are cash for work (cfw) programs effective to promote...

5th International Disaster and Risk Conference IDRC 2014 ‘Integrative Risk Management - The role of science, technology & practice‘ • 24-28 August 2014 • Davos • Switzerland

www.grforum.org

Are Cash for Work (CFW) programs effective to promote disaster recovery? Evidence from the case of Fukushima Prefecture.

Shingo Nagamatsu, Ph.D. [email protected]

Faculty of Safety Science, Kansai University, Japan. Director, Cash for Work Japan (CFW-Japan)

The original version of this study is published as : Nagamatsu(2014), Jounal of Disaster Research, Vol.9, No.2, pp.161-175.


www.grforum.org

2011 Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Accident

• Meltdown of the three reactors, and explosion of those containment buildings.

• Radioactive material are released.

• Designation of mandatory evacuation zone, in which 81,300 people inhibited.

• 58,589 people evacuated within Fukushima Pref. while others left outside.

• Livelihood assistance for the refugees has become a key issue.


www.grforum.org

Kizuna (social ties) Project

• Job generation program, funded by Fukushima prefectural gov’t, operated by private staffing agencies and NPOs.

• Aim: “…building up ties among evacuees and with local residents by strengthening the operational system of temporary housing, and providing economic assistance through employment to evacuees and those who had lost their jobs,”

• 5,855 were employed in FY2011.

Operating community FM radio station

Cart sales in the temporary housing villages


www.grforum.org

Similarity with Cash for Work (CFW) program

1) Empowers the disaster affected people (GTZ, 2009) 2) Promote disaster recovery projects (Myammer Red Cross, 2009) 3) Encourages people participating in recovery (Mercy Corps, 2008) 4) Stimulates local economy (Mercy Corps, 2008; GTZ, 2009) 5) Encouraging self-targeting(Mercy Corps, 2008)

2010 Haiti earthquake (source: USAID)

2005 Indian Ocean Tsunami (source: Mercy Corps)

2008 Cyclone Nargis (source: Myammer Red Cross)

Advantages:


www.grforum.org

HOW WAS THE CASE OF KIZUNA PROJECT IN FUKUSHIMA?


www.grforum.org

Method : Questionnaire survey

Area Survey

period (in 2012)

No. of Target partici-

pants (A)

No. of Respon-

dents (B)

Rate (B/A)

(percent)

Aizu and Minami Aizu area

Apr. 4-13 120 101 84.2%

Kenhoku (northern) area Apr. 2-27 300 206 68.7%

Kenchu (central) area

Mar. 30-Apr. 19 351 346 98.6%

Iwaki area Apr. 2-16 142 110 77.5% Sousou area Apr. 18-21 80 48 60.0% Kennan (southern) area

Mar. 30 –Apr. 20 140 83 59.3%

Total 1133 894 78.9%

Table 1. Time period of survey and number of collected questionnaire results.


www.grforum.org

Fig. 2. Employment prior to the accident (N = 894).

Regular employee

27%

Contract employee

16%

Part-time employee

33%

Tempo-rary employee

9%

Self employed

11%

Employee of family owned

business 2%

Other 2%

73% were not regular workers with limited social securities


www.grforum.org

Fig. 3. Highest income earner of household currently (N = 894).

40% of the workers rely on their jobs as main income source.

Myself 40%

Spouse 34%

Offspring 6%

Parent 15%

Sibling 2%

Other 3%

-> Counterevidence against the Haiti CFW program (Echevin et al., 2011)


www.grforum.org

Fig. 4. Types of work assignment in the Kizuna project (N = 845).

Office work 44%

Light manual

work 18%

Medical and welfare work

4%

Community work 17%

Radiation monitoring and other

related work 16%

Other 1%

Little manual labor, variety of work type.


www.grforum.org

Fig. 5. Work experience prior to the accident (N = 868).

Workers’ job experiences were respected to certain degree

Very helpful 19.8%

Helpful to some extent 44.0%

Hardly helpful 14.6%

Not helpful 7.9%

No prior work experience

13.6%


www.grforum.org

Fig. 6 Workers’ emotional satisfaction with Kizuna project (N = 894).


www.grforum.org

Fig. 6. Comparison of satisfaction between those who are evacuated and not.

-0.300

-0.200

-0.100

0.000

0.100

0.200

0.300

0.400

total not evacuated evacuated

connectedness positiveness

Fact

or sc

ore

The Evacuated (refugees) are more satisfied with the programs under Kizuna project.


www.grforum.org

Challenges

• Difficulty of co-working with existing neighborhood association, and volunteers. – Paid vs. unpaid work

• Lack of respects with the workers (from some free descriptive answers) – Stigma of “the Jobless” – Fear of being exposed to radiation in some jobs (e.g. radiation

monitoring)

• Local enterprises’ complaints: the project might have discouraged the workers to go back to their original Job. (from personal conversation)


www.grforum.org

See also… S. Nagamatsu and Betterncourt S.(2012) Livelihood and Job Creation, The World Bank, Learning form Megadisasters: Knowledge Notes, Cluster 4: Recovery Planning, Note 4-5, 2012, http://wbi.worldbank.

Nagamatsu(2014) Are Cash for Work (CFW) programs effective to promote disaster recovery? Evidence from the case of Fukushima Prefecture, Journal of Disaster Research, Vol.9, No.2, pp.161-175.


www.grforum.org

“I can smile, ‘cause I have a job.”

Thank you for your attantion!

are cash for work (cfw) programs effective to promote...

Documents