One year after the complex disaster in the Tohoku region of Japan, much remains to be done to rebuild lives and communities in the stricken area. Tohoku will need business and philanthropic investments for years to come, and I am encouraged by the innovative and entrepreneurial approaches being implemented by several Japanese social organizations.

Prior to the disaster, Tohoku was already a marginalized area facing the twin challenges of a depressed economy and a rapidly aging population. The three Tohoku prefectures of Miyagi, Iwate, and Fukushima accounted for merely 4 percent of Japan’s GDP with an economy largely based on family-run farming and fishing. Under pressure from years of outmigration by younger and more educated people, the average age of farmers and fishermen was 65.2 years in Miyagi prefecture, even higher in some hard-hit coastal areas.

The Japanese government recognizes the need to rebuild Tohoku on a new economic foundation. It introduced tax and other incentives to attract domestic and international investment, but the government’s reconstruction guidelines, introduced in late June, disappointed many who had hoped for a more specific, innovative, and operational framework to rebuild Tohoku. In a culture in which consensus, conformity, and proper etiquette are the norm, inadequate response to this complex humanitarian disaster has sparked a loss of trust in the government and media that is unusual for Japan.

In the immediate aftermath of the tsunami, thousands of Japanese of all ages volunteered to help. More than 900,000 volunteers traveled to Tohoku, often with transportation, training, and work assignments organized by Japanese nonprofit organizations. Even more promising is the continuing commitment of young Japanese students and entrepreneurs to bring innovation and enterprise to the region. These entrepreneurs seek support for their ideas and projects to revitalize the local economies with input and involvement from local communities.

For example, Entrepreneurial Training for Innovative Communities (ETIC) is working with young social entrepreneurs to revitalize small businesses in Tohoku. ETIC currently supports 30 projects by placing two young, educated ETIC fellows with each project leader to assist with the planning, design, and implementation. ETIC will select another 20 projects next year and is working on fundraising.

Consider ETIC fellow Tsutomu Tamakawa, a 24-year-old born in the city of Sendai. He graduated from Tohoku University with a law degree and worked in the marketing department of a company that creates cutting-edge optics for the semiconductor industry. When the earthquake hit, he left his job to help. “I was afraid,” he said, “I knew people in Tohoku can’t depend on the government.”

Rina Sasaki, a Tohoku native and ETIC fellow, had just graduated from college and lived in Tokyo when the earthquake hit. With her business partner, Yasuhiro Watanabe, who left his job at a Japanese manufacturer, she is learning to run a new business that provides on-demand transportation for elderly people.

Eat and Energize the East is another social enterprise working to revive agriculture in Tohoku by connecting farmers and fishermen directly with food service providers and retailers throughout Japan. They also test Tohoku’s agricultural products to rebuild consumer confidence after Fukushima.

These project leaders are like many of the young people my colleagues and I have met in Tohoku. They are not the people that we sometimes read about in the media – young Japanese in crisis, stymied and frustrated by economic stagnation, deflation, and general pessimism.

Not all of the innovators are young. “All I remember is holding on as the waves washed over me again and again,” explains Mr. Sato, a 70-year-old fisherman in Tohoku. “When I came to, my wife was missing. That night, I walked through 10 centimeters of snow to my wife’s hometown, but I could not find her.”

In spite of Sato-san’s tragedy, he is leading relief and recovery efforts in his community. In coordination with local disaster responder PARCIC, Sato-san is working to restore the local fishing industry, which provides a livelihood for 205 families. PARCIC has established a fishing cooperative in the region, and Sato-san was elected by his peers to lead it.

Post-disaster research has shown that major disasters are often followed by innovation and growth if the recovery is underpinned by structural reform, eliminating dysfunctional economic relations, introducing technological innovation, and selective targeting of new investments. It remains to be seen if Japan will produce a dynamic recovery.

Social entrepreneurs and innovators-and those seeking to fund their work-have the opportunity to make possible promising new approaches to economic revitalization in Tohoku and commit to a basic tenet of disaster response, which is to “build back better.”

Download “Lessons Learned: The 2011 Disasters in Tohoku, Japan,” written by Give2Asia’s disaster response lead Gillian Yeoh, and expands on Give2Asia’s lessons-learned from working within Tohoku.

