2011 Tohoku Earthquake Recovery Program—A Personal Proposal

(Address) 6-16 A Shitahaba, Hanamaki City, Iwate Prefecture
(Name) Hiroyuki Takahashi
(Age) 36
(Contact Information) 080-1653-6799
(Background) Aoyama Gakuin University Alumni, Head of the Secretariat for a Corporate
Non-profit Organization, (currently) Second Term as a Diet Member of Iwate Prefecture
2011 Tohoku Earthquake Recovery Program—A Personal Proposal
“We forgot what it feels like to fear nature.” “We didn’t know what was really
until we lost everything.” These were the words spoken by many of the victims of the
Tohoku earthquake and tsunami. Their voices are the starting point for my own personal
proposal.
I have three main points in my proposal:
1. To allow for disaster victims to relocate to either higher ground or flat
land.
2. To break away from the old habits of disaster prevention. Instead of
confronting nature and simply relying on embankment protection
facilities, disaster prevention policies should be based on evacuation.
3. To introduce a system for the local government to buy the private land
in tsunami-affected areas and loan it to residents.
Below, I will explore these points in detail and discuss how a rental system and
the local kyosei/kyoshi ideology work to back up my proposal.
Those who say, “We want to live by the seaside.”
Otsuchi in the Ando region of Iwate prefecture is a port town backed by a
sawtooth coastline. The town was devastated by the recent tsunami, and the residences
have taken refuge in elementary schools and other places left untouched by the disaster.
Directly after the earthquake, I continually visited the disaster areas around the Ando
region and listened to what the disaster victims had to say.
From the debates that surround the national and prefectural recovery programs,
there are apparently plans to build new towns based on moving residences to higher
ground. Many emotionally damaged disaster victims were saying, “I’m scared of the sea. I
never want to go back.” But there were also an unexpected number of people, mainly
fishermen, that said, “We want to live by the sea again.”
These peoples’ livelihoods are tied to the sea, and they have a long history of
returning to their hometowns to rebuild and work after a tsunami destroys their town.
1
Tsunamis are terrifying. Once every hundred years, these people have to brace themselves
for one by climbing to higher ground. But what they really fear is sacrificing the remaining
99 years and 364 days they can live by the sea.
There is a desperate atmosphere looming over the citizens who want to continue
living on flat land. According to these victims, “No matter what we say, nothing changes.”
The victims can only follow the recovery program debates through newspapers and have no
place to voice their own opinions. They are not being included in discussing what will
become of their towns in the future.
We must be quick in deciding on a recovery program. However, if the national or
prefectural governments continue to force their biased decisions, it may aggravate
feelings of hopelessness amongst victims. To inspire them to rebuild their own towns, the
government should listen to their opinions and ultimately incorporate plans based on their
decisions.
Besides the option to relocate to higher ground, I will point out other possibilities
for those victims who want to live by the sea again.
Human arrogance and inefficient means of disaster prevention.
What’s the problem with the widespread construction of stronger and higher
embankments?
In the recent disaster, many victims felt they were “no match for nature." Nature
will overcome anything humans think up and prepare against it. Like the tremendous
damage caused by the Meiji tsunami, this disaster has once again shown us that nature will
override any artificial construction we build to try to suppress it.
“It was human arrogance to think that we would be fine with the embankment,”
said one restaurant owner whose shop was swallowed up by the tsunami. “We forgot what
it is to be afraid of nature. It’s important to have at least a three meter embankment to
protect against typhoons, but being able to evacuate is the most important thing. Those
who were able to escape were all saved. That’s why it’s much more important to be
equipped with an escape route and always be ready for a tsunami.”
The current prefectural recovery program focuses on three points: building
stronger embankments, moving residences to higher ground, and constructing more wave
prevention facilities. However, while cities equpped with the latest disaster prevention
technology appear safe, they are prolonging the “eye for an eye” battle they are in with
nature.
In other words, the current recovery plan has not made good use of the lesson
that we can’t win in a fight against nature. Even if they throw an enormous budget at
reconstruction, the ocean scenery that surrounds these areas will completely change. This
2
will weaken people’s attachment to their hometowns and, in the depopulated areas
undergoing reconstruction, perhaps cause people to feel that it makes no difference what
town they live in.
While these enormous embankments protect from damage caused by typhoons
and high tides, they also take away our ability to interact with nature. The further we get
away from nature, the more arrogant we become. Humans are also a part of nature, and as
such we must learn to coexist. When confronted with this reality, however, we continue to
make our embankments stronger or construct more wave prevention facilities. But doesn’t
this only further our desire to distance ourselves from nature?
The ancestors’ wisdom of “tsunami tendenko.”
