ain May marked the 20th anniversary of summits between the

haiku master. I would like to follow him.

two sides, highlighting the importance of further enhancing
the EU-Japan partnership by strengthening science andAfter dark nighttechnology cooperation. The recent Science and Technology

Beam of hope

Cooperation Agreement, which entered into force on the 29th

Shines for everyoneof March, established measures for a more structured andobjective based science and technology cooperation

I hope this symposium will give a beam of for hope topartnership. The ﬁrst EU-Japan Joint Committee meeting on

everyone.

Scientiﬁc and Technological Cooperation held in Tokyo lastJune, already focused on two important areas of research,Thank you very much.

4

renewable energy and critical raw materials.

As the next step, of course, considerable eﬀorts at the global

materials, and also by strengthening industry participation, inlevel will need to be made in order to address nuclear safety.

particular, small and medium enterprises, and establishing

But other challenges which we are currently facing include

formal, public-private partnerships. The third objective is toclimate change, natural hazards and disaster preparedness as

tackle societal challenges by contributing to the use ofwell as prevention. These were highlighted as topics ofvisions, policy objectives in areas such as climate change,

concern at the EU-Japan May Summit and are addressed inresource deﬁciency, healthy aging and energy transport

the environmental research programme under the Seventh

among others, and also engaging citizens as well as civil

Framework Program of Research and Development, which I am

society in the research and innovation chain. The multi-annual

responsible for.

ﬁnancial framework recently presented by the Commission

Cooperation with Japan on climate issues exists for quite

shows that investment in the research and innovation will besome time. The climate change research and sciencesigniﬁcantly increased for the period 2014 to 2020. Horizon

workshop that is co-organised by the Environment Research

2020, with its proposed budget of 80 billion euro, intends toProgramme and the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science

boost Europe s global competitiveness and help create jobs

and Technology takes place every two years. The 6th

for the future. International cooperation will play a central roleworkshop is due to take place in Brussels on 10th of October.

in its implementation. And disaster risk reduction, addressed

This will be an opportunity for participants to discuss the longfrom diﬀerent perspectives, will certainly ﬁnd support withinand short term impacts of climate change and extreme

this research eﬀort, creating results which will be of direct

events. Later on today, my colleague, Dennis Peter, will

beneﬁt to our society.

provide you with an overview of the commission s work on

Thank you very much for your attention and I wish you a very

natural hazards. Information on the next call for proposals,

productive meeting.

which cover the things being discussed here today, will also
be made available.
I d like also to mention that Japanese research institutions
and scientists regularly take part in our programmes. Kobe
University is a partner in, for instance, one project called

Speech by Ms Paola Albrito

SYNER-G , which looks at seismic vulnerability. The Japan

Head of Europe Oﬃce, UN International Strategy for
Disaster Reduction

Meteorological Agency is working on a project on early
warning systems, REAKT project. The examples of thesetwo EU-funded projects will be presented also by thescientists this afternoon. Information exchange andGood morning, ladies andimprovements in our scientiﬁc research are shared because

gentlemen. It is a great pleasure

they are essential for risk management and in supporting

to be here today, representing theawareness and capacity building.

United Nations International

I hope that this event will provide us with a clear

Strategy for Disaster Reduction. I

understanding of the challenges that still lie ahead. Researchwould like to congratulate Kobein the international context can boost science and improve

University for organising andpolicy. It will also contribute to sound risk management

hosting this important event.

concepts as well as tools enabling society to become more

From the second half of 2009 toresilient.

the ﬁrst half of 2010, 285

Finally, let me just give you a very brief insight into the newdisasters killed and aﬀected more than 158 million people,

framework programme for research and innovation that we callclaimed 232 thousand lives, and caused U.S. dollars 51.4

now Horizon 2020. It has three main objectives. The ﬁrst is tobillion of economic damages. These were the numbers before

raise the excellence of the research base needed to generate

the greatest Japan earthquake, the earthquake ina higher number of world-class scientiﬁc breakthroughs.

Christchurch, New Zealand and the ﬂood in Australia. What

Strengthen Europe s science base and European research

are some of the facts? Disasters cause vulnerability toarea means among others, reinforcing the whole of European

natural hazards, kill more people in developing than in

Research Council, promoting planning, preparation anddeveloped countries, and more poor people in rich countries.

construction of large-scale research infrastructure andBut the Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk

equipping the next generation of researchers with innovative

Reduction for 2011, it shares some positive ﬁndings in thisskills. The second objective is to boost competiveness andregard. Globally, mortality risk of ﬂoods and tropical cyclones

promote innovation by broadening support across the fullis now going to be down. Why? Because vulnerability

innovation cycle, including proof of concept, testing, piloting,

reduction has been aﬀected. For example, mortality rate fromdemonstration. By securing a strong position in key enabling

tropical cyclones in East Asia and the Paciﬁc, which

technologies such as ICT, nanotechnology or advanced

concentrates about 44 percent of the people exposed per5year, is now 50 percent lower than in 1980, in absolute

to similar or worse disasters.

terms, and a third lower per capita.

Advancing in addressing vulnerability to disasters requires a

Early warning systems save life. In Japan, a number of media

hand-in-hand approach between scientiﬁc community,

demonstrated that more than 90 percent of the total

education and decision makers. The priority three of the

population of the inundated area evacuated successfully.

