China’s Approach to Disaster Risk Reduction: Human Security Challenges in a Time of Climate Change

Abstract

Natural disasters strike at people’s lives across the world but hit underdeveloped countries and societies’ poorest hardest. Those living in the Asia-Pacific region are significantly more likely to experience natural disaster than those in any other part of the world. China is one of the most exposed to natural disasters, with a long history of devastating events and remains at high risk. China has undertaken major disaster risk reduction (DRR) reforms. Importantly, China is also increasingly committed to international cooperation over DRR within a Sendai Framework. Adopting a Human Security perspective, this article explains and critically evaluates China’s DRR reforms. It highlights China’s increased willingness to collaborate with international agencies over knowledge exchange and capacity building to improve its domestic DRR and contribute to the international DRR system. The study argues that China’s reforms are a work in progress, but demonstrating improvement. It argues that China’s expressed wish for closer international DRR cooperation is a new opportunity to mainstream China and it is incumbent on the international community and Chinese Government to build on emerging collaboration and grasp this long-overdue opportunity.

Keywords

Natural disasters disaster risk reduction China reforms cooperation

Introduction

Natural Disasters

Disaster risk reduction (DRR) is central to sustainable development. China’s development has been blighted by such events and human security has been at a premium in China as natural disasters have been a constant companion of the Chinese people for many centuries. China has a long history of major natural disasters and remains at high risk today. China accounted for the largest number of reported natural disasters by country in 2015 with 26 such events (Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters [CRED], 2015). This article sets out China’s experience of natural disasters and examines China’s changing pattern of response to natural disasters and highlights its growing involvement in international DRR.

In addition to naturally occurring factors such as fault lines (Shanghai is one of the world’s largest cities located on such a line), anthropomorphic factors are even more central to explaining China’s vulnerability to natural disasters. As a recent Chinese study comparing two earthquakes in Yunnan in 2014 has highlighted, China’s natural disasters have resulted from a combination of (i) the costs of breakneck, environmentally destructive industrialization; (ii) a prolonged exposure to regulatory neglect; and (iii) a consequential anthropomorphic contribution to global warming, climate change and increased incidence of extreme weather (Jia, Chen, Fan & Pan, 2016).

China has elaborated a national strategic plan and is pouring millions of dollars into DRR and into its multitrack measures in response to climate change and global warming. However, the sheer scale and breadth of accumulated challenges, entrenched industrial megalith, and bureaucratic labyrinth represent major challenges.

In particular, climate change is causing more extreme, ‘wild’, weather, increasing risks to human life, health and livelihood as well as to the critical infrastructure of states. The critical implications of climate change for natural disasters are threefold.

Firstly, there has been an intensification of climatic change and its impact resulting from global warming. The factor of time is significant with acceleration in the worldwide incidence of natural disasters. There were triple the number of natural disasters between 2000 and 2009 than there were between 1980 and 1989. The overwhelming proportion of this increase, some 80 per cent, has been attributed to climate-related events (UNISDR/CRED, 2010).

Second, there is a factor of space, an extensification of factors contributing to disasters to take ever-greater extent of the changing global context. Since 1990, natural disasters have affected about 217 million people every year with climate change (CRED, 2015). The scale of disasters has expanded owing to increased rates of urbanization, deforestation and environmental degradation, and to intensifying climate variables such as higher temperatures, extreme precipitation and more violent wind/water storms.

Third, the consequential recognition that natural disaster prevention, monitoring and response require coordinated multilayered and multidimensional responses in order to be effective. Recent analysis has indicated that, in the Asia-Pacific region, there are five priorities for improving effective disaster response: The key lessons from 2015 point to areas that require urgent attention: (i) building urban resilience; (ii) promoting regional cooperation for trans boundary river basin floods and other cross-border disasters; (iii) addressing slow-onset disasters like drought; (iv) enhancing end-to-end multi-hazard early warning systems; and (v) promoting the use of innovative technology (ESCAP, 2015, p. 3).

International cooperation is central to improving human security from natural disaster threats in China. China has expressed its ‘wish’ to strengthen international cooperation in three aspects of DRR: knowledge exchange, international coordination and technological research collaboration (Li, 2015). This article’s principal argument is that this statement by China’s senior DRR official to the Sendai World Conference represents a long-awaited and long-overdue opportunity for the international community. It is incumbent upon the interested international community to grasp this opportunity and actively pursue collaboration with China in these key elements of DRR.

Based on English language sources and an extensive review of Chinese language assessments, the article examines China’s experience of natural disasters and its DRR reforms since the 2008 Sichuan/Wenchaun Earthquake. Carrying the domestic analysis further, the article examines a strengthening Chinese commitment to international disaster risk management and provides policy-oriented recommendations indicating pathways for the international community to engage with China as its senior officials express the hope to build closer collaborative partnerships.

Analytical Approach

Human Security

The study adopts a Human Security perspective. Human development and human security are mutually reinforcing concepts. Some 17 years ago, Kofi Annan linked development, security and human rights to ensure freedom from fear and want and freedom to live in dignity. Annan defined the concept in the following way: ‘Human security in its broadest sense embraces far more than the absence of violent conflict. It embraces human rights, good governance, access to education and health care and ensuring that each individual has opportunities and choices to fulfil his or her own potential’ (2000). For example, Annan’s standpoint is well demonstrated in the case of health (Aginam, 2011).

Prior to Kofi Annan’s definition, the 1994 Human Development Report had emphasized the need to move away from a purely state-centred view of development and security, arguing for a greater emphasis upon ‘the legitimate concerns of ordinary people who sought security in their daily lives’ (United Nations Development Programme [UNDP], 1994, p. 22). The idea of ‘security centred on people’ received international attention in two reports. The Report by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (2001) defined human security as ‘the security of people—their physical safety, their economic and social well-being, respect for their dignity and worth and human beings, and their protection of their human rights and fundamental freedoms’ (International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty [ICISS], 2001). In 2003, the Report of the Commission on Human Security defined human security as including human rights (Commission on Human Security [CHS], 2003).

As a framework for analysis, human security reflects the influences of Amartya Sen (1999) and the Human development work of Mahbub ul Haq who died in 1998. It centres upon the overcoming of economic, social, political and cultural obstacles to the realization of human potential and aspiration. In so doing, it has a framework comprised of vertical and horizontal components. Vertically, it moves beyond a singular concern with the state per se to have multiple levels of analysis above at the supra-state level, and below the state to societal and individual levels of experience. Horizontally, it specifies a range of categories of factors constraining human capabilities, or tabulated indices as in the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)’s Human Development Index. Following Sen, these are located within a range of mutually constitutive domains: economic, political, social and cultural. The analytical approach is emancipatory in thrust. Sen’s central premise is that in many developing countries, a range of mutually constitutive economic, social, cultural and political barriers that undermine the development of individual capabilities obstructs people’s aspirations and life-chances. These ‘unfreedoms’ can be countered and overcome by identifying the way these barriers operate, initiating and implementing measures across the domains to facilitate empowerment and emancipation and thereby promote ‘capabilities freedom’ and strengthen human security. This focus and analytical frame makes it a particularly appropriate instrument with which to investigate and evaluate the present study, correlating a complexity of domestic and international levels and domains across time and space.

