7. Building agricultural resilience to typhoons and heavy rain in Japan

Japan is exposed to many natural hazards, which can have significant impacts on agriculture. Given the high frequency with which natural hazards occur in Japan, the nation has ample experience with reconstructing and thriving after these events. However, the scale of recent typhoons – the most frequent natural hazard in Japan – and heavy rain events, the focus of this case study,1 has been unprecedented, causing a major setback to the agricultural sector (Figure 7.1). Typhoons and heavy rain are expected to intensify and occur more frequently as a result of climate change, increasing flood and landslide risks. Effective risk management for large-scale typhoons and heavy rain events is therefore ever more important for Japan’s agricultural sector.

On top of the climate conditions, the agricultural workforce has declined by almost half since 2015 to 2.1 million in Japan, with an accelerated pace of decline in the last decade (OECD, 2019[1]). The average age of farmers in Japan is 67 years, and more than 80% of farmers are over 60 years old (OECD, 2020[2]). Ageing and depopulation continues in rural areas, suggesting that the sector will be more vulnerable to natural hazard-induced disasters (NHID) in the future. Building the agricultural sector’s resilience to typhoons and heavy rain then requires policies that balance safeguarding farmers’ livelihoods with providing incentives for on-farm strategies that increase preparedness, prevent and mitigate risks, and support a more resilient recovery. To ensure that efforts become effective, they must be carried out taking into account the needs, capacities and objectives of the country’s farmers.

Disaster Risk Management (DRM) is a high priority in Japan, with the aim of ensuring basic security and quality of life against both natural- and human-induced hazards. Japan’s national DRM governance is highly structured and institutionalised. Two national frameworks, or “pillars”, advance Japan’s DRM activities. The first pillar, the Disaster Countermeasures Basic Act and mandated Basic Disaster Management Plan are all-hazard frameworks (Figure 7.2). They define the roles and responsibilities of actors for each step of DRM cycle, and describe sequence of countermeasures for identified disasters. The second pillar of Japanese disaster governance, the Basic Act for National Resilience 2 and its related frameworks, reorient the country toward ex ante disaster preparedness in order to withstand large-scale natural disasters (Figure 7.3). Both pillars focus on structural and non-structural measures to build resilience.

The Japanese agricultural sector’s approach to managing natural hazards involves activities that are programmed based upon the directions of these national frameworks. The Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF) is responsible for specific agricultural risk management programmes. Japan’s ten-year agricultural policy agenda, the Basic Plan for Food, Agriculture and Rural Areas, revised in March 2020, emphasises preparedness and recovery from large-scale NHID. Other policy frameworks such as the Basic Policies for Economic and Fiscal Management and Structural Reform, the National Climate Change Adaptation Plan, and the Climate Change Adaptation Plan of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT) also directly and indirectly influence the agricultural sector’s DRM activities and capacities.

Farmers and other stakeholders make their DRM decisions taking into account the entire policy environment. Accordingly, activities under the national DRM governance frameworks at each stage of the risk management cycle (risk identification, assessment and awareness; prevention and mitigation; preparedness; response and crisis management; and recovery and reconstruction) are considered holistically to better understand conditions, good practices, challenges and opportunities for the Japanese agricultural sector with respect to natural hazard risk management. In the context of typhoons and heavy rain events, the management of natural hazard risks in the agricultural sector in Japan includes emergency responses for immediate and catastrophic events, and agricultural policies aimed at both short-term risk coping and long-term planning to help farmers plan and prepare for, absorb the impact of and recover from typhoons and heavy rain. This is undertaken both through specific DRM, agricultural, and infrastructure policies (Figure 7.4). It involves activities across actors at local and national levels.

Risk identification is the critical first step for more effective disaster preparedness, risk reduction, response and recovery measures (OECD, 2020[5]). In Japan, the Basic Disaster Management Plan (the umbrella DRM plan) identifies storms and floods (stemming from typhoons and heavy rains) among the threats that pose a threat to national security. Japan aims to continuously identify risks and assess its disaster response, and any issues that arise during disasters are analysed and addressed through amendments to existing legal provisions, policies and guidelines. The Central Disaster Management Council reviews the plan every year to reflect any newly identified risks and more effective measures,3 contributing to sustained enhancement of resilience over the long-term (Figure 7.2).

