Deborah Shmueli, Eli Salzberger, Amnon Reichman, Danielle Zaychik, Michal Ben-Gal and Inbal Blau
(in cooperation with the Minerva Center for the Rule of Law under Extreme Conditions)
This project, co-funded by the Ministry of Innovation, Science and Technology and the Inter-ministerial Steering Committee for Earthquake Preparedness, began in 2022, and ended in 2024. The research examines long-term recovery after major earthquakes. It makes use of an extensive literature review and case study to identify important aspects for long-term recovery and creates a framework for pre-event long-term recovery planning. The first stage of the project included an international comparison of five countries' institutional and regulatory frameworks. The second stage of the project included the creation of typology for assessing long-term recovery, based on literature. This typology was then applied to the long-term recovery plans recently developed by the Israeli government. The third stage of the research consisted of an in-depth case study of the long-term recovery of Japan after the 2011 earthquake and tsunami. Policy recommendations and lessons for the Israeli context were extracted from the Japanese case.
Literature review I: International comparison of regulatory frameworks for recovery
Analyzing in-depth semi-structured interviews with experts as well as primary and secondary documents concerning the regulatory frameworks for recovery in Japan, New Zealand, Chile, Turkey, and Italy, four parameters were compared: recovery planning, governance, recovery processes, and resources.
Ten salient factors which influenced recovery trajectories were identified. These encompassed whether or not there existed: a designated body for emergency management; centralized power and responsibilities versus delegation of powers to local government; clear roles and designated areas of responsibility for bodies and institutions; legal tools and powers in the hands of authorized and responsible parties; a structured process for decision-making (including public/stakeholder involvement); a recovery/rehabilitation plan – developed either before or after the earthquake occurred – and the breadth of issues which it covered; data and knowledge driven decision-making, and a dedicated budget for rehabilitation.
Each of the five countries present a different model of operation: Japan is highly centralized, with a core legal structure which is dynamic and continuously updated; New Zealand is highly organized, providing blue-print plans for implementation by local authorities; Chile maintains that the governance structures in place during routine times should work for emergencies as well; Turkey’s model leans on international guidelines, and Italy is ad hoc – each event is treated differently.
Literature review II: Typology of earthquake recovery
Based on literature review of successful earthquake recovery, a typology of disaster recovery was developed. The typology includes three major axes: aspects of recovery related to process, aspects of recovery relating to outcomes, and aspects of recovery that relate to evaluation. The process of recovery includes policies that create efficiency and/or a participatory process. Efficiency includes policies that promote speed, establish a pre-existing organizational infrastructure, cultivate professional management, and utilize effective planning. Participatory processes are created through community integration, inclusive and collaborative processes, and empowerment and community orientation. Outcome-related aspects of disaster recovery can stress restoration, improvement, or stability. Recovery evaluation can either be objective or subjective (or include both aspects). Evaluation is relevant to both the process and outcome aspects of recovery.
The typology described above is summarized in the following figure:
Application of second literature review on government plans for long-term recovery
Based on analyzing the government plans through the lens of the typology, the researchers recommended three primary ways to strengthen the government report: 1. Integrate more participatory mechanisms and community empowerment throughout recovery plans. 2. Integrate plans for making improvements (“Build Back Better”) throughout the recovery plans. 3. Integrate mechanisms and plans frameworks for evaluation throughout the government plans.
Japanese case study and recommendations for Israel
Based on written materials and studies available on the topic and a few in-depth interviews with experts, textual analysis of primary documents, and a literature review of academic studies, the case study includes nine chapters which describe the regulatory and organizational frameworks, the recovery process itself, primary policy tools implemented, community involvement in recovery, themes of the Japanese recovery and lessons that can be applied to Israel. Some of the interesting findings are listed below:
- Japan has a complete regulatory system for recovery (as opposed to narrow set of laws), at the center of which stands the 1961 Disaster Countermeasure Basic Act.
- After a disaster, a recovery advisory is convened, at the head of which presides the Prime Minister. After some disasters (such as the GEJE), a Recovery Agency was established, which managed all aspects of the GEJE recovery.
- There were four primary policy tools used during the Japanese recovery: Protection by physical means (such as seawalls), collective relocation, public housing projects, and land adjustments.
- Although the vision for recovery set out by the Japanese government included an emphasis on community empowerment and participation in the recovery process, this vision was not actualized in a meaningful way.
- Machizukuri (bottom-up participatory planning mechanisms) were an example of an exception, as they were successful in creating effective community empowerment and participation.
- Overall the Japanese recovery can be characterized as taking a centralized, top-down approach, emphasizing speed and efficiency, taking an engineering-based approach to Build Back Better, and a lacking integration of long-term planning into recovery plans.
Recommendations based on the Japanese case include: (a) plan for managing “time compression”, (b) lessons for financing mechanisms and structures, (c) plan for bottom-up recovery mechanisms, (d) pre-established structures, frameworks and arrangements are more efficient than ad-hoc arrangements, (e) create varied options for housing, (f) take a holistic approach to relocation and Build Back Better, (g) plan for participation (h) be aware of the complications of working with the public (i) prepare plans for the expected human resource shortage, (j) outline guidelines for improvement when striving to integrate a Build Back Better approach, (k) and integrate long-term planning in recovery planning.