common property systems and resilience following disasters: case study of tsunami-hit villages in...
Post on 30-Nov-2014
236 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
IASC 2003, Kita Fuji, Japan
Common property systems and resilience following disasters: case study of tsunami-hit villages in Kitakami area of Miyagi, Japan
MIYAUCHI Taisuke, Ph.D.Environmental SociologyHokkaido Universitymiyauchi@let.hokudai.ac.jp
Area description of Kitakami, Miyagi, Japan
• 20 communities (villages)• Population: 3,718 (2010)• Population over 65 yrs: 30%• Main industries: fishing (142
engaged), agriculture (86), construction (305), manufacturing (337), amongst others.
Kitakami
1 km
Kitakami
March 11, 2011, Great East Japan Earthquake
A tsunami-hit area
Casualties in Kitakami
Population before tsunami 3,718
Casualties (dead and missing) 265
Households before tsunami 1151
Houses destroyed 1096
A community before tsunami
Source: Google Earth
The community after tsunami
Source: Google Earth
Rebuilding process : Outline
1st stage:
Emergency help
Evacuation shelter
2nd stage:
Temporary housing
3rd stage:
Rebuilding projects (fishery, infrastructure, welfare, housing relocation, etc.)
Army, Government, Civil society groups, Volunteers
Government, Local government, Civil society groups
Government, Local government, Civil society groups, professionals
Our research began before the tsunami
• Sociological research since 2004, on communities and natural resources• Findings (before tsunami):
• Dynamism of relationship between natural resources and communities: history of usage of natural resources and related social institutions
• Keywords: common property system, livelihood strategy, legitimacy, usufruct rights, commons, semi-domestication
Purpose
1. Describe the rebuilding process, with focus on housing relocation projects, and reveal the area’s resilience
2. Analyze how the common property system fosters resilience after a disaster
Method
• Action research and qualitative research1. Pre-tsunami: Qualitative research
• mainly a semi-structured interview research of key and lay persons
2. Post-tsunami: Action research• Involvement in the community rebuilding
process in collaboration with local government, an NGOs, fishermen’s cooperative, and the community
Housing relocation projects
May 2011: community leaders demand help from local government on housing relocation to hills
July–October 2011: local government hosts community talks
October 2011: community-based consensus meetings on housing relocation projects
Ishinomaki Nichinichi Newspaper, May 23, 2011
Consensus building on housing relocation projects
• Community workshops1. Oct.–Nov. 2011: Consensus workshops
2. Dec. 2011: Consensus workshops
3. Apr.2012 - present: Design workshops (designing new sites)
A housing relocation site ( Aikawa, Kitakami )
Relocation Projects : Consensus workshops
• Collaboration among community organizations, local government, architects organization, universities, and NGO• Held by community organizations, facilitated by
university professionals (me), instructed by local government and architects, and recorded by university students
• 330m2 for each household’s new site is unreasonable. Fishermen’s houses need a bigger area for processing and storage in each building site.
• I want to stay here because of the attachment.
• I am worried about the community disappearing.
• Although I want to stay here, the paucity of industry and job opportunities concerns me.
• I want this relocation project to retain our community.
Variety of concerns and focal points came to light from consensus workshops on relocation project
Workshops: Nov.–Dec., 2011
• Hurry up! Otherwise, younger people might go away.
• Hurry up! Otherwise attachment to the community will disappear.
• Hurry up! We are running out of time.
Hurry up!
• Public facilities such as post offices and community houses are needed.
• Road access should be considered.
• Medical and welfare access should be considered.
Community and facilities
• Concerns about household financing
• The extent of rebuilding houses is unclear
• Mortgages are a major concern
Financial constraints
Legal constraints
Community attachment Relocation projects:
Most people want to participate, some do not, and some have not yet
decided.
• Stock of qualitative data or narratives are important.
• Mutual understanding is crucial.
Workshop on relocation project
Relocation project: 3 stages of consensus building
1st stage
Consensus on making tsunami-affected lowland area uninhabitable ( Nov. and
Dec. 2011 )
2nd stage
Consensus on who joins the project and where relocated. ( Jan. and Feb.
2012 )
3rd stage
Consensus on design of new settlements. ( from Apr. 2012)
ShirahamaKomuro
OhmuroKodomari
AikawaKosashiOhsashi
Kotaki
Kitakami
Design workshops starts in April, 2012
ShirahamaKomuro
OhmuroKodomari
AikawaKosashiOhsashi
Kotaki
Kitakami
Findings from action research
The projects have achieved a relatively smooth process of consensus building, while other areas especially urban areas have had difficulties:
• One community’s relocation project in Kitakami is one of the first in the nation to be approved by the government.
• In the workshops people stress ‘community ties’ and want to rebuild the community in the relocation project.
• Most people of the communities want to join the relocation projects in order to stay in their home village, although some want to go away.
• Urban areas fail to even set up workshops.
ShirahamaKomuro
OhmuroKodomari
AikawaKosashiOhsashi
Kotaki
Kitakami
The projects achieved a relatively smooth process of consensus building, while other areas especially urban areas have had difficulties with it.
because this area has:
1. community cohesion
2. fishing as a stable livelihood
3. collaboration among stakeholders
1. Community cohesion
community cohesion (social
capital)
Common property system
Community
organization
‘Keiyakuko’
Natural resource management
ShirahamaKomuro
OhmuroKodomari
AikawaKosashiOhsashi
Kotaki
Kitakami
1. Community cohesion:
Common property systemsMulti-layered common property system of natural resources.Resource Management body BeneficiaryAbalone fishermen’s cooperative householdFish fishermen’s cooperative householdAquaculture (wakame, kelp, and scallop)
fishermen’s cooperative household
Sea urchin community organization householdWakame seaweed and kelp collecting
community organization community organization and household
Seashore seaweeds community organization community organization and household
State forest state and community organization
household
Communal forest property community organization community organization and household
Charcoal community organization householdPampas grass community organization householdCommunal land property community organization community organization
and household
23
1. Community cohesion:
Common property systems: Seashore seaweed
• Each community has their own resource management system for seashore seaweed.