Natural Disasters and Human Security

As we have noted, Human Security seeks to promote freedom from fear and want and freedom to live in dignity. The Commission on Human Security’s definition of human security is ‘to protect the vital core of all human lives in ways that enhance human freedoms and human fulfilment’ (Commission on Human Security [CHS], 2003). Human security is about protecting fundamental freedoms-freedoms forming the very essence of life. In other words, it is concerned with protecting people from critical (severe) and pervasive (widespread) threats and situations. Human security utilizes processes that build on people’s strengths and aspirations. It means creating political, social, environmental, economic, military and cultural systems that together give people the building blocks of survival, livelihood and dignity.

As an emerging literature notes, natural disasters strike at the very heart of these freedoms and the pathways to their attainment with a combination of immediate, medium and long-term impact (Hobson, Bacon & Cameron, 2014). The provision of effective protection to try and reduce risk from such disasters is also a primary component of international human rights (Futamura, Hobson & Turner, 2011). There is the realization of the human cost and trauma, loss of family and friends, destruction of homes and businesses, displacement of persons and flows of refugees, the need for clean water, sanitary facilities, medical help, food and shelter and for protection against violence, abuse, exploitation and crime. To this is added the economic costs-global, national, local and individual—from the loss of livelihood, businesses and supply systems, the costs of humanitarian assistance, replacement of critical infrastructure, fresh water and sanitation, health and rehabilitation costs, ecological regeneration and wildlife habitat restoration, post-disaster reconstruction and, where provided for, the impact on insurance premiums. Societal costs to communities and societies range from the recovery from the loss of human expertise, knowledge and skills, to vital infrastructure such as educational and hospital facilities, sanitation, communications-roads, rail, airports, telecommunications and the rebuilding of policing and security capacity, administration and government.

A subliminal factor is the critical nexus of time and space. Natural disasters dislocate the time/space continuum insofar as the drama and shock they generate critically dislocates the sense of temporal continuity and spatiality experienced by victims of such events, removing the pillars of everyday normality and familiarity. This is a deeply disorienting physical and psychological experience, sometimes referred to as post-trauma stress disorder (PTSD). Trauma arising from natural disasters is especially potent as a source of human insecurities and ‘unfreedoms’ because they traumatize large groups of people simultaneously, giving rise to feelings of individual and collective anxiety and guilt among survivors, in some cases giving rise to suicidal tendencies (Lau et al., 2010, p. 504). Such trauma is defined both by the experience of being in the event itself and by a person’s or population’s reactions to it (American Psychological Association [APA] u.d.; Babble, 2010). Children and young people are, as one might anticipate, among the most vulnerable and as recent studies have emphasized, post-disaster protective support is ‘critical’ (Gibbs et al., 2015; Mutch, 2015).

Responses

Clearly, as we have seen, the threats to human security from natural disasters are multilayered, multidimensional and mutually constitutive. Consequently, building an effective, comprehensive and interlocking response designed to maximize human and infrastructural resilience has taken time to achieve within China as well as internationally. Developing this holistic response from global to local to maximize the human security priority of ‘security centred on people’ has concentrated on the twin-tracks of knowledge transfer and capacity building with respect to DRR, disaster management and post-disaster reconstruction. Greater international multilateral dialogue, agreements, action programmes, cooperation and coordination have resulted in the creation of a more substantive international régime (Krasner, 1983) comprised of agreed principles, norms, rules and expectations of right conduct as well as an institutional architecture of structures, processes and agencies driving and implementing the normative regime. Most evident in this process have been the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction (1990–1999); the three UN World Conferences on DRR; The Global Platform for DRR; International Strategy for Disaster Reduction; Yokohama Strategy for a Safer World: Guidelines for Natural Disaster Prevention, Preparedness and Mitigation and Plan of Action; UN Plan of Action on Disaster Risk Reduction for Resilience; and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 (SFDRR). Nested within this global DRR regime is a regional level guidance framework and regional organizational initiatives such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)’s 2008 Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction and Emergency Preparedness and Response in the Asia Pacific Region: 2009 to 2015 and national level policies, strategies, action plans and operational instrumentalities such as those in China, to which our discussion now turns to consider in greater detail.

Natural Disasters in China

Overall Experience

China is one of the most exposed countries with respect to natural disasters (Hao, 2014, p. 1) and it experiences virtually the whole spectrum of disasters from floods, landslides and earthquakes, to typhoons, hail and drought, through to forest fires, sandstorms and severe snowstorms. According to ESCAP, the economic costs to China of natural disasters during 2015 were around US$4.2bn (ESCAP, 2015, p. 2). According to China’s National Statistics Bureau, in 2013 damage from droughts rose nearly fourfold to 90 billion Yuan, while snowfall, freezes and ocean-related costs totalled more than 42 billion Yuan (Reuters, 2014). China has seen a combination of floods and droughts simultaneously, with the rain belt moving north past the Yangtze River. Northern China is seeing more droughts while typhoons are arriving earlier, wetlands drying up and sea levels rising.

Time represents a significant component of the picture of China’s experience of natural disasters. As noted above, China has a long, long history of such disasters, forming a powerful, ever-present threat to the human security of Chinese peoples throughout recorded history (Fuller, 2015). Indeed, Chinese history records the Shanxi earthquake of 21 May, 512 with an estimated loss of 5,310 lives. In terms of lives lost, five of the top 10 earthquakes in human history occurred in China. The largest loss of life took place in China in the January 1556 Sheen Province earthquake, with an estimated 830,000 deaths. The other most devastating Chinese earthquakes were in Haiyuan in December 1920 (234,117 fatalities), Tangshan in July 1976 (242,419) and Sichuan in 2008 (68,712). China also features prominently in the list of the world’s worst floods, accounting for all of the top 5, 6 of the top 10 and 8 of the top 20 flood disasters and stretching back to the 1931 floods that resulted in an estimated 2.5–3.7 million deaths. These floods have a spatial dimension to them. While floods have struck many Chinese provinces over the years, notably Sichuan, Hubei and Anhu, the most severe in terms of lives lost have centred on the Yellow and Yangtze River systems (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Source: Ebrey (u.d.).

In its 2008 assessment of the Sichuan earthquake, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) noted:

the impact of disasters has rapidly increased from average annual disaster losses of RMB47.6 billion in the 1950s to over RMB172.4 billion in the 1990s. Significantly, the impact is continuing to grow … disasters in China have become more comprehensive, serious and multi-level. Major influences such as global warming and climate change, socio-economic activities, changes in the ecological environment and the development of urbanisation are all contributing to this trend. (Asian Development Bank [ADB], 2008, p. 1, emphasis added)

The 2008 Sichuan/Wenchuan Earthquake

The Sichuan earthquake is classified as catastrophic (Figure 2 and 3). It was the largest earthquake in China since Tangshan in 1976. Reaching 7.9 on the Richter scale, it struck for two deadly minutes in the early afternoon of 12 May. The scale of the disaster had physical and human causes. The biophysical or geological cause was the sudden slippage on the Longmenshan fault line from the pressure of the colliding Indian and Eurasian plates and shallow earthquake depth. That an earthquake would occur should not have been unexpected, although the intensity and impact may have been less predictable. Sichuan has one of the longest and most extensive histories of earthquakes in China due to the fact it is a veritable crossroads of plate tectonics (Wei, Jin & Wang, 2012). But the sheer magnitude of the impact owes much to human factors, most notably high population density and substandard building design and construction, attributable in significant part to corruption, maladministration, poor quality governance and, despite an earnest, committed and dedicated relief effort, a weak response capacity.

Figure 2.

Source: Mistman123 (talk | contribs) (2008). Map showing the epicentre of the 2008 Sichuan earthquake with no labels. 15 May. Wikimedia Commons public domain image. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2008_Sichuan_earthquake_map_no_labels.svg

Figure 3.

