Preface
As the world faces increasingly severe natural disasters and social challenges, building a resilient society has become an urgent priority for all countries. In recent years, crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic, extreme climate events, and geopolitical conflicts have underscored the pressing need to strengthen society’s ability to respond to external shocks. To prepare for these uncertainties, countries are committed to enhancing their overall risk response capabilities through medium- and long-term planning and technological innovation.
Japan: Introducing Technology and Rethinking Strategies for a Resilient Society
As a country prone to frequent natural disasters such as earthquakes and typhoons, Japan has long been aware of the importance of building a resilient society. The tsunami and nuclear disaster triggered by the 2011 Tohoku Earthquake sounded the alarm for Japan. In recent years, the socio-economic pressure brought about by the aging population and low birthrate has forced the Japanese government to embark on the reform project for a resilient society as soon as possible.
To this end, the Japanese government proposed the Three-Year Emergency Response Plan for Disaster Prevention, Disaster Mitigation, and Building National Resilience in 2018. This plan involves a comprehensive examination and repair of critical infrastructures essential to people’s livelihoods. In 2021, the government further proposed the Five-Year Acceleration Plan for Disaster Prevention, Mitigation, and Building National Resilience (hereinafter referred to as the Five-Year Acceleration Plan). This mid- to long-term plan covers 123 construction projects and aims to comprehensively improve national security and disaster response capabilities, leveraging technology to establish a complete system for disaster prediction, rescue, and recovery.
The U.S. and the EU: Taking An Integrated and Holistic Approach to Build Societal Resilience
In addition to Japan, the United States (U.S.) and the European Union (EU) have also implemented reforms in recent years to develop a holistic mechanism or framework with a long-term strategic perspective for building societal resilience.
The U.S.’ approach focuses on strengthening collaboration between the federal and state governments. Given the frequent occurrence of large-scale natural disasters, the U.S. has decided to strengthen the dual-track disaster prevention system at both the federal and state levels. Under this system, state governments first use their own resources for disaster relief, and when the disaster exceeds their response capabilities, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) steps in to assist. FEMA not only directs disaster relief operations but also provides post-disaster recovery funds to states and local communities through the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program to help repair infrastructure and enhance the overall community resilience.
Similarly, the EU adopts a holistic strategy in building a resilient society. In 2008, the EU formulated the European Critical Infrastructure Directive, which includes energy, transport, banking, health, digital infrastructure and other sectors within the scope of critical infrastructure protection. In 2023, the EU further formulated the Critical Entities Resilience Directive, which lays down the obligations of national government and private sector in protecting critical infrastructure and requires member states to regularly assess the resilience status of critical infrastructure.
Recent Progress in Building Resilient Societies in Japan, the U,S., and Europe
The disaster prevention policies and mechanisms established by Japan, the U.S., and Europe have yielded significant results.
Japan’s Five-Year Acceleration Plan emphasizes the key role of technology in building a resilient society. Going beyond infrastructure repairs, the plan actively incorporates advanced technology to improve disaster prevention efficiency. For example, sensors and cameras have been installed on railways and highways to capture real-time traffic flow information; smart grids and virtual power plants have been built to achieve digital management of energy systems; a data management system has been set up for water facilities nationwide; digital management tools have been used for construction project. Some of the technology-introduced projects have reached a completion rate of 75% or even higher.
Japan’s strategy is not limited to hardware construction, but also focuses on building a comprehensive resilient disaster prevention system. Technology plays various roles at different stages of disaster prediction, rescue and recovery, and each role upholds its significance. For example, since pre-disaster prediction emphasizes accuracy, the use of high-performance computing tools such as quantum computers and supercomputers are helpful to predict rainfall, tidal changes, and earthquake intensity. In disaster relief, a shared information platform for disaster management is essential to integrate cross-unit information, report real-time disaster situations, and coordinate rescue operations. For post-disaster recovery, next-generation vehicles such as drones can be used to deliver materials accurately, and a shared economy network should be created maximize resource utilization efficiency.
Under the U.S. federal system, states are also actively building their own resilience measures. In California, for example, the Governor's Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) has developed a series of specialized disaster prevention plans for common disasters such as wildfires, floods, and earthquakes. In 2019, the state launched the nation’s first statewide earthquake warning system, and in the following year, it partnered with Google to launch the MyShake App, which provides residents with instant earthquake warning services. These measures provide accurate information to the public and response agencies in the event of a disaster, significantly improving rescue efficiency and reducing losses of life and property.
Among the EU member states, Germany’s approach deserves particular attention. Germany has formulated a National Strategy for Critical Infrastructure Protection to conduct a comprehensive inspection of critical infrastructure at both the central and local levels. This ensures that the safety of critical infrastructure complies with international and EU regulatory requirements. Germany has also broadened the scope of resilience and strengthened cross-departmental cooperation and the partnership between public and private sectors, covering diverse areas such as climate change resilience, integration of civil defense and national defense, and information and communication security platforms.
Meanwhile, Germany has developed resilience-strengthening policies for specific areas, such as cultural heritage safety guidelines, drinking water safety risk analysis and crisis preparedness plans. Of particular note is Germany’s flood prevention program for river basin development. In view of the increased frequency and scope of heavy rainfall in recent years, Germany has re-assessed the flood risks of major rivers in the country, including the Rhine, the Elbe, and the Danube. The program combines the expansion of floodplain zoning, the “Room for the River” strategy, and technology monitoring to improve flood prevention and control.
Conclusion
In response to natural disasters and complex geopolitical risks in Taiwan, it is important to formulate national-level resilience strategies for policy guidelines with long-term thinking. Moreover, we should incorporate forward-looking technology for disaster prediction and information gathering by making good use of supercomputers and quantum computing. We should also integrate software and hardware technologies such as satellites, sensors, drones, and artificial intelligence to create a next-generation natural disaster prevention and prediction system.
Lastly, Taiwan should take advantage of its ICT industry and R&D capacity to establish capabilities such as scenario simulation analysis and risk assessment and response to cove more potential risk areas.
