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, 2014too dependent upon it. Following the GEJET, roads and railway tracks were damaged and destroyed andtelephone lines and cell phone towers were wrecked, cutting lifelines and communications and creating majorproblems in identification of emergency and relief needs and organising the logistics necessary to meet them in atimely way.On the other hand, there are advantages in high income countries such as the highly developed capacity of thearmed forces for deployment, the availability of heavy machinery and advanced technology and, at a social level,government financial benefits and insurance coverage to mitigate losses.While the context of each country is of upper most importance, there were clearly lessons learned from theJapanese Red Cross’response to the GEJET that are common and germane to disaster response in other highincome countries in preparing for and responding to large scale disasters.Emergency and Relief ResponseIn the Journal on Humanitarian Studies Vol. 1 2012, Bjorn Eder has described well the impact of the GEJET andthe Japanese Red Cross’response. Suffice to say, the evaluation found the Society’s response in the first daysfollowing the disaster as having been of a high standard in terms of meeting its agreed mandate. Red Crossmedical teams were rapidly deployed and played a key role in meeting medical and psychosocial support needs.Pre-positioned relief goods were immediately dispatched and a hugely successful domestic fundraising campaignwas launched.This effective response was a function of being well prepared with clear operational plans. However, thecomplexities surrounding the huge scale of the disaster, let alone the added complexity surrounding thehumanitarian needs arising from the Fukushima nuclear accident, had not been anticipated. Looking at responsesto Hurricane Katrina in the United States, the Queensland Floods in Australia and the Christchurch Earthquake inNew Zealand, the evaluation team found a common theme. Red Cross Societies must prepare more adequately forthe infrequent but truly catastrophic disasters. The GEJET reminds us of the need to address fundamentalquestions, such as, are we prepared for a situation as unimaginable as an earthquake and tsunami hitting Tokyo orWellington? Beside the enormous humanitarian consequences, if our Red Cross national offices are rendereddysfunctional, are we able to establish operational control in another less affected centre?Answering these and other such questions has heightened an awareness about the need to review contingencyplans to address large scale disasters at the domestic level as well as to find appropriate mechanisms for the RedCross and Red Crescent Movement to work in the spirit of solidarity when capacities of National Societies arestretched to the limit in satisfying the needs of those affected. The global Principles and Rules for Red Cross andRed Crescent Humanitarian Assistance were adopted（amended from a 2005 document）in November 2013 tobetter facilitate coordinated and accountable international humanitarian response and, at a regional level, theAustralian and New Zealand Red Cross Societies have developed mutual assistance agreements in time ofdisaster. These are the kinds of measures that can be taken to improve preparedness and strengthen responsecapacities of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement.Best Use of Human ResourcesTurning to an important finding from the evaluation and one which relates particularly to National Societies inhigh income countries with large organisational structures, it is common for such Societies to have a national70人道研究ジャーナルVol. 3, 2014