Source: Maps of China, public domain image.dex.html

The death toll totalled almost 69,000 and, many weeks after the disaster, some 18,000 persons remained missing. The catastrophe left 374,000 people injured and between 5 million and 11 million people homeless. An astonishing 5 million buildings collapsed. This included a number of schools (Juyuan middle school in Dujiangyan city collapsed killing 900 pupils). In fact, there were two earthquakes, the second striking Sichuan and Yunnan Provinces on 30 August 2008, measuring 6.1 on the Richter scale, leaving dozens dead and hundreds injured. This earthquake struck close to the Longmenshan fault line, but was located further south than the Sichuan/Wenchuan earthquake, with its epicentre in Panzhihua City in the far south of Sichuan Province.

We noted earlier the devastating impact upon human security of such catastrophic disasters, including the psychological impact. In this earthquake disaster, this psychological cost was of major significance. One study, undertaken just 1 month after the disaster assessed psychological problems among secondary school students living in Chengdu (90 km away from the disaster epicentre). This cross-sectional survey involved 3,324 secondary students undergoing a self-administered structured questionnaire in classroom settings. Among all respondents, 22.3 per cent reported PTSD; 22.6 per cent were probable depression cases; 10.6 per cent reported suicidal ideation; and 14.1 per cent would like to receive psychological counselling (Lau et al., 2010, p. 504). One year after the earthquake, United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) found that ‘compared to basic physical needs such as food, water, shelter and health care, there was less expertise in addressing the psychosocial impact of the earthquake on children’. Specifically, UNICEF fieldworkers’ psychosocial services were being provided in a ‘sporadic and uncoordinated manner, often by unqualified volunteers or by professionals who had little or no experience in emergencies’. In response, the organization worked with China’s National Working Committee on Children and Women and local communities to establish an eventual total of 40 Child Friendly Spaces within the most severely affected communities where the needs and risks are the greatest and to develop guidelines and service manuals and provide extensive training to more than 200 teachers, social workers, volunteers and community leaders working in these Spaces (UNICEF, 2009, pp. 24–28).

The infrastructural costs were also substantial, estimated at US$75 million. The ADB described the impact as ‘astonishingly large’, noting that a total of 13,616 educational institutions were fully or partially damaged in the earthquake affected areas, resulting in a total value of losses of RMB 4,676 million. At least 18,834 healthcare facilities were damaged or destroyed and the total value of losses in the health and nutrition sector was estimated to be RMB2,558 million in the three provinces affected by the Earthquake. The cultural fabric was also torn apart. In Sichuan Province, 1,126 cultural museums, 38 libraries and 147 theatres were damaged by the earthquake (ADB, 2008, p. 3).

The post-shock physical and human consequences contributed significantly to the scale of the disaster with landslides, collapsed buildings and flooding cutting off large areas of the disaster zone such as Sichuan/Wenchuan, some for up to 3 days. In Shifang, chemical plants collapsed killing hundreds and releasing toxic ammonia. The emergency response effort relied heavily on the military, the effort coordinated by the Chinese ARMY (People’s Liberation Army [PLA]). Temporary shelter was constructed to meet the needs of the homeless and the Central Government pledged US$10 million for rebuilding.

Nevertheless, China requested international humanitarian assistance within days of the disaster. The international response was substantial. According to the Chinese Government’s 2009 White Paper, over 170 countries and regions and more than 20 international organizations, provided funds totalling over 4.4 billion Yuan and large batches of relief materials and experienced technical teams were despatched from a number of countries (Government of China, 2009, §6).

When we try to explain this historical event, it is evident enough that the pressure cooker of tectonic experience and the shifting patterns of climate are key natural factors. But the temporal and spatial evidence also underlines the significance of the human factor. This latter element includes weak and ineffectual monitoring and surveillance, insipid risk assessment and risk reduction strategies and a critical under-capacity in emergency relief/response. Recent Chinese research demonstrated a continued risk exposure in Sichuan through 2012–2015. Zhang and Zhuang conclude their critical evaluation of Sichuan Province’s history of ‘natural calamities’ in the following terms:

Natural calamities happen frequently in Sichuan province, which are mainly affected by the flood and drought perennial. It shows a significant regionality and periodicity, as well as a chainity [sic] and group-occurring in the calamities combination. And the direct economic losses are obviously rising. And there is a long cycle of 10 years and a short cycle of 2 or 4 years. In the next three years, natural disasters in Sichuan province will be still serious. The work of disaster reducing will [have to] pay attention, the primary work is on the ecological environment. Flood and drought control, and geological disasters and renovation work should also be well done. Human behaviour should be regulated, and the social system and function should be strengthened to reduce the occurrence of disaster (2012).

The December 2008 ADB Report noted above concluded that, while these were ‘all essential activities, they are not sufficient to constitute a total disaster risk management approach. A greater range of better coordinated disaster risk management activities is needed to effectively reduce the impact of disasters in the long term’ (ADB, 2008, p. 2).

Profiling China’s Experience of Natural Disasters

Based on the extensive review of Chinese language sources conducted for the present study and of English language studies, the profile of China’s experience of natural disasters shows that space too is a significant factor. For example, space forms an important element in terms of the role of provinces and local governance in Sichuan Province (Yuan, 2011; Zhang & Zhuang, 2012).

There is a significant spatial concentration of natural disasters in China’s South and West. Chinese research on the time and spatial pattern of natural disasters in China for the period 2000–2011 concludes with three principal findings:

In general the natural disasters are more serious in southern areas than northern areas in China, the worst affected provinces entirely centralize in southwest areas and the middle and lower reaches of Yangtze river.

Disasters of drought and flood totally reflect the characteristic of droughts in the north and floods in the south. Hail disaster exists in the whole country, while typhoon mainly centralizes in southeastern coastal areas.

The spatial patterns of natural disasters in China exist an obvious characteristic of severe damage in the south and slight damage in the north. The spatial pattern of natural disasters in the south is a combination of flood, hail and typhoon, while in the north is a combination of drought and hail (Liao, Zhao, Wang, Li & Lv, 2013).

An analysis of the frequency of major disasters through Chinese history by Yu Yang drew two conclusions. First, that occurrence of different types of disasters was different and the provincial patterns were significantly different from each other. The study demonstrated that there is a close relationship between different types of disasters and their distribution in China. Second, based on the analysis of the disaster losses, the spatial pattern of losses was not the same as that of frequency (2012).

A further study, covering the period 2005–2010, indicates that the frequency of emergency responses to natural disasters varies between north and south and east and west with a higher frequency in the south reflecting the incidence of Grade-IV and Grade-III responses to major flood and typhoon disasters in this 5-year period. This is accounted for by a high incidence of Grade-II and Grade-I, ‘catastrophic’ disasters in central and western regions of China, primarily earthquakes, extreme flash floods and mud-rock flows, extreme severe droughts, low-temperature and snow disasters (Ma, Yuan & Cheng, 2013).

Evidence from Chinese research of the China’s experience of natural disasters over long historical time periods confirms an assumption, easily accepted at face value as self-evident, that the incidence of such events is a combination of biophysical vulnerabilities and the input of anthropomorphic factors contributing to different types of disaster. As Yu explains, however, in his analysis, the critical element in the distribution of China’s disasters is not primarily that of humanity’s activities as these apply across all disaster types, but rather the biophysical vulnerability applying at any particular spatial location: ‘The hazard-formative environments and hazard-formative factors of different types of disasters are significantly different. So the natural condition is the decisive factor of the distribution of different major disasters’ (2012).