A regular vulnerability assessment is conducted through the framework of the Basic Act for National Resilience. Moreover, given increasing occurrence of natural hazards, the government carried out “emergency risk assessments and inspections” on 132 infrastructure facilities and systems that are critical to Japan, including on high-risk agricultural infrastructure and facilities, with the aim of identifying areas particularly vulnerable to large scale NHID and formulating ex ante measures to address them (Three-Year Emergency Measures for Disaster Prevention, Mitigation and Building Resilience 2018-2020). The assessment and inspection revealed the extent to which many facilities were vulnerable to natural hazards, motivating a number of remediation actions. Vulnerability to typhoons and heavy rains poses a critical risk to agricultural reservoirs, yet some are deteriorating and improperly maintained due in part to ageing and depopulation in rural areas. A taskforce in 2018 assessed measures to prevent further damages in areas downstream from agricultural reservoirs (Box 7.1).

Disaster damage and loss4 data are a critical input into planning current and future disaster preparedness activities. Since 1964, Japan has collected quantitative and qualitative information on agricultural damage and losses caused by natural disasters, with the data collection usually undertaken by municipalities through on-site visits, and shared with the public. Information collection and reporting begins immediately after natural hazards occur. Agricultural co-operatives (JA) also assess damage experienced by their members to determine if support is needed (Box 7.2).

Ex ante investments in measures to prevent or mitigate natural disaster risk can reduce the cost of disaster response and recovery, by addressing underlying vulnerabilities and reducing natural hazard exposure. Government policies and programmes can also encourage stakeholders to identify disaster risks to their own assets, address gaps in their resilience levels. In Japan, the risks identified in the national DRM frameworks are the focus of agricultural prevention and mitigation measures for natural hazard risks. Risk prevention and mitigation efforts related typhoon and heavy rain include structural and non-structural measures. Efforts also include policy initiatives to help mitigate the impacts of natural hazards on rural communities and support the uptake of financial risk mitigation tools.

  • Three-Year Emergency Response Measures, Five-Year Acceleration Measures: The government set a wide range of targets for the agricultural sector for risk prevention and mitigation to avoid future damage given increasing occurrence of natural hazards, including maintaining infrastructure systems such as irrigation facilities and reservoirs; strengthening dams; erosion control; and ensuring power supplies, as well as the creation of damage prevention plans.

  • Act on Agricultural Reservoir Management and Conservation:5 Based on the risk assessments carried out on agricultural reservoirs, the Act clarifies the responsibility of reservoir owners and local authorities to manage local agricultural reservoirs. Under the act, NARO developed a database that includes real time data and projects water levels, spill, and inundation areas in case of agricultural reservoir failures, and facilitates the rapid sharing of disaster information (NARO, 2020[7]). The act also requires municipalities to develop hazard maps with the name and location of designated agricultural reservoirs that may impact residential areas if they collapse, and make those maps publically available so that the municipalities can provide local residents with the information necessary for making evacuation decisions.

  • Flood warning system: the Flood Control Act 6 and the Sediment Disaster Prevention Act7 cover rivers subject to Japan’s flood warning system and water-level notifications. Municipalities are encouraged to prepare flood hazard maps indicating areas likely to be damaged, along with evacuation routes and sites, and disseminate these maps among their communities. These maps are not specifically for the agricultural sector, but farmers may use the maps for land-use decisions and evacuations.

  • Farm-level initiatives: Traditional prevention and mitigation activities used in rural communities for flood and landslide are nature-based solutions, such as maintaining forests to prevent soil erosion, planting pine trees along the coast to mitigate wind and sand blow, and planting bamboo trees along riverbanks to reduce flooding, while rice paddy fields can be effective in retaining rainwater, mitigating flood risk (Box 7.3).

  • Insurance: MAFF offers subsidised natural hazard insurance for commodity yield losses and production equipment, and revenue insurance that compensates farmers for revenue losses relative to a benchmark based on the previous five years’ revenue. In some cases, the government requires farmers to have insurance in order to qualify for ex post disaster support. Insurance take-up is highest for field crops and cattle (MAFF, 2020[8]).

Ex ante disaster preparedness and planning are crucial for effective crisis management – by public and private stakeholders with a role in disaster response, and on farms. In general, risk preparedness in Japan is co-ordinated systematically across the country. For example, National Disaster Prevention Day is observed every year with educational events and drills conducted nationally to prepare for when a major natural hazard strikes. The Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) gathers, reports and forecasts weather data and also monitors weather-related risks (JMA, 2020[10]). These forecasts are broadcast widely, helping to keep all citizens informed about conditions before typhoons and heavy rain arrive.

