Third UN World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction DESA Public Forum
Messages of the Mortality Rate Being Double
– Status and Topics in the Disability Field in the Fourth Year after the
Earthquake and Disaster –
Katsunori Fujii
Chairperson of the Executive Board, Japan Disability Forum
1. A Natural and Man-made Disaster
Double the mortality rate— That was the mortality ratio of people with disabilities compared
to the general population from the Great East Japan Earthquake. Although the concern
certainly always existed, to actually see that people with disabilities did indeed suffer a
higher rate of injury evokes both a sense of it being expected and feelings of unspeakable
sorrow. The data show that the “double mortality rate” (the average rate in the primary
disaster areas) is based on research by local government groups and media organizations
and has been accepted by the government also through the Japanese Diet and other
government entities. This figure contains one aspect of the core issues revealed by the
disaster, and we believe it includes an important element for considering the topic of
“disaster and disability” in the future. Since space restraints prevent a full explication, I will
briefly present my recommendations based on the “double mortality rate” for the future
focused on the actual and emerging conditions issues after the disaster from the perspective
of people with disabilities.
First, I would like to take a closer look at the “double mortality rate.” The sheer magnitude of
the disaster as well as the damage were beyond what anyone would have imagined. In the
world of nature, we call a disaster a natural catastrophe, and this recent major disaster was
truly a natural catastrophe. However, it is difficult to justify saying that the double mortality
rate was completely due to a natural catastrophe. This result is due to the “consequences of
disabilities” on top of the natural catastrophe. “Consequences of disabilities” means the
disadvantage associated with and insufficient consideration for people with disabilities. A
specific example of this is the delay in establishing a disaster prevention policy for people
with disabilities, such as for individuals who would have difficulty evacuating on their own.
Most of these “consequences of disabilities” can be considered as man-made disasters.
This means that the double mortality rate is due to a combination of natural and man-made
disasters. A natural disaster may be unavoidable, but a man-made disaster should be
avoidable. They say that extreme situations like a major natural catastrophe reveal the true
nature of a society. I believe the double mortality rate sends us a very important message
about our society. While considering the importance of “disaster and disability” planning, we
should also deeply examine the normal, everyday relationship between people with
disabilities and society.
2. Three Prefectures, Three Ways
Now, I would like to look at the status of people with disabilities today, four years after the
disaster. I will begin by describing conditions and issues that are common in all of the
disaster-stricken areas. The first issue raised by an overwhelming number of people is that
their current conditions are nowhere near similar to their lives before the disaster. Since
there were very few social resources (residential housing, workplaces, personal support
services, etc.) for people with disabilities in the region to begin with, reconstruction to
pre-disaster conditions is not asking too much. And since they say their lives are nowhere
near the original conditions, it is easy to imagine how difficult their lives are now. Second, as
with all fields, the disabilities field is said to be confronting various problems and issues
during the reconstruction period in the main disaster areas in Iwate, Miyagi, and Fukushima
prefectures. (I will discuss this further below.) Above all others is the nuclear issue in
Fukushima. Third is the problem of disaster-related deaths. According to Reconstruction
Agency data as of September 30, 2014, the total number of confirmed deaths was 3,194
people (446 in Iwate Prefecture, 900 in Miyagi Prefecture, 1,793 in Fukushima Prefecture,
and 55 in other areas). Although specific details are unknown, various data suggests that
the majority of deaths were people who were both elderly and had disabilities.
Next, I would like to speak about the different characteristics of the three prefectures in the
disaster area. In Iwate, it remains difficult to secure means of transportation in many areas.
There has been a mass migration to residential sites on higher ground in most coastal areas,
but doing so for people with disabilities and the elderly would directly link to constraints on
the freedom of movement. Although some people are receiving governmental assistance
and welfare workers and volunteers are providing automobile support, a general sense of
“doing with limited transportation” is becoming the norm due to factors including insufficient
budgets and people’s reluctance to accept assistance.