Clearly, beyond the human cost is the infrastructural impact, such as the loss of electricity infrastructure (Cong, 2013) and economic costs. As one might anticipate, the losses caused by natural disasters were closely related to the concentration of economic activity and population. In general, the number of fatalities was larger in the areas with more developed agriculture, culture and business. While the impact is economy-wide, of course, specific sectors such as agriculture are hard-hit (Li et al., 2012) and the lives of the farming community particularly so (Wang, 2012). Chinese research confirms that natural disasters suppress the improvement of agricultural total factors of production (TFP) in the short term (Deng, 2012). In the short term, it is estimated that Chinese agricultural TFP will decrease 0.0141 per cent in the short term, struggling to make a 1 per cent increase in agriculture areas affected by natural disasters in the long term (Li, Wu, Gao & Li, 2012). A recent study of the impact of natural disasters on Guizhou Province’s agricultural sector reinforces the findings noted elsewhere that the biophysical environment is a decisive factor in the less industrially developed provinces: ‘Guizhou is a typical Karst area, the ecological environment is frail, the occurrence of natural disasters is higher, and the economy development is relatively backward, natural disaster to the agricultural economy development brings tremendous influence’ (Jiang, 2012).

China’s Response

The primary objective for the Chinese Government is to establish an effective integrated natural disaster risk management (INDRM) system. Institutionally, and in terms of policy and managerial oversight, the organizational lead is the State Council with departmental day-to-day responsibility falling to the Ministry of Civil Affairs (MOCA) (Government of China, 2012). The Ministry of Civil Affairs of China assumes the work of organizing and coordinating disaster relief, supervising and promulgating information on disasters, managing and distributing disaster relief funds and Central Government materials and monitoring their use. The Ministry of Civil Affairs also issued the Regulations on the Relief of Natural Disasters, encouraging village committees, community centres, the private sector, civil society organizations and the wider citizenry to help in natural disaster relief efforts. Key agencies emerged over the years within this governmental framework. These include MOCA’s National Disaster Reduction Centre set-up in 2003, an International Drought Risk Relief Centre and a Satellite Disaster Reduction Application Centre of the Ministry of Civil Affairs established in 2007 and 2009, respectively. The State Council also established the National Institute of Emergency Management (NIEM), based on the Chinese Academy of Governance.

The past three and a half decades have seen a veritable avalanche of laws and regulations dealing with disaster prevention and reduction. They cover a vast spectrum of emergencies and climate change contingencies. Beyond the Emergency Response Law (2013), legislation addresses water and soil conservation, water pollution, protection against and mitigation of earthquake disasters, flood control, prevention of desertification, forestry and grasslands, fire risk, marine protection and drought. The regulatory panoply is just as extensive, dealing with animal diseases, insect infestation, geological disasters, how to handle earthquake disasters, changes in weather and protection of reservoirs and dams. From the late 1990s, China also developed a series of national plans on disaster reduction and management, setting out strategies, responsibilities and operational aims and objectives for all tiers of government and administration in the country, most notably, the Disaster Reduction Action Plan of the People’s Republic of China 2006–2015 (China National Committee for International Disaster Reduction [CNCIDR], 2006). All this, increasingly synchronized with the emerging global disaster reduction regime epitomized by China’s support for the principles and action strategy of the Hyogo Framework for Action 2005–2015, saw the creation of a range of initiatives intended to create an INDRM system. These included systems for disaster emergency response; more efficient release of disaster information; emergency relief materials reserves; disaster early warning, consultation and information sharing; and mechanisms for major disaster rescue and relief joint coordination and for emergency social mobilization.

The overall system sought to ensure the specific initiatives were mirrored in subnational levels of government and administration across the country. In formulating this system, the Chinese Government was influenced not only by its own national experiences and by the growing international cooperation, dialogue and consensus around core disaster management and risk reduction principles but also by its increasing willingness to engage with organizations and agencies outside China to facilitate greater knowledge and skills transfers and increased understanding of recognized ‘best’ or ‘better’ practices. Evidence of this more open approach was a programme that ran between 2006 and 2011 and brought together MOCA and local Departments of Civil Affairs with The Asia Foundation, business associations from both China and the USA, and Chinese charities aimed at strengthening disaster management at the community level in China through increased public–private partnerships. The initiative covered six provinces and ‘mobilised private sector contributions and involved stakeholders from across sectors in training courses, drills, and awareness campaigns’ (Asia Foundation 2013, p. 1).

Of course, no matter what policies, strategies and plans, systems and agencies are put in place, proof of effectiveness, that is, of human security, societal and state resilience or, indeed, a lack of such resilience, may only come in the direst of circumstances and this would prove to be so with the 2008 Sichuan/Wenchuan Earthquake catastrophic disaster. As previously mentioned, in December 2008, the ADB published a considered assessment of China’s emergency response to the earthquake. This technical consultant’s analysis, while finding that ‘the Chinese Government responded strongly and effectively to the problems caused by the Wenchuan earthquake’ (ADB, 2008, p. 5), identified many deficiencies and organizational problems at all levels:

The scale of the event was not anticipated by the preparedness measures, which were in place, and this led to the whole response and relief system coming under severe pressure. A number of gaps then became evident despite the excellent efforts of the Government and other agencies in providing immediate response and relief interventions. Foremost of these is the absence of any comprehensive risk reduction programs [sic], the lack of an overall authority for disaster risk management and the lack of a unified all-inclusive damage and needs assessment system. (ADB, 2008, p. 5)

In the following May 2009, China published its first White Paper on DRR, China’s Actions for Disaster Prevention and Reduction. The Paper emphasized the Government’s commitment

to strengthen the state capacity for emergency rescue and relief work. A coordinated and efficient disaster emergency management system will be built, characterised by unified command, sound coordination, clear division of work and level-by-level control with local authorities playing the main role. This will form, by and large, an emergency relief system covering all aspects. (Government of China, 2009)

However, as one very recent study has demonstrated, the impact on villages can have long-term effects (Du, Okazaki, Ochiai & Kobayashi, 2016). In the years since the Sichuan/Wenchuan earthquake disaster, the Chinese Government has endeavoured to make good on its 2009 commitment and to address the gaps identified by the ADB evaluation report and each of the three facets of improvement, namely, development and implementation of comprehensive risk reduction programmes; establishment of an overall authority for disaster risk management; and a unified all-inclusive damage and needs assessment system. Central to this response has been the consolidation and prioritization of the China National Committee for Disaster Reduction (NCDR) as the overall lead authority.