This piece was originally published by the Council on Foundation’s blog, RE: Philanthropy.

Barnett F. Baron is the president and CEO of Give2Asia, a member of the Council on Foundations. He was previously executive vice president of The Asia Foundation in San Francisco.

For 10 days in mid-June, my Give2Asia colleague, Gillian Yeoh, and I visited Iwate and Miyagi prefectures in Tohoku, the northeastern area devastated by the earthquake and tsunami that struck Japan on March 11.

Months after the devastating tsunami, Tohoku officials are struggling to dispose of the enormous amount of waste and debris. Photo by Gillian Yeoh.

We found that Tohoku is still an emergency situation. Just a few days after the tsunami, international media published before-and-after photos of damaged roads that had already been repaired, giving the world the hopeful impression that the devastating physical damage would be quickly and miraculously addressed by Japanese technology. This was not Haiti, after all. But on our visit, three months later, we saw debris fields extending for dozens of miles where coastal communities had stood, fields of wood and concrete rubble, wooden and reinforced concrete buildings precariously perched at unsettling angles, man-made islands of cars, refrigerators, and major pieces of industrial equipment still waiting to be removed. We saw that the Japanese Self-Defense Forces were still searching and finding bodies, and we were told that the continuing search was one reason that heavier equipment is not being used to clear debris more quickly.

In mid-June, many factories and buildings in Tohoku still remained as the tsunami left them on March 11. Photo by Gillian Yeoh.

But there is another factor at work as well: how to dispose of this enormous amount of waste in an environmentally responsible way. Japan does not have much space for landfill; earlier efforts to dump construction waste at sea have drawn criticism. We saw that rodents, flies, and other disease-bearing pests are a growing problem, especially as the rainy season begins. We also learned that an unknown but substantial number of people are still living on the upper floors of their partially destroyed homes. No one knows whether these homes are structurally sound, but they are likely to be vulnerable to after-shocks or the smaller tremors that are so common in Japan. We also saw that some coastal areas are now underwater or inundated during high tide. No one knows yet whether these communities can survive.

Shifting Demographics

Right after the tsunami, some 400,000 people were living in emergency evacuation shelters, many of them elderly. Those numbers are now declining rapidly, with fewer than 100,000 now officially recognized. Local townships have begun to provide newly built temporary housing. The new units provide privacy and are well-equipped, but because of shortages of available land they are often located in isolated areas. Victims living in temporary housing do not pay rent but are no longer eligible for emergency food and supplies and are expected to pay for utilities and services. Their contracts state that they are expected to leave temporary housing after two years. Because in many cases temporary housing is in isolated areas, it is not clear how some of the residents will earn income or get around to obtain basic services from their doctors and dentists, or even get to food markets.

We were surprised – despite repeated requests – by the lack of detailed demographic data apparently available on victims. Most evacuation centers know, of course, how many people they are serving on a specific day, but we were told that there are no reliable data on those who have since left the centers, or are still living in their cars, in their partially destroyed homes, or in other makeshift arrangements. The priority was on providing immediate emergency assistance to those who were brought in or showed up for help.

Japan has the world’s highest proportion of elderly citizens – people over the age of 65. Anecdotal evidence after the tsunami indicated that as many as 70 percent of the victims in some evacuation centers were at least 65, many much older. Tohoku, the region where the tsunami struck, has long been an economically depressed area, dependent on the economy of Sendai, the nearest large city, coastal fishing, tourism, and the economic and tax spin-offs from the nuclear plant at Fukushima for its income. Younger people have been migrating out for decades in search of jobs and better opportunities for their families, while the elderly have stayed behind. This demographic profile raises profound questions about the future of coastal fishing and farming, as the elderly dominated these industries yet now lack the resources and the spirit to start again.

Policy Challenges

While there, we also visited current and prospective grantees, local government officials, and the Tokyo offices of several of our U.S. corporate donors. During our visit we were struck by the sense we got from many people we spoke to that the Japanese government was not providing strategic leadership and that local governments, themselves badly hit by the loss of life in the tsunami, had been left to fend for themselves. Among our grantees and potential grantees, there were different patterns of relationships with local government agencies. In some cases, the service providers did not know where in the local government they could find answers to basic questions of coordination and emergency relief; in others, the relationship was productive and mutually supportive. Still, in the absence of a coherent central government plan backed by adequate resources and political will, nonprofit service providers were asking how they could be most effective, how long they should stay in Tohoku, and how they could assist victims’ transition from emergency shelters to temporary housing and to more permanent resettlement.