Our ancestors, who lived and came to terms with nature’s severity, had the
wisdom to be symbiotic with the environment. Their ties to the ocean created folk
entertainment passed down through generations on the coast. They commemorated
fishermen’s safe return to port through toramai, a traditional tiger dance, and held
memorial services with kuromori kagura, an ancient Shinto dance, for those who passed
away from famines and tsunamis. Our ancestors respected nature, and would try to
appease its fury through the nature worship seen in their folk entertainment. However,
this nature worship and contact with the environment has weakened and deteriorated.
Since the embankments were built, the seaside area formerly used for farming has been
turned completely into residential land.
Our ancestors knew how to live symbiotically with nature, facing it as human
beings with no way to stop its fury. If we restore this wisdom and aim to rebuild towns
where residents can assess the risks themselves, we could consider the option for them to
move back to their original residences.
If we do make use of our ancestors’ wisdom and build new towns on the flat land
by the sea, the first thing we must consider is a counter-measure against tsunamis. The
recent disaster has shown us that the best counter-measure is evacuation. For that reason,
I would first like to advocate the ability to evacuate as a fundamental policy in town
reconstruction. There are more than 1,200 people dead or still missing in Kamaishi City in
Iwate Prefecture, but nearly 3,000 elementary school students were saved.
Disaster prevention education has been utilized based on the Sanriku region’s
tradition of “tsunami tendenko” (quickly escaping to higher ground on your own) which
was passed down through generations of tsunami victims. The dignity never to fight against
nature and the humble mentality when we respectfully come into contact with nature is,
at its foundation, the concept of kyosei and kyoshi. This ideology is the antithesis of
modern civilization’s idea to confront tsunamis.
3
Building a foundation based on kyosei/kyoshi ideology.
Scientific advancement has given us the mistaken impression that humans can
control and manipulate nature. This misconception comes from the human-centered
modern civilization of the West. At the opposite end of the spectrum is perhaps the Jomon
culture’s worldview that flowed through the Tohoku region like an underground water
vein.
During the time of the hunter-gatherers, there were no borders separating
humans and nature. It wasn’t until the idea that humans are the lord of all creation—the
same time as the beginning of modern civilization—that we began to think of nature as
something to conquer.
“We get sustenance from the sea,” said a young fisherman who weathered the
recent tsunami. “We have no choice but to take everything given by the sea.” This is
similar to the kyosei/kyoshi sense that Kenji Miyazawa, a poet from Iwate prefecture,
wrote in one of his children’s stories. Miyazawa’s “The Bear of Mount Nametoko” is a story
about the famous bear hunter who jumps in front of a bear and gets killed.
The depressing tone that flows through the story—that “those who eat will be
eaten, and those who kill will be killed”—is the kyosei/kyoshi ideology. Humans and
animals both receive benefits and run risks in an equal relationship with each other, and no
one can escape the providence of nature. That is why we must respect nature and have the
modesty and courage to occasionally bow our heads to it. This is the key for human
civilization to live on eternally with our planet.
Rebuilding towns under the kyosei/kyoshi ideology means rebuilding towns
without fighting against nature. The foundation of reconstruction should be based on the
principal of escaping with one’s life and weakening the tsunami’s wave. Specifically, just
as embankments are made three meters to withstand regular typhoons, we must create a
“natural shield” spanning several hundred meters using the marine plants and natural
forests along the coastline. This will reduce a tsunami’s threat to destroy our towns.
We will build the fisheries’ workplaces and warehouses with reinforced concrete
by the sea and build residences as close to the mountainside as possible. The land for
towns and cities will face the mountains and be prepared with wide grid-lined streets and
intersections for a better view of evacuation routes. In case of blackouts due to
earthquakes, we will fully equip our street lights and tsunami warning sirens with solar
power. Also, we will make a system, which I will talk about later in detail, where we
strengthen the relationships among people so that everyone can help each other take
refuge from disaster.
Rather than confronting a tsunami head on, we will design the town so we can
4
securely get away from it. Then, with the kyosei/kyoshi ideology behind our
reconstruction, we will cultivate a reverence for nature and eliminate human arrogance.
Rebuilding this way, I believe we can minimize the risk of sacrificing human lives to the
tsunami without forcing a massive financial burden on the government.
Renting out public housing as part of the recovery effort.
There still remains the risk of losing household goods to the tsunami. But how will
the local government deal with this? Even if they want to rebuild their homes, most
disaster victims have little funds to do it. That is why I’d like to propose a system where
the local government owns the land and buildings and lends them out to the residents.
People with brand new houses that were completely destroyed in the disaster
now confronted with a “double loan” in there housing reconstruction. Even if we widen the
frame of national public support to a maximum of 3 million yen, there is still a limit. Given
this fact, I believe we should rent out public housing as part of the recovery effort.
At this juncture, we must radically reform the whole concept of land ownership.