A State Council Vice-Premier heads the NCDR. It is responsible for formulating principles, developing policies and plans for disaster reduction, coordinating major disaster activities, providing advice and guidance to local governments and facilitating international dialogue and cooperation. MOCA undertakes the day-to-day administration and interdepartmental coordination. In addition, the structures, processes, agencies and responsibilities have been clarified and streamlined. As a recent assessment by Chen Gang has demonstrated:

Compared to the PRC’s early experiences in disaster management, the bureaucratic system in the reform period, facilitated by all these laws, regulations and plans, has clarified the assignment of duties among major departments. It has also standardised the procedures through which the government, the armed forces, businesses and civil society plan for and reduce the impact of disasters, react during and immediately following a disaster and take steps to recover after the disaster. (2014, p. 33)

While the May 2008 earthquake was the most devastating, it was followed by the October 2008 and April 2013 earthquakes. By late May 2013, the latter earthquake had left 196 people dead, 14,785 injured, 237,655 displaced and 2.1 million affected; additionally, 193,000 houses collapsed and 510,000 were severely damaged (International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies [IFRC], 2013). Of distinct concern was a Western news report that Professor Chen Yuntai, twice President of China’s Seismological Society, had previously warned China’s top leadership in the aftermath of the 2008 Sichuan/Wenchuan earthquake that the Longmenshan fault line would, in all probability, rupture again in future years. It is claimed that the warning was reported to China’s top leaders in Reference News, a daily internal briefing for the Communist Party and in a seminar held 10 days after the disaster, the proceedings of which were communicated to the Politburo but with no action resulting. According to the newspaper report, Professor Chen explained, ‘We collected the data from the Wenchuan earthquake and we calculated that there would be another big quake around 60 miles to the southwest, which is Baoxing county [the heart of the 2013 earthquake]’ (The Telegraph, 2013).

China’s pursuit of an INDRM remains a work-in-progress, with a number of problems noted by recent Chinese studies. The new survey and literature review for the present study showed that there are Chinese concerns raised over governance, specifically with respect to relief standards. Chinese language research sources have demonstrated convincingly that this is a major problem for Chinese natural disaster response effectiveness. There are simply too many relief standards operating in China compared to other countries (Zhou, Li & Wu, 2013) and there are also important discrepancies between disaster relief standards operating across the range of disaster types. For example, one Chinese study shows that:

the number of the earthquake-related standards is abundant, while standard for marine disasters and forest and grassland fires is scarce. China promulgated approximate twenty disaster-related standards each year. Most of the provinces in China participated in the development of the disaster-related standards and most of the development concentrated in the 1990s. (Zhou et al., 2012)

Moreover, despite the efforts to strengthen the bureaucratic system, a recent analysis by He, Tang and Zhang identified continued weakness in administrative coordination, particularly between local and regional tiers (2012). In addition, given the importance attached to constructing an effective damage and needs assessment system, Chinese studies have demonstrated problems of data collection, classification and quality. Liu (2013) identifies limitations arising from ‘information barriers’ and ‘negative collective behaviours’. Yin, Yin and Xu (2011) document problems surrounding current loss classification methods, such as how to effectively assess secondary disaster loss and indirect loss, and build up a coastal city natural disaster loss classification system from social loss and economic loss.

The response to the April 2013 earthquake in Sichuan allows for some degree of comparison with that of 2008 with respect to emergency management, temporary housing and recovery. Field evaluations by US-based researchers to Lushan County of Yaan City in Sichuan Province were undertaken in May and June 2013 (Earthquake Engineering Research Institute [EERI], 2013). The county is about 130 km west of the city of Chengdu in southwestern China. It has a population of over 110,000 and the main township has a population of about 20,000. There were more than 200 fatalities and over 11,000 injured. After the 2008 earthquake, a new town conforming to a new building code was constructed in Lushan and the damages there were far less severe than in the old town built principally of bricks and mortar and generally poorly constructed. In terms of emergency response, the post-Sichuan/Wenchaun system put in place appeared to have to be more robust than in 2008. In the new system, emergency management offices were established at all tiers of government across China. Kushan’s office was permanently staffed. Awareness raising, training and response preparedness was also undertaken by government agencies. Significantly, for DRR, the field studies reported that emergency response plans and conducted regular drills: for instance, in May of 2012, Sichuan Province conducted a province-wide emergency response drill, and Yaan City conducted a drill in response to a hypothetical Ms7.0 Earthquake. In the preceding March, the region was identified as at high risk of an impending earthquake and communications systems were assessed and additional emergency equipment was acquired in anticipation.

The emergency preparations were assessed throughout the County during April, including the day prior to the earthquake. Given the improved monitoring, risk assessment, enhanced information sharing, stronger administrative system and advanced preparation work, the field study concluded that ‘the emergency response was well-coordinated and generally effective’ (EERI, 2013, p. 5). Additionally, there was improved performance with respect to damage assessment. According to the field study,

damage assessment started one week after the earthquake. All urban housing stock and more than 30,000 rural houses were assessed within a little over one month. About 150 outside experts came to help with the damage assessment. Village officials had been trained to perform damage assessment on rural residential housing. (EERI, 2013, p. 5)

In terms of emergency shelter relief, as the field report notes, one of the lessons learned of the Sichuan/Wenchuan earthquake is that, once occupied by wooden structures, farmlands cannot be restored to productive agriculture and, consequently, these were adopted sparingly with tent facilities combined with Government subsidies to rural residents to build temporary homes using readily available and recycled materials and with an anticipated lifespan of 2–3 years. Finally, this evaluation considered recovery planning. This involved the formulation of a master construction plan grounded on a fault line mapping survey and inputs from Lushan County, Yaan City and Sichuan Province, but with negligible public participation. While official announcements proscribed local people undertaking rebuilding efforts until the recovery plan was set out, the study found that:

Regardless of this order, some businesses had already completed the repairs of their stores and some were in the process of getting the repairs done. Notwithstanding the government planning and provision of technical assistance, the familiar problems of bad construction practices and low-quality materials remain, especially at the local level. (EERI, 2013, p. 7)

On the back of a Central Government commitment of 46 billion Yuan to Sichuan province for 2013–2016, the Sichuan Government announced a pairing scheme whereby six unaffected cities will assist six severely damaged districts. The estimated total assistance should amount to 0.5 per cent of each city’s 2012 fiscal income. The field study concluded that: ‘Overall, people seem to be satisfied with the government policies on emergency management, temporary housing, and recovery’ (EERI, 2013, p. 8).

Regional Involvement

According to the Asia Foundation, ‘China’s experience responding to a wide range of severe natural disasters provides valuable insights for planning, response and mitigation strategies across the region’ (2013, p. 2).

As the Chinese Government itself seeks to highlight, China has an established record of international cooperation in DRR and management. For example, China collaborated with the International Strategy Committee for Disaster Reduction in establishing the International Centre for Drought Risk Reduction (ICDRR) in Beijing in 2007. The ICDRR was charged with the responsibility of promoting international and interregional cooperation and collaboration in drought risk reduction, using space technology and developing additional mechanisms to monitor and assess drought risks across Asia. It has also concentrated on building databases and a knowledge pool, developing applied technology and enhancing capacity building and public awareness on drought risks and ways to reduce drought risks.

China has been an active party to initiatives in both Northeast and Southeast Asia as well as Central Asia. In Central Asia, the focus is on the disaster management and cooperation agreements and processes of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, including agreement to establish a dedicated Centre to facilitate this. In Northeast Asia, this is most evident in a trilateral dialogue process with South Korea and Japan. The Trilateral Heads of Government Agency Meeting on Disaster Management has been taking place since 2009. The First Japan–China–Korea Trilateral Summit held in Fukuoka in December 2008 made the Trilateral Joint Announcement on Disaster Management Cooperation. In this declaration, the three governments agreed to enhance cooperation by developing a comprehensive disaster management framework; developing measures and systems to reduce vulnerability to disasters and to minimize damage from disasters; and strengthening effective disaster management at the national, local and community levels. Following this agreement, the First Japan–China–Korea Trilateral Director-General (Expert Level) Meeting on Disaster Management was held in Seoul in June 2009. The first Japan–China–Korea Trilateral Heads of Government Agency Meeting on Disaster Management took place in Kobe in late October 2009, the second in Beijing in October 2011 and the third in Seoul in October 2013 (United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction [UNISDR], 2013). The Trilateral Expert Meeting on Disaster Loss Data and DRR Technology Sharing also took place in Jeju, South Korea in March 2014. The countries also agreed to cooperate in the run-up to the Asia Regional Platform on DRR in Bangkok, Thailand, in June 2014.

