Preparing for and Responding to Large Scale Disasters in High Income Countries

Findings and Lessons Learned from the Japanese Red Cross Society's Response to the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami

Over recent years, increasing numbers of people are being affected by the disasters in high income countries. The continued growth in population, increasing urbanisation and the changing and more violent weather patterns associated with climate change all contribute to this trend. Many high income countries are finding they have a more vulnerable population as the demography changes and elderly people become an increasing percentage of their population.

No country can fully protect itself against the forces of nature. The magnitude 9 earthquake off the coast of Japan on 11 March 2011 highlighted this by precipitating a catastrophic tsunami, devastating communities along a 700 km coastline in the north east of Honshu Island and striking the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant creating danger and widespread alarm as efforts were made to contain the damage.

Recognising that there are important lessons to learn from such a large disaster response operation, the Japanese Red Cross Society proposed that it jointly with the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies arrange an evaluation of the operation. The aim was both to support the process of the National Society’s review of its own organisational response and to assess management of the international Red Cross and Red Crescent support for the operation. The evaluation was tasked to make findings and recommendations after reviewing the experience of other national societies in high income countries which had recently responded to large scale disasters in their own countries

“High income countries” is a World Bank definition and is helpful in generally describing countries with relatively greater wealth, well developed infrastructure and effective organisation and systems but there are significant differences in the profile of countries in this classification. These differences highlight the need for caution in making assumptions that the experience in one country will be the same as another in the same group of countries. Nevertheless, there are significant points of common learning that are important to share. Based on the findings, 20 recommendations (pages 53-55) are made, both to the Japanese Red Cross Society and other components of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement.