ブックタイトル人道ジャーナル第3号

概要

人道ジャーナル第3号

The Journal of Humanitarian Studies Vol. 3, 2014The Great East Japan Earthquake and TsunamiSome key findings from the 6 month post disaster evaluation.Jerry Talbot 1Nature of the Evaluation 2The conduct of post disaster evaluations is established good practice within the Red Cross and Red CrescentMovement. In developing countries, where there are normally many external donors, evaluations are usuallyconducted by internationally recruited evaluators. In developed, high income countries where the domesticresource and response capacities are much greater, evaluations are more generally arranged on a domestic level.It was therefore a laudable decision of Japanese Red Cross Society to commission an evaluation to assess itsresponse to the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami（GEJET）in order to develop a more effective domesticintervention mechanism based on the lessons learned. The terms of reference for the evaluation also required thatan assessment be made as to how international support might be better mobilised and coordinated. This required,in particular, a consideration of the role of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies（IFRC）. Further, as part of the learning process, comparisons were made with Red Cross disaster responseexperiences following large scale disasters in other high income countries.In several respects, this evaluation initiative broke new ground and laid the foundation for on-going analysis anddecisions which will enhance disaster preparedness and response in high income countries, including withinJapanese Red Cross.As the world’s population and urbanisation increase, environmental degradation grows and the more violentweather patterns associated with climate change and the warming of the sea take effect, it has been wellestablished that the risk of large scale disasters occurring becomes greater. Conventional approaches becomeinadequate and we must be much better prepared with contingency plans to address even the“unimaginabledisaster”.While these global trends affect different countries in similar ways, the evaluation team made some analysis ofthe particular vulnerabilities that feature in high income countries and how these may vary from perceptions.While a country may be wealthy in GDP terms, there can be large income disparities. In the United States, forexample, the lowest one fifth of the population receives only 5% of the national income. Disproportionatenumbers of socio economic and disadvantaged groups live in the most“at risk”areas. As is certainly the case inJapan, the ageing population is a common feature in high income countries and the elderly are especiallyvulnerable in times of disaster. While infrastructure and technology is highly developed, there is a risk of being1In October/November, 2011, Jerry Talbot led the team to evaluate the Japanese Red Cross and IFRC disaster relief response during the sixmonths following the GEJET. With over 40 years experience as a staff member and as a volunteer with the Red Cross, he has served asSecretary General of the New Zealand Red Cross for 13 years, Head of Asia and Pacific Department of the IFRC for 7 years and been postedto countries including Samoa, Vietnam（during the war）, the Maldives（following the Indian Ocean Tsunami）, Tanzania and Zimbabwe（Headof Southern Africa Regional Office）. After retiring from IFRC as Special Representative to the Secretary General for the Tsunami Operation,he volunteered for the New Zealand Red Cross and is currently a member of its National Board.2The evaluation report in English is available on the IFRC website: http://www.ifrc.org/en/publications-and-reports/evaluations/?&z=&r=&co=SP354JP&c=&ti=&mo=&ty=&fm=0&tm=0&fy=&tyr=&fieldname=&sortexp=DESC人道研究ジャーナルVol. 3, 2014 69