MAFF issues technical guidance for farmers based on JMA’s weather information to help prevent on farm damage (MAFF, 2020[11]). Further, MAFF’s newly created natural hazard information page on its website and smartphone application provide farmers preparation information (MAFF, 2020[12]). The government also encourage the agricultural sector to establish contingency plans (Cabinet Secretariat, 2019[13]; MAFF, 2021[14]; MAFF, 2021[15]). On horticultural facilities, a wider risk awareness campaign is conducted during Disaster Resilient Horticulture Months (MAFF, 2018[16]). JA and prefectures have also prepared material on building horticultural facilities that are more resilient to typhoons and heavy rain.

Japan’s farmers also have access to public extension services to solve challenges specific to the region. Advisors provide support on diverse topics, including on adoption of new technologies and good practices through on-site consultation and small group activities. However, it is not clear if advisors provide advice on how to prepare for typhoons and heavy rain.

Effective crisis management and response hinge on all actors knowing their responsibilities in the event of an emergency and communicating effectively, with the public sector taking a leadership role when the private sector is unable to cope. In crisis situations in Japan, public sector actors play an active role from risk notification to disaster response and co-ordination. JMA issues warnings and advisories, which are usually region-based as well as flood forecasts and landslide warnings, helping farmers take action ahead of typhoons and heavy rains. Crisis governance involves a well-defined and yet flexible distribution of responsibilities. Municipal governments have the primary role for responding to natural disasters. However, if the scale of a disaster is large enough, the national government implements emergency measures immediately under the structured DRM system, by first setting up an emergency response team composed of senior-level officials from each ministry and agency that participates in the Crisis Management Centre of the Prime Minister’s Office.

MAFF also aims to minimise the vulnerability of farming communities during a crisis. To ensure an effective response against typhoons and heavy rain, MAFF co-ordinates the disaster response for the agricultural and agro-food sectors, with priority to collecting information from the affected areas to identify the needed assistance. Farmers communicate with municipalities, prefectures or JA regarding the damage sustained, strengthening the links between the ministry, local authorities, and farmers. MAFF is also responsible for providing emergency relief food and water supplies to affected regions during a NHID, since the preservation of life is a priority.

Following a NHID, recovery and reconstruction efforts also offer an opportunity for public and private stakeholders to “build back better”8 by addressing underlying gaps in resilience, and building the capacities needed to manage natural hazards in the future (FAO, IFAD, WFP, 2019[17]). This requires all stakeholders – including producers – to learn from NHID in order to adjust DRM frameworks, policy measures and on-farm strategies with a view towards long-term resilience (OECD, 2014[18]; OECD, 2020[5]). In addition to all-sector support packages provided by the government to ensure a smooth recovery after a NHID, for disasters designated as “extremely severe”, the government provides support to reduce the financial burden on municipal governments and to facilitate more rapid recovery and reconstruction efforts. The government now announce the prospects for a designation as early as a week after the termination of a NHID, allowing affected local governments to start recovery projects promptly without concerns over financial uncertainties.

MAFF emphasises the need for swiftness of recovery and reconstruction. MAFF safeguards and rebuilds agricultural and rural livelihoods as quickly as possible by implementing its own ad hoc support programmes to facilitate continuation of farming operations. Recovery and reconstruction measures for the agricultural sector can include infrastructure reconstruction, repair or replacement of production equipment, asset recovery and rebuilding of farmer livelihoods, and support programmes are adjusted to suit the conditions of each disaster. As a result, programme triggers remain flexible (i.e. there are no specific criteria).

Nevertheless, affected areas often struggle to repair infrastructure damage, as activities such as removing mud, debris and driftwood from agricultural fields require substantial physical labour. One feature of Japan’s recovery and reconstruction process is that a wide range of actors take part. In particular, volunteer work has become essential to the swift recovery from disasters. Prefectural governments also co-ordinate among themselves to help affected prefectures. For example, the prefectures created a system to pair up prefectures and help the partner prefecture recover from a large-scale NHID.

JA focuses its efforts on the recovery and reconstruction phase of DRM cycle. The bulk of JA’s post-disaster efforts are focused on restarting farming operations and maintaining members’ livelihoods. JA Zenchu, headquarters of JAs sets up the central emergency task force to co-ordinate recovery efforts, including communicating with the government on damage and the assistance needed. JA Bank (the financial section of JA) provides special loans for rebuilding houses and livelihoods. JA Kyosai (the insurance section of JA) is committed to providing prompt pay-outs, including through the simplification of procedures to members in affected communities and by extending the date of premium payment.