Personal property ownership should be provided to the local government, who can then
loan out the rights to live on that land for a set period (for example, 30 years). In other
words, a system where public residences would be loaned out for free. After the time
period ends, the next generation that moves into a public residence would be charged to
live there.
This would save the victims the trouble of rebuilding their homes and cost the
local government no money to expropriate the land. And whether they choose to rebuild
their homes or borrow them, the residents who move out would need to pay for their own
expenses, effectively putting a stop on population outflow.
Even if a residence is washed away by another tsunami in the future, it would be
the local government’s, rather than the individual’s, responsibility to maintain it as public
housing. Even with the worst case in mind, wooden bungalows could be built with
materials provided by the prefecture. If hit by a tsunami, compared to reinforced concrete,
wooden buildings would greatly reduce the cost of wreckage cleanup.
In addition, compared to building stronger embankments, moving residences to
higher ground, and constructing wave prevention facilities, or even rebuilding, it would
cost much less money. It cost 120 billion yen to build the breakwater in Kamaishi City
that’s famed as best in the world. Even that breakwater wasn’t enough to hold back the
recent tsunami, so imagine how much it would cost to build embankments strong enough
to hold back these massive waves in all twelve municipalities of the Sanriku area. Instead,
I believe it’s necessary to assume there will be some amount of damage and shift our
priorities to think about what measures would be best for the lives and wishes of our
5
citizens.
What’s interesting about the rental system is that, rather than being about the
“thing” itself, it aims for the function the “thing” fulfills. We spend a lot of time and
money owning, maintaining, and increasing these “things.” For all that, we are running out
of room for spending time with our families or creating culture. Material possessions are
only one means of enriching people’s lives, but we can’t ignore the things we have
accomplished with them.
Public housing is not about the building itself; it’s about finding richness in the
act of living. It can be compactly built and equipped with bare functionality. The majority
of those disaster victims who lost everything in the tsunami said that, after being freed
from their possessions, they “became happy just to be living life itself” and now
“understand what’s really important.” I believe these statements come from this
realization.
People let go of their unhealthy attachment to material possessions and found the
natural value in life, water, food, energy, and people’s concern for one another. They had
to write off their previous set of values in life, which also caused them to reexamine the
way they were living.
“I had 10 fishing poles, but I’m fine with one,” said one fisherman. “If it meant I
could live with my family again, I’d be happy to rent a bungalow. It’s easier that way.” If
people can have a sense of contentment in life, the form of housing ownership probably
isn’t a big concern.
The key to community regrowth is rental housing.
The rental system can also be a quick remedy for solving the problem of senior
citizens’ living and dying alone.
Modern Japan has taken the idea of private possession to extremes. On the coast,
people used to share rice and soy sauce with their neighbors if they ran out and help each
other change their thatched roofing. Although it’s convenient that we no longer have to
rely so much on people to live now, losing that dependency also means we’ve weakened
our essential connections to each other.
A rental system means getting rid of the concept of personal ownership. As
personal possession decreases, so will the GDP-like abundance of things. However, the
concept that “this doesn’t belong to me” also means that “this belongs to everyone.” In
this respect, we might be able to reconstruct past community relations.
The truth is that this idea of rental is already being utilized in the recovery effort.
The Omoe and Taro Fisheries Cooperatives in Miyako are gathering fishing boats and
loaning them under collective operation policies to the region. They will split the profits.
6
Many fishermen have the experience to overcome a risk of working unpaid, so this may
become a clue in promoting the stagnant primary industry.
The idea of shared ownership will bring out a sense of community. In the public
housing proposal, we will also set up agricultural farms and build apartments for the
elderly to collectively live in. We will put the small scale, multifunctional service and
energetic volunteer power of the elderly to practical use, providing 24-hour relief year
round to the region.
The residents will be in charge of organizing a new township party that will design
each city block and decide the placement and combination of types of housing (single or
two-family, etc.). With the goal of not allowing any more tsunami causalities, the citizens
will take on the challenge of building a new community. They will also prevent people from
feeling alone by establishing a place for discussion. From the very conception of their
community and town building, the residents will construct a region-wide system for
citizens to be able to seek refuge in case of a tsunami.
In addition, the newly constructed towns will be set up to regulate the number of
large-scale retail stores and focus on creating a compact city with shopping areas easily
accessible to the elderly. They will also maintain a traffic system that does not rely on
motorized vehicles. Agriculture industries with environmental conservation practices like
organic farming, as well as forestry and fisheries, will be united and reconstructed as
towns’ primary industries for industrial strength.
Its products will then be sent to the urban areas with consumer markets. In these
urban markets, consumers will be able to purchase reliable goods. With a solid foundation
on industry and employment, the region will aim to create cooperative relations between
consumers and producers. We can create economic ties to further advancing
reconstruction support through volunteer work, relief supplies, and public donations.