1. Community cohesion:
Common property systems: Seashore seaweed
• Each community has its own resource management system for seashore seaweed, which is operated by the community organization “Keiyakuko.”Community
name Rules on seashore seaweeds
Komuro Strict closed season by KeiyakukoOhmuro Strict closed season with punishment by Keiyakuko. Collective
harvesting for Keiyakuko’s revenue.Kodomari Strict closed season by Keiyakuko and women’s group.
Collective harvesting for Keiyakuko’s revenue.Aikawa Collective harvesting of one type of seaweed for Keiyakuko’s
revenue. The other types can be collected by each household, but strict closed season by Keiyakuko.
Kozashi Collective harvesting of one type of seaweed for Keiyakuko’s revenue.
Kotaki Each household harvests seaweed, but strict closed season by Keiyakuko. Seaweed of one offshore rock island has open access.
Community name
State forest usufruct
right
Communal forest
propertycharcoal Pampas
grass
Communal land
propertyAbalone Fish
Aquaculture (wakame, kelp, and scallop)
Sea urchin
Wakame seaweed and kelp
collecting
Seashore seaweeds
Shirahama CM CM CR CR CR
FM FM FM
HR CR HR
Komuro CR HR CM + CR
Ohmuro CM CM CR CM + CR CM + CR
Kodomari CR CR CM + CR CM + CR
Aikawa CM CM CR CR CR CR CM + CR CM + CR
Kozashi CR CM + CR CM + CR
Ohzashi CM CR CM CM + CR CM + CR
Kotaki CM CM CR CM + CR CM + CR
CM = community organization’s management (revenue to households)CR = community organization’s management and revenueHR = households’ management and revenueFM = management of fishermen’s cooperative (revenue to households)
• Every community has a common property system.• Variety of the common systems among communities.• Community organizations generate revenue from common
property.• Households earn revenue due to community resource
management.
1. Community cohesion:
Common property systems: Seashore seaweed
1. Community cohesion:
What is Keiyakuko ?Keiyakuko:• Each community has Keiyakuko.• A traditional community organization• An autonomous governing system• A mutual aid system• Conducts traditional rituals• Owns communal property (e.g., forest land, bamboo
forest)• Owns resource usufruct right (e.g., seaweed, forest
resources)• Handles resource management systems or common
property systems
1. Community cohesion
community cohesion (social
capital)
Common property system
Community
organization
‘Keiyakuko’
Natural resource management
ShirahamaKomuro
OhmuroKodomari
AikawaKosashiOhsashi
Kotaki
Kitakami
1. Community cohesion
Rituals revived for community rebuilding“Kagura (sacred dancing) Revifal Festival”, May 4, 2013, Komuro village, Kitakami
2. Fishing as a stable source of income
30
1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 20050
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
Population of Kitakami
population household
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
1,800,000
Fishery productionin the Kitakami area(1,000 yen)
2. Fishing as a stable livelihood
History of fishing
Kelp collecting
Boat fishing
Wakame collecting
AbaloneSeashore seaweed1930s -
Seasonal migrant labor
Wakame aquaculture
AbaloneSeashore seaweed1960s -
1970s -
1980s -
Kelp aquaculture
Wakame aquaculture
Abalone
Kelp aquaculture
Wakame aquaculture
Scallop aquaculture
31
Community organizations (Keiyakuko)
Fishermen’s cooperative
Individual leaders
Youth group in fishermen’s cooperative
2. Fishing as a stable source of income
Collaboration among stakeholders in fishing
- Community organizations and key functions acting as driving forces for these changes.
Community resource management
Innovations
Social management
ShirahamaKomuro
OhmuroKodomari
AikawaKosashiOhsashi
Kotaki
Kitakami
32
3. Collaboration among stakeholders
Housingrelocationprojects
Fisheryrebuilding
CivilSociety
Communityorganizations(Keiyakuko)
Architectgroup
Universityprofessionals
Nationalgovernment
Fishermen’scooperative
CivilSocietygroups
Localgovernment
3. Collaboration among stakeholders
1. Collaboration leads to success in the projects.
2. Community organizations (Keiyakuko and fishermen’s cooperative) play a key role in the collaboration.
• Cooperating with other sectors and consensus building is initiated by the community organizations.
Housingrelocationprojects
Fisheryrebuilding
CivilSociety
Communityorganizations(Keiyakuko)
Architectgroup
Universityprofessions
Nationalgovernment
Fishermen’scooperative
CivilSocietygroups
Localgovernment
The projects have achieved a relatively smooth process on consensus building, while other areas especially urban areas have had difficulties with it.
because this area has:
1. community cohesion
2. fishing as a stable livelihood
3. collaboration among stakeholders
Common property systems and resilience following disasters: case study of tsunami-hitvillages in Kitakami area of Miyagi, Japan Conclusion
1. Kitakami was severely hit by tsunami, and the rebuilding process is being conducted in collaboration with other actors.
2. Kitakami had developed a common property system for natural resources, mainly by community organization, Keiyakuko.
3. The common property system and community organizations produce resilience following a disaster and foster community cohesion, which is proved by the smooth process of relocation projects.The rebuilding process, including relocation
projects, has not ended. Further action research and analysis will be conducted.
Thank you.
MIYAUCHI Taisuke, Ph.D
Hokkaido University
miyauchi@let.hokudai.ac.jp
top related