From the perspective of an international donor, Japan presents some serious challenges in terms of finding experienced nonprofit providers of longer-term reconstruction. For historical and cultural reasons, the Japanese non-profit sector is relatively under-developed. The state has always been an effective and comprehensive provider of public goods and services. Japanese citizens expect their government to play this role. It was not until the Kobe earthquake in 1995 that Japanese society saw the extraordinary potential role of voluntary and nonprofit organizations operating in fields previously dominated by government agencies. Since then, the Japanese nonprofit sector has developed and grown significantly, but it was probably easier to identify experienced and qualified local nonprofit service providers in Aceh after the December 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami than it has been finding their Japanese equivalents today. I was very impressed by the work Give2Asia’s Japanese grantees have been doing in Tohoku, particularly their ability to manage efficiently the services of thousands of short-term volunteers who provide meals in evacuation centers, provide emergency services and supplies to those stranded elsewhere, help in the massive clean-up efforts, and assist in many other ways. Efficient use of diverse and always shifting groups of volunteers, many of whom are available for only 3 to 5 days, is a serious management challenge – our grantees are doing it well. But the scope of this tragedy, heightened by the sustained and specialized needs of a predominantly elderly population, requires much more engagement by specialized professional organizations, including the government itself, particularly in such areas as long-term medical care (especially geriatric care), mental health counseling, legal aid, and re-starting small businesses destroyed on March 11.

Next Steps for Philanthropy

Give2Asia is a philanthropic intermediary. We facilitate donations for this and other emergencies by identifying needs and matching donors to qualified local recipients. We deeply appreciate the trust shown in us by the more than 3,000 donors – individuals, families, and corporations – who have contributed to Give2Asia’s Japan Earthquake and Tsunami Fund and to the many corporations and organizational partners for whom we have facilitated donor-advised grants.

Because it takes time to mobilize resources and to identify appropriate users, our strategy in emergencies is to devote about 10 percent of available funds for immediate relief, another 10 percent for transitional purposes, and to reserve the bulk of what we are able to raise (80 percent) for longer-term recovery and reconstruction. In Tohoku, we have thus far granted about $400,000 for emergency services provided by Japanese service providers, including the Association for Aid and Relief Japan, Second Harvest Japan, Rescue Stock Yard, and Peace Boat Volunteers. We are in deep discussion about their follow-on needs. Based in part on our visit last month, we are currently also speaking with several other nonprofit organizations and professional associations who can provide longer-term services, including mental health outreach; legal aid to victims to establish eligibility for government and insurance compensation, confirmation of land titles, or dealing with developers; recapitalizing or restarting small businesses; and seed funding for a community foundation in Sendai that will raise funds both locally and internationally to sustain its capacity to make awards to local NGOs providing immediate and long-term tsunami-related services. We expect to remain active for several more years in response to this disaster as needs evolve. The world moves on soon after a disaster, but the recovery and rebuilding efforts needed remain long after attention shifts elsewhere.

Dr. Barnett F. Baron is president & CEO of Give2Asia. He can be reached at bbaron@give2asia.org. The views and opinions expressed here are those of the individual author and not those of The Asia Foundation.

As news spread about the recent earthquake and tsunami that struck Japan on March 11, there was immediate concern about the effects to the people living on small islands and atolls belonging to more than 22 Pacific Island Nations and scattered across thousands of miles of Pacific Ocean.

Pacific Small Island Developing States (SIDS) are highly susceptible to the impacts of climate change and disaster risks, due principally to their geographical, geological, and socio-economic environments. The catastrophic event that unfolded for Japan last month was a reminder for these island states not only of their vulnerability but also of their recent experiences with disasters.