By having consumers purchase reasonably priced local commodities, we can
further promote a domestic version of “fair trade” while increasing the cash income of the
region. In order to circulate the money locally, the prefecture can issue a community
currency. Then how about creating a system connected to employment within the
prefecture?
Building towns without borders with nature.
Due to advancement in communications, this is the first time in human history
that the world has paid this much attention to the Sanriku region. If the towns that took
substantial damage from the tsunami can do everything in their power not to establish
boundaries with nature when they rebuild, I think it would be surprisingly well-received by
the world.
7
That is all the more reason why the new towns should make abundant use of
prefectural lumber in rebuilding and avoid using concrete as much as possible. They ought
to set up a “visible waterway” and allow for cool breezes to pass through in summer and
the salmon to swim upstream in fall. This would unify humans and nature and create a
beautiful view of a fishing village surrounded by abundant nature for the entire town.
Wooden lodging facilities where residents who survived the tsunami can give talks
to visitors should be promptly outfitted to towns. Formerly a disaster area, these facilities
would allow residents to teach visitors using disaster prevention education from home and
abroad. In addition, they would be a place where local residents can relax and experience
the fishing industry first hand.
By having many people visit for inspection tours and sight seeing, we can rouse
the residents’ motivation to rebuild their towns. With the added value of living space and
lifestyle, cash income from tourism resources will become the backbone of auxiliary
businesses. Young people will also be eager to take up permanent residency because of the
new value and allure attached to town reconstruction.
Living in a town that does everything in their power not to draw boundaries with
nature, people will live securely with their environment. They will live off energy from the
sun, wind, and surrounding forests. Left to our own devices, using underground resources
stored up over billions of years like water, we will deplete the Earth of its resources in as
few as a hundred years.
The Earth doesn’t belong to us. Neither do fossil fuels. We have lived off the land
and borrowed its resources to expand the human sphere. The world population is now over
7 billion. Fossil fuels will eventually run out. It is always more sustainable to live off the
recyclable natural energy that gives the Earth its vitality.
As part of the forestry energy industry, every region should use biomass as a heat
source by implementing fuel chips. We should aim to make self-sufficient energy by
installing solar panels in every public house. Nuclear energy becomes necessary when
there is insufficient supply (natural energy) to fit the demand (people’s desire). However,
if we can achieve a demand within the range of the supply, nuclear energy won’t be
necessary.
What the nuclear accident brings into questioning is essentially our materially
wealthy lifestyles which depend on enormous consumptions of energy. Our way of life is
becoming the problem, and we need to decide on our values with what kind of society we
want to live in from now on.
The disaster victims’ wishes.
Thus far we have debated about the option for disaster victims to live by the
8
seaside, but must also make provisions for those victims who want to live away from the
seaside. Cutting into the mountain in order to move residences to higher ground would not
only run up costs, it might also bring about a new natural disaster. We ought to recall the
earthquake in Iwate and Miyagi three years ago that split the mountain into two equal
parts.
In the Sanriku region, where the motto is “the forest is the sea’s lover,” fishermen
have planted trees for the past twenty years in order to protect the ocean’s environment.
During the intensive reconstruction, we must prevent red tide from occurring due to
excess sediment pouring into the ocean.
Where can people live other than the seashore? Perhaps we should think about
relocating people inland to neighboring municipalities. We can relocate Rikuzentakata and
Ofunato to Sumita, and Kamaishi and Otsuchi to Tono. Both are about 30 minutes from the
disaster areas. They have historical connections with each other and their mentalities are
similar. If the disaster areas happen to take on damage from another tsunami, the
relocation destinations could also serve as evacuation areas.
If we can expect cut backs in the administrative and financial resources of
municipalities affected by the tsunami in the future, so long as there are no town mergers,
we should also consider consolidating government administration while still preserving
each town’s name and culture.
Finally, I would like to consider the wishes of the disaster victims. While they are
currently struggling to get their lives back in order, shouldn’t it be the disaster victims
themselves who handle rebuilding their hometowns? Isn’t that what they want? A town
they built themselves, not one they were simply provided. That is why I would like to allow
them to decide whether they will relocate to higher ground or return to the seaside to live.
Once national and prefectural policies are in place to some extent, we should
give the municipalities their independence and set up a place where the disaster victim
residents will be sufficiently included in the discussion of explicit rebuilding plans.
The residences cannot simply wait, either. I urge them to strengthen their
relations with fellow citizens and collaborate. The residents should establish independent
town recovery and rebuilding meetings and discuss issues at length until everyone is
satisfied. The residents’ combined passions for their hometown will be the greatest help to
the recovery effort.
(Translation by Nate Olson)
9