The widening space of China’s disaster management involvement has also been evident in Southeast Asia. In October 2014, China and ASEAN signed a Memorandum of Understanding on Disaster Management Cooperation. Under the agreement, China is providing US$8.1 million for ASEAN capacity building to improve its response to regional disasters. This funding is intended to underpin the ASEAN Agreement on Disaster Management and Emergency Response Work Programme, the ASEAN Coordinating Centre for Humanitarian Assistance and the ASEAN Secretariat’s programmes to build capacity for disaster management (China Daily, 2014).

Further evidence of China’s increased involvement in knowledge and skills sharing can be seen in NIEM’s collaborations with US-based disaster management training institutes including Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, Tulane University’s Disaster Resilience Leadership Academy and the US Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Emergency Management Institute. An Asia Foundation initiative, supported by AusAID and in partnership with the Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation, will facilitate triangular cooperation between US, Thai and Chinese experts and government officials. This initiative will further encourage the sharing of knowledge and best practices among training institutes across ASEAN countries (Chen, 2013).

China is also centrally involved in the work of the United Nations Platform for Space-based Information for Disaster Management and Emergency Response (UN-SPIDER) and was proactive in setting up its Beijing Office in 2011. The Beijing Office hosted the annual United Nations International Conference on Space-based Technologies for Disaster Management: Disaster Risk Identification, Assessment and Monitoring, held in Beijing, in October 2013 (United Nations Organisation [UN], 2013).

The PLA has the principal responsibility of operational response to emergencies within China, a role defined in the various Chinese Defence White Papers over the years. Again, as recent Chinese language research has noted, we see recent signs of an internationalization of the operational space the PLA is seeking to enter and improved military structures to enable this (Chen et al., 2012). For example, in 2013, army officials from China and the USA met in Hawaii for an annual disaster relief exercise that included field training for the first time. In January 2016, Chinese and US medical brigades participated in the 11th Annual Pacific Resilience Disaster Management Exchange. This was described as a ‘multiservice medical exchange between the United States and the People’s Republic of China. Medical service members collaborated to advance the understanding of emergency preparedness capabilities’ (Joint Base Northwest Lewi-McChord [JBLM] Northwest Guardian, 2016).

While the focus of this article is primarily on risk reduction, it is important to note that China’s international participation also embraces its humanitarian assistance for overseas disaster relief. One aspect of this is financial, China providing significant monetary support. For example, in the aftermath of the 2010 Haiti earthquake, China donated US$4.4 million worth of humanitarian aid and sent a medical team to help with relief efforts. In 2014, China sent 200 medical workers and advisers to three West African countries fighting Ebola and contributed US$123 million in grants to the World Health Organisation, the UN Ebola Response Multi-Partner Trust Fund and other organizations engaged in fighting the epidemic. The year 2014 also saw China donate approximately US$1 million to help Cambodian flood victims. Nevertheless, China’s international humanitarian assistance needs to be placed in perspective; it was not listed in the top 20 contributors in 2013 ranked according to billions of US dollars, China’s funding falling year on year by some 84 per cent (The Guardian, 2013). Of course, China is one of the emerging economies that in the position of being both provider and recipient of humanitarian assistance. In 2013, China received US$9.4 million while providing US$54 million in 2014 (Global Humanitarian Assistance [GHA], 2014). However, there are regional concerns with the provision of such funding that it may be used for narrower political aims, an unease given some weight given China’s initial paucity of assistance to the Philippines in the wake of Typhoon Haiyan during a period of heightened political tension between the two countries (Brautigam, 2013, p. 1).

A Globalizing Context

China’s search for an effective national DRR, management and response system is set not only within the regional dialogue and processes but, of course, also within a burgeoning corpus of declaratory statements and overlapping global compacts to which China is an increasingly important and committed party. There are three primary contextualizing international agreements that are actively framing China’s policy and practice on DRR: the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 (SFDRR), the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the COP21 Paris Climate Change Agreement 2015. Together, these represent interlocking, mutually constitutive principles, aims and objectives, targets and agreed structures, processes and mechanisms. These build upon a range of DRR initiatives including: the 2005–2015 Hyogo Framework for Action; the Third UN World Conference on DRR in 2015; The Global Platform for DRR; Regional Platforms for DRR; the UN Plan of Action on DRR for Resilience; and more specific initiatives such as the Resilient Cities Campaign.

Nevertheless, the challenges for human security remain substantial, not least with respect to the impact of climate change. The global experience is daunting. A UNIDR/CRED study estimates that between 1995 and 2015, 606,000 lives were lost and 4.1 billion people injured, left homeless or in need of emergency assistance as a result of weather-related disasters. The study also concluded that economic losses from weather-related disasters are significantly under-estimated. The recorded figure is US$1.891 trillion, representing 71 per cent of all losses attributed to natural hazards over the 20-year period. However, United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR) believes the figure is between US$250 billion and US$300 billion annually (UNISDR/CRED, 2015). China’s vast territory is subject to the broad spectrum of climate-related threats and the Chinese Government has documented its policy, regulations and international cooperation efforts to mitigate the impact of climate change on the country (Government of China, 2011). However, a 2013 Report by China’s National Development and Reform Commission pulled no punches, concluding that:

Climate change is already a serious threat to food, water, ecological and energy security, and to people’s lives and property. … The mission to deal with climate change is very arduous, but knowledge in society and ability to do this are weak across the board. (Reuters, 2013)

The important trajectory here is that the Chinese Government and emerging national DRR agencies are increasingly involved participants and actively engaged in synchronizing national policy and practice with those emerging in the global domain.

Conclusion

Two central research questions were addressed in this article: first, to what extent is China’s evolving DRR system providing greater resilience and stronger human security for its citizens, and second, to what extent is China engaging in the international DRR system? In answering these questions, the study shows that the post-2008 reforms have strengthened China’s DRR capacity and that China’s international participation is developing strongly. Domestically, many challenges remain, not least in tackling the problems of corruption and substandard construction, data collection and quality, risk assessment and emergency responses. Nonetheless, there is evidence of a strengthening of the system over time and a broadening of the space, the regional and global policy and operational domains, within which China’s DRR is being developed. For those Chinese citizens facing a growing threat from natural disaster, influenced by climate change, the danger remains acute, but greater knowledge and evaluative capacity, training and skills, enhanced monitoring and communication, streamlined administration structures and processes and emergency response capabilities are contributing to greater resilience and steadily improving human security.

There are two critical policy components of providing stronger protection for Chinese people, and especially those living in poverty and heavily reliant upon land, water and air for their daily needs. The first is a continued prioritization of DRR by the Chinese Government and, indeed, to increasing budgetary provision for DRR. The second relates to both policy and practice, namely, action by the Chinese Government and the international DRR-interested community to make China’s expressed ‘wish’ for closer international cooperation a practical reality. In this respect, there are encouraging signs noted in this article. These are perhaps most evident in the ASEAN-China agreement to cooperate on DRR, Trilateral Cooperation with South Korea and Japan and multi-agency, multi-sector collaboration such as that sponsored through the German Government.