Hyogo Framework for Action adopted in Kobe in Japan in

Thanks to the mixture of measures of drills and awareness2005 as an outcome of the world conference dedicated toactivities combined with issues of early warning. Vulnerability

this topic, points out some key activities to ensure theto hazards is very high and rapid increasing in the developedscientiﬁc advances are integrated in educational eﬀorts andcountry, with adverse impact on their economy. Again, thein addressing informed decision. Last week, UNISDR and the

Global Assessment Report 2011 points out that economic

European Commission Directorate-General for Research andloss risk is continuing to increase, particularly in wealthierInnovation, and EUR-OPA Major Hazards Agreement of thecountries. In 2010, the economic loss risk to ﬂoods in theCouncil of Europe, organized a workshop which aims toOECD, which concentrates about 53 percent of the global

promote dialogue between the scientiﬁc and policy makers

GDP expose per year, is about 170 percent more than incommunity towards more eﬀective measures to adopt a

1990. Economic loss risk in the OECD is rising faster thanclimate through G and R. This dialogue needs to continue if

GDP per capita. Meaning, that the risk of losing wealth inwe want to reduce people risk.

weather related disasters is increasing faster than the wealthJapan in this context, is regarded as a role model with highthat is being created.

investments in disaster risk management and risk reduction.

Disaster risk has become an acute and increasing urban

The destruction and death toll would have been worse had

problem. Poorly planned urban environments, weak urban

Japan not fostered a culture of preparedness accompanied bygovernance and old and aging and fragile physicalrisk reduction choices. The Kobe University contributes ininfrastructure and gaps in the basic services, including rapid

moving forward this knowledge, and their presence in Brussels

urban growth, have increased pressure on the urban

represents an extension of education and knowledge in theenvironment and thus, also exposure to disaster risks.

ﬁeld of risk reduction. UNISDR collaborates with Kobe

Cities today, are major agents of economic opportunity,

University in the context of an overall partnership between

education and cultural life. 100 cities today are in control of

UNISDR and Japan, further enhanced by the presence of our

30 percent of the world economy. The need for maintenance

UNISDR sub-regional oﬃce in Kobe. The city is equally hosting

and upkeep of the city are crucial safety measure for thethe International Global Platform of the International Strategy

citizens. In Japan, the majority of buildings were proved asfor Disaster Reduction. Following the Great East Japan

earthquake resilient, so that only a few people were fatally

Earthquake, the platform has established an expert grouptrapped under fallen buildings.

meeting called Towards Greater Reconstruction from GreatDisaster risk reduction is not only a concern of state and local

East Japan Earthquake, with chance to provide valuable

governments, but also every citizen concerns andadvice based on experiences gained from large scale

responsibility. Lives and livelihood can be saved when disasterdisasters in the world to Japanese experts working forrisk reduction is made a priority at the local level, at therecovery and reconstruction in Japan. And to gain precious

national, and at the international level. Reality is that without

lessons from this painful disaster experience in Japan and toproper risk reduction awareness or policies and measure in

make them useful for disaster risk reduction in otherplace by national and local governments, and with morecountries.

population settling in exposed and high-risk areas and climate

Finally, I would like to congratulate Japan that has announced

change expected to further increase our exposure, we are

the intention to host the next World Conference on Disasterpoisoned for disasters that will increasingly aﬀect

Risk Reduction that will take place in 2015. I look forward tosustainability and development gains around the world in thecontinuing our collaboration and I wish this symposium a very

coming years and decades.

productive outcome. Thank you.

The Fukushima situation has generated debate and reﬂection
on safety in regards to nuclear power. Some countries are
re-examining their preferences and policy on energy sourcesin response to the events in Japan. The international
community is a key role in leading calls for countries toreassess all critical facilities, especially nuclear power plants,
against large scale hazards, and to revise or scale up
assumptions within their disaster management plans. In
Japan, with its high level infrastructure standards andpreparedness could not withstand major disasters. Other
parts of the world could equally be as vulnerable, if not more,

6

enhanced collaboration. But we do more than just that. On a
Speech by Prof Paul De Knop
President of Vrije Universiteit Brussel

larger scale, we will focus on an increase of theinternationalization of the education. In order to attract
international talent, the Vrije Universiteit Brussel will oﬀer a
suﬃcient number of English taught programs, exceeding thepresent number. We will also conduct intensive promotion of

Dear Mr President, dear

incoming and outgoing mobility of students, researchers andAmbassador, Mrs Soares and Mrs

staﬀ. And one of the things I hope even to realize is to set up

Albrito, dear colleagues, ladies andan international student hotel on campus. We believe that the

gentlemen, dear students, on

intake of international students, researchers and staﬀ

behalf of the Vrije Universiteit

contributes to a dynamic exchange of knowledge and skills.

Brussel, I welcome you all at our

And where else can you achieve this better than in Brussels,

university. We are very honoured toa city with such a wide variety of people and cultures. That ishave the esteemed

why we also stimulate our own students, researchers andrepresentatives of Kobe University,staﬀ to engage in mobility, to provide them with competences

as well as the Japanesethat better qualify them to work in a globalizing world. As a

Ambassador to the EU and important representatives of theresult, internationalization will form an important part of theEuropean Commission as our guests today.

new strategic plan I will present to my Board of Governance,

On top of that, I m very pleased that Kobe University has

strategic plan for the years 2012 to 2016.

chosen our university as the location for its university

Ladies and gentlemen, I am a ﬁrm believer that stronger

symposium. The VUB is an excellent choice for a symposium

collaborations between academic institutions in Europe and inthat will try to improve the mutual understanding about theAsia, and speciﬁcally Japan, can contribute to a better mutual

earthquake and tsunami between the EU and Japan.

understanding. That is why I am very pleased that it s a

Today, you re in the auditorium of hope, the auditorium of thecompliment to do a symposium. Kobe University oﬀers afuture, since it s our room where all the PhDs are defended.

half-day interactive workshop for students in Belgium and in

May this room also be for you a guarantee for success.