In the time of a disaster, agricultural extension services can also support recovery by working side-by-side with farmers (Cathey et al., 2007[19]; Boteler, 2007[20]). Agricultural extension advisors conduct on-site visits to evaluate the damages and loss and assess conditions in farming communities, including the extent of damage to land, infrastructure, machinery and cultivated products. This two-way interaction also helps alleviate farmers’ psychological distress and the sense of isolation stemming from income and agricultural asset loss.

In line with the four principles for resilience to natural hazard-induced disasters in agriculture, Japan’s systems for natural hazard risk management – and typhoons and heavy rain management in particular – demonstrate a number of positive developments and good practices, as well as some challenges that provide opportunities for future improvement.

  • Disaster risk management frameworks in Japan are comprehensive and explicitly recognise the need to improve the agricultural sector’s resilience to large-scale natural hazards, confirming the government’s clear commitment to this objective. The agricultural sector is fully integrated into overarching frameworks for governing disaster risks, and explicitly stated targets and priorities for managing hazard risks and building resilience in the frameworks facilitate investments and the implementation of an array of agricultural DRM and resilience building programmes.

  • Japan’s disaster risk governance is flexible, responsive and adapts to evolving hazard risks. Resilience gaps are identified through vulnerability assessments and detailed data on damage and losses. Japan also emphasises improving DRM frameworks. The responsibilities of different ministries and jurisdictions are clearly defined, which leaves little space for areas where responsibility is unclear within governments and also facilitates co-operation between different national and local jurisdictions.

  • However, the roles and responsibilities of agricultural stakeholders at all stages of the DRM cycle could be more clearly defined. Policy frameworks do not define the responsibilities of private actors, including farmers, to prevent, mitigate and prepare for natural hazards. Clarifying the responsibilities of agricultural actors to prevent and mitigate the risks and impacts of natural hazards would also encourage farmers to undertake additional risk management activities, with ex post assistance provided only when a particular disaster event is beyond their capacity to manage.

  • Risk and vulnerability assessments drive disaster risk reduction activities, but data on agricultural losses could be used more extensively. Japan regularly reviews hazard risks and vulnerabilities when developing and revising DRM frameworks and systems, ensuring responsiveness to a changing risk landscape. Japan has comprehensive data on damage and losses and used mainly for marshalling ex post support. By revealing the extent to which natural hazards affect agriculture, these data are also an important input into on-farm decision-making, including on where and how to prioritise investments.

  • Effective risk communication with agricultural and rural stakeholders is important to enhance stakeholders’ understanding of their specific risk exposure. Detailed and well-advanced warning systems, flood and hazard maps, and regional evacuation plans are all available in Japan. But older farmers may not understand the evolving risks due to the complexity or technicality of information, resulting in unpreparedness. The extension service are also available and there is an opportunity to play more active role in communicating the consequences of NHID risks to farmers and ensuring that constraints raised by farmers are understood and addressed by government officials formulating response plans.

  • A combination of structural and non-structural measures target improved risk prevention and mitigation. Japan is making substantial investments in improving agricultural infrastructure (e.g. rehabilitation of reservoirs; erosion control; installing power supplies) and maintenance systems (e.g. creation of hazard maps, damage prevention plans), but ageing farmers and depopulation in rural areas present a challenge for managing ageing infrastructure. There are opportunities for traditional nature-based prevention and mitigation activities in rural communities for flood and landslide as they can be physically effective and cost-efficient.

  • Risk management tools have been reoriented to priotise tools that are defined ex ante rather than rely on ex post assistance. However, despite generous premium subsidies and promotion of commodity and revenue insurance programmes, the proportion of farmers subscribing to insurance remains low. Understanding why farmers do not subscribe to insurance would improve programme design rather than rely on further participation using subsidies.

  • Older farmers can have significant experience and the experience of farmers and regions in risk management could be an asset for building resilience more widely, but on-farm efforts could be strengthened. However, the sector’s ageing demography, small farms and off-farm income may also mean that farmers may have a limited drive for modernisation and innovation, and lower capacity to manage risk using new risk management tools or make use of technical information and may not have the incentive to make investments for managing risk in the long term.

