Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Common property systems and resilience following disasters: case study of tsunami-hit villages in Kitakami area of Miyagi, Japan
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Common property systems and resilience following disasters: case study of tsunami-hit villages in Kitakami area of Miyagi, Japan

99
views

Published on

a presentation at the 14th Global Conference of the International Association for the Study of the Commons (IASC)

a presentation at the 14th Global Conference of the International Association for the Study of the Commons (IASC)

Published in: Technology

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
99
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. 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 Sociology Hokkaido University miyauchi@let.hokudai.ac.jp
  • 2. Area description of Kitakami, Miyagi, Japan • • • • Kitakami 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.
  • 3. Kitakami 1 km
  • 4. March 11, 2011, Great East Japan Earthquake A tsunami-hit area
  • 5. Casualties in Kitakami Population before tsunami Casualties (dead and missing) 3,718 265 Households before tsunami 1151 Houses destroyed 1096
  • 6. A community before tsunami Source: Google Earth
  • 7. The community after tsunami Source: Google Earth
  • 8. Rebuilding process : Outline 1st stage: Emergency help Evacuation shelter Army, Government, Civil society groups, Volunteers 2nd stage: Temporary housing Government, Local government, Civil society groups 3rd stage: Rebuilding projects (fishery, infrastructure, welfare, housing relocation, etc.) Government, Local government, Civil society groups, profession als
  • 9. 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
  • 10. 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
  • 11. Method • Action research and qualitative research 1. 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
  • 12. 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: communitybased consensus meetings on housing relocation projects Ishinomaki Nichinichi Newspaper, May 23, 2011
  • 13. Consensus building on housing relocation projects • Community workshops 1. Oct.–Nov. 2011: Consensus workshops 2. Dec. 2011: Consensus workshops 3. Apr.2012 - present: Design workshops (designing new sites)
  • 14. A housing relocation site(Aikawa, Kitakami)
  • 15. 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
  • 16. Variety of concerns and focal points came to light from consensus workshops on relocation project Hurry up! Financial constraints • Concerns about household financing • The extent of rebuilding houses is unclear • Mortgages are a major concern • 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. Relocation projects: Legal constraints • 330m2 for each household‟s new site is unreasonable. Fishermen‟s houses need a bigger area for processing and storage in each building site. Most people want to participate, some do not, and some have not yet decided. Workshops: Nov.–Dec., 2011 Community and facilities •Public facilities such as post offices and community houses are needed. •Road access should be considered. •Medical and welfare access should be considered. Community attachment • 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. • Stock of qualitative data or narratives are important. • Mutual understanding is crucial.
  • 17. Workshop on relocation project
  • 18. 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) Kotaki Ohsashi Aikawa Kosashi Kodomari Ohmuro Komuro Shirahama
  • 19. Design workshops starts in April, 2012 Kotaki Ohsashi Aikawa Kosashi Kodomari Ohmuro Komuro Shirahama
  • 20. 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. Kota Ohsash Aikawa Kosashi Kodomari Ohmuro Komuro Shirahama
  • 21. 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
  • 22. 1. Community cohesion Common property system community cohesion (social capital) Natural resource management Kotaki Ohsashi Aikawa Kosashi Kodomari Ohmuro Komuro Shirahama Community organization ‘Keiyakuko’
  • 23. 1. Community cohesion: Common property systems Multi-layered common property system of natural resources. Resource Abalone Fish Aquaculture (wakame, kelp, and scallop) Sea urchin Wakame seaweed and kelp collecting Seashore seaweeds Management body fishermen‟s cooperative fishermen‟s cooperative fishermen‟s cooperative Beneficiary household household household community organization community organization State forest Communal forest property state and community organization community organization household community organization and household community organization and household household Charcoal Pampas grass Communal land property community organization community organization community organization community organization community organization and household household household community organization and household