Japan through teleconferencing. Prior to the video conference

When we refer to Brussels, we often call it the Capital ofsession, students in Belgium will be provided with

Europe . This city has a long history of hosting thetestimonials of ﬁeld observations from their Japaneseinstitutions of the European Union within its European

counterparts in the region of the Great East Japan

Quarter, the headquarters of the NATO, and many other

Earthquake and Tsunami. The images of the devastating

national and international institutions and companies. And intsunami have shocked us all. And although we already saw

the middle, between all these important organizations, themany images of the destructive forces of nature on television,

Vrije Universiteit Brussel is located on two parkland

in the newspapers or on the internet; there are many stories

campuses. So, we can literally say that we have the world at

yet to be told. A better understanding of the impact of theseour doorstep. We consider this unique position in Brussels alarge scale events is, indeed, necessary. New media andmajor opportunity.

technologies provide us with all kinds of possibilities there.

Nowadays, major global trends require the universities to takeLet us use them for the best.

up new responsibilities. One of them is that, due to the eﬀects

Ladies and gentlemen, dear colleagues, let me conclude byof globalization, universities have the responsibility to educate

wishing you all a very inspiring symposium. I m sure thatstudents to global citizens.

Brussels and our VUB campus will oﬀer you a very stimulating

Two years ago, I proposed the university an overall strategic

environment to make it a remarkable symposium. Thank youplan for the period 2009 to 2012. One of the strategic

very much.

entities of this plan was becoming a real international
university. Today, this strategic entity is getting shape. The
Brussels University Alliance, and initiative of ourFrench-speaking sister university, ULB and VUB to join forces
to enhance the international proﬁle of Brussels. It s a new
step in the international ambitions of the VUB. With it, theBrussels universities aim at achieving a greater international
visibility and impact through developing high international
quality standards and through using European andinternational dimension of Brussels. The support of thesecond Kobe University Symposium in Brussels by VUB and
ULB, is just one of the many manifestations of this new7

PartⅠ: Report on the GEJET 10:00 - 12:00

Summary on the great East Japan earthquake and tsunami
Prof Shoichi Yoshioka, Research Center for Urban Safety and Security, Kobe University

The Behavior of 3.11 Tsunamis in the Sendai Plain and the Damage to the Disaster
Prevention System
Prof Akira Mano, Disaster Control Research Center, Tohoku University

Present Status of Japanese Nuclear Power Plants and Radiation Disaster
Prof Keiji Oda, Graduate School of Maritime Sciences, Kobe University

Damage situations of ground, infrastructures and others
Prof Yasuo Tanaka, Research Center for Urban Safety and Security, Kobe University

about 24 km. The earthquake fractured the plate boundary
there, approximately 450 km in the north-south direction andSummary on the great East Japan

200 km in the east-west direction on the inclined plate

earthquake and tsunami

boundary.

Prof Shoichi Yoshioka, Research Center for Urban

In Japan, large trench-type earthquakes tend to occur, for the

Safety and Security, Kobe University

Japanese islands are located where four diﬀerent plates meet
together. The oceanic Paciﬁc plate is gradually subducting
beneath the continental North American platewith a velocity
of several centimeter per year. Last March, the continental
plate released accumulated strain abruptly, causing theearthquake and tsunami in northeast Japan. The magnitude
7.3 Sanriku-oki earthquake, which occurred just two days
before the Great East Japan earthquake, is considered to be
its foreshock. Numerous aftershocks were also observed,
including three major earthquakes with magnitude greaterthan 7.0 occurred in this region within one hour after the main
shock.
The earthquake caused the crustal deformation in the Tohoku
region. According to the data obtained at GPS stations,
Tohoku region moved eastward about 5.3 m and subsided
about 1.2 m. The crustal deformation can still be continued.

On March 11th 2011, the large earthquake and tsunami hit

One of the characteristics of the Great East Japan

Tohoku region, northeast Japan. The Magnitude of theearthquake is the damage caused by tsunami. A wave of more

earthquake was 9.0, which is the fourth largest trench-type

than 15 m high was recorded in various places along the east

earthquake ever recorded in the world. The hypocentre wascoast of Tohoku region.

just oﬀ the coast of the Tohoku region and the depth was

Last April I visited some areas in the Tohoku region to survey

8the tsunami height and to investigate its behaviour in theshallow water in the sea, tsunami propagation was very slow,

V-shaped bays. One area in Miyako City, where a large

resulting in some energy dissipation crossing the bay. Verytsunami levee had been constructed, was entirely damaged

low frequency in large tsunami is the greatest characteristic

and other area in Rikuzen-takata City, one of the mostof this area. Joban Coast has similar characteristic. In aseriously damaged cities, everything was washed away. At

recent research a geologist found very old tsunami traces in

Ryori Bay, which is a bay with small aspect ratio, the height of1869, Joban Tsunami, whose magnitude was about the sametsunami wave was ampliﬁed 1.3 to 1.9 times the size at theas that of 2011.

bottom of the bays. On the other hand at Hirota Bay, which is

The Tsunami last march destroyed over 100,000 houses anda bay with large aspect ratio, the ampliﬁcation of tsunami was

killed around 20,000 people, although tsunami reached thesenot found between the mouse and bottom of the bay. As aareas about one hour after the main shock. Why couldn t

result of the survey, the damage caused by tsunami lastpeople escape from tsunami before it reached them? One

March is considered to be depending on the shape of the bay.

reason for the delay of evacuation is explained by the tsunami
warning underestimate. The Japan Meteorological Agency(JMA) issued its ﬁrst large tsunami warning just threeminutes after the main shock, the estimated wave height ishowever, three metres in Iwate Prefecture, six metres in
Miyagi Prefecture, and three metres in Fukushima Prefecture.