However, further collaboration is necessary and can best be pursued with China’s National Forum on Comprehensive Disaster Risk Reduction and Sustainable Development and agencies such as the European Union’s Disaster Risk Management Knowledge Centre.

The closing policy recommendation for this study is a call to arms to social science colleagues. Risk Perception Analysis is a core element in knowledge exchange. As the European Forum on Disaster Risk Reduction has noted: ‘risk perception analysis is the first step in understanding how local cultures identify and manage risk. Risk perception drives how people will behave and manage a particular risk. The inclusion of social sciences and their analytical tools in the national platforms is crucial to have a complete vision of the understanding of risk’ (EFDRR, 2015).

References

Asian Development Bank (ADB). (2008). People’s Republic of China: Providing emergency response to Sichuan earthquake. Manila, Philippines: ADB. Retrieved 10 April 2016, from http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/0D109A786BEC65A2C12575600043192A-Full_Report.pdf

Aginam, O.

(2011). Health and human security in emergencies. Tokyo, Japan: United Nations University. Retrieved 6 March 2016, from http://unu.edu/publications/articles/health-and-human-security-in-emergencies.html

Annan, K.

(2000). Secretary-general salutes international workshop on human security in Mongolia. Two-day session in Ulaanbaatar, 8–10 May 2000. UNO: Press Release SG/SM/7382. Retrieved July 2012, from http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2000/20000508.sgsm7382.doc.html

American Psychological Association (APA). (u.d.). Recovering emotionally from disaster. Psychology Help Centre. Retrieved 7 March 2016, from http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/recovering-disasters.aspx

Asia Foundation. (2013). Disaster management in China. San Francisco, CA: Asia Foundation. Retrieved 7 January 2016, from http://asiafoundation.org/resources/pdfs/DRMChina2013Final.pdf

Babble, S.

(2010). The trauma that arises from natural disasters. Psychology Today. Retrieved 6 March 2016, from https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/somatic-psychology/201004/the-trauma-arises-natural-disasters

Brautigam, D.

(2013). China’s response to typhoon Haiyan underwhelming. International Policy Digest. Retrieved 10 January 2016, from http://intpolicydigest.org/2013/11/16/china-s-response-to-typhoon-haiyan-underwhelming/

Chen, G.

(2014). Institutionalisation in the politics of China’s disaster management. The Copenhagen Journal of Asian Studies, 32(1), 26–48. doi:10.1080/13602381.2014.939897.3.

Chen, H., Feng, H., Wang, Y., Li, R., Song, F., & Wen, M. (2012). Jundui canyu guoji zhongda ziran zaihai jiuyuan xingdong gongzuo jig jianshe de sikao [The mechanism of Chinese military assets involve in major international natural disaster response]. Recent Developments in World Seismology, (7), 25–30.

10.

Chen, L.

(2013). In China, lessons in disaster management lead to regional cooperation. In Asia. San Francisco, CA: Asia Foundation. Retrieved 3 April 2016, from http://asiafoundation.org/in-asia/2013/07/24/in-china-lessons-in-disaster-management-lead-to-regional-cooperation/

11.

China Daily . (2014, October 6). China, ASEAN sign MoU on disaster management. Retrieved 6 December 2015, from http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2014-10/06/content_18700466.htm

12.

China National Committee for International Disaster Reduction (CNCIDR). (2006). Disaster reduction action plan of the People’s Republic of China (2006–2015). Beijing, China: CNCIDR. Retrieved 14 December 2015, from http://preventionweb.net/go/30351

13.

Commission on Human Security (CHS). (2003). Human Security Now. New York, NY: United Nations. Retrieved July 2012, from http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/91BAEEDBA50C6907C1256D19006A9353-chs-security-may03.pdf

14.

Cong, R.

(2013). Ziran zaihai dui Zhongguo dianli xitong de yingxiang (wenxian zongshu) [Impact of natural disasters on electric power systems of China (a literature review)]. Journal of Xinhua University (Natural Science Edition), 1, 111–118.

15.

Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED). (2015). The human cost of natural disasters 2015: A global perspective. Brussels, Belgium: CRED.

16.

Deng, T.

(2012). Guonei wai nongye ziran zaihai guanli yanjiu zongshu [Research on natural calamities management in agriculture at home and abroad]. Journal of Guangxi Agriculture, 27(6), 44–47.

17.

Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI). (2013). Learning from earthquakes: The Mw 6.6 earthquake of April 20, 2013 in Lushan, China. Oakland, CA: EERI. Retrieved 4 May 2015, from https://www.eeri.org/wp-content/uploads/Lushan-China-Earthquake-Report.pdf

18.

EFDRR. (2015). 6th European Forum for Disaster Risk Reduction: Paris outcomes. Paris. Retrieved 12 December 2016, from http://www.preventionweb.net/files/43847_efdrr2015franceoutcomesfinal.pdf

19.

ESCAP. (2015). Disasters in Asia and the Pacific: 2015 year in review. Bangkok, Thailand: Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific. Retrieved 6 December 2015, from http://www.unescap.org/sites/default/files/2015_Year%20in%20Review_final_PDF_0.pdf

20.

Du, F., Okazaki, K., Ochiai, C., & Kobayashi, H. (2016). Post-disaster building repair and retrofit in a disaster-prone historical village in China: A case study in Shangli, Sichuan. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 16, 142–157. doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2016.02.007

21.

Fuller, P.

(2015). Changing disaster relief regimes in China: An analysis using four famines between 1876 and 1962. Disasters, 29(2), 146–165. doi:10.1111/disa.12152

22.

Futamura, M., Hobson, C., & Turner, N. (2011). Natural disasters and human security. Tokyo, Japan: United Nations University. Retrieved 3 May 2015, from http://unu.edu/publications/articles/natural-disasters-and-human-security.html

23.

Global Humanitarian Assistance (GHA). (2014). China: Key figures 2014. Bristol, UK: Development Initiatives. Retrieved 10 January 2016, from http://www.globalhumanitarianassistance.org/countryprofile/china#tab-home

24.

Gibbs, L., Block, K., Harms, L., MacDougall, C., Baker, E., Ireton, G., Waters, E. (2015). Children and young people’s wellbeing post-disaster: Safety and stability are critical. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 14(2), 195–201.

25.

Government of China. (2009). China’s actions for disaster prevention and reduction. Beijing, China: Information Office of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China. Retrieved 2 January 2015, from http://www.china.org.cn/government/whitepaper/node_7066921.htm

26.

Government of China. (2011). China’s policies and actions for addressing climate change. Beijing, China: Information Office of the State Council. Retrieved 2 May 2015, from http://www.gov.cn/english/official/2011-11/22/content_2000272.htm

27.

Government of China. (2012). Natural disasters and disaster management in China. Slide Presentation, 16 April. Division of Disaster Relief, Department of Disaster Relief, Ministry of Civil Affairs, Beijing, China.

28.

He, Z., Tang, X., & Zhang, Z. (2012). Difang zhengfu yingdui zhongda ziran zaihai de xingzheng wenze tanjiu [On the administrative accountability research of local government to deal with major natural disasters]. Journal of Xiangtan University (Philosophy and Social Sciences), (2), 22–26.

29.

Hao, S.

(2014). China’s NGOs essential to disaster preparedness. In Asia. San Francisco, CA: Asia Foundation. Retrieved 3 April 2016, from http://asiafoundation.org/in-asia/2014/01/08/chinas-ngos-essential-to-disaster-preparedness/

30.

