Wednesday marks 15 years since the Great East Japan Earthquake, tsunami and nuclear disaster. People the world over remember where they were and what they were doing when that massive earthquake rocked the ocean floor 72 kilometers east of the Oshika Peninsula of Japan’s Tohoku region, causing a deadly tsunami that destroyed everything in its path.

The magnitude 9.0 earthquake — the fourth largest ever recorded — was devastating. The death toll, mostly the result of the tsunami, rose to nearly 20,000. At the peak of the crisis, around 470,000 people were forced to evacuate their homes. While the number has declined significantly over time, about 27,000 people, most of them from Fukushima Prefecture, still live in evacuation today as nuclear exclusion zones remain in place, not including so-called voluntary evacuees. As decontamination efforts continue, the events of March 11, 2011, remain an ongoing disaster.

Large-scale disasters often attract intense attention in their immediate aftermath, sometimes described as a “gold rush” of media coverage and academic research. In the case of 3/11, the global impact was particularly striking, not only because the tsunami reached coastlines as far away as Hawaii, but also because the nuclear disaster triggered far-reaching debates about energy policy, including Germany’s decision to phase out nuclear power.

Yet the long-term consequences of disasters are often understudied once media attention shifts to newer crises elsewhere. “Disasters happen when we forget about them.” The famous saying by Japanese geophysicist Torahiko Terada has long served as a guiding principle in disaster preparedness and risk management. Fifteen years after 3/11, the anniversary offers an opportunity to reassess the importance of sustained engagement in disaster recovery and what can still be learned from it.

Japan is widely known for its sophisticated disaster mitigation measures, from seismic-resistant buildings to rigorous evacuation drills. Nevertheless, the scale of the 2011 catastrophe surprised many. In its aftermath, researchers from across the world traveled to Japan to study both successes and shortcomings, from evacuation challenges to long-term reconstruction, in order to strengthen disaster preparedness in Japan and beyond.

One of those observers is Muzailin Affan, now chairman of the International Affairs Office of Syiah Kuala University in Indonesia, who continues to organize student disaster education programs. At the time of the disaster, he was affiliated with Tohoku University to write a dissertation on post-tsunami recovery in Banda Aceh following the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami.

Despite Japan’s strong infrastructure and high level of disaster awareness, Affan recalls being struck by the scale of the destruction in 2011. At the same time, he was impressed by the reconstruction efforts that sought to incorporate future disaster risks through measures such as building evacuation towers along the coastline, raising ground levels in vulnerable areas and constructing controversial seawalls.

“Indonesia does not have a comparable budget,” Affan says. “But we try to invest more in disaster education or widen narrow traffic roads to serve as evacuation routes, similar to what Japan has done. From Banda Aceh, we know that recovery can take decades. In Japan, too, many developments continue to unfold.”

He also points to new approaches to preserving disaster memory and education. “Today, technologies such as artificial intelligence or virtual reality are sometimes used to pass on survivors’ experiences to younger generations who have no memory of that time. This is why it remains important to keep looking at Tohoku.”

Some of these issues are also addressed by the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA). Following the adoption of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction in 2015, shaped in part by lessons from the 2011 disaster, the agency launched an international disaster risk reduction study program the following year. The initiative brings practitioners and policymakers to Japan to explore how lessons from 3/11 might be applied in other countries. By 2026, more than 200 participants, from disaster management officials to gender equality advocates and representatives of civil society, had joined the program from 25 countries, including the Philippines, Nepal, Uganda and Chile.

“I don’t want to say that everything went well in the recovery of Tohoku, especially regarding gender equality, but many groups are trying very hard,” says Hana Kobayashi of IC Net, who implements the Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change from a gender and diversity perspective program organized by JICA’s Tohoku Center.

Years of revisiting disaster-affected communities and speaking with local initiatives have shown Kobayashi that many of the problems that surface during disasters have deeper roots in everyday social structures.

“If there is little awareness of gender equality in normal times, leaders of evacuation shelters may simply say, ‘Now is not the time to discuss this,’ during an emergency,” she explains.

Over time, however, Kobayashi has observed a shift in strategy among initiatives such as women’s disaster prevention leadership programs. Rather than focusing solely on disaster preparedness, many now promote women’s participation in other spheres of society, including politics and business. If women are more visible in public life, they hope, their participation in decision-making during disasters becomes natural rather than exceptional.

“Many of our participants come from countries that do not have large budgets for disaster risk reduction,” Kobayashi says. “Here, we want them to meet people who are trying to create change even without significant financial resources.”

In some cases, former participants have launched projects in their home countries inspired by their experiences in Japan. One example is Paloma Romina Mansilla Rodriguez’s initiative in Chile, which promotes rural women as local leaders in disaster management and was inspired by Japan’s women disaster prevention leader programs.

The need to learn from the lessons of 3/11 is not limited to countries traditionally prone to earthquakes and tsunamis. With climate change intensifying natural hazards and geopolitical shifts altering risk landscapes, European countries are also increasingly looking abroad for experience in disaster resilience.

One of the scholars helping translate Japan’s experiences for Europe is Carmen Grau, who has studied disaster management in various countries. As floods and storms become more frequent across Europe, she warns that technical preparedness alone is not enough.

“The equipment is in place,” she says, “but the risk awareness is not.”

Grau’s interest in disaster mitigation began early. After experiencing severe flooding as a child in Valencia, she pursued a career in disaster management and works for several institutions, including Waseda University in Tokyo. Today, she also serves as an adviser to the reconstruction committee following the devastating 2024 Valencia floods in Spain, which killed at least 230 people.

“My whole family has memories of floods in Valencia,” Grau says. “There were major floods in 1957 and 1996, but 2024 was the worst. When the March 11 disasters happened, I was in Tokyo, and despite the scale of the catastrophe, I felt that society was in some ways prepared for it.”

Grau now organizes disaster drills for local communities in Spain, schools and emergency professionals, emphasizing the importance of evacuation shelters and safe gathering points.

“Hazard maps exist, but people need to know how to use them,” she says. “That’s why regular drills are essential.” At the same time, she notes that implementing effective early warning systems remains a challenge in many European countries. Regarding evacuation practices, Japan’s experience also offers important lessons for aging societies such as Italy, Spain and Germany.

“We need to look at what is happening in Japan,” Grau says. “It allows us to see what works and what doesn’t in an aging society. Learning from countries with more experience helps save time and resources and identify best practices.”

With climate change expected to increase both the frequency and intensity of natural hazards, Grau argues that international learning will only become more important.

“Countries like Japan have decades of experience dealing with disasters,” she says. “It is essential that we learn from that history.”

Fifteen years after the Great East Japan Earthquake, recovery in Tohoku is still unfolding. Just as Terada said, remembering disasters and continuing to learn from them is one important form of preparedness we have.

© The Japan Times