大規模災害後の住宅再建支援事業の資金配分とマルチステークホルダーの関与

－東日本大震災、ハリケーン・カトリーナ、インド洋津波を事例として－

抄録

 Housing recovery after large-scale a disaster requires huge resources and is difficult to be achieved solely by government. It requires multi-stakeholder (MS) collaboration, including private sector, NGOs, international organization, and foreign government. However, there has been limited knowledge on how government and MS are involved in housing recovery especially regarding the fund distribution and project implementation.

 As case studies, we selected three large-scale disasters with different MS participation modality: the Great East Japan Earthquake (GEJE) (Japan), Hurricane Katrina (U.S.), and Indian Ocean Tsunami (Indonesia). This paper 1) develops the fund-flow of MS and government to implement the housing programs, 2) categorizes MS by its function in the recovery, and 3) identifies the characteristics of MS project implementation by examining their project distribution and progress by time. The research draws on data from government documents and key informant interviews.

 First, we develop the “fund-flow diagram” to visualize how the governments and MS distribute the funds for implementing the housing programs. We list housing programs by government documents and identify the path of funds. The diagram draws how funds with different funding schemes flows between relevant stakeholders and programs. In GEJE, the central government is directing the funds and designing the programs with very limited room for MS involvement. In Hurricane Katrina, the governments of all three levels are allocating and implementing programs, as well as providing incentives to MS for construction of affordable houses. In Indian Ocean Tsunami, multiple channels are developed to facilitate donors to give flexibility to reflect their own preference on execution.

 Second, we categorize MS by how they function in the recovery process, whether: 1) they spend their own funds for program implementation; 2) the funds they provided are included in official recovery budget; 3) or they use money from the recovery budget. We gained four types of MS: “Finance Parties”, “Autonomous Parties 1”, “Autonomous Parties 2”, and “Consigned Parties”. Among others, “Autonomous Parties” is considered as important in terms of being an implementer of the projects and a partner for governments to supplement gaps of their programs.

 Third, we assess the spatial and temporal distribution of projects implemented by MS and government in Louisiana and Aceh. In both cases, implementation of MS is found in heavily damaged coastal area and contributing early phase reconstruction. In Louisiana, projects of MS are also concentrated in almost no damage area with high housing market value. In Aceh, government constructed in municipalities with less damage with slower construction pace compared to MS. These results tell us that Louisiana utilized MS to provide houses based on market needs with tolerance of uneven distribution, and Aceh prioritized utilization of external resources from MS, and government took a role of following up on the gaps left by MS.

 In conclusion, we draw the character of each housing recovery approaches: “Market incentive utilization approach”, represented by hurricane Katrina, “Aid utilization approach”, represented by Indian Ocean Tsunami, and “Government-centered approach”, represented by GEJE. The study suggests that the keys in utilizing MS is tolerance to uncertainty and imbalance of MS assistance. Government needs to design multi-layer policy, which takes features and disadvantages of MS into account.