Hobson, C., Bacon, P., & Cameron, R. (Eds). (2014). Human security and natural disasters. London, UK: Routledge.

31.

International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS). (2001). The responsibility to protect: Report of the international commission on intervention and state sovereignty. Ottawa, ON: International Development Research Centre. Retrieved July 2012, from http://responsibilitytoprotect.org/ICISS%20Report.pdf

32.

International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC). (2013). China: Sichuan earthquake DREF operation n° MDRCN005—Operation update n°2. Retrieved 13 March 2015, from http://reliefweb.int/report/china/china-sichuan-earthquake-dref-operation-n°-mdrcn005-operation-update-n°2

33.

Jia, H., Chen, F., Fan, Y., & Pan, D. (2016). Comparison of two large earthquakes in China: The Ms 6.6 Yunnan Jinggu Earthquake and the Ms 6.5 Yunnan Ludian Earthquake in 2014. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 16, 99–107. doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2016.01.006.

34.

Jiang, Y.

(2012). Guizhou sheng ziran zaihai dui nongye jingji de yingxiang fenxi [Natural disasters in Guizhou province in agricultural economic impact analysis]. Beijing Agriculture, 18, 167.

35.

Joint Base Northwest Lewi-McChord (JBLM). (2016). U.S., Chinese troops join forces on disaster training. Retrieved 4 May 2016, from http://www.nwguardian.com/2016/01/21/23944/us-chinese-troops-join-forces.html

36.

Krasner, S.D.

(Ed). (1983). International regimes. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

37.

Lau, J.T.F., Yu, X., Zhang, J., Mak, W.W.S., Choi, K.C., Lui, W.W.S., Chan

E.Y.Y.

(2010). Psychological distress among adolescents in Chengdu, Sichuan at 1 Month after the 2008 Sichuan Earthquake. Journal of Urban Health, 87(3), 504–523. doi: 10.1007/s11524-010-9447-3

38.

Li, L.

(2015). Official statement, minister of civil affairs of People’s Republic of China 14th March, 2015. Sendai, Japan. Retrieved 3 April 2016, from http://www.preventionweb.net/files/globalplatform/china[1].pdf

39.

Li, Y., Wu, X., Gao, M., & Li, J. (2012). Ziran zaihai dui woguo nongye quan yaosu shengchanlv de yingxiang [Effects of natural disasters on agricultural TFP of our country]. Journal of Natural Science of Hunan Normal University, 35(3), 84–88.

40.

Liao, Y., Zhao, F., Wang, Z., Li, B., & Lv, X. (2013). 2000–2011 nian Zhongguo Ziran Zaihai Zaiqing Kongjian Fenbu Geju Fenxi [Spatial pattern analysis of natural disasters in China from 2000 to 2011]. Journal of Catastrophology, 28(4), 55–60.

41.

Liu, Y.

(2013). Lun ziran zaihai shijian Hong de xinxi zhang’ai yu xiaojixing jiqun xingwei [On the information barriers and negative collective behaviours in the events of natural disasters]. Journal of Intelligence, 32(3), 25–29.

42.

Ma, Y., Yuan, Y., & Cheng, Y. (2013). 2005–2010 Nian Zhongguo Ziran Zaihai Jiuzhu Yingji Xiangying de Quyu Fenyi Tezheng [Spatial distribution of emergency responses to natural disaster relief in China during 2005–2010]. Geographical Research, 32(1), 82–90.

43.

Mutch, C.

(2015). Supporting children and young people’s psychosocial recovery post-disaster: Internal and external protective factors. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 14(2), 105–107. doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2015.11.005

44.

Reuters (2014, February 24). Costs of natural disasters in China surge to $69 billion. Retrieved 7 March 2016, from http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-disasters-idUSBREA1N0JW20140224

45.

Sen, A.

(1999). Development as freedom. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

46.

The Guardian . (2013, June 24). Global humanitarian aid spending soars to record high. Retrieved 11 March 2015, from http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2014/jun/24/global-humanitarian-aid-spending-2013-syria-south-sudan-typhoon-haiyan

47.

The Telegraph (London). (2013, April 22). Sichuan quake: Chinese government was warned of disaster. Retrieved 12 March 2015, from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/10010636/Sichuan-China-was-warned-of-disaster.html

48.

United Nations Organisation (UN). (2013). Report on the United Nations international conference on space-based technologies for disaster management: Disaster risk identification, assessment and monitoring. New York, NY: General Assembly, Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (A/AC.105/1061), Beijing, 23–25 October. Retrieved 7 March 2015, from http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/reports/ac105/AC105_1061E.pdf

49.

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). (1994). Human development report 1994 (p. 23). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Retrieved 17 July 2012, from http://www.undp.org/hdro/1994/94.htm

50.

UNICEF. (2009). Sichuan earthquake-one year report. Beijing, China: UNICEF Office for China. Retrieved 11 March 2015, from http://www.unicef.org/eapro/UNICEF-China_Sichuan_Earthquake_One_Year_Report.pdf

51.

United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR). (2013). China–Japan–Republic of Korea trilateral cooperation on disaster management. Retrieved 4 March 2015, from http://www.unescap.org/sites/default/files/S4-2_Kim.pdf

52.

UNISDR/CRED. (2010). Earthquakes caused the deadliest disasters in the past decade. Geneva. Retrieved 4 March 2015, from http://www.unisdr.org/archive/12470

53.

UNISDR/CRED. (2015). The human cost of weather-related disasters 1995–2015. Retrieved 4 May 2016, from cred.be/HCWRD.

54.

Wang, Z.

(2012). Ziran zaihai daji xia nongmin shenghuo de pinkun - yi jindai anhui wei zhongxin de kaocha [Poverty of farmers’ life in natural disasters—An investigation of modern Anhui]. Agricultural History of China, (4), 63–69.

55.

Wei, Y.M., Jin, J.L., & Wang, Q. (2012). Impacts of natural disasters and disasters risk management in China: The case of China’s experience in Wenchuan earthquake. In

Sawada &

Oum (Eds), Economic and welfare impacts of disasters in East Asia and policy responses (ERIA Research Project Report 2011-8, pp. 641–675). Jakarta, Indonesia: ERIA.

56.

Yin, Jie, Yin, Zhan’e, & Xu, Shiyuan. (2011). Yanhai chengshi ziran zaihai sunshi fenlei yu pinggu (Classification and assessment of natural disasters’ loss in coastal cities). Journal of Natural Disasters, 20(1), 124–128.

57.

Yu, Y.

(2012). Lishi shiqi zhongguo zhongda ziran zaihai shikong fenyi tezheng [Spatial distribution of major natural disasters of China in historical period]. Acta Geographica Sinica, 67(3), 291–300.

58.

Yuan, Y.

(2011). 2000–2007 nian shengji quyu ziran zaikai zaiqing fenxi [Analysis of regional disaster situation at provincial level from 2000 to 2007]. Journal of Natural Disasters, 20(1), 156–162.

59.

Zhang, Jun, & Zhuang, Tianhui. (2012). Sichuan sheng ziran zaihai tedian ji sunshi yanbian fenxi (An analysis of the characteristics and loss evolution trend of natural calamities in Sichuan province). Journal of Sichuan Agricultural University, 30(2), 260–266.

60.

Zhou, Y., Li, N., & Wu, J. (2013). Zhongguo Ziran Zihai Jianzai Jiuzai Biaozhun de Yanbian Tedian [Evolution characteristics of standards of natural disaster mitigation and relief in China]. Journal of Natural Disasters, 1, 1–9.