Over the past decade, Pacific Islands have experienced weather patterns with devastating effects. Above, damage from cyclone Heta, which hit Niue in 2004. Credit: NOAA / Earth System Research Laboratory

Over the past decade, Pacific Island Nations have experienced unusual weather patterns with devastating effects from climate-related hazards, or hydro-meteorological events, as they can be commonly referred to by disaster specialists:

• Cyclone Heta, which hit Niue in 2004, generated immediate losses that exceeded the 2003 value of GDP by over five times;

• In 2005, Cook Islands experienced five major cyclones crisscrossing its islands with unprecedented damaging effects;

• High surf affected the northern Pacific countries of Micronesia and Marshall Islands in 2009, creating food shortages and health and sanitation concerns for the low-lying atolls;

• Massive flooding in the districts of Nadi and Ba, Fiji, in 2009 caused economic losses for families and businesses estimated at more than $185 million;

• 2009 Solomon Islands flooding in Guadalcanal Province affected hundreds of villagers creating serious disruption to food supply and communal livelihoods, and causing secondary health hazards.

As a result of these experiences and the awareness of the potential for future disasters, Pacific Island leaders are now calling for national action planning processes to tie both disaster risk management and climate change adaptation frameworks together into one overarching Joint National Action Plan (JNAP).

Natural hazard impacts are part of Pacific island life with adverse effects on people’s livelihoods, property, and the environment. Indicators point to increased intensity, magnitude, and frequency of hydro-meteorological hazards across the Pacific basin. Whether these factors are due to climate change or simply the evolution of time, the fact remains that an increasing numbers of lives are at risk. Running parallel to these phenomena are other risks to Pacific communities such as population increase, urbanization, insufficient or complete lack of building codes resulting in unsafe housing, poor land use management, and increased pressure on already-stretched water resources. For Pacific governments, it is not just the threat of immediate climate change impacts that is concerning, but also the detrimental impact climate change and disaster risks have on their countries’ national sustainable development.

Pacific Island Nations rely heavily on the agriculture and fisheries sectors for national productivity as well as for export earnings. The effects of climate change on island communities and livelihoods mean one of two things: increased rainfall which will lead to flooding, or decreased rainfall, creating droughts which harm crops and fisheries, as well as increase health risks. For example, in the Pacific, where communities rely on open rainwater catchments for drinking and personal hygiene, drought can create serious health and sanitation problems due to lack of water. Meanwhile, rising temperatures can cause health conditions such as heat stress, respiratory diseases, and skin diseases. Higher temperatures can also affect soil moisture and fertility, which can harm crops, such as taro, which is not only a staple for island communities but a major export crop for countries such as Fiji, Samoa, and Tonga. Sea level rise coupled with coastal erosion takes a toll on fragile ecosystems, which can have serious impacts on microorganisms that generate within mangroves, as well as loss of land and infrastructure along coastal zones. For example, in Micronesia, communal taro gardens are being affected by saltwater intrusion; in Tuvalu and other low-lying atolls, coastal communities have been forced to relocate as their front yards and homes are under assault from seawater particularly at high tide.

The small size of island economies means the effects of disasters felt by Pacific communities are disproportionately high. The 2007 earthquake and accompanying tsunami that hit the Solomon Islands cost the country around $90 million – or around 90 percent of the 2006 recurrent government budget. Given current fears that climate change could increase the frequency and severity of natural disasters, the value of these losses could increase over time.

Since 1995, with support from the USAID’s Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance, and in partnership with the National Disaster Management Offices of the respective Pacific countries, The Asia Foundation’s Pacific program has focused on disaster risk management training: specifically the design, development, and implementation of disaster risk management courses to strengthen regional and national capacity for disaster management and disaster risk reduction. We are also working with the Applied Geoscience and Technology Division of the Secretariat of the Pacific Community on the development of new Joint National Action Plans on Climate Change Adaptation and Disaster Risk Management as the vehicle through which the countries can mainstream disaster and climate risk considerations into their national and sectoral planning processes and budgets to reduce the potential impact of future disasters to national economies.

Despite whatever is thrown their way, it is critical for Pacific nations to ensure they have the national capacity, with appropriate action plans in place, to effectively deal with all aspects of disaster preparedness, response, and recovery.

Kathryn Hawley is The Asia Foundation’s director of the Pacific Program, based in Fiji. She can be reached at khawley@asiafound.org.

One month after the devastating earthquake and tsunami struck Japan, the Japanese are still coping with an incredible accumulation of sorrow, devastation, and anxiety about the future. Beyond the most urgent question of how Japan will recover from such a calamitous situation, a secondary concern is the potential human, environmental, and economic impact the crisis will have on the rest of Asia.