The Behavior of 3.11 Tsunamis in the
Sendai Plain and the Damage to theDisaster Prevention System
Prof Akira Mano, Disaster Control Research Center,
Tohoku University

They are too low compared with the actual tsunami height,
and even lower than the levee height, so that the ﬁrst warning
gave some kind of relief to people. After 30 minutes, the JMA
revised the warning that tsunami is much higher thanestimated.
People however couldn t get the revised information, becauseof the blackout. So many aftershocks caused serious
damages to the electricity facilities, for example televisions,and hazard information transfer systems, so that people wereshut down from the information. In addition, traﬃc signals
were widely stopped, it caused traﬃc jam and many cars on
the road were washed away by the tsunami. And the blackout
also caused the meltdown in the nuclear power plant inFukushima.
There was historically a very good mitigation system along
the Sendai Bay Coast composed of sandy beach, and coastal
channels, forests, and levees, even though urban growth may
have added vulnerability by clearing away some of the coastal
forests. Reconstruction of robust levees requires restorationof broad beaches, and control of the return ﬂow concentration

The coast aﬀected by the tsunami is categorized into three

through the development of coastal channels and forests.

parts, Sanriku Coast, Sendai Bay Coast, and Joban Coast.
Sanriku Coast, a cliﬀ coast in the north, is uplifting so
tsunamis are ampliﬁed by collision. In the submerging southpart of the coast, tsunamis are ampliﬁed by energy concentration and bay water resonance. In this area people had
frequently tsunami attacks, especially in 1896 there werearound ten to 25 metres high tsunamis.
In the Sendai Bay Coast, where a long, sandy beach and9action, the Japanese government decided to take action
according to the guideline of IAEA, and restricted people fromPresent Status of Japanese Nuclear

entering the area within 20 kilometres from the nuclear power

Power Plants and Radiation Disasterstation. The evacuation area was also established after

Prof Keiji Oda, Graduate School of Maritime Sciences,
Kobe University

referring to the estimated radiation map. Decontamination
work will continue in this area for several years or tens ofyears. By this nuclear accident, Japan received much
radioactive exposure. However, to avoid meaningless panicand rumor, I want the people of Japan and the world tounderstand several scientiﬁc facts. The ﬁrst is the existing of
natural radiation as essential element in all living bodies, withan activity of 7,000 becquerel. The second is that living cells
have the inherent ability of repairing DNA damages. Every day
almost all damages to the cell are repaired. And third, themost reliable data, delivered from long-term investigation
against atomic bomb survivors, more than 100,000 people in
Hiroshima and Nagasaki, shows that there is no eﬀect onembryo and fetus under 100 millisievert. Over 300
millisievert, cancer risk increases signiﬁcantly, but about 30
percents of cancer death are caused naturally by otherreasons. So, we don t need to be anxious, even for children.

There are 17 nuclear power stations and 54 plants in Japan.
Five stations are facing the Paciﬁc Ocean and there are six
units in Fukushima. In a steady operation, eﬃcient products ofradioactive materials are normally contained by pellet in therod, which is the fundamental unit of nuclear fuel, and thepressure vessel of about 16 centimetres thick steel, and thecontainment vessel of about one metre concrete in thereactor building. In addition, all the plant stations facing the
Paciﬁc Ocean were constructed on the higher ground thanthe expected height of tsunami. Actually, the three units wereoperating at the moment of the huge earthquake, and all ofthem were successfully stopped. No additional ﬁssion energy
was produced after scram. About 40 minutes later, however,the 15 metre high tsunami, much higher than expected,
destroyed everything needed for cooling system, leading to
the heartbreaking accident of meltdown.
In the reactors number 1, 2, 3, the temperature of the fuelrose and increased up to 1,000 degrees as a result of loss ofcooling system. At such a high temperature, the metal reacts
chemically with the pressurized water, producing hydrogengas. This very light gas permeated through the small gap ofmetal and accumulated in the upper area of the reactor
building. It was a matter of time before the hydrogen explosion
releasing some of the light radioactive materials, such as
iodine and cesium into the air. As a radiation protective

10

shaking. These diﬀerent patterns of strong motion combinedwith ground condition of each area caused various types ofDamage situations of ground,infrastructures and others
Prof Yasuo Tanaka, Research Center for Urban Safety
and Security, Kobe University

ground failure, for instance, extensive liquefactions andsubsequent diﬀerential settlements in Urayasu, roadembankment failure in Hitachi-Naka Port, natural slope in
Shirakawa, earth ﬁll dam in Fujiwara and so on.
The GEJET is a super wide area disaster and its eﬀect iscompound or cascading. As a result, the recovery is muchcomplicated and takes longer. However, we are now going into
the reconstruction stage. Our task is to how to derive asolution and implement DRR for such compound disaster. A
recommendation report Towards Reconstruction - Hopebeyond the Disaster presented by the Reconstruction Design
Council on June 25th, says that towards reconstruction, key
solution is how to bridge and link the people, communities,
regions, and countries.

Last March the earthquake and tsunami hit super widespreadareas in East Japan. The Great East Japan Earthquake andTsunami (GEJET) caused large human casualties as well as
wide physical damages to houses, public buildings, andinfrastructure such as roads, railways, water, electricity andgases, compared with even the Kobe Earthquake in 1995,
which is the largest one until 2011. The amount of theeconomic loss in Kobe is 10 trillion yen, two percent of GDP
at that time, but this time it is estimated around 17 trillion
yen, 3.5 percent of GDP. The number of collapsed houses issimilar, 104,906 against 112,528, but the victims are quite
diﬀerent. The Kobe Earthquake killed 6,434 people and 83.3
percent of them died due to collapsed houses. This time, asof September 6th, on the other hand, 15,769 people are killed
and 4,227 are missing and 92.4 percent of them are drowned
because of tsunami. Infrastructural damages are also more
serious, for instance, electricity, gas and water are notprovided to the 2-3 times more houses than in case of Kobe.
The highest intensity 7 of ground motion is observed in theboth disasters, but the predominant frequency of shaking isvery diﬀerent. In Iwate Prefecture, the northern part of Tohoku
region, the ﬁrst phase of shaking is really strong, in Miyagi
Prefecture, south to the Iwate, there are two strong phases,
and in Fukushima, where nuclear plants are, the second phaseis larger. And further south, there is only one phase of11