  • Japan’s policies support rapid response and recovery but may discourage farmers from taking steps to reduce their vulnerability to future risks. The swift provision of ex post support to facilitate a rapid recovery are a hallmark of Japan’s DRM system, which provides comprehensive financial safety nets to help producers return to farming as quickly as possible. A fast response during a crisis is enabled by Japan’s well co-ordinated governance arrangement across ministries and agencies, local authorities and public institutions. Building back better is also an integral part of the post disaster reconstruction approaches in Japan. However, given generous support and undefined criteria for when the government provides agricultural disaster assistance, farmers tend to rely on ex post government assistance. The policy challenge lies in encouraging farmers to take responsibility for building their resilience, while ensuring that support to help farmers rebuild infrastructure and facilities reflects the principle of building back better.

  • Japan’s regions have significant experience with a range of natural hazards. But extreme weather conditions overwhelm the capacity of many (largely small) municipalities and areas with less experience managing typhoon and heavy rain risks. More efforts to establish networks to share the information and capabilities of more experienced regions is becoming more important.

Japan’s DRM systems for agriculture offer many examples of good practices for building the sector’s resilience to typhoons and heavy rains, but there are opportunities for both public and private stakeholders to further build the resilience of the sector to NHID:

  • Address the implications of the socioeconomic and demographic changes in rural communities in Japan’s agricultural DRM policy frameworks:

    • Such a strategy should acknowledge the current condition of infrastructure and the capacity of rural communities and individual farmers to make improvements, including that some farmers have different objectives and older farmers in particular may need additional support in order to build their resilience capacities and increase their preparedness for natural hazards.

    • More frequent infrastructure evaluations, changes in management processes and reconfigured institutional arrangements should be considered. Also, natural defences such as paddy field dams, which are a cost-effective option for flood risk mitigation should be promoted more. Government should also mobilise the extensive data on damage and losses to inform investments in risk prevention and preparedness by all stakeholders, including farmers.

  • Encourage farmers and other private sector actors to take responsibility for their own DRM. Resilience-building efforts appear to be driven by government mandates and generous disaster assistance may make farmers over reliant on ex post assistance, such that the incentive to adapt or transform in response to the changing risk landscape is blunted. Defining the triggering criteria and types and level of government support in advance would provide farmers with a clearer incentive to invest ex ante in preparedness capacities, risk prevention and mitigation measures.

  • Farmers’ roles in and responsibilities for DRM could be clarified through comprehensive communication on natural disaster risks to farmers. Public extension services are particularly well placed for this outreach, as they understand both national policies and local conditions. Proactive engagement with other agricultural stakeholders such as JA and the private sector should be integrated into resilience-building efforts across the DRM cycle to support a more cohesive sectoral response.


[20] Boteler, F. (2007), “Building Disaster-Resilient Families, Communities, and Businesses”, Journal of Extension, Vol. 45/6, https://www.joe.org/joe/2007december/a1.php.

[22] Cabinet Office (2020), The Basic Disaster Management Plan (in Japanese), http://www.bousai.go.jp/taisaku/keikaku/kihon.html#syusei.

[9] Cabinet Secretariat (2021), List of medium to long term goals for five year acceleration measures for disaster prevention, mitigation and national resilience (in Japanese), https://www.cas.go.jp/jp/seisaku/kokudo_kyoujinka/5kanenkasokuka/index.html.

[4] Cabinet Secretariat (2019), Building National Resilience, https://www.cas.go.jp/jp/seisaku/kokudo_kyoujinka/index_en.html.

[13] Cabinet Secretariat (2019), Special website for three-year emergency measures for disaster prevention and mitigation, and building national resilience (in Japanese), https://www.cas.go.jp/jp/seisaku/kokudo_kyoujinka/3kanentokusetsu/index.html#3_1.

[19] Cathey, L. et al. (2007), “True Colors Shining Through: Cooperative Extension Strengths in Time of Disaster”, Journal of Extention, Vol. 45/6, https://www.joe.org/joe/2007december/comm1.php.

[21] FAO (2016), Damage and losses from climate-related disasters in agricultural sectors, United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, http://www.fao.org/3/a-i6486e.pdf (accessed on 9 February 2021).

[17] FAO, IFAD, WFP (2019), Strengthening resilience for food security and nutrition: A Conceptual Framework for Collaboration and Partnership among the Rome-based Agencies, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), and the World Food Programme (WFP), https://docs.wfp.org/api/documents/WFP-0000062320/download/.

