No matter how well we foresee and plan, some aspects of both man-made and natural risks will remain random and unpredictable. This uncertainty is inherent in the very nature of risk, and its chaotic and fickle nature has been reaffirmed by the recent tragedies in Japan. As the Japanese people and their government gradually shift from responding to the immediate safety and humanitarian aftermath of the earthquake, tsunami and radiation threats, now is an appropriate time to begin thinking about rebuilding and recovery, as well as possible lessons to be learned.
Japan is perhaps the most prepared nation in the world when it comes to earthquakes and tsunamis, benefitting from centuries of experience, a well-developed economy and considerable investment in preparedness and mitigation strategies. As we mourn the tens of thousands who lost their lives in the disaster, we can take some comfort that many more survived thanks to the country’s remarkable disaster readiness.
In a recent meeting with senior private- and public-sector officials focused on risk convened by the World Economic Forum, I was impressed by Japanese officials’ descriptions of several carefully designed engineering and technological efforts: a sophisticated early warning system sent SMS messages to millions of people before the earthquake’s tremors reached land, giving them precious seconds to take cover; high-tech accelerometers signalled Shinkansen bullet trains to stop before they risked derailment; seismic sensors automatically sent elevators to the ground floors of their buildings, preventing people from being trapped; and “intelligent” gas metres able to detect seismic activity cut off gas supplies, minimizing fires. All of these examples, coupled with strict building codes and efforts focused on education and readiness, saved numerous lives.
The Japanese officials also explained how low-technology, community-level planning played a key role on March 11. During the tragic 2004 tsunami that struck Banda Aceh in Indonesia, one of the heartbreaking stories among many was the number of schoolchildren whose lives were lost when they failed to leave their schools for higher ground. Learning from this painful experience, in parts of Japan a “buddy” system was enacted where older students helped evacuate younger students when the tsunami warning was sounded. The benefits of learning and adapting based on prior disasters are unmistakable.
On the other hand, containing and communicating about the radiation from the badly damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear reactor has been and continues to be a different type of challenge. Tokyo Electric Power Co., which has been deeply focused on minimizing radiation leakage, has been forced to improvize solutions since initial containment efforts failed. The Japanese government has been criticized both for excessive conservatism in its communications in order not to alarm the public, and for not being sufficiently transparent and sharing more information. The authorities may have been well prepared to communicate about a meltdown under more normal circumstances, but tasked with the immediate humanitarian relief crisis, the challenges and complexities multiplied. It has therefore been the combination of multiple risks, the difficulty of wrestling with the concurrent effects of the earthquake, the tsunami and radiation that has proved to be most difficult.
Building on Japan’s experience in recent months requires looking at different types of risks and responses, and making sense of a wide landscape of interrelated factors, many of which have implications beyond Japan. As factories have been idled and supply chains disrupted as a result of the events, global manufacturing and distribution have been significantly affected. Politically, fears about nuclear power are altering questions about long-term energy supplies as well as the power base of governments. The cascade of secondary and tertiary effects of the Japanese disaster has therefore impacted the whole world.
Thus a global network that shares best practices, promotes lessons learned in one part of the world for application in another, and assists its members both to better prepare before an event and better respond after can be of enormous value. By establishing direct channels of communication to government leaders, risk experts from some of the world’s leading companies, academic institutions, NGOs and other parts of society can provide valuable assistance in times of crisis.
Prompted by these aims, in January 2011 the World Economic Forum launched the Risk Response Network. Its goal is to bring top leaders from the public and private sectors together to develop practical approaches to better manage, respond to and prepare for global risks. As part of the initiative, senior officials from the Japanese government, the forum’s risk community, business executives and others will meet in Tokyo on Wednesday to discuss practical solutions for how the private sector can contribute to Japan’s post-disaster response and recovery efforts, and how best to share lessons learned with the rest of the world. Such an approach can promote learning from both the successes and failures of Japan’s recent experiences.
By Kevin Steinberg
Kevin Steinberg is chief operating officer of World Economic Forum USA and head of the Risk Response Network. ― Ed.