One month after the Japan earthquake and tsunami, the Japanese are still coping with an incredible accumulation of sorrow, devastation, and anxiety about the future. Photo courtesy of U.S. Navy.

It is difficult and certainly too early to determine the full impact of Japan’s triple trauma – an earthquake, tsunami, and ongoing nuclear disaster. While the World Bank estimates the financial cost of the earthquake and tsunami at $235 billion, the human and economic consequences of a possible nuclear catastrophe is still hanging in the air, for both Japan and its Asian neighbors, like the sword of Damocles.

Economists seem to agree that the disaster is not likely to pose a significant, long-term risk to the global economy. It is, however, likely that Asia, and more particularly East Asia, will feel the economic aftershocks of Japan’s earthquake in both the short and the long term. The World Bank’s chief regional economist, Vikram Nehru, said that in the immediate future, the major impact of the disaster on Asia will be in terms of trade and finance. Indeed, several economic and financial dynamics may be affected:

• Trade between Japan and other Asian countries has already been affected by both the reduction of exports from Japan due to disrupted supply chains (in the automotive and electronic industry, for example) and mistrust of consumers regarding fresh produce such as vegetables and fish. Several countries, including China, Russia, and Egypt, have already banned imports of fresh produce from Japan.

• The destruction of industrial sites, electricity lines, roads, and harbors has halted production in Japanese factories like Toyota and Sony, disrupting trade. In some cases, however, this disruption may in the mid term be an opportunity for Asian countries like Korea and China to position themselves as alternatives to Japanese exports.

• Finding alternative sources for specific, highly technical Japanese-made products like automotive parts and memory chips (36 percent of the world’s memory chips are produced by Japan) will not be easy. Some automotive assembly lines in Thailand and Korea are already experiencing shortages of parts from Japan and may have to reduce their production.

• Food exports to Japan will also increase dramatically. Natural disasters have a tendency to cause volatility in global commodity markets in the near term. In the present case, this volatility will certainly be exacerbated by potential radiation risks in products from affected areas. The region of North Tohoku affected by the nuclear pollution is Japan’s fourth-largest food provider, producing about 20 percent of the country’s rice and a major portion of beef, poultry, and pork. The demand for agricultural products will create opportunities for countries like Vietnam, Thailand, and Cambodia.

• In the mid term, reconstruction efforts in Japan will boost exports of construction materials from neighboring economies. However, if increased demand from Japan boosts exports from Asian countries, it will certainly increase the risk of inflation in a region that is already coping with immense pressures on food prices, energy, and basic commodities.

• Drastic reduction of Japanese tourists visiting Asia. Not surprisingly, tourism, one of the most sensitive economic sectors, has been one of the first to show signs of contraction. Some countries, such as Cambodia and Thailand, have already felt the decline of Japanese tourism. In Cambodia, government officials and tourist professionals fear a drop of about 30 percent in March. Although unlikely to be significant in the long term, the number of Japanese visitors to East Asia has dropped since March 11, as Japanese business people and tourists postpone travel to focus on problems at home.

• One unexpected outcome of the disaster may be a larger incentive for regional cooperation and trade. In this regional dynamic, we may see the regional political and economic power shift to benefit China (which overtook Japan as the world’s second-biggest economy last year).

• Long-term reconstruction efforts will put a drag on Japan’s public and private finance with some potential impact on several Asian countries. Rebuilding homes, factories, roads, and bridges will require an important financial commitment that Japan will need to finance through more private and public debt. The current national budget for reconstruction is estimated at $12 billion but will likely rise.

• How the inevitable public debt will be financed is a looming question. Will China play in Japan the refinancing role it is now playing in some European countries struggling with public deficits? This is actually unlikely. Although Japan’s debt is generally considered very high (more than 200 percent of GDP), much of it is intra-governmental (the government debt in one public agency is an asset of another). The Japan central bank also holds a large amount of financial earning assets (such as foreign currency assets for about 20 percent of GDP), non-financial earning assets, and non-earning public assets, which can favorably counterbalance the total value of Japan’s net liabilities. This implies that the Japanese government’s capacity to engage in important reconstruction spending is certainly higher than is often mentioned in the media.