[10] JMA (2020), Observations, https://www.jma.go.jp/jma/en/Activities/observations.html.

[14] MAFF (2021), Business contingency measures for horticultural production (in Japanese), https://www.maff.go.jp/j/seisan/ryutu/engei/sisetsu/attach/pdf/saigaitaisaku-19.pdf.

[15] MAFF (2021), Checklist and agricultural BCP to prepare for natural disaster risks (in Japanese), https://www.maff.go.jp/j/keiei/maff_bcp.html.

[8] MAFF (2020), Agricultural insurance participation rate (2018 production year) (in Japanese), https://www.maff.go.jp/j/keiei/nogyohoken/attach/pdf/toukei_zisseki-14.pdf.

[12] MAFF (2020), Disaster prevention and mitigation information to prepare for wind and flood damage by heavy rains and typhoons (in Japanese), https://www.maff.go.jp/j/saigai/taisaku_gaiyou/yobou_gensai.html.

[11] MAFF (2020), Technical guidance to prevent agricultural damage (in Japanese), https://www.maff.go.jp/j/seisan/kankyo/gijyutu_sido.html.

[3] MAFF (2020), The Annual Report on Food, Agriculture and Rural Areas in Japan (in Japanese), https://www.maff.go.jp/j/wpaper/w_maff/r1/pdf/1-4-1.pdf.

[6] MAFF (2019), “Agricultural, forestry and fisheries damage report procedure (in Japanese)”.

[16] MAFF (2018), Establishment of “disaster-resistant horticulture month” (in Japanese), https://www.maff.go.jp/j/press/keiei/hoken/181030.html.

[7] NARO (2020), Agricultural reservoir workflow system. To create and update database of agricultural reservoirs at 167,000 locations (in Japanese), http://www.naro.affrc.go.jp/org/nkk/jituyo/all/pdf/03-01-02-03.pdf.

[2] OECD (2020), Agricultural Policy Monitoring and Evaluation 2020, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/928181a8-en.

[5] OECD (2020), Strengthening Agricultural Resilience in the Face of Multiple Risks, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/2250453e-en.

[1] OECD (2019), Innovation, Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability in Japan, OECD Food and Agricultural Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/92b8dff7-en.

[18] OECD (2014), Recommendation of the Council on the Governance of Critical Risks, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://www.oecd.org/gov/risk/recommendation-on-governance-of-critical-risks.htm.

[24] Shigemitsu, M. and E. Gray (2021), “Building the resilience of Japan’s agricultural sector to typhoons and heavy rain”, OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, No. 159, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/4ed1ee2c-en.

[23] UNISDR (2015), Reading the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015 - 2030, https://www.preventionweb.net/files/46694_readingsendaiframeworkfordisasterri.pdf.


← 1. See Shigemitsu and Gray (2021[24]).

← 2. The official name of the Act is Basic Act for National Resilience Contributing to Preventing and Mitigating Disasters for Developing Resilience in the Lives of the Citizenry.

← 3. The latest revision of the Plan, which took place in May 2020 following Typhoons Faxai and Hagibis in 2019, enhanced provision of river and weather information and support for local governments that are not accustomed to dealing with large-scale storms (Cabinet Office, 2020[22]).

← 4. “Damage” refers to the total or partial destruction of physical assets and infrastructure in disaster-affected areas, expressed as replacement or repair costs. “Losses” refer to the changes in economic flows or revenues arising from the disaster (FAO, 2016[21]).

← 5. Enacted in April 2019 (Act No. 17 of 2018).

← 6. Act No. 193 of 1949.

← 7. Act No. 57 of 2000.

← 8. Building back better is defined as using the recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction phases after a disaster to increase the resilience of nations and communities through integrating disaster risk reduction measures into the restoration of physical infrastructure and societal systems, and into the revitalisation of livelihoods, economies and the environment (UNISDR, 2015[23]).

Metadata, Legal and Rights

This document, as well as any data and map included herein, are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area. Extracts from publications may be subject to additional disclaimers, which are set out in the complete version of the publication, available at the link provided.

© OECD and FAO 2021

You can copy, download or print this content for your own use, and you can include excerpts in your own documents, presentations, blogs, websites and teaching materials, provided that suitable acknowledgment of OECD and FAO as source and copyright owners is given. All requests for public or commercial use and translation rights of this material should be submitted to [email protected] FAO information products are available on the FAO website (www.fao.org/publications) and can be purchased through [email protected]