PartⅡ: Report on the GEJET 13:00 - 15:00

Waste management toward restoration
Prof Masanobu Ishikawa, Graduate School of Economics, Kobe University"A Process of Improvement of Law and Institution in Disaster Management: Lessons
from East Japan"
Prof Yuka Kaneko, Graduate School of International Cooperation Studies, Kobe University

Collaboration for generating Hope
Prof Masayoshi Morioka, Graduate School of Human Development and Environment, Kobe University"Community recovery of Tohoku disaster hit area and recovery supports from outside"
Prof Yoshiteru Murosaki, Kwansei Gakuin University

damaged houses and dismantling, 3) everyday waste fromrefugee life, 4) damaged infrastructures and 5) waste fromdamaged natural objects. However, disaster waste of GEJET

Waste management toward restoration
Prof Masanobu Ishikawa, Graduate School of
Economics, Kobe University

has the following four features: 1) Contamination byradioactivity, 2) Tsunami waste which contained sea
sediment, 3) Swept away waste in the sea, and 4)
Contamination by seawater. The estimation of the sea
sediment transferred by the tsunami is 33.6 to 48.4 million
tons in total which means that the volume of GEJET waste isalmost equal to the volume of annual urban waste generationin Japan (50 million tons). However, if you add urban waste
generation and industrial waste generation, it is about 450
million ton, which means GEJET produced one-tenth of thetotal volume of waste in a night. Compared to Hanshin/Awaji
Earthquake, which generated 14.3 million tons, GEJET
generated four times as much volume of waste.
The Ministry of the Environment (MOE) announced the roles tobe played by the state, prefectural and the municipal
governments. According to the MOE, the state government isto develop the master plan. The prefectural government is toprovide general coordination and the development of an action
plan. The municipality is to put the action plan in operation.
The fundamental policy of waste processing in GEJET waste

My presentation will be about the GEJET waste management

is on-site primary sorting. Secondary sorting is also necessary

problems, lessons we learned from them and some newat temporary stock yard to look for any recyclable item andproposals to help.

use rubbles as construction. Everything had to be in

Most disaster waste can be classiﬁed into ﬁve groups; 1)

accordance of the recycling law. In respect to the necessity

unwanted articles from damaged houses, 2) waste fromof the regional waste processing, some bigger joint instillation

12

plant and joint collection plant were installed and the

Before we talk about changing the disaster law, we must

processing of waste was treated by categories.

understand that there are many factors contributing to the

In addition to all of the above, there is a new approach taken

establishment of laws for such disasters. For example,

from the Chinese policy for Sichuan Great Earthquake. It is thetsunami brings about a totally diﬀerent issue to consider fromextended associations of prefectures and cities in the Kansaithat of Hanshin/Awaji earthquake. We need to comprehendarea to support an assigned Tohoku prefecture. Although thethe historical changes of social needs for government s

support oﬀered is great, there are still the problems of

response and the occasional change of philosophy toward

extremely large quantity of waste (general and radioactive),disasters.

decontamination of soil and the urgent needs for restoration.

In regard to the law for emergency rescue and the very early

GEJET waste management taught us to anticipate thestage of emergency response of the government, there haveunanticipated damage , the importance of risk

been repeated improvements made to the basic disaster law

communication and ex-ante partnership. With these in mind, Iestablished in 1961, especially after the Hanshin/Awaji

would like to make two proposals. One is to organize aearthquake. These improvements have brought aboutstakeholder dialog and civic panel for management ofrelatively good achievements such as horizontal assistanceradioactive waste and the other is to develop a triangle

by other local government, concentration of commands to thepartnership between cities for mutual support in case of

cabinet, encouragement of volunteer and other citizens

emergency. A three-city bound partnership with people moving

initiatives, broader initiative of Self-Defense Force, andaround to learn how the city is organized and what to do in

National government acted quickly to assure full budgetarycase of emergency.

support.
In regard to the assistance to disaster victims, the 1947 lawfor disaster assistance constitutes the legal basis, which has
been developed and improved especially after Hanshin/Awaji
earthquake for monetary aids to victims who lost housing.

"A Process of Improvement of Law and

However, there is a great shortage of assistance, particularly

Institution in Disaster Management:

for those who lost the bases of livelihood. This is because theLessons from East Japan"

current law is set up to only help those who lost the minimum

Prof Yuka Kaneko, Graduate School of International

basis of living and prohibits aid to private properties.

Cooperation Studies, Kobe University

In the reconstruction phase, both prefectural and municipality
governments have limitations on the expenditure andinstitutional constraint because of the half-ﬁnisheddecentralization and the lack of basic law on post-disasterreconstruction. They are unable to make ﬁscal reconstruction
planning in fear of the last moment budgetary cut by thenational government.
The local government has three major choices ofreconstruction plan; 1) the relocating to high grounds, 2)
strengthening of lower grounds and 3) strengthening ofindividual building. The national government may be favoring
the last one, possibly because it is the lowest cost of thethree, in their campaign for the new philosophy of disastermitigation. As illustrated above, local government oﬃcials are
frustrated to be sandwiched between the national government
and the call for help from disaster victims. It is clear that
there is an urgent need for a fundamental change in the local

The purpose of my presentation is to understand the needs

autonomies.

for and observing the process of legal changes toward better

The example of Yamada Town in Iwate Prefecture shows adisaster response. The method used for research was throughchance of direct democracy of local government in producing

ﬁeld work and interview with the victims in one of the disastera positive result for the reconstruction planning. Althoughareas, Iwate Prefecture.

reconstruction is still only half ﬁnished, this challenge13

ultimately would achieve not just a reconstruction of hard

actual practice and it is an outcome through joint action with

infrastructure but also a construction of a totally new social

the aﬀected persons. We must keep our attention on

institutional infrastructure. Only then will they be able tosupporting the disaster victims personal level of diﬃculty byrealize the real local autonomy based on the individual uniquelistening sincerely to their stories of what they experienced

kind of democracy.