• A probable outcome of investment needs within Japan will likely be a slow-down in Japanese investments abroad. Japanese foreign direct investments in Asia will most likely slow down in the short term as potential investors delay their investment decisions. Countries like Cambodia that were expecting an important increase of Japanese investments in the manufacturing sector and the agro-industry may have to wait longer for this to happen. However, it may not be too long before Japanese entrepreneurs seize new opportunities to diversify risks and rebuild production sites into low-technology assembly plants.

Japan’s tragic nuclear disaster will most certainly have unexpected long-term impact. However, on almost all accounts, the disaster’s potential impact on Asia will likely be short and mid term. The reconstruction efforts may take longer than after the Kobe earthquake in 1995, but to believe that this unprecedented disaster will weaken Japan in the long term would be discounting the resilience and innovative capacity of the Japanese people.

Note: To assist recovery efforts, The Asia Foundation’s Give2Asia launched the Japan Earthquake and Tsunami Fund. Visit Give2Asia’s website for more information on how to help.

Véronique Salze-Lozac’h is The Asia Foundation’s regional director for Economic programs based in Cambodia. She can be reached at VSalze-Lozach@asiafound.org.

Japan’s frantic rescue efforts in response to the Tohoku earthquake and tsunami catastrophe are now entering their seventh day. Over half a million evacuees are being housed in temporary shelters without adequate supplies of food, water, and other essentials. Hospitals are running short of medicine and supplies. Millions of Japanese are deprived of drinking water and face recurring power outages. The entire country, and the world, is nervously watching Japan’s attempts to avert a potentially terrifying melt-down at the Fukushima nuclear power plant 150 miles north of Tokyo.

Rescue officials search for survivors in Ofunato, Japan, following a 9.0 magnitude earthquake and subsequent tsunami. Photo: U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Matthew M. Bradley

The scale of the Tohoku disaster is just beginning to sink in, but it’s already clear that the physical destruction, economic cost, and, most tragic of all, loss of life will be without precedent in Japan’s post-World War II history.

One can only admire the self-discipline, orderliness, and patience of the Japanese people in the midst of such a horrendous emergency. But as the hours grow into days with relief supplies still slow to arrive, it comes as no surprise that criticism and complaints are starting to be registered against the government’s response thus far.

But, is this criticism warranted? To take a worst case scenario, will the Tohoku earthquake and tsunami become the Japanese government’s “Katrina,” with the government roundly castigated for its planning negligence and ineffective response?  Or, has the Japanese government learned from past disasters? The government of Naoto Kan is already widely unpopular. A public perception that it has mismanaged this human tragedy will be its death knell. On the other hand, a responsible and speedy reaction could boost popularity.

The last major natural disaster in Japan was the Kobe earthquake of 1995. During immediate relief efforts (and with increasing vigor as time passed), the Japanese government was widely held at fault on several counts, including inadequate early warning; lax building codes that led to major infrastructure damage; and unsuitable leadership in the relief and recovery effort.

Interestingly, volunteers, community groups, and NGOs found themselves filling in the gaps as first responders during the initial absence of government-provided relief. This, in turn, led to a new recognition in Japan of the value of community-based organizations and volunteerism. In the ensuing years, Japan’s legislature, the National Diet, introduced a range of legislation aimed to grow and strengthen Japan’s non-profit sector.

American criticism of their government’s response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005 followed along the same lines as those of the Kobe earthquake: no early warning or declaration of state of emergency for New Orleans until it was virtually too late; poor existing infrastructure that was unable to withstand the flooding; and a failure of official leadership to provide coherent coordination and management of the disaster relief program.

While the sheer scale of the Tohoku earthquake and tsunami dwarfs both Kobe and Katrina, a comparison of the Japanese government’s early responses to the Tohoku crisis suggests that Japan has learned some valuable lessons and applied them. All eyes are now on the emerging nuclear power plant crisis, where the jury is still out.

The Kobe earthquake was contained mainly within one prefecture (Hyogo) and confined to a few major cities. The earthquake resulted in some 6,400 dead and an economic cost of about $100 billion. The impact of Hurricane Katrina was mainly felt in two states (Louisiana and Mississippi) with the most damage and loss of life in one city – New Orleans. Katrina fatalities numbered roughly 1,800 and the economic cost was estimated at $82 billion.