As in Iwate, problems in Miyagi are also centered on coastal areas where the tsunami
damage was greatest. Although restoration and reconstruction efforts have progressed
further than in Iwate or Fukushima, conditions remain severe in the disabilities field. While
people are moving from evacuation shelters to temporary housing or reconstructed homes,
it is said that it is becoming rare to see a person with disabilities. When an NPO or other
volunteer group tries to provide assistance, they are confronting a similar wall of protection
against private information that occurred immediately after the disaster. Although the fear for
survival may have past, it also seems to show a distancing from society (social support).
In Fukushima, the nuclear problem is also weighing on the disabilities field. Although the
future is unknown for the population as a whole, one of the issues in the disabilities field is
that the general public has very little awareness about the actual conditions for individuals
living as evacuees. In fact, there is virtually no awareness of the actual living conditions of
people with disabilities among the roughly 40,000 evacuees from outside the prefecture.
The difficulty that the welfare services have in securing employees is also becoming an
issue. Welfare corporations and services have only been able to attract minimal numbers of
not just younger people but older workers as well. The implications are more severe for
operators in the disabilities field than even in the senior care field, and their ability to even
continue operation is under threat. The nuclear issue is no small factor in people’s
reluctance to accept employment.
3. Support Driven by “Never Forget”
Before moving on to my recommendations for going forward, I think it is important to take
another look and face the truth of current post-disaster conditions. There are two
perspectives that we can take at this stage. One is that the lessons we learned from this
disaster will help us with disasters in the future. The other is that it is not an exaggeration to
say that the disaster is still under way (particularly in Fukushima) or, in other words, the
support should remain at a high level in the stricken areas where the hardship continues.
Under normal circumstances these two perspectives deserve separate discussions, but due
to the space limitations I will comment on both issues together.
Before getting to my recommendations, I would like to introduce some of the laws and
regulations related to “disasters and disabilities” that came into effect after the disaster.
Although the laws are meant as preparation for anticipated future disasters (such as
earthquakes, wind or flood damage from a tsunami or typhoon, landslides, snow damage,
etc.), they were also intended to resolve various issues in the current disaster areas. Some
examples are 1) the ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
(Article 11 – Situations of risk and humanitarian emergencies), 2) the revised Basic Act on
Disaster Control Measures (Article 49, Sections 10–12 Preparation of Evacuation
Assistance Registries, Etc.), and 3) the revised Basic Act for Persons with Disabilities
(Article 26 – Disaster Prevention and Crime Prevention).
Lastly, I would like to offer recommendations on four points from the point of view of the
disabilities field. The first is to quickly identify what was behind the double mortality rate.
Statistical methods provide only limited information about a person’s death, and information
of the specific circumstances for each of the victims must be collected. The victims’ families
may be willing to cooperate now that four years have passed. This will require the active
involvement of local governments as well as initiatives by the national government. The
second is participation by concerned parties. When prefectures and municipalities revise the
disaster prevention policies that are part of their reconstruction policies, they must ensure
substantive involvement by all concerned parties, such as representatives of disability
groups.
The third is to establish “regular communities.” I would like the original communities to be
reconstituted when revitalizing downtown areas in higher locations and promoting the return
to reconstructed homes. That is, people with and without disabilities should live in the same
communities, and it is especially important to have a mix of age groups. The fourth is to
stress standard ongoing efforts, including in areas outside the recent disaster area. Earlier, I
said, “extreme situations like a major natural catastrophe reveal the true nature of a society.”
Actually, correlation between our regular policy standards and the degree of damage and
speed of reconstruction are also determined by past disasters. Many of the truths about this
recent disaster are also teaching us how important the everyday relations are between
people with disabilities and local residents.
I would like to close by adding one final comment. We should make a conscious effort to
keep the Great East Japan Earthquake in our thoughts and not let it fade into the past. I
emphasize that “never forget” is the driving force for the support in our efforts.