and/or still continue to experience. From this point of view, we
decided to provide a predictably-eﬀective practice of ashiyu ,which means foot-bath or the soaking of feet in warm water.
It will relax both parties and is a good way to create naturalconversation.
The support of psychological ﬁrst aid means being beside theperson and the warmth of another person is the ﬁrst aid forCollaboration for generating Hopemental care. This is regarded as the best form of support inProf Masayoshi Morioka, Graduate School of Humanthe case of emergency. According to personal documentation,

Development and Environment, Kobe University

people s emotion seemed to seriously swing between thenegative and the positive for a few months after the disaster.
However, after three months had passed, their voices seemed
to withdraw within themselves. This is the moment thatmental care becomes necessary. Other documentation also
shows the importance of the natural power for self-recovery
and inter-relationship.
Psychosocial care is also necessary for supporters
themselves. Sharing experience is very important to maintaina healthy mental state, therefore volunteers are given achance to share and reﬂect on their experience in meetings
with other volunteers after each activity.
The third elements for successful care are cultures and local
factors. Mental and psychosocial care is provided within thecultural life setting. Hence, the person and community cannot
be divided and we make it a point to care for individualism withhis or her community. We also need to recognize thecreative healing power of culture. Many collaborative

The importance and application of the multiple forms ofapproaches to psychosocial support are ongoing, in a form of

psychological support are explained in this presentation bycreating tanka and haiku, which are short forms of Japanese

introducing some cases of IASC（Inter-Agency Standing

poetry. Taking action and sharing with group have importantCommittee）
in WHO Guidelines.

meaning for psychosocial care.

There are three elements to achieve multiple forms of

Our hope is generated from the action of personal agency andpsychological support. The ﬁrst is centered on the living

the root of our hope is human connection. We have toperson, psychosocial support has to be oriented toward

reconstruct our society in terms of person centeredness andrecovering their sense of agency. Therefore having company

we can transform the model of psychosocial support from an

is always an essential element for recovery. Secondly, a

individual pathology model to a collaborative, connecting andsystem of mutual aid is necessary for supporters to sharecommunity model.

their experiences. Thirdly, indigenous cultural resources areimportant for healing and we look for ways to care for people
within their local community.
Professional psychologist worked quickly to provide organizedsocial support in the disaster area. However, there is
uncertainty about how we can be sure to establish important
links with aﬀected people when we leave the disaster area.
Mental care is especially contingent on multiple layers of

14

Parthquake. However, this was not suﬃcient because of theserious blanks. The one week blank and one month blank .

"Community recovery of Tohoku disasterThe one week blank was the blank of the thing such as

hit area and recovery supports frommedicine and water, satellite and mobile phones which areoutside"necessary to life. The one month blank was the blank ofProf Yoshiteru Murosaki, Kwansei Gakuin University

volunteers which was brought on by the lack of information,
since telephone line was not usable and the lack of gasoline
made it impossible to travel by cars. The blank of volunteers
was also caused by rumors that the disaster area was still
dangerous or victims did not desire volunteers. Thirdly, I will
brieﬂy explain the recovery process. There are three stages ofcommunity recovery; the ﬁrst is quick recovery, or the stageof the refuge; next is the short-term recovery, or the stage ofthe temporary housing; and the third is long-term recovery, or
the stage of the permanent residence. Six months havepassed and 100,000 households are now living in temporary
houses. However, many people are still staying at sheltersand others in their damaged houses where hazardous sludge
still remains. The reconstruction plan for the permanent
residence is to build housings on the high land while ﬁshing orother work areas remain by the coast. The plan is to build alarge supermarket, hospital and other facilities in between the

I would like to talk about the current stage and problems of
the recovery in the Tohoku disaster areas. Firstly, I will talkabout the characteristics of the damage from the viewpoint of
the recovery. It can be explained from two aspects: one is tocapture the side of destruction and the other is to capture
from the side of loss. Regarding destruction, I will classify it
into Wide and Compound . Wide indicates the area
aﬀected by GEJET, which is ten times that of the
Hanshin/Awaji Earthquake in 1995. The area aﬀected by
GEJET is too wide and too many shelters for volunteers to
help out at. Compound means various disasters occurred
close to the same time like a chain reaction. As a result,
response to the nuclear disaster neglected the response to
the tsunami disaster. In terms of the characteristics of thetwo. I am against this plan for it will destroy the sense ofcommunity. I believe houses should be located near the work
place. Finally, I would like to close my presentation with thefollowing eight principles for recovery: 1) Solve social
distortion such as problems regarding the aged society andmedical depopulation; 2) Solve problems comprehensively, do
not consider only safety but also convenience and comfort; 3)
The recovery plan should include each individual s hope anddreams; 4) Support should ultimately encourage
independence; 5) Aim for environmental symbiosis withnature; 6) Value the memory of the area s history andtraditional culture; 7) Emphasize industrial reproduction andcommunity business; 8) Continuation of the community bystaying connected.

loss, problems are summarized into the following two points;
Bankruptcy and Function paralysis . Victims lost not only
buildings and property, but also their job and the land where
they lived because of radioactivity and subsidence.
Furthermore, the local government was paralyzed as well formany oﬃcials also died and the support from the state
government was insuﬃcient. Secondary, the support fromoutside should be mentioned. There are two aspects forneeds in this disaster. First is the need for relief and second
is the matching of need and supply. After the GEJET occurred,
the largest support in the history was carried out fromoutside. Almost ten times that of the Hanshin/Awaji

15

PartⅢ : Panel Discussion 15:30 - 17:40

Chair:
Prof Hiroshi Takeda, Executive Vice President, Kobe University

Panelists:
Speakers from part I & II and;Dr Denis Peter, European Commission
Prof Hormoz Modaressi, BRGM
Prof Jochen Zschau, GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences
Prof David Alexander, Global Risk Forum GRF DavosPart 3 looked into the aspects and initiatives taken by themore coordination or stimulating cooperation between theEuropean institutions followed by a panel session among

member states and the agencies both at the international

Japanese and European specialists. Professor Hiroshi Takeda,

level and European level.