By contrast, early estimates for the Tohoku disaster – really three disasters at once: one of the largest earthquakes in modern history, a massive tsunami, and a nuclear crisis – project fatalities to exceed 10,000 and an economic cost of about $300 billion across 16 prefectures. While we all fervently hope that actual losses turn out to be lower, it’s obvious that Tohoku is of a magnitude far greater than anything ever before. The sheer immensity and scope of the disaster make response that much more difficult for officials. In addition, the Japanese government must now attempt to manage simultaneous crises – rescue and relief efforts underway and containment of the damage to the Fukushima power plant.

It is clear that lessons were gleaned from previous disasters like Kobe, and that, while the scale of the Tohoku disaster is overwhelming, the damage was lessened because, for example, Japan has the strictest building codes in the world. Following the Kobe earthquake, Japan enforced these strict codes with an emphasis on earthquake resistance. As a result, most of the death and destruction appears to have been caused by the tsunami rather than the earthquake itself. It’s worth noting that most of the current evacuation centers are located in local schools that withstood the earthquake.

In stark contrast to Kobe and Katrina, the government provided a widespread tsunami warning alerting citizens to get to higher ground. Incoming survivor reports testify to the warning’s effectiveness. Regular earthquake drills and diligent dissemination of public information on disaster evacuation seem to have proven highly useful, as well. The one contingency not envisioned in the Japan government’s disaster planning was the awesome size of the tsunami, and how this could affect the nation’s nuclear power plants. For example, power plants were protected by seawalls 25 feet high. No one thought a tsunami waves would tower as high as 30 feet. Tragically, on March 11, they did.

Within the first 72 hours, the Kan government had deployed hundreds of thousands of Self Defense Forces to assist with rescue and relief, organized a network of inter-agency committees and task forces, released any funds requested, and attempted to reassure its citizens that everything possible was being done.

At the time of the Kobe earthquake, the Japanese government initially refused all offers of international help (on the grounds of language difficulties). This time the government not only welcomed such help, but also appealed to the world for it – and the world is rapidly responding.

While the Japanese public was quick to recognize and applaud the role of volunteers and community organizations in the Kobe earthquake relief effort, it took the government many months and much public pressure to acknowledge their role, and to begin taking legislative steps to strengthen volunteerism and the non-profit sector in Japan. In the case of the Tohoku tragedy, within 48 hours the government had designated a member of parliament (Ms. Kiyomi Tsujimoto – a Social Democratic Party member and former NGO staffer) to serve as the go-between for volunteer/NGO relief activities and government activities. Another test of Japan’s official attitudes regarding volunteerism and NGO assistance should come in May or June, when re-building and serious rehabilitation starts and volunteers are needed in large numbers.

One exception to the generally effective and positive response of the Japanese government on the Tohoku disaster is the growing criticism over the management of the Fukushima nuclear power plant crisis. Over the years, the Japanese public has tended to be a bit leery of the positive but rather vague official statements about the safety and security of its 55 active nuclear power plants. In this tragedy, so far these official statements have been more forthcoming, relatively speaking. But there are too many spokespersons (the prime minister, the cabinet secretary, the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, and the Tokyo Electric Power Company) issuing multiple statements that are more confusing than clarifying. The government’s statements are too general in tone and light on content to offer the reassurances a tense and devastated Japanese public needs. There also is growing criticism about the lack of information being provided by the nuclear plant’s owner – Tokyo Electric Power Company. In the meantime, the Japanese and international media are filling in the gaps, and as I’m following this closely, it must be said they are doing a responsible and comprehensive job of it.

At this early juncture, rescue and relief are largely jobs for the professionals. Thus far, the Japanese government seems to be responding as capably as it can, given the scale of the disaster. A more complete picture of how well the Japanese government is responding will be formed over the next 72 hours. If relief and assistance has not expanded and increased within that time, there may be serious negative blow-back.

The Kan government is living now on borrowed time. But much more importantly, so are millions of Japanese facing hardships not experienced since the end of World War II.

Note: To assist recovery efforts, The Asia Foundation’s Give2Asia launched the Japan Earthquake and Tsunami Fund. Visit Give2Asia’s website for more information on how to help.

Allen Choate recently retired as The Asia Foundation’s vice president overseeing Partners in Asian Development. He lived and worked for the Foundation in Japan from 1966-68 and again in 2007-09.

