Emergency management in China: towards a comprehensive model?

Abstract

The institutional structures and processes of emergency management have been infused with ideas of Comprehensive Emergency Management (CEM) and the so-called all-hazard approach in various countries since the mid-1980s. China’s new emergency management system has moved to the direction of a more CEM-like system, though some experts advocate an even more comprehensive system. This article examines the applicability of three popular CEM principles in the Chinese context: all-hazard, all-phase and all-stakeholder involvement. We argue that (1) an all-hazard coordinating ministry was established for a different reason; (2) integrating all-phase management (especially mitigation phase) should not only be applied in post-catastrophes reconstructions, but also in prior disaster mitigation phases; (3) too much stake has been imposed on individual leaders in vertical governmental relations which hinders opportunities on trial and error learning after an emergency. Finally, we try to contribute to the extensions of the CEM concept after comparing applications in different political and administrative contexts.

Keywords:

• Comprehensive emergency management (CEM)
• all hazards approach
• China
• emergency management system
• comparison
• applicability

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Arjen Boin, Paul ‘t Hart, Lim Wee Kiat, and Dan Yang for their constructive and detailed comments on the early draft. Special thanks to our interviewees who provide insightful views to help me understand the emergency management system in China.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1 According to Roberts (2006), the term ‘all hazards’ currently refers to both the all-phase management and all-hazard management in the USA. In this article, all-hazard dimension only defines integrating the management of all types of hazards.

2 The idea on CEM was also reflected in the two revised plan following the Federal Response Plan, the Nation Response Plan and the National Response Framework.

3 Civil protection is the concept used widely in official documents of European Union.

4 Xue Lan is also a member of the Emergency Management Expert Group at the State Council.

5 Although using a different term at that time, the basic idea is similar, which emphasizes the common features in managing different types of disaster. The term Comprehensive Emergency Management was firstly referred by the National Governors’ Association in 1978.

6 See the history section on FEMA’s website (accessed on 27 August 2011): http://www.fema.gov/about/history.shtm

7 This program was cancelled by the Bush Administration.

8 https://www.unisdr.org/we/campaign/cities (last accessed on 31 January 2017).

9 For an introduction on the short history of HFCDR, please see http://fxkh.mwr.gov.cn/zzjg/

10 According to Ansell, Boin and Keller (2010), we speaks a transboundary crisis when the functioning of multiple, life-sustaining systems or critical infrastructures is acutely threatened and the causes of failure remain unclear.

11 For more on the decision structure of flood and typhoon response in China, please read Lu (2009).

12 Although some scholars claimed that National Committee for Disaster Relief is responsible for managing all types of natural disasters, in practice disaster agent based coordinating headquarters still take leading roles in managing that type of disasters (according to #2011-1).

13 One of the tentative reasons received in an interview for the difference is due to the frequency of this type of incident (interview #2011-2).

14 http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-02/01/content_7544691.htm (accessed on 23 September 2011).

15 Again, this program is still in an early age, and the effects of the program still needs to be examined.

16 Based on interviews #20151010001 and #20151106008.

17 Over 130 thousand military forces have been mobilized to respond to the Wenchuan Earthquake in 2008.

18 For the audience not familiar with the administrative system of China, Tiao means the vertical sector system such as water resource department in different level of governments, while Kuai means the regional administration, such as the county government. Here we the water resource department as an example, the city level water resource department is directed by both the Mayor and the provincial level water resource department. This joint direction persists in every governmental level in China. Currently, directions from vertical sector are weakened but still widely exist. For more on the historical development of horizontal and vertical authority division, please see Zhou 2009.

19 For a complete version of Emergency Response Law of PRC, please see http://www.gov.cn/flfg/2007-08/30/content_732593.htm (accessed on September 20, 2011).

20 Personal observation in 2008 in Wenzhou. Interview #2008-3, #2008-7 and #2008-9.

21 Although the current trends on putting these agencies under the leadership of local administrator, vertical instruction from higher sector agencies still influenced these local agencies.

22 Interview #2008-2, #2008-7 and #2011-1

23 Interview #2008-2, ##2008-3, and #2008-4.

24 http://www.caijing.com.cn/2008-09-17/110013192.html (accessed on 3 October 2011).

25 http://www.gov.cn/gongbao/content/2009/content_1371343.htm (accessed on 25 September 2011).

26 For more on trial and error learning, please read (Sagan 1994).

Additional information

Funding

This research is supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (71774098, 71790611), Tsinghua University Initiative Scientific Research Program (20151080360), and Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China (17YJC630101).