Executive Vice President of Kobe University chaired this

2. Research dimension

session. The former part was an individual presentation on

A description and breakdown of the Seventh Framework

each initiative by the respective institutions.

Programme for Research and Technological Development orFP7, which is a seven-year (2007-2013) research programme

Dr Denis Peter from the European Commission presented an

in Europe. The objectives of FP7 are grouped into the four

overview of their activities related to natural

instruments: 1) COOPERATION, the highest budgetedhazards/disasters in three parts:

programme, is for collaboration between certain number of

1. Policy context

research institutions, universities and enterprises on projects

The role of the European Commission in the disaster policy is

including those in the ﬁeld of natural hazards; 2) IDEAS is for16new frontier research; 3) PEOPLE is best known for the Mariecountries.

Curie Actions, a fellowship programme for post doc in a form

ONAMAZU is the quantitative assessment of nonlinear soilof training networks; and 4) CAPACITIES is a programme toresponse during the 2011 Tohoku earthquake andoptimize the use and development of the best research

DYNTOHOKU is its dynamics from long term stressinfrastructures in Europe. In addition to those four

accumulation to asperities. SYNER-G focuses on systemic

instruments, the Commission also has Joint Researchvulnerability, like those which occurred in Japan. There are 3

Centers (JRC) to conduct nuclear and non-nuclear researchmain objectives for this project. The ﬁrst is to select the mostactivities, as well as the European Atomic Energy Community

advanced fragility functions to assess the physical and(Euratom) to coordinate the Member States' researchsocietal-economic vulnerability of all assets, improving andprogrammes for the peaceful use of nuclear energy.

further developing new ones where necessary, considering

3. Research related and pre-operational

European distinctive features of the buildings, which are

The Commission intends to respond to emergency situations

diﬀerent from countries. The second point is to develop ain the European capacity through Global Monitoring for

uniﬁed methodology to assess vulnerability at diﬀerent levels.

Environment and Security (GMES) Emergency Response

And ﬁnally, to build an appropriate open source software andService . It has developed a common web-based platform

tool that would be made available to scientiﬁc and other

Global disaster and alert coordination system (GDACS) with

communities, if they wish to use it or implement it for diﬀerent

UN to quickly estimate hazards and give alerts through the

purposes.

joint research centre Ispra .
Professor Jochen Zschau of GFZ German Research Centre forProfessor Hormoz Modaressi of BRGM, France, presented theGeosciences ﬁrst explained the activities of the centre whichscientiﬁc perspectives following the GEJET in which BRGM is

focuses its research on earth system dynamics. The centre is

involved. Examples included two recent collaboration with

conducting a number of projects including its Earth Systems

Japan on Tohoku earthquake, the ONAMAZU and

Analysis, SAFER (Seismic Early Warning for Europe), MATRIXDYNTOHOKU; and SYNER-G (Systemic Seismic Vulnerability(Multi-Hazard and Multi-Risk Assessment Methods) andand Risk Analysis for Buildings, Lifeline Networks and

REAKT (Real-Time Earthquake Risk Reduction) for FP7.

Infrastructures Safety Gain), one of the FP7 research projects
in which Kobe University is one of its 14 participants from 11

17

Another project, the Global Earthquake Model (GEM) is a

IDRC is a biennial conference on disaster and risk reduction

public/private partnership for mapping and communicating

and climate change adaption that is complemented withcomplex earthquake risk globally, an OECD initiative which

regional conferences and workshops in the intervening year.

now involves governments, industry, science organizations

There have been three IDRC conferences held so far, and theand institutions, World Bank, ISDR and UNESCO. Japan s

next will be held in August, 2012. The Risk Academy is themembership is currently being negotiated. Professor Zschau

knowledge sharing and know-how transfer pillar of GRF. A

pointed out in the last part of his presentation that it is notthink tank is organized within Risk Academy to exchangeenough to just quantify risk hazard and risk; there is also aknowledge and information, and also to launch teaching andneed to quantify the changes of hazard and risk, because

research initiatives in the study of disasters, risk and climate

vulnerability is a very dynamic quantity. He also stated thatchange. There are four aspects to it. 1) The raising of

there is a need to update risk quickly. Classical risk

awareness, which is done in a variety of ways throughassessment methods would take years, GFZ is developing a

discussions, ﬁlms, exhibitions, etc.; 2) Education such as

method that combines satellite, remote sensing tools, withtraining courses, workshops and publication; 3) Service &ground based panoramic street view with mobile 3-D cameras,

Products, which include regular updates on global risk andsimilar to the system used by Google.

editing books; 4) Research & Development, which include
project development on integrated risk management.The third

Professor David Alexander of Global Risk Forum (GRF) Davos

pillar, Planet@risk is a web-based networking platform which isstarted with an overview of his organization. GRF is anused to showcase some of the best non-academic ororganization founded in 2008 which is funded by a variety of

sub-academic literature. These are speciﬁcally useful tosources including the Swiss federal, cantonal and local

stakeholders who deal directly with risk and disastergovernment, private sector and others. GRF has a network ofproblems.

collaboration with a dozen UN organizations, 40 internationalorganizations and many academic and research institutions
around the world. GRF is based upon three pillars: The
International Disaster and Risk Conferences (IDRC) andWorkshops; Risk Academy; and Planet@risk.