Q: As relief efforts in Japan move from immediate to short-term recovery, what needs do you most anticipate?

Today, the focus is clearly on immediate relief. Over 500,000 people have been displaced and are in need of shelter, food, water, and other basic necessities. We anticipate that many of these people will need temporary shelter for months, and that other basic supplies will need to continue to flow in to the affected areas.

Based on our experience in previous disasters, such as China’s Wenchuan Earthquake in 2008, the kinds of programs that will be needed in the intermediate phase of recovery will be: 1) psycho-social and post-traumatic stress services for both children and adults; 2) job training and livelihood programs to help communities become sustainable again; and 3) rebuilding.

The demographics in the affected areas might point to what specific recovery projects will be needed. For example, the percentage of elderly people is high in the affected areas. What kinds of social services will the elderly need to recover? Considering the aging demographics of some of the villages destroyed, does it make sense to rebuild them? What longer-term health services will be needed as the result of radiation leaks?

Q: Give2Asia supported short and long-term relief efforts in the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, 2008 China earthquake, Cyclone Nargis in Myanmar in 2008 and typhoons Ketsana and Parma in Southeast Asia, and most recently, flooding in Pakistan. What lessons from these catastrophes will be critical as you undertake recovery projects in Japan?

In each of these cases, international aid organizations provided valuable and timely assistance, especially in the immediate relief phase of the disaster. Once the relief effort was over, many of these international organizations left and local organizations needed to step in to carry out long-term recovery. Give2Asia believes strongly that local organizations need to be at the center of the response from the very beginning, as they bring the knowledge and relationships that will ensure relief and recovery activities are appropriate and effective. Despite Japan’s wealth, the NGO sector in Japan is relatively young. We see an opportunity for NGOs in Japan to play an important role in the response to this disaster and to increase their capacity in the process.

Q: What has the response from the donor community been like as the extent of the damage and number of lives lost and people left homeless emerges?

We’ve had an incredible response starting immediately last Friday, which has not let up since. All different types of donors have contacted us wanting to know how they can help. On Friday, our initial partner for the disaster was the Japan Society of Northern California, which established a fund and online giving page at Give2Asia.org. They have been fundraising within their extended community since then.

On Saturday, a group of video artists from Pixar contacted us and established the Artists Help Japan fund, which they launched at an event on Saturday evening. That fund has gone viral and they are now receiving requests from artists all over the country who wish to participate in the fundraising.

Since then, several corporations and associations have made donations, established funds and begun gift-matching programs with their employees. Among these are Adobe Systems, Advent Software, Alcatel-Lucent, BD, Newell-Rubbermaid, Qualcomm, SonicWALL, State Street, Symantec, Synopsys, AAMA, Ascend, and the Keizai Society.

To date, we have received $1.3 million in contributions and commitments from a number of individuals, corporations, and associations.

Q: How are you identifying program partners in Japan?

Our ongoing partner in Japan is the Japan NPO Center based in Tokyo. We have been in close communication with them since Friday to determine which local NGOs are working in the affected areas and where Give2Asia can be most effective. One of our existing grantee partners in Japan, Second Harvest, is working now to bring food to people displaced by the disaster, and we expect it will be a primary recipient of our immediate relief funding. We have identified several other Japanese organizations that are currently responding to the disaster, including Japanese Emergency NGOs (JEN), Saigai Volunteer Katsudo Shien Project Kaigi, Rescue Stock Yard (a disaster prevention non-profit), and Niigata Saigai (Disaster Volunteer Network). We are working with these and other Japanese organizations to obtain more information about their recovery operations and how Give2Asia can help. In addition to these groups, Give2Asia continues to network with partners in Japan to stay abreast of evolving needs and organizations that are addressing them.

Q: For the international community which is watching and wants to help, how would you recommend to give?

We’ve assembled a list of best practices for donors based on our work responding to 22 disasters over the past 10 years:

1.    Donate wisely and properly time your donation
2.    Be flexible and mindful to ensure you address local needs
3.    Avoid in-kind donations when responding to international crises
4.    Support programs that empower and involve the survivors
5.    Remember the need for long-term recovery
6.    Build back better
7.    Think about impact, not speed
8.    Support programs that strengthen local capacity and sustainability