  • 24. 1. Community cohesion: Common property systems: Seashore seaweed • Each community has their own resource management system for seashore seaweed.
  • 25. 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 Ohmuro Strict closed season by Keiyakuko Strict closed season with punishment by Keiyakuko. Collective harvesting for Keiyakuko‟s revenue. Strict closed season by Keiyakuko and women‟s group. Collective harvesting for Keiyakuko‟s revenue. 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. Collective harvesting of one type of seaweed for Keiyakuko‟s revenue. Kodomari Aikawa Kozashi Kotaki Each household harvests seaweed, but strict closed season by Keiyakuko. Seaweed of one offshore rock island has open access.
  • 26. 1. Community cohesion: Common property systems: Seashore seaweed CM = community organization‟s management (revenue to households) CR = community organization‟s management and revenue HR = households‟ management and revenue FM = management of fishermen‟s cooperative (revenue to households) State forest Communal usufruct forest right property charcoal Pampas grass Communal land property CR CR CR Community name Shirahama CM CM Komuro Ohmuro Kodomari Sea urchin Wakame seaweed and kelp collecting Seashore seaweeds HR CR HR HR CM + CR Aquaculture Abalone Fish (wakame, kelp, and scallop) CR CM CM CR CR CR CM + CR CM + CR CM + CR CM + CR FM FM • Every community has a common propertyFM system. Aikawa CM CM CR CR CR • Variety of the common systems among communities. CR CM + CR • Community organizations generate revenue from common CM + CR Kozashi CR property. Ohzashi CM CR • Households earn revenue due to community resource CM CM + CR management. Kotaki CM CM CR CM + CR CM + CR CM + CR CM + CR CM + CR
  • 27. 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
  • 28. 1. Community cohesion Common property system community cohesion (social capital) Natural resource management Kotaki Ohsashi Aikawa Kosashi Kodomari Ohmuro Komuro Shirahama Community organization ‘Keiyakuko’
  • 29. 1. Community cohesion Rituals revived for community rebuilding “Kagura (sacred dancing) Revifal Festival”, May 4, 2013, Komuro village, Kitakami
  • 30. 2. Fishing as a stable source of income Population of Kitakami (1,000 yen) 8,000 1,800,000 7,000 6,000 Fishery production in the Kitakami area 1,600,000 population household 1,400,000 5,000 1,200,000 4,000 1,000,000 3,000 800,000 2,000 600,000 1,000 400,000 0 200,000 2006 2004 2002 2000 1998 1996 1994 1992 1990 1988 1986 1984 1982 1980 1978 1976 1974 0 1972 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
  • 31. 2. Fishing as a stable livelihood History of fishing 1930s - Boat fishing Kelp collecting Wakame collecting 1960s - Wakame aquaculture 1970s - Wakame aquaculture Kelp aquaculture 1980s - Wakame aquaculture Kelp aquaculture Abalone Abalone Seashore seaweed Abalone Scallop aquaculture Seashore seaweed Seasonal migrant labor
  • 32. 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 Community organizations (Keiyakuko) Fishermen‟s cooperative Youth group in fishermen‟s cooperative Social management Individual leaders Innovations Kotaki Ohsashi Aikawa Kosashi Kodomari Ohmuro Komuro Shirahama
  • 33. 3. Collaboration among stakeholders National government Community organizations (Keiyakuko) Local government Housing relocation projects Fishery rebuilding Civil Society groups Architect group Fishermen’s cooperative University professionals Civil Society
  • 34. 3. Collaboration among stakeholders 1. Collaboration leads to success in the projects. Community organizations (Keiyakuko and fishermen‟s cooperative) play a key role in the collaboration. National government Community organizations (Keiyakuko) 2. Local government Housing relocation projects Architect group • Cooperating with other sectors and consensus building is initiated by the community organizations. Fishermen’s cooperative Fishery rebuilding Civil Society groups University professions Civil Society
  • 35. 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
  • 36. Common property systems and resilience following disasters: case study of tsunami-hit villages 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 The rebuilding process, including relocation projects. projects, has not ended. Further action research and analysis will be conducted.
  • 37. Thank you. MIYAUCHI Taisuke, Ph.D Hokkaido University miyauchi@let.hokudai.ac.jp