18

Prof. Takeda, the chairman, has started the second part ofthe city planning, which might be due to the diﬃculty ofPanel session by inviting panelists to comment on the two

incorporating it into the long-term city planning. One way to

aspects of GEJET; the damage states and the eﬀects of thesolve this problem may be to build a true sense of local

damage. Panelists have given various comments on theseautonomy. On the other hand, regulations are normally forpoints and the conclusions may be summarized as follows:

life duration and we cannot change the hazard map every-Hazard assessment: One of the most important lessons

year. Hence, the ﬂexibility, transferability and adaptability

learnt from this tragic event is how to prepare for the mostare indeed needed to be included at the very beginning of

improbable case. Prehistoric information is also very

the planning.

important. Obtaining information about the areas previously-Communication: Communication is also a very important

visited and investigated by researchers; we should do more

aspect that we learnt from GEJET. People are the ones who

research on the lack of utilization of research, or on how toreceive the information, and to whom the governments andbetter utilize research.

scientists should communicate to prepare for the safety.

-Government involvement: The government of Japan provide

Before the Kobe Earthquake, many scientists talked to thehazard map to the public to promote preparedness andgovernment only about the safety, not to the citizens. This

prevention. Politics plays an important role here; therefore

communication process is not a very good style, and wethe map should be politically explainable and most likely toscientists have to change our attitude from this bad style

be realized. As for the EU, basically land management policy

to communicating better to the citizens.

is in the hands of the member states, however there was adocument released last year for risk assessment andmapping guidelines for risk management. This document is
not something meant to impose on member states, but isintended to provide them with guidelines and to help them.
An example can be the hazard map that was prepared by amunicipality in Tohoku area after GEJET, which was very
accurate because it incorporated scientiﬁc knowledge in theadministrative planning. However, the problem was that thedisaster reduction plan was not adequately incorporated in

19Video Conference 10:00 - 12:00 (Brussels), 17:00 - 19:00 (Kobe)“Volunteer activities for the GEJET”
Programme
Opening
Prof Hiromasa Kubo, Graduate School of Economics, Kobe University
Presentation:
Ms Ai Yonemitsu, Graduate School of International Cooperation Studies, Kobe University
Ms Mari Kinkawa, Graduate School of Health Sciences, Kobe University
Ms Yuko Sato, Faculty of Maritime Sciences, Kobe University
Mr Jinya Suzuki, Faculty of Economics, Kobe University
Mr Kai Nishii, Faculty of Human Development, Kobe University
Discussion:
Participants: Students of Kobe University, Vrije Universiteit Brussel
Closing:
Prof Yasuo Tanaka, Research Center for Urban Safety and Security, Kobe University

Having two facilitators from Brussels and Kobe, the workshop

feelings; and in this respect, volunteers like her were able tostarted with presentations from Kobe students who actually

help. They had to however steady their own feelings so thatparticipated in the volunteer activities in Tohoku areas.

they may listen carefully and understand their requests.

The ﬁrst presentation made by Ms Yonemitsu in Kobe was

Ms Kinkawa participated in two volunteer events from Kobe

about her volunteer activities in the aﬀected areas. She joined

University. Her presentation was mainly about her involvement

a volunteer group that helped rake out mud from aﬀectedin the footbath activities. She found through her experience ofhouses, took care of the Children s Day event and so on.

giving footbaths to the aﬀected people that it provided

Through this volunteer activity, she pointed out the diﬀerence

thermal eﬀect; relaxation of both body and mind; and a chance

between the Great Hanshin Earthquake and GEJET. While thefor the volunteer to assess the needs of the aﬀected person

damage in the former was caused by collapsed buildings,

through communication.

tsunami washed away buildings and people in the latter. She

Ms Sato s activities included providing meals, helping

also learnt that people in the aﬀected areas needed someone

preparation of bath, cleaning up muddy houses and dealing

to talk to about their experience in order to sort out theirwith reliefs such as clothes. Through those activities, she

20

found there was some mismatch of aid and needs, andhave caused psychological stress. In answering to thisthought that we need to think what are needed by people inquestion, Kobe students explained that they had somethe aﬀected areas. Moreover, she wishes to point out two

preparations beforehand by way of lectures and explanations.

things: there should be good cooperation between local

However, even doing so, they were shocked by what they saw

government, private sectors and volunteers; and volunteers

in the aﬀected areas and heard from the experiences ofare responsible to carry on their activities to the next level

people who survived. Although they were not experts, they

after completing their activities at the aﬀected areas. They

believed they can be of some help to the people aﬀected byshould not forget the disaster once they leave, for this could

speaking to them. Another Kobe University student mentioned

ﬁll the gap between aid and needs.

the important roles played by volunteers, individual people,

Mr. Suzuki helped in the removal of dangerous items, home

whose view and suggestions would be of help to theelectrical appliance and so on from destroyed buildings andgovernment in making a better society.

houses. Mr. Nishi visited the disaster stricken areas twice andcompared the two experiences. He noticed a diﬀerence in thescenery. For example, in the earlier time, there was a lot ofdebris, but not so much in the latter. Another aspect was in
the places the evacuees stay. In the earlier time, they lived invery small cubicles in schools or other shelters, but by thesecond time, the evacuees lived in temporary houses built
especially for them. He also noticed that people expressedhope for the future in the latter.
In the Q & A session, a student in Brussels asked if there wasany diﬃculty when communicating with people in the aﬀectedareas. A Kobe student found no diﬃculty in speaking to elderly
or local people, but the problem was communication with thelocal government. Another student in Kobe pointed out that
dialect was sometimes diﬃcult for communication as well as
local customs which were diﬀerent. There were some otherquestions such as the essence of the footbath, the timing
and period volunteers visited the aﬀected areas andfollowing-up activities after their return to Kobe. Question on
the activities of listening to aﬀected people was raised
because those activities overwhelmed volunteers and it might

21

Edited and issued byOﬃce for the Promotion ofInternational Exchange, Kobe University
1-1 Rokkodai Nada Kobe 657-8501 Japan
E-mail : intl-relations@oﬃce.kobe-u.ac.jp